And I can see why you do not.
From what vantage point? From what context/frame of reference? And to what degrees?
Animals are subjects insofar as they have an inner experience going on, which is unified and extends over time with memory. And many, probably most animals do have that. They have very similar brain structure as humans do, mostly they lack the neocortex we have. So they cannot “experience their own experiencing itself as such and by itself”, they cannot extract that part of themselves which IS EXPERIENCING (separate from the contents of those experiences) and then experience that directly and in new ways. Plus they usually lack the ability to vocalize in varied consistent phonemes that would be required to produce the basic vocabulary of an abstract language, just as they usually lack the dexterity of fingers and hands to be able to produce consistent written symbols that would also be required for such a language to begin to be written down.
Animals may not be “persons” because they lack self-awareness, they don’t really know themselves or even know what they are or that they are alive or will die someday. They are basically defined almost entirely by the sum total of the things they are experiencing in the moment plus some degree of memory carried forward into the present. But they do have internal subjective experience, they have “thoughts” (internal mental images/impressions including remembered ones) and they have feelings (they feel things like pleasure, fear, pain, arousal, desire, anger. Just not in the richer more complex ways humans do).
I don’t know what that means here, “lose your soul”. And subjectivity is not limited to humans. Nor is subjectivity contingent upon having a certain type of moral belief-set.
By ideals you mean goals?
I have never seen ideals conflated with “objectivity”.
Well if all roles are necessary to be there in order to achieve victory, then all roles would be equally important. I believe what you are saying is that some roles comprise multiple individuals whereas other roles comprise only a single individual; those embodied by a single individual might be seen as more “important”, I guess, although logically speaking that is incorrect.
Also what is the point of this subject-object thing you lay out here? Yes we obviously know there are things beyond ourselves in the world and with which we interact. And this is relevant how?
I am pretty sure most humans can recognize themselves in a mirror, and have an awareness of themselves and what they look like. Including an awareness of how they are separate from the things around them in the world.
No, self-consciousness is the single greatest survival adaptation ever to emerge from natural selection. Humans will never cease to exist and will never cease their dominant position over all other life and nature on the planet. Fact. Even if there is global nuclear war and 99.9999% of humans die the remaining few will come back and recolonize the planet again.
Self-consciousness was the inevitable result of the evolution of nervous systems, it just took a VERY long time and a LOT of specific coincidental things coming together close enough in time for it to finally take off.
Most people are pretty stupid, as in non-philosophical, they do not think very much, they do not work on or really refine their ideas, they do not know what logic is, they like the easy path of doing what they are told and following the crowd. But that doesn’t mean they are not self-conscious, because they are still conscious OF THEMSELVES as a distinct ‘self’ from their own body and from the world around them. This “mental ego thing” or the “I” of self-awareness which is able to be conscious of our own consciousness itself, to make of experience itself an object of experience, that is what self-consciousness means. To have a self and to be able to experience AS A SELF.
It is a process over time of building these ideas and greater, more comprehensive and error-free understandings. Survival is one thing, selfishness is one thing, greed is one thing, cooperation is one thing, morality is one thing, justice is one thing, altruism is one thing, etc etc etc. Each of these concepts is essential to the equation. Until each concept is properly explored, understood and contextualized in the larger whole then humans will continue to operate in the weird gray spaces of half-truths and half-lies, where they cannot help but contradict themselves over and over. But that’s just the way it must be. Learning and mental clarity of undertstanding, sanity and a completed personality are very difficult things to obtain, they come only after a very long development period of the whole “self-consciousness” thing, individual and group level developments are needed in great measure.
From the vantage point of any living person, at any time, and to the degree that perspective is acutely aware of reality and is not Deluded/Diseased/Ill.
Sure you can make that argument. But it doesn’t stop humans from farming, raising, and slaughtering animals, because animals have no (Human) ‘Rights’. They are not Equals. They are lessers/inferiors, by predation. There are some inclinations toward “Animal Rights”, but this usually refers to people being excessively cruel and torturous to somebody’s pet. A pet is a domesticated animal. Its “rights” are a fragment of a human’s.
So too is its presumed Subjectivity.
If Objectivity refers to some ‘higher/highest’ truth, as it usually implies, then that is also an Ideal of the subject, in addition to what it actually is in reality.
