A duck is not just an object, any more than a scantily clad woman is just an object. To objectify what is not just an object is to deny that it’s anything more - not a living, feeling creature, or a thinking human being. — Possibility

Of course, it's a no-brainer there. But that's not what you or I were arguing. The point was you were in denial of the impact of physical appearances on human beings. You seem to think it has minimal bearing or impact on the human condition relative to decision making viz romantic relations. Or you were at least downplaying it, whereas I was arguing (in paraphrase) that the appreciation of it was that to be cherished and nurtured and above all, embraced for what it is.

It’s not a particularly effective way by today’s standards, but pageants originated in a world where women didn’t have much in the way of a voice. Miss America, as an example, has gradually evolved into a scholarship programme for young women. — Possibility

Great! There's progress. However, this is once again a confusing ethical treatment of an objectification standard. On the one hand, you seem to be encouraging men to ask questions about aesthetical concerns, yet you admit it perturbs you when and if you're asked.

As a young teen, my father’s most frequent comment to me was that I was “growing more beautiful every day”. He genuinely believed he was paying me a compliment - which he was - but what I internalised was that my high academic achievements and my thoughts or opinions were unimportant, because they were never acknowledged by the one male whose opinion mattered the most to me. And what mattered most to him was how I looked. These experiences are formative, and are reinforced with almost every other male encounter. I eventually managed a good education despite this, and I’m not against complimenting women (or men) on their appearance. But it’s what isn’t acknowledged that can have an insidious effect. This kind of ‘casual objectification’ is so common and invisible that men just cannot see the work that needs to be done and the lack of genuine opportunities for a woman to reclaim agency without either directly attacking the male narrative or feeding into it and then looking for ways to co-opt it. — Possibility

Okay, you're making progress there. A similar story was that when I was married, at one point in the relationship I told my spouse (and I remember specifically) "you only like/love me for the way I look". This was all in the context of me going through growing pains in the relationship, as well as interacting with an introvert, who seemingly did not care about the 'mind and spirit' part of the mind, body, spirit connection.

And so when you concluded that "...what mattered most to him was how I looked" I completely understand the frustration. But here's the thing, I really don't see women trying to change the stereotype much. But admittingly, at the same time, I couldn't tell you how to be. Meaning, if we (men and/or women) appreciate physical beauty and/or femininity for the sake of itself, what would be considered the intrinsic value there? Sure, to broad-brush it, we should all strive to seek balance in all aspects of the mind-body-spirit 'equasion', and discourage mutually exclusive thinking, but what is the purpose of aesthetics?

It’s not anyone’s fault - it is what it is. I just wish men wouldn’t make it so difficult by continuing to assume (and refusing to hear otherwise) that a woman’s inner world and subjective experience is a reflection (or subset) of a man’s. Recognise that your disagreement with what I’m saying might actually be because you’ve never experienced what women are thinking or feeling - you’re making your own subjective assessment of my words and behaviour, based on a limited experience. — Possibility

Can you elaborate a bit more on that please? Being a so-called sensitive man myself (or a bit more right-brain sided if you like), I hear what you are saying, and feeling. Of course, Maslow said "what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you" is indeed, seemingly alive and well here. And so, sure, because I'm not you, I don't completely understand. However, what is very intriguing to say the least, is your point "...that a woman's inner world is a reflection (or subset) of a man's."

Men and women are meant to be together. And life is about relationships (friendships, collaborations, colleagues, companions, partners, etc.). And with that, your notion that women's thinking is a sub-set of a man's, through that awareness, only helps to enlighten those who are ignorant (we are all ignorant to a greater or lessor extent) about the many aspects of the human condition. To this end, please share your thoughts... .

person, woman, man or any other kind of rational being, wishes to be treated like an object. I could say that without much understanding of anything in the world; it is simple logic. “Objectification” means turning something into an object (presumably something that wasn’t originally an object) and the only thing that isn’t an object, is a person. — Congau

The irony is we are treated like objects because we are physical objects. Can any physical object get objectified rightly or wrongly? Do you choose a romantic relationship partially on physical appearance? This may help:

Objectify:

1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.

