Forum

(09/23/2015) ✕

Share:

The question of subject and object occupied mankind for quite some time. The fact that no subject-independent detection of an object is conceivable was already themed by philosophers like Hegel or Nietzsche.
In the Hegelian dialectic the split between subject and object is also idealistically discussed (master-slave dialectic).

Even the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had pioneering ideas in terms of the dialectic between subject and object: "...That there is no correspondence between subject and object, no causality, no correctness, no expression, but at most an aesthetic behavior." {Nietzsche, F., Zwischen Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn, In: Ders.: Werke in 3 Bänden. Hg. v. Karl Schlechta, Hanser: München 1956, Band 3, S. 316}

The simple impossibility at this point to plunge into the philosophical terrain of subject-object dialectics, I want to stop and note here, that the dialectic of subject and object - especially in the ontological sense - formerly as well as today is highly topical and always will be.

It may sound like a paradox, if we want to bring Sigmund Freud and the object relations theory under one roof.
But Sigmund Freud used the term object often. He speaks of objects, if he means others and not the subject. How he constitutes the right mechanical concept of object is not entirely clear from his scripts.
Even the most obvious criticism of the terminology ´object´ is agreeable, namely that other people are indeed also subjects, of course.
Those who are repulsed by the circumstance, of designating people as objects, emphasizes the undeniable aftertaste that suggests:
Human, the (research) object....