When googled, the definition of object is, “A material thing that can be seen and touched.” Under that definition, I’d have to disagree that people are objects, since people are biological in nature.
I certainly can understand looking at people that way, though. Especially when you don’t like people.
I’ve never been much of a materialist, one of my failings in the judgement of the culture I live in.
My mind goes to that Sherlock villain who said “I like turning people into things.”, regarding why he killed. Which is only haunting if you think of humans as more than just objects, just points of existence in the physical world.
also, I think life as a process is more impressive than to just be an aspect of some objects. There are some very clever devices humans have invented that bend the definition of object
but most of all I find that our observance, our ability to percieve and interpret, makes us something more. By observing we change the nature of reality, to the point I don’t think reality would exist without people to observe it. Maybe another creature could fill the gap, but that would make that creature more than a thing.
I’m also a non constructionist, let me explain; a constructionist thinks that any item can be deconstructed into requisite parts, then reconstructed as it was.
In contrast, I believe that there is something in the assembly, and of those parts working together over time that can’t be replicated.
put simply; any human individual of the modern day is the product of tens of thousands of years of culture, hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and billions of years of matter organization
we can’t be replicated in a shorter amount of time, and that makes us something impressive. That we waste all of this impressive development time and effort on stupid things doesn’t discount the magesty of the prior progress.
We’re well engineered, just not well piloted or put to use.
3 comments
When googled, the definition of object is, “A material thing that can be seen and touched.” Under that definition, I’d have to disagree that people are objects, since people are biological in nature.
I certainly can understand looking at people that way, though. Especially when you don’t like people.
I’ve never been much of a materialist, one of my failings in the judgement of the culture I live in.
My mind goes to that Sherlock villain who said “I like turning people into things.”, regarding why he killed. Which is only haunting if you think of humans as more than just objects, just points of existence in the physical world.
also, I think life as a process is more impressive than to just be an aspect of some objects. There are some very clever devices humans have invented that bend the definition of object
but most of all I find that our observance, our ability to percieve and interpret, makes us something more. By observing we change the nature of reality, to the point I don’t think reality would exist without people to observe it. Maybe another creature could fill the gap, but that would make that creature more than a thing.
I’m also a non constructionist, let me explain; a constructionist thinks that any item can be deconstructed into requisite parts, then reconstructed as it was.
In contrast, I believe that there is something in the assembly, and of those parts working together over time that can’t be replicated.
put simply; any human individual of the modern day is the product of tens of thousands of years of culture, hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and billions of years of matter organization
we can’t be replicated in a shorter amount of time, and that makes us something impressive. That we waste all of this impressive development time and effort on stupid things doesn’t discount the magesty of the prior progress.
We’re well engineered, just not well piloted or put to use.
So… in order to categorize reality into separate objects, you need a mind. You could say instead that we are aspects of reality experiencing itself?