This was more or less my own reaction too. It’s basically along the lines of folks who insist that if you don’t think like they do you’re not to be taken seriously as, well, a “serious philosopher”.
A little taste of what is to be taken seriously:
In between declarative comments, references to things one should read, and tentative’s “everything is relative,” it is remarkable how this disagreement is not taken seriously.
If an atheist is confronted by a Christian who only has to say that “God is great” and “You fear God”, and “It is written in the Bible, how’s that for evidence?”, should the atheist walk away and permit this fool to continue to believe he is worth respect, eventually becoming so arrogant that he tries to teach children creationism side by side with Evolution Theory, or should he put him in his place and nip that bud at the root?
How much humoring do the mediocre deserve, and is this not dangerous?
To put someone in their place is to assume you have knowledge of what place that is. Not very philosophical there sabina.
You haven’t read the Socratic dialogues, have you?
Unless you think philosophy means democracy.
Have you only read the Socratic dialogues?
.
…
[size=124]
Knowledge is second-hand experiences.
~~~ Sabina ~~~
Why does everything have to return to personalities, with you people?
Can a man who is unfit not say that fitness is good?
Cannot an ugly girl admit that beauty is not skin deep, but that it signifies genetic health?
Does everything have to benefit you for it to be most probably true?
I see what the problem is.
Is it because you cannot think or accept anything that does not benefit you immediately that you accuse all of this terrible mental deficiency?
~~~ Sabina ~~~
I. LOVE. THIS.
These two quotes contain more actual philosophy than the ENTIRE board of threads that is now visible upon this site.
Well done.
REALLY well done.
Thank you for posting here.[/size]
.
I’m Glad you liked it because you broke the Rule Again Bill.
3rd warning, 4 day ban.
Either clean up your posts or don’t post in this Subforum.
Is Sabina male or female? The name says female but the writing is misogynist.
Have you never come across a feminine-critical or self-critical woman?
Do you not hate the imperfections about yourself in a self-affirmative way?
Loving yourself is not blind acceptance and finding justifications for the state you are in; its an honest confrontation, peering into the abyss and not weaving fairytales covering up the holes and pretending to be “I am what I am” in that comfortable resignation spoken with a tinge of defiance and calling that self-love and necessary survival to get through the day.
There are a whole number of websites on women against feminists, I’m curious as to what you call them?
In these days of toying with DNA in order to establish The Order, I’m pretty certain that the best answer to that question is, “No”.
But is all irrelevant to the subject of trolling or philosophy in general (unless you are planning on a personal relationship).
So James, gender is unimportant in philosophy? A female can pretend to be male and a male can pretend to be female?
Sabina, when a female gives males the position of superiority it raises questions of true gender and self esteem. Abused, manipulated needy females inevitably do so. Your words condone, promote male dominance. If indeed you are female then this makes what you say and why you say it questionable. Unless you are part of certain sects of christianity or Islamic. In both cases you would not be allowed on the net or talking to males. So if this is the case then this too causes questions to what and why. Your reply to me really raises those questions. As for forums dedicated to male dominion, I call them moronic just as I do feminist sites.
Can you think of why gender would be important in philosophy?
And what someone pretends is a bit irrelevant in philosophy unless pretending is the philosophy in question.
Sexism, bias, prejudice, and presumption.
…not becoming of a “lady”.
Females may love a dominant male in more ways then one.some of which they may not be aware of, in oprder to reverse positions. Can a middle of the road ever be achieved? It seems as if a conceptual equality may supress a phisiological quest. Solutions seem linear this way, and anyone can play act the dominatrix, just to see, if the wife can ever be manipulated.
Power and the will of it is the key, unfortunately the way it goes down, is whoever is on top, wants not only to stay there, but gain more of it, and ultimately power corrupts. But could men live in a feminine power structure?
Volumes could be said of that.
Doesn’t this thread belong in the Rant House?
What is gender-esteem when you ignore and sever the social application of it from the evolutionary role? In heterosexual reproduction the need for a gestation period, forces the specialization of sexual roles.
The male/female types evolve out of this necessity. As a result one of the two has to endure an invasion upon its physical space and its comfort zone.
