Subject / Object Distinction

[henry quirk]

But there is...

Meh, that just Amber Phillips hammering the 2nd Amendment into (her) own political prejudices.

What was the intent of the men who wrote the 2nd?

-----

Again, my apologies, Wizard.

[iambiguous]

But there is...

Meh, that just Amber Phillips hammering the 2nd Amendment into (her) own political prejudices.

What was the intent of the men who wrote the 2nd?

-----

Again, my apologies, Wizard.

"James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies."

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11 ... _12057.pdf

Gun rights activists, "largely ignore the clause before the commna".

"Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an
individual right to firearms. A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself, along with
an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the
amendment’s ratification show little concern for private firearm rights. Instead, what
routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern
over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government
should exercise military power. James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to
placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and
state governments, and the use of standing armies."

"The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment provided a collective right. The
historical record reinforces this premise, while any concern for an individual right is
absent. In describing the Constitution, Madison deemed its powers as “partly federal, and
partly national.”19 The Second Amendment exemplifies this position, as the states and the
national government shared powers regarding the militia and the defense of the nation.
Individual right supporters continue to insist the Second Amendment supports personal
gun rights; yet, there is no evidence to support this claim."


Though at least we all seem to be in agreement that interpreting the meaning of the 2nd Amendment does come down subjectively to the political prejudices of each of us as individuals.

That in regard to the subject/object distinction here there is clearly no objective understanding of it.

I suspect it's the same for "life, liberty and property" too.



Well, in a free will world, anyway.


Edit:

Also, in regard to the Deist God, to you and to how you construe the meaning of life, liberty and property, how do you connect the dots ?

Did He provide mere mortals with the innate capacity to grasp them logically, rationally, naturally?

Or, instead, is it more reasonable that individuals born in very, very different historical and cultural and experiential contexts and living very, very, very different lives were/are likely to come to many, many different [and ofttimes conflicting] understandings of what they mean.

In other words, if one goes around the globe and encounters many, many Deists, are they likely to all share your own political convictions regarding guns and weapons of mass destruction, or, instead, will they be situated all along the liberal to conservative political spectrum?

[henry quirk]

" James Madison blah blah blah"

More hammering. What was the Founder's intent?

in regard to the Deist God, to you and to how you construe the meaning of life, liberty and property, how do you connect the dots ?

Been down that road with you already. Besides, my deism isn't the topic. And, I think we've hi-jacked Wizard's thread enough with our jackassery. What was the Founder's intent?

[iambiguous]

" James Madison blah blah blah"

More hammering. What was the Founder's intent?

in regard to the Deist God, to you and to how you construe the meaning of life, liberty and property, how do you connect the dots ?

Been down that road with you already. Besides, my deism isn't the topic. And, I think we've hi-jacked Wizard's thread enough with our jackassery. What was the Founder's intent?

Note others:

How about this...

He provides us with quotes and arguments from the internet indicating what the Founder's intent was in regard to the 2nd Amendment.

We can take it to this thread: viewtopic.php?t=35211


As for this...

Also, in regard to the Deist God, to you and to how you construe the meaning of life, liberty and property, how do you connect the dots ?

Did He provide mere mortals with the innate capacity to grasp them logically, rationally, naturally?

Or, instead, is it more reasonable that individuals born in very, very different historical and cultural and experiential contexts and living very, very, very different lives were/are likely to come to many, many different [and ofttimes conflicting] understandings of what they mean.

In other words, if one goes around the globe and encounters many, many Deists, are they likely to all share your own political convictions regarding guns and weapons of mass destruction, or, instead, will they be situated all along the liberal to conservative political spectrum?

We can take it this thread: viewtopic.php?t=34432

[henry quirk]

We can take it to this thread: viewtopic.php?t=35211

We can take it this thread: viewtopic.php?t=34432

Two fine choices, my idiotic, fractured friend.

We certainly can take our jackassery to either or both.

Go, make your opening move(s).

'nuff said here.

[Wizard22]

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?

