The grammatical origins of the metaphysical subject

[Magical Realist]

Just grammatically speaking, being is essentially always subjective. To be able to be in any state at all--to be predicated as such and such-- is to be a subject. Even being an object is subjective. The modal states are themselves only possible for a subject. Of being actual, possible, necessary, or even impossible. Its the only way we ever make sense. The subject is always the first thing that appears--the sudden announcement of an unqualified and unpredicated and unobjectified state. I, you, she, he, it, they, this, that. THEN this business of being of something. Isness, was-ness, will be-ness, being the verb--the tensed action--of said subject.

Understood in this fundamental way, we suddenly gain a renewed sense of the absolute primacy of the subject in the ontic sense as well. As the a priori and assumptive agency of conceiving of and referring to anything. Just as the subject is a structural feature of sense-making more than a semantic one, it is also a structural feature of being cognizant itself rather than being any content of it. The subject is simply the phenomenal self-presencing and necessary manifestation of speaking itself prior to what is spoken about it, of thinking itself before what is thought about it, of the medium prior to the message, and thus metaphysically as well the sudden instantiation of the possibility of being known or being anything at all.

[Syne]

The core difference is that a subject is a noun or topic (such as a person, thing, or grammatical focus), while subjective is an adjective describing something influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or individual perspective rather than external facts.

But sure, conflate them.

[Magical Realist]

The subject is a noun in language but not an object. In philosophy it is also not an object. It is the passive state of being conscious of or acting upon an object.

In grammar:

"The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that does the action or is being described. It tells you who or what the sentence is about. You can find the subject by asking "who or what" is performing the verb."

In philosophy:

"A subject is a being who has a unique consciousness and/or unique personal experiences, or an entity that has a relationship with another entity that exists outside itself (called an "object"). A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. This concept is especially important in Continental philosophy, where 'the subject' is a central term in debates over the nature of the self. The nature of the subject is also central in debates over the nature of subjective experience within the Anglo-American tradition of analytical philosophy. The sharp distinction between subject and object corresponds to the distinction, in the philosophy of René Descartes, between thought and extension. Descartes believed that thought (subjectivity) was the essence of the mind, and that extension (the occupation of space) was the essence of matter."-------- https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/35182

[Syne]

Yes, keep conflating them.

[Magical Realist]

More thoughts on my new idea of the metaphysical subject (formerly just the subject of psychology and cognitive science.)

The metaphysical subject is simply whatever is, was, am, are, will be, isn't, wasn't, won't be, can be, can't be, should be, or shouldn't be. It is the spaceless timeless presencing prior to and enabling predication/objectification as being or entailing or doing anything at all. The passive yet active BE-ER of any possible state. The expressor of all expression.

Thus the subject is also the knower of what is knowable, the doer of what is do-able, the possessor of what is possessable, and conceiver of what is conceivable. There is no reality without a realizer to make it possible. Nothing positable without a positer. No state without being in that state. No instant nor instantiation without an instantiator. No identity without identifying as. No happening whatsoever without happenstance. No ability without an enabler. No reference without a referencer. We are being happened to AND semanticizing it at the same time.

And THIS is the absolute and a priori core of what we are. Truth is whatever makes possible all learning and knowing and awareness and intelligibilty. And we are the truth, and falsity, makers. I'm basically just proposing a phenomenological/semantic rendition of one of Kant's most radical propositions:

"The conditions of the possibility of experience in general, are at the same time the conditions of the possibility of the objects of experience."

(Critique of Pure Reason) — This means the mental frameworks we use to perceive the world (like space, time, and causality) also dictate how objects must appear to us."