Firstly, it always involves the claim that being treated as an object harms (whatever object or harm means) a person's dignity or humanity. The words person and object or dignity and humanity are basically meaningless and defined in a totally arbitrary manner. What qualifies as part of humanity and dignity is simply asserted. And the phrase of Kant, that we must treat people as an end in themselves and not a means, is totally obscure.For instance, to sexually gratify oneself with another is objectification, as one uses their body (which is divorced from them and their humanity somehow) as a tool of pleasure. Whereas if one entertains themselves with an interesting conversation, this is enjoying their "authentic humanity" or something. But one can just as easily say that one is using their brain and voice as an object of pleasure. The distinction is arbitrary.And who exactly is being "objectified" is again arbitrary. Does not a prostitute objectify her clients just as they do her?
>>18665516cont.Secondly, the whole idea is at odds with actual human behaviour and is a mere sophistry. The basis of society, human happiness and all the esteem or profit that a person enjoys is derived from being useful and finding use in others. Beauty, intelligence, strength, honesty etc. earn positive feeling and treatment while ugliness, stupidity, weakness, deception etc. earn ill feeling and poor treatment. In a word, the former and latter are usefulness and uselessness respectively. To say that being an object useful to others is harmful is completely wrong, it is the opposite. Those who can give others no pleasure are hated and treated poorly. And how could it be any other way? Those who speak about objectification do not and could not live without making use of others, they merely fixate on the idea in relation to sex, while using taxis, waiters, cleaners etc. If men were not useful or profitable to one another or did not need one another, there would be no society.One only needs to look at the condition of the ugly, crippled, dim-witted and so on, to see this. And if being beautiful were harmful, surely all would desire to be ugly? Actual people do not desire meaningless abstractions such as humanity, dignity etc. they only desire pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
>>18665516This is a basic misunderstanding of Kant. Kant doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with making use of people. He repeatedly says it’s wrong to use a person as a MERE means. That word is important.
>>18665516All sex is rape
>>18665516>whatever object or harm means>The words person and object or dignity and humanity are basically meaningless>totally obscureAnon, it might feel to you like you're fighting on behalf of precision and accuracy, but you're basically just disqualifying yourself from the conversation with this. These are some of the most meaningful concepts across cultures, and especially so in modern Western culture. If everyone gets them and you don't, what do you think the chances are of your objections being accepted? Furthermore, what do you think the chances are that your critique is valid when you don't understand some of the core components? Near zero. Walking into a room and demanding basic things to be thoroughly explained to you lest you declare them nebulous isn't how philosophy is done. >Does not a prostitute objectify her clients just as they do her?Yes. That is part of the problem of sex commodification. It's just such an inefficient part to focus on that we usually skip it.
>>18666049We actually have a word for philosophy that prioritises convincing others, politics. Go check out /pol/ to see your ideals in action
>>18666088I'm pointing out OP is actively removing himself from the discussion he's trying to have. If that's politics, I suppose I gave the field too little credit in the past.
>>18666037What is the difference? Besides, when one is supposed to treat someone as an "object" one must always treat them as merely so, e.g waiters, taxi drivers etc. I do not see what is wrong with that. >>18666049Ask the average person to define dignity and humanity. They will not know. The philosophers do not even really know. If you ask a left winger and right winger whether they believe in dignity and humanity, they will probably both agree without really having any clear idea. They are simply nice sounding words. Many reject the ideas (I am not the first). One might say God has been considered a meaningful concept in history, does that make it so? What do these words mean?
>>18666092Nonsense, walking into a room and saying something that irks people is a perfectly good way to start a good discussion. I mean its got you talking. Fellating the choir and learning their exact songs in hopes they change the tune of the song slightly is so slow inefficient. Blood needs to be spilled! Egos need to be shattered! Only then do people actually defend their beliefs to their utmost ability
>>18666105>Ask the average person to define dignity and humanity. They will not know.Agreed. They will not know how to put their volumes and volumes of culturally shared tacit knowledge into explicit propositions. And that's a shame for those on the spectrum who require explicit definitions. But it does not follow that the concepts are meaningless. Meaning pre-exists definitions (outside special cases like mathematics) and the expectation to have all tacit knowledge converted into explicit definitions is a cartesian bias that we inherited. Knowledge doesn't work this way and the most important things you will ever learn will not lend themselves to words almost at all.>a left winger and right winger ... will probably both agree without really having any clear ideaLeft wingers seem to have incredibly clear idea. There is a whole meme around of a list of ultra-specific things like choosing one's own bathroom being "basic human empathy" and questions of dignity. But even if it were not so, the lack of precision doesn't really invalidate a concept. It arguably even makes it more profound since it can accommodate multiple points of view while still having people agree they're looking at the same thing. Where do you go from here as a person who hasn't learned these things by social osmosis? It will sound incredibly condescending, but I genuinely recommend therapy. Before you book your first session, I also recommend speedrunning Vervaeke's lectures on the meaning crisis, 19-22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRh4lwtgfVE. He explains how the West gradually reduced thinking to manipulation of explicit propositions in abstract-theoretical space and how that is not only unfaithful to human cognition, but also fails to deliver results afair. >>18666108It's a way to start a discussion for sure. A great way? In some cases. A philosophical discussion? Oof... I wouldn't bet on it.
