"It is my wish at this Time to remind you that I have always believed,and still believe,that Artists who live and work with spiritual values.
Cannot and should not remain indifferent to a conflict,in which the highest values of humanity and civilization are at stake"-Pablo Picasso
Something to be self-aware of,and to see in others
"Hate is not the opposite of love,apathy is"....-Rollo May
"While one might laugh at the meaningless boredom of people a decade or two ago, the emptiness has for many now moved from the state of boredom to a state of futility and despair, which holds promise of dangers".....-Rollo May
Obligations are only binding on human beings and there exists an obligation toward a human being by the sheer fact and sole reason that he is a human being. Obligations are eternal; they are coextensive with the eternal destiny of human beings. ‘Duty towards the human being as such – that alone is eternal’21. The recognition of this obligation is expressed in a confused and imperfect form by human rights. Christians know that one day they will hear Christ Himself say: ‘I was hungry and ye gave me no meat’. In the light of this, Weil draws up her list of eternal duties towards each human being. The transition she makes: from rights to obligations. If we were all living up to our obligations there would be no need for rights but we don’t have heaven on earth. We are human, all too human (Nietzsche) and that is why I would moderate Weil’s claims.-Simone Weil
I believe if we...the individual's whom have reached a point of comfort where we no longer have to Strive for Self-esteem as shown here with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...and then do nothing to better society...we have ,,instead of self-actualizing then ..remain in a "State of Apathy"
1 – Astonishment (Kierkegaard): unless one is astonished, for example about the difference of ideas on a same subject, one does not think. The poet and the philosopher, Saint Thomas Aquinas tells us, have this in common: they are moved by the mystery to marvel at being.
2 – Ignorance (Socrates/Plato): Unless one is conscious of one’s own ignorance, one’s lack, one does not think and cannot hear any new idea.
3 – Suspension of judgment (Descartes): Unless one puts aside momentarily one’s own opinions and axiology, one will have a hard time reading or listening, and understanding a new or foreign theory.
4 – Authenticity (Sartre): Unless one dare say what he has to say, because he worries about other’s opinion or his own conscience, he cannot know what he thinks and is caught up in bad faith (mauvaise foi).
5 – Sympathy (Edith Stein): If one does not trust others to a minimum degree and have sympathy with the human situation, one cannot hear their differences and objections and therefore cannot self-correct.
6 – Criticism (Hegel): Unless one is questioning or criticising one’s own ideas or other’s ideas (the work of “negativity”) one is indulging in mere opinion (doxa).
7 – Autonomy (Kant): Unless one dares to know and think by oneself, one maintains oneself in a state of infantilism.
I thought this good..representation of how ..change occurs in society
An interesting charge of the anti-pornography movement is that pornography "objectifies" women, that is, that it presents them as things to be "consumed" rather than as people. Neglecting the rather metaphysical, and thus vague, nature of this charge, one can only ask why "objectification" in sexually explicit materials is more objectionable than that, for example, in advertising. We live in a society where "objectification" is pervasive, where people are commonly referred to and thought of as "personnel," "human resources," and, even more grotesquely, "liveware." While the "bottom line" remains the fundamental value in society and people are considered first and foremost as productive and consumptive units, "objectification" will inevitably continue. (4)
It could easily be argued that women "objectify" men every bit as much, if not more, than men "objectify" women. If men look for appearance in women, women look for money in men. Another way of saying this is that if men regard women as "sex objects," women regard men as "money objects." Check it out. Look through the "personals" sections of tabloids such as The Village Voice or The Bay Guardian. What do women running ads want? More than anything else, money. (Their code words are "solvent," "secure, "successful," and "professional.")
The "objectification" of men by women brings up an interesting consideration: the class background of porn customers. If the customers of the Back Door were typical, as I believe they were, it's safe to say that men who consume pornography are predominantly working class men—blue collar workers, salesmen, and low-paid white collar workers. It's not difficult to figure out why. A man's ability to get laid in the present society is highly dependent upon his income. Middle and upper class men can afford to "entertain a woman in style" (vacations, weekends at country inns, etc.) or shell out $100 for a hooker if they get the urge. Working class men, on the other hand, can only afford to spend a few bucks occasionally for admission to a porn palace or for a copy of Hustler.
Even in "normal" romantic liaisons, things are bad. Most women seem drawn to money and power like buzzards are drawn to carrion. A great number—including many who bridle at the way men "objectify" women—won't even look at low-paid men because of class prejudice, because low-paid men are not desirable "money objects." Thus we have the grotesque spectacle of women complaining about a "man shortage" while they're surrounded by working class men they don't even see.
Working around such prejudiced women can be maddening for men in service industries or retail. You become a non-person. You simply don't exist. It makes you feel about as respected as a slave in the antebellum South. Such prejudice can be largely explained by the economic discrimination women face. But the prejudice persists even when its underlying cause vanishes. As an example, you'll seldom find female executives flirting with male secretaries, nor female physicians with male nurses or orderlies. Even though this class prejudice can be explained, that doesn't make it any easier to bear.
Ariel Levy contends that Western women who exploit their sexuality by, for example, wearing revealing clothing and engaging in lewd behavior, engage in female self-objectification, meaning they objectify themselves. While some women see such behaviour as a form of empowerment, Levy contends that it has led to greater emphasis on a physical criterion or sexualization for women's perceived self-worth, which Levy calls "raunch culture".
Levy discusses this phenomenon in Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. Levy followed the camera crew from the Girls Gone Wild video series, and argues that contemporary America's sexualized culture not only objectifies women, it encourages women to objectify themselves. In today's culture, Levy writes, the idea of a woman participating in a wet T-shirt contest or being comfortable watching explicit pornography has become a symbol of feminist strength.
I believe this is Where the "Need for Roots " and understanding how we all become "Objectified" in the idea of " Beyond Chiefdom",once we move beyond that group of say 33 then to 100,after that amount of individuals,we start Objectifying naturally,we can't remember names,no rappore,etc.