Animalistic is not objectification. An animal can still be regarded as having agency - still capable of making choices and having preferences, in this case during sex. Otherwise I agree with you. What you’re saying is related to relationships that extend beyond the sexual act, but we weren’t really going there in this thread. — Possibility

Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.

But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though.

( Please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask you, have you studied the philosophy of aesthetics?) — 3017amen

If by "studied" you mean formal study such as that provided by university professors, no. My happy, carefree college days, to the extent they were devoted to the study of philosophy, addressed Wittgenstein, Austin, Urmson, ordinary language philosophy generally, pragmatism as represented by Pierce and Dewey, grudgingly given courses on the history of philosophy, symbolic logic, and as a kind of lark (or a frolic and a detour as we lawyers might say) a tutorial on medieval philosophy (the tutor was a Fordham graduate turned pragmatist who was delighted to revisit what he learned at that Jesuit institution).

For good or ill, then, there has been no such study of aesthetics. I've read some Dewey and Santayana on the subject all by myself.

That said, while it's clear to me we're talking past each other, it's not clear to me that such a study is required here. What you think may be governed by a particular philosophy of aesthetics, it doesn't follow that I'm bound to accept it in order to have something worthwhile tosay. My suspicion is that I think of aesthetics as encompassing far more than you do. Nonetheless, it also is by no means clear to me that we're addressing a purely aesthetic question. You, of course, may believe that what we think of women and how we conduct ourselves towards them is a question of aesthetics. I think that would be a very limited view

n fact, you provided no insight on how to escape from the phenomenon of the physical world in which we live, or said another way, the escape from the experiencial world of physics. — 3017amen

Why on earth should I do so? Why would that be needed? I think answering those questions would be useful, first. But for me, there is no such world if you mean a "world" from which we're separate.
We're a part of the world. You may as well complain that I've failed to change the world.

Your argument seems to be that if I treat my car badly, and don't maintain it properly, that I've objectified the car. What if I treat the car the opposite; wash and wax it, change the oil regularly, keep it clean, etc.? Have I still objectified it? — 3017amen

I'm arguing that a woman is not a car. Must I consider her a car in order to know what is truly the case? Would I do so if I had studied aesthetics?

In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned — schopenhauer1

Beauty is both subjective and objective phenomena.

I'm not sure how attachment theory has as much to do with it. Perhaps it can relate to how one functions in a relationship.. but not sure. — schopenhauer1

Cognitive attachment-theory posits that the material agency has value in aesthetic judgements. So the question is, why does one love the object-baby when it first comes out of the womb? You can't love it's Platonic mind/mental agency can you?

As I stated, it's not the libido itself that is cultural, but what it's directed towards perhaps. "This is what one finds attractive. That is not, unless you like unattractive things.." etc. — schopenhauer1

What it's directed at is the object, right?

I just don't think Platonic ideas have to do with it much. It is almost an abuse of language to say the symmetry in math is like the symmetry in a face or a body, etc. — schopenhauer1

Platonism is different than the Plato's view of aesthetics. He suggested inner beauty, or in our discussion here, mental agency over material agency. (Material agency being subordinate to mental agency.) The spin-off is the metaphorical beauty found in other mental aspects of life; like beauty in the harmony of a mathematical formula (which is ironically an objective truth), and other subjective mental activities associated with the virtues of mind and cognition.

It is probably from both sides. One feels the need to stare, gaze. The other feels the need to be gazed perhaps. As others have said, the problem only lies when one goes out of the boundaries into diminishing the other's agency or not recognizing it, etc. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

So I think the word "objectified" is just an odd choice of word. If it means assigning no agency to someone who is clearly a thinking person, why would one do that? If it means find something attractive then, that seems the wrong way to apply that term. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I don’t know how much anyone agrees on the meaning of the term. To me it means making someone feel violated in some way, whether intentional or not, due to valuing only a part of the person as opposed to the whole. Only appreciating someone for their looks, status, profession, etc. would all qualify in my opinion. Anytime you select an aspect of their person and value them solely based on their ability to meet your standards in that regard.

I guess the point is that some people can't get past how attractive they find someone, which is not the problem of the attractive person. But, as I said as a culture the whole attractiveness thing can be diminished all together. — schopenhauer1

The issue is that no matter how horny someone makes you, you don’t have the right to judge their value based solely on that criteria. Or, conversely, no matter how repulsive you find someone to be, you don’t have the right to discriminate against them for that reason alone.

You, of course, may believe that what we think of women and how we conduct ourselves towards them is a question of aesthetics — Ciceronianus the White

No. I'm saying that you are denying the value that is associated with material agency.

