Subject / Object Distinction

[Age]

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.

IF, and WHEN, 'you' EVER LEARN WHO and WHAT 'people' ARE, EXACTLY, then 'you' could NEVER SEE NOR TREAT ANY 'person' as some 'object' 'that could be thrown out with the garbage'.

'These people' REALLY DID have so much MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND. But as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'they' ACTUALLY thought and/or BELIEVED that 'they' KNEW ENOUGH ALREADY, and so 'this' is WHY 'they' did NOT SEEK TO KEEP LEARNING, and KEEP UNDERSTANDING.

The ignorance is important, because some people (autists in particular), cannot 'read' other peoples' emotions, intentions, social interactions.

LOL

If this one ONLY KNEW just how FAR BEHIND 'it' and "other" so-called "non autistics" REALLY WERE in regards to being ABLE TO 'READ' "each other", "themselves", BACK in 'those days' when this was being written, then 'this one' would ALREADY KNOW just how HILARIOUS 'this CLAIM' IS, BY 'it'.

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.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT 'you' DO here "wizard22". Or, MORE CORRECTLY, 'try to' DO.

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").

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, 'this human being' HAS FORGOTTEN that 'it', and ALL "OTHER" human beings, ARE JUST 'animals', "themselves".

Although 'this one' BELIEVES that 'it', and 'its kind', are WAY ABOVE EVERY 'thing' "ELSE".

[Age]

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

Now there is NO WONDER WHY 'you' can NOT back up and support 'your' CLAIMS here "henry quirk".

'you' ARE JUST COPYING what 'you' have HEARD and/or READ FROM "others". So, this EXPLAINS WHY 'you' CONSISTENTLY CONTRADICT "your" 'self', and ARE VERY INCONSISTENT in what 'you' SAY and WRITE here.

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

[Skepdick]

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?

What does that have to do with anything? Who's reflection is in the mirror? Mine, obviously. How do I know? Because I am standing in front of a fucking mirror!

But why are you conflating your reflection with your identity (if you even had one). Is your identity two dimensional? Because your reflection is.

The basis for self-identity is self-recognition.

No it isn't. Imagine you were disfigured in a horrible accident and you look in the mirror. You might be tempted to say "I don't recognize myself.".

Sure - you look different, but it's still you. A disfigured you.

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.

You are going about this the wrong way. If I put you in front of a mirror with a mask over your face - can you recognize yourself?


If you can't - does that mean you've suddenly lost your self-awareness? You know you are in front of a damn mirror and you understand what a mirror does. But you can't see your own face because there's a mask over your head.

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

Uhuh. So if identification varies then how do you identify what identification is?

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

In so far as you think beliefs exists and that you have them your thinking is incredibly conventional and deluded - to use your own language: you believe in the existence of beliefs on blind faith. According to the eliminative materialists anyway.

If you are just trying to be different - you have failed.

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

And why is the 'Subjectivism' or 'Objectivism' debate important? It's definitely not important to me...

I don't care if it's subjectively or objectively true that murder is wrong. It's not like objective truth is somehow better than subjective truth.

Truth is truth is truth.

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

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

Everything is real. My feelings are as real as gravity. The stuff you insist isn't real (yet you are somehow talking about it) is real to me. If it's not real then how are you talking about it and what is it that you are talking about?

Such distinctions are simply not useful.

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.

It's the most common view amongst humans. It's known as naive realism. Congratulations - you are a commoner.

Also, I am not sure what to make of the your conclusion. The Object (that is you) takes precedence before the Subject (that is you). What does that mean?

Whereas, as a scientist I don't find your brand of objectivism useful. I am aware of the limits of human knowledge and I understand why constructivism and model-dependent realism capture an important aspect of the difficulty humans have in being objective.

[Wizard22]

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?

What does that have to do with anything? Who's reflection is in the mirror? Mine, obviously. How do I know? Because I am standing in front of a fucking mirror!

But why are you conflating your reflection with your identity (if you even had one). Is your identity two dimensional? Because your reflection is.

The basis for self-identity is self-recognition.

No it isn't. Imagine you were disfigured in a horrible accident and you look in the mirror. You might be tempted to say "I don't recognize myself.".

Sure - you look different, but it's still you. A disfigured you.

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.

You are going about this the wrong way. If I put you in front of a mirror with a mask over your face - can you recognize yourself?


If you can't - does that mean you've suddenly lost your self-awareness? You know you are in front of a damn mirror and you understand what a mirror does. But you can't see your own face because there's a mask over your head.

