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?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.
>>25503480Sure, people overuse the "you are objectifying women/me" attack, and they're doubly obstuse when they refuse to consider that conversely men are sometimes considered only as good slaving tools, and therefore also have their share of being reduced to some utility, (those two archetype passive-object/active-tool follows general archetypes for women and men, such that "men should just work and provide" is the gender opposite of objectifying women "women are only good for their beauty") I think the attack still holds an element of truth, that treating people *solely* as their archetype is reductionary and insulting, and everyone wants to feel unique and whole in more than one way: a woman would like to see herself as "a woman but one who can think", and a man as "a man but not a cold one, one who can feel, a sentimental one". >Actual people do not desire meaningless abstractions such as humanity, dignity etc. they only desire pleasure and the avoidance of pain.I disagree, they desire a feeling of uniqueness and self-reliance, only these reassures them that they deserve to live. People want to be praised for what is *exceptional* in them and for what is obtained through efforts. Ultimately, women don't like that Beauty is their sole attribute, because this puts them in competition with all other women on something that is mostly decided by genetics, nature. But men are the same, they do not like to be cogs either, they like their work, their role in society to be somewhat unique, not reproducible. And both gender feel disgust to some extent when they are considered only for a single aspect that they share with others, women when compared solely on grounds of beauty and are made objects, men when compared solely on grounds of work utility and are made slaves; both want uniqueness, and to gain their life through the multiplicity of their individual character is how they feel unique and reach happiness (feeling unique along with feeling powerful enough to keep control over your life is what happiness consists in, I theorize)
>>25503480(Continuing my first comment with other remarks)>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. That's the great redefinition of slave morality. It's pretty straight forward, consider "Rights, Dignity, Humanity, Pride". Under not so ancient ethics, rights, dignity, and pride, are something that you gain with *efforts*, with slave morality ethics these are things that you *Have* at birth and others must respect. Rights (or "access to") are not gained through strength, or through convincing others, no, you have them at birth, and others must respect them, otherwise they are "bad".Dignity is not demonstrated while under hard times, where you control your emotions and keep a strong sapient human posture, no, dignity you have at birth, and others should be the one not to put in positions where you are ugly etc., otherwise they are "bad".Pride is not something you obtain, through work and adherence to excellence which bring you to make good work, no, pride is something you have at birth, and others are to respect that pride, and you can go to pride parade and show your """pride""", honestly I don't even know what pride refers to in leftists minds, "unworked for self-love"? perhaps.This is the ethics of laziness, that redirects all efforts and all blame onto others, I'm sure you can find other words in that manner, where what is gained is turned into what is already had, and others are to blame if what is supposed to be "had" is not granted. Honestly, one realization that struck me, is that this is the same rhetoric that communist economics uses: this arbitrary portion of the product of is ""rightfully"" mine, and I *ought* to have it, it's the "bad" capitalist who won't give it to me who is Evil. Again in this rhetoric, there is no argument of strength anymore, simply an exclamation of what should be, with no justification (because the real origin of these redefinition is laziness, weakness and envy) and then calling everyone bad. >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. Not really arbitrary, people want to be desired for their body AND mind, and the modern Christian-based world a puts an emphasis on the beauty of the mind, inner beauty, "the beauty inside", such is the current world and its hierarchy of values. (whereas the ancient world (greeko-roman) put an emphasis on the body. relatively more than us)
>>25505147>everyone wants to feel unique and whole in more than one wayPeople only desire pleasure. They only desire high esteem and status insofar as it facilitates the attainment of pleasure. Just look at how 90% of people live.>uniqueness and self-reliance? >people want to be desired for their body AND mindNot really, and certainly not always. Indeed, in the case of pornography or prostitution, there is probably not much to offer in the mind department. People want to sexually gratify themselves and the prostitute wants money. Neither cares about the mind (such as it may be) of the other. Nor does one care about the deep thoughts of one's waiter.