This is made possible through the inebriating effects of lust, or instinctual drive, and, as a theoretical perspective, as the enlargement of the idea of self to include the other.
This is a fact. Since all interactions produce hierarchies, the male takes on the dominating role, as his value is in reference to his ability to dominate amongst the group or in relation to other males. He must prove himself worthy of the risks and costs the female will undertake to carry out his essence, his gene, into fruition.
The female submits to his value, as her sexual success is the product of identifying and replicating fit genes. Replicating unfit genes would be a waste of her time and energies.
The role of the feminine is fitness selection, which requires Selective Discrimination and focus on what is “Superior”. Dominance is a necessary “acknowledgement”.
The female distinguishes herself in selecting the most superior male, while how that superiority is being determined today is a different matter.
The very nature and function of a female IS to give male the sign and recognition of superiority in selecting him; doing so is how she establishes her own superior worth.
You understand? Self-affirmation in the wholesome sense, of the whole evolutionary past, is the very opposite of low self or gender esteem.
That said masculinity and feminity in a female are degrees of disposition. The more feminine one is, the more she values social co-operation over competitiveness and individuality.
I am indeed a female, and given the current climate of effete metrosexuals, homos., and other variants of feminized males, you speak as though promoting male values among males and female values among females is a crime! The reduction of all genders to One Uniform cooperative type happily getting along in harmony may sound good to some abused, cheated, traumatized and oversensitive prudish females, but in the larger view, this reduction and levelling to one uniform level, where man is distinguished only by the presence of his genital and the castration of his spirit, is a stunting of the whole human species. Standards are raised and innovations are broken by Competition whether mental or physical.
To curb this Fire in the name of civility, politeness, equal rights, is promotion of a self-hatred and injustice of nature, and how species evolved. You condone such nihilism. And I should suppose its such insecure women who feel threatened of their sexuality, feel diminished in acknowledging a superior male.
Weakness clings to self and calls this self-respect.
Weakness clings to power and calls herself emancipated woman.
What is all this false ego, when more than half the things you are dependent on, your very freedom to move about this minute is owed to male dominance - technological innovations or being in the army protecting your freedom to speak, live, be…? The spiritual stunting of males would sooner pull everyone into a quicksand of mindless hedonism and peaceful slumber and comfort and have this called “the golden period” when it is utter stagnation, and the extinction of every noble kind of elevating heroism.
“What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos.” - Kerry Thornley, Principia Discordia
I’m pagan.
How and what does a woman gain, not promoting male dominion?
What is your kind of woman and what is your kind of man?
Maybe you’ll appreciate the opposite when you have your daughter slap you about asserting her “self-esteem” and “individuality” showing you how much of a male she can be and how tighter her trousers fit her. I’m sure that’d be more “lady-like”…
You seriously should take the time to think a little more carefully before responding.
… less fearful passion would help.
Fine, I’ll reserve the patience to ask you what is Lady-like to you? A female who calls a man, a man just observing how well-hung he is? Or…?
And that Or… would be sexism? If acknowledging natural evolutionary gender functions, and the male for his competitive spirit among other things is sexist, then I guess I am one.
What you didn’t take the time to note is that I wasn’t referring to you.
But to answer the question anyway;
A “Lady” is one who is ultimately aware of the condition of those around her and behaves accordingly. The focus on that nearly impossibly task naturally distracts from the “Lord” focus of calculating the more distant future, an equally almost impossible task. The pair, make quite a team.
So last weekend I went to a flea market, and while walking around with a friend I came upon four wrought-iron-backed chairs that were lovely. The seats needed to be re-upholstered, but as I said - the backs were lovely, just my style, and I’m looking for furnishings to make a small kitchen-nook area in my new apartment. The man selling them told me they were $10/ea, but I talked him down to $25 for the set before I realized that I had no way to get them back to my new apartment. I was riding with my friend, who has a child so of course her trunk area was full of stuff for the kid, and well, I could’ve gone home to get my car, but I really didn’t want them badly enough to justify driving all over the city to pick them up. When I commented on my inability to transport the chairs, he offered to drop them off at my place, at which point in time I changed my mind completely.
Not because I didn’t want the chairs, but because I wasn’t comfortable with a strange man coming to my place. Oh well. Another day, another chair.