3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.

4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. On the other hand, you cannot escape the phenomenal experience of our physical nature, and the underlying importance and impact to our volitional existence. The philosophy of aesthetics provides for a little insight there. Otherwise you will have to parse the differences between the physical and the metaphysical.

If you can’t make a distinction in your words between asking someone why they chose to wear a particular top and telling someone that you don’t like what they’re wearing, then I can’t help you. If what you say comes across as a judgement on their actions instead of expressing interest in how they think, then you probably should take a good look at your use of language. — Possibility

Possibility!!

Let's see, well, if a woman asks her man if she looks fat in that dress, and he tells her the truth, do you think she will handle that truth?

This almost begs another question. If the stereotypical (and please correct me here if I'm out of line) woman is supposedly more sensitive than a man, would it follow that you, being a woman, will more often than not default to taking things perhaps the wrong way (overreact)? Meaning, in cognition, some have argued that intellect, is subordinate to sentience. The jist is that the limbic system at the base of the brain is primitive in nature, and computes the feelings of fear, instincts, sensory processing, and so forth first, before its sent to the rational (larger) part of the brain. And, it's a small structure that other animals (small and large) share. Now why the woman's cognition computes things differently is a discussion for another time, but I think you get my point. And that is, the man, in your theory there of political correctness, would constantly be on egg-shells if they followed your advice from the foregoing quote.

I know that feeds into some old stereotype's, but I hope you can prove me wrong there...as I'm hopeful, as you suggested, that a man can ask a woman anything, without her getting defensive or otherwise taking it too personal and overreacting in the wrong way. Otherwise, your call for full transparency between the sexes is likely too idealistic and tantamount to little more than a pipe dream.

LOL :up:

I am a materialist — Vladimir Krymchakov

For those materialists out there, how did consciousness emerge from a piece of wood?

exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem. An attractive, successful man believes that he should NOT feel threatened by a woman because he assumes she has no reason to say ‘no’, and a fat, poor man assumes that a woman is saying ‘no’ because he is fat or poor - but has anyone asked the woman what HER reasoning is? You’re reducing a complex and diverse decision-making process into an over-simplified value system that is grossly inaccurate for predicting how a woman chooses.

And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it? — Possibility

Sorry for the multiple post my phone isn't working very well.

Don't overthink this Possibility. The first point relates to the fact that an attractive healthy well built successful man should have a self-esteem such that emotionally, he is able to love himself in a healthy way. And in turn, he is able to love a woman as he loves himself.

Not to mention that he holds women in a high regard and respects them, even more so, when they are healthy and physically fit. And that is because they respect their respective bodies enough not only for their own well-being but for the benefit of their partners. In other words, I would want to keep my body in shape so that my partner can enjoy my body just as I would want the same in return.. Common sense?

So the answer to this question ..."And how exactly do you ‘respect’ a woman who cares for her body? By appreciating the body in motion, or appreciating the choices she makes with it?" ...is obvious, the answer is both. I appreciate the beauty of the human body. Personally, aside from extremely obese women, I appreciate most sizes including the archetypical curvy 'Greek' figure.

think you might be confusing casual sex with finding a life partner. They are two completely different strategies for women, and they’re looking for very different qualities. Just because it all looks the same from your end, does not mean it is. — Possibility

Okay so in the context of objectifying the object what criteria is appropriate in both finding a life partner and having casual sex?

Women, for the most part, do NOT just want a sexual act with any body, detached from a human being. They will often choose to feed into the male narrative, but they ALWAYS do it for their own reasons, not yours. — Possibility

What would be the reasons why there are so many women in pornography? If it's to feed into the male narrative that sounds pretty empowering LoL

Yes, I get perturbed when someone feels the need to tell me that they don’t like what I’m wearing, as if assuming that I dress with their needs and preferences in mind. My self esteem is partially attached to my appearance, yes - but I am also more than what or how I appear, and I will recognise and react to being treated as if my choices are not my own. — Possibility

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is opposite of what you recommended in your earlier post. To paraphrase you you recommended to be bold and ask the woman the question, concerning her attire. Considering what you just said in the foregoing statement, do you think a man would be encouraged to ask such a question after what you just said (about being perturbed)?

