A thing, (sometimes called an 'object') in philosophy, is a technical term often used in contrast to the term subject. Consciousness is a state of cognition that includes the subject, which can never be doubted as only it can be the one who doubts, and some thing or things that may or may not have real existence without reference to the subject. Metaphysical frameworks also differ in whether they consider things exist independently of their properties and, if so, in what way.
The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of a thing as anything that we can think or talk about. In a general sense it is any entity: the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a disbelief in predestination or the fear of dogs. In a strict sense it refers to any definite being.
The noumenon is a posited thing or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the .] The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "", which refers to anything that appears to, or is a t of, . In , the noumenal realm was equated with the known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality, known to the uneducated mind.] Modern philosophy has generally denied the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing per se" (Ding an sich), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.
The act of being a thing is one of the most basic and lame powers to have (as every single and/or multiple thing(s) has it), and is called 'thinging'. The opposite of this is nothing, to literally have no thingness, or 'no thing', not to be confused with the present participle of the verb 'noth', or 'noth-ing', that is, to be nothing. No thing compares to some thing, but is not considered to be every thing. The answer to the great philosophical question 'why is there something instead of nothing' can be answered and transliterated with the popular koan 'nothing from nothing leaves nothing.'
Things that The Revengerists Have
The Revengerists have a great many Awesome things at their kickin' compound and at bases around the world and also cosmos that either help them accomplish their heroic duties and missions, or are just hella fun.
Things in the Compound
The Stables - which house both the fabled Gryffonviper as well as Misstress Hammeats' Slaughtering Pigwhorse and many other combat animals, carnivorous plants, mythical beasts and domesticated xenomorphs.
Megafist - is a cosmic glove with lots of power gems that do and control different things and a lot of people fought over it and a lot of them died but they all got broughten back when all was said and done. Use of the Megafist by various heroes and villains is refered to as 'Megafisting.'
Alien Clothes - ALL alien clothes grant special powers. Sometimes this comes at a terrible or ironic price, which is probably because fashionable clothes are trendy first and less practical. Some increase agility, strength, ferocity, or flying. Other make you invincible for periods of time, or change appearance at the mind's thought, or have cool digital things or military enhancements.
The Jugallo Pendantallo - A necklace that gives the wearer an increased desire to listen to ICP and drink Faygo. Created by Malicious Mitch when he used to be really into ICP.
Collar of Eternity - Another neck worn piece of jewelry, it is said that the person who puts on the collar gains infinite power. This rumor is spread so that people are dumb and actually try to wear it, instead when someone wears the collar it makes them fart a lot. I mean A TON. It is currently forbidden to wear the collar due to the smelly nature of intestinal gas.
The Garlic Painting - The Mexican Scientist made a painting, a really boring painting of someone standing on a bridge. The rest of the Revengerists thought it needed some "charm" so they channeled magic into it. It ended up just smelling like Garlic. No matter how powerful the shield or scent used to hide it, the room still smells faintly of garlic.
Cake - Dr. Tasty's creamed cake that he left in the back of the refigerator for months with a note and totally intended to get back to, but somebody ate it. They. Will. Pay. Others have maintained that the cake is a lie.
All Other Things
All kinds of other things also exist, or don't exist, but this is not a contingency of them being things. All things are things, especially tautological things. Even people and places are categorized loosely as things in a wide enough context. Therefore, the phrase 'person, place or thing' is one of those... redundant... um... you know... there's a word for... uh... these... things.
(Correction: women are not things, and highly object to such objectifications)
Typically, subjects act upon objects, but this may just be a rhetorical way for subjects to feel better about themselves in the face of so many objects affecting, harming, pushing, seducing, wettening, smashing, drowning, puncturing, burning, cauterizing, grinding and falling on the mere subjects.
Another term for things is 'stuff.' Therefore, the Revengerists Consortium of Stuff could also be thought of as a Revengerists Consortium of Things. Like persons and people, subjects and objects, this is yet another example of why English is ridiculous and stupid. 'Things' is a countable noun, and thus verbs are conjugated as 'are' 'have' and 'drink'. 'Stuff' is a mass noun, and thus conjugates verbs as 'is' 'has' and 'drinks'.
Below are examples of all the properties of count nouns holding for the count noun things but not for the mass noun stuff.
- Occurrence in plural/singular.
- There is a thing on my cat's head.
- There are things on my cat's head.
- There is a stuff on my cat's head. (incorrect)
- There are stuffs on my cat's head. (incorrect)
- Co-occurrence with count determiners
- Every thing is on my cat's head.
- There are several things on my cat's head.
- Every stuff is on my cat's head. (incorrect)
- There are several stuffs on my cat's head. (incorrect)
One rare exception would be food-stuffs, for they are delicious, as agree all grammarians and grammar nazis alike.
Some determiners can be used with both mass and count nouns, including "some", "a lot (of)", "no". Others cannot: "few" and "many" are used with count items, "little" and "much" with mass. (On the other hand "fewer" is reserved for count and "less" for mass (see Fewer vs. less), but "more" is the proper comparative for both "many" and "much".) One would have 'less stuff' but 'fewer things.' That is just one more reason why it is always better to have more stuff and more things.
- If X can be described as P and Y can be described as P, as well, then the sum of X and Y can also be described as P.
In more informal terms (Krifka 1998):
which may be read as: X is cumulative if there exists at least one pair x,y, where x and y are distinct, and both have the property X, and if for all possible pairs x and y fitting that description, X is a property of the sum of x and y.
Consider, for example stuff: If one collection of stuff is combined with another, we still have "stuff." But if a thing is added to another, we don't have "a thing," but rather two things. Thus the noun "stuff" has cumulative reference, while the expression "a thing" does not. The expression "things", however, does, suggesting that the generalization is not actually specific to the mass-count distinction. As many have noted, it is possible to provide an alternative analysis, by which mass nouns and plural count nouns are assigned a similar semantics, as distinct from that of singular count nouns.
An expression P has quantized reference if and only if, for any X:
- If X can be described as P, then no proper part of X can be described as P.
This can be seen to hold in the case of the noun stuff: no proper part of the stuff, for example the pile of old stinky shoes, or the lawn flamingo, is itself the stuff. Similarly, no proper part of a thing, say the whassajig, or its hoosamabobber, can be described as a thing. Hence, stuff and thing have quantized reference. However, collections of stuff do have proper parts that can themselves be described as stuff. Hence stuff does not have quantized reference. Notice again that this is probably not a fact about mass-count syntax, but about prototypical examples, since many singular count nouns have referents whose proper parts can be described by the same term. Examples include divisible count nouns like "rope", "string", "stone", "tile", etc.
All of this has serious implications and applications in Reification in Gestalt theory, the philosophy of Strange Loops, and the linguistic usage of Synecdoche. It is also good to know if you are just materialistic, that is to say, not an energy being.
There are other things that would constitute their own categories, but don't take it from me:
A nigh impenetrable field that can only be created used beings of such incredible power that only a few awesomes in existence have been able to penetrate them. There are few in existence, one of which was destroyed by Solar.
All items (246)