Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 What is Philosophy?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: What is Philosophy? Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:25 pm

Philosophy is the search for truth, primarily using doubt. Whereas science uses hypothesis and religion uses faith, to search for truth. Doubt is the primary tool of philosophers. So what is doubt? Doubt is a form of rejection, skepticism, and distrust. A very doubtful person doesn't believe what trusted people tell him. Conspiracy theorists are good examples of cynics and skeptics. They don't believe in many institutional lies. However, they do believe that "somebody is out to get me". With great distrust, there is often an underlying fear.

In order to answer the question of what philosophy is, doubt must primarily be analyzed. Without doubt, philosophy doesn't make much sense. So it is senseless to analyze philosophy without analyzing doubt as well.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: What is Doubt? Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:45 pm

Doubt is a specialized type of thought.

Science has hypothesis, experimentation, measuring, and testing. Religion has blind faith. These other forms of specialized thoughts are important just as is doubt. But the philosopher specializes in this "negative" type of thinking. Scientists and religious people will see doubt as "negative", bad, and sometimes useless. What use does doubt have inside a church? Doubt is unwanted and unwelcome inside a church. Because doubt runs counter to the interest of religious institutions.

Science is a mix of doubt and faith. A scientist must run tests and experiments, and doubt "incorrect" results and procedures. If experiments do not result in expected, ideal outcomes, then the scientist will doubt the result, and run the test again and again. Reproducing results is a critical element of science. If a scientist cannot reproduce results, then the experiment is claimed to be invalid. The weakness of science is attempting to reproduce rare events, like attempting to clone a dinosaur. Science must use speculation, faith, with regard to dinosaurs. So in many areas, science crosses over to philosophy or religion. With more speculative science, quantum theory, singularities, cosmic origins, these areas are much more open to doubt and faith than "hard science". Hard science usually revolves around math, which is a specialized language, primarily aimed at reproducing results. 1 + 1 = 2 every time, according to the rules of the language. Math is not open to interpretation. Therefore it is a choice language of science.


But doubt is something very different. Doubt corresponds with reason. Philosophy is the realm of reason. Philosophers are the "most reasonable" thinkers and men in history. Philosophy, doubt, and reason are all part of philosophical thought. Philosophers focus on reasons. What logic and rationalization are you using? What are you thinking about? How are you justifying your beliefs? Philosophers try to attain truth by destroying faith. You destroy all beliefs, believe in nothing. Criticize and scrutinize everything.

If there is something you cannot scrutinize, if some values are "off the table" and "not open to interpretation", then philosophers hone in on these types of "illegal" thoughts. Why are these thoughts illegal? Why are these, special beliefs, immune to criticism? Why can't we talk about race and sex, in some conversations? Why can't we discuss somethings with some people?

The philosopher's ears pique up with interest and curiosity when a "taboo" topic is broached, penetrated. Hushes and whispers, "we're not supposed to talk about this", why not?

What are people overwhelmingly disallowed to doubt? God? Western civilization has proclaimed the death of god. So this means, a new target is needed for philosophy. Where should philosophers aim doubt, when and if God is dead? Who is the next target? What is the next subject? What is next to doubt?

Science? Politics? Reality? The doors are open. All is open to doubt. How about existence?

What can you not doubt? What do you refuse to doubt, except your core values? Do you know your own core values? What will you refuse to analyze? What will you die for, before doubting? Where is your core faith? What is your highest belief? Do you have any thoughts or beliefs worth fighting for, dying for? Do you have anything valuable within your life, do you own anything? Do you own your life?

Are you even alive? Doubt can be applied to everything. And the one who applies it to all, is the philosopher.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Sufficient Reason Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:41 pm

A most profound philosopher is never satisfied with all the accumulated knowledge across the world.

No amount of reasoning is ever enough. There is always more to do, more to think about. There are always more reasons, which reflect a growing imagination of possibilities. Human awareness, consciousness, is growing. And with this growing consciousness, reasons, possibilities, and imagination also grow. Sometimes philosophical wisdom grows or shrinks, expands or contracts. Different ages of humanity represent different explosions or collapses.

Sometimes quantity wins over quality. Sometimes the fool defeats the wise. Sometimes the stupid beats the smart. Sometimes numbers overcome one. There are no promises. The environment of philosophy is temporary. It may not last long. It may not last forever. Philosophy is built on privilege.

You don't have to hunt or farm your food. It is already on your plate. You don't need to walk to town for supplies. You can drive your car, takes just a minute now. You don't need to wait months for an opera or theater play. Television gives you instant entertainment, endless hours of it. Some men don't "need" anything anymore, as it is all provided on a tray, or a silver or golden platter. It doesn't even matter whether you're rich or poor, everybody gets the basics.

So what is left to do, what remains? Which thoughts do the peoples throughout the world default onto? Rare thoughts? No, common thoughts. Common beliefs, hopes, dreams, fears. The commoner demands common thought. They accept this, at an early age. A common education for common people, commoners.

But philosophy is uncommon. Your thoughts, your doubt, is not so easily quelled and sated. Whereas reasons would satisfy the commoner, they don't satisfy you. They asked a few questions. You still have dozens more, maybe a hundred. You are loaded with questions, doubts. And nobody, nobody, no matter how hard you search, seems to answer them. Common people are reluctant to answer questions. Dangerous questions. Philosophical questions. People will avoid you. You ask too many questions.

