Subject / Object Distinction

[Skepdick]

What part of 'you' is constant throughout your lifetime?

I have no idea. I guess the "I" part.

Are 'you' not changing?

Some of me is changing and some of me isn't.

Do you grow older? Taller in puberty? Wiser and experienced with age?

Sure. And what of it?

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

It's probably that which you are refering to as "I".

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

Whose perspective? Me-the-subject or me-the-object?

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

Subject-object distinction is many things to many places at different times. Sometimes I find it very useful to discard it entirely.

It's called a "distinction". I can't be both because I am not two distinct things. So I am neither.

[Wizard22]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Wizard22]

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

I understand and agree,

All organic life, especially those with cognitive abilities (nervous systems), have some degree of "self-awareness". For example, even plants have genetic compulsions to seek-out light sources and grow "toward the light". This means that, even without an evolved nervous system, the most basic forms of life are at least "aware" of their position and location, with regard to nutrition, and seek-out nutrition without being conscious or self-conscious. Consciousness is not a requirement of basic lifeforms. Self-consciousness even less so.

But, the self-awareness of an animal, a dog or cat, is a fraction of that of a human.

The important premise in the OP, is that self-awareness is a foundation for Intelligence. It sets people, and species, apart. It separates people from people. It separates people from animals.

[Wizard22]

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

Rudeness is kinda immoral though in'nit Lacewing?

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

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

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.

[Iwannaplato]

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'.

As a tangential addition: people objectify themselves. And then they also can act on this: self-abuse.

[Iwannaplato]

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

Rudeness is kinda immoral though in'nit Lacewing?

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

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

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.

I think the problem comes in when treating them like an object dominates. They are not just subjects. And then to the degree they treat themselves as objects, it's hard not to go along with this (seeing them as objects) to some degree.

[Wizard22]

I have no idea. I guess the "I" part.

...maybe "I" is the object of your subject then?

Are 'you' not changing?

Some of me is changing and some of me isn't.

Do you grow older? Taller in puberty? Wiser and experienced with age?

Sure. And what of it?

People need to objectify themselves in a way, to remember what and whom they were in the past, compared to the present and future. Subjectivity is a growing, changing implication. Objects, by my interpretation, are more 'permanent'. Hence subjects are said to have "mere Opinions" as opposed to "Objective Facts". An objective fact, is presumed to be permanent.

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

It's probably that which you are refering to as "I".

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

Whose perspective? Me-the-subject or me-the-object?

Both

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

Subject-object distinction is many things to many places at different times. Sometimes I find it very useful to discard it entirely.

It's called a "distinction". I can't be both because I am not two distinct things. So I am neither.

Across space and time you are, hence what Objectivity is.

[Skepdick]

While on the topic of objectifying the subject...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)

[Wizard22]

I think the problem comes in when treating them like an object dominates. They are not just subjects. And then to the degree they treat themselves as objects, it's hard not to go along with this (seeing them as objects) to some degree.

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.

Hence why the moral component is implied into Subjectivity or 'Humanity'.

[Wizard22]

While on the topic of objectifying the subject...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)

Nice, I'll check this out

[Skepdick]

I have no idea. I guess the "I" part.

...maybe "I" is the object of your subject then?

Why are you objectifying or subjectifying me against my will?

People need to objectify themselves in a way, to remember what and whom they were in the past, compared to the present and future.

Sounds like you are objectifying the idea of identity. I was always me in the past and will always be me in the future. I may have had different values, goals, beliefs, experiences and predispositions but I was never not me.

Subjectivity is a growing, changing implication. Objects, by my interpretation, are more 'permanent'. Hence subjects are said to have "mere Opinions" as opposed to "Objective Facts". An objective fact, is presumed to be permanent.

Yeah, that's the social stigma for sure. But both subjectification and objectification can become harmful in the extreme and ultimately I am neither an object nor a subject.

I am me.

Whose perspective? Me-the-subject or me-the-object?

Both

As I said...It's called a "distinction". I can't be both because I am not two distinct things. So I am neither.

Across space and time you are, hence what Objectivity is.

But space and time are subjective, not objective.

This is precisely the sort of mess you get yourself with these distinctions.

