Women and Philosophy
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Blaphbee said:
Even more, we're on a debate board. It would help to discard the truly idiotic ideas so we can move on to talk about interesting things.
A lot of this comes down to people quality. The best debates filter out the inexperienced, stupid, insane, etc. We cannot really do that here, so we have to instead sometimes exclude some opinions that are simply tedious.
But notice that no philosophers of any stature have ever been defenders of populist individualism.
AngelEyes wrote:
2 - It tells me and anyone else reading this that you're egomaniacal, and can't see any viewpoint which goes beyond this. Your self-referential reply derails a thread asking for reasons why women, not you personally, are not involved in philosophy. It's superfluous, and I probably wouldn't have said anything had you not given me yourself as a great example to utilize for my own argument.
3 - That's awesome. I don't see why you put on such a self-conscious facade when you post on a forum, but in any case, this is more superfluity. "Perfection" is a Utopian term, and subsequently unattainable in ultimate reality. I'm not telling anyone to be perfect, merely to be better then they are without stonewalling themselves into hiding behind manufactured excuses for passivity.
4 - Don't involve me in this. You're being superfluous again. This debate is about ideas as manifested in an idealized gender regarding their lack of involvement in a branch of higher thought, not the personalities debating it. In any case, your statement is a generalization based on what you've experienced ("most people base their opinions of the opposite sex on the success and failure of their relationships, thus Blaphbee must be doing this too"), so when you call my statement a generalization based on my past relationships, not only is it irrelavent, and not only is it patently untrue, it's hilariously hypocritical.
5 - Clearest statement you've made thus far. You didn't take the passive route, you fought the problem yourself. Bravo.
6 - Couldn't last, I guess; you're on to more bullshit. If I don't fall into lockstep with the insecurities and neurotic dysfunctionality and excuse-making passivity of the crowd, I shouldn't be posting here? Is this honestly what you're asking me? This is all just another excuse for the existence of your faults and inabilities. Forums are for debating, and only fools think that opinions won't be changed, and that some statements have more truth to them than others.
7 - Stop harping on this, it's really not helping. I'm different from you, which should be remarkably clear to anyone reading this. Don't try and bring me down to your basic level of comprehension, and stop derailing the thread. You're trying to discredit everything I say by misrepresenting the idea with the representative. The ideas outlast the both of us, and will do so eternally. We have to make a choice about which path is actually healthy, and which ones are unhealthy. A healthy path involves some degree of personal sacrifice.
1 - Hiding behind sarcasm to defend your ego, self-image and moral high ground is contemptible, if you think that it in any way debunks my argument. You blow of my points with sarcasm? You're dodging the bullet, so that you as an individual can come out with your precious self-conception intact, and then you won't have to face any hard truths, because you're morally superior to the person who was pointing out hard reality. That's called shit-talking.
2 - It tells me and anyone else reading this that you're egomaniacal, and can't see any viewpoint which goes beyond this. Your self-referential reply derails a thread asking for reasons why women, not you personally, are not involved in philosophy. It's superfluous, and I probably wouldn't have said anything had you not given me yourself as a great example to utilize for my own argument.
3 - That's awesome. I don't see why you put on such a self-conscious facade when you post on a forum, but in any case, this is more superfluity. "Perfection" is a Utopian term, and subsequently unattainable in ultimate reality. I'm not telling anyone to be perfect, merely to be better then they are without stonewalling themselves into hiding behind manufactured excuses for passivity.
4 - Don't involve me in this. You're being superfluous again. This debate is about ideas as manifested in an idealized gender regarding their lack of involvement in a branch of higher thought, not the personalities debating it. In any case, your statement is a generalization based on what you've experienced ("most people base their opinions of the opposite sex on the success and failure of their relationships, thus Blaphbee must be doing this too"), so when you call my statement a generalization based on my past relationships, not only is it irrelavent, and not only is it patently untrue, it's hilariously hypocritical.
5 - Clearest statement you've made thus far. You didn't take the passive route, you fought the problem yourself. Bravo.
