What truly galls the warmongering class is that real heroes don't give a damn what the political pawns call them.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:59 am So true. Calling all soldiers 'brave heroes' is a brilliant piece of war marketing because the implication is that those who choose not to be political pawns are by default 'cowards', not 'heroes'.
A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
You presume too much. If you read carefully, you would notice I wrote, "I love all women, but especially those who love themselves, and love being a woman." All women includes all the Xanthippe's in this world, and if you knew my wife you could never had made that comment.
Perhaps you can only love a certain kind of woman, but I know no such limitation. One cannot be a phylogynist about only some women, and a misogynist about all others. Isn't that what you have implied?
The most feminine women are strong, fiercely independent, and self-confident who require neither belligerence or crudeness to be all they can be. (The same is true of the most masculine men.)
Read again, I said, "No real woman needs a, 'role model.'" If you think they do, you are presuming to know better than a woman what she should be.
A philosopher is one who has discovered what the purpose of his life is and how to achieve it. It is not to be the sacrificial animal of all others, as Socrates implied, but to be and achieve all one can as a human being and to fully enjoy one's life. Everyone's different. Perhaps Socrates, the original hippie, enjoyed a shrew. I think it is presumptuous to assume what the best kind of wife is for others.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
If they are reared by wild animals their initial role models are their wild animal parents.If they are reared by humans their initial role models are their human parents.The most feminine women are strong, fiercely independent, and self-confident who require neither belligerence or crudeness to be all they can be. (The same is true of the most masculine men.)
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
But is there such thing as achievement without sacrifice?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:55 pm A philosopher is one who has discovered what the purpose of his life is and how to achieve it. It is not to be the sacrificial animal of all others, as Socrates implied, but to be and achieve all one can as a human being and to fully enjoy one's life. Everyone's different.
It seems there's a tension in your narrative between Epicureanism and Stoicism. It was the Stoics who ultimately valued purpose and self-sacrifice. The Epicureans settled for pleasures of the senses.
A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean. At its cradle (to repeat a thoughtful adage) religion stands, and philosophy accompanies it to the grave. --Will Durant
In a way Epicureanism is seen as the feminine curse - great sensitivity and active avoidance of negative emotions. The Stoics interpret that as "weakness".
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
So what? No one is required to follow a role model and those who know what it means to be a human being don't.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:13 pmIf they are reared by wild animals their initial role models are their wild animal parents.If they are reared by humans their initial role models are their human parents.The most feminine women are strong, fiercely independent, and self-confident who require neither belligerence or crudeness to be all they can be. (The same is true of the most masculine men.)
Everyone is whatever they choose to be.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
Of course. Giving up something of lesser value for something of higher value is not a sacrifice.
If you think femininity is a kind of inferiority, that sensitivity is a weakness (which has nothing to do with avoiding negative emotions, whatever those are), then you do not understand women at all. In many practical ways women are generally stronger then men, are able to endure more pain, have more patience, and will work harder for what they truly value. Of course no generalization characterizes any individual, but to suggest femininity is a curse is just misogyny.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
But giving up something of infinite value for something else of infinite value is sacrifice. Especially when you deeply cherish both!RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:28 pm Of course. Giving up something of lesser value for something of higher value is not a sacrifice.
You wouldn't give up your daughter's life to save your son, would you?
Way to mis-understand!RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:28 pm If you think femininity is a kind of inferiority, that sensitivity is a weakness (which has nothing to do with avoiding negative emotions, whatever those are), then you do not understand women at all. In many practical ways women are generally stronger then men, are able to endure more pain, have more patience, and will work harder for what they truly value.
From your very own definition "Giving up something of lesser value for something of higher value is not a sacrifice."
To an Epicurean the highest value is the pursuit of happiness/ataraxia/eudaimonia.
Therefore, to an Epicurean giving up happiness/ataraxia/eudaimonia for emotional pain would be a sacrifice.
If you do choose hardship over happiness/ataraxia/eudaimonia then you can't call yourself an Epicurean.
But I didn't suggest that? "Femininity is a curse" are your words, not mine.
What I said was "In a way Epicureanism is seen as the feminine curse.". Just like emotionless Stoicism is seen as the masculine curse.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
No it isn't.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:32 pmBut giving up something of infinite value for something else of infinite value is sacrifice.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:28 pm Of course. Giving up something of lesser value for something of higher value is not a sacrifice.
Another's life is neither mine to "give up," or to, "save." There is no possible situation where such a choice could come up.
Yes, I know what you said. What is a, "feminine curse?" To anyone else it would mean femininity itself is a kind of curse, else it would not be a curse at all.
