How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

My daemon, Marcus Tullius Cicero, keeps muttering Ignoratio Elenchi. Well, he says he's my daemon, anyhow.

He also says "Believe or disbelieve, and be silent." He speaks English when I can't think of the Latin.

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac

2.4k posts? You must be the Great Pretender. Turn if off again.

How can we escape it then? — 3017amen

Well, if we must speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or "presents" as an object (I'd rather not), one way it could be done is by acknowledging that to be an object is not necessarily to be objectified; that, in other words "objectification" is something different from merely perceiving any part of the world. Instead, it's a way of thinking of certain parts of the world. So, we think about another another person in a way substantially different from the way we think of, e.g., a cheeseburger. Thus, if we must consider a woman to be an object or to be "presented" as an object we nonetheless conceive of her as something different from the object that is a cheeseburger, or whatever.

Presumably, even in a world populated by objects or "presented" objects, we're capable of distinguishing between objects and presented objects and valuing them differently. We don't have to think of women as cheeseburgers even if cheeseburgers and women are both objects or present as objects. Objectification becomes a manner of conceiving of a particular kind of object or presented object.

If we're not required to speak in terms of objects and assume that everything is either an object or presents as an object; if, in other words, we don't think of the rest of the world as objects unrelated to us to which we're spectators, to which we react, but instead consider our lives to be a series of interactions or transactions we as living organisms have to the rest of our environment, then we don't think of everything but ourselves as being "objects"--mere things we see or hear or touch or taste or run into, etc., having in common the fact that they are not us. Instead, there's no inclination to think they're all the same in some sense and treat them accordingly. We think of them and interact with them based on what their qualities are and the situation and circumstances in which we encounter them. That situation and those circumstances are impacted by prior experience of other circumstances and interactions. We know thereby that women aren't cheeseburgers, and that they're not "objects" like any other. If we treat them like cheeseburgers and think of them like cheeseburgers, then, we treat them as something they are not. We may do so in some situations, and it may be well and good in some when, for example they treat us in the same way consensually and the interaction is merely for sexual pleasure, but we know it would be otherwise in other situations.

I tend to think of the creator of the universe as God. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective. — Devans99

I tend to fall in the pantheism/panpsychism camp. But it's always annoyed me when Christian apologists, for example, refer to the famous proofs of God existence, which if anything merely relate to what is generally called "the god of the philosophers." Of the philosophers, yes. Of the Christians, no. That's not to say you fall into that error, as you evidently don't.

the end like some kind of theological Tourette's syndrome. — Kenosha Kid

Very fitting, KK.

Sorry, no. I'm saying that if we accept your definitions, we can't escape it.

he aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right? — 3017amen

Hmm. Why wouldn't we objectify an object if we have a non-aesthetical experience? It's still an experience of an object, no?

So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99

Yes. That's always been the problem with Aquinas' arguments "proving" the existence of God, and the problem with others trying to take advantage of them. As I recall, Aquinas would end his proofs with words to this effect: "And this we call God." Well no, we don't.

Why assume such a thing (if we can even meaningfully speak of anything "outside the universe") would be anything like "God" as believed in by some of us humans?

Well, then, I suppose we should "almost certainly" believe in something uncaused. Whatever that may be.

But I would suggest that you present yourself as a whole person if that’s how you want to be judged. — Pinprick

There's that word "present" again. Present yourself appropriately if you wish to be judged as a "whole person" is the admonishment made. If you don't do so, well then expect to be considered something other than a whole whole person. You're just asking for that.

It's an unworthy way to absolve oneself from responsibility for one's own thoughts and conduct.

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences? — 3017amen

Let's consider the question. Is it a question which assumes there are things called "aesthetic experiences" we can act towards, accept or avoid in some manner? We, and everything else, and even our experiences, are part of the same world. There's no "escape."

Now, if you're asking how we "escape" from (presumably avoid)--objectifying people--

First, we define "objectifying" and "object." Naturally, if we define them as you do, by assuming that everything is an object or "presents" as an object (what a peculiarly sexual way of putting it--an object rendering itself available for us to...?) we come to the completely unsurprising conclusion that--we can't!! Q.E.D.

What more is there to debate?

But if you're scared, I understand. — 3017amen

It's true the thought of debating such old chestnuts fills me with a kind of dread. Next you'll be threatening me with quotes from Descartes. Vade retro, satana!

If you would like me to start one, I will... .) — 3017amen

You need not on my account. As I think I said, I don't accept the subject/object distinction. I don't think we're spectators of the world or that there is some "us" as subjects observing other people or things as objects. The questions I asked relate to some problems I think arise from my confusion regarding your use of the words "objects" and "objectification" (or possibly your misuse of them) and not to some urge to explore other matters.

A fourteen-year old would also find the rough sex scenes in both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead interesting.

Great questions CW. Why don't you start another thread. — 3017amen

I'm just asking you to define the terms you've decided to use, you know. But if you prefer to avoid doing so, I suppose that's as good a way as any.

The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases.
— Ciceronianus the White

That begs the question, why would it be objectional if the object is a material object? — 3017amen

Ah, now there are material objects. Is this a subset of physical objects (the set in which we're included)? If so, what is the distinction between material objects and other physical objects in general; in particular, the distinction between material objects and the physical objects you say we are? Is that distinction related to your claim that we're "more than purely/exclusively objective-objects"? Or are we material objects as well?

