Subject / Object Distinction

[Wizard22]

Ok, so don't do it?

Alright then

Your "very little" is still a lot more than my nothing.

I have memories, experiences, desires, aspirations, thoughts, ideas. I have a lot of things. Things that change, interact and complement each other.

What I don't seem to have is an identity.

You can't identify yourself?

I think of my "self" as an ongoing project. You "make a name for yourself" across a lifetime.

But if you know this then the memory of having those beliefs remains...

Beliefs are a large part of peoples' identities, along with the conviction to act upon those beliefs & values. Because I've pursued Philosophy for so long, it tends to destroy superficial, temporary, and relative beliefs.

Why does permanence even matter? Suppose nothing is permanent. Change is the only constant. And then?

There have to be 'constants' by which people base their memories and self-awareness.

Space and time aren't "outside" anywhere though. They are mental constructs.

They are mental constructs...of existence. Existence is within and without you. It's not a contradiction or a paradox. It just is.

[Iwannaplato]

You can treat an object well, or badly, but whether you cherish or repulse an object, it's still dehumanizing to treat people as objects.

As you said earlier you are both a subject and an object. I said.

I think the problem comes in when treating them like an object dominates.

Let me expand on that. Hair stylists, surgeons, defensive line football players, someone aesthetically appreciating another person, pedestrians on a crowded street, treat other people in Newtonian ways, art students drawing a model, tailors, are some professional possibilities with the very common aesthetic reaction tossed in. The problem comes in if that's the only way they do it or if they do it in a way that damages them as subjects - 'damages' being context dependent and complicated, for example with surgeons and linebackers.

But part of how we react to other people is as objects. I don't see a problem with objectifying. Sometimes I have a strong aesthetic reaction to someone. If I now treat them poorly based on that or as only an object, nw we have a problem.

But if other humans are objects also. Then to some degree in some situations I am going to react to them as objects, and even treat them in part or in the main as objects, for example in those professions, for some part of the interaction.

[Skepdick]

You can't identify yourself?

I can. I am me and I know who I am. Who am I? I am myself.

I think of my "self" as an ongoing project. You "make a name for yourself" across a lifetime.

Sounds like you are talking about a reputation. I have a reputation, but my reputation doesn't define me. Nothing defines me.

Beliefs are a large part of peoples' identities, along with the conviction to act upon those beliefs & values.

You are simply assuming that people have identities. What if you are mistaken and they only had beliefs but no identities. What would be different about them?

Because I've pursued Philosophy for so long, it tends to destroy superficial, temporary, and relative beliefs.

Well, it hasn't yet destroyed the belief that you have beliefs yet so... There's that.

There have to be 'constants' by which people base their memories and self-awareness.

Why? If you can recall a memory - you remember. If you can't recall a memory - you don't remember.

How would you know that you are suffering from amnesia? Would you have to remember that you have amnesia? What if you forget that you have amnesia?

Memory is memory. Its contents change.

They are mental constructs...of existence. Existence is within and without you. It's not a contradiction or a paradox. It just is.

It's just metaphysics. Spacetime is a mathematical construct. A concept. Like existence. It's in your head... In your memory if you will.

It's just a tool we use to rationalize the world, but it's a lens like any other - it can skew your perception of reality.

[Wizard22]

As you said earlier you are both a subject and an object. I said.

I think the problem comes in when treating them like an object dominates.

Let me expand on that. Hair stylists, surgeons, defensive line football players, someone aesthetically appreciating another person, pedestrians on a crowded street, treat other people in Newtonian ways, art students drawing a model, tailors, are some professional possibilities with the very common aesthetic reaction tossed in. The problem comes in if that's the only way they do it or if they do it in a way that damages them as subjects - 'damages' being context dependent and complicated, for example with surgeons and linebackers.

But part of how we react to other people is as objects. I don't see a problem with objectifying. Sometimes I have a strong aesthetic reaction to someone. If I now treat them poorly based on that or as only an object, nw we have a problem.

