Patriarchy? Go East young man!

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:01 pm

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jan 02, 2022 8:58 pm

_
For those of us who haven’t subscribed to that news publication.. care to copy/paste some of the article, so that your OP can be suitably responded to?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:36 pm

Actually, for those who do think like the men in these accounts do they really do need to subscribe to the New York Times. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:17 am

iambiguous wrote:Actually, for those who do think like the men in these accounts do they really do need to subscribe to the New York Times. :wink:

Then why post the links, if you think/feel that way?

..are you going to?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:12 pm

_
The unfeminisation of man..?



The New Political Cry in South Korea: ‘Out With Man Haters’

After slow gains in women’s rights, the country is facing a type of political correctness enforced by young men angry at feminists, saying they undermine opportunity.


China’s Ban on ‘Sissy Men’ Is Bound to Backfire

BEIJING — China is facing serious challenges on multiple fronts: Great power competition with the United States. Trade disputes. The future of Taiwan. But that doesn’t mean it’s too preoccupied to escalate a battle of another sort on the home front.

The Chinese government, you see, has been fighting what state news outlets have called a “masculinity crisis” for the past few years, with one top official warning that “effeminate” men in popular culture were corrupting “a generation.” The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece decreed that young men need to have “toughness and strength,” and censors have blurred out male celebrities’ earrings in television and online appearances.

That campaign has now taken a harsher turn. In recent months, the government has dialed things up into a full-blown culture war against unorthodox masculine expression, policing it in earnest.

In a slur-laden directive, television regulators in September banned “sissy men and other abnormal aesthetics” from appearing on television. Then in late November regulators cracked down on celebrities’ online profiles, their fan groups and advertising, citing “abnormal aesthetics” and threatening to shut down the online accounts of those who failed to fall in line.

Stars like Cai Xukun, one of China’s most famous singers, went from sporting makeup and blond bangs on social media to biceps and baggy jeans on a magazine cover just two weeks after the September decree.

The stated goal of this campaign is to ensure that China stays on its path toward so-called national rejuvenation — President Xi Jinping’s plan for the country to regain its standing as a great power. The pressure to deliver on that plan is mounting ahead of the next Communist Party congress, likely to be held in 2022.

The party appears to believe that national rejuvenation is possible only if young men work diligently toward its orders and priorities: Mr. Xi has said “a nation is strong if its youth are strong.” By that (flawed) logic, femininity is a sign of weakness that, if unchecked, bodes ill for the nation’s future.

So while the prevalence of “effeminate” males was previously a source of general concern, it is now seen as a roadblock for Mr. Xi to clear. But the campaign, including the newly restrictive and more heavy-handed phase of recent months, is completely misguided and self-defeating. As the restrictions proliferate, they become impossible to enforce without undermining other governance priorities, like economic growth, that are vital components of national rejuvenation. Never mind that the objective of the campaign itself is ludicrous.

The crusade against what the party sees as unorthodox masculinity might be a way for the party to distract from the fact that it is failing to deliver for its people and is unable to address serious economic and social issues — a lack of upward mobility, career opportunities and affordable housing in some of the main cities.
But in trying to regulate gender expression as it does governance goals like G.D.P. figures, the party is pushing its control too far. And the masculinity mandates will almost certainly backfire.

The biggest target of this campaign is “little fresh meat,” a term of endearment for massively popular makeup-wearing male entertainers. In a society where discussing politics is largely off limits and traditional media is tightly controlled, popular culture is the rare realm where individualism can thrive. And so the “little fresh meat” phenomenon is about more than fashion and aesthetics; it offers an outlet for Chinese men and women at a time of economic uncertainty and a shifting power dynamic between sexes.

The cultural power of “little fresh meat” stars is indisputable. What the party appears to ignore, though, in blaming them for allegedly corrupting young men is that their fan base is predominantly female and in wealthy metropolises like Beijing and Shanghai.

These women’s embrace of a more fluid form of masculinity is not a phenomenon the party should dismiss. Well-educated and financially independent, these women are bucking gender norms themselves by turning away from matrimony and motherhood and are proving to be resistant to the party’s push to boost marriages and births to offset the effects of an aging population.

To this end, the party would do well to heed these women’s preferences. As some fans put it, the seemingly gentle manner and mild temper of “little fresh meat” offer a welcome contrast to the chauvinistic attitude they can encounter in Chinese men.

“Having men be tender and thoughtful like women improves them,” one woman going by the name Jiangzi wrote in an online essay explaining her fondness for “little fresh meat.” “In dating and marriage,” she asked, “who likes to be scolded?”

Men in China face a number of social challenges too. The difficulties of finding employment and affording urban living have tended to weigh more heavily on men, who shoulder society’s expectations to earn and provide. Chinese men also vastly outnumber women in the marriage marketplace, thanks to decades of family planning policies. When taken with the constraints of living in a society with rigid ideas regarding masculinity, pop culture is a form of escape — and a place where different identities can be explored.

Shaming and blocking these individuals’ preferred means of expression is not a way to motivate them toward “valiant struggle” in the name of national rejuvenation. Rather, it’s a recipe for diving deeper into despair.

The government’s idea of the ideal male reads like an outdated description of 1950s gender norms: muscular, reliable, career-oriented providers. The “masculine spirit” requires physical and mental fitness as well as “strong willpower,” the Ministry of Education said this year. An editorial published by a party mouthpiece said it is alive in those who “set high goals in life, dare to take on responsibilities, tackle difficulties head-on and never give up easily.”

Indeed, what the party seeks sounds less like Rambo than assiduous scientists and industrious engineers. When viewed alongside other recently introduced and draconian cultural policies, it’s clear that what the party wants is productive socialist workers devoted single-mindedly to its own development priorities — not distracted by what the party considers cultural deviance or excess.

So why then is the party demanding those attributes of only half the population? In its quest for economic supremacy, surely the party should not exclude the contributions of women, whom Mao Zedong once dubbed “half the sky.” And it can’t afford to: China’s work force is dwindling at an alarming rate.

The party must be aware of the glaring contradictions between its claims and its practice. Despite insisting in editorials and policy documents that masculinity has to do with inner qualities, it continues to target outer appearances in patrolling its public expression.

That could very well be because while hollow propaganda may travel far and wide, authoritarian tools have limits. They can draw boundaries within people’s lives but not dictate what grows within. And so the party is tethering itself to sensational labels, though even those can go only so far.

As the party’s draconian rules begin to cancel each other out, they also take their toll on young people, choking off the very vitality that is the true basis of national rejuvenation.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 03, 2022 6:12 pm

Thanks, MagsJ, but I still recommend a subscription to the New York Times. :wink:

Even though, in regard to capitalism at home and abroad, the Times is no less embedded in this...
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

Still, it does provide a generally liberal/leftist spin on "social issues" or so-called "value voter" issues. Much as does, say, Jeff Bezos's Washington Post.

Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.



So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:14 pm

iambiguous wrote:Thanks, MagsJ, but I still recommend a subscription to the New York Times. :wink:

Even though, in regard to capitalism at home and abroad, the Times is no less embedded in this...
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

Still, it does provide a generally liberal/leftist spin on "social issues" or so-called "value voter" issues. Much as does, say, Jeff Bezos's Washington Post.

Bezos owns the Washington Post? ..do you find it Bezos-biased, at all?

I have no wish to subscribe to the New York Times, thank you very much..

Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?

My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good.

I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.

I don’t think I get fulminatingly-fanatical about most things, but I probably do about a few things, things that I find immoral or unethical.. like perhaps, things that go against anyone’s human rights of general decency and respect towards others.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:Thanks, MagsJ, but I still recommend a subscription to the New York Times. :wink:

Even though, in regard to capitalism at home and abroad, the Times is no less embedded in this...
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

Still, it does provide a generally liberal/leftist spin on "social issues" or so-called "value voter" issues. Much as does, say, Jeff Bezos's Washington Post.


MagsJ wrote: Bezos owns the Washington Post? ..do you find it Bezos-biased, at all?


What I presume is that those who own and operate any component of the MSM are going to be partial to the interest of those corporations that advertise in their own corporation. And to the capitalist agenda at home and abroad. With feminism, however, there is no clear-cut advantage for companies to be either for it or against it. So, in some important respects, it transcends political economy.

MagsJ wrote: I have no wish to subscribe to the New York Times, thank you very much..


Once again, my point is not to focus on why you have a wish to subscribe or not to subscribe to any publication, but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices. That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine if all rational men and women ought to subscribe to the New York Times. Or to the equivalent of liberal and conservative publications in England.

Thus...

Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?


MagsJ wrote: My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good.


No, from my frame of mind, it is your subjective view of feminism. Rooted in both your childhood indoctrination and/or the experiences you had as an adult that did predispose you to one set of value judgments rather than another set.

As for the "better good", given what context? And, given that context, I suspect that those on both sides of the issue can come up with reasonable points of view to defend their own political prejudices.

One take on it: https://environmental-conscience.com/fe ... pros-cons/

MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.


And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".

MagsJ wrote: I don’t think I get fulminatingly-fanatical about most things, but I probably do about a few things, things that I find immoral or unethical.. like perhaps, things that go against anyone’s human rights of general decency and respect towards others.


From my frame of mind this is objectivism. In regard to certain things in your life you have managed to think yourself into believing that there is this deep-down-inside Real Me -- your "soul"? -- that is truly in sync with The Right Thing To Do. And it is in believing this that you sustain the comfort and consolation of being grounded in your own rendition of the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

You're just not on par [from my frame of mind] with those like Satyr and Urwrong.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:39 am

iambiguous wrote:Thanks, MagsJ, but I still recommend a subscription to the New York Times. :wink:

Even though, in regard to capitalism at home and abroad, the Times is no less embedded in this...
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

Still, it does provide a generally liberal/leftist spin on "social issues" or so-called "value voter" issues. Much as does, say, Jeff Bezos's Washington Post.

The current state of America’s affairs, is not compelling me to be enamoured with American news or politics.

I might think differently about that if I see your Government taking positive steps to rectify the situation, instead of attempting to wage wars.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Bezos owns the Washington Post? ..do you find it Bezos-biased, at all?

What I presume is that those who own and operate any component of the MSM are going to be partial to the interest of those corporations that advertise in their own corporation. And to the capitalist agenda at home and abroad. With feminism, however, there is no clear-cut advantage for companies to be either for it or against it. So, in some important respects, it transcends political economy.

Yea, gotta keep those adverts and classifieds coming in.. helps pay the wages and office rent.

I’m sure the sensationalist stories of the revolting marginalised (women, the pink pound/dollar earners, etc.) saw/helped newspaper sales rocket, and so perhaps those stories helped those causes succeed in their mission, in becoming unmarginalised.. and then the novelty, kept the flames alight.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I have no wish to subscribe to the New York Times, thank you very much..

Once again, my point is not to focus on why you have a wish to subscribe or not to subscribe to any publication, but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices. That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine if all rational men and women ought to subscribe to the New York Times. Or to the equivalent of liberal and conservative publications in England.

It’s simply a choice.. and not the most complicated or taxing one, at that.. to subscribe, or not to subscribe to? hmmm! :-k

..the same applies to decisions on what to eat, to drink, to wear, to do.. though this current ease of decision-making has definitely come with age, as such simple decisions as they used to take all manner of thoughts and feelings (effort), to aid in settling upon a choice. From dawdling for hours, to deciding.. in under 60 seconds.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to think like me, though I would urge others not to waste too much time on simple decisions, as there are more important things out there to be wasting time on.. like ILP or eBay, for instance.

Age/wisdom, synced. ☯️

iambiguous wrote:_
Thus...

Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?

Well no.. because I’m not here to change hearts or minds, but simply to allow others to arrive at their own decisions on matters.

As I had previously said: “My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good”.

..and what is done, cannot be undone.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good.

No, from my frame of mind, it is your subjective view of feminism. Rooted in both your childhood indoctrination and/or the experiences you had as an adult that did predispose you to one set of value judgments rather than another set.

As for the "better good", given what context? And, given that context, I suspect that those on both sides of the issue can come up with reasonable points of view to defend their own political prejudices.

One take on it: https://environmental-conscience.com/fe ... pros-cons/

Well no.. because my view on feminism is based on my observation of the impact that feminism has had on the world, and not on my subjective childhood (non)-dealings with it or any misogynistic-encounters I have had, as I don’t wear predisposed thoughts.. like a hooded cloak, because such discussions or ramblings were never had in the family home, for me to have acquired any predisposed stance on the matter.

If feminism can be used to help the suppressed females around the world, then so be it.. but only enough to level them up to a decent standard of a liveable contented life. To be born into suffering or to suffer at the hands of a sadist care-giver is an ancient way that should have become obsolete by now.. think FGM or human foie gras’ing, for instance.

I guess I live through my humanness, not through my gender..

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.

And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".

Human rights are a given, not a gift.. a mind-borne collective dasein of decency, and not something to be earned and then bestowed. A respect of others’ boundaries..

I’m just not the feminist type, so there’s nothing to change/change my mind about. When young, I thought that males had an easier life because they were male, then I quickly realised that they didn’t, and so I became at one with the status quo of objective existence.. so it’s not about convincing myself that my stance on the matter is the right one for me and/or for all, at all.

Perhaps then feminism is for the powerless, borne into a system that propagates that powerless further, so like I said.. such subjugating ancient ways, in modern times, ain’t nobodies ally homey.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t think I get fulminatingly-fanatical about most things, but I probably do about a few things, things that I find immoral or unethical.. like perhaps, things that go against anyone’s human rights of general decency and respect towards others.

From my frame of mind this is objectivism. In regard to certain things in your life you have managed to think yourself into believing that there is this deep-down-inside Real Me -- your "soul"? -- that is truly in sync with The Right Thing To Do. And it is in believing this that you sustain the comfort and consolation of being grounded in your own rendition of the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

You're just not on par [from my frame of mind] with those like Satyr and Urwrong.

There is definitely a ‘right/wrong thing to do’ objective viewpoint, and if an individual can’t see that then there’s definitely something wrong with their judgement calls.. just think back to what the world has been witnessing happening in recent decades, when we were made to believe that the ancient ways of mob rule were a thing of the past, but public stonings/killings, sex-abuse rings, fatal child abuse, people trafficking, modern slavery, assholeism, etc.. are still in existence today.

