what I mean by pre/post fall is the narrative that there was an idyllic period, then something bad happened (freud, madison ave, Bernays) and that led to our particularly dystopic present. My sense is that being a 21st century consumer in a first world country is a far better lot than 99% of all past lots. I mean, it's not that great. But it's a little less nasty, brutish and short. — csalisbury

Well the fall as I read it happened a while before that, and was the fall from animal innocence. But please, there is no question but that science directed outwards to the world has been hugely effective and beneficial. My criticism is that it is ineffective and counter-productive when turned inwards to humanity itself. Experiment and manipulation works on stone and wood; it does not work on persons, but distorts rather than refines.

In order to do so one has to operate on themselves to gain these goods. And the language of self-improvement is quite pervasive in the workplace not merely as a way of justifying position, but as a kind of ethic of the self which people in all positions at the workplace -- though not all people do this, just noting that there is no unique position in the hierarchy -- express belief in and practice. — Moliere

This is the heart and soul of the inhumanity, directed inwards. It's worthy of its own thread, but I'll just concur that to operate on a person, (oneself or another) as if they are a thing to be shaped and polished and used, is exactly the mistake I am trying to indicate. Not that one should not learn and practice to better oneself in a straightforward way, exercise to become stronger or whatever. One can lift oneself up by using the stairs, but not by using one's bootstraps.

Now if we add the dimension of psychological exploitation, which comes along with this commercial activity, we can understand how entertainment is becoming more and more a source of psychological distress, which is opposed to its true purpose, or true use, which is as a source of relief from such stresses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes.

I hope that folks will entertain the ideas here, rather than be entertained by them. In being entertained by talent competitions, police melodramas, or war games, one becomes uncritical, passive to the message.

It's more about treating others as means to some other end that is the problem - that's what objectification ultimately is. Treating people as tools to achieve something. And both men and women do this - now and in the past - in different manners. Women manipulate men using their physical beauty, intellect and/or political capacity - or seek to do so - and men use their physical (or economic or political) power to control women. They're both dehumanising each other. — Agustino

That too, and for sure it is not an entirely modern phenomenon. But I'm coming to the view, as a result of this discussion that the modern feature, the turn of the screw made by experimental psychology is that it is no longer just them that I dehumanise, but also us which means me as well. I'll try and characterise this a bit more clearly as we go on.

Moderators are here to kick out those who don't play the game (ie. buy the values of philosophy).

Intellectuals are here to shame us kids (ie the ugly and unformed) from grown up talk (ie. refined subtle ideas that pleasure you so). — Nils Loc

Shame on you, Nils. ;) One is not dehumanised by being asked to wipe one's boots, nor by being shown the door if one starts kicking the dog.

What do you mean by treating others as objects? — m-theory

I'm not in a position to encapsulate it in a neat definition, but apart from Kant, Martin Buber talks about it in I and Thou. It is I suppose the ignoring or denial of the uniqueness of the individual and of their sovereign agency. But don't entirely hold me to that. And note the previous comment that we now objectify ourselves.

In relation to the OP, while usually we are other-focused on ethics, one thing that's interesting about the 2nd CI is that it is the humanity within all of us, including ourselves, which we are to treat as an end -- one common way of interpreting this is to say that we should respect both others and ourselves.

Which would mean thinking of us and others in some way other than how we think of objects, and relating to them in that way. — Moliere

I'm aware of the connection with Kant. I would say that Kant and Hume are the philosophical ancestors of psychology, speaking before the subject was claimed by science. These days, one is not worth talking to unless one has access to an MRI scanner. Perhaps the whole thing can be blamed on Hume's scepticism, which triumphed over Kant because Hume was an engaging fellow and great writer, while Kant was an impenetrable weirdo that I really can't bring myself to read, though I really should.

But the thing I want to emphasise from your post as a particular modern twist on the dehumanising process is exactly that it becomes self-referrential. Whereas we have commonly objectifiedthem (Jews, Blacks, Women, peasants, etc) psychology leads us inexorably to objectifyourselves. Human nature dissolves into nature with the death of god, and we ourselves are mere phenomena to be studied and manipulated and exploited along with all the other collections of atoms.

I'd invite you to start your life over as a female and then if you're still inclined to discuss objectification with that brain trust of the species we call The Philosophy Forum.. go for it. — Mongrel

I'm not suggesting that objectification began C.1900. Women have seemingly forever been dehumanised, black people for a long time. And your reciprocal dehumanisation of the (male) members of the forum is quite understandable. But I am going for it anyway, even as I inevitably fall into the pit I am pointing to.