But if other humans are objects also. Then to some degree in some situations I am going to react to them as objects, and even treat them in part or in the main as objects, for example in those professions, for some part of the interaction.

By no means do I claim these matters are simple. But at least it is clear, from the moral foundation of Humanity or Humanism, to treat people as though they were or are Objects, is Dehumanizing. Therefore, from those moral grounds, people are convinced and persuaded to, propagated to (from a young age), to respect one-another's Subjectivity.

There are degrees...to which people will go in supporting one another's Subjectivity, going overboard into the area of Delusion. Isn't this precisely the problem of Global moral politicking and Postmodernity in general? Should people, or should we not, treat LGBTQMAPWOKIES+ as though they are Unicorns, or Fairies, or Furries? Shall we pretend that a man is a woman, or woman is a man? To what degree ought Deception proliferate a society in general?

And what level of honesty do people actually do treat each-other as 'Subjects', with respect?

[Wizard22]

I can. I am me and I know who I am. Who am I? I am myself.

I think of my "self" as an ongoing project. You "make a name for yourself" across a lifetime.

Sounds like you are talking about a reputation. I have a reputation, but my reputation doesn't define me. Nothing defines me.

How about your Name? Does Skepdick define you? How else will you remember what you write and with whom you speak?

You are simply assuming that people have identities. What if you are mistaken and they only had beliefs but no identities. What would be different about them?

Belief could presuppose identity...you have to believe you're yourself, at least.

Well, it hasn't yet destroyed the belief that you have beliefs yet so... There's that.

Thanks Descartes!

Why? If you can recall a memory - you remember. If you can't recall a memory - you don't remember.

How would you know that you are suffering from amnesia? Would you have to remember that you have amnesia? What if you forget that you have amnesia?

Memory is memory. Its contents change.

There's more to memory than that. Memory has to cohere to the Objective world, Existence. If it doesn't, then that's schizophrenia, inability to discern what's real and when.

It's just metaphysics. Spacetime is a mathematical construct. A concept. Like existence. It's in your head... In your memory if you will.

It's just a tool we use to rationalize the world, but it's a lens like any other - it can skew your perception of reality.

I don't think so...Existence is not only in my head. It's out of my, and your, head too.

[Age]

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".

This here is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND a VERY, VERY DISTORTED way of 'thinking' AND 'seeing'.

So, IF the so-called 'Subject' IS what 'you' ARE, then 'you' ARE the 'Subject'. BUT, 'you', "wizard22", with 'your' so-called "logic" go on to then SAY and CLAIM that the 'Object' is "otherness". Which then MEANS that 'you' ARE the 'Object' and NOT the 'Subject' AT ALL, considering that 'you' could NEVER EVER BE 'I'.

Also, and by the way, 'your' CLAIM that 'you' ARE the 'Subject', 'your' 'self-identity'. HOW could ANY 'thing' have 'your' 'self-identity'. Absolutely EVERY 'thing' would be 'its' OWN 'self' and NOT have 'your' 'self'.

'you', "wizard22", REALLY DO have a VERY LONG WAY to go here, BEFORE 'you' could even BEGIN to BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND and SEE 'things' CLEARLY and Correctly here.

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.

The ONLY REASON 'you' ARE 'TRYING TO' CLAIM these Truly RIDICULOUS words here IS BECAUSE 'you' ACTUALLY, and absolutely LAUGHABLY, BELIEVE that 'you' were born MORE INTELLIGENT than "others" and thus 'you' 'developed' QUICKER, BETTER, and MORE 'intelligibly' than "others" DID.

Which could NOT REALLY BE MORE FOOLISH and MORE STUPID a 'thing' to SAY, and CLAIM. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING what the word 'Intelligence' REFERS TO, EXACTLY, and to HOW the Mind and the brain WORK IN 'you', human beings.

Generally, the younger an infant can identify him/herself in a mirror, as a distinct object separate from itself,

Even this TINY LITTLE STATEMENT and CLAIM of 'YOURS' here "wizard22" CONTRADICTS ITS OWN SELF.

