Subject / Object Distinction

[Age]

But you ARE CLAIMING that you SAID some 'thing' ELSE, right?

In context: No.

IS TELLING "another" what TO DO part of 'your' 'recognizing and respecting "another's" life, liberty, and property'?

Can you be more specific?

YES.

[henry quirk]

But you ARE CLAIMING that you SAID some 'thing' ELSE, right?

In context: No.

IS TELLING "another" what TO DO part of 'your' 'recognizing and respecting "another's" life, liberty, and property'?

Can you be more specific?

YES.

*sigh*

[henry quirk]

Wizard,

My fractured idiot friend and I will take our jackassery elsewhere. As for Smeagol: I'm afraid you're stuck with it.

[Lacewing]

You can't expect somebody who doesn't hold moral beliefs, to be immoral about their intentions. That's the difference: between immoral and ignorant. Therefore, with regard to Morality, there needs to be stated or inferred beliefs...

This comes to mind for me... cultures where men treat women as property... they don't think they're being immoral in doing that (although they might have moral beliefs about other things)... so, are they ignorant? Whose idea of morality applies?

I think they're ignorant, just as I think much of humankind is ignorant about all sorts of things... and here's why. I think the way to assess with clarity is to 'switch positions' (which is like the 'Golden Rule'): would these cultures of men think it was good and right if it was THEY who were the property of the culture of women? Would these men think it reasonable to completely cover up their own bodies, peeking out through little eye slits, and be denied access/rights to all sorts of things? If that would not be reasonable for those men, it's not reasonable for the women.

Likewise... Would people who rape others think it was okay that they be raped, terrorized, and humiliated against their will? Would anyone who abuses a child think it would be okay if they were to be abused as a sweet little child, themselves? Would political leaders think their constant lying/deception is okay if they were on the receiving end of it? Seeing the world as objects, except for oneself (or one's group/religion/culture), is a very unevolved and deficient mentality.

The concept of morality -- instead of being tied to belief systems and agreements which aren't shared by all -- would be better based (I think) on innate awareness of what's reasonable to be done to oneself (if one is reasonably mentally sound). If one's own behavior and beliefs can't pass that simple test, such a person is too deficient for the success of the planet as a whole, and they should self-quarantine until they evolve.

[Wizard22]

Are Unicorns real?
Aliens?
God?
Comic book heroes and villains? Fiction?

They are all ideas! Are ideas real? There's an easy way to test that...

Do they have a causal effect on any part of reality? Yep - they do. They affect the way humans think and behave.

So they are real.

Ideas are not real until they 'Cause' actions and effects. How are ideas Causal?

There are many Unreal things and beliefs, which are considered Supernatural, Paranormal, Incredulous...

Yeah, there's also mathematics, loigic, morals, democracy. All of those things come from the exact same place as unicorns, god and comic book heroes.

Human imagination.

But if Mathematics isn't real what about physics ?!? Have you ever seen how fundamental particles are described in physics? In terms of numbers! And the house of cards comes crashing down...

So fundamental particles are less real then, correct?

You have a lot to learn...Objectivity is hardly commonplace.

The belief in the existence of objectivity is the default.

I disagree.

Most humans are religious, and understand 'Objectivity' as symbolic of Godly Divination.

If that's your belief, then it is not a normal or common one, to most people.

Most humans only pose Objectivity as remotely possible through "Trust the Science, Trust the Experts", by which they-themselves cannot rationalize nor justify their beliefs, or through God.

They themselves? You seem to be excluding yourself as special for some reason.

Can you justify your beliefs? I bet you can't. In fact - I am willing to bet that under deep and rigorous enough scrutiny your religion too shall be exposed.

Try me.

That is how the vast majority of humanity "have access" to Objectivity. And it's not my beliefs, it's theirs, explicitly expressed and admitted.

So lets turn the spotlight on you. Do beliefs exist?

Of course, beliefs represent peoples' motivations.

The Philosophical route is through Reasoning, hypothetically. I can demonstrate this, by how people define Subject and Object, and reason about these distinctions. It has to do with—as you said, the manner by which you or others Identify yourself.

You don't seem to understand that identification is a process.

That I am able to identify myself in a photo doesn't mean that I have an identity.

It simply means that I can evaluate similarities and differences and arrive at a most plausible guess.

I disagree, that you identify yourself in a photo, does mean you have an identity.

It just might mean that you are not self-conscious of your self-identity...

[Wizard22]

This seems VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

By the way, there are A LOT of 'things' that I would like 'you' TO DO. BUT, because 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' WANT, I do NOT EVEN BOTHER TELLING 'you' TO DO 'them', like 'you' DO.

