I believe that in the realist valuation of the world, the conception of an object can only be true through man p-lacing his own judgments of cognition on the object or subject of question. However, where a conjecture arises, is whether an aesthetically beautiful object of taste, which provides its own colorful outline and geometrical outline can be perceived differently. An object that is organ as formerly regarded, can posses certain naturally beautiful features, however, it is only our perception that we are seeing the same colors, and not the absolute. Anything that is apprehended can also share a similar error in nature. However, natural objects do have an object form of attractiveness, which irregardless of the aesthetical form we perceive it as possessing, holds objectivity in nature. If the perception of an object as representation is held in nature, the natural form must always be held in cognition and physical representation. This diversion creates a distinction between one world of Cognition and Physical. If both of these aspects are shared in one, then it is absolute truth. However, if one is missing from the other, then it cannot complete itself, and is therefore an inaccurate representation of the real world and apprehension of truth.

I think it would be a good idea for the future to start a new thread on realism and naturalism as concep-ts.

Yes, this epistemological examination would be introducing the position of realism.

Transcendentalism, is rooted in our mental processes and cognition. Things that are rooted in cognition, may posses a natural rational interpretation behind them. Two objects that are not universally subjective because they share a common understanding, but groups of things that are united in some way, share a common understanding. This is what would be universally subjective. the intersubjectivity aspect, which can be sub-divided by the subjective group-s that share different preferences, is still subjectively universal. This is due to the simple fact that they share similar elements of understanding that unite them, which is irrelevant from the smaller molecular differences in their structures.

An object exists for you in the sense that you apply cognition into the tools necessary to define and construct the object in question. The conception of an object depends entirely on its creator (for man), and is in that sense, man-made of course. In questioning whether a chair in excluding the intention of its man-made conception, cannot be an absolute if this is what you are referring to. If it remains an absolute, simply because of its ability to satisfy human needs, then it would rather be an object of human purpose. However, it would fall into nothingness due to its uses as an object not being properly represented in cognition. This means that it could not exist objectively as a char as a chair has various meanings.

In addition, naturalism as a motivation, can be divided into natural cognitive judgments, and natural material judgments. The former is a judgement of how the mind progresses and determines real world natural things i.e,. philosophy, ethics, logic, etc. Real world physical representations, must be purely natural and not distorted by human intervention in their natural existence. E.g,. plants, animals, etc.

What was previously said may have sounded like an informal false dichotomy. However, i'm not taking the position that man can not cultivate in history a middle position, but the outcome of this position will always have a positive or negative consequence.

A natural law or faculty of motivation for man, would involve a historical process, very similar to Hegel's concept of Hegelian Dialectics. The thing about natural motivation, is it must however, connect to something that is positive or negative to man. History is always either the two of those sides, and thus, is a natural process. In order for something to always remain a natural motivation (like history), it must always be in progression (not in the societal sense, or the ethical sense).

"The reason why prostitution may be exploitative is not found in the nature of sexuality itself, but in the specific relation established between the actors. As such, prostitution may be exactly as exploitative as a sexual relation within the context of a longterm relationship."

That would be a correct proposition, if it weren't for the further extension of thought, in which certain forms of sexual gratification, even if not prostitution which is settled for material benefit on one party, are also exploitative. Then there's the idea that prostitution is not just material and therefore exploitative, but prostitution extends to the immaterial. This means that prostitution is not just involved with the factor of money, but is also involved with sexual gratification that is in a long-term relationship-. However, this gratification may be unnatural, and contain perverse actions.

"Exploitation is but another aspect of an event seen as part of a beings umwelt. As such, what may seem exploitative on one side for you might not be for the actor you feel is being exploited. Thats why universal subjectivity is but a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. I have often bitched at Wittgenstein's 'even if lion could talk, we would not understand them' on this site in the past, but comparatively to your position, he is much closer to the truth."

