DingoBingo-- I think smears just disagrees with the general tone of every thread to get an arguement. Not faulting it, gets some good arguements some of the time. Failing that he/she just makes a blanket offensive statement. Don’t dislike him he is actually quite intelligent… or lucky and manipulative. Either is fine by me. 
BTW, DingoBingo is Shirley Jackson embezzling funds. 
No serious scientist should make any money by my standards.
He is rather contrary.
He does also, however, have a point.
He always does 
, that is why he is a genius. 
For the record my boss is female scientist. She’s got degrees in chemistry, biology, physics and philosophy. It blows my mind talking to her. She’s probably the smartest person I know.
Told you. See how he just flips on you like that, and your left doing this> . Genius. I don’t know if it is Jokers approach to the forum that I like better though. Makes it all fun though!
Joker does one of the best relativist/anti-moralists I’ve seen.
It’s great to watch when someone new starts across one of his posts. They take it too seriously but the arguements from that are pretty good. Kind of like punching a guy in the face, and debating it afterwards, impossible on paper, but you and him do the same thing in different ways.
Based on your own analysis. Something you take as truth does not mean it becomes universally accepted. Many would say the abdication of all morality is much more insane than ethical philosophy.
Basing a truism on a personal opinion is risky buisiness.
Leo Strauss distinguished between being a philosopher and being a scholar with reference to boldness and willingness to take risks by breaking new ground. It would be a question of going out on a limb and affording us an original vision of the world that we did not have before.
He considered himself a scholar rather than a philiosopher.
A great philosopher, on the other hand, would be more than just a student of other people’s ideas. She would be a creator of ideas in her own right, and not just ideas, but cohesive systems of thought, and entire worldviews.
By that definition, Elaine Pagels, or Madame Curie or any other brilliant scientist, for that matter, should not really be counted as philosophers. Philosophy is after all more than scholarship, or good research, or good science, or high intelligence.
But the question would be, would an Ayn Rand, or Simone de Beauvoir and feminism in general fall short of being a great philosophers or great philosophies in terms of this definition.
The case could be made, I suppose, that instead of systems of thought what we are being presented with in these cases is really just political commentary that is just too narrow in scope to be an all-encompassing philosophical world-view.
On the other hand, agree of disagree with their conclusions, it must be pointed out that this gals weren’t just flashin’ beaver or flippin’ burgers.
Awww shucks… 
Consider that there is no one truth and standard that conforms to humanity or the cosmos while contemplating the malicious actions of human beings throughout history with the understanding of what the word " insanity"means.
( I await your reply.)
I interject briefly only for the purpose of seeking a clarification on a certain position.
“Basing a truism on a personal opinion is risky business.”
Is this a truism based on an opinion?
=D> I love it!
I have been wondering about this for some time, as well; and I have actually decided to ask some “more opinionated” women out there. The conclusion that I came up with is that most women are actually more practical in their thinking. By that, I mean that instead of spending time contemplating on the nature of the absolute truth, or a thing-in-itself (or any other abstract philosophical concept), women prefer to focus on more immediate things in life, like how to put food on the family table, finding the best school for little Jenny to attend next year, or how to get ahead in life (job-wise).
Women also are very aware of little things in social world (social networking), such as who the neighbors are and who’s who among the friends, acquaintances and co-workers/boss’ friends. Social mobility and knowing the hierarchy dynamic is important to women and they constantly re-assess it (catch up).
Women are also more inclined to spend their time caring for their (and their loved ones’) physical health (dieting, exercise, regular doctor visits, etc.).
I also think that women fare better without men (as opposed to vice-versa) because they are better equipped to take care of themselves: physically, emotionally, and socially.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that women choose to solve problems that have more of an actual, tangible results in their lives.
I honestly can’t for the life of me understand what you are trying to say with this passage. I want to, really I do. And I have the feeling that Levinas would make an appearance in my response, but really I need some clarification. What are you asking me?
Not a truism, merely an observation. And I would think that this might not be only an opinion given that the nature of rational argumentation seems to eschew opinions as a whole.
Mr. Blue Chicken,
Why not rather admit that you are an Ace at navigating through risky business?
Because I would rather transfer the ego boost onto the failiures of others. “I am not great, everyone else just can’t argue worth a damn.”
Surely I jest…
Hi,
I suppose aint too smart touching Pandoras box? Oh well…see what comes out…lol
Some men do fine on their own always have always will. Some aint got a clue how to pick socks up off the floor.
Women may think more in the now, but many look far ahead. They are the gathers so to say. Moat never had time to sit and ‘think’ how life is suppose to be. They were living it and doing it.
If they didnt plan ahead then children wouldnt be taught. Food would not be dried or stored for the months ahead. Furs wouldnt have been tanned for the cold.
I look at all these words here and my conclusion is reality is reality only as we imagine it. However there is a reality beyond a scholars imagination, called life.
Martin Luther king and Ghandi spring to mind.
And dare I say it Jesus?