I'm arguing that a woman is not a car. Must I consider her a car in order to know what is truly the case? Would I do so if I had studied aesthetics? — Ciceronianus the White

(Then why did you use a cheeseburger as an argument to make your point? ) If you studied aesthetics, you would recognize that objects provide for material agency judgements.

Likewise, a human object provides for both material and mental agency judgements. You're implying they are mutually exclusive. I've never said that. I've been making the point that not only are we unable to escape that physical human phenomena and/or sensory experience, we don't consider it for what it is (in both male/female) as a value judgement; something virtuous to the human condition. You seem to be stuck in the stereotypical definition (pathological/dysfunctional) of objectification of humans... .

I'm saying that you are denying the value that is associated with material agency. — 3017amen

The power of jargon is limited, as its use should be. Legal jargon may serve in communications with other lawyers and with judges, but must be explained to clients and others (e.g., jurors) who are encompassed by and function in the legal system. Indulge me, and explain just what you think "material agency" to be.

I assume it's intended to ascribe agency to material things in some fashion. Now value is something I would say results from our interaction with the rest of the world in particular contexts, so I have no problem with the assertion that value derives from that interaction. Material things may be involved in such an interaction, but value is in the interaction, not in the person or material thing which interact.

(Then why did you use a cheeseburger as an argument to make your point? ) If you studied aesthetics, you would recognize that objects provide for material agency judgements. — 3017amen

A cheeseburger was used to emphasize the fact that there is a difference between a woman (a person) and an object or, alternatively, that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a woman is an object, there is a difference between woman as object and cheeseburger as object (some objects are different from other objects, and we treat them differently, or should do so).

I venture to hope you acknowledge there's a difference of some kind between a woman and a cheeseburger. If you do, and if you nonetheless claim they're both objects, you must explain why one object is different from another. So, it's necessary to distinguish among objects, make categories of objects. Human objects and non-human objects; animal objects and human objects, etc. Object type X is different from object type Y, and each is to be treated differently or is perceived differently. Then it's necessary to explain why treatment and perception of objects differ, etc. It seems a long way to go to establish a woman isn't the same as a cheeseburger.

Why not just acknowledge that's the case, and that our interaction with and perception of other living organisms differ from our interactions with inanimate objects because they're significantly different in various respects, and that's why it's improper to treat a woman as a cheeseburger? There would be no need then to "escape from the world of objects" or any other world, for that matter.

The power of jargon is limited, as its use should be. Legal jargon may serve in communications with other lawyers and with judges, but must be explained to clients and others (e.g., jurors) who are encompassed by and function in the legal system. Indulge me, and explain just what you think "material agency" to be. — Ciceronianus the White

Oh yes grasshopper, it's called philosophical Materialism 101.

Material things may be involved in such an interaction, but value is in the interaction, not in the person or material thing which interact. — Ciceronianus the White

It's not whether they 'may be involved'. They ARE involved; no escape, as it were.

I venture to hope you acknowledge there's a difference of some kind between a woman and a cheeseburger. — Ciceronianus the White

Of course there is. Again, you are not reading what I'm saying. Did I ever make them (material and mental agency) mutually exclusive?

Why not just acknowledge that's the case, and that our interaction with and perception of other living organisms differ from our interactions with inanimate objects because they're significantly different in various respects, and that's why it's improper to treat a woman as a cheeseburger? There would be no need then to "escape from the world of objects" or any other world, for that matter. — Ciceronianus the White

You keep getting hung-up on this dichotomization, and the stereotypical (pathological/dysfunctional) definition of objectification. Not sure what to tell you there. I still recommend study of the philosophy of aesthetics...honestly, it would do you a world of good... .

Oh yes grasshopper, it's called philosophical Materialism 101. — 3017amen

I see. I'll try your patience no longer, then.

No worries. Materialism, Aesthetics, et. al. are just to name a few concepts worth wrapping your brain around. For example, just as a sort of synopsis of Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, this doesn't suggest 'dichotomization'... , know what I mean vern?

[

Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. — 3017amen

Irony: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

Dichotomy: division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups:
a dichotomy between thought and action.

LOL

My next door neighbour has been separated from her breasts. My wife has been separated from her womb. A woman's a woman for aye that. The surgeon who operated on my wife, (and all surgeons do this surely?) objectified her. It is a deliberate process of obscuring the body except for the 'part' one has to cut. Before and afterwards, she was a wonderfully warm human being, but for the operation she was a calculating butcher.