You still don't know what disingenuous means?
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
It's a daily occurrence for doctors. Soldiers. Police officers. People who have skin in the game.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm Another's life is neither mine to "give up," or to, "save." There is no possible situation where such a choice could come up.
Maybe it's a foreign concept to philosophers, but just because you play ostrich and pretend it doesn't happen in real life, it doesn't make it true.
You tell us. It's your phrase.
Is that how you've chosen to interpret my sentence?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pm To anyone else it would mean femininity itself is a kind of curse, else it would not be a curse at all.
It says a lot about you.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
Yeah. It is. It's right in the word "giving up".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:14 pmNo it isn't.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:32 pmBut giving up something of infinite value for something else of infinite value is sacrifice.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:28 pm Of course. Giving up something of lesser value for something of higher value is not a sacrifice.
Not giving up ANYTHING is better than giving up something. It's the difference between an actual and a false dilemma.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
You are confusing concepts. I said from a man's point of view and you wrote of a woman's point of view.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:55 pmYou presume too much. If you read carefully, you would notice I wrote, "I love all women, but especially those who love themselves, and love being a woman." All women includes all the Xanthippe's in this world, and if you knew my wife you could never had made that comment.
Perhaps you can only love a certain kind of woman, but I know no such limitation. One cannot be a phylogynist about only some women, and a misogynist about all others. Isn't that what you have implied?
The most feminine women are strong, fiercely independent, and self-confident who require neither belligerence or crudeness to be all they can be. (The same is true of the most masculine men.)Read again, I said, "No real woman needs a, 'role model.'" If you think they do, you are presuming to know better than a woman what she should be.
A philosopher is one who has discovered what the purpose of his life is and how to achieve it. It is not to be the sacrificial animal of all others, as Socrates implied, but to be and achieve all one can as a human being and to fully enjoy one's life. Everyone's different. Perhaps Socrates, the original hippie, enjoyed a shrew. I think it is presumptuous to assume what the best kind of wife is for others.
Pursuit of the love of wisdom is not the same as striving to enjoy life. From a man's point of view, the woman that makes a man happy is not the same as the pain in the ass who furthers pursuit of the love of wisdom as Socrates described. Different qualities of men need different qualities in women.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
Where did you get the notion that you know "what it means to be human" ? You got it from role models.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:15 pmSo what? No one is required to follow a role model and those who know what it means to be a human being don't.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:13 pmIf they are reared by wild animals their initial role models are their wild animal parents.If they are reared by humans their initial role models are their human parents.The most feminine women are strong, fiercely independent, and self-confident who require neither belligerence or crudeness to be all they can be. (The same is true of the most masculine men.)
Everyone is whatever they choose to be.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
That is the crux of our difference. I do not know what you have chosen to live for, but I have chosen to live as the best human being I can be and to enjoy that life (which are really the same thing). The ultimate alternative all human beings face is to live to enjoy one's life, achieving and being all one can be, or to suffer and die.
The whole purpose of wisdom is to know how to live successfully in this world and to enjoy it.
Others may choose some lesser purpose, if they like, but if they do, it is to be something less than a human can be, something dull and pointless and of no value at all.
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
Belinda, it is a mistake to assume that others come to their views in the same way you do. I know you cannot even imagine that others actually think for themselves without role models. Perhaps all your views are based on role models you have been exposed to and if you are happy with that, good for you.
I know what a human being, a dog, an apple, a problem, and a purpose are, which is the same as saying I know what it means to be a human being, a dog, an apple, a problem, or a purpose. If you mean by, "role model," an actual existent (a human being, dog, apple, problem, or purpose), it is not necessary to actually see or experience something to know what it means to be that something. I know what it means to be a turritopsis dohrnii, though I've never seen one or a model of one. It is a small jellyfish found in the Mediterranean and in the waters of Japan and is genetically immortal, that is, it changes its form to survive changing conditions but returns to its normal genetically identical form and can do this perpetually.
Now you know what it means to be a turritopsis dohrnii too, and without a role model. A concept is not a role model.
Re: A ROLE MODEL FOR WOMEN
RC Saunders, indeed you know what it means for you yourself to be a human being.
It seems very likely that you were reared by humans not monkeys or wolves. it is from these humans who reared you that you learned to be a socialised human being. These particular humans who reared you , whoever they are , are 'role models'. I guess you must be using the term 'role models' in some way that I am not familiar with.
It seems very likely that you were reared by humans not monkeys or wolves. it is from these humans who reared you that you learned to be a socialised human being. These particular humans who reared you , whoever they are , are 'role models'. I guess you must be using the term 'role models' in some way that I am not familiar with.