But, 'you' can NOT YET SEE 'this' CAN 'you' "wizard22".

the higher is his or her capability to become greatly intelligent in every subsequent phase of life.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, SURPRISE 'us' "wizard22" WHEN did 'you' IDENTIFY "yourself" in a mirror?

I can NOT STOP LAUGHING here KNOWING what 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

'you' REALLY DO BELIEVE that 'you' have the HIGHEST 'capability' TO BECOME 'greatly intelligent' in ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'subsequent phase of life'. Am I RIGHT or AM I WRONG here?

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.

LOL There ARE about five False AND Wrong CLAIMS, CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, as well as A TAUTOLOGY here just in this TINY LITTLE STATEMENT and CLAIM of 'yours' here.

To FIX ALL of 'your' MISTAKES would TAKE quite A WHILE "wizard22".

Very similar to other mammals in Nature, self-consciousness is not really a requirement of general survival in the wild.

One would HOPE NOT considering the Fact that 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, STILL do NOT YET KNOW the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' MEANING that 'you' are NOT YET 'self-conscious' AT ALL, REALLY. OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO KNOW, 'Who 'I' AM to be Truly 'self-conscious'.

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This 'one' has ACTUALLY GOT "its" OWN 'self' BELIEVING that 'great intelligence', that is; MORE Consciously AWARE of the 'Self', can become MORE of a hindrance to an individual. Which IS BEYOND ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS.

Although, having Intelligence, Itself, helped in leading to BEING 'to smart for your own good', SOMETIMES. 'Intelligence', Itself, is what led 'you, human beings, OUT OF the human being, in the evolutionary stage of Life, and UP and INTO the NEXT STAGE.

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.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one WILL SAY just about ANY 'thing' in order to FIT IN WITH their OWN currently HELD BELIEFS, and in the HOPE that what they are SAYING WILL make 'them' look SMARTER and/or MORE INTELLIGENT and that ANY one "else" will ACCEPT what they are SAYING is TRUE.

Which is ABSOLUTELY MORE LAUGHABLE the DEEPER one LOOKS INTO what is ACTUALLY BEING SAID and CLAIMED here.

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.

AND, 'you', "wizard22", OBVIOUSLY have ALWAYS BELONGED in ONLY ONE of the ONLY two 'groups' here, right?

Thus there is a separation of base and general intelligence.

Each one of 'your' 'thus's' or 'thusly's' here do NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW ON from 'your' previous STATEMENTS or PREMISES.

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

THANK 'you' FOR 'this' INSIGHT her "wizard22".

[Skepdick]

How about your Name? Does Skepdick define you? How else will you remember what you write and with whom you speak?

Yes, I have a name. It's my name not my definition. You can certainly identify me by my name - that's certainly one the useful functions of names.

That doesn't mean I have an identity.

Belief could presuppose identity...you have to believe you're yourself, at least.

Then I believe that I am myself. And I also believe that I don't have an identity.

I am not sure what the belief in having an identity adds to my life. If nothing - why believe that I have it?

Thanks Descartes!

Well, you could alsways go as far as the eliminative materialists. They believe that they have no beliefs.

There's more to memory than that. Memory has to cohere to the Objective world

Says who? Memory is for remembering experiences. SOmetimes I remember the objective world wrong. Sometimes I remember it right. Sometimes I remember how the objective world made me feel.

This is but the dualist delusion that we are to become the mirror of nature.

Existence. If it doesn't, then that's schizophrenia, inability to discern what's real and when.

Ok. Then I am unable to discern. Everything is real! No wait, nothing is real!

And then what happens?

I simply don't find that distinction to be useful. Are your feeings real? Is thirst real? Is pain real?

Is time real? Real or not, I think it's time we stopped thinking and talking in realist terms... Even the best scientists in the world are far closer to their subjective humanity than they are to objective reality.

I don't think so...Existence is not only in my head. It's out of my, and your, head too.

