|
Ah-pappapishu -> RE: About objectifying women (6/9/2008 3:16:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Auben
quote:
I avoid the OED at times due to its tendency to include "cultural" terms. Maybe they do it to be relevant, but when the discussion is semantic, I find that it muddies things up. Other dictionaries do it too, but from what I've seen, our OED trumps them all.
Interesting, because you use a literary/culturally unused definition by Shakespeare in order to prove your point.
quote:
Main Entry:
1ob·ject
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-jikt, -(ˌ)jekt\
Function:
noun
1 a: something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an object in the distance> b: something that when viewed stirs a particular emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed…the object poisons sight; let it be hid — Shakespeare>
You have hardly proven that a human being is an object. You have only the simplest definition here and a trumped up Shakespeare quote. [8|] 'Object' has several definitions, one of which describes how calling a person an object ('that old object' for instance) is a slur because of its dehumanization. In that sense 'object' means ugly. All my quotes are Webster's Unabridged btw.
quote:
Now the definition not only covers what I'm trying to say, but it also covers human beings. In fact, I can point out that your extrapolation is clearly incorrect. Human beings have physical natures- physical bodies which obviously comes into the category of "a visible and tangible material product or substance". Our bodies are visible, they are tangible. They may not be fabric, but in the most basic definition, they are substance.
Let me break this down for you linguistically.
Visible=able to see
tangible and material=able to touch
product=a good or service which is the result of a process
substance=matter of definite chemical consistency
Product and substance are never used to describe human beings. There is a reason for this. It is because we use those words to describe things, specifically things which can be manipulated or processed. If this is a cultural ideal then it is one which is held by a majority of the world's languages. Most languages make very clear choices between human/inhuman, animate/inanimate.
quote:
That's a cultural idea, but it is not rational. [I think 99 pct of the people who are angry about my point are cuz they see it culturally and not rationally.]
Yeah, that's not patrionizing.
quote:
We can agree that human beings are not MERELY objects, not JUST objects, not ONLY objects. They are much more. But their physical bodies are, without a doubt categorised as tangible, physical, material objects. This is just reality, isn't it?
Human beings are also mammals but we refrain from calling each other animals. You are male but we try to refrain from calling you 'boy.'
quote:
On your next point of reacting to physical characteristics, your right, 100 percent. But objectification, in this definition (I call it the proper definition because it means what it says ), has nothing to do with the other processes.
You call it the proper definition not because it is correct but because it suits your purposes and is true in your eyes. I have yet to see a defintion which is clear and uninterpreted by you.
quote:
You can process something physically, in an "objective" way, and then move on into understand, feeling, nurturing, empathizing. Or it can even be vice versa, with the emotions coming first, and the objective later (in the case of the internet, we are engaging in the emotions without any objective processing).
Objective, while being related to objectify and object is not the same word and can't be used interchangably. It also has noun and adjective meanings which are slightly different. Be precise.
quote:
But the point I'm making is that these two are distinct and different. The "objective" and the "emphatic"(i think thats the wrong word), are two separate, distinct processes. Just because you objectify does not mean you cannot or will not empathize.
This makes no sense. Go back and check your two quoted terms I think you mean two other words.
quote:
You distinguish between the initial process and objectification, but I think they are one and the same. The initial process does not lead to empathizing and understanding automatically.
Here we get to the crux "I think they are one and the same." Show us how that works. In a properly socialized human being we work from the inside out. When we meet someone new first we examine the world from our centrist/selfish viewpoint (initial reaction). Then we have a moment of recognition that the other person is similar to us, equal to the respect we require for oursleves. In an improperly socialized human being there is no moment of empathy because no one else is equal to the centrist view. I agree that empathy is not automatic in all persons, but do you really want to admit that to that kind of sociopathology? Considering the message of the Gospels I wouldn't think that God created men to be completely centrist with no ability to understand the golden rule.
quote:
I think the true difference between the initial process and objectification is that objectification is when it is carried on for longer for other purposes. A medical checkup often involves treating a physical body like an object and checking physical characteristics. As does sports for another example. The whole thing is objectifying other players, objectifying the ball, perceiving it all in a very objective, physical sense.
I'm sure some doctors and athletes practice objectification (and soldiers for that matter), but I'm not sure we can agree that it is always a healthy means to deal with their occupations.
quote:
But we need to agree on how to define the terms first. Of course.
quote:
BTW, this is very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for jumping in. I'm eager to hear your response. [Sorry if I alienated everybody with all this technical mumbojumbo :P]
If you want anyone to respond you really need to pull back on the patronizing language. We have no problems understanding you but we may decide you simply aren't worth the time.
I suppose of all the responses, yours was the one I was looking forward to the most. [:D]
I don't read Shakespeare much. I'm not basing anything on him.
The connection is between: "something material that may be perceived by the senses" and our physical properties as human beings. It doesn't make us mere objects. But it does makes us corporeal. It should be pretty clear. But then again, your not the only one having trouble with it.
This has nothing to do with whether we like to define ourselves that way or not. It's not about what we like and don't like. It's about what is and what is not.
I did notice this quote:
quote:
I'm sure some doctors and athletes practice objectification (and soldiers for that matter), but I'm not sure we can agree that it is always a healthy means to deal with their occupations.
Please go ahead and explain to me a healthier means of dealing with their occupation. I'm all ears. [:D]
quote:
Human beings are also mammals but we refrain from calling each other animals. You are male but we try to refrain from calling you 'boy.'
I did mention before that as human beings, our physical properties render us PARTIALLY corporeal. You never addressed it directly- is that true or is it not?
You did give me a lot of material like the above. I want to ask, are you refraining because it is incorrect? Or simply because of your preference, feelings or culture? In the end I think the truth and reality is more important than feelings and preference. But I want to hear your answer.
quote:
You call it the proper definition not because it is correct but because it suits your purposes and is true in your eyes. I have yet to see a defintion which is clear and uninterpreted by you.
Find me a better word that describes cognition of physical entities. [I wish I could.] Until then, objectify will do for me.
quote:
Here we get to the crux "I think they are one and the same." Show us how that works. In a properly socialized human being we work from the inside out. When we meet someone new first we examine the world from our centrist/selfish viewpoint (initial reaction). Then we have a moment of recognition that the other person is similar to us, equal to the respect we require for oursleves. In an improperly socialized human being there is no moment of empathy because no one else is equal to the centrist view. I agree that empathy is not automatic in all persons, but do you really want to admit that to that kind of sociopathology? Considering the message of the Gospels I wouldn't think that God created men to be completely centrist with no ability to understand the golden rule.
Where do you get this from? I don't agree, but its interesting and I'd love to see your sources.
I guess everything can be summed up by your answer to this question: Do you believe the 'cognition of physical entities' (notice I didn't use objectify) is (a) something that should be entirely eradicated from the human race, or (b) something that has a place in nature, in society?
It really is as simple as that. Of course, only one of those answers is in line with reality, logic and God's Word. I'll let you figure out yourself. [;)]
|
|
|
|