I don't understand. Are you saying that if it looks like a duck walks like a duck and acts like a duck, that it's not a duck?

Perhaps this question is easier for you. Can any object be objectified rightly or wrongly? Hint: a beauty pageant.

I don't think it pertains to this thread. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure?

Objectify:

1. to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

2. express (something abstract) in a concrete form.

3. to give expression to (something, such as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.

4. : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality

Again, any object can be objectified rightly or wrongly.

Not to say Wikipedia is the last word on anything, but as this definition commenced the thread and was plainly intended to apply to the thread, I think it's what should be taken to be the "objectification" at issue. — Ciceronianus the White

CW!

Thanks, but as I said, if that's the only definition, then one post should answer the question, right? Have you considered the philosophy of aesthetics? For instance, "realizations" (which are always physical entities) suggest that objects are a work of art. If the human body ( both male and female) is a work of art and considered valued as something beautiful (or not beautiful) hasn't the object in effect become objectified, yes?

Same with colors. When selecting colors, you select them based on mental criteria, as
I briefly discussed previously (in Architecture). In effect, you are objectifying the object. You are making judgements about what is appropriate to suit your criterion. This color over that color. You like one over the other; one object over another object.

And so, to your point, herewith is your dehumanization analogy. It can be done with human beings unconsciously. Whether it is big butts, small feet, nose hair, unibrow, etc. etc. we objectify the physical object.

Think of it another way, why do you care to look in the mirror?

You continue to regurgitate the standard definition from an unethical, dysfunctional viewpoint. That's fine. Everyone gets that. My point is that there is another element to this so-called sense of perception. And in turn, it becomes an intrinsic or integral part of the objectification-of-the-object phenomenon.

(In this aesthetic theory, one could change the OP to 'The Objectification of Men, Cars, etc.' and similar if not the same rules would apply, no? Any object can be objectified, rightly or wrongly.)

Entirely irrelevant to objectification as a mode of human conduct; even non-objectifying ethical conduct could be objectifying in terms of your subject-object stuff; which is really a sign that you're talking about something much different. — fdrake

And what do you presume I'm talking about viz physical human relationships?

The metaphysical baggage you're bringing to the discussion is obfuscating the issue. — fdrake

fdrake!

Not sure I'm follwing you there. Are you saying the feeling of colors (for example) is both an objectification of an object, as well as a metaphysical phenomenon (Qualia) associated with consciousness? In other words, both a physical and meta-physical attribute of human existence?

For me, the ethical implications of objectification are the only implications of significance. The subject/object thing does nothing for me. — Ciceronianus the White

Are you sure?

Let's look at Architecture briefy. The interior designer establishes interior finishes, including paint colors. They propose colors based upon many things, one of which is the emotive force behind the visual impact to human's. For instance, the color wheel indicates yellow is a happy color; red is a firey anxious color. Are we objectifying the visual impact of colors?

We could draw analogies to cars, houses, buildings, you name it. Anything that is an object gets objectified. No?

fdrake! Thanks I get that. That's obvious. If we were to agree to the standard definition, it could be answered in one post: unacceptable behavior. There would be no need to argue that, right? Instead, this is what I'm arguing:

1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.

2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.

[And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. ]Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?

3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?

4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?

I'm trying to remove the psychological [moral/ethical] component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...

And so , in that context(s), do we make judgements based upon objectification?

And if a scantily clad woman walked up to you and whispered “Let’s have sex”, you wouldn’t stop her to ask her why she was dressed that way. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck... — Possibility

Correct. And that's my point. You make judgements based on objectification.

