A dialogue attempt
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
A dialogue attempt
Man
Alright. What’s the difference between a person and another object? The difference between me and that pole? (He flings his arm in a pointing motion somewhere)
Woman
Besides the obvious difference in composition? A person’s ability as an actor, as a subject, as a doer, as consciousness, separates us from objects. That pole is only the receiver of an action. It, is bent, or struck, or broken, but it does not bend, strike and break.
Man
Eh, I think it does all of those things.
Woman
What?
Man
If you walk in the direction of that pole, what will happen?
Woman
You simply walk into the pole. I see where you’re going, and it is not correct to say the pole hits you.
Man
One, people do say that-
Woman
-I know people say it, that’s why I said it was incorrect.
Man
And two, it certainly is correct. (The woman eyes him suspiciously.) Why, are you assuming the pole is stationary? That the object is not in motion?
Woman
It’s not
Man
Because you don’t see it move?
Woman
Because I don’t see it move.
Man
New example.
Woman
You can’t jump to some other analogy, if you’re wrong, just admit it.
Man
I’m not wrong.
Woman
I don’t know…
Man
Okay, a car tire falls on your head.
Woman
On my head? (Looks incredulously at him)
Man
Yes, it falls on your head. You have not seen the tire thrown, and you have not seen the tire dropped, it, the tire, has fallen. An object has acted on you.
Woman
Well you changed the example.
Man
So what? It still works doesn’t it? You said an object is only the receiver of an action, but now a tire has fallen on your head.
Woman
Alright, but you can’t say it wasn’t dropped, or thrown.
Man
And you can’t say it hasn’t fallen. Just like you can’t say the pole didn’t hit you. If you can’t say that objects can’t act, that clearly means they can. And if a pole can hit you, or act in any other way on you, once again, what is the difference between me and the pole? Or any other object?
Woman
You’re forgetting the difference I said was obvious. (She pinches the skin on her wrist and holds it up for him to see) The Body, and its composition.
Man
If the difference between me and you is our body composition, and the difference between you and the pole, or another object, is body composition, why am I not an object to you?
Woman
Because you’re a human being-
Man
-The question is not whether I am a human being, but whether I am an object. Whether all human beings are objects. Whether you’re an object. If the only difference between you and an object is body composition, what is the difference between me and an object, to you?
Woman
Well I remember mentioning consciousness too.
Man
Yeah you did. I remember.
Woman
So the difference between an object and human being is consciousness.
Man
What does consciousness allow you to do that makes you not an object?
Woman
I don’t know. Are there any objects you know of that are self-aware?
Man
People. What’s the difference between an object that knows it’s an object and another object? To you, there isn’t a difference. Both are able to act and be acted on.
Woman
Alright, what do you mean no difference? You just said one object knows it’s an object and the other doesn’t.
Man
Now, what’s the difference between an action done with knowledge, and an action without? Can you tell the difference?
Woman
You asking that question, was an action done with knowledge, say…the knowledge of speech.
Man
Fair enough. So the knowledge of speech allowed me to ask that question?
Woman
Yeah.
Man
And you know of my knowledge because…
Woman
Because you asked the question.
Man
Because you heard me ask the question.
Woman
Yeah.
Man
Now, what’s the difference between my knowledge and your knowledge? You see, you know what I’ve said, and I know what I’ve said, so what is the difference between what you know, and what I know?
Woman
You knew what you were going to say before you said it, I mean, before the physical act of speaking.
Man
So that means I know what I don’t say, out loud, that is?
Woman
Yes.
Man
But you don’t know what I don’t say out loud, so is what I don’t say out loud ever said?
Woman
Not to me, no.
Man
Well then can you say I’m saying anything, when I’m not saying it out loud?
Woman
No, I can’t.
Man
So if I’m not saying anything when I’m not saying it out loud, and I’m only saying something when it can be heard, you know what I know. You know this because you and I both know what I say out loud, and because I can only be said to know what is said out loud, since when I am not saying something out loud it is not said. So once again what is the difference between your knowledge and my knowledge? If you know everything that I know, how do you know that I know?
Woman
****. I don’t.
Man
Now can you definitively say that a non-human object has knowledge? If you cannot, we’re back to the question of what is the difference between an object and me?
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: A dialogue attempt
I don't think it is the same as 'everyday conversation', is it ?
I can imagine a different response to the Man's first question.
Man
Alright. What’s the difference between a person and another object? The difference between me and that pole? (He flings his arm in a pointing motion somewhere)
Other punter at the bar:
What do you mean 'Alright'. Where the hell did that come from?
Are you trying to chat me up ? Cos, you know, a 'Do you come here often?' would work better for me.
That pole holds more fascination - look at how the body can move with it, even when it's solid metal - actually because it is solid. And we know it ain't gonna change into a writhing snake which will coil and strangle its user.
Unless, the pub has moved somewhere beyond Earth...
[ Hmmm, when does a dialogue become a Dialogue ? ]
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: A dialogue attempt
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: A dialogue attempt
I don't think the dialogue form can be the easiest way of writing and considering opposing philosophical viewpoints.
So, you are daring to try.
Are you writing it as a structured recording of a previous discussion e.g. a brief transcript of a forum-type discussion ?
Or is it a creative fiction piece, a script for a play; comedy/tragedy.
