La Rocque said:
As usual, the insecure Crowdists attack the lone guy making sense. They will claim technically they did not engage in a violation first, but that's only because inanity is not technically a violation.
Women and Philosophy
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
As usual, the insecure Crowdists attack the lone guy making sense. They will claim technically they did not engage in a violation first, but that's only because inanity is not technically a violation.
Demiurge
This user has no title
If all people have foibles, does that make it meaningless to call a person insecure? No, it does not. Insecure is a determination of degree. Saying that all people have insecurities as if that is pertinent to the discussion merely shows you to have an underdeveloped understanding of language.
I entirely agree with Blaphbee. If we refuse to pity this new poster trolling for sympathy, maybe she will shape up or ship out.
I entirely agree with Blaphbee. If we refuse to pity this new poster trolling for sympathy, maybe she will shape up or ship out.
Anyway, if possible, may we advance this discussion?
As I see it, there are two major themes that should be addressed: 1) Is Blaphee correct, and all women are insecure and victims and as such, can never rise above general mainstream thought and ideas? 2) Or, is there another reason? My personal opinion is that women are tied to the world more so than men, and thus abstract thinking is not as attractive. If you bear children and raise them, I think one is far less compelled to artificially create metaphysical fantasies to shield one from the realities of life.
If anyone else has other ideas, please share them.
As I see it, there are two major themes that should be addressed: 1) Is Blaphee correct, and all women are insecure and victims and as such, can never rise above general mainstream thought and ideas? 2) Or, is there another reason? My personal opinion is that women are tied to the world more so than men, and thus abstract thinking is not as attractive. If you bear children and raise them, I think one is far less compelled to artificially create metaphysical fantasies to shield one from the realities of life.
If anyone else has other ideas, please share them.
Don't generalize my position. I may think all women (and yes, all men too) have some degree of dysfunction - this can be measured in infinitesmal amount, all the way to full out undiagnosed schizophrenia - but i don't think they are all victims. Far from it. However, a good many of them are, and embrace their victimization.
Really, for all intents and purposes, this is not a discussion you can put into easy categories like the post above. Some generalizations can be made - given the fact that you don't come across a great deal of female philosophers throughout history, one can surmise that it obviously didn't appeal to them enough to try their hand at it (and yes, i am including pre-feminist times as well as "women's liberation"; regardless of whatever "oppression" or "freedom" they had or have now, you don't see very many at all) - thus, why are we wasting our time here again? Seems I missed that point somewhere.
Really, for all intents and purposes, this is not a discussion you can put into easy categories like the post above. Some generalizations can be made - given the fact that you don't come across a great deal of female philosophers throughout history, one can surmise that it obviously didn't appeal to them enough to try their hand at it (and yes, i am including pre-feminist times as well as "women's liberation"; regardless of whatever "oppression" or "freedom" they had or have now, you don't see very many at all) - thus, why are we wasting our time here again? Seems I missed that point somewhere.
NeverIsForever
Member
If anything, I believe that insecurity would drive one to seek an alternate school of thought. Why continue faith in, and concern for, something that makes you feel ugly, worthless, stupid, etc., in this case mainstream ideals?speed said:
I seem to be fairly alone in this logic, however. I can't help but laugh at the way women complain about how pop culture, fashion magazines, etc. damage their self-esteem by presenting them with these perfect ideals that they will probably never live up to...and then they continue to seek these negative influences out.
speed said:
The above is 100% extra-argumentative ad hominem.
I don't see how this is constructive in any sense; do you?
Justin S.
Member
The statement "there are no absolutes", is absolute (universal proposition). Massive contradiction within that line of thinking.
infoterror said:
He started it by insulting Angel Eyes and Never Is Forever, and franky I dont see why you are stirring this up after it has already come and gone. How is your comment constructive?
Blaphbee said:
Really, I am taking your words and ideas pretty much verbatim. It is your fault you didnt expound your true intentions on previous posts; now you have.
To me, the purpose of all threads I create ( and this is one of them), is to pose a question i either have no idea about, or I have ideas about but I want to read opposing opinions, flaws in my logic, new opinions and so on. You seem to post to the infallibility of your beliefs and opinions. Now which is better? I suppose it depends on what one wants to get out of the conversation.
Hubster
...
Women have to stand the dominance of a stronger entity, namely the male species since time immemorial. Have to point out that some women dislike or don't understand some male domains. But that does not necessarily mean that women in general lacked interest in such domains?
Women can think too you know..
Women can think too you know..
Justin S. said:
Yet the statement "'there are no absolutes' is absolute" also falls prey to the same contention. WHATEVER TO DO, OH PANICKED RODENT?
Hubster
...
hehe you two are funny... I've saw in another thread you guys are hammering it out. Hope you don't live in the same street!
speed said:
Everyone who posts in a thread seems to be authoritarian in their beliefs. Get over it. Come on children, grow up. You're whining queens who contribute nothing. Either start discussing this like men, or put a gun in your mouth and stop that bullshit generator you call a brain from wasting more oxygen.
I would like to see this thread further discussed. My points are as follows:
1) No two individuals are equal.
2) No two physically-defined groups are equal.
3) Women and men are not equal.
4) This is important so that we can find out which roles are appropriate to each.
AND HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING, KIDDIES:
5) However, this is not cause for moral judgment in an evaluative sense; it calls for a practical placement, and nothing more.
I think people will freak:
Leftists: #3
Rightists: #5
I want to change the opinions of both groups without necessarily using my rifle. Any suggestions, oh infinitely authoritatively wise children?
Hubster
...
I think it would be fair to say that anyone passionate enough will feel somewhat authoritarian. That's not to say that anyone who is passionate on this planet is bound to feel authoritarian, I'm saying that authoritarianism could be a side-effect/result of simply feeling really passionate about topics like this and many others discussed in this forum (keep in mind, this is in context of this forum). It's only natural to feel that we all know something (I'm not saying it's right, simply that it does exist).
infoterror - by you saying "infinitely authoritatively wise children" you're implying practice of authoritarianism yourself!
Also, you can not, and have no authority change ANYONE's opinion. The individuals are to be the sole decision makers in that process.
infoterror - by you saying "infinitely authoritatively wise children" you're implying practice of authoritarianism yourself!
Also, you can not, and have no authority change ANYONE's opinion. The individuals are to be the sole decision makers in that process.
Well, this makes me think of the old punchline: "I respect your right to your opinion, even if I may not agree with it."
Why then, based on what you just said, should I tolerate someone's opinion when it isn't correct? If it simply exists, great - if it isn't right, then where do we go from there? Over to the next dipshit with an incorrect opinion?
Hubster
...
I *dare* you to say something positive
Go on, drop the act and try it out. Bet you can't do it.
And furthermore, I'll bet you won't agree with me when I say that the colour of the text "The Philosopher" at the very top of this page is white on a black background. Come on, disagree with me. You know you want to.
LOL
//shakes head
Go on, drop the act and try it out. Bet you can't do it.
And furthermore, I'll bet you won't agree with me when I say that the colour of the text "The Philosopher" at the very top of this page is white on a black background. Come on, disagree with me. You know you want to.
LOL
//shakes head