What has any of that got to do with self-consolidation? I haven’t thought myself into believing anything.. it’s just that our innate archaic thoughts and feelings are obsolete, in todays world.

Ancient minds, modern times.. how’s that working out, for humanity.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:21 pm

MagsJ wrote:The current state of America’s affairs, is not compelling me to be enamoured with American news or politics.

I might think differently about that if I see your Government taking positive steps to rectify the situation, instead of attempting to wage wars.


On the other hand...

Once again, my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.

To either subscribe to one assessment of government or another.

That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about these things.

MagsJ wrote:It’s simply a choice.. and not the most complicated or taxing one, at that.. to subscribe, or not to subscribe to? hmmm! :-k


Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].

MagsJ wrote:I wouldn’t expect anyone to think like me, though I would urge others not to waste too much time on simple decisions, as there are more important things out there to be wasting time on.. like ILP or eBay, for instance.


Again, same distinction...

You wouldn't expect others to think like you about feminism because they have lived very, very different lives, predisposing them to other, conflicting political prejudices...

Or...

I don't expect others to think like me about feminism, but those that don't are wrong because how I think about it is necessarily the optimal or only reasonable manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about it. In other words, given one or another font -- Kingdom of Ends -- to fall back on: God, nature, ideology, deontology.

Thus...

Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.


So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?


MagsJ wrote:Well no.. because I’m not here to change hearts or minds, but simply to allow others to arrive at their own decisions on matters.

As I had previously said: “My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good”.

..and what is done, cannot be undone.


On the other hand...

iambiguous wrote:No, from my frame of mind, it is your subjective view of feminism. Rooted in both your childhood indoctrination and/or the experiences you had as an adult that did predispose you to one set of value judgments rather than another set.

As for the "better good", given what context? And, given that context, I suspect that those on both sides of the issue can come up with reasonable points of view to defend their own political prejudices.

One take on it: https://environmental-conscience.com/fe ... pros-cons/


MagsJ wrote:Well no.. because my view on feminism is based on my observation of the impact that feminism has had on the world, and not on my subjective childhood (non)-dealings with it or any misogynistic-encounters I have had, as I don’t wear predisposed thoughts.. like a hooded cloak, because such discussions or ramblings were never had in the family home, for me to have acquired any predisposed stance on the matter.


Yes, based on your observations. Derived from your personal experiences, intertwined in your personal relationships with others intertwined in the things you've read, the things you've watched in the movies, on TV and in the media. All basically filtered through your own political prejudices derived from dasein.

Tha place most here, in my view, won't go because the focus is not so much on my opinions vs. your opinions vs. their opinions, but the very manner in which -- problematically, subjectively, existentially -- each of us come to acquire particular opinions [and not others] in the first place. The part that gets some closer and closer to their own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world.

MagsJ wrote:If feminism can be used to help the suppressed females around the world, then so be it.. but only enough to level them up to a decent standard of a liveable contented life. To be born into suffering or to suffer at the hands of a sadist care-giver is an ancient way that should have become obsolete by now.. think FGM or human foie gras’ing, for instance.

I guess I live through my humanness, not through my gender..


Yet even extreme behavior is rooted historical and culturally. We can think ourselves into believing that progress in regard to gender relationships can be established objectively but for every feminist outraged by clitorectomies, there are feminists who are not in the least outraged by the killing of female fetuses in the womb. Instead, given their own political prejudices, it's all rationalized. It's not an unborn female that is shredded, it's a clump of cells that just happens to be female.

Same with animal rights. What outrages some does not outrage others at all. Your reaction to foie gras, contrasted with the reaction of those who just want to swap recipes.

What's crucial for most here however is not who is right or wrong about either practice, but that there is a right or wrong.

Whereas, from my frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in a No God world there is no basis for establishing objective morality. Instead, it's all a manifestation of dasein situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

"Humanness" given what context?

Unless of course I'm wrong.

MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.


iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".


MagsJ wrote: Human rights are a given, not a gift.. a mind-borne collective dasein of decency, and not something to be earned and then bestowed. A respect of others’ boundaries..


On the contrary, human rights are profoundly political in nature.

I quote human history, for example. They revolve by and large around conflicting goods fought among those who struggle to attain and then sustain "rules of behavior" that revolve around conflicting moral and political prejudices.

Name any conflict that pops up "in the news". Different people can have very different takes on what it means to respect the boundaries of others. Take, for example, gun laws in Britain and in America. Which sets of legislation reflect the greatest respect for another's boundaries?

MagsJ wrote: I’m just not the feminist type, so there’s nothing to change/change my mind about. When young, I thought that males had an easier life because they were male, then I quickly realised that they didn’t, and so I became at one with the status quo of objective existence.. so it’s not about convincing myself that my stance on the matter is the right one for me and/or for all, at all.

Perhaps then feminism is for the powerless, borne into a system that propagates that powerless further, so like I said.. such subjugating ancient ways, in modern times, ain’t nobodies ally homey.


Again, only to the extent that you think through whether your views on feminism are the embodiment of my own existential assumptions re dasein, or more in sync with the most rational manner in which to react to feminism, will you get my own inclination in discussions of this sort.

Then [for me] it comes down to those who do think like I do but have somehow managed not to be "fractured and fragmented". Those are the folks I ever and always aim to seek out most.

MagsJ wrote: I don’t think I get fulminatingly-fanatical about most things, but I probably do about a few things, things that I find immoral or unethical.. like perhaps, things that go against anyone’s human rights of general decency and respect towards others.


iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind this is objectivism. In regard to certain things in your life you have managed to think yourself into believing that there is this deep-down-inside Real Me -- your "soul"? -- that is truly in sync with The Right Thing To Do. And it is in believing this that you sustain the comfort and consolation of being grounded in your own rendition of the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

You're just not on par [from my frame of mind] with those like Satyr and Urwrong.


MagsJ wrote: There is definitely a ‘right/wrong thing to do’ objective viewpoint, and if an individual can’t see that then there’s definitely something wrong with their judgement calls.. just think back to what the world has been witnessing happening in recent decades, when we were made to believe that the ancient ways of mob rule were a thing of the past, but public stonings/killings, sex-abuse rings, fatal child abuse, people trafficking, modern slavery, assholeism, etc.. are still in existence today.


Okay, then. "In your head" you have convinced yourself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And you demonstrate this...how?

Are you religious? Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? Are you an ideologue? Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"?

MagsJ wrote: What has any of that got to do with self-consolidation? I haven’t thought myself into believing anything.. it’s just that our innate archaic thoughts and feelings are obsolete, in todays world.

Ancient minds, modern times.. how’s that working out, for humanity.


Okay, given a particular context, describe how your own value judgments are embodied when confronting another with conflicting value judgments.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:The current state of America’s affairs, is not compelling me to be enamoured with American news or politics.

I might think differently about that if I see your Government taking positive steps to rectify the situation, instead of attempting to wage wars.

On the other hand...

Once again, my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.

To either subscribe to one assessment of government or another.

That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about these things.

Well I know what I prefer, but I don’t urge others to subscribe to what I prefer but to what they themselves believe in or are comfortable with.. within the boundaries of collective moral decency, of course. What I do know about myself, is that I am not comfortable subscribing to a Liberal lifestyle, but to a moderate-Right one.

I’d rather be Left than Liberal, so that’s really saying something about how I feel about Liberalism.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:It’s simply a choice.. and not the most complicated or taxing one, at that.. to subscribe, or not to subscribe to? hmmm! :-k

Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].

A couple of years back, when Ireland was lobbying to ban all abortion.. regardless of the reason why the abortion was being sought, I signed a petition for exemptions, on the grounds of medical and moral reasons as to why aborting the foetus would be warranted.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:I wouldn’t expect anyone to think like me, though I would urge others not to waste too much time on simple decisions, as there are more important things out there to be wasting time on.. like ILP or eBay, for instance.

Again, same distinction...

You wouldn't expect others to think like you about feminism because they have lived very, very different lives, predisposing them to other, conflicting political prejudices...

Or...

I don't expect others to think like me about feminism, but those that don't are wrong because how I think about it is necessarily the optimal or only reasonable manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about it. In other words, given one or another font -- Kingdom of Ends -- to fall back on: God, nature, ideology, deontology.

Conflicting political prejudices to your own.. or personal conflicting prejudices, in the mind? I think you mean the former, but that’s not always going to be a not-given.. applicable to abortion, feminism, et al other musings.

If men and women.. falling back on God, nature, ideology, deontology, for their Kingdom of Ends, in order to reach a rational and virtuous outlook on all things, then you’re talking about an ideal world.

iambiguous wrote:Thus...
Me? Well, I explored some points about feminism with Gib, here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197493

But my main point is always the same.

It's not what any particular one of us believes is true about feminists, but how existentially we came to believe what we do based on the manner in which I construe the embodiment of value judgments of this sort in my signature threads here.

In other words, there are those here absolutely convinced that what they believe about feminism reflects the optimal manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel about it. Some even become fanatically fulminating objectivists in defense of their own point of view. They sneer at all those who dare not to think about it exactly as they do.

Whereas, alas, there are those like me, more or less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it. Convinced that individual reactions are rooted subjectively in dasein, rooted further in particular historical, cultural and experiential/personal contexts rooted finally in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
So, anyone here care to go there in regard to their own take on feminism?
MagsJ wrote:Well no.. because I’m not here to change hearts or minds, but simply to allow others to arrive at their own decisions on matters.

As I had previously said: “My objective view of feminism, is that it has done the world somewhat of a disservice, and altered the course of history and events.. but not always necessarily for the optimal or better-good”.

..and what is done, cannot be undone.

On the other hand...
iambiguous wrote:No, from my frame of mind, it is your subjective view of feminism. Rooted in both your childhood indoctrination and/or the experiences you had as an adult that did predispose you to one set of value judgments rather than another set.

As for the "better good", given what context? And, given that context, I suspect that those on both sides of the issue can come up with reasonable points of view to defend their own political prejudices.

One take on it: https://environmental-conscience.com/fe ... pros-cons/
MagsJ wrote:Well no.. because my view on feminism is based on my observation of the impact that feminism has had on the world, and not on my subjective childhood (non)-dealings with it or any misogynistic-encounters I have had, as I don’t wear predisposed thoughts.. like a hooded cloak, because such discussions or ramblings were never had in the family home, for me to have acquired any predisposed stance on the matter.

Yes, based on your observations. Derived from your personal experiences, intertwined in your personal relationships with others intertwined in the things you've read, the things you've watched in the movies, on TV and in the media. All basically filtered through your own political prejudices derived from dasein.

Tha place most here, in my view, won't go because the focus is not so much on my opinions vs. your opinions vs. their opinions, but the very manner in which -- problematically, subjectively, existentially -- each of us come to acquire particular opinions [and not others] in the first place. The part that gets some closer and closer to their own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world.

My decisions and ideals are not formed by political prejudices from external input.. for me, external input is purely entertainment/stimuli, not an optimal ideal of a combined sensory-source to live through. My internal world and external experiences are separate.. the external is temporary/enjoyment, the internal.. permanent/recouperation.. I am much more voyeur, than partaker.

My opinions are founded on my thoughts and feelings.. I haven’t constructed a world-view from fictional means, but from actuality.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:If feminism can be used to help the suppressed females around the world, then so be it.. but only enough to level them up to a decent standard of a liveable contented life. To be born into suffering or to suffer at the hands of a sadist care-giver is an ancient way that should have become obsolete by now.. think FGM or human foie gras’ing, for instance.

I guess I live through my humanness, not through my gender..

Yet even extreme behavior is rooted historical and culturally. We can think ourselves into believing that progress in regard to gender relationships can be established objectively but for every feminist outraged by clitorectomies, there are feminists who are not in the least outraged by the killing of female fetuses in the womb. Instead, given their own political prejudices, it's all rationalized. It's not an unborn female that is shredded, it's a clump of cells that just happens to be female.

Same with animal rights. What outrages some does not outrage others at all. Your reaction to foie gras, contrasted with the reaction of those who just want to swap recipes.

What's crucial for most here however is not who is right or wrong about either practice, but that there is a right or wrong.

Whereas, from my frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in a No God world there is no basis for establishing objective morality. Instead, it's all a manifestation of dasein situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

"Humanness" given what context?

Unless of course I'm wrong.

It seems that you are describing the fickleness of human nature and human minds.. there is no equality in ideals, when all individuals concerned are at odds with each other, for whatever reason that may be.. but there is obviously a reason, for being at odds.

"Humanness" given what context? Humanness, rather than using feminine wiles in my daily interactions with others, so not mixing business and pleasure.. though I do play up when in full-on social mode, which is solely reserved for recreational outings.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.
iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".
MagsJ wrote: Human rights are a given, not a gift.. a mind-borne collective dasein of decency, and not something to be earned and then bestowed. A respect of others’ boundaries..

On the contrary, human rights are profoundly political in nature.

I quote human history, for example. They revolve by and large around conflicting goods fought among those who struggle to attain and then sustain "rules of behavior" that revolve around conflicting moral and political prejudices.

Name any conflict that pops up "in the news". Different people can have very different takes on what it means to respect the boundaries of others. Take, for example, gun laws in Britain and in America. Which sets of legislation reflect the greatest respect for another's boundaries?

I don’t disagree with any of that, but in my view human-rights should be a given, that should be incrementally revoked when a respectable level of human decency is not being exercised.. large cities and modern times do not allow for this anymore, whereas smaller settlements do.

The socio-geographical spread of the US kinda dictates the need to be able to defend Self and home, whereas most of the UK’s towns and cities are far too built-up to warrant that need here.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I’m just not the feminist type, so there’s nothing to change/change my mind about. When young, I thought that males had an easier life because they were male, then I quickly realised that they didn’t, and so I became at one with the status quo of objective existence.. so it’s not about convincing myself that my stance on the matter is the right one for me and/or for all, at all.

Perhaps then feminism is for the powerless, borne into a system that propagates that powerlessness further, so like I said.. such subjugating ancient ways, in modern times, ain’t nobodies ally homey.

Again, only to the extent that you think through whether your views on feminism are the embodiment of my own existential assumptions re dasein, or more in sync with the most rational manner in which to react to feminism, will you get my own inclination in discussions of this sort.

Then [for me] it comes down to those who do think like I do but have somehow managed not to be "fractured and fragmented". Those are the folks I ever and always aim to seek out most.

