- Mar 2023
-
www.filmsforaction.org www.filmsforaction.org
-
But rationality is a curse since it can cause humans to forget the natural order of things in ways other creatures do not. A wolf never forgets his or her place in the natural order. American Indians can. Europeans almost always do. We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science.
-
Comment
-
The lack of reverence for other living beings is evident in modernity's transactional view of nature.
- The word "natural resource" betrays modernity's objectification of nature.
- From this perspective, nature is for humans to exploit
-
-
- Dec 2022
-
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
-
The author of this editorial claims that there is moral value in using the emissions made by a human body over the course of its lifetime in determining if one should be given life. Making a departure from natural selection, and from sexual attraction and ignoring maternal instinct and cultural familial practices and norms. He proposes that the act of being alive can be measured in its impact upon others who will share the future climate them and since the impact is not 0 then there must be an upper limit of "too many". Immorally, he does not include a measure of "too few" and does not make any mention of the problems society has with exponential population decline. Such as Japan currently selling more adult than infant diapers as their population collapses because of too few children. In fact there is no mention of generational replacement or reproduction rate. Just a simplistic measure of a human impact upon the environment with the entirety of positive impact deleted, omitted, ignored completely. There is in fact no moral high ground in maintaining or promoting the idea that human life has no positive value to the earth. Failing to see ones own value or the value of human life as a whole, rejecting the desire to help human kind survive and prosper and reducing human beings to objects with emissions and no positive output potential is morally reprehensible and not a scientifically sound conclusion, given the observable facts. Among them, that every human being alive on the planet today, standing shoulder to shoulder, would not fill the area of los angeles, and setting aside one acre of our best land for every human being on earth would require an area no arger than texas. There is no scientific basis for concluding there are too many people or that the future humans would benefit from lower population. it is a common error, in the media today, where the impact on climate is evaluated out of the context of all other scilences where positive impacts and negative impacts of human life are observable. Such as biological sciences or earth sciences. it is true, that if we lived on a gas giant, where the only element of the planetary ecosystem was the climate, then such an evaluation of our "carbon footprint" would be meaningful. but since we have a planet with oceans dryland and predators and dangerous conditions, it is morrally reprehensible to suggest our population not maximize its potential to survive to see the future so many are trying to protect by literally throwing their babies out with the bathwater. It is impossible to contribute to the well-being of human life in editorial if you do not have a love of human life. My heart goes out to anyone who takes this article seriously. You do not have to limit your fertility to help humankind survive.
-
- Oct 2022
-
docdrop.org docdrop.org
-
i want to begin by talking about the imagine nature which is the first of those three natures um it's really tempting when i look at a flower like a rose um a nice red rose 00:35:22 to think that the color the redness is right on the rose unless you are extremely accomplished when you look at a red rose you see the color right out there in the rose and 00:35:34 you assume that your eyes are simply detecting color that is in the rose actually that can't possibly be true color is something that emerges um as 00:35:45 john pointed out this morning through the interaction of our sense faculties and whatever is happening outside of them and the color emerges in our minds but we imagine things to exist outside of consciousness just as we perceive 00:35:58 them and that nature that we ascribe to the objects of our experience is their imagined nature it's an imagined nature because we project it out there even though on reflection we each know 00:36:11 that the redness can't possibly be painted out there in the rose footnote it's uh equally stupid to think that when we detect the redness we're detecting in inner red paint that 00:36:23 somehow um is just detected by an inner eye i assure you that when you look inside your brain you will find no such inner red paint
!- critical insight for : existentialism, existence of objects - color is perfect example to demonstrate that what we experience and construct in our body is not what exists as a property of the object
-
- Aug 2022
-
regenesis.org.au regenesis.org.au
-
The Western archive is characterised by two types of knowledge organisation that are foreign to Indigenous knowledges: Firstly it is based on a strong sense of dualism; the use of oppositional categories such as man/woman; man (human)/nature; mind/matter; spirit/materiality, which again is expressed in time differentiated into past/present/future. Secondly knowledge is objectified; it is knowledge about, not with, and it is highly segmented into different areas of knowledge speciality that are in turn reflected in the education system and the professions and areas of government responsibility.