6 - Couldn't last, I guess; you're on to more bullshit. If I don't fall into lockstep with the insecurities and neurotic dysfunctionality and excuse-making passivity of the crowd, I shouldn't be posting here? Is this honestly what you're asking me? This is all just another excuse for the existence of your faults and inabilities. Forums are for debating, and only fools think that opinions won't be changed, and that some statements have more truth to them than others.
7 - Stop harping on this, it's really not helping. I'm different from you, which should be remarkably clear to anyone reading this. Don't try and bring me down to your basic level of comprehension, and stop derailing the thread. You're trying to discredit everything I say by misrepresenting the idea with the representative. The ideas outlast the both of us, and will do so eternally. We have to make a choice about which path is actually healthy, and which ones are unhealthy. A healthy path involves some degree of personal sacrifice.
Aren't you paying attention?The Hubster said: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
THIS DEBATE ISN'T ABOUT THE PERSONALITIES ON DISPLAY, IT'S ABOUT WOMEN AND THEIR PLACE IN PHILOSOPHY. STOP DRAGGING ME INTO IT - THINGS DON'T PROGRESS (lol) WHEN YOU DO THAT.
Especially when you keep telling me "don't worry, be happy". This entire post of yours is ad hom, and is another attempt at derailment.
And how.infoterror said:
Maybe, just maybe, we can take this beyond the egomania that's running rampant and causing everyone to piss all over themselves in frustrated personal offense to a few things that have been mentioned, and return to the task at hand?
Justin S.
Member
infoterror said:
Only when you use language incorrectly.
There is a proposition; commenting on it (the logic of its symbols/signs) is a particular statement (not universal). I showed how "~absolute" is still a universal proposition, in which it claims absence of totality, while it exercises it.
Unless you further explain your statement, it appears to suffer from misuse of language (fallacy of ambiguity).
-Dry analytic over-
Infoterror: why the snide comments?
Justin S. said:
No, you asserted it, and I pointed out that if that is true, so is what I said.
Your comments are stupid and I am going to point that out, sorry. Attending class doesn't make you a philosopher, and the kind of petty bickering you're doing above is what drags these forums into one form of utter stupidity.
Justin S.
Member
infoterror said:
Infoterror, you are not on any more solid intellectual ground than the people you attack (and that is an appropiate word choice).
Your propositions revolve around (very flawed) metaphysical assumptions, just like your opponents (this may be, to some degree inescapable, and I am hardly immune, but I try very hard to be aware of them when they are exposed). Multiple parties, never getting anywhere because they fail to understand language, as well as even attempt to intially place a priori to the side.
None of your points are new, or demand much as a thinker, because they are manifest. You thump your chest over tautolgies that honesty reveals. The problem is not your criticism of social norms/beliefs, it is in your propositions of what to replace them with.
If you want an intellectual trial, by all means, post your thoughts of what to do and we will give it a fair evaluation.
Justin S.
Member
Infoterror: I have a wide sweeping unsusbtantiated statement--quite a bit like your sweeping unsubstantiated statements "No two physically-defined groups are equal"; "Women and men are not equal"--that yes, I have always believed most intelligent human beings are fascists or authoritarian tyrants in their hearts. But, since so very very few of us are ever able to live out or see our beliefs and ideas put into action, most are intelligent enough to get over themselves. It takes a truly secure individual to consider other ideas and opinions other than one's own. It doesnt mean you have to accept these ideas, but if one cannot bear to listen to them, to consider them, then one is not only insecure, but a fool whose own growth will be stifled. You and Blaphee appear to be even more insecure than Angel Eyes. Neither one of you can take criticism or entertain opinions that differ from your own narrow extremist world view. These opinions and criticisms are met with either petty sarcastic comments, or arguments based on semantics.
The funny thing is i know infoterror hates the Bush administration. WHy? Because the Bush administration employs the same line of narrow ideological thinking as infoterror and his cronies. They do not entertain criticism or differing ideas and opinions; they think themselves infallible, and meet any attacks or criticism of their infallibility with insults, smear campaigns, and indifference.