I’ll need a context here.. I’m not sure what you intrinsically mean, so I cannot really reply to that. That’s also not really a reply to what I said.. I had said I’m not a feminist, which is the angle you could have chosen to respond from, but you chose to go with vagueness.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t think I get fulminatingly-fanatical about most things, but I probably do about a few things, things that I find immoral or unethical.. like perhaps, things that go against anyone’s human rights of general decency and respect towards others.
iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind this is objectivism. In regard to certain things in your life you have managed to think yourself into believing that there is this deep-down-inside Real Me -- your "soul"? -- that is truly in sync with The Right Thing To Do. And it is in believing this that you sustain the comfort and consolation of being grounded in your own rendition of the "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

You're just not on par [from my frame of mind] with those like Satyr and Urwrong.
MagsJ wrote: There is definitely a ‘right/wrong thing to do’ objective viewpoint, and if an individual can’t see that then there’s definitely something wrong with their judgement calls.. just think back to what the world has been witnessing happening in recent decades, when we were made to believe that the ancient ways of mob rule were a thing of the past, but public stonings/killings, sex-abuse rings, fatal child abuse, people trafficking, modern slavery, assholeism, etc.. are still in existence today.

Okay, then. "In your head" you have convinced yourself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And you demonstrate this...how?

Are you religious? Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? Are you an ideologue? Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"?

"In my head" I have convinced myself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And I demonstrate this...how? These are the expectations that I set Myself, to abide by.. I don’t expect this of anybody else. Living autonomously from others as much as possible, aids this lifestyle of avoiding unnecessary futile/volatile/negative exchanges and chatter from others, and so, keeping my psyche devoid of negative feels and thinks.

Are you religious? I’m spiritual, not religious.. but a non-practising Roman Catholic, due to familial reasons.

Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? I fall back on my Self.. if that’s what you mean by a soul? as a soul is our intrinsic x physiological being/not separate from us, but derived from our material Self, created by nature.

Are you an ideologue? Do I come across as one? lol.. nah, no ritual, no dogma, no mantra.. I’d say I’m about constant self-improvement, of the physical and the mental kind.. my own kind of personal ideology, perhaps.. an adherent to the goals I set myself.

Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? I have no idea what Ayn Rand said or thought, but I do agree with her aforementioned argument.. as virtue and vice are differentiated by reactions to others’ actions, which over time becomes a standard for acceptable behaviour.

Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Hmmm, I’m not sure.. perhaps morality is derived from thinking, full-stop. Rationality doesn’t necessarily equate to morality, but it probably can lead the immoral to it.

Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"? Thinking back to my formative years of learning and understanding, I’d say both.. looking with-out, to look with-in, to quantify reality and eventually make sense of the world.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: What has any of that got to do with self-consolidation? I haven’t thought myself into believing anything.. it’s just that our innate archaic thoughts and feelings are obsolete, in todays world.

Ancient minds, modern times.. how’s that working out, for humanity.

Okay, given a particular context, describe how your own value judgments are embodied when confronting another with conflicting value judgments.

Let’s take the sex drugs and rock’n’roll lifestyle.. now I’m not about that life, but many I know are, and as long as they’re not forcing their lifestyle onto me.. which some have tried to do.. I’ll not judge, but if any of them chooses to ignore my wishes and therefore my boundaries, I will relentlessly tell them about themselves and then ultimately unfriend them if my wishes go unmet.. and I’ll send them vicious messages, for good measure.

I don’t get involved with that many people, to have to deal with conflicting views and values, so I rarely have to even think about others or confront them.. family is enough, no? lol
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 30, 2022 9:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:Once again, my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.

To either subscribe to one assessment of government or another.

That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about these things.


MagsJ wrote: Well I know what I prefer, but I don’t urge others to subscribe to what I prefer but to what they themselves believe in or are comfortable with.. within the boundaries of collective moral decency, of course. What I do know about myself, is that I am not comfortable subscribing to a Liberal lifestyle, but to a moderate-Right one.

I’d rather be Left than Liberal, so that’s really saying something about how I feel about Liberalism.


Again though...

...my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.


If your political values/political prejudices regarding feminism are not rooted existentially in dasein, what are they rooted in? Do you just know that certain values here are more reasonable, more virtuous? Do you have a political philosophy that convinces you that a moderate-right narrative is more reasonable, more virtuous?

Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].


MagsJ wrote: A couple of years back, when Ireland was lobbying to ban all abortion.. regardless of the reason why the abortion was being sought, I signed a petition for exemptions, on the grounds of medical and moral reasons as to why aborting the foetus would be warranted.


Yes, from my frame of mind, this is the particular political prejudice that, given the life you lived, you were predisposed to act on. Just as those around you who lived very different lives were predisposed to take conflicting reactions. And to the extent that you recognize this as an "existential leap" given your frame of mind "there and then", you are likely to approach issues like abortion from the perspective of "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And not as the objectivists do: my way or the highway.

That's always my aim here in regard to issues like feminism: that there does not appear to be a one size fits all moral/political reaction to it, but that our individual value judgments are often rooted in the profound complexities of the lives we live.

Thus...

You wouldn't expect others to think like you about feminism because they have lived very, very different lives, predisposing them to other, conflicting political prejudices...

Or...

I don't expect others to think like me about feminism, but those that don't are wrong because how I think about it is necessarily the optimal or only reasonable manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about it. In other words, given one or another font -- Kingdom of Ends -- to fall back on: God, nature, ideology, deontology.


MagsJ wrote: Conflicting political prejudices to your own.. or personal conflicting prejudices, in the mind? I think you mean the former, but that’s not always going to be a not-given.. applicable to abortion, feminism, et al other musings.

If men and women.. falling back on God, nature, ideology, deontology, for their Kingdom of Ends, in order to reach a rational and virtuous outlook on all things, then you’re talking about an ideal world.


Not sure what you mean here. Yes, if you are a moral objectivist you create this "ideal world" in your head and convince yourself that your own views about feminism are not just political prejudices but in fact reflect either the most rational/virtuous assessment of it...or, at the very least, the best of all possible worlds. Either way, from my frame of mind, dasein is no less a crucial component in regard to the conclusions we come to. Then [for me] it's just a matter of how "fractured and fragmented" you become.

Yes, based on your observations. Derived from your personal experiences, intertwined in your personal relationships with others intertwined in the things you've read, the things you've watched in the movies, on TV and in the media. All basically filtered through your own political prejudices derived from dasein.

Tha place most here, in my view, won't go because the focus is not so much on my opinions vs. your opinions vs. their opinions, but the very manner in which -- problematically, subjectively, existentially -- each of us come to acquire particular opinions [and not others] in the first place. The part that gets some closer and closer to their own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world.


MagsJ wrote: My decisions and ideals are not formed by political prejudices from external input.. for me, external input is purely entertainment/stimuli, not an optimal ideal of a combined sensory-source to live through. My internal world and external experiences are separate.. the external is temporary/enjoyment, the internal.. permanent/recouperation.. I am much more voyeur, than partaker.

My opinions are founded on my thoughts and feelings.. I haven’t constructed a world-view from fictional means, but from actuality.


Again, to me, this sounds very much like Maia's "intuitive/spiritual Self." Or do you call it your Soul? Forget about the points I raise about the existential parameters of the life you've lived predisposing you to go in one direction rather than another; there are just "internal" things that you know about feminism that makes a moderate/right-wing assessment more in sync with the Real You.

Which just makes me all the more curious as to how you differentiate this from objectivism. You either believe [as I do] that a new "dramatic/traumatic" experience down the road might prompt you to change your mind about feminism, or, as with Maia, you have convinced yourself that there is something "inside you" that is completely impervious to contingency, chance and change. Things you do just know about yourself that others, in not being you, can never grasp themselves. And thus they can never dispute your own moral and political value judgments. Again, the perfect moral philosophy. One where ultimately everything just comes down to what you do believe "in your head".

Yet even extreme behavior is rooted historical and culturally. We can think ourselves into believing that progress in regard to gender relationships can be established objectively but for every feminist outraged by clitorectomies, there are feminists who are not in the least outraged by the killing of female fetuses in the womb. Instead, given their own political prejudices, it's all rationalized. It's not an unborn female that is shredded, it's a clump of cells that just happens to be female.

Same with animal rights. What outrages some does not outrage others at all. Your reaction to foie gras, contrasted with the reaction of those who just want to swap recipes.

What's crucial for most here however is not who is right or wrong about either practice, but that there is a right or wrong.

Whereas, from my frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in a No God world there is no basis for establishing objective morality. Instead, it's all a manifestation of dasein situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

"Humanness" given what context?

Unless of course I'm wrong.


MagsJ wrote: It seems that you are describing the fickleness of human nature and human minds.. there is no equality in ideals, when all individuals concerned are at odds with each other, for whatever reason that may be.. but there is obviously a reason, for being at odds.


Yes, for reasons I root in dasein. Whereas as you deflect fickleness in my view by way of convincing yourself there is this part of you in sync with the way the world really is. That being whatever you think yourself into believing it is.

MagsJ wrote: "Humanness" given what context? Humanness, rather than using feminine wiles in my daily interactions with others, so not mixing business and pleasure.. though I do play up when in full-on social mode, which is solely reserved for recreational outings.


Again, all of this is understood by you subjectively, "in your head" given the manner in which I construe the nature of "I" as the embodiment of dasein in regard to either the political or the personal. But not given the manner in which you think about it.

There of course we are stuck. And stuck mostly because neither one of us can really understand the world around us given that we have lived lives so very, very different.

MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.


iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".


MagsJ wrote: Human rights are a given, not a gift.. a mind-borne collective dasein of decency, and not something to be earned and then bestowed. A respect of others’ boundaries..


iambiguous wrote:On the contrary, human rights are profoundly political in nature.

I quote human history, for example. They revolve by and large around conflicting goods fought among those who struggle to attain and then sustain "rules of behavior" that revolve around conflicting moral and political prejudices.

Name any conflict that pops up "in the news". Different people can have very different takes on what it means to respect the boundaries of others. Take, for example, gun laws in Britain and in America. Which sets of legislation reflect the greatest respect for another's boundaries?


MagsJ wrote: I don’t disagree with any of that, but in my view human-rights should be a given, that should be incrementally revoked when a respectable level of human decency is not being exercised.. large cities and modern times do not allow for this anymore, whereas smaller settlements do.

The socio-geographical spread of the US kinda dictates the need to be able to defend Self and home, whereas most of the UK’s towns and cities are far too built-up to warrant that need here.


Human rights. Human decency. And all of the hopelessly conflicting and contradictory assumptions regarding how "for all practical purposes" to bring them about in our community. I go in a direction that generally disturbs others. That generally disturbs me too. I'm just unable "here and now" to "unthink" what "I" do here.

MagsJ wrote: There is definitely a ‘right/wrong thing to do’ objective viewpoint, and if an individual can’t see that then there’s definitely something wrong with their judgement calls.. just think back to what the world has been witnessing happening in recent decades, when we were made to believe that the ancient ways of mob rule were a thing of the past, but public stonings/killings, sex-abuse rings, fatal child abuse, people trafficking, modern slavery, assholeism, etc.. are still in existence today.


Okay, then. "In your head" you have convinced yourself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And you demonstrate this...how?

Are you religious? Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? Are you an ideologue? Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"?


MagsJ wrote: "In my head" I have convinced myself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And I demonstrate this...how? These are the expectations that I set Myself, to abide by.. I don’t expect this of anybody else. Living autonomously from others as much as possible, aids this lifestyle of avoiding unnecessary futile/volatile/negative exchanges and chatter from others, and so, keeping my psyche devoid of negative feels and thinks.


Expectations. And then around and around we go. Expectations are just another manifestation of dasein to me. And I don't expect others to share mine because their lives did not predispose them as mine did to have one set of expectations rather than another. Then back to the extent to which, in a philosophy venue, we can arrive at a set of expectations said to be the optimal or the only rational expectations that there are. And [of course] the part where what strikes you as negative thoughts and feelings in regard to feminism strikes others in a positive manner. That too in my view the embodiment of dasein. Whereas to me, for you, it is the embodiment of this "inside" thing that can never really be communicated beyond that which I construe to be political prejudices derived from the life that you have live.

MagsJ wrote: Are you religious? I’m spiritual, not religious.. but a non-practising Roman Catholic, due to familial reasons.


Well, in being spiritual how do you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then? Is there a God on your spiritual path?

In other words...

MagsJ wrote: Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? I fall back on my Self.. if that’s what you mean by a soul? as a soul is our intrinsic x physiological being/not separate from us, but derived from our material Self, created by nature.


No, it's how you connect the dots in your head between your Self and a Soul. And then the dots between that and the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave.

MagsJ wrote: Are you an ideologue? Do I come across as one? lol.. nah, no ritual, no dogma, no mantra.. I’d say I’m about constant self-improvement, of the physical and the mental kind.. my own kind of personal ideology, perhaps.. an adherent to the goals I set myself.


Well, sometimes you come across [to me] as an objectivist of sorts on some issues. Other times not.

MagsJ wrote: Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? I have no idea what Ayn Rand said or thought, but I do agree with her aforementioned argument.. as virtue and vice are differentiated by reactions to others’ actions, which over time becomes a standard for acceptable behaviour.


It doesn't matter what she thought, only that she expected you to think exactly as she did about everything. Either in your actions or in your reactions to the actions of others. She was a capital letter Objectivist.

MagsJ wrote: Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Hmmm, I’m not sure.. perhaps morality is derived from thinking, full-stop. Rationality doesn’t necessarily equate to morality, but it probably can lead the immoral to it.


Again, to the extent that you believe that there are immoral people is the extent to which, from my frame of mind, you come closer to an objectivist frame of mind. Then, politically, to a "one of us" [the goods guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

MagsJ wrote: Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"? Thinking back to my formative years of learning and understanding, I’d say both.. looking with-out, to look with-in, to quantify reality and eventually make sense of the world.


To quantify reality in the is/ought world is, in turn, from my own frame of mind, an objectivist prejudice. As though in regard to feminism one might argue that on a scale from 1 to 10, someone's thinking about it is either more or less rational.

Okay, given a particular context, describe how your own value judgments are embodied when confronting another with conflicting value judgments.


MagsJ wrote: Let’s take the sex drugs and rock’n’roll lifestyle.. now I’m not about that life, but many I know are, and as long as they’re not forcing their lifestyle onto me.. which some have tried to do.. I’ll not judge, but if any of them chooses to ignore my wishes and therefore my boundaries, I will relentlessly tell them about themselves and then ultimately unfriend them if my wishes go unmet.. and I’ll send them vicious messages, for good measure.