It's a no-brainer, that exclusive objectification of women in a moral way is unacceptable nor something to be valued in an ethical way. — 3017amen

I see. It isn't moral to objectify some physical objects, then, although we must perforce objectify them, since they're physical objects. The objectification of objects is objectionable in certain cases.

The new portrait/image you mean? Just giving Marcus Tullius Cicero his due.

It's a no-brainer to suggest human beings are more than purely/exclusively objective-objects. — 3017amen

Why, I wonder, is it a "no-brainer" to say we're more than "purely/exclusively objective-objects" (whatever that may mean) if we're physical objects as you claim? Are we something in addition to physical objects? Are we non-physical physical objects? Are we physical objects with non-physical souls?

Congratulations, by the way, for successfully hijacking this thread.

A very wise man once said, and keeps saying:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

This is the definition of "objectification" with which this thread began:

In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person, or sometimes an animal, as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others.
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool

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.

It's unclear to me that the colors, cars, houses, etc. you refer to are being or can be dehumanized. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that only humans can be dehumanized, and that only the humanity of humans may be disallowed.

I suspect, then, that you're referring--for reasons unknown to me--to something other than the dehumanization of women, or their treatment as an object or thing. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to; perhaps you think that everything we experience are, necessarily, objects to us in some sense or we perceive them as such. I'm with Dewey in most things, and so tend to think of experience as an interaction with our environment, often non-cognitive, so wouldn't necessarily agree with such a view. But whatever you may be referring to, I don't think it pertains to this thread.

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. — 3017amen

Well, as you wish. For me, the ethical implications of objectification are the only implications of significance. The subject/object thing does nothing for me. I'm not a fan of dualisms. So, carry on.

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? — 3017amen

Why believe that finding someone sexually attractive and acting on that attraction constitutes objectification? As far as I'm aware, nobody has claimed that it's immoral or improper to desire someone or have consensual sex with them.

Not at all defending Schopenhauer's behavior, but this story always makes me chuckle just because of how ridiculous and petty it is. — darthbarracuda

It seems he wasn't a likeable man in general, prone to insult, pretentious and arrogant. But perhaps he associated the woman too much with his mother, with whom he had an antagonistic relationship. As might be expected, he claimed the woman he pushed deliberately fell in an effort to set him up for legal action. A court disagreed.

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? — 3017amen

I'm not sure, but I don't think it follows from the fact that we want to see what someone looks like that we objectify them. As far as I know, there's nothing wrong with wanting to know how someone else looks. Something more would be needed to treat someone as a mere object.

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? — 3017amen

I'm not sure you're addressing objectification. I don't think anyone is obligated to find someone attractive. Say you aren't and decide no sexual relationship is possible. You can still treat someone with respect, and value them as having intellectual and spiritual aspects your find sympathetic. The fact you find someone attractive or unattractive has nothing to do with objectification, in my mind. How you treat someone does.

How do both men and women escape that? — 3017amen

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.

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.

Schopenhauer who said without sex, men and women would hate each other(?). — 3017amen

I wonder if he said this before or after he pushed a woman down a stairway because he thought she was too loud. Later, he gloated when she died thereby ending his obligation to pay damages for her injuries.
Charming fellow, Schopenhauer.

What little I've read about honor ethics and honor generally seems to me to be a form of virtue ethics, but one devoted, specifically, to what were and I'd guess are still called by some the "manly virtues."

Those would include, I'd guess: Courage, Honesty, Self-Reliance, Integrity, Fairness. I suppose chivalry would be involved; Courtesy to the weak. Knightliness, manliness.

That's quite useful, thank you.

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. — Pfhorrest

This wasn't the oath when I was a cub scout. It's been changed. The word "honor" didn't appear. In 2015, it seems, they even dispensed with "obey the law of the Pack" which in my mind was the most charming part of the oath, whatever it may mean.

I forgot about the Mafia. Honor and respect, yes.

I thought Baden Powell was one of those "muscular christian" types. A Tom Brown's Schooldays sort that George MacDonald Fraser had such fun with in his Flashman books.

Our current president is so uniquely offensive that, judging from some of the recent headlines indicating that certain generals find him appalling, can it be possible we may join the group of nations which have experienced a military coup d'etat?

It would be droll, since as far as I know here in our Glorious Union it's typically been speculated in fictional accounts that the military would attempt a coup only if some liberal president became too soft on commies or implemented fouridation or some such thing. Imagine it taking place in an effort to save the Republic.

Just joking, of course. God bless America!

I vaguely recall doing similar things. My family has never been particularly handy, so I remember being particularly embarrassed by my efforts at craftsmanship. I know there were badges given for achievements. Merit badges. Bear badges, badges for other animals. I was a horrible scout. My wife, on the other hand, was a fanatical girl scout and is now a fanatical girl scout leader.

"Properly channeled, honor encourages virtues like courage, integrity, and solidarity, and gives a sense of living for something larger than oneself." — tim wood

Sounds somewhat like a kind of virtue ethics, then.

As I recall, the cub scout oath contains language by which the scout promises "to be square and obey the law of the Pack." Perhaps that's what it is to be honorable. I can't remember what being square is, though, nor do I recall the law of the Pack. I suppose I'll have to read about it then, alas. Honor ethics, I mean.