This question seemed worthy of reflection due to comments made on previous threads.
Most recently, the idea was expressed, that the body is the basis of the designation: the subject.
Clearly, subjectivity is not predicated on the existence of a body. A ‘dead body’ is designated as an ‘object’ - isn’t it?
There has to be the conviction that there is some kind of subjective experience or, at least life-signs before we talk about a subject.
When they turn off a life-support system and allow a life to end there seems to be an assumption that subjectivity - subjective experience - is absent.
Someone might say: ‘Joe’ is no longer there! Meaning, Joe as a subject is no longer believed to be part of the process. The body is still breathing, there are vital signs and, that’s about it.
Exactly what subjectivity is ‘taken to be’ is an important theme in Buddhism. The theme of subject/object dualism and, nondualistic states in natural stillness and beyond is Buddhism 101?
There does not seem to be consensus in this forum or, in similar circles, as to what we are referring to when it comes to subjectivity. How come?
Who - or what - do you take yourself to be, as a subject?