Chris asked:

Is it possible to genuinely interact with others as ends in themselves and thus interact with them
beyond whatever structure or functionality they are "socially" ascribed — given that interaction is
made possible in part by our understanding (or lack of) of who they are?

But does not our understanding or knowledge of who they are constrict their freedom, in that who
they are is not what they are perceived to be? (The fallacy of perception?) Ultimately, how can I
interact with others without compromising their freedom and mine also? It seems that
mis-communication would be a more appropriate term for what we do, rather than a clear
communication of the facts between two distinct entities both existing in an objective world.

============

Surely to interact with others on the basis of "the functionality they are'socially' ascribed" is what is
not genuine! As to whether we can "interactwith others as ends in themselves" — this is what we
should do. It is partof interacting with others that we treat them in a certain way. To treat aperson
as an end in himself is to treat him with respect regardless of hissocial function and whether you like
or understand him, and it could be saidthat this is actually because of our lack of understanding. We
don't knowwhat makes others as they are and we cannot blame them. We don't know theproblems
and suffering others have undergone. So we should treat people withunconditional respect.

As to "interaction", psychologists are aware that their own questions andbehaviour will influence the
subject. In psychoanalysis, transference is themain problem the analyst has to face. On listening to
a patient manyemotions are sparked off in the analyst. He may come to dislike the patientor overly
sympathise for personal reasons. The analyst must deal with thesefeelings or they can be
transferred back to the patient who will suffer evenmore confusion. So the analyst must be
impassive in order not to influencethe patient. This, of course, is not a normal case of interaction. In
ordinary life, there is transference in that we affect one another all thetime. However, this IS a form
of communication. Does this constrict ourfreedom? It is one of our freedoms to affect others and be
emotionallyaffected. It is to be a human being.

We don't really "perceive" others. When we hear what they say an watch theirbehaviour, our
understanding goes beyond perception, and this is partly basedon the knowledge we have of
ourselves. It can be instinctual. It iscertainly not like perceiving a chair. In ordinary perception,
misperceptionand illusion are the odd cases. But misunderstandings are part and parcelof our
interactions with others.

Ethics is theoretical, but human beings are not philosophical problems on anordinary level of
interaction.

Rachel Browne