...

[Cezar]

…

[BlueChicken]

@Cezar

The literary female

I am not 100% sure what your argument is, but I think this concept is key to keep in mind. The gender division you are discussing is a social construct, only solidified in either stagnant society or literature.

[Joker]

@BlueChicken

@Cezar

The literary female

I am not 100% sure what your argument is, but I think this concept is key to keep in mind. The gender division you are discussing is a social construct, only solidified in either stagnant society or literature.

Gender differences can be biological in nature.

[Cezar]

…

[Mr_Reasonable]

I like life. And I think the perfect woman is higher. Happy now?

[Cezar]

…

[BlueChicken]

@Joker

@BlueChicken

@Cezar

The literary female

I am not 100% sure what your argument is, but I think this concept is key to keep in mind. The gender division you are discussing is a social construct, only solidified in either stagnant society or literature.

Gender differences can be biological in nature.

I know they CAN be, but the differences discussed seem to be more socially-built in nature. The concept that man creates knowledge (or uncovers knowledge) and woman is merely curious about what man has created seems to relegate that women are incapable of creating knowledge. Man is dominant in the field of knowledge and woman is subordinate? This seems to be a very social trend to me, one of which is changing rapidly

A quick example would be the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. Much of the current understanding of the methodology and structure of theoretical (as well as practical) totalitarianism was created by Arendt.

@Cezar

The problem with the rest of you dumbasses is that you all ALWAYS discuss what “is” as if there is any form of “being” and NEVER what SHALL BE!

There is not a single person on this board who thinks about life. You all want DEATH!

Given the nature of your first post in this thread you where also very much describing what is, and interestingly enough more a conception of what was… not what will be. I think current trends point towards a much more egalitarian gender-division, not a return to a more antiquated gender-based master-slave dialectic between men and women.

And I just thought about life, when you brought it up I decided I was alive and it was so. It was only when I was incited by you that my thought turned towards death, which in itself I believe will lead to a continued life. Death for me is a hiccup of life should the Lord choose it for me, it seems that you are specifically wanting to discuss death. Why else would you bring it up in an unrelated conversation? Perhaps some self re-evaluation is in order before making broad and unfounded judgements on people you know little, if anything, about Cezar.

[Joker]

Perfect woman, eh? Never met her before.

Dam I must be missing out or somthing.

( I am such a deprived creature.)

[Gaiaguerrilla]

@Cezar

The problem with the rest of you dumbasses is that you all ALWAYS discuss what “is” as if there is any form of “being” and NEVER what SHALL BE!

There is not a single person on this board who thinks about life. You all want DEATH!

Interesting phrase. I think defining the known universe is our only known ability to validate where it can and should go. “What is” and “what should be” are the same question if analyzed to their conclusion.

I can’t really delve into classical philosophy which etches roles in human culture because it too easily renders itself obsolete. Who knows if there will even be two genders centuries from now. Did nature really intend a significant role for either gender?

[heavenly_demonic]

@Cezar

This is very simple now!

Life is “experiment of knowledge”.
Live knowledge is the consequence of curiosity in the sense of keeping it alive.
The man is the one who creates knowledge.
The woman is the one who out of her “unnatural curiosity” learns easily.

Now, we have learnt out of my page that two different judgements for one single thing harm eachother.

Nietzsche’s definition of a perfect woman is:
“The perfect woman perpetrates literature as she perpetrates a small sin: as an experiment, in passing, looking around to see if anybody notices it and that somebody does …”

F. Nietzsche, Twilight of idols, Maxims and Arrows 20

geocities.com/geomanija/women.html

From this follows that a perfect woman is such one who doesn’t read books but wants to have a husband who will help her to understand everything what has been written… maybe in the books of her choice.

To her oposed stands the literary woman who has given up children, family and the husband. She reads books alone, writes alone, reads herself alone. I have found 4 of this kind on MySpace, till now. They all have as friends some random musicians in their friend-list and in “general interests” is always “literature” on first two places.