Too much doubt, in this one. He must be a troubled boy. Different. Maybe good or bad, society can't tell, yet. Because, what are the nature of your questions, philosophers? What do they represent? What does doubt represent within you, except, a lack of knowledge. A lack of certainty, conviction, confidence. Why are you so self doubting? Why do you hesitate when others take blind risks on blind faith? The fools rush forward in battle. Why do you hesitate? Why do you hang back when everybody else dives over the cliff?

So much doubt, you'll get left behind.

And your mind is never sufficed, is it? Never a sufficient reason. Ever. Because most people give up. "I just don't know." I just don't have all the answers. It hurts, doesn't it? Admitting that you don't know, that you lack knowledge and wisdom about somethings, or many things. It can humiliate the average joe. It does humiliate them. Commoners are humiliated by questions. So where does this put the philosopher?

Is it a mark of humility or pride, that you know so little, that you may even know nothing at all? Because you simply are not satisfied. Your mind is spoiled. You're greedy with thoughts and ideas. You gather so many rare ideas, but, they're not enough. You need more, and more, and more. More reasons, give me more reasons. I need more.

The philosopher needs more, reason, to satiate his doubt. His doubt represents his hunger, for knowledge, information, wisdom. Truth. Feed the need.

The pathology, the brain of the philosopher, is marked, sometimes considered a curse or affliction, or even a disability, hindrance, perhaps a mental illness. An obsession, a compulsion, to know, to learn, to understand, when everybody already gave up and went home.

They got theirs. You didn't get yours. Everybody had their cake, ate it too, and left. But you are marked by an addiction, to reason. No matter how much cake you eat, no matter how many reasons you imbibe to quell the hunger of your mind, the starvation never ends. You have a void inside your head. Fill it with reason, philosopher.

Never sufficient reason, never enough. Not all the reasons in the world, here, now, or all the philosophers of the past, not all of their great tomes and books stacked before you, is enough.

Greed. And need. For wisdom.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Discrimination Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:55 pm

Doubt is a tool of the philosopher.

But what does he doubt? Does the philosopher doubt all? Must the philosopher doubt all? At least, it is good practice to doubt all. Maybe philosophers should doubt all idea. Maybe all existence is open to reinterpretation. Maybe all values can be revalued and reevaluated. Maybe the best philosopher can overturn all aspects of reality insofar as no belief is immune to doubt. I mean, which are? Which of your values to you hold onto most firmly when death confronts you, and death will someday knock at your doorstep. When you die, what will you fight for? What is the last, final memory that will pass through your consciousness?

Which final thought, belief, value, will you take with you to the other side, into the void of nothingness?

Many people who have near death experiences claim to see the white light, and think of their loved ones. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Will your last thought be a regret or a memory to cherish? Regret or cherish? Hate life or love it? Death will expose the truth. No effort or energy is necessary. Death will prove the truth of your memories, beliefs, values. I don't need to do anything.

But philosophers should already know this when confronted to death. You will be challenged. And you will have a final moment.

Doubt is dangerous. Because you can go through life overturning all humanistic lies. Doubt is a very effective tool to see through those who will deceive you, and mean to deceive you. It is easy to doubt what you never believed in from the onset. But what if, a possibility, that people are telling you the truth? If people are telling you the truth, and you doubt them, then this is a disadvantage. The philosopher must know when to doubt. And this means discriminating truth apart from lies, and from falsity.

If a philosopher cannot discriminate, then he will eventually doubt the truth when presented to him. You had a chance to accept reality as it is, but, you blew it, because you doubted it. You doubted the truth when the rare opportunity occurred, and you passed it up. You passed on truth. Because your doubt was used against truth. This is the danger and downfall of the philosopher. To doubt the truth when presented, and to accept lies. This is the failure of discrimination.

A philosopher and thinker must learn when to use doubt. Alternatively the religious must learn when to use faith. And the scientist should learn when to use hypothesis. All mental functions, pathology, have their respective timing. When you encounter truth, then use faith. When you encounter lies and falsity, then use doubt. When you encounter the unknown, then use hypothesis.

But how many people today can discriminate, while discrimination, thought, is slandered?

Western civilization teaches children to never discriminate, and so, this is part of a social programming, indoctrination, and slavery protocol. This is slave dialectic, "never discriminate". Never think for yourself. Let others do this for you. But what if you are one of the others? What if YOU are meant to discriminate, on behalf of others? Then you must learn. And you must make mistakes. And you must discriminate when you doubted the truth, when you had faith in lies, and when you hypothesize the already known and well established.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:34 pm

Æon wrote:

But philosophy is uncommon.  Your thoughts, your doubt, is not so easily quelled and sated.  Whereas reasons would satisfy the commoner, they don't satisfy you.  They asked a few questions.  You still have dozens more, maybe a hundred.  You are loaded with questions, doubts.  And nobody, nobody, no matter how hard you search, seems to answer them.  Common people are reluctant to answer questions.  Dangerous questions.  Philosophical questions.  People will avoid you.  You ask too many questions.

Too much doubt, in this one.  He must be a troubled boy.  Different.  Maybe good or bad, society can't tell, yet.  Because, what are the nature of your questions, philosophers?  What do they represent?  What does doubt represent within you, except, a lack of knowledge.  A lack of certainty, conviction, confidence.  Why are you so self doubting?  Why do you hesitate when others take blind risks on blind faith?  The fools rush forward in battle.  Why do you hesitate?  Why do you hang back when everybody else dives over the cliff?

So much doubt, you'll get left behind.