Well, I don’t agree that sex as an act is an existential need. It’s a biological urge, sure. But I’d be pretty confident that those women being ‘promiscuous’ do not ‘just want sex’ as an act. I’d say they’re exercising a freedom of choice they probably don’t feel they have at home: to casually explore sexual encounters and partners so they can discover what is valuable to them. These aren’t stats, by the way - they’re opinions from many years experiencing the world as a woman and in the confidence of many — Possibility

Yes, and I would submit you are lying to yourself. You seem to be making political statements based on an unrealistic ideology. Because sex is such a personal topic, people will typically tell you what they want you to hear. They are most likely feeding into your narrative. Have you studied the history of Sex? Are you aware of ancient concubines? Asian penis (and vagina) worship? What about porn, why are so many porn stars seemingly available on the internet? Just type-in men's dicks or women's pussies... . My point is that those women DO want sex, and they don't want it with just anybody, or wait, do they?

Objectifying men or women in the casual sex ‘dance’ contributes to an erosion of agency. If you perceive a woman only as an object of your sexual desire, then you’re likely to perceive her agency - her capacity to reject you or to desire someone else - as an unacceptable threat. Likewise with men. It’s what men and women are capable of when threatened by an ‘object’ that can be a ‘bad thing’. — Possibility

Sure, and this 'agency' is what a handsome well kept man, who brings a lot to the table, has to offer you. Otherwise, you would marry an ugly-fat-bald guy who smells bad just because he's kind considerate, caring and has money. The fact remains, you want it all. And you should want it all. A handsome, intelligent, responsible and successful man around your arms in a social gathering, as well as someone to father your children and snuggle at night. It follows that you would not settle for casual sex with the former, or would you?

As far as a threat, a threat to what? I'm not following that? If I am an attractive, successful man, why should I feel threatened? Objectively, I care for my body, and respect those women who care for theirs.

That's not what I'm saying, read my earlier post to you... . You seem all twisted up over the ethical implications.... .

I'm arguing one cannot escape pure objectification in a world of physical appearances.

person’s attire suggests a lot about them, but to make assumptions purely by the way they’re dressed can be rude, insulting and dangerous. Just because someone’s wearing scrubs and a white coat, doesn’t make them qualified to operate on you, does it? — Possibility

Really? By all Objective appearances, absolutely. If a Doctor dresses the part, would you reasonably assume he was a doctor and thereby allow him to operate on you? Or, on the other hand, while you are laying there semi-conscious, would you ask for his resume?

This is a common excuse, but I’m not buying it. Have a little courage - I’m suggesting you ask a question, not offer a judgement or a ‘truth’. — Possibility

Well you should buy it. Or at least be true to yourself here. The fact is, you probably get perturbed when someone doesn't like what you are wearing. Or, as you say, when someone questions your attire. For many reasons, this makes you feel less than a woman, because your self-esteem is partially attached to your appearance (simple psychology here):

1. Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it. True or false?

I never said I didn’t care about looks - they’re not a dealbreaker, for me. Appearances matter more if I’m only looking for an ego boost, though. And if I’m willing to play the casual sex game with someone who clearly is just after a conquest, then I’m going to be choosy about it. — Possibility

And I argue that it is a deal breaker. Are you trying to tell me a fat-ugly-bald guy (subjective criteria/apologies to fat ugly bald men here) who has bad personal hygiene , who is the most honorable, intelligent, caring man on the globe and that you would welcome passionate love making with him? If so, does this perpetuate the gold-digger archetype?

‘Partner’ indicates a human interaction between freely choosing adults. See my response to fdrake above for more on this. — Possibility

Of course. And that human interaction is making love/having sex with someone who is objectively, appealing to you, both logically and physically. No?

What she wants from him is not just sex, but human interaction, so if she starts to feel like she should have more of a choice in how it goes then she’s going to want out. It seems to me that this is where the main issue lies, but she often realises this only when she has poor choices left.

So, for me at least, there’s a difference between not giving a damn about an extended relationship and not giving a damn about your sexual partner as a fellow human being with agency. I enjoy the pretense of a ‘possible’ romantic connection as much as the next girl, but underneath that is the real question: Is he respecting my freedom to choose? — Possibility

Possibilty!