-
- Jan 2022
-
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
-
When I think back to the creation of that infographic, I wonder whether we had shown the care demanded of the data. Whether we had, in creating this abstraction, re-enacted — however inadvertently — some of the objectification of the slave trade.
This sort of objectification seems very similar to the type of erasure that Poland is doing with the Holocaust as they begin honoring Poles who helped Jews while simultaneously ignoring Poland's part in collaborating with the Nazis in creating the Holocaust.
How can we as a society and humanity add more care to these sorts of acts so as not to continue erasing the harm and better heal past wrongs?
Cross reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/opinion/holocaust-poland-europe.html and https://hyp.is/hrsb9oIOEey8sEObTYhk0A/www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/opinion/holocaust-poland-europe.html
-
Consider, as well, the extent to which the tools of abstraction are themselves tied up in the history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As the historian Jennifer L. Morgan notes in “Reckoning With Slavery: Gender, Kinship, and Capitalism in the Early Black Atlantic,” the fathers of modern demography, the 17th-century English writers and mathematicians William Petty and John Graunt, were “thinking through problems of population and mobility at precisely the moment when England had solidified its commitment to the slave trade.”Their questions were ones of statecraft: How could England increase its wealth? How could it handle its surplus population? And what would it do with “excessive populations that did not consume” in the formal market? Petty was concerned with Ireland — Britain’s first colony, of sorts — and the Irish. He thought that if they could be forcibly transferred to England, then they could, in Morgan’s words, become “something valuable because of their ability to augment the population and labor power of the English.”This conceptual breakthrough, Morgan told me in an interview, cannot be disentangled from the slave trade. The English, she said, “are learning to think about people as ‘abstractable.’
This deserves to be delved into more deeply. This sounds like a bizarre stop on the creation of institutional racism.
How do these sorts of abstraction hurt the move towards equality?
-
- Jul 2020
-
wp.nyu.edu wp.nyu.edu
-
By honoring the mammae as sign and symbol of the highest class ofanimals, Linnaeus assigned a new value to the female, especially women’s unique rolein reproduction
Throughout the multiple texts, utilized human-parts place specified bodies within social constructions, given limits of autonomy dependent on close monitoring by superiors. Kirkup and Schiebinger reflect on the Womxn’s breasts dictating the taxonomy of humans as mammalia--”a study of breasts." We see this era uplifted the sacredness of milk and the role of women’s reproduction, whilst stationing them closer to “beasts” than men, and assigning women to domesticity.
Breasts as parts, natural tools embedded in the female body, parallels the seemingly hopeful outlook on this developing Cyborg body’s own parts, but these parts remain observed and reduced to science--a socially constructed pyramid falsely dubbed as standardized and empirical--determining the value and humanity of minorities. The parts of the female and POC body do not grant the bearer their autonomy, but rather outside scrutiny and oversight.
We established mid 20th-century authors dubbed living beings as very complex machines, and question "are humans machines?"--can we break down the human/machine boundary by referring the symbol of breasts as also a mechanized part? I feel through Haraway's Cyborg we can, as rough as it feels to conceptualize breasts as another gear/customization.
-
- Jan 2019
-
foucault.info foucault.info
-
objectification of the soul
can the soul ever become an abstract object? Interesting word choice.
-
- Feb 2017
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
They arc instruments through which divine instruction is communicated to the people.
One cannot but help of the objectification of women here.
-
- Sep 2015
-
cms.whittier.edu cms.whittier.edu
-
she is merely an artifact used by men to display their prowess.
Women should not be objectified regardless of what the "built environment" is. We have the ability to influence our "built environment" so let's do it in a way that helps to evolve it.
-