And your mind is never sufficed, is it?  Never a sufficient reason.  Ever.  Because most people give up.  "I just don't know."  I just don't have all the answers.  It hurts, doesn't it?  Admitting that you don't know, that you lack knowledge and wisdom about somethings, or many things.  It can humiliate the average joe.  It does humiliate them.  Commoners are humiliated by questions.  So where does this put the philosopher?

Is it a mark of humility or pride, that you know so little, that you may even know nothing at all?  Because you simply are not satisfied.  Your mind is spoiled.  You're greedy with thoughts and ideas.  You gather so many rare ideas, but, they're not enough.  You need more, and more, and more.  More reasons, give me more reasons.  I need more.

The philosopher needs more, reason, to satiate his doubt.  His doubt represents his hunger, for knowledge, information, wisdom.  Truth.  Feed the need.


You need to clarify "reason".

As I quoted just now in another post [N., JW, 347], the demand for reason, certainty, is a disguised demand for faith. On the other hand, it is disciplined reason, cold affirmation of facts without subtraction, the endurance for it, that separates the Philosopher from the Mob.

Aeon wrote:

The pathology, the brain of the philosopher, is marked, sometimes considered a curse or affliction, or even a disability, hindrance, perhaps a mental illness.  An obsession, a compulsion, to know, to learn, to understand, when everybody already gave up and went home.

Nice. Yes, I call this restlessness, han; a pride in refusing to be consoled by exhaustible conclusions. 0/100.

N. puts it this way;

""Knowledge" is a referring back: in its essence a regressus in infinitum. That which comes to a standstill (at a supposed causa prima, at something unconditioned, etc.) is laziness, weariness--" [WTP, 575]


Aeon wrote:
They got theirs.  You didn't get yours.  Everybody had their cake, ate it too, and left.  But you are marked by an addiction, to reason.  No matter how much cake you eat, no matter how many reasons you imbibe to quell the hunger of your mind, the starvation never ends.  You have a void inside your head.  Fill it with reason, philosopher.

Never sufficient reason, never enough.  Not all the reasons in the world, here, now, or all the philosophers of the past, not all of their great tomes and books stacked before you, is enough.

Greed.  And need.  For wisdom.


Discontent is actually a feminine drive; the masculine aims at stability, order, law. Changes are introduced by the intensity of our feminine temperament. I leave the quote for reference.

"Different forms of dissatisfaction. - The weak and, as it were, feminine discontented types are those who are innovative at making life more beautiful and profound; the strong discontents - the men among them, to stick with the metaphor - are innovative at making it better and safer.
The former show their weakness and femininity by gladly letting themselves be deceived from time to time and occasionally resting content with a bit of intoxication and gushing enthusiasm, though they can never be satisfied entirely and suffer from the incurability of their dissatisfaction; they are also the promoters of all who know how to procure opiates and narcotic consolations, and consequently they resent those who esteem physicians above priests - thus they assure the continuance of real distress! Had there not been a surplus of these discontents in Europe since the middle ages, the celebrated European capacity for constant transformation might never have developed, for the demands of the strong discontents are too crude and basically too undemanding not eventually to be brought to a final rest.

China, for example, is a country where large-scale discontentment and the capacity for change became extinct centuries ago; and in Europe too the socialists, and state idolaters, with their measures for making life better and safer, might easily establish Chinese conditions and a Chinese 'happiness', provided they are first able to extirpate that sicklier, more tender, more feminine discontentment and romanticism that is for the moment still superabundant here. Europe is a patient who owes the utmost gratitude to his incurability and to the perpetual changes in his affliction: these incessantly new conditions, these no less incessantly new dangers, pains, and modes of information have finally generated an intellectual irritability that approximates genius and that is in any case the mother of all genius." [JW, 24]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:03 pm

Lyssa wrote:
You need to clarify "reason".

As I quoted just now in another post [N., JW, 347], the demand for reason, certainty, is a disguised demand for faith. On the other hand, it is disciplined reason, cold affirmation of facts without subtraction, the endurance for it, that separates the Philosopher from the Mob.
Reason is the resonance of mass and matter, vibration of light and sound. Reason represents causation, or the lack of a cause. Things move and change, why? Reason is the speculation of the why and how. Reason is the search for pattern and form in nature, that preexist before human awareness and consciousness. Reason is the discovery of preexisting forms of nature.

Reason is also the manipulation of these forms. Man adapts the environment to his own subjective, personal preferences. Man changes the world to fit his own sufficiency. He uses reason toward this end, to discover the best means to manipulate existence. Reasonability allows him to succeed. He reasons through his problems, angst, and need to change the world, to suit his identity.


Lyssa wrote:
Discontent is actually a feminine drive; the masculine aims at stability, order, law. Changes are introduced by the intensity of our feminine temperament. I leave the quote for reference.
The use of reason to solve discontentment is masculine. Reason is the male domain, the imposition of order, and the patterns men themselves have created.

Think of a musical composition. The composer creates his music. Then this music is superimposed to paper, to bars and notes, and then a performer reads the music of the composer, and translates the symbols into a symphony.

What is the origin, the beginning? It is the creation, the reasoning, of the composer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: What is Reason? Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:21 pm

Reason is the vibration of mass.

It is the force and movement of all things. In the context of science, reason is synonymous with cause and causation. This causes that. That causes this. But the philosophical analysis of why, is different than the scientific analysis of how. Why and how, are different. Because the presumptions and premises, the values of philosophy and science are different. Different perspectives have different beginnings and endings, different premises and conclusions. But sometimes the beginning or ending is shared. Sometimes two conclusions can match, and agree, but the method and premise, are different.