[Wizard22]

Why are you objectifying or subjectifying me against my will?

Because there's no way to do it with your will?

Sounds like you are objectifying the idea of identity. I was always me in the past and will always be me in the future. I may have had different values, goals, beliefs, experiences and predispositions but I was never not me.

Congratulations...you're much different than me. I personally find very little to hang onto when it comes to 'identity'. Most of the beliefs I had as a child are long gone. And I find it much harder to believe in things now as an adult. What's Permanent? God? Then, what's God? Self? No, Self is temporary, Skepdick. We are born. We will die. Identity goes with that. So what's Permanent?

Yeah, that's the social stigma for sure. But both subjectification and objectification can become harmful in the extreme and ultimately I am neither an object nor a subject.

I am me.

Whose perspective? Me-the-subject or me-the-object?

Both

As I said...It's called a "distinction". I can't be both because I am not two distinct things. So I am neither.

Across space and time you are, hence what Objectivity is.

But space and time are subjective, not objective.

This is precisely the sort of mess you get yourself with these distinctions.

Space and time are subjective, within your perspective, but not outside of it.

[Age]

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',

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.

while the ability to see differing perspectives expands one's 'experience'.

This is QUITE HILARIOUS considering the Fact that 'you' WILL ONLY LOOK AT and SEE those so-called 'differing perspectives' that currently ALINE WITH 'your' OWN perspective, in SOME WAY.

There can be seeing without agreement or participation. There is no set reality that all need to share, nor singular perspective to be achieved.

So, TO 'you', "lacewing", human beings, collectively, are NOT ON an evolutionary path to LEARN HOW to LIVE WITH "one another" in a Truly Peaceful, Happy, and Harmonious WAY, right?

But having awareness of differing perspectives expands the experience, enables more connection, and is more efficient, productive, and fun for human life.

IN regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY, there is NO USE in 'expanding THE experience', 'enabling MORE connection', NOR being 'MORE efficient', 'productive', and 'having fun', FOR human life, IF there is NO 'set' 'Reality', NOR 'single perspective' OF 'things'.

OBVIOUSLY, 'your' OWN 'path' and 'perspective' here IS 'yours' ALONE "lacewing". Which IS OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAN "OTHERS".

So, 'your' OWN 'path' AND 'view/belief' OF 'having awareness of differing perspectives' CAUSING 'those things' ABOVE is NOT one that absolutely ANY one 'needs to share' NOR be 'one singular perspective' AT ALL.

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

MANY people think MANY DIFFERENT things. Is it 'your perspective' that people WANT TO here what you do NOT think are the SAME 'thing'?

Do 'you' WANT to hear what 'I' do NOT think are the SAME 'thing'?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then WHY do 'you' think or imagine that 'we' would WANT to hear 'yours'?

LOOK, it IS BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there are AS MANY DIFFERENT 'perspectives' AS THERE ARE human beings, BUT WHY do you BELIEVE 'having awareness of DIFFERING perspectives' is going to CAUSE what 'you' SAY and CLAIM above.

ALSO, if one KNOWS what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS OF some 'thing', ALREADY, then there is NO USE in gaining awareness of OTHER DIFFERING perspectives OF 'that thing'. OBVIOUSLY 'those perspectives' are NOT going to be True, Right, NOR Correct. FOR EXAMPLE, ALREADY KNOWING that the earth revolves around the sun, then 'gaining awareness of "other's" PERSPECTIVES' will ONLY DELAY in POINTING OUT and SHOWING what the ONE ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, here. Which IS ALREADY KNOWN.

[Skepdick]

Why are you objectifying or subjectifying me against my will?

Because there's no way to do it with your will?

Ok, so don't do it?

Congratulations...you're much different than me. I personally find very little to hang onto when it comes to 'identity'.

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.

Most of the beliefs I had as a child are long gone.

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

And I find it much harder to believe in things now as an adult. What's Permanent? God? Then, what's God? Self? No, Self is temporary, Skepdick. We are born. We will die. Identity goes with that. So what's Permanent?

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

Space and time are subjective, within your perspective, but not outside of it.

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

[Wizard22]

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

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