How do you know? Maybe the solipsists are right. Not impossible.

[Age]

How MANY ACTUAL 'Realities' do 'you' think or BELIEVE there ARE "lacewing"?

And the reason WHY you WILL DEFINITELY NOT ANSWER 'this QUESTION' is BECAUSE 'you' do NOT want to CONTRADICT "your" OWN 'self' here.

Watch it Age...

LOL What do you MEAN by 'watch it'?

if you want to harass Lacewing with irrelevant claptrap, then do it in your own thread.

But 'you' have MADE 'your' OWN thread here IRRELEVANT by CONTRADICTING "your" OWN WORDS here "wizard22".

Oh wait, you don't have any threads, do you?

THANK 'you' FOR PROVING ONCE MORE that 'you' REALLY DO NOT LOOK PAST 'your' OWN ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

Or, did 'you' REALLY ASK 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION' FROM A Truly OPEN perspective?

[Iwannaplato]

By no means do I claim these matters are simple. But at least it is clear, from the moral foundation of Humanity or Humanism, to treat people as though they were or are Objects, is Dehumanizing. Therefore, from those moral grounds, people are convinced and persuaded to, propagated to (from a young age), to respect one-another's Subjectivity.

Sort of and often just in-group, and then to a lesser and lesser degree outside of family, class, race, nationality, religion, etc. As you say below, there are degreee.

There are degrees...to which people will go in supporting one another's Subjectivity, going overboard into the area of Delusion. Isn't this precisely the problem of Global moral politicking and Postmodernity in general? Should people, or should we not, treat LGBTQMAPWOKIES+ as though they are Unicorns, or Fairies, or Furries? Shall we pretend that a man is a woman, or woman is a man? To what degree ought Deception proliferate a society in general?

What is treating someone as an object and what is treating someone as a subject if they claim to be something and you don't think they are that or are skeptical. I can see that cutting either way. Couldn't they claim, if you don't believe they are X, that you are thinking of them as objects? Physical things, not subjective essences or whatever?

And what level of honesty do people actually do treat each-other as 'Subjects', with respect?

And what constitutes respect. I mean, I can give up on someone. Doesn't mean I'll treat them like a chair. But in a certain sense some people can lead me to treat them as objects: fixed things.

[Lacewing]

Rudeness is kinda immoral though in'nit Lacewing?

I don't think so. There are so many reasons why a person might be (or perceived as) rude, and many of those are not intentional.

Agreed, when I think of a person "objectifying" another person, I understand and translate it as treating a person as an object...as something that can be thrown in the garbage, something that is disposable or consumable, not necessarily an object of great value, or if it is an object of great value, then treating it like a trophy. Setting it on a pedestal.

Great examples.

Interestingly, treating another as an object to be used/discarded in whatever way the objectifier wants/needs often isn't recognized as such by either party because there are so many levels and blurred lines.

So, what makes something immoral... rather than just ignorant? Immorality seems based on belief and judgment, whereas ignorance seems to be a comparison with known broader intelligence or awareness. For example, we may have thought primitive civilizations were immoral in their practice of human sacrifices, but they didn't think so... so, were they immoral or ignorant or...?

[iambiguous]

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

No, there are both left and right Objectivists.

That I do agree with. And both, in regard to conflicting moral and political value judgments, tend to objectify others. They claim that, say, capital punishment is either objectively right or objectively wrong. And that if others don't share their own deontological assessment they are inherently, necessarily wrong. Whereas I suggest here that, existentially, we are all subjects in that subjectively/subjunctively re dasein here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 -- we all come to acquire as individuals particular moral and political prejudices. Biases rooted in ever evolving historical and cultural and personal contexts.

Thus...

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?

It can be done, but it requires a lot of effort and intelligence from both sides to accomplish.

Link me to any such accomplishment in regard to any moral or political conflagration.