Because some ideals, therefore some goals, therefore some Objective, are beyond oneself as an individual, and require a whole society to fulfill.
You’re missing the greater point here. It is not about having ‘A’ self-consciousness. It is about having a high degree of Self-Consciousness. It’s about more-or-less. In the point I was making, there are degrees of self-consciousness required, to understand ‘Objectivity’, or to understand and employ Empathy. Some people can do it, others can not, depending on their ability/intellect/imagination.
Self-consciousness may raise survivability rates, but again, no guarantees. And it is not necessary. Most organisms are not self-conscious, and they do just fine surviving. Again, my point was mostly about the degree of self-awareness and self-consciousness, in a single human. Some people have much more, some much less. This is important. This is the main point of the thread, even.
Agreed
Ok fair enough.
Subjectivity has ontological existence, rights do not. Rights are human-made rules/guidelines that aim to produce a system of limitations in order to potentiate other things, all with the aim of trying to make life better for humans. To make society function better. Subjectivity is a “thing in reality” whereas rights are man-made ideas, yes which also exist in reality but not in the same way as subjectivity does. Subjectivity is physiological-psychological. Rights are just… human notions based on certain kinds of information and goals we have.
“Rights” is another one of those mystifying words that no one bothers to try and properly define, so it just fucks up discussions.
Humans farm and eat animals because we want to, because that is how things were done in the past and because it tastes good and is nutritious for us. And because animals are not able to vocalize their objections, they cannot speak for themselves. We know they are living and feeling beings, which means it is moral to try and minimize their torture. But it would also be moral to not torture and eat them in the first place. It just depends on how one optimizes the problem. Someday humans probably will not eat animals and will look back on it as barbaric, like cannibalism.
Yeah but this is why I try not to use those terms. Objective means “higher than” subjective, subjective means “somehow lower”, even though these terms are merely describing “in vs out” type relationships, strictly factual. Why would something “out” (“objective”) be “higher” as a truth compared to something “in” (“subjective”)? This is a naive assumption that already negatively colors any philosophy operating upon it.
In reality the subjective/objective distinction isn’t that significant. Subjectivity is just one type of objectivity. Everything comes from other causes/reasons that precede itself in time and extend outside of itself in space, which means are more objective. Ultimately every subjectivity is produced by and in terms of objectivity and exists in an objective sense, i.e. it is an objective fact that subjectivities exist as they do.
There is just reality, and then there are areas of reality that display interesting properties, like forming self-referencing vortexes that lead to what we call subjectivity. No need to categorically split subjectivity off from objectivity like people do. It would be like saying there are two fundamental types of atmospheric conditions: tornadoes/typhoons/hurricanes (the vortexes) and then every situation that has none of those going on. That is just silly, there is no need to separate out the vortex situations as a new essential kind of category from everything else. They emerge from that ‘everything else’ as displaying particularly interesting properties but they are still just as much a part of that “outside” as anything else is.
Yes, most do. Individualism is fine as an ideal or political statement or attitude but in reality we can’t do much of anything without the society operating around us. Even in Mad Max people find partners and groups to collaborate with, the lone wolf so to speak will more easily get picked off. And even so, being a individualistic lone wolf in a Mad Max world, you still needed to have been raised in a society around and by other people in order to learn language and become a sentient, thinking person. You weren’t raised as a feral child.
That being said yes within that context some goals we can do ourselves, others we need the help/cooperation from other people to achieve. I guess I still don’t see the point of this, though. It’s just stating a basic fact, why is it significant here? Why do we need to bring in the term ‘objective’ to describe any of this?
Yes, that is true. Most people seem to operate on a low level of self-consciousness. I suppose because developing one’s own self-consciousness takes time and effort which most people don’t put in.
In that case then yes of course. We should focus on greater quantities and qualities of self-consciousness not on lesser ones. We should prioritize people who have more of it, not less. More of it is better, of course. But I still fail to see why bringing in the concept of objective is necessary to understand any of this. I can describe it all quite well and completely without employing that concept at all. In fact as I said above “everything is objective” and “subjective” just describes a certain type of objectivity that happens to have attained a certain kind of formation and property of self-reflection/self-recursion leading to the development of meta layers within and as its particular kind of “objectively existing thing that is interacting objectively with the objective world around it”. So it just seems redundant and unnecessarily confusing to introduce these terms. Why not just speak directly about what things are, how they work and why?