I have only recently become interested in the dialogue form, and the different ways it might be used and interpreted.
The hidden subtext...the masks that characters wear...
I look forward to reading more.
I have a hunch as to who will have the final line, and what it might be...
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: A dialogue attempt
Woman
Alright, what about feelings, an object isn’t going to feel, or love, or suffer, is it?
Man
How do you know I suffer, or even love? Are you able to suffer when I do?
Woman
Yes, actually I am. It’s a fact, that a person feels when they see an emotion on display, or a tremendous stress put on another person. You couldn’t watch a child run over by a car without feeling, could you?
Man
No I could not.
Woman
You see, the child suffers, and you witness this, therefore you suffer, establishing a connection beyond any object.
Man
Now you’re assuming the same kind of connection could not be had with another object.
Woman
It can’t be had with another object. Even if you claimed to have such a connection to an object, it’s always related to some person. You love your clock because your mother gave it to you, or a shirt because it was a gift from someone.
Man
That is just false.
Woman
Really.
Man
Yes, it is. You can love an object without a connection to someone, and you certainly can suffer when an object is harmed. That feeling is not exclusive to the harming of people, which are also objects.
Woman
You’re still trying to prove that.
Man
I already have, but I’ll continue. Okay, so you can love or suffer because of a person, because they love or they suffer. Your earlier example, I would suffer because I saw the child hit by a truck. Now why is it we don’t have this same relationship with non-human objects? Hmn? An object is just as capable of evoking such a reaction from us. If you buy a pair of shoes and you enjoy the way they look, are those shoes not evoking emotion? Or a new car, or clothes, all of these things stimulate you in some way. And if these things, these objects are harmed in any way, you’re going to feel something. And when these objects are harmed do they not suffer? And does their suffering not cause you to suffer? If you leave a new car parked on the street, and a garbage truck smashes into it, do you not suffer, because your car has suffered?
Woman
Cars don’t suffer, why are you equating a car’s bodily harm, so to speak, with human suffering? And it only proves what I said. All objects that you may have a certain feeling about are connected to some person. Only, in your examples it’s you.
Man
Alright so what’s the difference between a car’s body being injured and another person?
Woman
You said the keyword, person.
Man
And the difference is suffering right?
Woman
Obviously, we already established that.
Man
And you suffer when the other person suffers right?
Woman
Yes.
Man
But you also suffer when the car is injured right?
Woman
I don’t like the way you used the word injured, but yes.
Man
Well in both cases you’re suffering right, whether it be a car or another person?
Woman
Yeah.
Man
So now the question is do others even suffer?
Woman
Yes.
Man
But their suffering is your suffering, so when do they suffer? If you see someone who is sad, and you become sad, whose sadness are you feeling, yours or theirs?
Woman
Well the causal relationship is obvious, it’s theirs.
Man
Yes they’ve caused your sadness, but, it is your emotion that is felt. If a person near you laughs and then you laugh, you’re not laughing their laugh.
Woman
Okay, so it’s your emotions.
Man
So if it’s my emotions, when do I feel yours? I don’t. So just like how there is only what I know, only I am capable of love and suffering. So back to your original remark, on the difference between other people and objects being suffering, if it is only I that ever suffers, objects and other people are one and the same.
Woman
Hold on. If you suffer and are a person, necessarily all other people suffer. The same goes with knowledge, if you know and are a person, necessarily all other people know, because those are the conditions of personhood.
Man
Did you ever consider I, or you, may be the only person? If the only knowledge is what I know, and the only feeling is what I feel, so far I am the only qualified person and as I said everything else is an object.
Woman
So the only knowledge that exists is what I know, because I can’t say what I don’t know exists to be known?
Man
Yeah.
Woman
But I can’t say it doesn’t exist either, can I?
Man
No you cannot. You cannot say something does not exist, because to do so would be to say there is the absence of existence, and the absence of existence, is nothing. You cannot say something is nothing.
Woman
But now the question is how do we know more? How do you know something tomorrow that you did not know today? How do we accumulate this knowledge that cannot be said to exist or not exist? How do we know later what we don’t know now? How do we know more?
Man
Well look at the way you phrased your questions, “how do we know later what we don’t know now?” What is it that you know?
Woman
I don’t even know what I know.
Man
But if I were to ask you a question, what would you be able to tell me?
Woman
Whatever I thought the answer was.
Man
Where does the answer come from?
Woman
What I remember.
Man
So you know what you remember?
Woman
Yes.
Man
So how do you think you know tomorrow what you don’t know today?
Woman
You live today.
Man
Yes.
Woman
So knowledge is only what we’ve experienced?
Man
Yes. And now you can understand better why only I know, or only you know, because there is only my experience, and your experience.
(Man checks time.)
I believe I have to leave.
Woman
Wait, but if other people are objects and there is only my suffering and feelings, what does that do for ethics?
Man
Ethics? As you’ve said, “people are objects”, treat them accordingly.
(Man leaves.)
-
- Posts: 436
- Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm
Re: A dialogue attempt
I can imagine a pantomime atmosphere with cries of 'Oh no, he didn't !'
Actually, scrap that - it would go down better in Glasgow.
Especially all that car suffering business...kiss my bent bonnet...
Boos and hisses and wild, wild laughter.
I was right about the last line.
Woman: I don't know. ( shakes head )
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023