• NOS4A2
    9.3k
    I was taught that it is wrong to objectify others, that to do so was to abase a person to the status of a mere object, like a stone. But given our finitude, our limited duration, our surface area, our position, like the stone, we are mere objects nonetheless.

    As an experiment I’ve begun to objectify others, not to degrade them to a mere object, but to elevate the “mere object” to a higher value in my own thinking. I’ve tried this because when I look at a loved-one I need not refer to my own thoughts and evaluations. I need not abstract her, posit within her, or at any rate fold into this object a series of inferences about inner lives, minds and spirits in order to value her. Everything I love emanates from, and is secondary to, her, this object.

    This is perhaps easy to say of a loved one, but more difficult in practice with those I do not know. When considering a stranger as an object I find myself “othering” him, or otherwise relying on assumptions about his inner life and thoughts, seeking my own mind for value.

    But I know that this stranger, this particular object, is an original, something that has never existed nor will ever exist beyond it’s boundary and duration. The rarity of this object is profound to me. And here it sits close by, mostly unnoticed by everyone else. In pushing aside my assumptions I’ve come to see a certain beauty and nobility in this object, an object worthy of consideration, as the weight of the universe closes around him.

    My thinking is that if we can come to value the objectivity of a thing, we are less likely to destroy it, exploit it, which is paradoxically the reason we refuse to abase a person to a mere object today. Perhaps into the future we can learn to not “subjectify” objects for the same reason we do not “objectify” subjects.

    Any thoughts?
  • Congau
    224
    Objectifying other people normally means that we undervalue their likeness with ourselves. We probably assume that they are thinking and feeling beings, but we choose to ignore they feelings and their capability of getting hurt. That’s why we are rightly taught that it’s wrong to objectify others.

    Are you giving the word a slightly different meaning then? You want to see a beloved person the way you look at a jewel, perhaps? Something that is simply valuable without any further explanation? Perhaps, but wouldn’t you ultimately have to go back to what is truly special about this person, that is her personality, her mind. You don’t have to think that through every time. You habitually react to her image, that is her object, and since you have already worked through the “subjectified”, true reason, for your love, you may not have to activate it every time. But that doesn’t mean that her subjectivity is not the real reason for you your love, does it?

    What do you gain from this so-called objectifying? You actively put the appreciation of her inner qualities on a hold. Is that necessary? If your point is that we shouldn’t try to justify our affections all the time, you are probably right, though.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    I was taught that it is wrong to objectify others,NOS4A2

    Was that specific term ever used, and by whom? I mean, were you taught it by school counselors or by parents? In saying that, I agree that it's wrong, but I don't find that it's a term that is widely used.

    . But given our finitude, our limited duration, our surface area, our position, like the stone, we are mere objects nonetheless.NOS4A2

    However, humans are beings. We're actually called that: 'human beings'. Ever thought about why the term 'being' is used for humans, and what it means?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.