I agree that people are unhappy and mentally ill, but to the extent that advertising methods contribute to this....I don't know it just seems to me like most people would consider other issues more important factors. — m-theory

Yes, and I'm one of them. Ads are a small part, an easily analysable manifestation of of this much bigger thing called scientific psychology which is a way of understanding and relating which is fundamentally manipulative and pervades human relations at every level, from politics to personal relationships. Treating people as objects drives them mad, and we are doing it to each other more and more. I wonder if it is possible to talk about this?

It seems to me people are more concerned with other issues. — m-theory

People, I notice are really really unhappy. And nobody knows why. We have more and more stuff and we are more and more unhappy, insecure, mentally ill, unstable, angry, depressed. And yet everyone wants to talk about fucking deodorants, and why I'm a hypocrite. I guess it's not really a problem after all.

I also tend to assume that the consumer has some onus to educate themselves on such tactics, I even seem to recall being taught about propaganda and advertising in school. — m-theory

Usually, the education one might end up with is focused on the techniques of misinformation and certainly awareness can help one resist the implanted messages. One can become aware of shelf placement, of not very special offers, of the myriad tricks of packaging, brand promotion etc.

But the effect I am trying to point to is not one that can be resisted very easily. As soon as I am aware you are trying to get me to buy X or vote Y, I can resist. I can be contrarian. But the anxiety, the fear, the undermining, these remain as a residue, even when the resistance is total, and education and awareness is bang up to date. Not, though, that we punters can really hope to outsmart the armies of experimenters and experts dedicated to our manipulation.

It's extraordinary, really. Look at the depth of concern expressed in most of the responses on this thread about trivial bodily matters by supposedly sane and intelligent people. It's far worse than I had imagined; people are incapable of reasoning at all on the topic.

If anyone wants to start a thread about me, I'll certainly participate. I'm an interesting and important topic, and I have a particular interest in it and a unique perspective.

Are you seriously saying that putting deodorant on is only something you'd do because you've been upset, or that it's some perpetual state of being upset that leads to you showering and taking care of hygiene issues in general? — Terrapin Station

I have a bath and change my socks almost every week whether I'm upset or not.

What I am saying is that advertising and propaganda deliberately set out to raise levels of anxiety and undermine confidence as a means of control, and that they have some effect is supported in the widely reported increase in mental illness. I'm saying that in the scheme of things, getting a whiff of body odour is not even worth talking about, likewise the eyelash lengthening effect of the latest mascara brush.

But even philosophers seem to think these are important moral issues or something. However, important though you may find it, this thread is supposed to be about mental health more so than the state of my underarms, so can we move on, please?

I reserve "upset" for a sort of distressed emotional state (not necessary a strong emotional state, but a distressed emotional state nonetheless). I'd have to guess that you don't reserve "upset" for that, because clearly, most people are not in distressed emotional states upon watching commercials. So I have to wonder just how you use "upset." — Terrapin Station

'Distress' will do as well, as a word. The effect of watching a single ad with a sudden klaxon and flashing warning sign is very very small and easily dismissed. But the overall effect is large. One cannot go out without a shower and deodorant, makeup, or whatever, one cannot admit guests without cleaning the house; one is made anxious, one is undermined, one is made fearful, not by a single attempt at manipulation, but by a lifetime of manipulation, such that this condition is taken as 'natural'.

What interests me, that is not being considered there, is not the effectiveness of advertising, in terms of how many people buy deodorant or vote for candidate X. Rather it is that whether anyone buys or not, each and every advert is designed to upset, and does upset.

I'm doing this. But I have no scheme and I am not doing it to you but with you. You keep trying to take my weapon and turn it on me, but you fail, because I have no weapon.

the singularity of the discussion — StreetlightX

Love that phrase! I'll be stealing it as a substitute for 'the truth is a pathless land.'

One drops one's immutable and entirely correct vision into the thread, and it doesn't even fall apart, but sinks without trace, because it cannot respond or relate. Oh, the horror; if this is a new and singular discussion, I will have to think again!

this seems to assume tabula rasa too much. — m-theory

I don't think it does. One can admit any amount of neuro-concrete along with the neuro-plastic. It is only our understanding of ourselves and each other, and thus our social conduct that is required to be radically plastic.

