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
( Please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask you, have you studied the philosophy of aesthetics?) — 3017amen
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
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
In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned — schopenhauer1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I'm saying that you are denying the value that is associated with material agency. — 3017amen
(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
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
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
I venture to hope you acknowledge there's a difference of some kind between a woman and a cheeseburger. — Ciceronianus the White
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
Oh yes grasshopper, it's called philosophical Materialism 101. — 3017amen
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
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
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
Go read "The Mystery Method" by Eric Von markovic — Gitonga
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
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
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
But I would hope they’re not a calculating butcher for the operation. — Possibility
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
"You lovely ladies in your leather and laceThe 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
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.