I have been thinking about this for a long time. Why is it that it bothers people if others see them naked?
According to the scientific worldview starting from 1800, the world is real. That means that things you can touch, exist. And things that can not be measured don’t exist. Also the things of interest in the world are those that are “conserved quantities”, like if a hypothetical variable jumps around randomly, it’s not a good data source because it’s volatile and random. The things that matter are masses in space and time, because those are continuous and don’t jump around rapidly. Masses in space and time can only be modified if you work on them (and that requires effort), and no significant change can be brought to masses by purely thinking about them (no “spooky action at a distance”, no “telekinesis”) or wishing for their change (“wishful thinking” is seen as ineffective).
That makes me wonder: Why do people freak out so much if i think about them? If i think lewd thoughts about somebody who didn’t consent to this, why do people not like that? What difference does it make to them if i think about them? What difference does it make if i look at a picture of them naked? By purely thinking about them, i can not change anything meaningful about reality, therefore it shouldn’t matter, right?
I’m going to assume this is a genuine question asked in good faith.
I’d say these are pretty wild mental gymnastics, but I think I kind of get where you are coming from because of the following point that I’ll concede:
I don’t think that any society which tries to establish just rules and laws on the basis of scientific rationality should ever consider “thought crime” to be a thing, and we should push against that ever becoming something punishable.
This is however also me doing mental gymnastics to try to be charitable to your messages. Now for why I think people are very understandably bothered by this.
First of all, in the context of this post, this is not just about thoughts but also producing material that can be shared online. I don’t know whether you’ve followed the news as of late, but it should be pretty clear that for day-to-day life (i.e. without scientific rigour being applied to every aspect) it matters more what is perceived as true as opposed to what is true. From the point of view of the victim, whether the nudes are “real” or not does not matter nearly as much as the fact that knowing people who’ll view them will think that they are. This is, beyond shame, because of the fact that this may then be used against the victim for employment discrimination, harassment, or worse.
Now let’s move on from that and address just the “thought” bit. Trying to view that through a reductionist, materialistic point of view is pretty misguided in my opinion. Here, you’re dealing with people, feelings, and social relationships. I’d say that learning that someone, anyone, is fantasising about me (and I did not suspect it, and it’s unreciprocated), is, at the very least, likely to change the social dynamic because someone I considered a friend or coworker, and that I interacted with under the assumption that I was the same in their eyes. Furthermore, I’ll add that I am a somewhat strong looking man, and have thus far not felt physically or mentally threatened the (very) few times this has happened. Add power dynamics which are not in your favour in this equation and yeah, no wonder people freak out…
But all in all, I’d say that analysing human interactions on the basis of human beings being purely rational is naive at best honestly. There are varying degrees, of course, but I don’t believe anyone is purely rational.
Your materialism is a form of idealism, that collapses into solipsistic conclusions.
When you limit the scope of phenomenal objects to be only those objects that have a physical quality, that is positivism. It has a nice way of erasing anything human from your analysis. Thought, emotion, social connection, motivation, the will to act all become purely subjective, hence are excluded from the category of objects that are real.
Your inability to process basic fact is admitted in your own description:
no significant change can be brought to masses by purely thinking about them
This is true, but you have no theory of praxis. There is a kind of contemplation that is purely subjective. Like daydreaming for instance, though this could be influenced by objective factors. There is a type of contemplation that develops the self so we are better able to take action, such as studying. And there is contemplation that leads directly to action, like when someone finally decides to leave their abuser, or develop a new flavor of ice cream, etc. These last two forms of contemplation are both subjective and objective. They become objective because they change something in the phenomenal world, they are verifiable.
Money only exists in the form of bits in a computer, or pieces of paper, some people say “money isn’t real,” but it clearly is as there are consequences if you don’t have any. The same is true with the law. It only exists physically as a piece of paper with some writing on it, but it actually took politicians, lawyers, input from citizens, all this unsubstantial stuff in order to create it, and if it is broken (what object broke?) the police can arrest you and you get punished by a judge. Do laws not exist?