The main project and result of political and moral Objectification would begin with exactly how & why people come to their beliefs and moral convictions in the first place. This can be understood as how a politically motivated person identifies as 'Left' or 'Right', liberal or conservative by another basis, and then compared to how they differently arrived to those identifications. The main problem arises at the premise where one should be "liberal" or "conservative", insuchthat you should vote for my team and constituents in stead of your own. That is where the moral dilemma begins, when the philosophical investigation ends.

Step outside of Philosophy and you enter Politics.

Indeed. Philosophically, and way, way up in the general description intellectual clouds, the subject/object distinction can be contained in worlds of words. In dueling definitions and deductions.

But politics involves actual flesh and blood human beings interacting socially, politically and economically out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. Given the manner in which, in regard to abortion, I explore my own existential trajectory in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Then the part where I ask others -- the objectivists -- to note how the above is not applicable to their own value judgments. Just as I would ask proponents of Immanual Kant's moral philosophy here to explain how "for all practical purposes" it would make sense given a No God world instead.

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?

To simplify the matter of Objectivity in politics and morality, simply ask yourself and others, what are the respective goals of Jim and Jane? When are they aligned, when are they crossed? Rarely are two people completely opposite in their moral convictions and beliefs. Usually there's some leeway or grounds for agreement, on the details if not the crux of the matter.

I agree. And, in my view, that's where the "might makes right" folks and the "right makes might" folks give way to "moderation, negotiation and compromise"...the political agenda espoused by the "democracy and the rule of law" folks.

Jane's goal revolves around a government policy that zero's in on this part of the Second Amendment...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And then for those like henry here that even includes "weapons of mass destruction".

Whereas Jim's goal zeros in on this part...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, you tell me, henry: What for all practical purposes in regard to government policy does "well regulated" and "militia" mean?

And, then, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, as soon the ofttimes profoundly problematic complexities of actual flesh and blood human interactions come into play, simplification goes right out the window.

I quote human history to date for example.

[henry quirk]

Wizard,

An in-forum pal of mine privated me Henry, your name is being taken in vain and directed my attention to this thread, and this...

What for all practical purposes in regard to government policy does "well regulated" and "militia" mean?

...rhetorical question.

As my good friend iambiguous knows: I make no appeals to the 2nd for my ownership or use of my shotgun. As a matter of fact: I don't give a flip about the 2nd, or the constitution as a whole.

However, the question was asked.

Here's an answer...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84ob ... p=2AFDkAIB

My apologies for hijackin' your thread. -Henry

PS: for some reason, the Penn & Teller clip starts near the end...you'll have to rewind or y-tube will take you on to the next clip

[iambiguous]

Wizard,

An in-forum pal of mine privated me Henry, your name is being taken in vain and directed my attention to this thread, and this...

What for all practical purposes in regard to government policy does "well regulated" and "militia" mean?

...rhetorical question.

As my good friend iambiguous knows: I make no appeals to the 2nd for my ownership or use of my shotgun. As a matter of fact: I don't give a flip about the 2nd, or the constitution as a whole.

Trust me. What henry will insist upon here is that taking into account his God given capacity to grasp the meaning of life, liberty and property in the only possible "logical" manner, anyone who dares to construe the meaning of them other then as he does here in regard to buying and selling "weapons of mass destruction" is "logically" an idiot.

However, the question was asked.

Here's an answer...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84ob ... p=2AFDkAIB

My apologies for hijackin' your thread. -Henry

PS: for some reason, the Penn & Teller clip starts near the end...you'll have to rewind or y-tube will take you on to the next clip

Right, that is an answer. It's Penn Jillette hammering the 2nd Amendment into his own political prejudices. As though there was absolutely no other possible reading of it.

But there is...

"To counter calls for stricter gun laws in the wake of the massacre of elementary school students in Uvalde, Tex., Republican politicians cite the Second Amendment, saying that the government cannot infringe on people’s right to protect themselves, and that this is fundamental to preserving liberty.

"'[R]arely has the Second Amendment been more necessary to secure the rights of our fellow citizens,' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said at this year’s National Rifle Association convention, held in Houston days after the shooting.