My point about evolution was that the evolution of self-consciousness was inevitable (not necessary) given enough evolutionary time. The development of a nervous system is also inevitable, and from that comes the later inevitability of self-consciousness because of what a nervous system is and what it does/accomplishes. Obviously having self-consciousness or a nervous system isn’t necessary for survival.
Evolution over a long enough timeline implies the creation of nervous systems, which over a long enough time implies the creation of self-consciousness. It’s only a matter of rolling the dice enough times until these things emerge.
Based brother.
There is so much out there beyond human thought.
It’s certain that the objects exist.
Anyone who can’t see this has a problem.
Subjects are broken off of objects.
Subjects come from and because of objects.
Subjects are metaphysical.
Objects are physical.
Maybe you’re right but that’s simply not how the vast majority of humanity view animals, compared to Hominid. People eat meat everyday. Whereas governments and authorities around the world outlaw cannibalism and list it among the grossest “crimes against humanity”. This distinction, is why animals are not perceived as ‘Subjects’ by most. Maybe you do see them as Subjects. Again, most people do not. Not even suburbanite middle-aged women with their Lapdogs—they treat them like children, but still understand they are not Subjects. There is a difference of classification, and this pertains to the Rights of Man, because mankind is believed to have a Soul/Spirit that animals do not.
You can argue against the morality of mankind all you like; it does not change or stop the majority of belief who will resist your perspective. Part of the reason is, a Superiority-Complex, that ‘ordains’ a human as entitled…entitled to kill, entitled to consume, entitled to predation. I, personally, have no guilt in eating meat. I do not consider myself ‘equal’ to my prey. Yes, animals do have a smaller degree of consciousness, and perhaps no self-consciousness.
They are not Subjects. Subjectivity requires a degree of self-consciousness that raises a specie above mere-existence.
Being an Animal, is not the same as Being a Human.
I disagree, because a subsection of humanity is capable of Empathy, to the point of separating humanity from “mere animals”, via hunting and eventually warfare. It’s a degree of mind-reading and “getting into” another’s mind. This ability, specifically, separates man from animal, and man from man. You do need a ‘higher’ perspective to evolve ‘above’ all those who are Subjugated. This is why Subject and Subjugated are the same cognate.
This is why, historically, a “Subject” is a subject of a kingdom, a peon, a peasant, etc.
These words and distinctions are not ironical, not a coincidence. To be a ‘Subject’, has historical meaning. To be “Subjective”, is to be self-enclosed, selfish, infantile, childlike, and especially unable to Empathize with others. This is why, on this forum, there are a few notorious posters, who pollute this forum, and cannot repeat another’s argument, cannot distinguish who they communicate with, or why. There are many ‘flavors’ and varieties of intellects, from low to high, from aware to oblivious.
I’d say that ‘Subjectivism’ is an over-classification, but still useful.
Because “outside” is a necessary distinction, so too is the subject/object conscious/intellectual division.
Otherwise how does a mind, perspective, know what is ‘within’ it versus without it? You’re basically arguing on behalf of Solipsism, which is an inability to recognize an “outside” oneself.
Because ‘objective’ is synonymous to Objectivity here? Isn’t it obvious?
Objectivity is the inevitable result and consequence of conscious evolution; because an ‘Object’ refers to what one-self is not. In order to define thy-Self, you must correctly and accurately identify what you are, versus, what you are NOT. The ‘not’ begins a negative identification distinction. “I” am not that, and that, and that. I view myself in the mirror. I am not my reflection. The mirror is not a magical universe. My mirror-self is not myself, but my image in the mirror. I am distinct, from my image. You see me, and your perception is a reflection of me, same of you to me. Consciousness is about re-presentation. Identifications are on-going and changing. My-self is a development over time. Perhaps some part of me is the same and consistent from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 30 years ago, but much of myself has changed, matured, aged. People look different as a child than an adult.
None of this is “Subjective”. It is Objective assessment, to treat yourself as an ‘object’, which is distinct and opposed to oneself as a Subject.