And you're bound by this knot as you speak of it. So you've painted yourself into a corner. I won't ask if that was your intention... that would require the illusive transcendent vantage point. — Mongrel

That my explanations and understanding are bound by the same knot I fully agree, and this means that even to the extent that all this might be a powerful or useful way of looking at ourselves, it is historical rather than foundational. But in terms of being and becoming, the knot liberates us from the whole idea of psychological law. There is no law, even statistical law, except the law we make up, and if we don't like the law as it stands, we can make up new laws or dispense with it altogether.

The psychologist as scientist becomes a manipulator. This is what happens when the supremely successful methods of science are turned from the physical world to the mental world from the observed to the observer. This is what has been done for a hundred years, and it has made us more unhappy and more insane. It works, but it works to destroy us.

But there are other ways of relating than as subject and object...

So, a bit of meta- psychological pontification.
Folks have always had, and continue to have, a folk psychology, otherwise known as a 'theory of mind'. Such theories are culturally informed by religion, philosophy romantic tradition, notions of gender identity and so on. My psychological theory affects how I experience others and how I behave with them. I treat you all so badly because my theory of mind tells me you are are all as horrible and pathetic as I am, however well you hide it.

Now even without the benefit of a university course, everyone here has a notion of what Freudian is what behaviourism is and so on. It may be vague, but it enters the psyche along with all that advertising and propaganda some to be dismissed, and some absorbed. So it is not to be wondered at that the techniques of the shrinks not only enter into the schemes of advertisers and politicians but also into the interactions of philosophers in discussion forums. I started with an advert, because it is paradigmatic, but it is only a simplistic and transparent example of what has become a way of life, a pervasive form of our culture.

There is a knot here; put very simply the theory of psyche is part of the psyche. It is as if the fundamental particles of physics changed their properties according to which laws of physics they decided to adopt. Psychologists have changed the way we think, the way we see, our whole culture, and in doing so, they give rise to a new psyche which needs a new theory. Fashion in psychology mirrors the fashion of youth that always has to be different to that of the previous generation. Today one talks of neural plasticity, and it is neural plasticity that makes this talk possible.

The knot is the bane of the psychologist and manipulator. The cleverer he is, the better the theory, the more it transforms the people it is a theory of. The more we the atoms see the manipulator scientist coming, the faster we adapt to his manipulations and frustrate his intentions. And we too are all manipulator scientists.

I did contribute, hypocrite. — Mongrel

Can it be, hypocrite preacher, that you too do not like being called names and sworn at?

Thanks for sharing. :s

Natural disgust prevents you from re-eating those tasty seeds, thus protecting you from worms and e-coli infection. Advertising does not create anything in humanity that is not already there, it elicts, distorts, redirects, exaggerates, trains, feelings that are pretty universal.

Fuck off out of my thread yourself if you have nothing to contribute.

Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated
are confident they are acting on their own free will.
Joseph Goebbels.

Let me tell you a comfortable lie. All this stuff only works on the great unwashed. You are educated and intelligent, and so your freedom and independence are assured.

So I hope I have briefly managed to convey something of the psychological functioning of propaganda and advertising and shown how closely related they are. The thesis is, that this century has produced a novelty. It is made possible by mass media, industrialisation, and psychological theory, beginning with Freud and continuing with ever more refinement and power to the present. Edward Bernays was a leading figure in much of this. Not that rhetoric and persuasion are anything new in themselves, but the science of it, and the universality is new, and it is now irresistible.

Your only best last hope for the liberty of your own mind is philosophy. Buy some today and install it at once. You really cannot afford to miss this discussion.

Terrapin, you probably don't want to hear this, but you are ugly. Jesus Christ, dude - wear a bin bag when you go out in public.

Well probably not, really. But your olfactory outrage has been manufactured. You are not going to get very far with this thread without questioning your own feelings a little.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.

Be afraid, be very afraid. It doesn't matter what you are afraid of, going noseblind, or hordes of Mexican rapists, the fearful are gullible and biddable. Just be afraid, and I'll tell you what to be afraid of and what to do about it later.

Be miserable, be depressed, you must be, there is nothing you can do about it. Later I will tell you who is to blame and make sure they are even more miserable than you. I'm good at that.