With all due respect, this almost seems like a head game. I don't think that's your intention, and maybe I read it wrong. Firstly, I don't know where you are getting your stats, but many women just want sex. Depending on the particular season of one's life ( in college) for example, those existential needs rear their heads. Similarly, when I worked in a night club in a tourist town years back (not in a band like I am now), women would come in and felt free to be promiscuous because they were not recognized locally.

Secondly, of course the old-school obvious definition of objectification is a no-brainer. I mean, it's an abhorrent, detestable example of what human nature is capable of.. . Okay then, so now what? Please tell me how objectification of men and women is a bad thing, when doing your dance?

Great question! The irony is, you will find truth in mystery, paradox and contradiction. :scream:

was making the point that lies and manipulation are most often just part and parcel of flirtation and casual sex, entered into willingly by both parties, and thus not bad. — jamalrob

Yep. Not sure what all the fuss is about. What did we do when we were in college; ate, slept, studied and had sex (I didn't party much).

I remember one of my girlfriend's telling me..."what relationship, we're in college!".

So let's face it, you get men and women all together in one big building, and sooner or later somebody's going to start fucking.

Is that objectification I wonder?

That's unfortunate, considering the hand you've been dealt. On the other hand, when I go to BK I typically see folks using two hands when handling their Whopper's.

That extra hand comes in handy.

I don't have a problem with her. All philosophy / philosophers have strengths and weaknesses. For whatever reason I always felt that she would have done a little bit better as a psychologist rather than philosopher.

In any case, I read her book The Virtues of Selfishness and really enjoyed her existential views associated with our self-directed motivations.

People do not objectify themsleves. Not even when they're writhing around naked in front of a crowd. The supposition they must be a sexual object come from the watching crowd — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, I am back :gasp: Are you certain about those things? For one, you appear to be suggesting that women and men do not care about their bodies enough to purchase flattering clothing, swimsuits, cosmetics, hair dyes, tattoos, shoes, mirrors, exercise equipment (gyms), and all the rest. And how would you know what it's like to be in a nudist colony (I have)?

Assuming you're woman, are you in denial of your own sexuality? Do you not consider yourself a (desired) sexual being? ( I consider myself, in part, a sexual being.)

Forgive me for the absurdity of such rhetorical questions, but there seems to be some old paradigms at work here...

Thanks for your replies. This is a fascinating subject but I only have time for a couple of quick true or false sound bites. And will resume discussion tomorrow if that's okay. Accordingly, an in the meantime consider the following:

1.Feeling attractive and sexy feels good, and it feels good for the same reason that feeling unattractive and unsexy feels so bad: our self-worth is wrapped up in it.

2. Consider the executive career woman who finds a well-dressed man attractive. The man knows that his attire, as well as his good looks and physique, are appealing to women. Further his self-esteem is such that not only does he respect himself enough to stay healthy and fit but he also respects other women who do the same.

And so back to the career woman who finds this particular male attractive. Does she find him attractive as a potential sex partner? Does she find him attractive as a potential romance? If so, is not one of the components of love what they call, romantic love, and is that not based on objectification?

3. From a perspective of existential phenomenology and the human condition, we have the dynamic of subject-object. From this perspective, morals and ethics (and logic) are not considered in the phenomenon of romance. Even more so, in the attachment theory; baby sees Mom, Mom leaves the room, baby cries. The object known as the mother has left the baby's sight. The ideal object is that which is being perceived. How important is the object being perceived?

4. In the philosophy of aesthetics, how shall we parse the differences between the appreciation of object's beauty and the objectification of same, excluding the implications of deleterious moral and ethical behavior?

I'm trying to remove the psychological component of objectification, and instead, trying to shed light on the nature of the phenomenal experience, including the existential component that we seemingly cannot escape. Also, I realize this may be hard to do since the concept of objective beauty is tantamount to one's well-being. I submit that the definition of objectification has more implications...