Again, not everybody is capable of objectivity. It is not required to survive in nature. It is very much an ‘Artifice’ of nature, a novelty, a peacock tail of the intellect. It is a symbol of male vitality and fitness. It is an unnecessary extension, yet, very useful, to further understanding of nature, existence, self, etc…
Hell yea…
I agree with your premise but not your conclusion.
It is people with excessive self-consciousness, objective awareness, that have the ‘problem’. Think of Subjectivists as…small children, an infant, a teenager, etc. A child doesn’t have a problem with being selfish and subjective. A child has no problem with believing the world and universe revolves around it, his/her needs only. The “problem” comes when a mind becomes vividly aware of itself, and transitions to adulthood/maturity. The problem is in dealing with a majority of humanity, who will never grow up beyond a level of development, many will never be ‘objective’. The majority of humanity that runs on Emotionalism, do not perceive themselves as “having a problem”.
I’ll go further in the Subject-Object distinction here, as a defense against its terms.
Subject: “I am a Subject.” I have a spirit or soul, Ordained by God Himself. My life has meaning. I am important. My feelings and emotions matter. The world revolves around me, and me only. My needs and desires take precedence over yours. I am entitled to all the good things in life. I am entitled to you and what’s yours. I am Human. I am above Animals. Humanity is the peak of conscious existence and evolution. The universe is empty, and humanity is the highest creature and intelligence. There is nothing greater than, higher than, smarter than, Humanity.
Object: “I am an Object.” I have no spirit or soul. There is no God. There is only Nothing. My life has no meaning. I am not important. My feelings and emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, hormonal. The world does not revolve around me; the world revolves around nothing at all. I am not Human; I am a Machine. I am a biological entity, unlike any other biology. Intelligence leads to delusions about self-importance and meaning. Meaning is fictional, fantasy. I am no different than a Robot. Humans and Animals are not different; both are Machines. There is no soul. There is no meaning in life. There is no purpose to life.
Consider this a Steel-man to the ends of the spectrum.
If somebody wants to find use in the Terminology, then it must be here at least.
Yes there is a difference in classification, humans vs non-human animals are categorized differently. And yet both are still “subjects” and even in some cases non-human animals could also be “persons”. If you’ve ever had a really intelligent dog for example, it’s pretty difficult to claim they aren’t experiencing something like subjectivity and personhood similarly to ourselves, just in a more limited scope and without symbolic language to help them buttress their concepts upward in complexity and detail. I see no reason to say that all non-human animals lack subjectivity or lack personhood. Probably some do, but certainly not all.
I am not interested in the perspective of the majority.
I do not feel guilty eating meat either. And just because two things are equal in one way or along one dimension or meaning doesn’t mean they have to be equal in every other possible way. Obviously a human and a cow are equal in some ways and unequal in other ways, even morally and philosophically speaking (discounting the obvious physical differences of course).
Yeah they are.
Subjectivity requires simply to be a “self” or subject having an experience, a perspective, a living existence. Animals have feelings and thoughts and perceptions. They experience things as from their one perspective and in terms of that which they are and that perspective generated by their brains, therefore they are subjects. They have presence, awareness, life.
And most basically they have a sufficiently centralized nervous system to be able to experience things like that, from a perspective with some degree of codified “self experience” and self-reference around which and in terms of which their sensations are organized. A bacterium doesn’t have that, a squirrel does. A bacterium also cannot feel pain, whereas a squirrel can. The squirrel can therefore have the experience of the basic concept of “bad” while a bacterium cannot. Pain is literally nothing more than the direct, unmediated awareness of badness, which along with pleasure is a type of immediate awareness natural selection put there because it was useful in allowing organisms to understand information about bad and good without needing to have a ton of complex neurological hardware such as a neocortex and inherited language and culture necessary for forming complex cognitive ideas.
Right. Or rather, phrasing that more correctly: There are ways in which being a non-human animal is not the same as being a human animal, and there are also ways in which being a non-human animal is the same as being a human animal.
When I use the word subjective it is not to mean the same or similar to “subjugated”. That is an entirely different concept and it would be an error to conflate them.
Yes empathy and being able to get inside the mind/perspective of others represents a higher ability. Something humans can do either a little bit or a lot, and something that probably most animals aren’t able to do very much or at all. Then again we cannot know for sure if there aren’t some animals that do experience empathy, for example for their own offspring perhaps.