I AM WRITING FOR a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE here, so I CHOOSE HOW, and WHAT, TO WRITE.

Do 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this' "wizard22"?

It's not hypocritical at all.

Every single person, ever, imposes their will over others, whether they are aware of it or not. So don't pretend to me that you are special and 'innocent' while nobody else is. That's the autism I'm talking about. You are not immune from your own criticisms. You should become self-aware of your own compulsions.

ONCE 'One' EVOLVES 'It', REALLY, does NOT WANT TO step BACK, AGAIN.

What you just SAID, and DEMANDED, here would be like an 'ape' TELLING 'you', a human being, to PRETEND being 'ape', for a change.

I hate to shatter your dreams, Age, but you're not that special... ego check.

[Wizard22]

Wizard,

My fractured idiot friend and I will take our jackassery elsewhere. As for Smeagol: I'm afraid you're stuck with it.

You know where to find me

[Wizard22]

This comes to mind for me... cultures where men treat women as property... they don't think they're being immoral in doing that (although they might have moral beliefs about other things)... so, are they ignorant? Whose idea of morality applies?

You're talking about Civilizational differences; yes there are great separations of moral ignorance. It can be both.

I think they're ignorant, just as I think much of humankind is ignorant about all sorts of things... and here's why. I think the way to assess with clarity is to 'switch positions' (which is like the 'Golden Rule'): would these cultures of men think it was good and right if it was THEY who were the property of the culture of women? Would these men think it reasonable to completely cover up their own bodies, peeking out through little eye slits, and be denied access/rights to all sorts of things? If that would not be reasonable for those men, it's not reasonable for the women.

I disagree with you on the premise that males are 'equally' sexually desirable as females. I don't think that's remotely the same. Males are not drooled over, lasciviously, like females are, even on the extremes. You do realize that females have a completely different sexual status and identity as males, correct?

Likewise... Would people who rape others think it was okay that they be raped, terrorized, and humiliated against their will? Would anyone who abuses a child think it would be okay if they were to be abused as a sweet little child, themselves? Would political leaders think their constant lying/deception is okay if they were on the receiving end of it? Seeing the world as objects, except for oneself (or one's group/religion/culture), is a very unevolved and deficient mentality.

The concept of morality -- instead of being tied to belief systems and agreements which aren't shared by all -- would be better based (I think) on innate awareness of what's reasonable to be done to oneself (if one is reasonably mentally sound). If one's own behavior and beliefs can't pass that simple test, such a person is too deficient for the success of the planet as a whole, and they should self-quarantine until they evolve.

You're referring to a very 'high' moral abstraction...the ability of individuals and groups to impose their will upon others. Is it ideal that people treat each-other "as I would like to be treated"...probably yes. At least there should be empathy and awareness, of other people's Autonomy. But that is exactly the political disputation and nature of Politics in general. Every person and group must be strong-enough to defend and protect their Autonomy. So what you imply, is that the stronger political force, ought to protect the weaker or lesser political force. This descends into the matter of Justice in general: does Might make Right?

Maybe your ideas and arguments are better fit for a different thread—how do you reconnect these matters back to the Subject-Object distinction?

[Skepdick]

Ideas are not real until they 'Cause' actions and effects. How are ideas Causal?

I was thinking about unicorns and it caused me to think about rainbows.

Can you follow the causal chain or is this too higher grade for you?

So fundamental particles are less real then, correct?

Why are you asking me? You are the one using the silly word.

Are electrons less real than... whatever it is you think is more real?

I disagree.

So disagree. Who cares?

Most humans are religious, and understand 'Objectivity' as symbolic of Godly Divination.

Most humans understand that fundamental particles are objectively real; and that the Earth objectively exists.

There is Truth! Don't you know? One big giant, unified, all-encompassing objective truth.

Try me.

Sure, is gravity real?

Of course, beliefs represent peoples' motivations.

I believe this sentence ends with a fullstop and I have no idea what motivation that represents.

I disagree, that you identify yourself in a photo, does mean you have an identity.

And I disagree with your disagreement.

Can you identify your absence in a photo? What are you identifying then? Because it's not your identity.

It just might mean that you are not self-conscious of your self-identity...

How self-conscious are you of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th chakras surrounding the unicorns in your aura?

If you haven't become self-conscious of them yet then maybe you should self-cosncious harder.

[Age]

This seems VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

By the way, there are A LOT of 'things' that I would like 'you' TO DO. BUT, because 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' WANT, I do NOT EVEN BOTHER TELLING 'you' TO DO 'them', like 'you' DO.

