Anthropomorphism

The initiating force of these observations came the Christmas before last from my Grandfather on a tirade on the ills of society. I think many of us lend human-characteristics, subconsciously at least, to non-humans.

Giving life to inanimate objects: An observation.

Physical feelings. I tend to lend inanimate objects the ability to feel pain. Like when I drop a bottle of shampoo, it’s not entirely uncommon to hear me say “ouch!” as if I was feeling pain from the fall for the bottle.

Emotional feelings. In addition to the ability to feel physical pain, I act as though these objects have emotional feelings: that they’re able to be offended. It is for this reason that I apologize whenever I run into them, or knock them over, or drop them. I wouldn’t want my books to be angry with me, you know?

The ability to reason: Perhaps its because machines were made by people with the ability to reason (hopefully), but I also tend to impose upon some inanimate objects the ability to problem-solve. For ex: I was considering yesterday whether or not a person should go ahead and get on an elevator going up, if it’s the only one in the building, knowing it will eventually be heading down: the direction the person in question wishes to go in the first place. Following this came a consideration as to whether or not a person could, in a 3 story building, convince (notice persuasion) an elevator to go to the third floor after dropping the person off at the second floor. I decided this was very reasonable, all they need to was indicate both floors and the elevator would think that there were two people in it (at least) and their destinations were separate (think!). So what about if a person didn’t decide to trick the elevator until he/she had reached their destination, could it still be done? It can, and this is how I reasoned that the elevator would reason it: The person presses the button for the 3rd floor after arriving at the second, as the doors begin to close, the person puts their hand out to stop them, in order to stay on the second floor themselves. They exit. The elevator has experienced this before, when a group of people are going from the second to third floor and do not wish to leave their friend behind. It is not suspicious at all, and proceeds to the third floor.

The ability to retaliate: Perhaps the reason to fear inanimate objects’ ability to feel physical pain, have emotional feelings, or possess reasoning skills is they may want to get back at you. Not you personally, that is. People in general. Printers with the output tray down can look pretty sinister, one must use extreme caution around them.

The ability to read non-verbals: Many people don’t possess this skill. Why it is so easy to see inanimate objects as having it is beyond me. Sometimes though, instead of saying “ouch” or “I’m sorry” I say it with my eyes. Similarly, when I’m with a machine that is having trouble doing whatever it was that it was designed to do, I comfort it with a soothing tone (yes, tone is non-verbal) or a pat on its head.
Anyway, I’d love to hear y’all’s take on how you sympathize/empathize/treat-as-living non-living things.

Golden Rule

This is actually something I wrote a short while ago, but it’s rather difficult to come up with an original thought when one tries to do that specifically, you know?

It’s a rule, but is it Golden?? 

Gold: the precious metal that tempted every culture that discovered it. A valuable element, a rare ore; it’s adjective form is used to denote high value. So we come to the topic of discussion: The rule so valuable it is “golden.”

What it says:

            “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

What it requires:

The Golden rule has at its base the supposition that all people want to be treated the same way. If you want to be treated one way, it argues, then so does the other person (hence the reason for treating them that way).

Obviously this supposition is false. Because I like to be given peanut butter cookies does not mean the action will be equally appreciated by someone with a peanut allergy.

More broadly, the Golden Rule encourages us to impose our paradigm onto other people. Introverts who heed the call of the Rule will leave others alone, they are likely to seem standoffish, or self absorbed by following such a course of action. Extroverts, by contrast would likely seek to give company to anyone available, making themselves a nuisance.

What it leads to:

The imposition of ones paradigms upon another would not be so bad, were it not so widespread and generalized. We, as a society, have lost our ability to empathize. We don’t understand where another person is coming from, largely because we assume it’s the same place we’re coming from.

The problem:

The Golden rule is established for children so that they have some basis on which to make decisions concerning their treatment of their fellow people. We can’t, as a society, disregard the need for such a basis, nor can we neglect to introduce it early in psychological development.

The proposal:

The key to society’s interaction with itself is not found in treating others in the same way we would want ourselves to be treated. It is in treating others with mutual respect. Obviously mutual respect must be cultivated, not commanded. Therefore the important thing is not to impress upon our nation’s youth a trite expression, but to teach them that every person has value, the same value as their own, even. Though people are not like them, they must learn that they are worth the same, and they have equal contributions to make to society.