Money and Laws are social relations. They have no substance, but they are real and verifiable, the paper they are printed on is only symbolic of what it is, how it came into being, and what effects it has on society. You can’t account for any of this, which is why you can’t understand the problem. You can imagine an individual body, you can imagine society and government, but you can’t connect them. You can’t see how society is made by people or how people are made by society.
The way to fix this is to center the human in our analysis. Maybe a tree exists with or without human work, but many trees are planted. Oil exists in the ground independent of our labor, but what turns in into gasoline is people working on an oil rig (built by people) extracting it, transporting the crude via truck or pipeline (all built and operated by people), refining it (in a refinery built by people), transporting the fuel to a gas station (operated and built by people), and put into your car’s gas tank by you, and that was done for some reason. You witnessed to something in your environment, you thought about it, which led you to want to drive somewhere, which made you want to fill up your gas tank.
Maybe you wanted to buy a video game, created and marketed to you by people. Why did you want that game? So you could play with friends, or you want to compete on leaderboards, or you played the last game and want to play this one. Out of joy or competitiveness, all these feelings lack substance, but they made you do a thing, and as long as you return home with the game, your contemplation and action became objective.
This is why it matters that we are responsible with other people, and we account for their feelings and thoughts. Hell, influencing peoples thoughts and opinions is a multi-trillion dollar industry. If they didn’t exist before, the do when others try and influence them.
things that can not be measured don’t exist.
Where people are concerned, they do exist. Because it influences peoples ability to act. You can act in a way to free other people or you can oppress them, and the qualities of freedom and oppression are not measurable, but their effects are substantial.
I’m not sure if your attitude is based on a need to harm other people, or if you really don’t understand. In both cases, what brought you to it was not totally your own. You were exposed to chauvinism in a way that led you to adopt a crappy attitude, or you were taught things a certain way (which is tbf how we are all taught to some degree, though it is wrong). You internalized this, thought about it, said something gross, and people reacted negatively. This is all objective, but only some of it is verifiable.
This particular misunderstanding you exhibit is one of my favorite topics, and my answer to it is the product of like 15 years of research and discussions. You say
scientific worldview starting from 1800
It arguably started before, but it was thoroughly disproven in 1844. Yet it persists. That persistence is not substance, “worldview” isn’t substance, the year 1800 isn’t substance. But it is phenomenon. You’re confused, but hopefully that’s all it is. Hopefully you’ll reconsider and be able to do better. Human development is objective, but it is not inevitable. This is the difference between your deterministic and vulgar attitude and reality.
In other words, you are an idealist who uses physical phenomenon to disappear much that is real. If we want to become a better materialist, then we have to center people and everything about humans in our analysis, not objects as something that exists independent of human intervention.
i’d say your comment is well-thought-through, and my comment was also kinda provocative.
Of course i’m aware that the world cannot be purely understood by the material objects around us. I was, however, raised under the assumption that it can be understood that way. I guess i just wanted to hear somebody else confirm my own suspicion that that’s not true, after all.
A lot of people can sense it, but can’t describe it. My own ability to describe it is amateurish, clunky and abstract. I work with a lot of people who dedicate huge parts of their lives to helping people, who can’t describe it. The social scientists who worked it out are famous, but that part of their work is deemphasized even though it defines their work. And because it is deemphasized, their proponents and followers have committed any number of mistakes and just downright catastrophes.
I’m glad to hear you were doing a social science experiment and I’m glad I could provide some validation.
Well that, I have to say, is more a social thing that we could do very well without. People shouldn’t be shamed for nudity, ever
I’m not defending these apps at all,just a comment on how most cultures see nudity now. It should be way, way more normalized
This, of course, especially goes in the US where some people seem to have the idea that if a child sees a boob, they will be mentally damaged for the rest of their lives
This, of course, especially goes in the US where some people seem to have the idea that if a child sees a boob, they will be mentally damaged for the rest of their lives
Especially considering that many states have “open carry” laws for guns, but not for boobs.