The ends can justify the means. The means can justify the ends.

The philosophical analysis of the universe uses reasoning to identify the roots, causes, and beginnings of events. Events supposedly begin and end. Why does this happen? Why did he do that? Why doesn't she do this? Why why why? Not, how how how.

The philosopher uses reason and doubt. Both are essential to philosophy. The philosopher is loaded with questions about the universe, uncertainty, reflecting fear and ignorance. The philosopher becomes increasingly aware of how little he knows. The philosopher admits his ignorance of the universe. There is so much that humans don't know, or, can't know. And this is a fearsome realization. Therefore philosophy must confront the unknown, the truly unknown, using courage. Whereas the religious begin with certainty, with the already known, with the given, and work toward the unknown. Different premises, different starting grounds.

Philosophy begins in the unsafe realm, where humanity is boundless and uncertainty dominates. Religion begins in the safe realm, where humanity is bound and certainty dominates.

This is why philosophy asks why, and science asks how. Religion asks nothing. Because religion is the institution of answers, not questions. Philosophy is the institution of questions. Science is a mix, of questions and answers.

But it is good practice that the philosopher learns to answer his own questions first. This is the nature of the "rhetorical question". I pose questions, but, already have an answer in mind, or a few, or several, or dozens, or hundreds of answers. I already answered my own questions. This reflects the philosopher's wisdom. The commoner doesn't think too much, and therefore, does not have many answers prepared. The commoner may have no answers. Because commoners tend to rely on religion. There is a reason why religion is so popular. Because the commoners flock around, and depend upon, religious answers. In this way, religion and philosophy can become and very much are, enemies, or at least mutually opposed in the realm of knowledge.

Religion claims knowledge. Philosophy claims ignorance. Humans do NOT know. And given that humans do not know, what is the result?

Philosophers use reason to guide doubt. You begin with ignorance, with not knowing the universe. And given this premise, this beginning, you use reason to guide you to knowledge. What can you know? How is knowledge possible? What is knowledge? What do you seek and why? What is the drive toward knowledge, except learning? How does a human learn, and when?

Isn't it the infant and child who learns most, or, the adult? There are open and closed minds. Supposedly, these "open minds" claim to want to learn about the universe, but do they, truly? Or don't these people claiming an "open mind" most quickly and hastily turn around and run away from small confrontations regarding knowledge? Isn't learning dangerous, when, you could be wrong? You could be proved wrong, about everything. How many are truly prepared for philosophy? How many truly step into philosophy with good faith, opposed to bad faith?

How easy is it to dominate in a room full of people who admittedly do not know, about life, about the universe? One tiny bias, one tiny ulterior motive, can and will destroy the whole room. A preconceived notion, a religious belief, a dogma, these are all poisonous to philosophers. Because, like a virus, they will contaminate the good faith argument.


Reason will clarify all this. Because reason is the intuition of philosophy, the instinct, the nature. Reason is a type of mind, a human brain, that has evolved and specialized heavily in seeing through common lies, deception, and falsity. Reason is a compass to direct the philosopher toward truth, understanding, learning, knowledge, and wisdom. Because reason will differentiate between knowledge and ignorance.

Are you telling the truth? Are you lying? And how do you know, yourself? How do others know?

Begin asking "why?" a lot, too often. Ask it and repeat it, thousands of times. Repeat it until people get angry. And most will get angry far too soon. Why? It's a simple question, so why do you dodge it? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why why why why why why why why why why why why why?

Test them. Push them to their limits. See how far the average minds use reason, if at all. See if they can "think". See if they doubt. See if they can answer their own questions.

It only takes a little bit, of philosophy, to expose the average mind, the commoner, the human brain. It only takes, often times, several whys. That's all. Seven "why" questions in a row. Most will balk, fall silent, feel stupefied, confused, angry. People don't like questions. But philosophers? Questions are everything. Because questions are the means to learn, to explore, to discover the universe.

And reasoning, the special ability of the philosophical brain, is the directing principle of this learning. It is the method of learning. It is the how and why to learn. Reasoning allows the accumulation of knowledge. Reason will develop discrimination. Reason will expose truths and falsity, and lies. And at the highest peak of reason, none can escape the investigation, inquiry, analysis, deconstruction.

That highest doubt will destroy all faith. Because the highest doubts match the highest faiths.

Can't you, philosopher, doubt the very gods? Can't you doubt all certainties? All values?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14413
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:19 pm

Is the dictionary a philosophical document?


If I know the color red, as a hue, and I label it using whatever symbol, is the description of the color an explanation of what the hue, the phenomenon of redness, is?

If someone says "just because" or "it happens spontaneously" is he saying anything interesting, anything important...is he saying anything at all?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Satyr wrote:
Is the dictionary a philosophical document?
No, commoners use common language and only accept common ideas, the more religious, popular, and democratic, the better for them.

Commoners fear conversations, ideas, and language above a certain fixed level of sophistication.


Satyr wrote:
If I know the color red, as a hue, and I label it using whatever symbol, is the description of the color an explanation of what the hue, the phenomenon of redness, is?
Language is a limitation. By attempting to explain and describe phenomenon, humans reduce infinite possibilities into finitude. This limitation is required for humans to fit sense data into human knowledge. Knowledge attempts to constrain and restrict the senses. This allows humans to fit sensation and experience into repeatable patterns. People share a common definition of red, representing common experiences. But some minds are far below or above this sensation of red. Some humans have more acute, evolved senses, representing a higher spectrum of evolution.

