What's the difference between an object and a process?

>>9660677
the definition

File: holyfuckingshitdude.jpg (32KB, 805x107px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 805x107px

>>9660721
Is sound propagating through space a process or an object?

>>9660721
Whoa, we got Mr. Aristotle in person over here.

>>9660677

You know, there really are stupid questions. This has to be the absolute worst question I have ever heard. I would not reply to a person asking it with anything other than thoughts on different different topics. I cannot engage this monstrous stupidity directly.

>>9660735

objects only exist for cognition; thus a process could be an object. the distinction you're trying to make is probably between a thing and a process, in which case sound waves are the thing and their propagation is the process

>>9660677
An object is always partially withdrawn and thus never fully exhausted.

A process is something an object might or might not do.

>>9660677
Objects perform processes.
I'd say they also have matter but then again energy.

>>9660742
But isn't the "thing" we are describing just a snapshot of a process? Is this what a "thing" or an "object" is, a snapshot? That just kind-of moves the problem one step forward towards a heap of sand-ish problem.
>>9660747
What do you mean by partially withdrawn?
>>9660753
What makes you think that objects come before processes?

>>9660755
"Nothing" can perform processes, it just happens to be turned into an object by that.

Don't listen to anyone here, the world is merely an infinitely disivisible mess constantly rearranging itself.

>>9660755
>What do you mean by partially withdrawn?

That not every process the object is capable of is available to whatever object(say, a human observer object) simultaneously. An object is only ever partially knowable in any given instantiation of said object.

An object has qualities, or effects OR processes. The object necessarily precedes process, because without it the idea of process is senseless.

I'm just spitballin' here though.

>>9660773
>don't listen to anyone here
>listen to me

>>9660677
So, who's the girl?

>>9660677
>What's the difference between an object and a process?
i don't know

>>9660768
But the objects came from somewhere. There had to be a first process to create the space and time for objects,.
>>9660773
Is the easy, but unsatisfying answer.
>>9660788
I'm going to invoke the cosmological argument again against your conclusion though.
>OR processes
Can you give me an example of an object that doesn't have any processes attached or related to it?

This really seems more like a problem of language the more I think about it. Nouns versus verbs.

>>9660840
Local hobbyist poet

>>9660850


You can go the Whitehead route if you please. It doesn't convince me.

I don't need to give an example of an object without a process though. That's not the question. You asked what the difference is. I gave it to you. You're mistaking the fact that they are intimately linked for the idea that they are the same thing. The idea of an object exists specifically to denote something substantial that precedes and thus enacts (or doesn't enact) a process, among other things.

Your origin argument is cheaply aporetic. You can level it against nearly anything. It's not refuted, it's abandoned.

>>9660899
>You asked what the difference is. I gave it to you.
Fair enough.

Thank you for your patience with me. Your posts have been very helpful.

>>9660850
>there had to be a first process
See: Hume on causality.

>>9660924
No problem. Just sparring.

For more on the subject of objects try Harman on OOO.

For more on the idea of process try Whitehead (although it's fucking impossibly dense shit).

Both thinkers are opposed to one another loosely, if not directly.

Harman with Object Oriented Ontology,
Whitehead with (I guess it could be called) Process Ontology

Duration and purduration.