I have been thinking about this for a long time. Why is it that it bothers people if others see them naked?
According to the scientific worldview starting from 1800, the world is real. That means that things you can touch, exist. And things that can not be measured don’t exist. Also the things of interest in the world are those that are “conserved quantities”, like if a hypothetical variable jumps around randomly, it’s not a good data source because it’s volatile and random. The things that matter are masses in space and time, because those are continuous and don’t jump around rapidly. Masses in space and time can only be modified if you work on them (and that requires effort), and no significant change can be brought to masses by purely thinking about them (no “spooky action at a distance”, no “telekinesis”) or wishing for their change (“wishful thinking” is seen as ineffective).
That makes me wonder: Why do people freak out so much if i think about them? If i think lewd thoughts about somebody who didn’t consent to this, why do people not like that? What difference does it make to them if i think about them? What difference does it make if i look at a picture of them naked? By purely thinking about them, i can not change anything meaningful about reality, therefore it shouldn’t matter, right?
I’m going to assume this is a genuine question asked in good faith.
I’d say these are pretty wild mental gymnastics, but I think I kind of get where you are coming from because of the following point that I’ll concede: I don’t think that any society which tries to establish just rules and laws on the basis of scientific rationality should ever consider “thought crime” to be a thing, and we should push against that ever becoming something punishable.
This is however also me doing mental gymnastics to try to be charitable to your messages. Now for why I think people are very understandably bothered by this.
First of all, in the context of this post, this is not just about thoughts but also producing material that can be shared online. I don’t know whether you’ve followed the news as of late, but it should be pretty clear that for day-to-day life (i.e. without scientific rigour being applied to every aspect) it matters more what is perceived as true as opposed to what is true. From the point of view of the victim, whether the nudes are “real” or not does not matter nearly as much as the fact that knowing people who’ll view them will think that they are. This is, beyond shame, because of the fact that this may then be used against the victim for employment discrimination, harassment, or worse.
Now let’s move on from that and address just the “thought” bit. Trying to view that through a reductionist, materialistic point of view is pretty misguided in my opinion. Here, you’re dealing with people, feelings, and social relationships. I’d say that learning that someone, anyone, is fantasising about me (and I did not suspect it, and it’s unreciprocated), is, at the very least, likely to change the social dynamic because someone I considered a friend or coworker, and that I interacted with under the assumption that I was the same in their eyes. Furthermore, I’ll add that I am a somewhat strong looking man, and have thus far not felt physically or mentally threatened the (very) few times this has happened. Add power dynamics which are not in your favour in this equation and yeah, no wonder people freak out…
But all in all, I’d say that analysing human interactions on the basis of human beings being purely rational is naive at best honestly. There are varying degrees, of course, but I don’t believe anyone is purely rational.
Your materialism is a form of idealism, that collapses into solipsistic conclusions.
When you limit the scope of phenomenal objects to be only those objects that have a physical quality, that is positivism. It has a nice way of erasing anything human from your analysis. Thought, emotion, social connection, motivation, the will to act all become purely subjective, hence are excluded from the category of objects that are real.
Your inability to process basic fact is admitted in your own description:
This is true, but you have no theory of praxis. There is a kind of contemplation that is purely subjective. Like daydreaming for instance, though this could be influenced by objective factors. There is a type of contemplation that develops the self so we are better able to take action, such as studying. And there is contemplation that leads directly to action, like when someone finally decides to leave their abuser, or develop a new flavor of ice cream, etc. These last two forms of contemplation are both subjective and objective. They become objective because they change something in the phenomenal world, they are verifiable.
Money only exists in the form of bits in a computer, or pieces of paper, some people say “money isn’t real,” but it clearly is as there are consequences if you don’t have any. The same is true with the law. It only exists physically as a piece of paper with some writing on it, but it actually took politicians, lawyers, input from citizens, all this unsubstantial stuff in order to create it, and if it is broken (what object broke?) the police can arrest you and you get punished by a judge. Do laws not exist?