A form of universal subjectivity which does not posses an equal distribution or balance on both sides, is not a universally subjective concept. Universal subjectivity, would apply between two parties of a similar natural disposition. If one p-arty is entirely different, then it cannot therefore be universally subjective.

If you're referring to what I said, a natural motive is any motive that follows a natural law or princip-le. From the of 'natural law' or 'primitive law'. We can elaborate on how a natural motive usually constitutes a mode of existence that correlates to different objects. However, as the previous comment pointed out, different forms of naturalism exist for certain objects.

Since I am not the best at explaining acquired knowledge, here's an example of what I was referring to:

"If we grasp Being, we will clarify the meaning of being, or "sense" of being (Sinn des Seins), where by "sense" Heidegger means that "in terms of which something becomes intelligible as something."[9] Presented in relation to the quality of knowledge, according to Heidegger, this sense of being precedes any notions of how or in what manner any particular being or beings exist, and is thus pre-scientific.[10] Thus, in Heidegger's view, the question of the meaning of being would be an explanation of the understanding preceding any other way of knowing, such as the use of logic, theory, specific regional ontology.[11] At the same time, there is no access to being other than via beings themselves—hence pursuing the question of being inevitably means questioning a being with regard to its being.[12] Heidegger argues that a true understanding of being (Seinsverständnis) can only proceed by referring to particular beings, and that the best method of pursuing being must inevitably, he says, involve a kind of hermeneutic circle, that is (as he explains in his critique of prior work in the field of hermeneutics), it must rely upon repetitive yet progressive acts of interpretation. "The methodological sense of phenomenological description is interpretation."[13]"

Sourc(es):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Time

I myself am not necessarily a fan of Martin Heidegger, mostly because of his postmodernist persp-ective. However, Being can be defined in Being and Time as simply Being in itself. This means that Being cannot be determined by any other standards besides the fact that beings are beings in themselves. It sounds odd, but his main rational behind it is that a Being is not the literal Being like a man or a woman, but rather something of a conscious nature. Sense is also a large aspect of this as a motivation behind Being. I haven't read Heidegger in a long time, and I will p-robably have to revisit it eventually.

The phrasing I presented on sexual gratification and satisfaction was poor. What was meant to be interp-reted, was that certain forms of satisfaction are worth more then other forms of satisfaction. This is p-roven by the mere fact that satisfaction is not a constant desire, as it changes from subjective interpretation often. What satisfies me today, could maybe not satisfy me tomorrow is the dilemma here, and it's important. Only the forms of universal satisfaction like hunger, taste, and pleasure as aforementioned, are fundamental. Forms of satisfaction that have a natural motive grounded in their motive e.g,. sexual gratification from prostitution, is exploitation.

If you examine the natural faculties of objects and their disposition to other objects, like you have done here, you do get to a point in which objects in themselves, may serve no objective purpose. Objective p-urpose as defined, is anything which does not effect all concepts or objects on a universal basis. However, subjective universal validity does exist. Subjective universality as a concept, entails that different objects that share a similar relationship, may be classified taxonomically in this perspective as simply sharing a similar concept in nature. So in a simplification, what may have an impact on you or me is not universally valid by any means, unless it was a subjective interpretation of universal validity e.g,. all humans have hands (excluding abnormalities). Those chemicals that are classified scientifically by their respected taxonomical classifications, exhibit uses in themselves, as they provide the necessary stimuli for the object in question (tick) or resource (Folic Acid).

One thing that is also important, is the elucidation of how 'Impoverished' as a system of oppression is defined. One could simply be impoverished from his lack of spirit or will (poverty of one's soul), or one could suffer from the impoverishment of his morality (if we are referring to no position of moral relativism). Then of course the common material explanation behind poverty as having a lack of a material necessity. The latter is a judgment over whether such material system is universally valid (imp-acting everyone) or whether it is only relative to one man or his group's interpretation of value. If poverty itself is based up-on the false system of money, then it alone cannot exist a phenomenon.

