But it is not contrary. That is, unless you believe parts is limited to physical. I doubt that because we talked about non-physical things, but that is my best guest.I'm glad you acknowledge that, but it runs counter (in my mind) to your comments on a person being a collection of parts. To clarify, having traits isn't the same thing as 'being a collection of parts'.
Let me ask you this to test something, is it demeaning to someone if you describe them physically, emotionally, ect?
But this is the root of the issue. I see no reason that you cannot respect her as a person and still only care about her voice. I don't care about her relationships, what movies she watches, what her favorite color is. I care that she has an amazing voice. In that sense, I am only concerned with her ability to sing.We may have gotten down to the point of semantics then, as I'd argue that if you consider her a person, you aren't objectifying her for her voice. You cannot state that someone is only a voice while also stating that she's a person that's more than a voice. If you insist on this stance, I'd say it's just 'agree to disagree'.
If harm does come to her, I would still feel bad, but for 2 main reasons. One being that she is a person, the other is that we lose her voice.
So this may answer the above, but are you saying personality traits are not "parts"?Ditto to above, I consider parts to be objects, not aspects/describable traits. Note that doesn't mean you cannot describe an object (that woman has a nice ass), just that a person is not an object/collection of objects (that woman's a nice piece of ass). Agree to disagree.
You are the the totality of what makes you up, but there are things that make up who and what you are. I may like some of this and not others. If you are an entertainer, I would focus on the parts I like and not focus on the parts I do not.I only meant that, when referencing an individual as a collection of parts rather than in totality (which you may be doing anyhow) it diminishes them as a person. I consider myself more than an amalgamation of parts akin to a lego construction (nonphysical attributes included), as I'm sure most would agree.
This is too long to answer fully, but, no that person would be both me and not me depending. Mainly not me because that person once they are created starts to live a different life from me and stops being me. What you just described is a twin.This is going a bit philosophical, but imagine if an exact duplicate of you (thoughts, feelings, emotions, physical traits, etc) were created, would that be you? Or would it be another entity? Given everything is identical from a physical/nonphysical perspective, I'd still consider it to be a separate person, because it's not *me*. I'm more than a collection of parts, even if those parts are duplicated.
There is no reason that parts combined should not equal more than their individual sums. It just does not mean that people do not have parts.The core of this as I've tried to elaborate above is that I consider 'parts' to be miscellaneous objects that are 'attached' in some way to a person, whether they be physical (feet, eyes, face, chest) or nonphysical (personality, mind, thoughts, emotions). The *description* of those objects is different, so describing an 'object', while it may offend someone due to you leering at them, isn't inherently offensive when taken out of the context of a human. However, identifying a person based solely from a single trait, or based solely off a single part of their person (physical or nonphysical) is diminishing. Hell, even attempting to describe them based on a list of traits or objects is diminishing, though a given person may not inherently be offended by that.
But those are still parts of a person that you can objectify. Einstein was brilliant as well as an asshole. I can be in amazement in what he did for science, and, dislike what he did to his first wife. I see nothing that makes that disrespectful in terms of his humanity.If you're stating traits as in, objects attached to them (physical attributes) or something to do with say, their mind (an example would be, identifying Einstein based solely on his mind), that'd be objectifying them. If you're meaning traits as in, personality quirks (stating that [DHT]Osiris can be a pedantic asshole), I'd say that's not objectifying as it's just describing an aspect of them, as referenced above.