““This picture is enchantingly beautiful!” … [Tamino’s words in Mozart’s “The Magic Flute.”] The literary female: unsatisfied, excited, her heart and entrails void, ever listening, full of painful curiosity, to the imperative which whispers from the depths of her organism, “aut liberi aut libri” [“either children or books”]—the literary female: educated enough to understand the voice of nature even when it speaks Latin, and yet vain enough and goose enough to speak secretly with herself in French: “Je me verrai, je me lirai, je m’extasierai et je dirai: possible, que j’aie eu tant d’esprit?” … [From Ferdinando Galiani’s Lettres à Madame d’Epinay (September 18, 1769 letter): “I shall see myself, I shall read myself, I shall go into ecstasies, and I shall say: is it possible that I should have had so much wit?”]”

F. Nietzsche, Twilight of idols, Skirmishes of an Untimely Man 27

geocities.com/geomanija/women.html

what is your argument?
that the best female is the one who uses her brain only to find a man that will be her new brain because men are smarter?
or the best female is the one that uses her own brain…and maybe believes that men are the one who create knowledge or not, but even if she thinks men are equal or superior, she decides to be her own brain and understand things for herself…

what i understood fom ur post is that the best female is the playmate tipe…
the blonde…or something…

[heavenly_demonic]

if men create knowledge and women are curious about it, then men lie and women believe.

i think both are capable of both things…but there is a tendency for men to be the active principle and women to be the passive…
but i think both have the potentiality for both…

i am a female and i’d like to be the active principle sometimes… but most of the time i think i am the passive principle being very curious about what men think…
and i am glad i am a female since i like men…and i mean this in the philsophical sense, not only sexual.
i like men’s brains…to explore them…and learn from their…‘‘light and libido’’ dunno how to put it…

[Cezar]

…

[Kriswest]

The perfect female is the female that compliments her perfect mate. Be it male or female.
The perfect man is the man that compliments his perfect mate. Be it male or female.

Compliment in this case does not mean good manners, it means enhance, be a part of a whole.

All humans can be perfect and all humans can be whole if they find the perfect match, which rarely happens. Gender has little to do with matches. It has more to do with personalities and attributes.

Yes a human can be perfect if they are true to themselves.( oooh, I hear the arguments coming LOL)

[Balls23]

Beings are evaluated on the basis of how they differ from the ideal. Since all actual beings are at least contingent, there is always some uncertainty regarding this measure. A human always has the possibility of differing from perfection, a possibility that perfection does not itself possess.

I may find a partner who seems to compliment me perfectly, but my partner and I must change. So even if for a moment we were perfect, the perfection would be a special case such that we would be transcendent away from a state of perfection, and it’s debatable whether you could call that perfection at all.

[Cezar]

…

[Kriswest]

@Balls23

Beings are evaluated on the basis of how they differ from the ideal. Since all actual beings are at least contingent, there is always some uncertainty regarding this measure. A human always has the possibility of differing from perfection, a possibility that perfection does not itself possess.

I may find a partner who seems to compliment me perfectly, but my partner and I must change. So even if for a moment we were perfect, the perfection would be a special case such that we would be transcendent away from a state of perfection, and it’s debatable whether you could call that perfection at all.

Actually if you complimented each other perfectly then your changes would mesh. That is if you allow it and see it. A bell can only tell you supper is ready, it can’t make you eat that supper. Sometimes we don’t do what is right for us, we fall for the temptation of dessert before supper. Then we have no room for supper. The universe makes us each to be perfect if we allow it or strive for it.

[heavenly_demonic]

@Cezar

The color of the hair speaks about that too.

WHAT?! lolz…

[heavenly_demonic]

@Cezar

@Balls23

Beings are evaluated on the basis of how they differ from the ideal.

Ideals have evaluted on the basis of how they differ from beings.

Ideals are there to show us how to reach the highest power, but representations are there to form our bodies and they are results of what we get when we use the highest reached power.

i thought u didn’t believe in ideals since u r bashing idealists

[Cezar]

…

[Cezar]

…