If a person or animal cannot identify him/herself in a mirror, then you do understand how this demonstrates they do not have a self-awareness and/or self-consciousness, on a fundamental level? The basis for self-identity is self-recognition. Animals do not require high levels of this, because self-awareness is rare in Nature, not common. Animals still have awareness/identity/consciousness, but it is not understood from an "outside" perspective. It is purely within the Solipsistic mindset of the animal.

For example, animals understand pain, physical displacement of their body, falling down, etc. These are perhaps the most basic forms of "self-consciousness" without necessarily being self-aware per se.

Identification varies between what you actually are, versus what you wish you were, versus what you wish you were not.

Thanks Descartes!

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

I have very unconventional beliefs, with respect to Philosophy.

Philosophy tends to burn-away common beliefs, which are normal through mass media proliferation, propaganda, indoctrination, "education". For example, Philosophers can mull over the existence of God, political systems, morality, etc. Normal people do not so much, and instead trust such institutions on "blind faith": Red team vs Blue team.

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.

Reality is important to distinguish and clarify, because it's still the basis for debate between 'Subjectivism' or 'Objectivism'.

Is the Subject more real than the Object, vice-versa, neither perhaps?

Is Reality relative, what's real to you is not to me?

I lean toward Objectivism on this point. I believe the 'external' world, the universe, existence, does not depend on my personal, subjective, perception and experience, in order to existence. The Object takes precedence before the Subject. I don't think this is common among Humanity.

[Wizard22]

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

No, when I go into one of your threads (where are your threads, by the way?), and harass the participants with off-topic conversation and argument, then and only then are you warranted to attack me for contradicting myself.

[Age]

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

No, when I go into one of your threads (where are your threads, by the way?),

Even here, in these very few words, 'you' have MANAGED TO CONTRADICT "your" 'self', ONCE AGAIN.

'you' SAY, 'WHEN 'you' go INTO one of 'my' threads', BUT THEN 'you' ASK, 'Where are 'my' threads, by the way?'

Are 'you' REALLY NOT YET AWARE that IF 'you', REALLY, DID go INTO one of 'my' threads, THEN 'you' WOULD ALREADY KNOW WHERE 'my' threads ARE, EXACTLY.

and harass the participants with off-topic conversation and argument, then and only then are you warranted to attack me for contradicting myself.

LOL

I CAN POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL 'your' CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES here WHENEVER I feel like DOING SO.

[Wizard22]

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.

Yes...

There are common ways which the masses of people 'objectify' one-another, but I'm particularly interested in perhaps the most common compulsion, which revolves around sexuality. People sexually 'objectify' one-another, and it's not only how the Feminists claim, male-to-female, but female-to-male as well. It's common for people to 'use' one another—Utilitarianism. Capitalism also infers the objectification of Labor as a commodity. As mentioned in the thread, Marxism also infers objectification through Reification. So, where then is Subjectification? What does it mean to treat people as-Subjects? To me, this means, Humanism, treating others as Humane. It's a Morality and moral function.

In the West, the premise of Humanity is to nullify differences of gender and race, for: "We are One Race, the Human Race". Is this not the basis of Western Morality then, premised on the Subject?

[Wizard22]

LOL

I CAN POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL 'your' CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES here WHENEVER I feel like DOING SO.

Okay....I'm waiting.

So far you haven't found one yet, it seems?

[Wizard22]

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...?

I agree with your premise.

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 about how people ought to treat each-other (implied, not as mere Objects to be discarded), versus how people actually do treat each-other. The ignorance is important, because some people (autists in particular), cannot 'read' other peoples' emotions, intentions, social interactions. There are degrees of psychopathy in humanity, selfishness. The implication of one who treats everybody-else as only objects, only as means to an end, only for personal glorification and satisfaction, have Psychopathy, therefore cannot be trusted.

It's in the way people insult one-another, on this forum. So the application affects everybody's lives immediately. The inverse means then, that treating others as "Subjects", Humanely, can be the exception to the rule. What does it mean to 'Respect' your subjectivity, your humanity, your...soul, perhaps? This returns to the matter of inferring morality unto others which may or may not exist. Or at least, would not be reciprocated.

