Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I would have initially been sceptical too, but I was watching a documentary about it the other night and looked into it some more. It's a bit more scientific than palm-reading.

Which documentary?
And what does "female brain" mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtkDM7upYJA

The full documentary.

Masculinity is a dichotomy with a limited reach, that can only be understood through its opposition: femininity.

It is a false dichotomy, if X is not masculine, it doesn’t mean it is feminine. and if X is masculine, it doesn’t mean it is not feminine.

But i agree with you.

In fact, the logical answer to that is "what makes a man a man, is that it is a man, by definition."
I could seem naive, but it is the logical answer.
If the real question is, "what is a man ?" or "what differentiate man from woman ?", then it should be asked that way. And then we could see it is not a philosophical question, but a biological question.
If the question is "what make a man, a real man ?", this question is pretty stupid, and should also be rephrased by something like "what make me estimate a man ?"
I mean, either a question have some implicit meaning that the author don’t know, or don’t want to show, or it could be responded logically. And most of the time the logical answer is straightforward.

Actually it's been scientifically proven that there are male and female brains. Some men have more strongly female brains and vice versa.

Then why call it female/male brains ?

dionisos wrote:

Actually it's been scientifically proven that there are male and female brains. Some men have more strongly female brains and vice versa.

Then why call it female/male brains ?

Probably because it's a brain-type that most women have, or most men have, but it's not set in concrete? How else could they describe it?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

dionisos wrote:

Actually it's been scientifically proven that there are male and female brains. Some men have more strongly female brains and vice versa.

Then why call it female/male brains ?

Probably because it's a brain-type that most women have, or most men have, but it's not set in concrete? How else could they describe it?

I think a less confusing way to say it, is that a female brain is the brain of a female, and a male brain is the brain of a male.
Then you could say that most female brains are of a type, and that most male brains are of another type.

The goal would be to avoid that a "female brain" mean "the brain of a female"(the "natural" meaning), and another time "a particular kind of brain that we think female have more that male", to avoid some misunderstandings and reasoning errors.
Maybe it is cumbersome, but i think it is more wise.

Just to give a example, you could see that for two kind of brain A and B, this two kind of brain could be much more often women brain that male brain.
And still, a man could have a type A brain, and not a type B brain.
This is obvious, but more hard to see if you call the type A brain, a "female" brain. You will not see that you could have also call the type B brain a "female" brain, even if it is two different type of brains.
And finally, it will be less obvious that what you call a "female" brain would change depending of the properties you are looking for.

I heard that Jews celebrate bar mitzvah when a boy becomes a serious member of the community.
So he becomes a "man" when he is supposed to take responsibility for his actions ?
And will not be forgiven easily any more ?

What "man" would not be considered a "real man" ?

A 30 year-old guy with XY who cries because someone "hurt his feelings" by calling him a name like "ape" and remains sulky for two days because of it and behaves like a three year old emotional brat ?

Does a real man have to endure hardships ?

"an approximation, and not determining"

Not determining, no, but certainly 'directing'.

XX/XY is baseline...variations occur and are recognized as such cuz there's a baseline.

#

"Does a real man have to endure hardships ?"

To live is to experience hardship. Friggin' bacteria experience hardship. The difference: only humans get all pissy about it.

Do you admire some men figures from Hollywood movies, henry ?
Or did you do as a youth ?

Being a man could be an ideal that most humans can agree on.
What´s your ideal ?

"Do you admire some men figures from Hollywood movies, henry ?"

No.

#

"Or did you do as a youth ?"

No.

#

Being a man could be an ideal that most humans can agree on. What´s your ideal ?

I got no real opinion on the subject. I admire folks who self-rely, or at least make the attempt (that covers a lot of territory), and don't have much time for folks who won't (also covers a lot of territory), but admiration is not idealizing.

Probably some sort of a scout boy ... who has grown up but is still able to find solutions to problems and to organize things.
A decent fellow with moral values that I share.

Or an inventor and an experimentor.

Inspector Colombo is a "real" man, isn´t he ?
He figures out things, he is funny, cheerful, adaptable to new situations.

You cannot expect more than this, can you ?

Is he an Italian American ?

duszek wrote:Inspector Colombo is a "real" man, isn´t he ?
He figures out things, he is funny, cheerful, adaptable to new situations.

I think this kind of poetry corrupt the meaning of words.
Inspector Colombo is not a real man, he is a fictional personage, Peter Falk is a real man.
"Real man", is a expression that should be used when there is a ambiguity between fictional or real. It should not be a expression used to say "i estimate this man", or "i think this man act like i think a man should act", or other things of the same kind.

Too easy to crack a joke here. Forget it.

Seriously though, what makes a man, or a woman? Their word being their bond. And decency to others.

dionisos wrote:

duszek wrote:Inspector Colombo is a "real" man, isn´t he ?
He figures out things, he is funny, cheerful, adaptable to new situations.

I think this kind of poetry corrupt the meaning of words.
Inspector Colombo is not a real man, he is a fictional personage, Peter Falk is a real man.
"Real man", is a expression that should be used when there is a ambiguity between fictional or real. It should not be a expression used to say "i estimate this man", or "i think this man act like i think a man should act", or other things of the same kind.

I formulate anew:

Inspector Colombo is an idea of a manly man.