> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> People _are_ objects. They occupy space, they have mass, they have
>> definable shapes and boundaries. The fact that one can interact with
>> other humans to a highly complex degree does not make them _not_
>> objects.
>
> This is pure sophistry. It takes a situational reality--that individual
> people, dogs, cockroaches, plants, microbes--can by viewed as objects
> by other entities--and gives it an altogether false ontological
> sense. In and for themselves, living beings are subjects.
> Insofar as they are subjects, they are not objects. But they
> are subjects (entities acting upon their environment) for every
> moment of their living existence. Their potential objectness
> is merely the necessary implication of their actual subjectness.
Let me see if I have this straight. I state a simple truth-- that people are objects-- and I list a short handful of characteristics of objects to support my point. That's sophistry.
But your lengthy paragraph, with such phrases as "situational reality," "false ontological sense," "potential objectness" and "the necessary implication of their actual subjectness," is _not_ sophistry.