Some people are color blind. Some people are completely blind. And the rarest people, access a much more detailed world with sharpened senses, for example, the most famous and spectacular artists and painters. The ones who cannot be replicated, the ones whose artwork represented lifetimes of skill, and, the truly artistic mind that can see things, colors, that none else can.


Satyr wrote:
If someone says "just because" or "it happens spontaneously" is he saying anything interesting, anything important...is he saying anything at all?
No, and this person probably is a coward, or intellectually stunted.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:45 pm

Bump
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:32 pm

Æon wrote:
Reason is the vibration of mass.

It is the force and movement of all things.  In the context of science, reason is synonymous with cause and causation.  This causes that.  That causes this.  But the philosophical analysis of why, is different than the scientific analysis of how.  Why and how, are different.  Because the presumptions and premises, the values of philosophy and science are different.  Different perspectives have different beginnings and endings, different premises and conclusions.  But sometimes the beginning or ending is shared.  Sometimes two conclusions can match, and agree, but the method and premise, are different.


Reason is the economization of our available resources.

It evolved for efficient self-organization.

Reasoning can be used to consolidify yourself with the masses, or stand apart.
So whether philosophic or scientific, it doesn't distinguish the above impulse.

There is a Reason that one employs to find comfort, and there is a Reason that one employs to gather awareness.

So whether it be philosophy or science, there are really only two kinds of Reasons or reasonings...

One that is comfort-seeking, and one that is disciplined.

There are some slaves, some herd, some Xts. who never stop digging, doubting, striving hard, they would even pay with their lives to find a justification, a reason that gives them comfort.
Diligence of their truth-seeking and questioning spirit in itself therefore says nothing at all.
Kierkegaard for example may say he doesn't know if God exists, but he'll use reason to derive comfort in the possibility of its existence...

Disciplined reason is always beyond every kind of hedonism.

It doesn't mean the economization has stopped, only the scope has widened; reason attains to wisdom...

"Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling." [Jung]

Spontaneity [cleanliness of an inner allignment] is the highest efficiency.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: A New ARgument Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:46 pm

If philosophy represents one of three primary human intellectual specializations, the others being science and religion,
And if humanity is powerful and worthy due to intelligence before any other factor
And if intelligence is a sign of privilege, or can grant privilege to others
Then shouldn't beautiful women, who are most privileged of all humans,
Also excel the most, and be most adapted to, philosophy?

Yet, in spite of this apparently perfect climate and environment for philosophy, a complete lack of female philosophers in the history books.

What do the feminists claim? The patriarchal historians were biased, and hated women, and so erased their names. Or another possibility. Women were "prevented" from education systems, illiterate, and were blocked from the institutions which taught philosophy. This begs the question, why were they "blocked"? Which are these institutions? And finally, how does one learn and "teach" philosophy?

How does one do philosophy?

Maybe it is in the something of doing philosophy, that repels females.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Crippling Curiosity Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:24 pm

Children have innocent questions.

Most infants and children are curious about the world and want to explore it. Shouldn't everybody be a philosopher or have philosophical intentions then? No, the vast majority of humanity has their curiosity revoked at early ages. Young children are made to be weary of certain, dangerous things. Do not poke a fork into a light socket. Do not eat that. Do not touch that. Why not? Because it will harm you. And much of life is harmful. It is this "harmful" area of life, negative, unhealthy, illness, death, fear, hate, that humanity dissuades from children.

But as children grow older, they resist their parents more, as well as guidance and wisdom. They try new things, especially as teenagers and adolescence. They enter a rebellious phase. During this phase, reverse psychology is an adept practice between children and adults. Teenagers will tend to do whatever you tell them not to. Don't have sex! Don't do drugs! These teenagers do have sex and try drugs. Reverse psychology says, Go ahead and have sex! Do drugs! So teenagers will be more confused if receiving this instruction. A gambit, a gamble. They may do "bad" things anyway.

But this is all kid's stuff, child's play.

Let's get into the nitty gritty. Theft, rape, murder. Don't do them. Why not? Because laws, because ethics, because morality, because God. As with all organisms which grow and gain in power, rebellious teenagers learn that they can break rules, to different degrees. So why not break the rules? Why follow laws? Why work a job? Why do anything?

Most children and teenagers have their curiosity crippled and castrated. They receive a negative feedback from parents and teachers. Don't ask this. Don't question that. Don't doubt this. Don't resist against my rules and establishment. When did the universe begin? When we say it does. You're not allowed to question science and "facts", how dare you? How dare you question authority? How dare you resist instead of submit?

You're bad. You're stupid. You're pathetic. You're a loser. You're going nowhere in life. You belong in jail. You're a criminal. Hate you. Hate you. Hate you.

Children learn, early on, that many questions are "unacceptable". Should a 7 year old boy or girl have access to the internet unrestricted, view some hardcore pornography websites?

What do you think? Do you, think?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:59 pm

Do you agree Philosophy is about ruling?
If so, when you seek philosophical females who can DO phil., are you suggesting you don't mind being ruled by them?
When you make the demand for female Platos, what are you really seeking?


-


There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.

As I was telling someone recently, a Male wants to spread himself as much as possible, through genes and memes, the latter being philosophy, maximal seeding of your memes, your memory on the world, while, a rare kind of female finds it sufficient to live on in the memory of just one person. That pressing urge isn't there and its part of why they don't become philosophers to want to be remembered by many.
The great scholarly works and contributions by women, if anything, show their deep "impersonality"...  even a Kristeva speaks "on behalf of all women".... not for herself.