Be isolated. Don't talk to anyone, they are probably your enemy, or would be if you revealed yourself, because everyone is horrible. Even your friends are disgusted by your undetectable odour, and if you step out of line, you will be one of the people to blame for everything. You'd better believe me, because I will be deciding who those people are. I'm good at that. Everyone is an isolated individual and it is immoral to have close relationships.

Relate only to abstractions; democracy, nationality, race. Immerse yourself in these to assuage your feeling of isolation. Do not step out of line, punish and shun those who do, they smell, don't they.

I don't listen or watch them, and find them annoying. What am I getting wrong there? — Agustino

Everyone finds them annoying; they are designed to upset. This is the whole foundation of consumer society. We at UNcorp set out to upset you, annoy you, make you anxious and fearful.

Because then you will want the cure for the disease we have created in you. Buy UNcorp's UNique UNderstanding today, not because you're worth it, though we'll tell you you are because we want you to love us, but because you are annoyed and upset.

And here is UNcorp's first rule of advertising:

Incomplete sentences, because if it doesn't quite say anything, it's not quite a lie.

What is the generalised human mind apart from its specific instantiations? — Agustino

The generalised human mind is what psychology studies. It is the average, the percentile. UNcorp doesn't care whether you buy its products or not, as long as 'people' do.

Advertising and propaganda is designed to make people unhappy fearful, feel insecure and inadequate. These feelings create the desire, the need for products. Now if you and I resist, or are unable to obtain the product, we will still be unhappy but who cares? Not UNcorp.

... the media must give people what they want in order to earn from them. — Agustino

This is not at all correct. The media manufacture want. Typically, they do so by creating insecurities. They have to make people uncomfortable in some way and that creates the desire for easement that is then used to sell something.

Thought germs are everywhere, rotting your brain, and there is nothing you can do about it. Until now! Researchers at UNcorp have devised the first and only protective head gear for you and your loved ones that will kill 99% (recognise that figure?) of all intrusive thoughts. Also available in pill form.

Ehmm this sounds kind of fishy - especially since you compare it to eating and breathing. What do you mean? If I don't eat and breathe I die. If I don't have sex, I also die? — Agustino

It's not all about you. You die whatever you think or do. The psyche is the generalised human mind, and if in general humanity is not concerned with sex, humanity dies. Sex is not necessary to the individual, but it is absolutely necessary to the species.

I find it somewhat paradoxical that I (as a not trained psychotherapist) would have to make the case to a trained psychotherapist that sex makes the world go round. — Question

I'm not a therapist of any stripe, but only a psychology graduate and interested layman.

Ok, let me be clear; sexuality is important, and if it didn't have importance to the psyche, the species would go extinct. The same can be said of eating and breathing, but it does not entail that everyone is obsessed.

Now, the media are not the psyche. The media are obsessed with sex amongst other things, and I do not deny it at all. The media distort the psyche, and the history and ecology of this stretches back to Freud and the beginnings of the Science of Psychology. This probably needs a thread of its own in which I will fulminate at length against the scientistic psychologies, and expose them as the Great Shaitan. Suffice to say that science deals in objectivity, and when you study people as objects you learn only how to manipulate them. Out of this 'science' comes propaganda and the advertising industry both of which are injurious to mental health.

So yes, people buy viagra, watch pornography and a simple example of the distortion that results is the current fetish against female hair. Shaving the genitals in particular is an aesthetic dictated by graphic pornography that has become mainstream. What was done for the benefit of the camera has become a sexual norm, despite the discomfort and increased risk of STDs and other sores and infections.

But even such a distortion, though foolish and unnecessary, does not amount to an obsession. It is the dearest wish of the media to convince you that everyone is getting it or thinking about it all the time, and if you are not, you need to buy - something or other.

It is not true and you are being manipulated. Resist!

I might start a thread on all this sometime, but this one is long and rambling enough, so I think I'll stop here.

Possibly age is a factor, and location a factor, but my own children are not far out of their teens, and though they live in the city, they seem to be more interested in travel than orgies. Also, as Mrs un is a private tutor, we have contact with young families, not just other old fogies. However many caveats I make to my own experience, I cannot arrive at a figure close to 99%.

Ah, great minds! I see you have just posted about the urban rural thing.

I would suggest that the corporate environment is a place where folks conform their talk to the corporate needs, which are to promote sexual insecurity in order to sell more make-up, room fragrances to cover, I mean eliminate, the smell that you cannot smell because you've gone "nose-blind", or the kind of car that the babes will love you for ( it also magically eliminates traffic).

