Author Topic: The Object and The Hazard  (Read 773 times)

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).
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

Offline 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.

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.
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

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

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2017, 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.
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2017, 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.
"To have faith is to lose your mind and to win God."
-The Sickness unto Death - 1849

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2017, 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

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2017, 10:57:32 PM »
What he said

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2017, 09:47:26 AM »
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.
Oh yeah, spiritual all the way--I mean all of the organized religions I know are, oh so peaceful!!  The way of the spirit!  God told me and so it is......as I slice your throat!  What 'spirit' (which is a fiction people just love to 'believe' in!) will bring peace???  When and where has that happened???!!!  Secular is the ONLY way peace will ever come to this planet.  It is our only hope.  If all the religions were to suddenly just disappear then we could have a shot at some actual peace.  For peace to be real we have to have thought about it and using critical thinking figure it out.  We will not get it by wishing for it or by seeking guidance from skydaddy/mommy or some 'spirit'.  We will not 'believe' our way into peace.
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 aitm

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2017, 01:49:00 PM »
The vast majority of human behavior observed is selfish in nature as it is in most cases benign activities that would normally prompt selfish behavior. Not selfish as in me first, but selfish as in "what I am doing at the moment is specifically for my benefit because nothing prompts me at the moment to act differently".

Yet, this observation is used as a generic explanation or suggested explanation of human behavior when it really is simply the norm under normal, customary, ordinary life. But when the occasion arises, I suggest the vast amount of humans change drastically into more of a selfless pure champion of all the extraordinary behaviors that humans exhibit when the need arises. People will charge into dangerous situations to help other people, complete strangers. Many will risk their lives and some will knowingly go into a situation understanding they are going to die. I suspect most if not all people have that "point" where fear turns into action, but that point may be a rather difficult point to locate during an emergency, it may not turn into action until the very point where inaction becomes more dangerous than action i.e. fight or flight, when no flight is available.

Under normal conditions of life, there are so many variables that need to be considered that generic standards are rather easy to postulate but more difficult to produce using a generic standard. Point to a person and suggest that action "a" will be done under condition "a" can certainly achieve relative success, but choosing people of various ethnic or cultural background most likely will not produce the same results.

I have seen first hand that genetics can produce stunning similar behaviors socially when the progeny never knew the parent he/she mimics. I have seen a son who mimics his fathers social behavior as exactly as if they had spent a lifetime together instead of one single year as an infant and no further contact. Behavior so exact as to be strikingly eerie. Probably not the point of this OP though.


A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2017, 02:35:03 PM »
Oh yeah, spiritual all the way--I mean all of the organized religions I know are, oh so peaceful!!  The way of the spirit!  God told me and so it is......as I slice your throat!  What 'spirit' (which is a fiction people just love to 'believe' in!) will bring peace???  When and where has that happened???!!!  Secular is the ONLY way peace will ever come to this planet.  It is our only hope.  If all the religions were to suddenly just disappear then we could have a shot at some actual peace.  For peace to be real we have to have thought about it and using critical thinking figure it out.  We will not get it by wishing for it or by seeking guidance from skydaddy/mommy or some 'spirit'.  We will not 'believe' our way into peace.

Spirituality isn't the same as religion.  Per Darwin, I can rob, rape and kill you at any time, to maximize my chances of mating with your SO ... and if we are both fertile, I can produce offspring that can be used to replace any that you have produced.  Think Hamlet.  The cuckoos do this, by laying their eggs in another species nest, to be raised gratis by other parents.  Per nature, there is no crime I can't commit, if it is in my short term interest to do so.  No species, except by law of unintended consequences, ever looks out for the long term (rational law) including humans.  If I haven't committed a crime against you, it is only because there hasn't been the motivation or opportunity ... not because it is contrary to my or your nature.  By spiritual, I mean to act un-naturally, though as a tautology, you would deny that is even possible, because you will find some Darwinian rationalization as to why I should give money to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Critical thinking?  A better weapon and opportunity to injure you.  That is what critical thinking produces.
שלום

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2017, 05:14:52 PM »
Spirituality isn't the same as religion. 
Really???  Wow!  Didn't know that!...............
What is this 'spirit' you are talking about??  Seems to me it is simply another theist fiction so that you/they can believe whatever they want. 
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?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2017, 05:24:32 PM »
Per Darwin, I can rob, rape and kill you at any time, to maximize my chances of mating with your SO ... and if we are both fertile, I can produce offspring that can be used to replace any that you have produced. 
Really.  Darwin said that did he.  When and where? 
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?

Re: The Object and The Hazard
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2017, 05:32:04 PM »
  Per nature, there is no crime I can't commit, if it is in my short term interest to do so.  No species, except by law of unintended consequences, ever looks out for the long term (rational law) including humans.  If I haven't committed a crime against you, it is only because there hasn't been the motivation or opportunity ... not because it is contrary to my or your nature.  By spiritual, I mean to act un-naturally, though as a tautology, you would deny that is even possible, because you will find some Darwinian rationalization as to why I should give money to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Of course 'nature' does not limit the crime(s) I can commit.  So what?  I don't know of any govt run by 'nature'.  All laws and rules of conduct are created by various societies and govts.  Not 'nature'. 

I have not committed a crime against you because committing crimes is not something I do--not intentionally.  I don't think most people would become blood thirsty criminals if there were no official laws or rules to live by. 

And I am not a darwinian.  I do think he discovered ideas that became the Darwin theory of evolution.  Being Darwinian , or supporting Darwinsim is simply political in nature, not scientific.
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?