For example, you can't expect a monkey, dog, cat, to receive a human education. Nor can you expect an animal to have a human Morality ("Soul").

[Age]

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.

WHY do 'you' PROPOSE 'things' as 'seemingly like' here, WITHOUT the CLARIFYER that 'they' ONLY 'seem' 'that way' TO 'you', ALONE?

'Immorality' does NOT 'seem' based on belief and judgment, AT ALL, TO 'me' anyway.

What IS ACTUALLY IMMORAL and MORE, and IRREFUTABLY, IS ALREADY KNOWN, well BY 'Me' anyway.

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...?

ANOTHER example of NOT being AWARE is 'thinking' that the 'civilization' one is living WITH-IN is so-called NOT a 'primitive one'.

Was "lacewing" here 'thinking' or BELIEVING that the so-called 'civilization' that 'it' is living WITH and IN was NOT a 'primitive civilization', itself, being an example of IGNORANCE, itself? Or,

Was "lacewing" here 'thinking' or BELIEVING that 'it' was NOT being IMMORAL 'itself', just because that so-called 'non primitive civilization' ACCEPTED the practices, which 'we' now can CLEARLY SEE were, and ARE, VERY IMMORAL?

So, WAS "lacewing", itself, being immoral or ignorant or ...?

[Age]

LOL

I CAN POINT OUT, SHOW, and REVEAL 'your' CONTRADICTIONS and/or INCONSISTENCIES here WHENEVER I feel like DOING SO.

Okay....I'm waiting.

So far you haven't found one yet, it seems?

LOL I HAVE ALREADY DONE 'it'. BUT, BECAUSE 'you' ARE TOO DEAF and TOO BLIND, BECAUSE OF 'your' currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS 'you' were NOT ABLE TO SEE, and HEAR, 'them'.

'you' CONTRADICT 'you' in the first three lines.

[Wizard22]

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.

That's the challenge.

I understand the appeal to 'Objectivity' for moral leverage and philosophical justification. Necessarily, Subjective perspectives want to dominate conversation or argument with their own belief, their own experience, their own perspective—which becomes their own moral Righteousness and Indignation. Whether by favor of a overwhelming popular majority, or God's Own Word handed down from above, it's a common appeal, to Objectivity. But just because people claim it, in their own name, doesn't make it so. The solution is quite simple. A person/subject must demonstrate objective perspectives. Not only must opinions consist of and respect multiple subjective sources, Perspectives, but also the logical and rationale, the causality of beliefs in action, must be demonstrated.

What would the world look like if some moral convictions, or immoral convictions, or amoral, took over?

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.

These are the grand generalities of morality and politics, large systems such as: Christianity/Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Secular-Humanism, Capitalism, Communism-Marxism, Socialism, Aristocracy, etc.

As far as pinning them down to Earth, there are practical realities and consequences, rewards and deprivation, of these systems in action. It's an everyday occurrence. For example, in the United States, it's illegal to 'Own' a person, for a person to be property of another, in regards to the abolition of Slavery. Employers cannot force people to continue working for them if they quit. So these are the practical realities of the larger systems: Western Classical Liberalism and Constitutional Republicanism.

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.

I would need to dig into the motivation, rationale, and reality of the Founding Fathers of the time. When the 2nd Amendment was produced, it was under the auspice of Great Britain imposing tyrannical rule over the East Coast Anglo Protestants. USA and the West are very far removed from that situation and era. Is it important that people today have Arms to the degree that they can defend themselves from tyrannical government? I believe they should, but, Western Civilization has moved very far from that origin.

Can Western Governments be trusted, today, not to impose such tyranny? I think this answer is more obviously: Not.

Do Liberals trust Trump? Do Conservatives trust Biden? Then there's your answer. Neither side can be trusted to Secure and Provide for the other...Tyranny is produced from such levels of distrust and animosity.

[Wizard22]

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

I don't mind, but...try to keep the arguments on-topic.