Arguments and Positions on the Existence of Ordinary Objects (Essay Sample)

DO THE ORDINARY OBJECTS EXIST?
By (Name)
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date
Do the Ordinary Objects exist?
The paper outline
1. Background information
2. Different position on the existence of ordinary objects
* Conservatisms
* Eliminativism
* Permissivism
3. Against Ontological arguments for the existence of the ordinary objects:
* Material constitution
* Indeterminate identity
* The problem of many
* Debunking argument
* Argument from entailment
* Argument from coincidence
4. Fundamental existence
5. Conclusion on the existence of Ordinary objects
Do the Ordinary Objects exist?
Background information on the arguments for the existence of Ordinary objects
In the ordinary realm of things, one might wonder what is referred to as ordinary objects and if there is a way that their existence may be eliminated to stop having the idea of an ordinary object or if the elimination makes no difference for their existence. A rough overview allows one of the ideas that ordinary objects are those that belong to types of objects that are naturally perceptible to human experiences. The understanding of the object in relation to existentialism largely relies on the rationality of being and the structure of the object, all that exists around the described object both ideologically and materially. The existence of ordinary objects such as trees, chairs, buildings, cars, cows, and birds are argued hypothetically with the assumption that the probability of their existence resides both in the metaphysical and the material world. The descriptions of the objects in the metaphysical world are often referred to as the extraordinary objects while that are perceptible to sense are referred to as ordinary.
Many philosophers have deduced their ways to argue for or against the existence of ordinary objects. For example, for Plato, things exist in forms, which are abstract entities that exist independently of what sense can describe. The ordinary object for him are imperfect and are changeable to adapt to the desire of the describer to imitate the perfect and unchangeable forms that do not exist in the material world. The only objects that exist are those in the world of forms that are not subject to alteration at the wish of individual definer (Tuominen, 2016). Some other thinkers also feel that ordinary objects are not subject to misunderstandings like conceptual entities like the numbers, points in space, propositions, holes and the moment of time. Problems only arise when one starts to think of the connection between the ordinary objects and the concept of Forms, as described by Plato and others who subscribe to this idea. In an attempt to get a solution to the problems that arise from the connection of things in reality and those that exist in mind or in the world of forms, three perspectives must be used. It is worth delving into this topic with three points of view. First, there is a need to depart from an ordinary conservative conception that perceives ordinary objects as possible and further eliminates ordinary objects or allows more objects than would exist in reality. The second perspective focuses on the paradoxes and arguments that those who depart from the ordinary use to prove their stands as the most viable. Finally, it is essential to focus on some of the arguments raised against the eliminative and permissive views. At the tail end, all the preceding arguments are used to deduce the fundamentality of the existence of the ordinary object in reality.
Different position on the existence of ordinary objects
The conservatism position
People are provoked to make particular judgments depending on the situations and point of view of their arguments. The conser5vatives describe things are ordinary objects if they satisfy the inclination that anything that exists must be from the perceptual experience. By contrast, anything that proves to be microscopic and can only be seen with the aid of other instruments like atoms and molecules is extraordinary. They exist beyond the natural world and can only be discussed metaphysically (Ladyman, 2017. pp.143). It implies, therefore, for the conservatives that there are only ordinary objects and the extraordinary ones are an illusion. The position of the conservatives is greatly opposed by the revisionary views that only believe only on few things than those admitted by the conservatives to exist or even agree to some of the extraordinary things that conservatives do not recognize to exist. It appears that there are specific arguments on the nature of ordinary objects that are at odds with the perceptual ability of common sense. There is no way one can think of an object for the conservatives if part of it has been subtracted from the original piece. They can also not admit that the existence of the ordinary of the objects is rational dependent. According to the conservatives, anything out of the material world perceptible by touch or vision does not exist in reality (Ladyman, 2017. pp.143). The main debate about the existence of objects, in reality, is dependent on their nature and not on their place of existence and time. Conservatives are only concerned with the perceptual experience of the object for them to believe they are ordinary. For them in thing that exists beyond sense perception is not a being and therefore does not exist.
Eliminativist’s position
This group denies the existence of a wide range of ordinary objects. However, some of the members of this group hold that the mere thought that ordinary objects are fundamental does not qualify the idea of eliminativism. Some members of eliminativism admit that some objects are never composed of anything, which is pure nihilism. In simple language, this means that every object is mereologically simplified. For the nihilists, the assumption that ordinary objects must be composite objects means that ordinary things do not exist for them. The nihilist part of eliminativism accepts extraordinary or microscopic objects that make a single large object through a simple systemized arrangement (Schwaninger, 2019. pp.617). The world of the nihilist is described in terms of form and not matter. For example, if one admits that there is a thing called a table, then it must be that the table is formed with some microscopic parts that give it the table's structure. Some things exist, yet the human eye cannot perceive them readily in the material sense. This assumption makes it plausible to agree that the destruction of the large table will lead back to the microscopic table in extraordinary form.
However, most of the arguments of eliminativism do not satisfy the thought of composition as never occurring; it gives room for the rejection of the nihilist view of the ordinary objects and accepts the existence of composite objects. They make their exception relying on the view of organisms as being composed of something in smaller forms that give shape to the big visible forms. Talking of a cat as an animal leads to the conclusion that some things compose its parts to give it the composite object: the body and life. The existence must have existed from some innate that something can take a particular shape and structure from nothing to become something called a cat. In simple terms, organisms are composite objects.
The exceptions made for the existence of ordinary things vary from the point of reference of the philosopher to the other. According to Van Inwagen (2018: Ch. 12, pp. 199) admits that organism offers the best basis of the argument for the thought of special composition of the object that queries the grounds upon which some objects compose something else. This admission allows the existence of the ordinary object in the physicality and in some way enables the eliminativists to escape the puzzles about the composition of the object both in the ordinary and the metaphysical realm. However, this opens an avenue for those that argue that an organism or other forms of the composite are recognized if they satisfy the non-redundancy causal power of all things that exist in reality. The eliminativists, therefore, hold that objects can still hold in parts and continue to exist in the sense of the original object.
Permissivism position
This perspective alludes to the thought that an extensive acceptance of extraordinary objects allows the existence of ordinary objects within the unrestricted composition of things referred to as universalism. The Universalists hold that a single object is a composition of any other object in existence. The only puzzle they leave unattended is the question as to what kind of object all that encompasses others are. They argue that whenever there are atoms arranged in some particular way, they end up in a composition of some object (Fairchild and Hawthorne, 2018. pp.46). However, this Universalist argument allows one of the possibilities of an object composed of two different objects, each contributing half but still retains the idea of ordinary existence. Assuming a case creature that bears half atoms of a duck and the other half sheep, the Universalist will state it entails there in duck-sheep, which is a single object. The object will be half feathered while the other half furred that are far from the original nature of the animal before they acquired the new composition.
The permissivists also hold the idea that objects claim their state of existence at particular times with those particular parts. Their existence as ordinary objects is time spelt and parts bound upon ...