Women want to have it both ways - make men desire them as objects (of sex) but not make men think of them as objects (of sex). — TheMadFoolWhat's wrong with that? Just because you - many (most?) hetero-males - can't handle that, doesn't entail it's wrong or that a woman shouldn't have her dawgs & her dignity too. :smirk: — 180 Proof

180!

Are you joking?

I've never been able to really live with them or without them — 180 Proof

Why is that?

All happiness or unhappiness solely depends upon the quality of the object to which we are attached by love." ~Benny Spinoza — 180 Proof

Does that mean one can love a car, dog, house, or any other physically pleasing thing?

It's quite possible to feel desire or attraction for a person without objectifying them. There's a difference between a thing and a person, and no great effort is required to know the difference. I think that the difference is known even by those who objectify another, but they are so completely selfish and concerned to pleasure themselves that they ignore the difference. We can recognize this is a defect, a weakness, and overcome it. We take sex far too seriously. — Ciceronianus the White

Really, can you explain that one? Think of it this way, when you go on a dating site, many if not all will say something like 'if you have no picture, I won't respond'. Why is that, I wonder?

Are men and women shallow? For instance, if you were a pen pal with someone for a year, and really connected with them intellectually and spiritually, but when you met them they were not what you expected (or whatever else was wrong with them physically or chemistry-wise) would you still be attracted to them?

My point was that you cannot assume a woman’s intentions purely by the way she’s dressed. — Possibility

For the most part , I respectfully disagree. If a man looks like a pimp, he just might be a pimp. If he looks like a football player, wrestler, musician, doctor...ad nauseum...you get the idea. A person's attire tells a lot about them.

I didn’t write this with a workplace situation in mind at all, — Possibility

Perhaps I meet too many angry women (or man hater's not sure) but even in social environments, asking those kinds of questions, to a woman, unfortunately is not received well. People [women] have a hard time with the truth. I mean, we all want transparency, honestly, and all the rest, but many folks can't handle what they ask for...why is that?

but a fat ugly guy won’t get away with the same slick, shallow moves even if I’m desperate, I’m afraid. Most women are looking for a sexual partner - not sex, per say. — Possibility

I'm just a bit confused there, can you explain that distinction a little better? On the one hand, you seem to be saying looks don't matter, then on the other you seem to care. For example, when you say a fat ugly guy gets different treatment, you are saying that appearances actually do matter, no?

a partner isn’t a requirement for a satisfying sexual encounter. — Possibility

I think a good starting point would be your definition of 'a partner'. Is it not sex and companionship?Now, if all you are talking about is a guy who is considerate, kind, caring, intelligent, mature, that's all common sense stuff. We're adults here.

I know many women who've told me if the sex ain't good, they walk! Similarly, I can't imagine them even considering a sex partner who is unappealing. My point is, how do we escape objectification in a world of objectivity?

What poor, dumb animals we men must be if the sight of female flesh so incapacitates our intelligence that we're compelled to objectify women because they wear certain clothing. — Ciceronianus the White

How do both men and women escape that?

Good point, pretty despicable behavior. Maybe he was a sexually frustrated male...

:up:

There is a difference between overthinking for thinking's sake and critical thinking. We all could use a little bit more of this : " It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism."

you could take the time to ASK her if there’s a particular reason why she wore that outfit today - and then LISTEN to what she has to say. — Possibility

Possibility!

While that's a good approach in principle, it may be too idealistic. Many women (particularly a so-called career woman), would more often than not have complained to HR/management and thus would take exception to a MAN asking her that question. She would get offended and defensive (probably because she's insecure deep down and the man was simply speaking the truth).