I agree. If I am interpreting you correctly this is what I said.

By this argument I could call your statement arbitrary. It's about the interpretation of what is worth, and my proposition is simply a proposition. However, if you wish to tell me how sexual gratification that is artificially produced is not secondary in importance, then you can do so.

There is no absolute definition of "resourceful" or "value" in philosophy. I have acknowledged the linguistic meaning here, and stated that they both have similar standards and relations. However, nothing is absolute in this sense.

No, it is reasoned. When you dissect the meaning of linguistic interpretation you realize that many different interpretations can be made from different words.

The abundance of what is resourceful in nature, must follow a naturalistic faculty. This means that an object can only be resourceful if it contains within itself a rationally natural purpose to it. The architectural construction of a house is a perfect example of this juxtaposition of purpose. A house can be used to store different items of human purpose or human need, even though one may not be willing to live in this space. However the rational motive applied by cognition to this 'house', depends entirely on the buyer and his predetermined motive for the object in question. Money in this sense is not only synthetic and illusion, but it is also a treacherous thing. Meaning must not be created without purpose like money, as this is applying human cognition to an object, and therefore only applying purpose to something that may not have purpose (meaning).

Please explain how this argument is arbitrary.

Immediate sexual gratification does not count as immediate satisfaction. True satisfaction is gained by means of satisfying a fixed desire i.e,. hunger.

Resourcefulness is not the same as value in the sense that a resource can have a definite purposive element. However, value is the simple judgement of that object that is resourceful. This is a simple question of semantics.

Resourcefulness and value are distinct because of their nature. Resourcefulness is defined as supply. Value, is defined as the supplier. These two distinctions separate the meaning of what is being supplied, and what the material worth of what has been supplied is.

I have read Marx along with positions on him. Read Marx's Concept of Man by Erich Fromm. This position explains Marx's conception of 'Alienation' along with the Hegelian concept, as a means to man being alienated from himself (species-life, species-being as 'collective'). In this book, Fromm lays down the psychoanalytical interpretation of Marx's Socialism as a revolt against the dehumanization of man through materialism. Namely one of these concepts is "money" as only being held as material capital. However, he states this form of materialism enslaves man as a mere product of his creation. This leads to the objectification of man, as he sees himself as separate from his concept of creation.

So no, i wouldn't want you to take something that holds extended meaning, although I can object to it only being a means of necessity and not a necessity itself.

Re-read if you have to. I discuss how material value holds resourcefulness as a means to worthy material satisfactions e.g,. food, lust, sexual gratification. However, materialism is simply a MEANS in this sense and remains only MEANS unless it holds direct value.

Re-read the text. There's no mention of corporatism or corporate enterprise. This is the examination of materialism and its value.

In addition to money being merely material, this concept is very similar to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgement. It correlates with Kant in the sense that it is critical of mere aesthetically beautiful forms. These forms share no rational purpose, besides their subjective universal communicability.

Your question is dependent on the definition of privileged as a class. The proliferation of blame on the White upper class, is usually based upon conjectures that lead to false propositions The ideologically promiscuous tendencies of Left-Wing politics, leads to various different narratives being espoused. The most defined and voraciously defended, is the proposition that whiteness as a mere physiological representation, leaves other classes of the same nature at a disadvantage. This disposition of men in all material forms i.e,. skin color, leads to a false representation of their mental faculties which consist of their nature. This loosely defined system of ludicrous prejudices, is in itself vague, and dogmatically pernicious. The system which puts prejudice at the forefront of thought, ignores whether prejudices of personality exist rather then mere material prejudices. This error in thought, allows for no congruous position.

The creator in all his form, relies entirely upon his essence. The drive of man is a manifestation of that inner-consciousness which cannot be distinguished or separated from the will of the creator. Thus, the designer purely and simply extends his thought through the designer.