So I agree with you that there is a lot of pressure, particularly on the young, who are most ignorant and susceptible, and I agree too that there is probably an increase in sexual obsession. But I'm also pretty confident that it is still a minority sport in practice, even if schoolboys and executives like to brag.

I mean it doesn't take much looking around to see how much attention of all kinds people pay to sex - an extraordinary amount of attention. They don't talk much about eating or drinking - but sex is a favorite topic. That certainly seems quite obsessive. Even our advertisements are full of it. — Agustino

People are terribly conformist, and the media work hard to convince us that we should be wanting grab women's pussies if we are real men. But actually, few of us do. Politics, sport, work, money holidays, food, even children and pets dominate my interactions with folks both face to face and on the net; sex is hardly mentioned, for all its pervasive presence in the papers and television and film. But your friends seem to be different. Perhaps I live in a little island of rectitude, but I have been propositioned once by a woman of the streets and that aside, I cannot remember having talked about sex with anyone but Mrs un to any significant degree in twenty years, excluding the odd philosophical comment or joke that is hardly obsessive. So I speak as I find, that the folks I come across are by no means obsessed with sex, but have much more interesting things to obsess about, much to the chagrin of the media, no doubt.

Gutted to have to disappoint my many fans. You might try MI5, maybe.

I don't know that actually — Agustino

Yes, you don't know it because you are argumentative and do not read carefully or charitably. Instead you impute views that have not been expressed. Rather than looking for the common ground, you fasten on the differences and assume they are global. You fabricate an enemy where you could have an alliance. This makes discussion unpleasant and unproductive, and indeed, I am too busy denying your endless straw men to leave much space to develop any expression of the common ground.

is it petty and uninteresting to unenlightened? — Agustino

No, it isn't. If it were so, I wouldn't be talking about it. You might also notice, but seemingly haven't, that I have carefully refrained from advocating a way of life. I know we agree about a great deal on this topic, but nevertheless, please try to reign in your tiresome habit of derogatory innuendo; this is a serious matter.

don't you feel joy from not having a car and smile to yourself at times when you see that someone gets a ticket or is stopped so the Bobby can reach his quota? — Question

No, not at all. People on my street have constant problems parking because there are more cars than spaces. I don't have their problem and am glad of that, but it would bring me joy if their problems could be solved, if only because happier neighbours are more pleasant to live with.

It is not for me to tell you whether you are miserable or not, or obsessed or not, or indulging in a sense of superiority or not. Or even being ruled by a fear of relationship - that is a possibility too. But comments elsewhere eventually drew me to read this thread, which I found rather sad and unenlightening, so I thought to make some contribution to the rather overheated conversation. Good luck to you in your abstinence, and there's no need to justify it to me or anyone here.

While, you may say that "truth is a pathless land" according to one of your favorite philosophers, I would have to say the is some truth in what they say. Time would attest to that fact.

If society is obsessed with matters such as sex and sexuality, then I say fuck society. Erich Fromm would agree? — Question

Of course. Society is obsessed with wealth and power and status as well, at least it is if you attend to the media. It is easy enough to dismiss all that. At least, it is easy in theory. In practice, one must be very wary of one's motives. Is there some kudos in celibacy? Does it give rise to a feeling of spiritual superiority? Spiritual practices always have such dangers.

The land is pathless because one is not going anywhere, but staying with the truth. To be going somewhere is to be moving away from the truth of what one is, towards the image of what one might become.

Let me put it very simply; if one sees clearly that sex is not necessary to one's life, then there is no difficulty. I am like this with cars. I know most people around me have a car, and I see the use, but also the problems, and it is no effort for me to decide to avoid having one. Sometimes I have difficulties because I don't have one, but those difficulties are small compared to the trouble and expense of owning one. If sex is like that, then there is no problem leaving it behind. But If I found that I was constantly thinking about having a car, and disparaging those that have them, and lauding myself for doing without, then the truth would be that I was more obsessed with cars than those that had them. And that would be silly.

So to be free from the obsession with sex that some people (but probably fewer than appears) have is certainly to be looked for. But celibacy maintained through gritted teeth, as it were, is not any kind of freedom, and maintains the obsession far more strongly than having a sexual relationship.

Just watching. But I think the USA is fucked. — Banno

Thought this voyeur belonged here.

In other news 64 year old man fucks black woman, and it's not even fantasy. (video not available in your location.)

Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay. — Agustino

Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else.