I don’t get involved with that many people, to have to deal with conflicting views and values, so I rarely have to even think about others or confront them.. family is enough, no? lol


Okay, but here as a "lifestyle" it's not likely to have any dramatic impact on the world around us. But take an issue like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccinations in regard to the covid pandemic. Here lives themselves can be at stake.

What then of dasein and the "inside" you? How more or less fractured and fragmented is someone with the stakes that high?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:00 pm

_
..a reply coming shortly, so a few miniatures.. give or take.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Once again, my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.

To either subscribe to one assessment of government or another.

That, in other words, using the tools of philosophy here in a philosophy venue, there does not appear to be a way in which to determine what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about these things.

MagsJ wrote: Well I know what I prefer, but I don’t urge others to subscribe to what I prefer but to what they themselves believe in or are comfortable with.. within the boundaries of collective moral decency, of course. What I do know about myself, is that I am not comfortable subscribing to a Liberal lifestyle, but to a moderate-Right one.

I’d rather be Left than Liberal, so that’s really saying something about how I feel about Liberalism.

Again though...
iambiguous wrote:...my point is not to focus in on what you think about the American government but how, given the manner in which I construe the "self" here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, your life unfolded such that you were predisposed to think what you do...to either embrace generally liberal political prejudices or conservative political prejudices.

If your political values/political prejudices regarding feminism are not rooted existentially in dasein, what are they rooted in? Do you just know that certain values here are more reasonable, more virtuous? Do you have a political philosophy that convinces you that a moderate-right narrative is more reasonable, more virtuous?

Justness and non-suffering are two values that come to mind.. for others to complain about the West while ignoring their own lack of sociotel-housekeeping back home, is very needle-in-thine-own-eye, to me.

I don’t think a whole host of virtues to live by is necessary, when only one or two will do.. justness and non-suffering says it all, for me.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].

MagsJ wrote: A couple of years back, when Ireland was lobbying to ban all abortion.. regardless of the reason why the abortion was being sought, I signed a petition for exemptions, on the grounds of medical and moral reasons as to why aborting the foetus would be warranted.

Yes, from my frame of mind, this is the particular political prejudice that, given the life you lived, you were predisposed to act on. Just as those around you who lived very different lives were predisposed to take conflicting reactions. And to the extent that you recognize this as an "existential leap" given your frame of mind "there and then", you are likely to approach issues like abortion from the perspective of "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And not as the objectivists do: my way or the highway.

That's always my aim here in regard to issues like feminism: that there does not appear to be a one size fits all moral/political reaction to it, but that our individual value judgments are often rooted in the profound complexities of the lives we live.

Yes.. a dictatorial approach and solution, to a complex situation, was never going to end well or in agreement of abortions for none or abortions for all. Both options, being equally extreme.. so such situations, requiring ubiquitous middle-grounds.

iambiguous wrote:
Thus...
iambiguous wrote:You wouldn't expect others to think like you about feminism because they have lived very, very different lives, predisposing them to other, conflicting political prejudices...

Or...

I don't expect others to think like me about feminism, but those that don't are wrong because how I think about it is necessarily the optimal or only reasonable manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about it. In other words, given one or another font -- Kingdom of Ends -- to fall back on: God, nature, ideology, deontology.

MagsJ wrote: Conflicting political prejudices to your own.. or personal conflicting prejudices, in the mind? I think you mean the former, but that’s not always going to be a not-given.. applicable to abortion, feminism, et al other musings.

If men and women.. falling back on God, nature, ideology, deontology, for their Kingdom of Ends, in order to reach a rational and virtuous outlook on all things, then you’re talking about an ideal world.

Not sure what you mean here. Yes, if you are a moral objectivist you create this "ideal world" in your head and convince yourself that your own views about feminism are not just political prejudices but in fact reflect either the most rational/virtuous assessment of it...or, at the very least, the best of all possible worlds. Either way, from my frame of mind, dasein is no less a crucial component in regard to the conclusions we come to. Then [for me] it's just a matter of how "fractured and fragmented" you become.

I meant.. are your conflicting political prejudices in regard to others’ political prejudices or conflict within your own mind, like a sort of confusion going on, as you do speak of fracture and fragmentation?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Yes, based on your observations. Derived from your personal experiences, intertwined in your personal relationships with others intertwined in the things you've read, the things you've watched in the movies, on TV and in the media. All basically filtered through your own political prejudices derived from dasein.

Tha place most here, in my view, won't go because the focus is not so much on my opinions vs. your opinions vs. their opinions, but the very manner in which -- problematically, subjectively, existentially -- each of us come to acquire particular opinions [and not others] in the first place. The part that gets some closer and closer to their own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world.

MagsJ wrote: My decisions and ideals are not formed by political prejudices from external input.. for me, external input is purely entertainment/stimuli, not an optimal ideal of a combined sensory-source to live through. My internal world and external experiences are separate.. the external is temporary/enjoyment, the internal.. permanent/recouperation.. I am much more voyeur, than partaker.

My opinions are founded on my thoughts and feelings.. I haven’t constructed a world-view from fictional means, but from actuality.

Again, to me, this sounds very much like Maia's "intuitive/spiritual Self." Or do you call it your Soul? Forget about the points I raise about the existential parameters of the life you've lived predisposing you to go in one direction rather than another; there are just "internal" things that you know about feminism that makes a moderate/right-wing assessment more in sync with the Real You.

Which just makes me all the more curious as to how you differentiate this from objectivism. You either believe [as I do] that a new "dramatic/traumatic" experience down the road might prompt you to change your mind about feminism, or, as with Maia, you have convinced yourself that there is something "inside you" that is completely impervious to contingency, chance and change. Things you do just know about yourself that others, in not being you, can never grasp themselves. And thus they can never dispute your own moral and political value judgments. Again, the perfect moral philosophy. One where ultimately everything just comes down to what you do believe "in your head".

“Again, to me, this sounds very much like Maia's "intuitive/spiritual Self." Or do you call it your Soul?” No.. I’d call it 'the intrinsic self’ ..I don’t use the word soul, though Wendy did harp on about the soul a lot, though.

“Forget about the points I raise about the existential parameters of the life you've lived predisposing you to go in one direction rather than another; there are just "internal" things that you [i]know about feminism that makes a moderate/right-wing assessment more in sync with the Real You.”[/i] Lol! ..my thoughts on feminism have nothing to do with my political leanings.. just like which toilet paper I buy or how I dress, doesn’t.

Do you believe that all decision-making is made through a politico-socio lens? What of decisions made, when no political leanings were had? ..what would you say formed those opinions instead?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Yet even extreme behavior is rooted historical and culturally. We can think ourselves into believing that progress in regard to gender relationships can be established objectively but for every feminist outraged by clitorectomies, there are feminists who are not in the least outraged by the killing of female fetuses in the womb. Instead, given their own political prejudices, it's all rationalized. It's not an unborn female that is shredded, it's a clump of cells that just happens to be female.

Same with animal rights. What outrages some does not outrage others at all. Your reaction to foie gras, contrasted with the reaction of those who just want to swap recipes.

What's crucial for most here however is not who is right or wrong about either practice, but that there is a right or wrong.

Whereas, from my frame of mind as a moral nihilist, in a No God world there is no basis for establishing objective morality. Instead, it's all a manifestation of dasein situated out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

"Humanness" given what context?

Unless of course I'm wrong.

MagsJ wrote: It seems that you are describing the fickleness of human nature and human minds.. there is no equality in ideals, when all individuals concerned are at odds with each other, for whatever reason that may be.. but there is obviously a reason, for being at odds.

Yes, for reasons I root in dasein. Whereas as you deflect fickleness in my view by way of convincing yourself there is this part of you in sync with the way the world really is. That being whatever you think yourself into believing it is.

There is only one reality.. it is our perspective of it that is subjectively unique to the individual, which then loops back, into the objectivity of reality.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: "Humanness" given what context? Humanness, rather than using feminine wiles in my daily interactions with others, so not mixing business and pleasure.. though I do play up when in full-on social mode, which is solely reserved for recreational outings.

Again, all of this is understood by you subjectively, "in your head" given the manner in which I construe the nature of "I" as the embodiment of dasein in regard to either the political or the personal. But not given the manner in which you think about it.

There of course we are stuck. And stuck mostly because neither one of us can really understand the world around us given that we have lived lives so very, very different.

Speak for yourself.. I have a very good grasp on worldly matters and reality.. it involved: reading, learning, thinking, observing, intuiting, etc., in-order to arrive at a place of understanding.. it’s called 'educating yourself'.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.

iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".

Knowing One’s-self, means not having to over-think, so not feeling like One is in a constant state of dilemma and angst.. been-there/done-that for a while, it wasn’t for me.. now arrived at a point of no return. The life I live? ; )

I haven’t convinced myself of anything.. the experiences I have had, haven’t made me take up or turn to any isms. I don’t conflate all with all, but with the minimal possible amount, so as to reduce any margin of error.. now, making connections, is a very different endeavour altogether.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Human rights are a given, not a gift.. a mind-borne collective dasein of decency, and not something to be earned and then bestowed. A respect of others’ boundaries..

iambiguous wrote:On the contrary, human rights are profoundly political in nature.

I quote human history, for example. They revolve by and large around conflicting goods fought among those who struggle to attain and then sustain "rules of behavior" that revolve around conflicting moral and political prejudices.

Name any conflict that pops up "in the news". Different people can have very different takes on what it means to respect the boundaries of others. Take, for example, gun laws in Britain and in America. Which sets of legislation reflect the greatest respect for another's boundaries?

MagsJ wrote: I don’t disagree with any of that, but in my view human-rights should be a given, that should be incrementally revoked when a respectable level of human decency is not being exercised.. large cities and modern times do not allow for this anymore, whereas smaller settlements do.

The socio-geographical spread of the US kinda dictates the need to be able to defend Self and home, whereas most of the UK’s towns and cities are far too built-up to warrant that need here.

Human rights. Human decency. And all of the hopelessly conflicting and contradictory assumptions regarding how "for all practical purposes" to bring them about in our community. I go in a direction that generally disturbs others. That generally disturbs me too. I'm just unable "here and now" to "unthink" what "I" do here.

..and your objective take on the matter of your disturbing direction, once all the subjectivity has been eradicated from the picture?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: There is definitely a ‘right/wrong thing to do’ objective viewpoint, and if an individual can’t see that then there’s definitely something wrong with their judgement calls.. just think back to what the world has been witnessing happening in recent decades, when we were made to believe that the ancient ways of mob rule were a thing of the past, but public stonings/killings, sex-abuse rings, fatal child abuse, people trafficking, modern slavery, assholeism, etc.. are still in existence today.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, then. "In your head" you have convinced yourself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And you demonstrate this...how?

Are you religious? Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? Are you an ideologue? Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"?

MagsJ wrote: "In my head" I have convinced myself that there are just some behaviors that are inherently/necessarily immoral. And I demonstrate this...how? These are the expectations that I set Myself, to abide by.. I don’t expect this of anybody else. Living autonomously from others as much as possible, aids this lifestyle of avoiding unnecessary futile/volatile/negative exchanges and chatter from others, and so, keeping my psyche devoid of negative feels and thinks.

Expectations. And then around and around we go. Expectations are just another manifestation of dasein to me. And I don't expect others to share mine because their lives did not predispose them as mine did to have one set of expectations rather than another. Then back to the extent to which, in a philosophy venue, we can arrive at a set of expectations said to be the optimal or the only rational expectations that there are. And [of course] the part where what strikes you as negative thoughts and feelings in regard to feminism strikes others in a positive manner. That too in my view the embodiment of dasein. Whereas to me, for you, it is the embodiment of this "inside" thing that can never really be communicated beyond that which I construe to be political prejudices derived from the life that you have live.

You make a mental mess out of what should be simple mental processes, and turn it into the complicated.. what is done cannot be undone, and yet you opine greatly about the irreversible, instead of about the new pre-immutable present occurrences of now.

Always thinking things fully-through, before doing, comes to mind here..

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Are you religious? I’m spiritual, not religious.. but a non-practising Roman Catholic, due to familial reasons.

Well, in being spiritual how do you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then? Is there a God on your spiritual path?

“Well, in being spiritual how do you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then?” I don’t! that is your schism, not mine.. reaching spiritual heights is dependent on a holistic approach to existence and not a reductionist one.

“Is there a God on your spiritual path?” Even when I was a church-going youngster who prayed to a 'god' for loving guidance, I existed from and within the bounds of nature, not an invisible being.

Gods were ancestral tangible realties, then along came an unpresent monotheistic all-seeing/all-knowing god, and I’ve never been good at playing 'pretend'.

iambiguous wrote:In other words...
MagsJ wrote: Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God? I fall back on my Self.. if that’s what you mean by a soul? as a soul is our intrinsic x physiological being/not separate from us, but derived from our material Self, created by nature.

No, it's how you connect the dots in your head between your Self and a Soul. And then the dots between that and the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave.

I don’t, but you obviously do. :P

I’m a holist, you’re a reductionist.. there’s nothing wrong with being either, it’s just the type of mentality we evolved, over time, to have. From necessity and need? Probably.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Are you an ideologue? Do I come across as one? lol.. nah, no ritual, no dogma, no mantra.. I’d say I’m about constant self-improvement, of the physical and the mental kind.. my own kind of personal ideology, perhaps.. an adherent to the goals I set myself.

Well, sometimes you come across [to me] as an objectivist of sorts on some issues. Other times not.

Perhaps some things need to be objective (the moral, humanitarian, ethical), whilst other things are just harmless shared moments in reality (the deontological).

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Do you embrace one or another moral/political "ism" -- re Ayn Rand -- and argue that mere mortals in a No God world can "think up" the correct distinction between virtue and vice? I have no idea what Ayn Rand said or thought, but I do agree with her aforementioned argument.. as virtue and vice are differentiated by reactions to others’ actions, which over time becomes a standard for acceptable behaviour.

It doesn't matter what she thought, only that she expected you to think exactly as she did about everything. Either in your actions or in your reactions to the actions of others. She was a capital letter Objectivist.