My question to women out there, regarding the OP is, I often wondered about this disjuncture. And that relates to aesthetics. There is this old paradigm that used to say 'men are too visual' . Well, I think some women are kidding themselves for the following reasons:

1. Most women want an attractive man that they feel chemistry with physically, in order to have sex.

If that were not true, then the following could exist:

1.a: Some women will sleep/marry a fat ugly guy who has lots of money which in turn suggests they are not interested in sex, but security.
1.b: Some women don't care about the physicality piece, and they like sex for the sake of sex, and as long as the penis gets hard, they are good to go. (And that they want to have kids for selfish reasons.) In other words, they are not concerned with the visual aspect like they say men are; they will sleep with unattractive men for different reasons. And that also might suggest they like sex more than some men. ( And that they are less visual than men.)

Now, I haven't brought up the mind and spirit piece of the mind, body, spirit connection, which in turn is a whole 'nother subject. Let's just say I've met plenty of women who are introverted and who are not intellectual or spiritual themselves. They seemingly don't really care; they want good sex. And as long as the basic existential needs are met, they are fine with that. And so I find myself asking, if they are not that concerned with the intellectual/spiritual connection, then what... ?

Taking that yet another step forward, consider the dynamic between a man and a women as they age. What kind of connection or chemistry will provide for a lasting relationship(?). What does it look like when everything sags and is wrinkly? Meaning, if existentially, men and women just want sex (procreation and sex for fun) and companionship, then why should one be all that concerned with anything else? What is chemistry? Is it aesthetic/visual? What happens when it's gone?

I'm thinking that the visual piece weighs quite heavily in the decision making process nonetheless. How can we escape it? Should women just marry for money, security and/or to mitigate aloneness (then have affairs with attractive men on the side to satisfy their fantasies)? (Actually, some men marry to mitigate aloneness, then have affairs to meet their other needs.)

Finally, then there are those like Schopenhauer who said without sex, men and women would hate each other(?).

Thoughts?

think music theory can be of value in creating music. Can the same be said of the philosophy of mysticism? :chin:

Sure! For instance, knowing 'tension' chords in composition is a good tool to provide for 'tension and release'. It's used all the time (it's called the Dominant Fifth). A savvy musician/composer who understands this can make life easier for themselves :grin:

However, I'm still thinking it's apple and oranges. Kind of like a priori v. a posteriori. Know what I mean vern?

Maybe this paradox could help: which came first, music or theory? (Mysticism or the experience of it.)

What I deny is that philosophy has done anything interesting to address these healthy impulses. Is there a 'metaphysical component?' Again, I'm not sure what that would mean, but if it means anything like, 'would the sort of thing that Aristotle, Descartes, and Kripke have done shed any light on consciousness?' then my answer would have to be 'no.'


Reply — Snakes Alive

From the Mind of God:

"Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying "reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science may not be able to answer them, or any "meaning of life" questions."

There is not much to disagree with in the forgoing quote from theoretical physicist Paul Davies. Nonetheless, we certainly know that we can use the physical sciences (both physics and cognitive) to provide for a deeper understanding of our existence, from an empirical/experience, or theoretical->propositional->testing view. We pose questions that we can test. We know there is much value there.

We also know in philosophy, and maybe to your point, folks like Kant saw the limitation of what human's can reason. He knew the limitations of knowledge here. For instance, he was bold enough to declare that a priori truth's (pure reason/formal logic) in themselves ( the thing in itself/nature of [its] existence) had little meaning. But ( and that's a big but) the paradox of our fixed sense of wonderment -- a priori (due to our intrinsic/innate self-awareness) compels us to ask those aforementioned metaphysical questions.

And so what we have is a physical world, and yet within it metaphysical properties such as our own consciousness. It seems consistent that we can't help but to wonder and ask questions like 'all events must have a cause'. Through metaphysical self-awareness, we wonder about our own conscious existence.

Those things are natural. A normal way of Being. To your point, there may be more scientific value to asking metaphysical questions than there are philosophical for the reasons you alluded to because such questions lead to discoveries in physics and psychology, to name a few. But the paradox remains. We know we won't be able to have philosophical answers to those innate impulses that wonder about such existence, yet in the right context, it provides for clues to same.