Its why Weininger says motherly women aren't that troubled by their mortality, they feel indestructible because they feel they will live on in the species... individuality doesn't matter. Pressing your memory on many others doesn't matter when you feel immortal through the indiscriminate species of man.

While the more whorish sort in touch with their mortality, seeks and sees individuality, yet she cannot take comfort in any one individual, and that's why she's a whore. No One is good enough.
These are two Xt. extremes Weininger painted bet. the mother and the whore. A more pagan spiriuality is a finer kind of monogamy - hieros gamos - not just in selecting one body,,, but one mind too. To be re-membered by one person suffices. Its not taking comfort of immortality in the indiscriminate sea of mankind per se, in the belief that "the species will live on", but a very refined, discriminate selection to Risk your immortality in the selection of that one...  this is what "sampling" really means in the sacred sense. This is what Evola means when he calls soul-full love an initiatory crisis and salvation...

Women cannot Do philosophy because they lack personality in the sense its women who give birth and therefore the female psyche Identifies with the mother/subconscious in this similarity, while the male psyche sensing the difference Differentiates itself from the mother/subconscious;

Neumann:

Quote :
"In the history of humankind the differentiation of man and woman belongs among the earliest and most impressive projections of opposites, and early humankind took the male and the female as the prototype of opposites in general. For this reason every archetypal opposition easily assumes the symbolism of the Masculine and the Feminine, and hence the opposition of conscious and unconscious is experienced in terms of this symbol, the Masculine identified with consciousness and the Feminine with the unconscious. This symbolic opposition is by no means limited to the secondary phenomena of anima and animus but arises from the original containment in the uroboros, the birthplace of "masculine" consciousness and the "maternal" unconscious. The objectivity of consciousness develops out of the non-differentiation of the unconscious in the course of human history through a symbolic "separation" of the Masculine from the Feminine. The male child experiences this principle of opposition between Masculine and Feminine within the primal relationship to the mother, a relationship that must be surrendered if the male child is to come into his own and find his identity as a male.

The totality of the psyche, the center of which is the Self, exists in a relationship of identity with the body, the vehicle of the psychic processes. The physical changes from infant to boy, youth, man, and graybeard are also accompanied by psychic changes that differ greatly from the corresponding changes in the development of woman. Hence between the sexes we must assume a biospychic difference that is manifested in archetypal and symbolic ways, even if it cannot be expressed in any strict characterological categories. Therefore the Self as the totality of the personality rightly carries secondary sexual characteristics, and both body and psyche are closely connected in their dependence on hormones.

Even when, in pre-patriarchal societies, the male children long remain with the women's groups and are shaped by their participation mystique, the experience of dissimilarity is a given from the very beginning, or at any rate from the point at which they perceive differences between the sexes.

Since the male experiences the primal situation - identity with the mother, the Feminine other - as identity with a non-Self, it is only in a later phase of development that Self-discovery as a male is attainable, standing as it does in opposition to the primal relationship. Only the achievement of detachment from the primal relationship and an objective attitude toward it leads to male Self- discovery and stability. When this is not achieved, the male remains entrapped and castrated in uroboric and matriarchal incest, that is, he is inauthentic and estranged from himself. Elsewhere we have described this fundamental situation and the development arising out of it as depicted in myths where the first stages of the development of consciousness were interpreted as essentially the liberation of the Masculine from the Feminine, of the son from the mother.

Since male Self-discovery is bound by its very nature to the development of consciousness and to the separation of conscious and unconscious systems, ego and consciousness always appear symbolized archetypally as masculine. This means that the male identifies his ego with consciousness and with his archetypally masculine role, and identifies himself with the development of consciousness in the course of human history. Individually he lives out the archetypal character of the hero and experiences his Self only in his victorious battle with the dragon, i.e., the natural side of the unconscious that confronts him in the form of the primal relationship.

But for the woman the primary relationship has a completely different significance and effect. When the child-whether female or male-becomes conscious of the principle of Masculine-Feminine opposition in whatever form it appears, the primal relationship to the mother is relatedness itself. But for the girl all the complications that lie in the boy's experience of being different vanish. Even 'when she "comes into her own" as woman, identity with her mother in the primal relationship can continue to exist to a great extent, and her Self-discovery is primary since Self-discovery and primal relationship, in the case of the girl child, can coincide. This means that a woman can continue in the primal relationship, expand in it, and come into her own without having to leave the circle of the maternal uroboros and the Great Mother. In so far as she remains in this realm she is, to be sure, childish and immature from the point of view of conscious development, but she is not estranged from herself.

While a man in a similar situation is "castrated," i.e., robbed of his authentic being, the woman merely remains fixated, held fast in an immature form of her authentic being. Again and again we find that, even in the midst of an occidental, patriarchal culture, a woman can flourish as a natural whole in this psychologically undeveloped form-that is, without a corresponding development of consciousness-that would have caused a man long since to fail in society and to become neurotic. This basic situation in which Self-discovery and the primal relationship correspond gives women the advantage of a natural wholeness and completeness from the beginning that men lack.

In addition to identifying her ego with the midpoint of consciousness, woman always experiences the female Self-representing a point of view embracing the totality of the psyche-as powerful and convincing at a feeling level, while the male more fully identifies ego with con- sciousness, and his awareness of the primal relationship falls largely into the unconscious.

