0

I'd like to know if thing is the most general in meaning among the nouns. In other words, is there an entity that can not be called as a thing? I know being refers to all the lives (animals and plants), substance can refer to all the materials in the world, and idea refers to pieces of thought in the mind. But lives, substances and ideas can all be called things.

For example, if we want to find a word for all entities in the world with the white color, we can say the everything is white, or snow is white, where white is adjective and the object is known as a subject complement. But what is for noun? Can we say that snow is a white thing? Of course, we can say that snow is a white substance. In addition, we can say a polar bear is white or a polar bear is a white being. But can we say a polar bear is a white thing?

Generally, this relies on whether a subject complement can always be replaced by a noun (phrase). If so, thing is (probably) the best candidate of noun to be used.

E Zhang
  • 334
  • "Thing" refers to anything. (Or to a hand in The Addams Family.) – Hot Licks Dec 12 '19 at 22:48
  • 1
    Everything is a thing. – nnnnnn Dec 12 '19 at 22:50
  • 1
    The comments above tell me that your question is inadequately posed. You really need to give us more to go on. – JeremyC Dec 12 '19 at 22:57
  • Possible duplicate of Is there anything that cannot be called a thing?, which, however, does not have a satisfactory answer. Is this a question about how to use these words in everyday contexts, or an invitation to a philosophical discussion? – jsw29 Dec 13 '19 at 01:45
  • There's no reason that you couldn't give a list of "white things" and list snow, polar bears, and milk. – Hot Licks Dec 13 '19 at 01:58
  • @jsw29, yes, the post is close to what I want to know, but with wrong title. It should be "Is there some entities that can not be called a thing or things?". This question is part of my research on semantics. It looks like thing is the broadest concept as far as I know. It covers everything in the physical world as well as in the mind. For example, we can say "think of things". So a mental object or concept can also be called a thing. – E Zhang Dec 13 '19 at 02:18
  • 1
    Oh, ontology. Well, you could start with Frawley's properties of entities (which usually turn out to be nouns) – John Lawler Dec 13 '19 at 03:15
  • The elementary school definition of noun is a person, place, or thing. Which leads one to assume that persons and places aren’t things. – Jim Dec 13 '19 at 07:06
  • "In other words, is there an entity that can not be called as a thing?" Could you also ask this about entity? The trouble with your question is that it is ontologically slippery. As soon as you start trying to describe any one word as "the most general," you end up invoking words that, if language were working strictly logically, would be at least as general as the original word. Entity, being, item, substance - there's an element of linguistic play and arbitrariness in saying any are "the most general." It's like asking if there is a "wettest noun." – TaliesinMerlin Dec 13 '19 at 15:18
  • I am not sure about any other word in place of thing and so I used entity which is the closest to thing in meaning. I feel that thing is the most general noun for it seems including any other noun in meaning, i.e. life, being, substance and idea. If you disagree, you can always refute it in another answer – E Zhang Dec 13 '19 at 18:29
  • Mass nouns often can't be called "thing", but they can be called "stuff" – Spencer Dec 13 '19 at 23:40
  • @Spencer, I disagree with you. They can be called "things", i.e. stuff is also a thing. – E Zhang Dec 14 '19 at 01:01

1 Answers1

1

Thing, being, entity, substance are all words that can be used as the terms for what there is, when one doesn’t want to say anything about it other than that it is.

Generally, the first three imply that we are referring to something countable; substance is usually used for something uncountable. That, however, is not a strict rule. If I am asked whether there are any white things over there, it wouldn’t be wrong to respond ‘yes, there is some snow there’. On the other hand, substance was used as a countable term in earlier periods of the history of philosophy (and consequently may be so used in the present-day discussions of the works from that era).

The meaning of substance, incidentally, does not restrict it to material substance; it is possible to speak of spiritual substance or mental substance. One may, of course, claim that material substance is the only kind that there is, but that is a matter of one’s philosophical theory; the meaning of the word substance does not by itself rule out the other kinds.

Setting aside substance, it is largely a matter of preference and style whether to use thing, being or entity. The last one belongs to a more formal register, but is otherwise interchangeable with the other two.

In everyday English, thing is often understood to imply that we are speaking of something inanimate, but that is also not a strict rule. If I am asked whether there any white things over there, it would, again, be natural to include polar bears among the white things.

One should bear in mind that although these four terms are highly general, they are usually (but, again, not always) understood to stand in contrast to qualities, properties, characteristics, etc.: things have properties.

jsw29
  • 8,463
  • That is almost right: not quite, however. 'Thing' can also stand for the full range of emotions. So "I have a thing about going to the cinema" or "I have a thing for Jo(e)".... You cannot have an entity or substance or item about either of these. People can be said to "do their thing" but not their item, substance or entity. – Tuffy Dec 13 '19 at 22:01
  • @Tuffy, true, what has been said above does not cover the uses of thing in the idioms such as to have a thing for or to do one's thing; such special-purpose uses of the word seem to be outside the scope of what the OP was interested in. – jsw29 Dec 14 '19 at 04:59
  • Perhaps: but it is relevant to the truth claim that it is the most general English word. – Tuffy Dec 14 '19 at 09:07