The only time I become a capital O Objectivist, is when Others’ repetitiveness has bored me into it.. I would rather be chilling on my own with my own thoughts to mull over, than have to endure that. That could be what’s leading me to be more objectivist than subjectivist tho.. :lol:

I don’t think the matter is more complicated than that.. I don’t think anything is truly complicated.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Are you a deontologist, convinced that re Kant morality is derived from rational thinking? Hmmm, I’m not sure.. perhaps morality is derived from thinking, full-stop. Rationality doesn’t necessarily equate to morality, but it probably can lead the immoral to it.

Again, to the extent that you believe that there are immoral people is the extent to which, from my frame of mind, you come closer to an objectivist frame of mind. Then, politically, to a "one of us" [the goods guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] mentality.

..morally, yes ..politically, no. Policies themselves cannot harm people, it’s the people behind the policies that do/their intent, so yes.. I am a moral objectivist but a political realist, as politics and its outcomes are very real [think vaccine mandates, the current sky-rocketing cost of living, global sexual-predatory rings etc.].

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Are you a Satyrean? One who insist that only in grasping the objective relationship between genes and memes can one distinguish between Natural and Unnatural behavior? Or, as with Maia, are you someone who just knows what is right and what is wrong "in your head"? Thinking back to my formative years of learning and understanding, I’d say both.. looking with-out, to look with-in, to quantify reality and eventually make sense of the world.

To quantify reality in the is/ought world is, in turn, from my own frame of mind, an objectivist prejudice. As though in regard to feminism one might argue that on a scale from 1 to 10, someone's thinking about it is either more or less rational.

I think you’re talking of 'extremism' here, where the marginalised and hard-done-by adopt extreme beliefs.. isn’t that a subjective, not an objective, viewpoint they’ve taken though?

I’d say, that needs pertaining to Our physical self, are subjective-dependent.. needs pertaining to society at large, less so, so more objective-dependent.

You seem to see things in a very rigid way.. now, someone like Silhouette would call my way flip/florping, but reality is not rigid.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, given a particular context, describe how your own value judgments are embodied when confronting another with conflicting value judgments.

MagsJ wrote: Let’s take the sex drugs and rock’n’roll lifestyle.. now I’m not about that life, but many I know are, and as long as they’re not forcing their lifestyle onto me.. which some have tried to do.. I’ll not judge, but if any of them chooses to ignore my wishes and therefore my boundaries, I will relentlessly tell them about themselves and then ultimately unfriend them if my wishes go unmet.. and I’ll send them vicious messages, for good measure.

I don’t get involved with that many people, to have to deal with conflicting views and values, so I rarely have to even think about others or confront them.. family is enough, no? lol

Okay, but here as a "lifestyle" it's not likely to have any dramatic impact on the world around us. But take an issue like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccinations in regard to the covid pandemic. Here lives themselves can be at stake.

What then of dasein and the "inside" you? How more or less fractured and fragmented is someone with the stakes that high?

All the fall-out from the pandemic was a hyped affair, and I don’t react/become fractured and fragmented over hyped situations.. except my own. :P

Some wore a mask, some didn’t wear a mask.. some got vaccinated, some didn’t get vaccinated, some followed the rules, some didn’t follow the rules.. etc. etc. etc., and here we all now are.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man! Matriarchy? Come back hom

Postby Meno_ » Mon Feb 14, 2022 7:37 pm

The uncertainty over journeys to the east or retracting a western route may be a hype , but then in these uncertain days, a tiny test of looking into the cat-in-the box may turn into an OCD of even higher consequance.

Such is the law accorded Murphie's Law, and actually may make all the difference in the world.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 14177
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 15, 2022 7:13 pm

If your political values/political prejudices regarding feminism are not rooted existentially in dasein, what are they rooted in? Do you just know that certain values here are more reasonable, more virtuous? Do you have a political philosophy that convinces you that a moderate-right narrative is more reasonable, more virtuous?


MagsJ wrote: Justness and non-suffering are two values that come to mind.. for others to complain about the West while ignoring their own lack of sociotel-housekeeping back home, is very needle-in-thine-own-eye, to me.


Then back to how those on both sides of the political spectrum insist that their own take on feminism will result in more "justness" and less suffering. Or no suffering at all?

Then back to how I speculate that any particular individual [including you] comes to construe feminism here is predicated more on the assumptions I note in regard to dasein than to any "wise" answer that philosophers can provide us with.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].


MagsJ wrote: A couple of years back, when Ireland was lobbying to ban all abortion.. regardless of the reason why the abortion was being sought, I signed a petition for exemptions, on the grounds of medical and moral reasons as to why aborting the foetus would be warranted.


Yes, from my frame of mind, this is the particular political prejudice that, given the life you lived, you were predisposed to act on. Just as those around you who lived very different lives were predisposed to take conflicting reactions. And to the extent that you recognize this as an "existential leap" given your frame of mind "there and then", you are likely to approach issues like abortion from the perspective of "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And not as the objectivists do: my way or the highway.

That's always my aim here in regard to issues like feminism: that there does not appear to be a one size fits all moral/political reaction to it, but that our individual value judgments are often rooted in the profound complexities of the lives we live.


MagsJ wrote: Yes.. a dictatorial approach and solution, to a complex situation, was never going to end well or in agreement of abortions for none or abortions for all. Both options, being equally extreme.. so such situations, requiring ubiquitous middle-grounds.


And, of course, "the best of all possible worlds" here seems to be "moderation, negotiation and compromise". Abortions for some given certain sets of circumstances.

But that still doesn't focus on my main point. That even those champions of "democracy and the rule of law" are still no less acquiring their own moral and political prejudices given the arguments I raise regarding dasein in my signature threads.

Not sure what you mean here. Yes, if you are a moral objectivist you create this "ideal world" in your head and convince yourself that your own views about feminism are not just political prejudices but in fact reflect either the most rational/virtuous assessment of it...or, at the very least, the best of all possible worlds. Either way, from my frame of mind, dasein is no less a crucial component in regard to the conclusions we come to. Then [for me] it's just a matter of how "fractured and fragmented" you become.


MagsJ wrote: I meant.. are your conflicting political prejudices in regard to others’ political prejudices or conflict within your own mind, like a sort of confusion going on, as you do speak of fracture and fragmentation?


My frame of mind revolves around this:

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

That, in regard to an issue like feminism, I am pulled and tugged ambivalently in different directions. Both sides make reasonable arguments given one or another set of assumption about gender roles rooted in both genes and memes. And my values were derived from my personal experiences and the specific information/knowledge I happened upon. Same as you.

So, given these subjective factors, is there a way for philosophers or political scientists to arrive at that most objective argument?

Again, to me, this sounds very much like Maia's "intuitive/spiritual Self." Or do you call it your Soul?


MagsJ wrote: No.. I’d call it 'the intrinsic self’ ..I don’t use the word soul, though Wendy did harp on about the soul a lot, though.


Okay, for the moral objectivists among us, whether they call it the "real me" or the "soul" or the "intrinsic self", they seem to suggest there are things about their own value judgments that transcend "contingency, chance, and change". To me the equivalent of Maia basically arguing that viscerally, intuitively she just knows that abortion is immoral. Her own rendition of an "intrinsic self" informs her here.

But then those on the other side of the abortion wars can say the same thing. Only their own "intrinsic self" tells them that forcing pregnant women to give birth is the immoral part.

Forget about the points I raise about the existential parameters of the life you've lived predisposing you to go in one direction rather than another; there are just "internal" things that you know about feminism that makes a moderate/right-wing assessment more in sync with the Real You.


MagsJ wrote: ...my thoughts on feminism have nothing to do with my political leanings.. just like which toilet paper I buy or how I dress, doesn’t.


This might make sense to you but not to me. Politics revolves around enforcing actual laws that either prescribe or proscribe feminist policies. And you either support one set of laws here or you don't.

I mean, what do you tell others, "I just know what I do about feminism in my heart of hearts and that has nothing to do with political or legislation or government policy."

MagsJ wrote: Do you believe that all decision-making is made through a politico-socio lens? What of decisions made, when no political leanings were had? ..what would you say formed those opinions instead?


What I believe is that when feminism shows up in the media headlines, politics is everywhere. Though, sure, if you are able to "think up" a frame of mind that makes those headlines moot with respect to your own value judgments, fine. But if all you believe is necessary is that you tell others your "intrinsic self" is in command, how would you expect them to react? What can they possibly know about that. So, you never need to be concerned about defending your positions at all.

MagsJ wrote: It seems that you are describing the fickleness of human nature and human minds.. there is no equality in ideals, when all individuals concerned are at odds with each other, for whatever reason that may be.. but there is obviously a reason, for being at odds.


Yes, for reasons I root in dasein. Whereas as you deflect fickleness in my view by way of convincing yourself there is this part of you in sync with the way the world really is. That being whatever you think yourself into believing it is.


MagsJ wrote: There is only one reality.. it is our perspective of it that is subjectively unique to the individual, which then loops back, into the objectivity of reality.


Yeah, that's my point. There is one objective reality/world for those who either are or are not feminists. But out in that world given all the things that are true for all of us why do some become feminists and others do not?

Pick one...

1] the manner in which I construe dasein here
2] an objective assessment able to be provided by philosophers and/or scientists
3] an "intrinsic self" that just knows what is true or false

My assumption is that your views on feminism are derived from much the same existential factors rooted in dasein as mine are...just shaped and molded by very different lives. But that, rather than going there [and risk being fractured and fragmented] you sustain your own measure of comfort and consolation by convincing yourself that this "intrinsic self" keeps you firmly enough anchored to your own "objective" certainties.

There of course we are stuck. And stuck mostly because neither one of us can really understand the world around us given that we have lived lives so very, very different.


MagsJ wrote: Speak for yourself.. I have a very good grasp on worldly matters and reality.. it involved: reading, learning, thinking, observing, intuiting, etc., in-order to arrive at a place of understanding.. it’s called 'educating yourself'.


That's my point. When it comes to conflicting value judgments pertaining to thinks like gender roles, we all speak for ourselves. But: how did our "self" come to acquire the prejudices that we hold dear? Those on both sides of the issue insist precisely what you do about "their side". They really did educate themselves properly while those on the other side did not.

That way they can avoid altogether pursuing/perusing the arguments I make about the acquisition of an identity in the is/ought world. They can continue to sustain the comfort and consolation of believing that they are "one of us" [the wisely educated] and not "one of them" [the foolishly educated].

MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.


iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".


MagsJ wrote: Knowing One’s-self, means not having to over-think, so not feeling like One is in a constant state of dilemma and angst.. been-there/done-that for a while, it wasn’t for me.. now arrived at a point of no return. The life I live? ; )

I haven’t convinced myself of anything.. the experiences I have had, haven’t made me take up or turn to any isms. I don’t conflate all with all, but with the minimal possible amount, so as to reduce any margin of error.. now, making connections, is a very different endeavour altogether.


Sure, keep telling yourself that. After all, if you don't "over think" feminism, there is less likelihood you might come to think about it as I do. Just accept that your own "intrinsic self" is dasein-proof. Even had your life been dramatically/traumatically different, this "intrinsic self" would still have arrived at the same conclusions. Much like Maia's "intuitive self" in regards to abortion.

The most important thing being [from my own subjective/existential point of view] that you sustain a font you can anchor I to.

Human rights. Human decency. And all of the hopelessly conflicting and contradictory assumptions regarding how "for all practical purposes" to bring them about in our community. I go in a direction that generally disturbs others. That generally disturbs me too. I'm just unable "here and now" to "unthink" what "I" do here.


MagsJ wrote: ...and your objective take on the matter of your disturbing direction, once all the subjectivity has been eradicated from the picture?


What objective take? My whole point is that in the absence of God, mere mortals are the embodiment only of subjective takes on things like feminism. Rooted out in particular worlds historically and culturally. How on earth would either one of us go about "eradicating" all of the existential variables in our lives that predisposed us to this frame of mind and not that one in regard to feminism?

Expectations. And then around and around we go. Expectations are just another manifestation of dasein to me. And I don't expect others to share mine because their lives did not predispose them as mine did to have one set of expectations rather than another. Then back to the extent to which, in a philosophy venue, we can arrive at a set of expectations said to be the optimal or the only rational expectations that there are. And [of course] the part where what strikes you as negative thoughts and feelings in regard to feminism strikes others in a positive manner. That too in my view the embodiment of dasein. Whereas to me, for you, it is the embodiment of this "inside" thing that can never really be communicated beyond that which I construe to be political prejudices derived from the life that you have live.


MagsJ wrote: You make a mental mess out of what should be simple mental processes, and turn it into the complicated.. what is done cannot be undone, and yet you opine greatly about the irreversible, instead of about the new pre-immutable present occurrences of now.

Always thinking things fully-through, before doing, comes to mind here..


Yes, that is precisely what the moral and political objectivists avoid at all cost. Making a mess of things by exploring the possibility that my own frame of mind may well succeed in deconstructing their simple "one of us"/"one of them" binary world view. It's just that most of them here, unlike you, don't fall back on an "intrinsic self". Instead, they posit this or that God, this or that political ideology, this or that deontological philosophy contraption, this or that construct of Nature.

But what they all share in common in regard to their views on feminism is that they come closest to how all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about it: the right way.

And how comforting and consoling must it be to believe that?

Well, ask them.


Well, in being spiritual how do you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then? Is there a God on your spiritual path?


MagsJ wrote: I don’t! that is your schism, not mine.. reaching spiritual heights is dependent on a holistic approach to existence and not a reductionist one.


Right. You have your "intrinsic self". And this intrinsic self has reached the spiritual heights enabling you to take the optimal holistic approach to existence. Okay, but how are your views of feminism not then reduced down to that? And how is it not still the embodiment of dasein? After all, those who embrace very, very different views from your own can make the same claims about their own "intrinsic self".

Again, as I noted to Maia, that's the beauty of sustaining this "inner you" moral philosophy. There is absolutely no way that it can be critiqued by another because, well, they are not you. You can use this "intrinsic self" as Maia uses her "intuitive self"...as the default in any discussion or debate regarding conflicting goods. You both just know things about yourself that make you immune to fracturing and fragmenting.

Is there a God on your spiritual path?


MagsJ wrote: Even when I was a church-going youngster who prayed to a 'god' for loving guidance, I existed from and within the bounds of nature, not an invisible being.

Gods were ancestral tangible realties, then along came an unpresent monotheistic all-seeing/all-knowing god, and I’ve never been good at playing 'pretend'.