Money and Laws are social relations. They have no substance, but they are real and verifiable, the paper they are printed on is only symbolic of what it is, how it came into being, and what effects it has on society. You can’t account for any of this, which is why you can’t understand the problem. You can imagine an individual body, you can imagine society and government, but you can’t connect them. You can’t see how society is made by people or how people are made by society.
The way to fix this is to center the human in our analysis. Maybe a tree exists with or without human work, but many trees are planted. Oil exists in the ground independent of our labor, but what turns in into gasoline is people working on an oil rig (built by people) extracting it, transporting the crude via truck or pipeline (all built and operated by people), refining it (in a refinery built by people), transporting the fuel to a gas station (operated and built by people), and put into your car’s gas tank by you, and that was done for some reason. You witnessed to something in your environment, you thought about it, which led you to want to drive somewhere, which made you want to fill up your gas tank.
Maybe you wanted to buy a video game, created and marketed to you by people. Why did you want that game? So you could play with friends, or you want to compete on leaderboards, or you played the last game and want to play this one. Out of joy or competitiveness, all these feelings lack substance, but they made you do a thing, and as long as you return home with the game, your contemplation and action became objective.
This is why it matters that we are responsible with other people, and we account for their feelings and thoughts. Hell, influencing peoples thoughts and opinions is a multi-trillion dollar industry. If they didn’t exist before, the do when others try and influence them.
Where people are concerned, they do exist. Because it influences peoples ability to act. You can act in a way to free other people or you can oppress them, and the qualities of freedom and oppression are not measurable, but their effects are substantial.
I’m not sure if your attitude is based on a need to harm other people, or if you really don’t understand. In both cases, what brought you to it was not totally your own. You were exposed to chauvinism in a way that led you to adopt a crappy attitude, or you were taught things a certain way (which is tbf how we are all taught to some degree, though it is wrong). You internalized this, thought about it, said something gross, and people reacted negatively. This is all objective, but only some of it is verifiable.
This particular misunderstanding you exhibit is one of my favorite topics, and my answer to it is the product of like 15 years of research and discussions. You say
It arguably started before, but it was thoroughly disproven in 1844. Yet it persists. That persistence is not substance, “worldview” isn’t substance, the year 1800 isn’t substance. But it is phenomenon. You’re confused, but hopefully that’s all it is. Hopefully you’ll reconsider and be able to do better. Human development is objective, but it is not inevitable. This is the difference between your deterministic and vulgar attitude and reality.
In other words, you are an idealist who uses physical phenomenon to disappear much that is real. If we want to become a better materialist, then we have to center people and everything about humans in our analysis, not objects as something that exists independent of human intervention.
i’d say your comment is well-thought-through, and my comment was also kinda provocative.
Of course i’m aware that the world cannot be purely understood by the material objects around us. I was, however, raised under the assumption that it can be understood that way. I guess i just wanted to hear somebody else confirm my own suspicion that that’s not true, after all.
A lot of people can sense it, but can’t describe it. My own ability to describe it is amateurish, clunky and abstract. I work with a lot of people who dedicate huge parts of their lives to helping people, who can’t describe it. The social scientists who worked it out are famous, but that part of their work is deemphasized even though it defines their work. And because it is deemphasized, their proponents and followers have committed any number of mistakes and just downright catastrophes.
I’m glad to hear you were doing a social science experiment and I’m glad I could provide some validation.
because nudity is tied to shame
Well that, I have to say, is more a social thing that we could do very well without. People shouldn’t be shamed for nudity, ever
I’m not defending these apps at all,just a comment on how most cultures see nudity now. It should be way, way more normalized
This, of course, especially goes in the US where some people seem to have the idea that if a child sees a boob, they will be mentally damaged for the rest of their lives
Especially considering that many states have “open carry” laws for guns, but not for boobs.