For those reasons, we can use both science and philosophy (instead of dichotomizing them) and use those tools where its appropriate to use them. In the end, I agree that metaphysical, as well as existential questions, have their limitations. But those are the tools we have in seeking the truth to our reality. And the journey itself is worth the asking, yes?

So to come full circle, perhaps one could argue that metaphorically speaking you have to walk the path so G*d can cross it. How else do we provide for the human condition? Is there a better way? Does the existential angst of ignorance preclude all knowledge? If so, how shall we proceed?

I submit, rejoice or embrace your (self-awareness) sense of wonderment. Your metaphysical sense of wonderment :snicker: (What is wonderment?)

Great question! Always remember that the philosophy of life isn't like, say, practicing engineering. In engineering it's either-or. The design/formula either works or doesn't work and if it doesn't work, the project fails.

Much of life ( the philosophy of) or the human condition is not either-or it's both; both A&B. Accordingly, most truth consist of subject-object or a combination of subjective truth and objective truth. And so the one salient point there is to resist the temptation to dichotomize... .

And so in your OP you could restate (not that you need to) it to ask is there both objective and subjective truth's operating concurrently, during any intellectual exercise (in cognition)? And to what degree are they operating ( 60-40, 50-50, etc.)... .

But the question of "absolute" truth is another matter altogether...

People criticizing metaphysics tend to forget what motivates metaphysical questions in the first place. — Marchesk

Snakes Alive!

I think I know where you're going with this, or at least what you're trying to argue (and I read a bit of Lazerowitz's argumentation). That being, that because the nature of existence is essentially unknown, then it directly follows that all metaphysical questions are meaningless using the limitations of logic, language and relating concepts ( feel free to correct me there).

However, are you also suggesting there is no value in drawing the applicable distinctions between what is considered physical and meta-physical (or not physical)?

For instance, Marchesk raises the existential/psychological point of our sense of wonderment being the driving force behind such questions. What is that? It appears to be a metaphysical component to conscious existence, correct? Or, what about subconsciousness, how did cognitive science discover the subconscious mind? Why should they care? Why should the physicist care about causation? Is there value to learning about the cosmos and the subconscious mind...I think you see where I'm going with those [rhetorical] metaphysical questions. And so, if there is said value to such human inquiry, what am I missing?

BTW, great topic!!!

Nice, but one must remain aware of the mystique employed by false prophets and religious leaders who seek to control the populous, generate wealth, or recruit followers. — Punshhh

Punshhh!

Indeed! To further the music analogy, it could be likened to a musician selling death metal to a child. That is to say that one must be sophisticated enough to achieve discernment. Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.

So yes, I agree wholeheartedly, things like occultism is dangerous for the unsophisticated, niave or unwieldy... .

And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...

Punshhh!

Thanks. Well, the quote applies in both circumstances, which is one reason why Maslow posited same. It's existential. Meaning, even if one mystic tries to explain the feeling to another mystic, that mystic may not be able to relate to seemingly the exact same experience of mysticism.

As an example, if a musician experiences the feeling of music, that same feeling may not be the same for another musician. One musician may not get the same feeling from performing music itself, that say another musician may get, even though they both performed the same piece of music. So the point is relative to the phenomenon of the subjective experience.

Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism? — Punshhh

That's a great question Punshh. I go back to the music theory analogy. Music lives in the experience of it. You have two different kinds of information; the experience of music and the domain of music theory. The philosophy of mysticism can be likened to music theory. That Philosophy lives is words and symbols. But the truth of the mystical experience would be beyond or transcend the philosophy of words itself, or beyond ordinary language-ineffable.

That is not to say a scientist could not have a mystical experience for instance. Theoretical physicist Davies has reported on some of his contemporaries having such experiences that have revealed novel information in the understanding of the cosmos. To the layperson, it would be like having a revelation through your ordinary stream of consciousness. Also kind of like writing music; thoughts just appear out of nowhere.

To quote William James from the Varieties of Religious experiences (I use that phrase loosely):

"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."

I don't know if I answered the question but in a way, some of this reminds me of the Nike commercial; just do it.