Not entirely sure what to make of this. Are you basically suggesting that God or No God, your "natural" "intrinsic self" trumps all things ecclesiastic?

Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God?


MagsJ wrote: I fall back on my Self.. if that’s what you mean by a soul? as a soul is our intrinsic x physiological being/not separate from us, but derived from our material Self, created by nature.


No, it's how you connect the dots in your head between your Self and a Soul. And then the dots between that and the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave.


MagsJ wrote: I don’t, but you obviously do. :P


I don't believe in a soul. And I suspect that there are very, very few of us who don't get around eventually to connecting the dots between before and after we are dead.

MagsJ wrote: I’m a holist, you’re a reductionist.. there’s nothing wrong with being either, it’s just the type of mentality we evolved, over time, to have. From necessity and need? Probably.


You're holistic only because you believe in this "it's not a soul" "intrinsic self". Which I then root in dasein even if you don't.

And, sure, if you want to call someone who believes that 1] his life is essentially meaningless and purposeless and that 2] he is "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world and that 3] he will soon enough tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion, a "reductionist", be my guest.

Did this insight itself come from this all knowing "intrinsic self"?

MagsJ wrote: Perhaps some things need to be objective (the moral, humanitarian, ethical), whilst other things are just harmless shared moments in reality (the deontological).


Well, as with most things, deontology is subject to different interpretations. For many philosophers, deontology is associated with Kant. The part where men and women are duty-bound -- obligated -- to behave in accordance with reason. Categorically and imperatively as it were. And that sounds pretty objective to me. Of course, Kant then posited a transcending font as the ultimate backup in judging these things.

You, on the other hand, have this seemingly omniscient "intrinsic self" to guide you. And, given this, you can note...

"I don’t think the matter is more complicated than that.. I don’t think anything is truly complicated."

Not with an "intrinsic self" around to provide you with the "final answers".

To quantify reality in the is/ought world is, in turn, from my own frame of mind, an objectivist prejudice. As though in regard to feminism one might argue that on a scale from 1 to 10, someone's thinking about it is either more or less rational.


MagsJ wrote: I think you’re talking of 'extremism' here, where the marginalised and hard-done-by adopt extreme beliefs.. isn’t that a subjective, not an objective, viewpoint they’ve taken though?


I'm talking about any degree of difference in regard to conflicting goods. You may argue that another's view of feminism that differs from you is a 2 on the rational/virtuous scale...or an 8.

But it still comes come to this very, very, very "private and personal" "intrinsic self" that is doing the calculation.

MagsJ wrote: I’d say, that needs pertaining to Our physical self, are subjective-dependent.. needs pertaining to society at large, less so, so more objective-dependent.


Okay, how is this applicable to feminism. Cite some examples from your own life.

MagsJ wrote: You seem to see things in a very rigid way.. now, someone like Silhouette would call my way flip/florping, but reality is not rigid.


I can't begin to say how preposterous this is. To me. Here I am noting that in regard to feminism or abortion or gun ownership or any other conflicting goods of note, I am "fractured and fragmented", "drawn and quartered", profoundly entangled in ambiguities, ambivalence, uncertainties.

And, even here, I acknowledge this to be but a hopelessly subjective rooted-in-dasein point of view.

But I'm rigid!

But take an issue like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccinations in regard to the covid pandemic. Here lives themselves can be at stake.

What then of dasein and the "inside" you? How more or less fractured and fragmented is someone with the stakes that high?


MagsJ wrote: All the fall-out from the pandemic was a hyped affair, and I don’t react/become fractured and fragmented over hyped situations.. except my own. :P


You know this because your "intrinsic self" knows this.

Okay, so, as I note with those like Urwrong...

"...note the evidence that resolves this debate from either the hard scientists [biologists/medical folks] or the soft political scientists. Those on either path who do not have a political axe to grind."

What does your "intrinsic self" tell you about this?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Sun Mar 06, 2022 2:31 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote: If your political values/political prejudices regarding feminism are not rooted existentially in dasein, what are they rooted in? Do you just know that certain values here are more reasonable, more virtuous? Do you have a political philosophy that convinces you that a moderate-right narrative is more reasonable, more virtuous?
MagsJ wrote: Justness and non-suffering are two values that come to mind.. for others to complain about the West while ignoring their own lack of sociotel-housekeeping back home, is very needle-in-thine-own-eye, to me.

Then back to how those on both sides of the political spectrum insist that their own take on feminism will result in more "justness" and less suffering. Or no suffering at all?

Then back to how I speculate that any particular individual [including you] comes to construe feminism here is predicated more on the assumptions I note in regard to dasein than to any "wise" answer that philosophers can provide us with.

Feminism.. like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence.. the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote: Okay, in regard to feminism, focus in on a political choice that you have made. Where do you situate it given the gap between my perspective-- "it's just a political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein" -- and the perspective of the fanatical objectivists -- "you are either one of us [on the side of Good] or one of them" [on the side of Evil].
MagsJ wrote: A couple of years back, when Ireland was lobbying to ban all abortion.. regardless of the reason why the abortion was being sought, I signed a petition for exemptions, on the grounds of medical and moral reasons as to why aborting the foetus would be warranted.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, from my frame of mind, this is the particular political prejudice that, given the life you lived, you were predisposed to act on. Just as those around you who lived very different lives were predisposed to take conflicting reactions. And to the extent that you recognize this as an "existential leap" given your frame of mind "there and then", you are likely to approach issues like abortion from the perspective of "moderation, negotiation and compromise". And not as the objectivists do: my way or the highway.

That's always my aim here in regard to issues like feminism: that there does not appear to be a one size fits all moral/political reaction to it, but that our individual value judgments are often rooted in the profound complexities of the lives we live.
MagsJ wrote: Yes.. a dictatorial approach and solution, to a complex situation, was never going to end well or in agreement of abortions for none or abortions for all. Both options, being equally extreme.. so such situations, requiring ubiquitous middle-grounds.

And, of course, "the best of all possible worlds" here seems to be "moderation, negotiation and compromise". Abortions for some given certain sets of circumstances.

But that still doesn't focus on my main point. That even those champions of "democracy and the rule of law" are still no less acquiring their own moral and political prejudices given the arguments I raise regarding dasein in my signature threads.

..a global 'hive mind' of shared morals and actuality?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Not sure what you mean here. Yes, if you are a moral objectivist you create this "ideal world" in your head and convince yourself that your own views about feminism are not just political prejudices but in fact reflect either the most rational/virtuous assessment of it...or, at the very least, the best of all possible worlds. Either way, from my frame of mind, dasein is no less a crucial component in regard to the conclusions we come to. Then [for me] it's just a matter of how "fractured and fragmented" you become.
MagsJ wrote: I meant.. are your conflicting political prejudices in regard to others’ political prejudices or conflict within your own mind, like a sort of confusion going on, as you do speak of fracture and fragmentation?

My frame of mind revolves around this:

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

That, in regard to an issue like feminism, I am pulled and tugged ambivalently in different directions. Both sides make reasonable arguments given one or another set of assumption about gender roles rooted in both genes and memes. And my values were derived from my personal experiences and the specific information/knowledge I happened upon. Same as you.

So, given these subjective factors, is there a way for philosophers or political scientists to arrive at that most objective argument?

Yes.

Vested interests, plea bargains, and bribery, inhibit progress and positive change.

Ergo, corruption.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Again, to me, this sounds very much like Maia's "intuitive/spiritual Self." Or do you call it your Soul?
MagsJ wrote: No.. I’d call it 'the intrinsic self’ ..I don’t use the word soul, though Wendy did harp on about the soul a lot, though.

Okay, for the moral objectivists among us, whether they call it the "real me" or the "soul" or the "intrinsic self", they seem to suggest there are things about their own value judgments that transcend "contingency, chance, and change". To me the equivalent of Maia basically arguing that viscerally, intuitively she just knows that abortion is immoral. Her own rendition of an "intrinsic self" informs her here.

But then those on the other side of the abortion wars can say the same thing. Only their own "intrinsic self" tells them that forcing pregnant women to give birth is the immoral part.

Abortion clinics are a business.. like any other businesses, so money-making machines.. abortions for all, means a constant stream of money/income/profit, for them.

Smoke and mirrors.. things are much more simple, than they are made to appear to be.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote: Forget about the points I raise about the existential parameters of the life you've lived predisposing you to go in one direction rather than another; there are just "internal" things that you know about feminism that makes a moderate/right-wing assessment more in sync with the Real You.
MagsJ wrote: ...my thoughts on feminism have nothing to do with my political leanings.. just like which toilet paper I buy or how I dress, doesn’t.

This might make sense to you but not to me. Politics revolves around enforcing actual laws that either prescribe or proscribe feminist policies. And you either support one set of laws here or you don't.

I mean, what do you tell others, "I just know what I do about feminism in my heart of hearts and that has nothing to do with political or legislation or government policy."

Correct.. the collective people make policy happen through a need/want, or they should be.

Do you know how policy-making works.. or is meant to work?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Do you believe that all decision-making is made through a politico-socio lens? What of decisions made, when no political leanings were had? ..what would you say formed those opinions instead?

What I believe is that when feminism shows up in the media headlines, politics is everywhere. Though, sure, if you are able to "think up" a frame of mind that makes those headlines moot with respect to your own value judgments, fine. But if all you believe is necessary is that you tell others your "intrinsic self" is in command, how would you expect them to react? What can they possibly know about that. So, you never need to be concerned about defending your positions at all.

Lol.. social movement groups lobby their Government, hence Government involvement in such social movements.

Individuals and movements alone, cannot/rarely effect change.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: It seems that you are describing the fickleness of human nature and human minds.. there is no equality in ideals, when all individuals concerned are at odds with each other, for whatever reason that may be.. but there is obviously a reason, for being at odds.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, for reasons I root in dasein. Whereas as you deflect fickleness in my view by way of convincing yourself there is this part of you in sync with the way the world really is. That being whatever you think yourself into believing it is.
MagsJ wrote: There is only one reality.. it is our perspective of it that is subjectively unique to the individual, which then loops back, into the objectivity of reality.

Yeah, that's my point. There is one objective reality/world for those who either are or are not feminists. But out in that world given all the things that are true for all of us why do some become feminists and others do not?

Pick one...

1] the manner in which I construe dasein here
2] an objective assessment able to be provided by philosophers and/or scientists
3] an "intrinsic self" that just knows what is true or false

My assumption is that your views on feminism are derived from much the same existential factors rooted in dasein as mine are...just shaped and molded by very different lives. But that, rather than going there [and risk being fractured and fragmented] you sustain your own measure of comfort and consolation by convincing yourself that this "intrinsic self" keeps you firmly enough anchored to your own "objective" certainties.

I’m quite bipartisan, when it comes to social issues and movements.. if a voice needs to be heard, there should be a channel/platform for that, for them to be heard.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:There of course we are stuck. And stuck mostly because neither one of us can really understand the world around us given that we have lived lives so very, very different.
MagsJ wrote: Speak for yourself.. I have a very good grasp on worldly matters and reality.. it involved: reading, learning, thinking, observing, intuiting, etc., in-order to arrive at a place of understanding.. it’s called 'educating yourself.
'

That's my point. When it comes to conflicting value judgments pertaining to thinks like gender roles, we all speak for ourselves. But: how did our "self" come to acquire the prejudices that we hold dear? Those on both sides of the issue insist precisely what you do about "their side". They really did educate themselves properly while those on the other side did not.

That way they can avoid altogether pursuing/perusing the arguments I make about the acquisition of an identity in the is/ought world. They can continue to sustain the comfort and consolation of believing that they are "one of us" [the wisely educated] and not "one of them" [the foolishly educated].

I’m quite the bipartisanee, so no.. I’ve read and watched and seen a lot of things/immoral things/crazy things, but I don’t emulate them or harbour others’ thoughts and feelings as my own. Should I be..? :-s

Using abortion as a/your only means of contraception is not ideal.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I don’t join or take-up any isms, but instead I aline my thinking with my own personal human rights, instead of picking an ism as proxy.
iambiguous wrote:And how is your own thinking about your own personal human rights not profoundly embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above?

Either you agree that had things been very different in your life in the past, you might well have become a staunch feminist, and that given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge in the future you might well become one still...or you have convinced yourself that contingency, chance and change are powerless to have an impact on who you think you are with respect to feminism "here and know".
MagsJ wrote: Knowing One’s-self, means not having to over-think, so not feeling like One is in a constant state of dilemma and angst.. been-there/done-that for a while, it wasn’t for me.. now arrived at a point of no return. The life I live? ; )

I haven’t convinced myself of anything.. the experiences I have had, haven’t made me take up or turn to any isms. I don’t conflate all with all, but with the minimal possible amount, so as to reduce any margin of error.. now, making connections, is a very different endeavour altogether.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. After all, if you don't "over think" feminism, there is less likelihood you might come to think about it as I do. Just accept that your own "intrinsic self" is dasein-proof. Even had your life been dramatically/traumatically different, this "intrinsic self" would still have arrived at the same conclusions. Much like Maia's "intuitive self" in regards to abortion.

The most important thing being [from my own subjective/existential point of view] that you sustain a font you can anchor I to.

I’ve always said, that males are more emotional than females.. especially when it comes to spreading their seed, so this is not about me, it’s about you..?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Human rights. Human decency. And all of the hopelessly conflicting and contradictory assumptions regarding how "for all practical purposes" to bring them about in our community. I go in a direction that generally disturbs others. That generally disturbs me too. I'm just unable "here and now" to "unthink" what "I" do here.
MagsJ wrote: ...and your objective take on the matter of your disturbing direction, once all the subjectivity has been eradicated from the picture?

What objective take? My whole point is that in the absence of God, mere mortals are the embodiment only of subjective takes on things like feminism. Rooted out in particular worlds historically and culturally. How on earth would either one of us go about "eradicating" all of the existential variables in our lives that predisposed us to this frame of mind and not that one in regard to feminism?

I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are..

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Expectations. And then around and around we go. Expectations are just another manifestation of dasein to me. And I don't expect others to share mine because their lives did not predispose them as mine did to have one set of expectations rather than another. Then back to the extent to which, in a philosophy venue, we can arrive at a set of expectations said to be the optimal or the only rational expectations that there are. And [of course] the part where what strikes you as negative thoughts and feelings in regard to feminism strikes others in a positive manner. That too in my view the embodiment of dasein. Whereas to me, for you, it is the embodiment of this "inside" thing that can never really be communicated beyond that which I construe to be political prejudices derived from the life that you have live.
MagsJ wrote: You make a mental mess out of what should be simple mental processes, and turn it into the complicated.. what is done cannot be undone, and yet you opine greatly about the irreversible, instead of about the new pre-immutable present occurrences of now.