>>18666127"These words are so clear that I can't explain them and you need therapy"
>>18666136I said they're clear?
>>18666139You seem to think so, in that you think it is strange to see them as meaningless and obscure.
>>18666145I definitely think it's strange to infer obscurity to the point of meaninglessness from the fact that many people will take a concept in many directions or resist explicit phrasing. Especially since we tried this approach as a society, called it positivism, and then it died.
>>18666127>Oof... I wouldn't bet on it.You would be surprised. The nuance that is lost in the heat of emotion is often made up for with the creativity that arises from those with their backs against the wall. You often find that most things are invented during times of great pressure like wars or colder wars like the space race. The brain is just a fatty unmotivated pile of squiggles without a tribal drive, it has more precision than what its tryharding but so does anyone who is moving at a snails pace
>>18666170Problems that require insight/gestalt-perception/intuition usually become more difficult under pressure (even if it's financial motivation, strangely enough). And defining tacit concepts such as dignity would be one of those. But it's not even about the emotions, having an emotional discussion is fine, but acting like the society has to explain itself to you or suffer your enligthened verdict is just a non-starter for most people. If I ever aimed to sabotage a discussion, I'd probably roll in pretending to be a judge of a philosophy I have painfully limited insights into. I just wanted OP to reflect on that a little bit because chances are good that's the only useful thing that will be said in this thread. Nobody will define dignity or humanity to any degree of positivist liking.
>>18666189Anything not subject to intersubjective criticism is pointless.
>>18666189Most of the day is peaceful enough for nuance, its plenty of time to refine ideas. Those who are perpetually angry are missing out on something but its the same for those who are perpetually peaceful. Most crafts often start violent and get gentler later on as it arrives to the finished product. To begin, trees are bisected by burly bearded men to death and by the end, a wooden toy is being oiled with gentle hands. It would be nice if we could gently turn a tree into a house but that rarely happens. Someone is going to think im insufferable buts its the tax of progressI think what OP is doing is fine, even if he doesnt learn a single lick about dignity/humanity, stray pieces of out of subject knowledge often hit you in these kinds of things and those things are useful. Besides, its not impossible for some hidden genius slob to come out of fucking nowhere and solve your issue that you had no expectation to solve. It has happened to me three times!
>>18666189What discussion am I sabotaging? It is the people who make a great point of discussing "objectification' who have a limited insight. If someone says that hitting a person causes them pain, I may or may not agree that this is the basis of morality in some way, but I can at least understand what he means.But when someone says that some action harms a person's humanity or trangresses some disntiction between object and person, I really do not understand what they mean and still less why I should care.
>>18665516>Whereas if one entertains themselves with an interesting conversation, this is enjoying their "authentic humanity" or somethingThat implies such conversation is authentic in the first place and not a facade to fit with society. To be le useful>they only desire pleasure and the avoidance of pain.If you are an NPC you desire that. Kant died as a voicel, thus he is not human since he rejected the "pleasure of marriage and family" of society back then.>But kant le obscure phrase about end and meansChad fucks Wendy because he sees her as a walking onahole with big tits while Wendy lets Chad creampie her because he sees him as the man of her life.You can guess who from them will leave the relationship first and who will be devastated from the other one leaving.
>>18666304>That implies such conversation is authentic in the first place and not a facade to fit with society. To be le useful?If someone does not get married it is because an opportunity to do so did not prseent itself that appeared to improve upon the enjoyment of their unmarried life. It is ultimately about pain and pleasure.>Chad fucks Wendy because he sees her as a walking onahole with big tits while Wendy lets Chad creampie her because he sees him as the man of her life.You can guess who from them will leave the relationship first and who will be devastated from the other one leaving.?
>>18666323Society back then (and even today) pushed how marriage is pleasurable and not-marriage is not.If kant did not see pleasure on marriage it means he saw beyond what society imposed as pleasurable.Besides, on today society, people can live in pain without seeking for it and not look for a pleasurable option to stop the pain. Just look at /pol/ and xitter>Then the pain is pleasureThat defeats pain as a whole
>>18666227It is subject to volumes and volumes of intersubjective debate. Just not subject to explicit definitions.>>18666234>Someone is going to think im insufferable buts its the tax of progressI don't use this word often, and I hope you understand I'm using it with compassion, but this is cope. >>18666280The discussion where you learn what dignity, humanity etc. mean. >It is the people who make a great point of discussing "objectification' who have a limited insight.In what way is their insight more limited than yours?>I really do not understand what they mean and still less why I should careBut you maintain they're the one with limited insight, yes? Like I said (and I do try to say it gently), therapy is the only option I'm seeing here. Unless you're 12 in which case you still have plenty time for social osmosis and tacit learning.
>>18666618The idea that the populace has "tacitly" absorbed ideas about objectification, humanity, dignity etc. from Kant or Dworkin is unsubstantiated and contradicted by the way people act. In the way people use taxis and all other services but also regarding the particular fixation of Dworkin and feminists which is pornography, which is very popular.If it is all based on private intution and insight, that is rubbish.
>>18666335Gibberish