It doesn’t matter if etymologically they were linked back in history, they are completely distinct concepts. You are operating on a very pernicious error here by conflating the concept of subjectivity with the concept of being subjugated. I can see how this is coloring and messing up your ideas.
Again, false conflations leading to errors and over-generalizations. “is to be self-enclosed, selfish, infantile, childlike, and especially unable to Empathize with others” Look at the trajectory of errors there. You go from the notion of being self-enclosed, which certainly has something to do with subjectivity insofar as a subject is “enclosed” somewhat within their own perspective/self/mind, even though this is never absolute isolation or enclosure because we do exist within the more objective world and have many interactions and lines of exchanges with it; to “selfish” then to “infantile and childlike” and finally to “unable to empathize with others”. Hopefully now you can see why that chain of reasoning is so flawed, because each step doesn’t follow from the one before it. Just because subjectivity involves a degree of “self-enclosure” it doesn’t follow that subjectivity is selfish, or infantile and childlike, or lacking the ability to empathize. These things simply do not follow at all, or at least you have not demonstrated that they do.
And I have noticed you place a lot of value on historical meanings. Yes it is useful to understand the distant origins of words and what people from hundreds or thousands of years ago meant when they used certain words, that can be very enlightening. But it doesn’t always have bearing upon what words mean now. What I care about is what words ACTUALLY MEAN, right now, as in how they are used properly and that meaning and referent is accurate to a given word (and what element/aspect of reality, of truth, is indicated/referred to by a given concept). Just because people a long time ago used words one way doesn’t mean that is relevant to how we are understanding things today. At the very least you should know that when I speak of subjects or subjectivity I am not referring to any of that supposed historical meaning you invoke, like how people were subjects of the king or whatever. History and philosophy are two distinct things.
No, I refute solipsism easily.
How does a mind know what is within vs without it? Easy, we learn this over time by trial and error and then by logical deduction and what becomes common sense. I know another person does not exist inside my own mind. I know the sun does not exist within my own mind. I know my thoughts do exist within (and as part of) my own mind. These are basic distinctions that any child naturally learns how to make as we grow up. Nothing problematic about it at all, which is why solipsism is just silly and trying to problematize something that isn’t even problematic.
And you ignored the part I was saying about how subjectivities, regardless of the degree of their “self-enclosure”, are still emergent from the larger more objective reality AND how they are always located/held within this reality and are referencing it constantly in many ways, otherwise if they failed to do that they would cease to exist. Subjectivity is basically an aspect and component/type of situation arising within objectivity, which is why I was saying the absolute mutual exclusivity of the terms is unwarranted and erroneous.
As long as you use the word correctly. You were smuggling in lots of unnecessary and incorrect meanings to the notion of subjectivity, so I am not sure if you are doing the same to the notion of objectivity. In any case like I was saying individualism is a fact and so is inter-dependency and mutualism. We need to resist the entropy of black and white thinking, not everything is an absolute either/or.
Not necessarily, since we can and do make objects our of ourselves and out of aspects of ourselves, both physically and non-physically (mentally, emotionally, etc.).
Well then yes you are using the concept of objectivity differently than I am. I don’t smuggle in all of this extra meaning to it that you do. As I mentioned before my method is phenomenological, meaning I strip down concepts as much as possible to get to their core necessary and minimal meaning. Only then is it proper to reverse the process and expand the concept upward and outward to see its various extensions of possible meaning and possible relations to other concepts/things.
I don’t see how most people have any difficulty separating what is part of themselves vs what is not part of themselves, although they may have difficulty when it comes to the origin and cause of some of these (for example their ideas and ideologies and opinions being shaped for them by other people. They probably often fail to realize how much their own ideas aren’t originating from within themselves, and yet nonetheless once those ideas are present as THEIR IDEAS then they become a part of what they are, so it would be correct for the person to identify that idea as a part of themselves, which certainly they would do if asked (they would not claim their ideas exist outside of themselves, only a schizophrenic might make such a claim)).
Animals are not ‘persons’. To imply that they are, demonstrates to me that you have low standards of Personhood, and by extension, Subjectivity. You should learn about the level of intelligence that humans are ‘above’ animals. There is a hierarchy, of intelligence, which is socially taboo in the Postmodern context. Discussing Superiority, of intelligence, is particularly vile according to modern social standards, because of what its premises mean among humanity, and politically speaking. Yet, outside these social norms, these varying degrees of intelligence separate Man from Animal, and even specie from specie. This is why Subjectivity, Personhood, Objectivity, Self-consciousness, etc. are all very important distinctions.