Always thinking things fully-through, before doing, comes to mind here..

Yes, that is precisely what the moral and political objectivists avoid at all cost. Making a mess of things by exploring the possibility that my own frame of mind may well succeed in deconstructing their simple "one of us"/"one of them" binary world view. It's just that most of them here, unlike you, don't fall back on an "intrinsic self". Instead, they posit this or that God, this or that political ideology, this or that deontological philosophy contraption, this or that construct of Nature.

But what they all share in common in regard to their views on feminism is that they come closest to how all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think about it: the right way.

And how comforting and consoling must it be to believe that?

Well, ask them.

Yes, personal belief.. about that!

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Well, in being spiritual how do you connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then? Is there a God on your spiritual path?
MagsJ wrote: I don’t! that is your schism, not mine.. reaching spiritual heights is dependent on a holistic approach to existence and not a reductionist one.

Right. You have your "intrinsic self". And this intrinsic self has reached the spiritual heights enabling you to take the optimal holistic approach to existence. Okay, but how are your views of feminism not then reduced down to that? And how is it not still the embodiment of dasein? After all, those who embrace very, very different views from your own can make the same claims about their own "intrinsic self".

Again, as I noted to Maia, that's the beauty of sustaining this "inner you" moral philosophy. There is absolutely no way that it can be critiqued by another because, well, they are not you. You can use this "intrinsic self" as Maia uses her "intuitive self"...as the default in any discussion or debate regarding conflicting goods. You both just know things about yourself that make you immune to fracturing and fragmenting.

Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know..

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Is there a God on your spiritual path?
MagsJ wrote: Even when I was a church-going youngster who prayed to a 'god' for loving guidance, I existed from and within the bounds of nature, not an invisible being.

Gods were ancestral tangible realties, then along came an unpresent monotheistic all-seeing/all-knowing god, and I’ve never been good at playing 'pretend'.

Not entirely sure what to make of this. Are you basically suggesting that God or No God, your "natural" "intrinsic self" trumps all things ecclesiastic?

I became me, before I knew what a/my religion was.. my earliest memory of being in church? ..with my family and humongous extended family, when 3, to attend some sacrament or other.. church life, huh.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Do you fall back on your "soul" being or not being in sync with a God, the God, my God?
MagsJ wrote: I fall back on my Self.. if that’s what you mean by a soul? as a soul is our intrinsic x physiological being/not separate from us, but derived from our material Self, created by nature.
iambiguous wrote:No, it's how you connect the dots in your head between your Self and a Soul. And then the dots between that and the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave.
MagsJ wrote: I don’t, but you obviously do. :P

I don't believe in a soul. And I suspect that there are very, very few of us who don't get around eventually to connecting the dots between before and after we are dead.

Ahhhhhhh! the philosopher’s angst..

How about the philosopher’s resolved-angst..?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I’m a holist, you’re a reductionist.. there’s nothing wrong with being either, it’s just the type of mentality we evolved, over time, to have. From necessity and need? Probably.

You're holistic only because you believe in this "it's not a soul" "intrinsic self". Which I then root in dasein even if you don't.

And, sure, if you want to call someone who believes that 1] his life is essentially meaningless and purposeless and that 2] he is "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world and that 3] he will soon enough tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion, a "reductionist", be my guest.

Did this insight itself come from this all knowing "intrinsic self"?

Have brain, will think!

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Perhaps some things need to be objective (the moral, humanitarian, ethical), whilst other things are just harmless shared moments in reality (the deontological).

Well, as with most things, deontology is subject to different interpretations. For many philosophers, deontology is associated with Kant. The part where men and women are duty-bound -- obligated -- to behave in accordance with reason. Categorically and imperatively as it were. And that sounds pretty objective to me. Of course, Kant then posited a transcending font as the ultimate backup in judging these things.

You, on the other hand, have this seemingly omniscient "intrinsic self" to guide you. And, given this, you can note...

"I don’t think the matter is more complicated than that.. I don’t think anything is truly complicated."

Not with an "intrinsic self" around to provide you with the "final answers".

Eastern practices, converted to non-Eastern authoritarianism..

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:To quantify reality in the is/ought world is, in turn, from my own frame of mind, an objectivist prejudice. As though in regard to feminism one might argue that on a scale from 1 to 10, someone's thinking about it is either more or less rational.
MagsJ wrote: I think you’re talking of 'extremism' here, where the marginalised and hard-done-by adopt extreme beliefs.. isn’t that a subjective, not an objective, viewpoint they’ve taken though?

I'm talking about any degree of difference in regard to conflicting goods. You may argue that another's view of feminism that differs from you is a 2 on the rational/virtuous scale...or an 8.

But it still comes come to this very, very, very "private and personal" "intrinsic self" that is doing the calculation.

Why, who else should be?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I’d say, that needs pertaining to Our physical self, are subjective-dependent.. needs pertaining to society at large, less so, so more objective-dependent.

Okay, how is this applicable to feminism. Cite some examples from your own life.

Why the interest in my subjective experiences of feminism?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: You seem to see things in a very rigid way.. now, someone like Silhouette would call my way flip/florping, but reality is not rigid.

I can't begin to say how preposterous this is. To me. Here I am noting that in regard to feminism or abortion or gun ownership or any other conflicting goods of note, I am "fractured and fragmented", "drawn and quartered", profoundly entangled in ambiguities, ambivalence, uncertainties.

And, even here, I acknowledge this to be but a hopelessly subjective rooted-in-dasein point of view.

But I'm rigid!

Within that mind frame, yes.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But take an issue like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccinations in regard to the covid pandemic. Here lives themselves can be at stake.

What then of dasein and the "inside" you? How more or less fractured and fragmented is someone with the stakes that high?
MagsJ wrote: All the fall-out from the pandemic was a hyped affair, and I don’t react/become fractured and fragmented over hyped situations.. except my own. :P

You know this because your "intrinsic self" knows this.

Okay, so, as I note with those like Urwrong...

"...note the evidence that resolves this debate from either the hard scientists [biologists/medical folks] or the soft political scientists. Those on either path who do not have a political axe to grind."

What does your "intrinsic self" tell you about this?

My current thoughts on things, are personal to me.. private lives n dat. ;)
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 07, 2022 6:01 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Then back to how I speculate that any particular individual [including you] comes to construe feminism here is predicated more on the assumptions I note in regard to dasein than to any "wise" answer that philosophers can provide us with.


MagsJ wrote:Feminism.. like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence.. the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.


Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective "intrinsic self"; and me from my own more or less subjective "fractured and fragmented" self.

And, of course, "the best of all possible worlds" here seems to be "moderation, negotiation and compromise". Abortions for some given certain sets of circumstances.

But that still doesn't focus on my main point. That even those champions of "democracy and the rule of law" are still no less acquiring their own moral and political prejudices given the arguments I raise regarding dasein in my signature threads.


MagsJ wrote:..a global 'hive mind' of shared morals and actuality?


Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the "right makes might" communities.

Okay, for the moral objectivists among us, whether they call it the "real me" or the "soul" or the "intrinsic self", they seem to suggest there are things about their own value judgments that transcend "contingency, chance, and change". To me the equivalent of Maia basically arguing that viscerally, intuitively she just knows that abortion is immoral. Her own rendition of an "intrinsic self" informs her here.

But then those on the other side of the abortion wars can say the same thing. Only their own "intrinsic self" tells them that forcing pregnant women to give birth is the immoral part.


MagsJ wrote:Abortion clinics are a business.. like any other businesses, so money-making machines.. abortions for all, means a constant stream of money/income/profit, for them.

Smoke and mirrors.. things are much more simple, than they are made to appear to be.


How can they not be for you when an "intrinsic self" is there to make everything the simplest they can possibly be. You "just know" what abortion clinics are. As though the business side makes the point I raised above about the moral issue go away.

Politics revolves around enforcing actual laws that either prescribe or proscribe feminist policies. And you either support one set of laws here or you don't.

I mean, what do you tell others, "I just know what I do about feminism in my heart of hearts and that has nothing to do with political or legislation or government policy."


MagsJ wrote: Correct.. the collective people make policy happen through a need/want, or they should be.

Do you know how policy-making works.. or is meant to work?


Again, that's the beauty of the "intrinsic self" approach to feminism. To government policy. However it works, you "just know" how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there's no effective rebuttal against what another claims to "just know" intrinsically.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:What I believe is that when feminism shows up in the media headlines, politics is everywhere. Though, sure, if you are able to "think up" a frame of mind that makes those headlines moot with respect to your own value judgments, fine. But if all you believe is necessary is that you tell others your "intrinsic self" is in command, how would you expect them to react? What can they possibly know about that. So, you never need to be concerned about defending your positions at all.


MagsJ wrote: Lol.. social movement groups lobby their Government, hence Government involvement in such social movements.

Individuals and movements alone, cannot/rarely effect change.


Alone or in combination with other things, it still comes down ultimately to who has the power to enforce their own political prejudices. Which I root in dasein and you in this "I just know" mentality.

And even those who are "bipartisan" are, to me, no less the embodiment of dasein.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. After all, if you don't "over think" feminism, there is less likelihood you might come to think about it as I do. Just accept that your own "intrinsic self" is dasein-proof. Even had your life been dramatically/traumatically different, this "intrinsic self" would still have arrived at the same conclusions. Much like Maia's "intuitive self" in regards to abortion.

The most important thing being [from my own subjective/existential point of view] that you sustain a font you can anchor I to.


MagsJ wrote: I’ve always said, that males are more emotional than females.. especially when it comes to spreading their seed, so this is not about me, it’s about you..?


What exactly does that have to do with my point though?

My whole point is that in the absence of God, mere mortals are the embodiment only of subjective takes on things like feminism. Rooted out in particular worlds historically and culturally. How on earth would either one of us go about "eradicating" all of the existential variables in our lives that predisposed us to this frame of mind and not that one in regard to feminism?


MagsJ wrote: I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are..


Of course you're not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your "intrinsic self" on the shoulder in order to "just know" what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual's personal experiences.

Right. You have your "intrinsic self". And this intrinsic self has reached the spiritual heights enabling you to take the optimal holistic approach to existence. Okay, but how are your views of feminism not then reduced down to that? And how is it not still the embodiment of dasein? After all, those who embrace very, very different views from your own can make the same claims about their own "intrinsic self".

Again, as I noted to Maia, that's the beauty of sustaining this "inner you" moral philosophy. There is absolutely no way that it can be critiqued by another because, well, they are not you. You can use this "intrinsic self" as Maia uses her "intuitive self"...as the default in any discussion or debate regarding conflicting goods. You both just know things about yourself that make you immune to fracturing and fragmenting.


MagsJ wrote: Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know..


Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you "think for yourself" as a result of this "inner you" ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it's the "intrinsic self" able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don't really have a clue regarding...how God and religion fits into all of this for you.

Then eventually, everything just coming back around to this:

MagsJ wrote: My current thoughts on things, are personal to me.. private lives n dat.


You "just know" yourself and I don't.

But what you think you know about yourself is very different from what I think you think you know about yourself.

And feminism is but a single component of that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Feminism.. like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence.. the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.

Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective "intrinsic self"; and me from my own more or less subjective "fractured and fragmented" self.

Why do you feel that you need to be subjectively involved, when considering your stance on societal matters?

Can you not consider such matters without having to implicate your own feelings in the mix? after-all, you’re not the one having an abortion.. requiring woman's rights.. etc. etc..

Perhaps you are just wired that way?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:..a global 'hive mind' of shared morals and actuality?

Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the "right makes might" communities.

I always say.. you get what/who you vote for, so perhaps voters should start voting more wisely and think before they vote.. if votes count at all in some parts of the world, that is.

Clamping down on unrealistic body-image (re. the OP) is nothing new, and such body idealism is usually achieved by drastic unnatural means that are usually harmful to both physical and mental health, and has led to suicides or directly caused deaths.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but imitating photoshopped filtered elongated thinned-out images, of Idols.. is quite the feat, no? Your average person who uses those methods is deemed a catfish and ostracised.

Does a country not need to protect the well-being of its peoples (in this instance from harmful influential marketing), in all aspects of their being?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Abortion clinics are a business.. like any other businesses, so money-making machines.. abortions for all, means a constant stream of money/income/profit, for them.

Smoke and mirrors.. things are much more simple, than they are made to appear to be.

How can they not be for you when an "intrinsic self" is there to make everything the simplest they can possibly be. You "just know" what abortion clinics are. As though the business side makes the point I raised above about the moral issue go away.

That moral issue will never go away.. especially when one parent wants to keep the foetus and the other does not.

How do you solve/argue that one..?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Correct.. the collective people make policy happen through a need/want, or they should be.

Do you know how policy-making works.. or is meant to work?

Again, that's the beauty of the "intrinsic self" approach to feminism. To government policy. However it works, you "just know" how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there's no effective rebuttal against what another claims to "just know" intrinsically.

It’s not about being told otherwise.. should another’s opinion matter to you, on something that is not personally affecting you? so in that instance, there is no place for someone like me to argue from.. but I can effect fairer outcomes, for those who are personally affected by the dilemma of whether to abort or not.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Lol.. social movement groups lobby their Government, hence Government involvement in such social movements.

Individuals and movements alone, cannot/rarely effect change.

Alone or in combination with other things, it still comes down ultimately to who has the power to enforce their own political prejudices. Which I root in dasein and you in this "I just know" mentality.

And even those who are "bipartisan" are, to me, no less the embodiment of dasein.

Ok, but I think America is more dictatorial than Britain.. hence our differing mindsets on the outlook, of matters. You guys aren’t given any/many choices on matters.. as the decisions have been made for you, in law.

For instance when Clint Eastwood banned ice-cream, when he was Mayor of a small beach town in California.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I’ve always said, that males are more emotional than females.. especially when it comes to spreading their seed, so this is not about me, it’s about you..?

What exactly does that have to do with my point though?

..in that, you’re reading far too much into the reason behind my responses and not the responses themselves.

How can what I said not have anything to do with your point?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are..