The mother-child relationship is that of mutual identification, and the fact that Self-discovery (in which woman experiences herself as female) coincides with the primal relationship (in which she experiences mother as female) leads to a primary reinforcement of all those relationships that come into being through identification. This also contrasts with the experience of the male, who fundamentally prefers a form of relatedness based on juxtaposition.

While relatedness in opposition or juxtaposition is a culturally shaped, individual form of relatedness, the woman's natural ways of relating through identification derive from the blood bond of pregnancy, that is, from the primal relationship to mother with whom this rela- tionship originates. For this reason the longing for rela- tionships of identity accompanies a woman throughout her life and informs her tendency to create a similar situation again. But only as a grown woman, when she experiences pregnancy and becomes the bearer of the primal relationship for her child, does the matriarchally inclined woman's longing find fulfillment; then her ego, as subject, experiences the containment of the child and identity with it.

It is typical for the phase of Self-conservation that psychologically and often sociologically the woman remains in the women's group-the mother clan-and maintains her continuity "upward" in relationship to the group of mothers and "downward" to the group of daughters. Her solidarity with the proximity to women and the Feminine coincide with her segregation and sense of alienation from men and the Masculine.

To exaggerate: for woman, the Masculine characteristically presses forward; for man, the Feminine characteristically holds back. (Both find expression in the process of individuation in the second half of life.) For woman, the Masculine signifies redemption to consciousness; for man, the Feminine means redemption from consciousness.

Even after the Self has "migrated" from the mother to the daughter, this childlike, daughterly Self remains identical to the gender of the mother archetype. This symbolic fact means that the mother- daughter relationship with its more intimate connection of ego and Self as well as consciousness and the unconscious is fundamentally closer to nature than is the mother-son relationship. The greater tension between male ego-consciousness and the "contrasexual" mother archetype-i.e., the matriarchal unconscious, also a nat- urally determined tension-accounts for fundamental differences between female and male development, especially in regard to the manner of male creativity." [Erich Neumann, Fear of the Feminine]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:00 pm

The male psyche is geared for attack, for differentiation, and the feminine for conserving. It IS memory.

Even the most aggressive masculine feminist philosopher is still only Defensive when she attacks.
She attacks to Defend, to conserve.

Its why a revolution cannot occur.

To revolutionize, to Attack is to Offend non-conservatively.
History is the mother he differentiates himself from. This is why part of forgetting/non-conservation of the past is important to unshackle yourself from the shadow of the "terrible mother" that can "devour" you...

A female consciousness amplifies, intensifies what is already present; like a seed blossoming into a flower... they unearth incredible patterns and the amazing thoughts and ideas locked away in crevices... they re-cover wisdom.
Man dis-covers knowledge.

The re-covery of wisdom is the art of filling holes, filling the gaps. Its a harmony.
Dis-covering knowledge is offensive drilling holes, creating gaps, putting distances between oneself and the rest. It is anarchy.

The feminine is in-tensive and a timing, the masc. is an ex-tensive and a spacing.

Females Real-ize hidden potentials. Her masc. side is in the aggressive of the digging, probing, etc.

Males Gene-rate possibilities. His fem. side is in the harmonizing of many opposites and contradictions from which alone possibilities emerge.
Innovation and creativity mean nothing than the endurance for chaos, contradictions, errors...

"Theory of chance. The soul a selective and self-nourishing entity, perpetually extremely shrewd and creative (this creative force is usually overlooked! is conceived only as "passive").

To recognize the active force, the creative force in the chance event:-

chance itself is only the clash of creative impulses." [N., WTP, 673]

Man Maximizes Chance.

Woman Redeems it.


When the likes of Schmoe and Schizo-smears talk of women revolutionizing philosophy, the word revolution needs rigour.

Yes, women have indeed 'revolutionized' many ideas silently [a silent revolution is still a revolution], but what does revolution mean here, but the bringing to the "fore" of many thoughts, notions, angles, that went unattended. It is Attentivity.
It is cunning Alertness that Athena signifies as a more masc. mental figure taking birth from Zeus' head.

Masc. revolution is the exact opposite of Attentivity. It is the refusal to attend-to...  
It is challenging that very "fore" not by recovery of thoughts, but abandoning the very sky above it we call Madness, Inspiration, and the very ground below it we call Neurosis, Melancholia.

Masc. revolution is not to build a better compass to elicit a clearer direction [which is fem. revolution], but Naming. To determine direction itself.

So if Marie-Curie and who else... Simone de beauvoir, etc. have "revolutionized" human thinking, they did so by En-riching, adding to the foreground, to the consciousness, many depths.

But real Philosophy is about Naming, about Personality, fating your initial into a destiny...

You Are the Direction, a Way and a Way-faring. Not a clearer compass.

This is called being offensive.  

A woman cannot afford to do this because her psyche is trained to give the world a chance. She is hope. (Why the sight of females crying and in despair is the most ugly...)

A man is trained to give chance a world, to Seize it into a world of possibility... He is pride. (Why the sight of males shying of godly strength, of being lucifers (light-bringers), and whimpering in weakness is the most ugly...)


Now Who will tell Schizo-smears how Ugly he is???!!

Who will tell Schmoe how Pathetic he is...


In the ideal,

To marry a woman is to marry your highest hope. Because you generate possibility, only a woman can redeem a possibility into a world and grant you freedom. She is your redemption.

To marry a man is to marry your strongest refuge. Because you have seen into the crevices, into the patterns that will blossom into a flower, you wish to give the world a chance, to conserve that memory that is You, only a man can protect it from oblivion, by shaping that fate to a destiny, by giving her his Name. He is her salvation.