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

Uhuh. So if identification varies then how do you identify what identification is?

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

In so far as you think beliefs exists and that you have them your thinking is incredibly conventional and deluded - to use your own language: you believe in the existence of beliefs on blind faith. According to the eliminative materialists anyway.

If you are just trying to be different - you have failed.

No, in your latest response here, you've identified the notion of consistency in the Subject that remains the same, despite any outward appearance. That's what I was getting at, previously. Is such an identity Subjective or Objective? Remember, this is your claim, and your claim despite appearances...so what exactly is this Consistent-Self?

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

And why is the 'Subjectivism' or 'Objectivism' debate important? It's definitely not important to me...

I don't care if it's subjectively or objectively true that murder is wrong. It's not like objective truth is somehow better than subjective truth.

Truth is truth is truth.

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

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

Everything is real. My feelings are as real as gravity. The stuff you insist isn't real (yet you are somehow talking about it) is real to me. If it's not real then how are you talking about it and what is it that you are talking about?

Such distinctions are simply not useful.

Are Unicorns real?
Aliens?
God?
Comic book heroes and villains? Fiction?

There are many Unreal things and beliefs, which are considered Supernatural, Paranormal, Incredulous...

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.

It's the most common view amongst humans. It's known as naive realism. Congratulations - you are a commoner.

Whereas, as a scientist I don't find your brand of objectivism useful. I am aware of the limits of human knowledge and I understand why constructivism and model-dependent realism capture an important aspect of the difficulty humans have in being objective.

You have a lot to learn...Objectivity is hardly commonplace.

Most humans only pose Objectivity as remotely possible through "Trust the Science, Trust the Experts", by which they-themselves cannot rationalize nor justify their beliefs, or through God. That is how the vast majority of humanity "have access" to Objectivity. And it's not my beliefs, it's theirs, explicitly expressed and admitted. The Philosophical route is through Reasoning, hypothetically. I can demonstrate this, by how people define Subject and Object, and reason about these distinctions. It has to do with—as you said, the manner by which you or others Identify yourself.

[Wizard22]

'These people' REALLY DID have so much MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND. But as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'they' ACTUALLY thought and/or BELIEVED that 'they' KNEW ENOUGH ALREADY, and so 'this' is WHY 'they' did NOT SEEK TO KEEP LEARNING, and KEEP UNDERSTANDING.

Age, I want you to try to stop appealing to the audience, and talk directly with others.

Consider it a lesson and practice in reducing your Autism. Talk directly with me, as yourself. Be Subjective, for once. Consider your own Beliefs, when and where they agree with my own, versus when and where they do not.

Try it out. Pretend being Human, for a change.

[Skepdick]

Are Unicorns real?
Aliens?
God?
Comic book heroes and villains? Fiction?

They are all ideas! Are ideas real? There's an easy way to test that...

Do they have a causal effect on any part of reality? Yep - they do. They affect the way humans think and behave.

So they are real.

There are many Unreal things and beliefs, which are considered Supernatural, Paranormal, Incredulous...

Yeah, there's also mathematics, loigic, morals, democracy. All of those things come from the exact same place as unicorns, god and comic book heroes.

Human imagination.

But if Mathematics isn't real what about physics ?!? Have you ever seen how fundamental particles are described in physics? In terms of numbers! And the house of cards comes crashing down...

You have a lot to learn...Objectivity is hardly commonplace.

The belief in the existence of objectivity is the default.

Most humans only pose Objectivity as remotely possible through "Trust the Science, Trust the Experts", by which they-themselves cannot rationalize nor justify their beliefs, or through God.

They themselves? You seem to be excluding yourself as special for some reason.

Can you justify your beliefs? I bet you can't. In fact - I am willing to bet that under deep and rigorous enough scrutiny your religion too shall be exposed.

That is how the vast majority of humanity "have access" to Objectivity. And it's not my beliefs, it's theirs, explicitly expressed and admitted.

So lets turn the spotlight on you. Do beliefs exist?

The Philosophical route is through Reasoning, hypothetically. I can demonstrate this, by how people define Subject and Object, and reason about these distinctions. It has to do with—as you said, the manner by which you or others Identify yourself.

You don't seem to understand that identification is a process.

That I am able to identify myself in a photo doesn't mean that I have an identity.

It simply means that I can evaluate similarities and differences and arrive at a most plausible guess.

[henry quirk]

(you) ARE VERY INCONSISTENT in what 'you' SAY and WRITE here.

