Author Topic: The Object and The Hazard  (Read 37 times)

Offline Absurd Atheist (OP)

The Object and The Hazard
« on: April 22, 2017, 04:41:17 PM »
So I want to speed run some philosophy by you all, based around conflict. This shouldn't be long but there is a [tl;dr] at the bottom just in case.

Basic premise: No inherent meaning in the world, we project socially constructed meaning on our perception of reality, yada yada. I don't think this is too radical to suggest here, but even if you don't believe that just bear with me for a bit.

The human condition operates in the realm of The Self and The Other.

The Self is the internal sense of perspective, identity, consciousness etc. These are of course very different things but I'm trying to make this short so this is uber simplified.
The Other is the material environment/world/universe of everything else perceived outside of the Self.

The Self categorizes The Other predominantly as either Objects for use, or Hazards of danger.

Object: clothes, tools, food, etc.
Hazard: storms, fire, cliffs, wild life etc.

There are of course many nuances and this list is rudimentary, I tried to base it around simple one-dimensional concepts but of course the descriptions should be more complex and are in real life, ex. guns probably fall somewhere in the middle. This also refers more to the perception of clothes, tools, storms etc., rather then the actual literal piece of clothing. This is an important concept for this next part.

While the Object and the Hazard are obviously important for survival, the issue comes when we contact other individuals. Due to not being able to percieve the internal "self" of another person, in some cases the mind perceives said person as either an object of use or hazard of danger.

Examples: WARNING These aren't intended to be political but may be taken that way. If you're sensitive to your politics maybe stay away.

Object: Slavery literally legally consider other peoples bodies as property. All forms of slavery count including: child slavery, sex slavery, debt slavery, race slavery etc. Another example of objectification is objectifying and stealing what doesn't belong to you: theft and colonialism.

Hazard: Also known as otherization these days, the mental creation of a hazard of other people can be seen in: implicit bias and the social construction of violent black people, xenophobia against foreign migrants, The Red Scare, labeling the Right"Nazi's" and the Left "Commies". One infamous historical example would be the hazardization of Jewish community in Nazi Germany.

Now this isn't to say that Object and Hazard is never justified, i.e. if a mugger jumps around the corner is it safe to consider them a Hazard? Probably, but there's also probably more nuance then that as well.

I'd argue that these two concepts lie somewhere at the root of conflict and violence as most wars are fought either to take something from someone else, or because they are consider a major threat. Yes I know this is a root cause claim but I'm just questioning the merit. There's also a lot more context but I don't want to overload anymore then I already have.

Thoughts?

[tl;dr] The mind sometimes misunderstands other people's bodies outside of their own as either objects for use or hazards of danger creating conflict (ex. slavery or xenophobia).
"It's easier to imagine the death of the world then it is to imagine the death of capitalism." Henry Giroux

"You are two people, still separated by an ocean of time."
The Dictionary of Obscure Shadows: Dès Vu

Online Sorginak

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2017, 04:47:40 PM »
Your Object/Hazard argument seems to be more sociological in nature than philosophical, at least to me. 

Religion is primitive, inventive nonsense.

Offline Absurd Atheist (OP)

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2017, 05:14:31 PM »
Your Object/Hazard argument seems to be more sociological in nature than philosophical, at least to me.

How so? I can definitely see how it's an aspect of sociology, but I don't see how this isn't philosophical. Unless we're discussing validity.
"It's easier to imagine the death of the world then it is to imagine the death of capitalism." Henry Giroux

"You are two people, still separated by an ocean of time."
The Dictionary of Obscure Shadows: Dès Vu

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2017, 06:58:54 PM »
I'd suggest all actions of humans can be thought of as mostly, if not always, selfish or self serving.  I tell my wife, child, grandchild 'I love you."  I want to be loved by them so I tell them that.  Giving to those in need--it makes me feel so much better.  All actions would include the thought it would benefit us as well. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2017, 11:24:52 PM »
שלום

Offline Absurd Atheist (OP)

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #5 on: Today at 01:45:02 PM »
I & Thou by Martin Buber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

Yes, I have more in the vein of "I and Thou" and the bonds we create with each other, but I wanted to gauge interests first. I think what is most important to take away from here is how the application of these concepts of object and hazard on the material world is simultaneously cross-applied onto others who also presumably have their own consciousness. Many other thinkers have come up with the basic concept of The Self and The Other, I'm more interested in the breakdown of encounters and conflict.
"It's easier to imagine the death of the world then it is to imagine the death of capitalism." Henry Giroux

"You are two people, still separated by an ocean of time."
The Dictionary of Obscure Shadows: Dès Vu

Offline Absurd Atheist (OP)

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #6 on: Today at 01:49:42 PM »
I'd suggest all actions of humans can be thought of as mostly, if not always, selfish or self serving.  I tell my wife, child, grandchild 'I love you."  I want to be loved by them so I tell them that.  Giving to those in need--it makes me feel so much better.  All actions would include the thought it would benefit us as well.

I agree on the egocentric nature of "humanity", and I mean egocentric in a neutral and not negative connotation. I'm not sure it's possible to escape egocentric-ism truly considering we're more or less locked into a singular point-of-view. Accepting this, my question is how do we moved on most effectively and minimize clash between people outside of our relationships who have no "selfish" reason to aid or at the very least live peaceably. Of course this is getting into social contract territory but I think it's still a valid question for today.
"It's easier to imagine the death of the world then it is to imagine the death of capitalism." Henry Giroux

"You are two people, still separated by an ocean of time."
The Dictionary of Obscure Shadows: Dès Vu

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #7 on: Today at 04:26:39 PM »
I agree on the egocentric nature of "humanity", and I mean egocentric in a neutral and not negative connotation. I'm not sure it's possible to escape egocentric-ism truly considering we're more or less locked into a singular point-of-view. Accepting this, my question is how do we moved on most effectively and minimize clash between people outside of our relationships who have no "selfish" reason to aid or at the very least live peaceably. Of course this is getting into social contract territory but I think it's still a valid question for today.

As long as people want "everything" and there is more than one person, then conflict is necessary.  Politics is the way we peacefully divvy up power and wealth and fame ... when there is more than one competing interest.  This gets socially modulated by the collective "us" vs "them".  Per the idea of the UN, if we consider "us" not "us & them", then there will not be militant competition.  But that takes a spiritual revolution .. I don't see secular ideology or scientific psychology getting us there.
שלום