Subject / Object Distinction

[Wizard22]

Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective outside a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".



Development of Self-Consciousness:

Human infants develop self-awareness at distinct young ages, directly coinciding with their Intelligibility—their ability to become intelligent and to which degree. Generally, the younger an infant can identify him/herself in a mirror, as a distinct object separate from itself, the higher is his or her capability to become greatly intelligent in every subsequent phase of life. Infants which do not become self-aware early, or never become so, thusly cannot be said to have a distinct self-awareness, and so no distinct self-consciousness. Very similar to other mammals in Nature, self-consciousness is not really a requirement of general survival in the wild. Thus self-consciousness is a sign of a very high, but albeit artificial intelligence—insuchthat intelligence beyond a certain level has one beyond "mere-survival" levels. Great intelligence (Self-Consciousness) can become more of a hindrance to an individual, than a help.

Regardless of the utility of great intelligence and self-consciousness in general, the core principle to distinguish the difference, is obvious in the subject-object Division of the brain's intelligence and cognitive functions. You can observe this phenomena routinely on this forum, on other forums, and across daily human life and social interactions. Some people have great self-awareness and self-consciousness, symbolizing heightened intelligence, while a majority of humans do not. Thus there is a separation of base and general intelligence. Self-consciousness implies a very high level of sophistication and complication, when referring to oneself as Subject-or-Object, as-if a single person can take and accept "multiple perspectives" at once. Such ability would lead to distinct pathologies: empathy notably, but also distinct in the full gamut of emotional states—apathy, antipathy, sympathy, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc.

Those without great self-consciousness, thus self-awareness, will severely favor and incline toward Subjectivism and Solipsism as "the only" philosophical solution and frame of perspective in general. Objectification will not make sense, because to the Subjectivist, there is not necessarily an "outside" to his/her own mind.

[Lacewing]

Yes, it is possible to see and understand from differing perspectives at the same time. Such as... 1) Seeing multiple paths/potentials from any point; 2) Seeing one's own perspective at the same time as other's perspectives; 3) Revolving naturally (in whatever way is suitable) between being 'on the stage in the play' of this life/world, as well as being a watcher of the play on the stage, as well as watching oneself in the play on the stage.

It appears to me...

One's inability to see differing perspectives restrains that one to a particular 'reality', while the ability to see differing perspectives expands one's 'experience'. There can be seeing without agreement or participation. There is no set reality that all need to share, nor singular perspective to be achieved. But having awareness of differing perspectives expands the experience, enables more connection, and is more efficient, productive, and fun for human life.

Awareness and intelligence may overlap in some ways, but I don't think they are the same thing.

[Skepdick]

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

So are you; or are you not an object?

[Impenitent]

self awareness is distinct from being able to communicate that awareness of self...

intelligence is judged through ability to communicate...

not all humans use language

-Imp

[Wizard22]

Yes, it is possible to see and understand from differing perspectives at the same time. Such as... 1) Seeing multiple paths/potentials from any point; 2) Seeing one's own perspective at the same time as other's perspectives; 3) Revolving naturally (in whatever way is suitable) between being 'on the stage in the play' of this life/world, as well as being a watcher of the play on the stage, as well as watching oneself in the play on the stage.

It appears to me...

One's inability to see differing perspectives restrains that one to a particular 'reality', while the ability to see differing perspectives expands one's 'experience'. There can be seeing without agreement or participation. There is no set reality that all need to share, nor singular perspective to be achieved. But having awareness of differing perspectives expands the experience, enables more connection, and is more efficient, productive, and fun for human life.

Awareness and intelligence may overlap in some ways, but I don't think they are the same thing.

They're not the same, but awareness and intelligence overlap heavily, especially during infancy, toddler, and childhood phases—because infants do not have significant memories (lived experiences) to base their budding intellect upon.

[Wizard22]

So are you; or are you not an object?

I'm both: a subject and an object.

[Wizard22]

self awareness is distinct from being able to communicate that awareness of self...

intelligence is judged through ability to communicate...

not all humans use language

-Imp

I disagree, the ability to separate self distinctly apart from awareness, precedes the use of language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rWB1jOt9s

[Wizard22]

Perhaps ironically it was the Feminist movement and attack against men as 'objectifying women' that demonstrated to me the proof of the Subject-Object (S-O) Distinction...because what does it mean to treat women as Objects?

It's self-explanatory. Women intuitively know that their life's value is embodied as Subjects. To treat a subject, as-if it were an object, is "dehumanizing". Therefore, objectification of subjectivity, is essentially...anti-human.

In other words, Morality is directly implied and tied into, the notion of S-O distinction.

[Wizard22]

Compare the OP to this other active thread written by Peter Holmes:
viewtopic.php?t=24531
Over 4400 replies, 5 years active, 287000 views

The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

...
{snip}
...

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773

I can use his thread as a ready example of the S-O distinction.

If it is in fact 'immoral' to objectify people (aka. subjects), then doesn't this answer the question? Objectification (of Subjects) is immoral! That's what most people imply, presume, and believe...so is the matter as simple as this? And what about the 'moral' nature of Subjects? Is it necessarily true, that to simply "be human", is to have a moral standing, quality, and quantity? Aren't all humans born with...at least some value (to their own mother)? Or to have value to anybody at all?? Because if somebody values human life, generally let alone universally, then it answers to the question as to the moral value of Subjectivity (and Humanity).