If, dear Smeagol, you could provide an example of my inconsistencies, I would be so very appreciative.

[henry quirk]

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

[Age]

'These people' REALLY DID have so much MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND. But as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'they' ACTUALLY thought and/or BELIEVED that 'they' KNEW ENOUGH ALREADY, and so 'this' is WHY 'they' did NOT SEEK TO KEEP LEARNING, and KEEP UNDERSTANDING.

Age, I want you to try to stop appealing to the audience, and talk directly with others.

This seems VERY HYPOCRITICAL.

By the way, there are A LOT of 'things' that I would like 'you' TO DO. BUT, because 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' WANT, I do NOT EVEN BOTHER TELLING 'you' TO DO 'them', like 'you' DO.

I AM WRITING FOR a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE here, so I CHOOSE HOW, and WHAT, TO WRITE.

Do 'you' COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this' "wizard22"?

Consider it a lesson and practice in reducing your Autism. Talk directly with me, as yourself. Be Subjective, for once. Consider your own Beliefs, when and where they agree with my own, versus when and where they do not.

1. you STILL DO NOT GET 'it'.

2. LOL it sounds like you WANT 'me' and/or "others" to SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT WHEN 'we' AGREE WITH 'you'.

Try it out. Pretend being Human, for a change.

ONCE 'One' EVOLVES 'It', REALLY, does NOT WANT TO step BACK, AGAIN.

What you just SAID, and DEMANDED, here would be like an 'ape' TELLING 'you', a human being, to PRETEND being 'ape', for a change.

[Age]

(you) ARE VERY INCONSISTENT in what 'you' SAY and WRITE here.

If, dear Smeagol, you could provide an example of my inconsistencies, I would be so very appreciative.

I will USE the word 'BUT' to SHOW WHERE your inconsistency IS EXACTLY, and WHEN 'it' comes INTO PLAY.

you say and claim that people have their OWN life, liberty, and property, BUT, you also say and claim that 'you', "henry quirk", CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR life, liberty, and property when you think, believe, and/or feel like it.

Which, to me, is VERY INCONSISTENT. Although 'it' may NOT be, TO 'you'.

[henry quirk]

(you) ARE VERY INCONSISTENT in what 'you' SAY and WRITE here.

If, dear Smeagol, you could provide an example of my inconsistencies, I would be so very appreciative.

I will USE the word 'BUT' to SHOW WHERE your inconsistency IS EXACTLY, and WHEN 'it' comes INTO PLAY.

you say and claim that people have their OWN life, liberty, and property, BUT, *you also say and claim that 'you', "henry quirk", CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR life, liberty, and property when you think, believe, and/or feel like it.

Which, to me, is VERY INCONSISTENT. Although 'it' may NOT be, TO 'you'.

*Nope, I never said that, I never claimed that. Can you provide a citation/quote to back your assertion?

[Age]

If, dear Smeagol, you could provide an example of my inconsistencies, I would be so very appreciative.

I will USE the word 'BUT' to SHOW WHERE your inconsistency IS EXACTLY, and WHEN 'it' comes INTO PLAY.

you say and claim that people have their OWN life, liberty, and property, BUT, *you also say and claim that 'you', "henry quirk", CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR life, liberty, and property when you think, believe, and/or feel like it.

Which, to me, is VERY INCONSISTENT. Although 'it' may NOT be, TO 'you'.

*Nope, I never said that, I never claimed that.

SO, what did you SAY, and CLAIM, instead, then?

Can you provide a citation/quote to back your assertion?

Yes.

[henry quirk]

SO, what did you SAY, and CLAIM, instead, then?

No, Smeagol: I don't have to prove my innocence; you have to prove my guilt.

Can you provide a citation/quote to back your assertion?

Yes.

Then do so.

[Age]

SO, what did you SAY, and CLAIM, instead, then?

No, Smeagol: I don't have to prove my innocence; you have to prove my guilt.

But you ARE CLAIMING that you SAID some 'thing' ELSE, right?

Can you provide a citation/quote to back your assertion?

Yes.

Then do so.

IS TELLING "another" what TO DO part of 'your' 'recognizing and respecting "another's" life, liberty, and property'?

[henry quirk]

But you ARE CLAIMING that you SAID some 'thing' ELSE, right?

In context: No.

IS TELLING "another" what TO DO part of 'your' 'recognizing and respecting "another's" life, liberty, and property'?

Can you be more specific?