You should not hand them out like candy, especially not to Animals… that conflation is worse than mine, regarding the contexts of these terms.
I’m beginning to understand your difficulty with ‘Subjectivity’, while you openly conflate the morality among humans, projected unto animals. The Morals that humans follow, again, are fundamentally different than animals ~ in the realm of sophistication, development, intellectual evolution, etc. I’ll make a simple point to argue this. Man can domesticate horses, Equine, but horses cannot domesticate Man. It’s this simple, a matter of Dominance.
It’s a matter of Subjugation. These terms are important.
Animals do not have self-consciousness. This is the important distinction. It is our fundamental disagreement here.
I didn’t say “animals do not have a self”. I said, they do not have self-consciousness. They are not (consciously) aware of their ‘self’, their identity.
Animals understand pain, but not the pain they inflict upon others. This is something unique to humans capable of Empathy, due to an evolved level of intellect and self-projection.
Furthermore, Animals have a very simplistic and rudimentary conception of Causality. Animals do not think of themselves as causal agents. Again, this is a purely-human intellectual trait.
Yes, but you’re missing the point regarding the evolved intellectual differences and sophistication between that of animals and ‘human’ animals.
Animals have not developed certain intellectual traits. I’m aware of the sensitive and politically-incorrect implications of this conversation. Even humans are paranoid and aggressive regarding these differences …precisely because they are not distributed equally even among humanity. Some humans are much more empathetic, or intellectual, than others. Some humans are more Aware.
Consider why an animal, a mother would have empathy for her offspring. Her instincts compel her to protect them. She identifies with them. But she is not (self)-aware of this. She is not self-conscious of what she’s doing, or why. She’s not aware of how. This is why self-consciousness is Unnecessary in Nature. It is not needed, for survival. Self-consciousness is very much an extension, of evolution, and an unnecessary one in the sense that base-survival is fine without it. The level of development of humans, though, requires it. It becomes necessary, according to a standard-of-living, in order to support a high degree of intelligence and inheritance.
This is why animals cannot build a civilization, or technology, that humans can.
I don’t think they were distinct, based on the course of this conversation. I think you have some gaps in your understanding, concerning animal Husbandry and domestication of animals in history. Animals are Domesticated, hence Subjugated. The term is appropriate here. Do animals “care” that they are subjugated? Some animals run away, some animals, after domestication, do not. Consider the example of the modern dog, Canine, and its domesticated nature.
Many modern dogs, lapdogs, chihuahuas, would not survive if released back into the wild. Wolves, however, can survive in a wild climate.
Sure it follows, the sense-of-self or self-consciousness of a human infant is distinctly “absolutely” different than a teenager, an adult, an elder.
You can compare the phase of development of a human life, to that of an animal. Animals are Illiterate, therefore extremely limited about their self-conscious development. In fact, they are not self-conscious. Because they cannot recognize themselves in a mirror. It’s really, that simple.
I think you underestimate the degree and factor which Subjugation has, and on people today, politically speaking. It is a paramount social taboo. People don’t like talking about Subjugation, in reference to their own …or dominating and being dominated, by a higher intelligence for example. People imply it casually, when talking about Dogs. But then they ignore it, and engage cognitive dissonance, in humanity, in anthropology. Humans don’t want to feel that, they too, are Subjugated/Domesticated/Emasculated.
The masses want to feel ‘Free’ from such oppression, hence why the context of ‘Subject’ has changed from the Peasant-class of Feudalism, to the sophisticated Liberal of 2022. People redefined what it means, today, to be a ‘Peasant’.
Yet here we are, still using the same word, Subject. I think it’s important to trace these terms, context, and words to their roots historically. The essence of meaning do not change a great deal over time, and retain much of their foundational meaning.
Well, you stated it yourself, and I agree, it’s a matter of logical deduction.
You do realize that animals may not have evolved this ‘feature’ in their intelligence, right? Or that some humans also have not, or not to a significant degree??
