If you have to ask "Am I REALLY socially undesirable X?", then you are?

Question

If you, at minimum, can imagine how you "COULD be taken to have a property" and want confirmation whether the property really inheres, because you feign imperceptibility, then your work is already done.

Taking ANY object, the possibly perceived property is just what it means to be a property. And without any philosophical reflection, you are aware of that immanently when you encounter, for instance, a red apple under various sources of light.


Who will argue for the anorexic (surely, she is not fat though she perceives it!)? Or the pseudo-suicidal? Tell me a story how they misjudge, and why some questions of the form "Am I X?" can have a negative answer.

It's an empirical fact whether, say, the beautiful ever ask "Am I ugly?", but not with this question (it's certainly logically possible). One way to derive the conclusion: "If you have to ask..." implies that the questioner is already aware of their condition, and in the awareness makes the property real for his or herself.

The problem is I've been far too precise, and now some want to add 'objective property' to our vocabulary as if I were not talking about the very same thing all along.

If you know what it takes to be considered fat, look in the mirror and think "I might be fat (in someone elses' eyes, but not my own)" then you just are voicing objective reality. You are fat because you recognize that someone else could allocate that property to you.

Which is exactly the same for any "objective property". Someone COULD see the apple as red, therefore it is red. Someone COULD hear the tree falling were they in the forest, therefore the sound is also there.

They are all objective, in the same way that a red-green color blind person cannot see red. His disability doesn't change the objective fact that we CAN see red. Some moths can perceive ultraviolet, and yet we cannot-- is ultraviolet not a property of things because we humans cannot 'see' it?

No, the ultraviolet marking is just as much there, because we COULD see it given an acutness of our visual modality.

What do we say of the fat woman who thinks herself thin? there are nested spheres of perception. She can be nested in her own tiny world as a schizophrenic, and we too must acknowledge that world. That is-- properties of objects are infinite and often contradictory.

What decides what is "natural" or YOUR term "objective" has everything to do with our social division of expertise, in accordance with what experts say is the case: for instance that once "red" WASN'T a property of objects, though geometrical extension WAS. It's contingent on US. We defer to authorities.

Answer 1

Many argue properties don't inhere such as the red apple actually looks very un-red under Blue light so it doesn't possess the property of "Redness". Similarly if one thinks one has a property such as being socially undesirable but one works at improving that one may forever consider it to be there even though nobody else would acknowledge or be aware of existence. In the case of social desirability it's not one's perception about oneself that matters but society's perception.

Then you seem to equivicate the word property in some instances a property is objectively existent in an object and in others it is purely dependant upon subjective analysis. Firstly you talk about the property really inhering,(implying properties exist such as the redness of the apple regardless of light nad perception) then you talk about it being real for the person doing the questionning they make it real to themselves, which imparts a more subjective view of the property concept. I think if you examine your concept of "Property" and decide what you believe it to be this question would be redundant.

In actual fact you have been inconsistent in your level of preciseness, applying precise terms when it suits and ignoring the preciseness of your terms at other stages.

Thats where your going wrong your interchanging between subjective and objective property as if they awere the same thing when they are most definetly not. You seem to propound that there is an objective reality of which we have subjective perceptions of. In which case what is one's criteria for ascertaining which subjective perception of an object contains the true objective properties.

If for instance one views an apple that is red only in Blue light then it is never perceived as being red therefore in order to refer to it as red one postulates an objective reality which is what you seem to be doing. If thats the case this is a contentious issue in itself as how do you a subject, know or possibly be able to comment on any objective reality.

One persons opinion can not be considered objective reality it is ridiculous for you have the fat woman wiith the opinion she is not fat but wondering if others consider her so, and postulating that if they do then that too is objective reality. How do you decide which persons opinion to take as objective reality????

I can see the point your now making but it doesn't seem to be the original point. (sorry to indulge in pedantry but a red green colour blind person can see red and green just with varying degrees of clarity.) Further our criteria for knowing ultra-violet exists is not a subjective opinion it is one based upon scientific observation a key feature being that results must be reproducible. I think the real issue is that the property of being fat is transitional and dependant upon humans in general, further whether one ascribes is down to each individual. one can not talk about these types of properties using the same language game, or conceptual paradigm as one would about truely metaphysical properties. It seems that the original question refered to properties in the philosophical sense whereas what you actually refering to was Socially constructed [Searle] properties.

Answer 2

No, possibly not. Some people are satisfied with the way they are, but are insecure enough to seriously doubt if other people perceive them in the same manner, thus "Am I X?"

Answer 3

Well, being based only on the title of the question, because I didn't quite understand what did you mean with the other parts, I really think... NO.

Answer 4

this reads like you have a point, or perhaps a question, but didn't quite get there. Maybe come back to earth and try again.

Answer 5

ur boring me