[Wizard22]

It could be as simple as this:

People value humanity, and base their morality upon this value...because they intrinsically value their own subjectivity already, by default.

[Skepdick]

So are you; or are you not an object?

I'm both: a subject and an object.

You just said that subject is what you ARE; and object is what you are NOT.

So now you saying that you ARE an object

I am dragging you into the Greiling-Nelson paradox

https://youtu.be/U2l-Ty5yyU4

[iambiguous]

Subject:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective inside a human life, within "the mind" or consciousness.

The Subject is what 'you' are, your self-identity.

Subjectivity requires a (your own) "living perspective".



Object:

Originating/Beginning from the point-of-view or perspective outside a human life, without "the mind" or consciousness.

The Object is what 'you' are not, otherness.

Objectivity does not require a (your own) "living perspective".



Development of Self-Consciousness:

Human infants develop self-awareness at distinct young ages, directly coinciding with their Intelligibility—their ability to become intelligent and to which degree. Generally, the younger an infant can identify him/herself in a mirror, as a distinct object separate from itself, the higher is his or her capability to become greatly intelligent in every subsequent phase of life. Infants which do not become self-aware early, or never become so, thusly cannot be said to have a distinct self-awareness, and so no distinct self-consciousness. Very similar to other mammals in Nature, self-consciousness is not really a requirement of general survival in the wild. Thus self-consciousness is a sign of a very high, but albeit artificial intelligence—insuchthat intelligence beyond a certain level has one beyond "mere-survival" levels. Great intelligence (Self-Consciousness) can become more of a hindrance to an individual, than a help.

Regardless of the utility of great intelligence and self-consciousness in general, the core principle to distinguish the difference, is obvious in the subject-object Division of the brain's intelligence and cognitive functions. You can observe this phenomena routinely on this forum, on other forums, and across daily human life and social interactions. Some people have great self-awareness and self-consciousness, symbolizing heightened intelligence, while a majority of humans do not. Thus there is a separation of base and general intelligence. Self-consciousness implies a very high level of sophistication and complication, when referring to oneself as Subject-or-Object, as-if a single person can take and accept "multiple perspectives" at once. Such ability would lead to distinct pathologies: empathy notably, but also distinct in the full gamut of emotional states—apathy, antipathy, sympathy, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc.

Those without great self-consciousness, thus self-awareness, will severely favor and incline toward Subjectivism and Solipsism as "the only" philosophical solution and frame of perspective in general. Objectification will not make sense, because to the Subjectivist, there is not necessarily an "outside" to his/her own mind.

Just out of curiosity, morally and politically, is there a liberal/left-wing rendition of this and a conservative/right-wing version?

Or, in regard to conflicting value judgments, is it possible for philosophers/ethicists to actually demonstrate the existence of a deontological moral narrative and a deontological political agenda? Or, if not the optimal assessment, are they able to pin down if those on the left or the right come closest to, say, "the best of all possible worlds" morally and politically?

For example, Jim believes the government should embrace a policy that makes it illegal for citizens to buy and sell handguns. Jane believes the government should embrace a policy that allows citizens to buy and sell handguns with a minimum of government interference.

In regard to the Subject/Object distinction made in the OP how, pertaining to Jim and Jane, might it be applicable to them in regard to gun control legislation?

[Impenitent]

self awareness is distinct from being able to communicate that awareness of self...

intelligence is judged through ability to communicate...

not all humans use language

-Imp

I disagree, the ability to separate self distinctly apart from awareness, precedes the use of language:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rWB1jOt9s

the adults used language to communicate their desired actions to the children who understood the commands (regardless of the children's ability to verbally respond)

let me rephrase: self awareness (in humans) is distinct from being able to { verbally (or through linguistic representation) } communicate that awareness of self.

we don't disagree, the self awareness of the children was demonstrated non verbally by their responses, is still distinct from their ability to verbally communicate said awareness...

my original assertion applies across species...

my dog is self aware...

self awareness is distinct from being able to communicate that awareness of self...

communication is not necessarily verbal

-Imp

[Lacewing]

If it is in fact 'immoral' to objectify people (aka. subjects), then doesn't this answer the question?

I don't think it's immoral to objectify people... but rather just stupid/foolish and rude.

Most people aren't aware that they're objectifying others.

The immoral part seems to be what might come after that, such as 'abuse'.

[Wizard22]

You just said that subject is what you ARE; and object is what you are NOT.

So now you saying that you ARE an object

I am dragging you into the Greiling-Nelson paradox

https://youtu.be/U2l-Ty5yyU4

What part of 'you' is constant throughout your lifetime? Are 'you' not changing? Do you grow older? Taller in puberty? Wiser and experienced with age?

The subject you were a year ago, is not the same as you are today. Objectification of yourself, what you imply, is that there is some immutable material or substance that remains consistent across your lifetime, that the material of 'you' did not, does not, or cannot change. This objectification takes place in any item, like a rock, a drop of water, a tree branch. If you change the material of a rock, to that of a tree branch, then it is no longer a rock but is instead a tree branch. This is its identity, after objectification. All things are objectified, before they are identified.

The problem is...that it is your Subject that objectifies, by your perspective.

Subject-Object distinction is a displacement of things across space and time, representing any person's particular perspective.