Of course you're not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your "intrinsic self" on the shoulder in order to "just know" what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual's personal experiences.

We are our experiences.. ever heard of that? I am mine, Maia is her’s, and you are your’s.. you have obviously had more/varied experiences than us, and obviously in different environments.

I would say that your past is haunting you, but you may want to disagree with that.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know..

Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you "think for yourself" as a result of this "inner you" ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it's the "intrinsic self" able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don't really have a clue regarding...how God and religion fits into all of this for you.

You think that this way of thinking is about soothing and consoling the self, but it’s about moving forward on decision-making and life itself.. religion has nothing to do with it, though morality has, and morality is not necessarily dependent on religion.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: My current thoughts on things, are personal to me.. private lives n dat.

You "just know" yourself and I don't.

But what you think you know about yourself is very different from what I think you think you know about yourself.

And feminism is but a single component of that.

I have been truthful thus far.. though yes, that doesn’t mean that you will understand/know 'I' from my perspective but from your own, perceived from what you have read and gathered in our exchanges.

For instance yesterday, I was bored and went into a charismatic character to amuse myself, lol.. a need arose, and I met the challenge. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:43 am

_
In solving moral dilemmas, which one/s is/are the odd one out?
__
Joe Biden signs anti-lynching bill in historic first
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60679930

MPs vote to keep at-home abortion service
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60930774

Police find five foetuses at the home of US anti-abortion activist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60950016

The Second Sex is a 1949 book by the French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir, in which the author discusses the treatment of women throughout history.. she famously wrote, 'One is not born, but rather becomes, woman'.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/1038399 ... 0099595731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex

'Conversion therapy': Ban to go-ahead but not cover trans people
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60947028

Facebook drives sceptics towards climate denial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60905348
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby Sculptor » Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:31 pm

iambiguous wrote:Actually, for those who do think like the men in these accounts do they really do need to subscribe to the New York Times. :wink:

Waste of money.
If I was going to pay for news from the Big Apple I'd chose the NewYorker.

As it is I find 99% of news media so biased as to be completely useless opinionated BS.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby Sculptor » Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:35 pm

MagsJ wrote:_
The unfeminisation of man..?



The New Political Cry in South Korea: ‘Out With Man Haters’

After slow gains in women’s rights, the country is facing a type of political correctness enforced by young men angry at feminists, saying they undermine opportunity.


China’s Ban on ‘Sissy Men’ Is Bound to Backfire

BEIJING — China is facing serious challenges on multiple fronts: Great power competition with the United States. Trade disputes. The future of Taiwan. But that doesn’t mean it’s too preoccupied to escalate a battle of another sort on the home front.

The Chinese government, you see, has been fighting what state news outlets have called a “masculinity crisis” for the past few years, with one top official warning that “effeminate” men in popular culture were corrupting “a generation.” The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece decreed that young men need to have “toughness and strength,” and censors have blurred out male celebrities’ earrings in television and online appearances.

That campaign has now taken a harsher turn. In recent months, the government has dialed things up into a full-blown culture war against unorthodox masculine expression, policing it in earnest.

In a slur-laden directive, television regulators in September banned “sissy men and other abnormal aesthetics” from appearing on television. Then in late November regulators cracked down on celebrities’ online profiles, their fan groups and advertising, citing “abnormal aesthetics” and threatening to shut down the online accounts of those who failed to fall in line.


There are plenty in the US, actually there are plenty on this Forum who would like this to happen throughout the West.
Giant strides have been made in the West but it is also going backwards to the 1950s as some states repeal same sex marriage law.
Why can't some people just let others be themselves?
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2738
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:31 pm

MagsJ wrote: Feminism.. like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence.. the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.


iambiguous wrote:Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective "intrinsic self"; and me from my own more or less subjective "fractured and fragmented" self.


MagsJ wrote: Why do you feel that you need to be subjectively involved, when considering your stance on societal matters?

Can you not consider such matters without having to implicate your own feelings in the mix? after-all, you’re not the one having an abortion.. requiring woman's rights.. etc. etc..

Perhaps you are just wired that way?


We are all hard wired to be "social animals". It's just that in particular contexts the question of gender roles comes up and we react to it. My point is that you seem to react to them given your own "intrinsic self", while I have nothing like this that "I" am aware of and, instead, respond in a more "fractured and fragmented" manner. Given my understanding of value judgments of this sort being predicated largely on dasein.

MagsJ wrote:..a global 'hive mind' of shared morals and actuality?


Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the "right makes might" communities.


MagsJ wrote: I always say.. you get what/who you vote for, so perhaps voters should start voting more wisely and think before they vote.. if votes count at all in some parts of the world, that is.


Then [for me] back again to voting wisely based on having an "intrinsic self" to guide you, or not having one. Being, instead, drawn and quartered given reasonable arguments that can be made from many sides in regard to gender roles.

Same with this...

MagsJ wrote: Clamping down on unrealistic body-image (re. the OP) is nothing new, and such body idealism is usually achieved by drastic unnatural means that are usually harmful to both physical and mental health, and has led to suicides or directly caused deaths.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but imitating photoshopped filtered elongated thinned-out images, of Idols.. is quite the feat, no? Your average person who uses those methods is deemed a catfish and ostracised.


You have your political prejudices here, others have theirs. Are they rooted more in dasein or in a frame of mind that philosophers [among others] can pin down as the most reasonable way to think about these things?

Again, that's the beauty of the "intrinsic self" approach to feminism. To government policy. To abortion. However it works, you "just know" how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there's no effective rebuttal against what another claims to "just know" intrinsically.


MagsJ wrote: It’s not about being told otherwise.. should another’s opinion matter to you, on something that is not personally affecting you? so in that instance, there is no place for someone like me to argue from.. but I can effect fairer outcomes, for those who are personally affected by the dilemma of whether to abort or not.


Of course it's about what others tell you they believe about these things. If the whole point is to arrive at "fairer outcomes" you have to hear each other out and decide what "for all practical purposes" that is. You have your "intrinsic self" to fall back on. I don't. Then those who have only their "objectivist self" to fall back on. You either construe "fair" here as they do or you are "one of them"...the irrational, immoral enemy.

MagsJ wrote: I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are..


Of course you're not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your "intrinsic self" on the shoulder in order to "just know" what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual's personal experiences.


MagsJ wrote: We are our experiences.. ever heard of that? I am mine, Maia is her’s, and you are your’s.. you have obviously had more/varied experiences than us, and obviously in different environments.

I would say that your past is haunting you, but you may want to disagree with that.


Yes, but the experiences that we all have can be different in any number of extraordinary ways. That's my point. Because we experience things in regard to our encounters with gender roles and abortion in very different ways we come to think about them in very different ways. You have come to conclude that in accumulating all of your own unique experiences here you have come to attain this "intrinsic" reaction to human interactions in the world around us. Whereas I have come to recognize that my own reaction to human relationships is derived more from the fact that "I" have experienced things in ways that others cannot really even begin to fathom. That and the manner in which I note that those on all of the many different "sides" pertaining to gender roles and abortion are able to construct rational arguments in a world bursting with "conflicting goods".

For me, it's not a question of our past haunting us but of it being what it was and as such having a profound impact on how we construe the present differently.

Thus [from my frame of mind]...

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know..


Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you "think for yourself" as a result of this "inner you" ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it's the "intrinsic self" able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don't really have a clue regarding...how God and religion fits into all of this for you.


MagsJ wrote: You think that this way of thinking is about soothing and consoling the self, but it’s about moving forward on decision-making and life itself.. religion has nothing to do with it, though morality has, and morality is not necessarily dependent on religion.


Okay, more of a No God morality. But you are able to "move forward" in regard to such things as gender roles and abortion whereas "I" am not. Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, you have access to this "intrinsic self" that allows you to at least imagine that there is a bullseye -- a "golden mean" -- to aim for. But: there is no "best of all possible worlds" for me...only a slew of moral and political prejudices out there all claiming that the bullseye is the one on their own moral and political "dartboard".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46841
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Patriarchy? Go East young man!

Postby MagsJ » Sun May 15, 2022 12:22 pm

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Feminism.. like any other social movement, centres around fairness and transparency for that particular social demographic. It’s about seamlessly integrating such movements into every day existence.. the old way of doing things then becoming obsolete.
iambiguous wrote:Then back to how you react to and judge particular instances of this from the perspective of your own more or less objective "intrinsic self"; and me from my own more or less subjective "fractured and fragmented" self.
MagsJ wrote: Why do you feel that you need to be subjectively involved, when considering your stance on societal matters?

Can you not consider such matters without having to implicate your own feelings in the mix? after-all, you’re not the one having an abortion.. requiring woman's rights.. etc. etc..

Perhaps you are just wired that way?

We are all hard wired to be "social animals". It's just that in particular contexts the question of gender roles comes up and we react to it. My point is that you seem to react to them given your own "intrinsic self", while I have nothing like this that "I" am aware of and, instead, respond in a more "fractured and fragmented" manner. Given my understanding of value judgments of this sort being predicated largely on dasein.

That is you’re intrinsic way, no..? only more input is required to be factored in, to derive your output/final decision(s)/judgement call.. though it does now seem less for you, these days.

Dasein.. by any other name, would still be present/exist.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:..a global 'hive mind' of shared morals and actuality?
iambiguous wrote:Yes, for the objectivists among us. Then when they acquire power, you damn well better toe their line. Especially in the "right makes might" communities.
MagsJ wrote: I always say.. you get what/who you vote for, so perhaps voters should start voting more wisely and think before they vote.. if votes count at all in some parts of the world, that is.

Then [for me] back again to voting wisely based on having an "intrinsic self" to guide you, or not having one. Being, instead, drawn and quartered given reasonable arguments that can be made from many sides in regard to gender roles.

I see.. yes, I factor a lot less in when creating my decision-making mindset on matters.. compared to you, but.. then again, I am a holist.

Perhaps pride/ego etc., are the blinkers that the patriarchy wear that hinders them, with less objectivity.. Eastern, or otherwise.

iambiguous wrote:Same with this...
MagsJ wrote: Clamping down on unrealistic body-image (re. the OP) is nothing new, and such body idealism is usually achieved by drastic unnatural means that are usually harmful to both physical and mental health, and has led to suicides or directly caused deaths.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but imitating photoshopped filtered elongated thinned-out images, of Idols.. is quite the feat, no? Your average person who uses those methods is deemed a catfish and ostracised.

You have your political prejudices here, others have theirs. Are they rooted more in dasein or in a frame of mind that philosophers [among others] can pin down as the most reasonable way to think about these things?

What you call political prejudices, I see as common sense.. so, are those with political prejudices fit to lead (by what example exactly)?

A case of standing for nothing by standing for everything, ergo.. lacking integrity.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Same with this...

Again, that's the beauty of the "intrinsic self" approach to feminism. To government policy. To abortion. However it works, you "just know" how it ought to work. And no one can tell you otherwise because there's no effective rebuttal against what another claims to "just know" intrinsically.
MagsJ wrote: It’s not about being told otherwise.. should another’s opinion matter to you, on something that is not personally affecting you? so in that instance, there is no place for someone like me to argue from.. but I can effect fairer outcomes, for those who are personally affected by the dilemma of whether to abort or not.

Of course it's about what others tell you they believe about these things. If the whole point is to arrive at "fairer outcomes" you have to hear each other out and decide what "for all practical purposes" that is. You have your "intrinsic self" to fall back on. I don't. Then those who have only their "objectivist self" to fall back on. You either construe "fair" here as they do or you are "one of them"...the irrational, immoral enemy.

My above reply is equally fitting here, in that those with political prejudices not making the most ideal governors.

Again.. a case of voters getting what/whom they voted for.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: I am not the one that is disturbed by circumstance, you are..
iambiguous wrote:Of course you're not. No matter the circumstances you just tap your "intrinsic self" on the shoulder in order to "just know" what to make of them. From the perspective of a more fractured and fragmented sense of self, however, circumstances are ever rooted in the political prejudices emanating from a particular individual's personal experiences.
MagsJ wrote: We are our experiences.. ever heard of that? I am mine, Maia is her’s, and you are your’s.. you have obviously had more/varied experiences than us, and obviously in different environments.

I would say that your past is haunting you, but you may want to disagree with that.

Yes, but the experiences that we all have can be different in any number of extraordinary ways. That's my point. Because we experience things in regard to our encounters with gender roles and abortion in very different ways we come to think about them in very different ways. You have come to conclude that in accumulating all of your own unique experiences here you have come to attain this "intrinsic" reaction to human interactions in the world around us. Whereas I have come to recognize that my own reaction to human relationships is derived more from the fact that "I" have experienced things in ways that others cannot really even begin to fathom. That and the manner in which I note that those on all of the many different "sides" pertaining to gender roles and abortion are able to construct rational arguments in a world bursting with "conflicting goods".

For me, it's not a question of our past haunting us but of it being what it was and as such having a profound impact on how we construe the present differently.

That ^^^ is the definition of haunting.

Spare the (proverbial) rod, spoil the masses/society.. leading to a quick decline in morality.

iambiguous wrote:Thus [from my frame of mind]...
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Do you not like others thinking for themselves?

There are all different kinds of minds out there, you know..
iambiguous wrote:Different minds emanating from what can be very different lives. But if you are convinced that you "think for yourself" as a result of this "inner you" ever and always guiding you, how likely is it that you will examine this from my own perspective? And why on earth would you? After all, it's the "intrinsic self" able to transcend contingency, chance and change in order to sustain your own comforting and consoling certainty about feminism and other things that allows you to ground I in that which does soothe you. Then around and around you go.

Then the part I still don't really have a clue regarding...how God and religion fits into all of this for you.
MagsJ wrote: You think that this way of thinking is about soothing and consoling the self, but it’s about moving forward on decision-making and life itself.. religion has nothing to do with it, though morality has, and morality is not necessarily dependent on religion.

Okay, more of a No God morality. But you are able to "move forward" in regard to such things as gender roles and abortion whereas "I" am not. Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, you have access to this "intrinsic self" that allows you to at least imagine that there is a bullseye -- a "golden mean" -- to aim for. But: there is no "best of all possible worlds" for me...only a slew of moral and political prejudices out there all claiming that the bullseye is the one on their own moral and political "dartboard".

Have you heard of something called 'mass consensus' and 'data collection'? It kinda resolves the issue you query above.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25704
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town


Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users