But historians say that the notion that the amendment protects people’s right to have guns for self-defense is a relatively recent reading of the Constitution, born out of a conservative push in the 1980s and ’90s.

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The historical consensus is that, for most of American history, the amendment was understood to concern the use of guns in connection with militia service. The Founding Fathers were likely focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed, said Joseph Blocher, who specializes in the Second Amendment at Duke University’s law school.

“An individual’s right to use guns in self-defense is not expressly written in the Constitution,” said Reva Siegel, a law professor at Yale who has written prominent law review articles on the subject." Amber Phillips in the Washington Post.

Thus the use of the comma?

Again, my point is that individual subjects out in particular worlds understood in particular [and ofttimes conflicting] ways will over the course of their lives come to acquire particular political prejudices.

Then those like henry will insist that, on the contrary, they have access to the actual objective truth here. Their own. As God intended. Their God. Then the equivalent of henry on the far-left side of the ideological spectrum.

As for Penn Jillette, here's another subjective opinion of his..

"Religion needs to go away and not be replaced by anything. Atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion, and that's a wonderful thing. Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality."

[henry quirk]

Wizard,

Again: apologies for the de-railing.

Trust me. What henry will insist upon here is that taking into account his God given capacity to grasp the meaning of life, liberty and property in the only possible "logical" manner, anyone who dares to construe the meaning of them other then as he does here in regard to buying and selling "weapons of mass destruction" is "logically" an idiot.

Nope. You're an idiot becuz you intentionally misrepresent my position. If Wizard is curious about my position, he'll ask.

Hell, I'll save him the trouble...

The Philosophy of Liberty: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VM74rYzNk ... bGxhbmQ%3D

Here's a variant: https://ia800301.us.archive.org/10/item ... iberty.mov

Wizard, the clip is a good, minimal, explanation of my view. You'll note, God -- as prerequisite -- isn't mentioned. Watch it if you're curious; don't if you're not.

Right, that is an answer. It's Penn Jillette hammering the 2nd Amendment into his own political prejudices. As though there was absolutely no other possible reading of it.

Oh, there's a whole whack of ways to read & interpret it. Which did the Founders intend?

Then those like henry will insist that, on the contrary, they have access to the actual objective truth here.

Yep, same as anyone

[iambiguous]

Right, that is an answer. It's Penn Jillette hammering the 2nd Amendment into his own political prejudices. As though there was absolutely no other possible reading of it.

Oh, there's a whole whack of ways to read & interpret it. Which did the Founders intend?

Right, that is an answer. It's Penn Jillette hammering the 2nd Amendment into his own political prejudices. As though there was absolutely no other possible reading of it.

But there is...

"To counter calls for stricter gun laws in the wake of the massacre of elementary school students in Uvalde, Tex., Republican politicians cite the Second Amendment, saying that the government cannot infringe on people’s right to protect themselves, and that this is fundamental to preserving liberty.

"'[R]arely has the Second Amendment been more necessary to secure the rights of our fellow citizens,' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said at this year’s National Rifle Association convention, held in Houston days after the shooting.

But historians say that the notion that the amendment protects people’s right to have guns for self-defense is a relatively recent reading of the Constitution, born out of a conservative push in the 1980s and ’90s.

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The historical consensus is that, for most of American history, the amendment was understood to concern the use of guns in connection with militia service. The Founding Fathers were likely focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed, said Joseph Blocher, who specializes in the Second Amendment at Duke University’s law school.

“An individual’s right to use guns in self-defense is not expressly written in the Constitution,” said Reva Siegel, a law professor at Yale who has written prominent law review articles on the subject." Amber Phillips in the Washington Post.

Thus the use of the comma?

Again, my point is that individual subjects out in particular worlds understood in particular [and ofttimes conflicting] ways will over the course of their lives come to acquire particular political prejudices.

Then those like henry will insist that, on the contrary, they have access to the actual objective truth here. Their own. As God intended. Their God. Then the equivalent of henry on the far-left side of the ideological spectrum.