Alas for anyone who performs sex as if they were performing surgery. — unenlightened

I hear you - the surgeon still has the patient’s express consent, though, and takes care to minimise scarring and other concerns she might have as a human being. During the operation, a surgeon sometimes needs to make decisions about someone’s body without the benefit of their express consent. Keeping in mind that their patient might not appreciate that choice being made for them, and taking into account who they are and what their wishes might be in making such a decision is part of their responsibility. A good surgeon would lay out the risks prior to the operation, and ascertain their patient’s wishes if it came down to it. It’s not an easy job, and can be mentally and emotionally challenging for that reason. But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation.

Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.

But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though. — BitconnectCarlos

I’m not objecting to the ‘animal’ or ‘object’ association in relation to sex. It’s the compartmentalising that bothers me. As humans, we can be seen as ‘lines and shape’ in relation to the world, as well as ‘physical’, ‘animal’, intentional thinking being and meaningful existence - all at once. By presenting one aspect during an interaction, we are not denying the other aspects of our existence. The relationship we have with cultural traditions aside (ie. during private interactions such as sex), this is how we relate to each other, human to human.

There seems to be certain cultural or conceptual structures, however, that evidently permit us to ignore, isolate or exclude the ‘higher’ or more complex aspects of another’s humanity under certain circumstances. Women, children, ethnic minorities, criminals, etc have historically been denied capacity for thought, intentionality and/or meaningful existence within certain cultural and conceptual structures - not necessarily out of a conscious desire to control, but more from this fascination with ‘difference’ that makes demands on our limited effort and attention, developing into a fear of unpredictability or uncertainty, and the potential for pain, humiliation and loss/lack to be experienced as a result.

Unpacking these cultural traditions and restructuring concepts so that all human interactions, at least, recognise intentional, thinking beings with meaningful existence - even as they present as ‘physical’ or ‘animal’ or, as in Brett’s artist model example, as ‘lines and shape’ - may seem too much to expect of society as a whole. But I can expect it of my own interactions, at least. And I can encourage others to be conscious of their interactions, and strive to do the same, despite what cultural traditions permit. That’s all I’m aiming for.

Go read "The Mystery Method" by Eric Von markovic

Go read "The Mystery Method" by Eric Von markovic — Gitonga

Perhaps if you could prime me a bit I might approach the book with the right attitude.

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male.

In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game.

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male.

In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game. — Gitonga

Yeah, I found that out the hard way. Eric Von Markovic where were you when I needed you? :up:

Pick-up artists were all the rage when I was at university. Interesting stuff, but very cringey.

I think their only flaw is they suggest playing the rigged game instead of just finding a logical woman to settle with that likes philosophy and also aspires to be an entrepreneur at least that's my advice.. I see entrepreneurship as the ultimate happiness for a modern day philosopher if he's smart enough to pull it off

ikr? But it's still not to late to give it a read

I think their only flaw is they suggest playing the rigged game instead of just finding a logical woman to settle with that likes philosophy and also aspires to be an entrepreneur at least that's my advice. — Gitonga

I'd rather have a small blonde Portuguese skier who when she's not training does abstract painting, practises yoga, brews her own beer, really likes making home movies, and suffers neck-down alopecia.

but if she doesn't like philosophy will she like you in return?

I'm exceptionally likeable. Mostly because I don't do philosophy in real life. That would be such a buzzkill.

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male. — Gitonga

Interesting...sort of a hidden agenda there, imagine that :chin: Where's Freud when you need him!?

But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation. — Possibility

I put it in harsh terms, for emphasis. But traditionally surgeons do not operate on members of their own family precisely because they cannot be expected to be able to maintain that dis-passionate objectivity that is required to take a knife to living flesh. Without the objectification, being a surgeon would be too traumatic foe anyone except a sadist.

But it looks like the incels are taking over here so I think I'll go waste my time elsewhere for a bit.

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male.

In other words we're playing a rigged fixed game. — Gitonga

And he’s basing his research into the subconscious of women on years of experience as a woman and in discussion with women, or years of observing from an external position of lack, pain, humiliation and loss?

He’s justifying a position of suffering with baseless speculation. It’s like ancient claims that the soap opera style dramas of the gods are the cause of human misery. You clearly haven’t read the rest of the thread, or you’d recognise that you’re not preaching to the converted here (well, maybe one or two). You’re going to have to bring something more than incels venting frustration.

The underlined "premise" implies, IMHO, male weakness - panic - when confronted by the subliminal power of 'the feminine' tease: desire me AND respect me, baby; or fuck off!

"Don't forget the whip!" :sweat:

:point: 'We're free to objectify ourselves without licensing you to objectify us.' — 180 Proof

"You lovely ladies in your leather and lace
A thousand lips I would love to taste"
~The Glimmer Twins, '74 :razz: