Member-only story
How Physical Objects Submit to the Apparent Miracle of Human Consciousness
The role of objectification in the advent of civilization
Is there a default mode of human understanding, a way of thinking that’s universal and hardwired into the brain?
If so, it would have to be the animistic sort of hypersocialization that seems to have been commonplace for thousands of years in the Upper Paleolithic. Until we were taught to do otherwise, after history accumulated through trials and errors, the way we naturally preferred — and still may prefer — to think is to adopt what the philosopher Daniel Dennett called the “intentional stance.”
Taking that stance, we presume we’re dealing with a fellow mind, so we attempt to negotiate verbally or magically with what’s in front of us. We posit gods and goblins and ancestral spirits, just as children readily invent imaginary friends. We interpret nature as being fundamentally alive, meaningful, and subject to moral assessment.
All of which is a long way from objectivity, logic, and scientific inference to the best explanation. What, then, is the difference between hypersocialization and objectification?