I’m not presuming self-consciousness is either/or, yes/no. I’m stating that it is a matter of degree, and corresponds to hierarchies of dominance. For example, humans have used this feature to hunt, and conduct warfare, which is primarily how humanity has developed to this point today.
Given your response, I think they are necessary. I do mean self-consciousness/empathy/intelligence as a matter of degree.
You’re touching on a point I hoped we progress toward …how much of thy-self is an “ideal”, an ideology?
Which ideas are “your own”, which are not?
This is why I’ve used Object-ivity in the way I have thus far, or alongside “Objective”. Ideology is the focal point. Can your sense-of-self be an ideology? It certainly is ideological. How many of your ideas, are “yours”? What constitutes “you”?
No it isn’t. I have never seen a “postmodern” retard saying there is no difference between humans and other animals with regard to intelligence. You are just making up shit here. Trying to problematize stuff that doesn’t exist. I wonder why?
It isn’t only “intelligence” that separates human animals from non-human animals. Why don’t you try to define intelligence and let’s see what we’re working with.
Hand what out? What are you even talking about?
Is your self-esteem so low?
Well. This is interesting. I already explained why my use of the terms subject/subjectivity have nothing to do with the OTHER CONCEPT KNOWN AS “subjugation”. Yet you have chosen to ignore this fact. And you have also chosen to fail to produce the evidence that “subject/subjectivity” necessarily means anything like “subjugation”.
I mean if you’re going to make an argument then please… argue it. Don’t just assert things without any evidence or reason. I have ALREADY EXPLAINED why these terms are not co-extensive and you are operative based on a false conflation. Please feel free to respond to what I already said, if you want to. Otherwise just concede the point.
How do you know?
Let you define “self-consciousness” and we shall see.
Yes, only humans will understand logic and causality. These are higher-order concepts.
And?
Glad we agree
uh oh…
No I’m not.
No shit. Squirrels cannot do calculus. Wow, amazing insight! Neither can human babies, or feral human children, or …most adult humans raised “normally”.
Literally no idea what you mean by any of that.
No, at least I have never seen anyone who was.
Yes and I already mentioned this. So what is your point?
That you are better than a crow? That you are better than the average homo sapiens walking the streets? What are you trying to get at anyway?
Yep. Same as with a human mother.
How do you know? Where is your definition of “self-aware”?
Again, how do you know? What are your definitions here and how do they require your certain knowledge on these points?
It is helpful for it. Nothing by itself is necessary to survive, but many things are pretty helpful. Self-consciousness included. Humans are the only “self-conscious” species in terms of the HIGHEST THRESHOLD AND PEAK OF THIS. Therefore humans are dominant over all nature. Which we are. So… again, what are you trying to say?
Base survival is fine without opposable thumbs, and yet having opposable thumbs is epic and super helpful in terms of surviving. Again… so what?
Yep. Only humans have civilization. Pretty sure I already elaborated on this.
Bro, I never said the term wasn’t appropriate to the use you are putting it to. Please try to pay attention. Reading comprehension required (unlike KT or typical ILP forum models).
Yes.
And?
Humans made domestic dogs, in all their various forms and purposes. Some could survive if released into the wild, others could not. Again… so what?
Where the fuck did I say otherwise?
Can’t you stay on point?
No shit. I already said this. Like multiple times. Are you trolling me or what? I am starting to get annoyed.
Yeah they are.
No it isn’t. I already explained what self-conscious means. Mirror test has nothing to do with it.
No I don’t. I am fully aware of it. Just as I am fully aware that it has nothing to do with the topic we are currently discussing.
But please, feel free to smuggle in other unnecessary and unrelated things. Obviously I can’t stop your schizo mind from mass-producing random inferences and weird unconnected lines of thought which you don’t feel any obligation to connect necessarily to the points at hand.
Sorry I got supremely bored.
Um… pick it up another time, when your brain cells are functioning at a higher percentage, or at least you’re not so consumed with sucking off your own ego. Ok? Thanks. I look forward to it.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Indeed, I hoped for more. But I understand why lesser minds become exhausted and need to tap-out quickly when it comes to philosophy.
Better luck next time, HumAnIze, you’ll need it. 
How about this one: subjectivity is doubt. We have it only and for when an accurate enough reading to be objective is not possible. Then we appropriate all the data as being a Self, we identify with the data. By doing this, we allow our emotions to dictate how the available data is to be deployed. Our emotions become the Self.
