Mike V

I think it is an issue of what you are focusing on. With the treadmill example, you are focusing not so much on how much time is remaining. I mean, you started the clock at x-amount of time, so you know from the start how much time you will be running. The constant looking down at the time is more an issue of you wanting to focus on how much time of this blasted tough work is remaining, am I close to being done, etc. So it's not an issue of blanking out on facts of reality, it's an issue of blanking out on negative thoughts that only serve to take you away from the task at hand. It would be the same thing as going to work and constantly looking up at the clock. Your desire is not to know the reality of the time of day at any given minute; your focus is on hating your work and hoping it won't last very much longer.

SDK, I agree with Daunce. Great post. I had concluded much the same already, but you explained the possible psychology well, and added a lot of things I didn't know. Thanks!

Depends on what you mean by "objectification." There are generally two ways it is used. One is referring to someone being an object of sexual gratification. There's nothing wrong with this, and, as you said, men and women both do this in terms of sex and sexual attraction. Of course you're attracted to her legs, butt, boobs, whatever. And of course she's attracted to your body, face, penis, butt, whatever. And both can enjoy that, no problem. Anyone who says there is something wrong with that is nuts. But there's another sense in which women can and have been objectified, and it may not have anything to do with sex. In many cultures, women have been viewed as possessions, prizes, or otherwise property of men, their husbands, or future husbands. Anytime a woman is treated as an object in this way -- a possession instead of a person -- then it's a problem. And yes -- it's sexist. By the way, it also is the chief reason why men strike out with women and are unable to be attractive to many women. When a guy communicates with a woman as though she's a prize to be won, then in the process of that objectification he also subconsciously communicates that he is of less value than she is, and vice versa, that she is of more value than he is. And contrary to opinion, women may enjoy the perks of having a male fawn over her and make attempts at impressing her and "winning the prize" (she might get free dinner and drinks), but she definitely won't be sexually attracted to that kind of guy. A woman is much more likely to be attracted to a guy who consistently treats her as a person, not higher or lower than he is as a human being, and who doesn't "objectify" her by treating her like a prize he hopes to be worthy of. I think a lot of people miss that in discussions like these. So to recap: The same word "objectification" is usually used in two different concepts -- one of those concepts is good, one is bad.

Hi George. I know this is my first post here; I post on ObjectivismOnline regularly. But I like this forum and had been meaning to register. Anyhow, funny story: I used to be a Christian. I graduated from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary about nine years ago with an M.Div. in theology. My particular focus and interest was in apologetics. I was familiar with your book "Atheism: The Case Against God." It was regarded back then (and I'm sure now, still) as one of the best books promoting atheism. (Yes, even Christian apologists regarded you highly, even while thinking you were mistaken.) I had glanced through it, but I spent more time with Michael Martin's book, because I had a Reformed view of theology and was very interested in presuppositional apologetics and was keyed in to the debate (or non-debate) with Greg Bahnsen. I was planning to read your book fully at some eventual time. Long story shortened. About two years after graduating seminary, I renounced religion. (Not because of any atheist books or arguments at the time. Or, at least, not directly. I'm sure they did have an influence.) I was always a libertarian, even while religious. I eventually started reading Rand and became a student of objectivism. Seeing that you post here, and now knowing your own objectivist interests/views, I had one of those come-full-circle moments. Anyway, I'm glad to find you once again on the this side of rationality. I'll put your new book at the top of my list and order it within two weeks. Thanks for your work.