I AM WRITING FOR a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE here, so I CHOOSE HOW, and WHAT, TO WRITE.

Do 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this' "wizard22"?

It's not hypocritical at all.

If 'I' ASKED 'you' to INFORM 'us' of what the 'It' word here REFERS TO, EXACTLY, then 'you' would NOT be able to INFORM ’us', Correctly, right "wizard22"?

Every single person, ever, imposes their will over others, whether they are aware of it or not.

Here we have ANOTHER GREAT example of when one 'TRIES TO' 'justify' their OBVIOUSLY Wrong behaving.

NOT EVERY one does what 'you' ARE DOING here 'wizard22".

So don't pretend to me that you are special and 'innocent' while nobody else is.

But 'I', and "others", CERTAINLY DO NOT DO what 'you' ARE DOING here "wizard22".

Which, by the way, does NOT mean that 'we' are MORE 'special' than 'you' NOR 'innocent' than 'you' ARE "wizard22". 'We' are JUST, DIFFERENT.

That's the autism I'm talking about.

Okay, and that IS what I AM talking ABOUT, POINTING OUT, and SHOWING.

You are not immune from your own criticisms. You should become self-aware of your own compulsions.

YET 'you' here are NOT REPLYING TO what I ACTUALLY WROTE and MEANT here.

In fact 'you' appear to NOT YET even be AWARE OF what 'you' ARE ACTUALLY DEFLECTING AWAY FROM.

ONCE 'One' EVOLVES 'It', REALLY, does NOT WANT TO step BACK, AGAIN.

What you just SAID, and DEMANDED, here would be like an 'ape' TELLING 'you', a human being, to PRETEND being 'ape', for a change.

I hate to shatter your dreams, Age, but you're not that special... ego check.

What is 'that special' IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

Also, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE "age" IS, EXACTLY?

[Lacewing]

This comes to mind for me... cultures where men treat women as property.../ ...I think the way to assess with clarity is to 'switch positions' (which is like the 'Golden Rule'): would these cultures of men think it was good and right if it was THEY who were the property of the culture of women? Would these men think it reasonable to completely cover up their own bodies, peeking out through little eye slits, and be denied access/rights to all sorts of things? If that would not be reasonable for those men, it's not reasonable for the women.

I disagree with you on the premise that males are 'equally' sexually desirable as females. I don't think that's remotely the same. Males are not drooled over, lasciviously, like females are, even on the extremes. You do realize that females have a completely different sexual status and identity as males, correct?

Which of my statements are you disagreeing with? Or are you dismissing my example as unreasonable? My point is that it's easy to see how wrong it is to treat women in such a way, simply by seeing if the men would want to be owned/controlled in such a way. The heightened risk of 'drooling' has nothing to do with that judgment call.

The concept of morality -- instead of being tied to belief systems and agreements which aren't shared by all -- would be better based (I think) on innate awareness of what's reasonable to be done to oneself (if one is reasonably mentally sound).

You're referring to a very 'high' moral abstraction...the ability of individuals and groups to impose their will upon others.

How is that what I'm doing? I'm describing how the concept of morality can be based on how the self (of sound mind) would want to be treated -- and that is probably how most people naturally think of it. That is not what demented individuals, intoxicated cultural groups, or organizations vying for control abide by: they are treating people as objects.

Each Is it ideal that people treat each-other "as I would like to be treated"...probably yes. At least there should be empathy and awareness, of other people's Autonomy. But that is exactly the political disputation and nature of Politics in general. Every person and group must be strong-enough to defend and protect their Autonomy. So what you imply, is that the stronger political force, ought to protect the weaker or lesser political force. This descends into the matter of Justice in general: does Might make Right?

Wow... somehow you're able to go from 'treating each other as I would like to be treated' to 'Might makes Right'? I don't know how to respond to your trip. But please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying with your whacked-out conclusions.

Maybe your ideas and arguments are better fit for a different thread—how do you reconnect these matters back to the Subject-Object distinction?

Maybe YOUR SIDE TRIP would be better in another thread. I was responding to discussion here that has arisen (by you too) about treating people as objects.

[Wizard22]

I was thinking about unicorns and it caused me to think about rainbows.

Can you follow the causal chain or is this too higher grade for you?

No, there are other causes which motivate you between thinking about unicorns to thinking about rainbows.

Either you don't want to expose your motivation, or, you're not self-aware of your own reasoning.

Why are you asking me? You are the one using the silly word.

Are electrons less real than... whatever it is you think is more real?

Because reality is an important factor in the S-O distinction. Are subjects more or less real than objects?