That being said, you both raise many interesting ideas, but they are ignored by everyone because of your childish and insecure behavior. Really, read over your posts. You are addressing everyone on this board like children, or you attack them like a grade school bully. Anyone left responding is doing so out of contempt for your behavior.
The funny thing is i know infoterror hates the Bush administration. WHy? Because the Bush administration employs the same line of narrow ideological thinking as infoterror and his cronies. They do not entertain criticism or differing ideas and opinions; they think themselves infallible, and meet any attacks or criticism of their infallibility with insults, smear campaigns, and indifference.
That being said, you both raise many interesting ideas, but they are ignored by everyone because of your childish and insecure behavior. Really, read over your posts. You are addressing everyone on this board like children, or you attack them like a grade school bully. Anyone left responding is doing so out of contempt for your behavior.
Hubster
...
As I've said before, this is exactly what I've been trying to point out to these two guys.
You're both hell-bent on trying to prove everyone around you wrong. Have you not noticed that everyone leaves discussion once you both come into it? You two are so narrow minded it's just incredible, you just can't listen to anyone nor actually respond to anything other than trying to prove you're right.
I'm happy to have differences of opinion, and you both do raise interesting points just as Speed has said, but change your bloody tactics. You might get some more enjoyable conversation this way.
The only reason I've still been responding is that I keep my fingers crossed hoping you guys will relax!
You're both hell-bent on trying to prove everyone around you wrong. Have you not noticed that everyone leaves discussion once you both come into it? You two are so narrow minded it's just incredible, you just can't listen to anyone nor actually respond to anything other than trying to prove you're right.
I'm happy to have differences of opinion, and you both do raise interesting points just as Speed has said, but change your bloody tactics. You might get some more enjoyable conversation this way.
The only reason I've still been responding is that I keep my fingers crossed hoping you guys will relax!
Can't beat the argument, so criticize the source. Have you noticed this place is dead whenever you try to pacify it, and that perhaps people leave arguments when I or others intervene because they've seen how shallow the arguments were in the first place?
Hubster
...
Actually it dies when you guys start telling everyone theyre wrong. By the time I make any attempt at pacifying its too late because everyone else has left.
Arguments are fine, but there are constructive arguments and nonconstructive arguments.
Arguments are fine, but there are constructive arguments and nonconstructive arguments.
infoterror said:
I agree there are a number of ridiculous and shallow arguments (and I am sure ive contributed to a number of them), but one can poke fun and mock them in something other than a condescending manner. How about question their idiotic opinions, or offer conclusive evidence other than linguistic tricks agaisnt their opinion or hypothesis? I mean Jesus, you guys are smart enough to figure this out.
Really, I agree with you guys on a vast majority of your points, but if you ever want to have anyone take you seriously, or read what you write, you have to at least meet people half way, or pretend you care what they are saying and then tell them why they are wrong.
Hubster
...
speed said:
It depends on the person: I care what the halfway smart or better ones are saying. People who repeat truly stupid things do not interest me, yet they insist on participating in this debate.
Well, well. An impasse. And what to do? In real, practical terms, what should be done? I'm not going to bend over backward explaining concepts they can't understand to them; I want to move forward and talk about the debate itself, not pander to their deficiencies!
The Hubster said:
Aren't you telling us we're wrong? (And you wonder why people write you off as not having a clue?)
NeverIsForever
Member
Wow, this thread has gone to pot. It's probably a lost cause by now, but I have a question that's back on-topic, sort of. Since women clearly do not show nearly as much interest in philosophy as men...what, if anything, are they contemplating instead? What void does philosophy fill for men that women either choose to fill in a different way, or don't have in the first place? Ideas?...
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
I think that women contemplate the more social issues dealing with the people in their life and how it affects them and the ones they care about. Where as men tend to think more on an Ideology. My Philosophy Prof explained this in terms of a very contoversial topic, abortion. Men like to say, its either wrong(killing), or its right(womens choice) but a woman would definately consider how it will affect not only herself, but her lover, parents, friends, and anyone else she might affect from her decision. Obviously its a generalization but proves a point.