Objectivity is the certainty provided by suffiecient data. When the data is sufficient, even when dealing with the most personal feelings, it can be granted its own identity. Even that which compiles and interprets data, and acts on it, has its own objective identity or series of objective identities.
Doubt/Disbelief v Faith/Belief, these are subjective, yes, and dependent upon the organism/mind which produce them in response to Stimuli/information/data, usually through instinctual fear-responses.
Sophistication for an ‘objective’ response is then rare, and within Artificial/Unnatural environments. Most organisms struggle to survive. Philosophy is conducted in peaceful, privileged, secure, fearless environments: comfortable, hedonistic, etc. There needs to be a large degree of free-thought, free-time spent toward thought, and meditation/concentration. Most animals do not have this, and so cannot hone such technologically advanced, sophisticated expressions such as literacy, writing, code, text, etc. to preserve memetics.
The ‘Self’ here is behind the lens through which myself, my mind interacts with the world. There are Borders involved. I call this ‘Perspective’.
The data is not myself, but the language through which subject-object interact, the Medium.
Emotions are Automated responses. You won’t necessarily know how a subject interprets data. Some do it differently. Fear-responses, for example, vary from subject-to-subject. There is not much ‘dictating’ these responses. Because most people, and especially animals, cannot ‘control’ their emotions. You can try to suppress them, at least. This creates a myriad of after-effects (Psycho-somatics).
It can be, based on your prerogative/motives.
Truth is an Objective. Sufficiency is a limit. Some have higher standards than others.
I believe that organisms ‘want’ their own identity, which are not necessarily given. They are developed over time. Some have more sophisticated self-identity than others. The self, ‘Thyself’ maybe a construct, to some degree. You shape “You”, to the best of your abilities. Some people desire to be exceptional, to stand apart and out of the crowd. Much of life, organisms, have herd-instincts and desire the opposite (opposite objective), trying to blend-in, camouflage, hide.
Based on the level of IQ, the “Self” corresponds with higher and higher ideals/objectives/standards.
You need to develop very high standards for yourself.
Rather, Doubt/(dis)Belief v Certainty/Knowledge.
Belief requires a leap, withn which doubt is incorporated. One cannot have belief without doubt, for certainty requires no belief. The impulse, the decision, to believe or not, is emotional. Where that emotion is not objectively reckoned, it becomes the subjective self.
True enough.
I have tended to conduct mine amidst terrible fear, violence and asceticism. The “free-thought, free-time spent toward thought, and meditation/concentration,” of course, are non-negociable. And they do require certain largesse, certain abundance of ressources which, indeed, animals don’t have. Dolphins and Orcas, for example, some of the closest to our level, only have stupid fins and really cannot get to the place where they can afford it.
Memetics is termed after mimickry. But for something to mimick, something else must exist which is mimicked.
What stops one from looking behind the lens? Maybe there are many lenses? What is a lense? Where you stop, where the border is, is usually where unobjectivized emotion becomes a subject.
The data that is not given its own identity is the emotional appropriation as self.
The Medium is the analysis, the interpretation of data, which itself constitutes data. The subject is distinguished here from the object not by a fundamental border, but by a lack of interpretation.
True enough.
What is it, what is you, what is r, what are prerogatives/motives? It all constitutes data.
to the degree that “some” here encapsulates subjective entities, it only incorporates uninterpreted data. Thus automated responses. Automation for lack of interpretation.
True enough as well, but then also further, if we deny the subjective nature of the “some” and “others,” the hight of standards is also determined by retreivable data. This data will be found to link, if searched for, to other data breaking the “subject” barrier. “Some” and “others,” as objective identities, do themselves constitute an objective appraisal.
I forgot to add that, though there is not much “dictating” these responses by the person experiencing them, they are of course easily traceable, predicatable and directible. Though the subject believes he is a loose cannon, an uncontrollable explosion (this being largely the reason it is turned to as a method of safety), he is in fact, or she, at his or her most predictable.
Here maybe enters also the hight of standards. What can one seek that operates on the activation of these responses as a method of direction? Not to let anybody off the hook, who can engage in them for any amount of repetitions without noticing why it is happening? Domination cannot exist without obedience.