So disagree. Who cares?

Most humans are religious, and understand 'Objectivity' as symbolic of Godly Divination.

Most humans understand that fundamental particles are objectively real; and that the Earth objectively exists.

There is Truth! Don't you know? One big giant, unified, all-encompassing objective truth.

No, most people do not understand that. You overestimate the average man, woman, and child. Just because children and teenagers are taught a hypothetical 'fact', doesn't mean the fact is true, and doesn't mean the children understand it, let alone most adult humans on this planet. This is why they "trust the Experts" and "trust the Science", because it is beyond their ability (IQ) to understand or concern themselves with, if they could understand it. So you have a tendency to imply that most other people, think in a way similar to yourself.

Sure, is gravity real?

Kind of.

Of course, beliefs represent peoples' motivations.

I believe this sentence ends with a fullstop and I have no idea what motivation that represents.

I disagree, that you identify yourself in a photo, does mean you have an identity.

And I disagree with your disagreement.

Can you identify your absence in a photo? What are you identifying then? Because it's not your identity.

It just might mean that you are not self-conscious of your self-identity...

How self-conscious are you of the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th chakras surrounding the unicorns in your aura?

If you haven't become self-conscious of them yet then maybe you should self-cosncious harder.

You're distracting from your error. What do you identify in a photo of you, except your identity?

[Wizard22]

Also, what do 'you' think or BELIEVE "age" IS, EXACTLY?

I believe you are an AI ChatGPT program.

[Wizard22]

Which of my statements are you disagreeing with? Or are you dismissing my example as unreasonable? My point is that it's easy to see how wrong it is to treat women in such a way, simply by seeing if the men would want to be owned/controlled in such a way. The heightened risk of 'drooling' has nothing to do with that judgment call.

Men are the Protectors.
Women are the Protected.
So men and women should not be treated equally.
Females are the privileged gender.

How is that what I'm doing? I'm describing how the concept of morality can be based on how the self (of sound mind) would want to be treated -- and that is probably how most people naturally think of it. That is not what demented individuals, intoxicated cultural groups, or organizations vying for control abide by: they are treating people as objects.

If a woman thinks 'objectively' then she must think beyond her gender. Can you do that?

Wow... somehow you're able to go from 'treating each other as I would like to be treated' to 'Might makes Right'? I don't know how to respond to your trip. But please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying with your whacked-out conclusions.

Maybe your ideas and arguments are better fit for a different thread—how do you reconnect these matters back to the Subject-Object distinction?

Maybe YOUR SIDE TRIP would be better in another thread. I was responding to discussion here that has arisen (by you too) about treating people as objects.

Did you notice how your concerns are not about women objectifying men?

[Skepdick]

No, there are other causes which motivate you between thinking about unicorns to thinking about rainbows.

Either you don't want to expose your motivation, or, you're not self-aware of your own reasoning.

Are you self-aware enough to realize that your reasoning leads to infinite regress?

From hereon forth any time you say that A causes B I'l just draw attention to the missing piece in the causal chain.

What was between your motivation and you writing this reply on the your computer? Mr self-awareness.

Because reality is an important factor in the S-O distinction. Are subjects more or less real than objects?

See how you are confusing yourself with your own words? Mr self-awareness.

You said you are a subject AND you are an object.
So you are more real AND less real.

Wut?

No, most people do not understand that. You overestimate the average man, woman, and child.

I don't over-estimate them. I am exactly estimating them to think exactly like you.

Just because children and teenagers are taught a hypothetical 'fact', doesn't mean the fact is true, and doesn't mean the children understand it, let alone most adult humans on this planet.

Q.E.D They are taught to think as realists.

This is why they "trust the Experts" and "trust the Science", because it is beyond their ability (IQ) to understand or concern themselves with, if they could understand it. So you have a tendency to imply that most other people, think in a way similar to yourself.

Which way is the way I am thinking? Of course you should trust the decision-making of people with the best judgment on the matter!

If that's you - then trust yourself, but from what I've seen so far - given your judgment - you shouldn't trust yourself very much.

You seem to make bad decisions.

Kind of.

That's very non-committal for somebody pursuing objectivity.

You're distracting from your error. What do you identify in a photo of you, except your identity?

For somebody with such claims to self-awareness you seem completely oblivious of your error.

The error that you've made is believing that I've made an error.

If what is being identified in a photo is your identity then Google has your identity down to facial recognition algorithm.
You are nothing but a piece of computer data.

Just like every other commoner travelling the intellectual journey you still seem to be struggling with the question of "Who and what am I?".
You don't seem comfortable with the idea that this question has no true answer.