The chalice and the sword leads to the holy grail of the philosopher's stone...

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:12 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Do you agree Philosophy is about ruling?
Philosophy is first about curiosity, learning, and exploring all, yourself and the universe.

Politics is about ruling, a secondary matter. Politics does stem from philosophy. There is a difference between ruling and conquering. Ruling implies that nature is already conquered. I would not extend philosophy into such speculation and dogma.


Lyssa wrote:
If so, when you seek philosophical females who can DO phil., are you suggesting you don't mind being ruled by them?
I've never heard, not once, of a female who "does" philosophy.

Women are followers, not leaders. Therefore I would expect that a woman can lead a philosophical discussion as a starter. But as I mentioned elsewhere, females tend to add "fluff" to philosophy or discussion, no actual content. Females tend not to rock the boat, but act as stability and an anchor. It's males who rock the boat.

Philosophy is rocking reality, the universe, defying all expectations, overturning, disrupting or destroying all premises, all logic. Philosophy is a dispute of all, in search for a truth, or a reason.


Lyssa wrote:
When you make the demand for female Platos, what are you really seeking?
An equal, a companion, a compatriot, a woman I can respect.

A woman more than her sexuality. However this obviously asks far too much from a female. Now that I grow older, I expect less and less, and someday, will expect nothing at all. This will be my emasculation, feminization, and submission. I expect nothing from women, and therefore, am never disappointed. And also never surprised, because all my fears are realized and come true.

Man and woman share nothing in common. And I mean nothing.


Lyssa wrote:
There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.
I doubt it, unless these women produced me, and other philosophers. Producers of men. Maybe I have not met such women except through my own family, who I am already all too familiar with. This also explains how my disappointment is permanent. I only can expect less than what I already know and take for given.


Lyssa wrote:
As I was telling someone recently, a Male wants to spread himself as much as possible, through genes and memes, the latter being philosophy, maximal seeding of your memes, your memory on the world, while, a rare kind of female finds it sufficient to live on in the memory of just one person.
I want to teach and educate somebody, but not spread myself thin.

Philosophy ought not, and does not, belong to the common or average. So there is no spreading thin. Philosophy represents wisdom. And wisdom is selective, passes only between a few hands throughout history. And these philosophers write and speak to one another through the ages. The passage of philosophy is through a language unseen by almost all. Females are excluded, for various reasons, the main one being biology. Women simply do not have an interest in philosophy, in exploring all, nor do women have a need to do such. Finally, even if women could, then women do not lead. Since women are more selfish than men, intrinsically, innately, instinctively.


Lyssa wrote:
That pressing urge isn't there and its part of why they don't become philosophers to want to be remembered by many.
The very obvious fact that you say "remembered by many", or all, or mention "spreading yourself thin", exposes your own wants, desires, and rationale, not mine.

This is your desire, not mine, and you are projecting. If I want to speak with anyone, then it ought to be a philosopher. And I entertain the possibility of a female philosopher far too often. It is dream land, a fantasy, fiction. An impossibility. Like japanese anime female idolatry. Males tend to create impossible beauty standards that females cannot match. But some rare females are closer, and try to match them anyway. Men create the ideals, women chase them. This is most obvious in the arena of beauty, and art.


Lyssa wrote:
The great scholarly works and contributions by women, if anything, show their deep "impersonality"...  even a Kristeva speaks "on behalf of all women".... not for herself.
Females have a pathological biology, an instinct, a nature. Females are group thinkers, not individuals. Females value security, not freedom. Females do not understand the idea of freedom. Because males are the disposable gender. Males are born worthless, zero value. Males learn about expendability later on in life, usually through war, when males become cannon fodder for forces most do not comprehend. Males are the expendable gender and type. This creates a notion and realization of freedom that is distinct in gender.

And therefore, distinct in philosophy, in learning about all. How can a dogmatist learn about all, while, hanging onto and value certain, unshakable, absolute premises and prepositions? She cannot. She can only hope to confirm her preformed conclusions. She learns backward. She thinks backward.

Every female.


Lyssa wrote:
Its why Weininger says motherly women aren't that troubled by their mortality, they feel indestructible because they feel they will live on in the species... individuality doesn't matter. Pressing your memory on many others doesn't matter when you feel immortal through the indiscriminate species of man.
Yes, females are immortal. Males are mortal. Females have almost guaranteed eternal life. All a woman has to do is spread her legs open, no difficulty, at all, involved in this.

To be born female is the definition of privilege. Women do not need to "do" anything, including philosophy. This is one of the primary reasons why there has never been, and almost certainly never will be, a "female" philosopher or philosophy. Females simply do not have the need for or of it.


Lyssa wrote:
While the more whorish sort in touch with their mortality, seeks and sees individuality, yet she cannot take comfort in any one individual, and that's why she's a whore. No One is good enough.
On the contrary, to females, all men are "good enough". Females are immortal, except that some women do not have sex and do not have children. We could explore this possibility, but, it would veer too far off topic. Some women suffer self hatred, female nihilism, and do not want to have children, nor do have children, for many reasons.

This is life hatred. Women have immortality, but can lose it, based on not having sex. Males never see this. Almost all males want sex, for obvious reasons. For males, sex is rare. For females, sex is a given, all too common.


Lyssa wrote:
These are two Xt. extremes Weininger painted bet. the mother and the whore. A more pagan spiriuality is a finer kind of monogamy - hieros gamos - not just in selecting one body,,, but one mind too. To be re-membered by one person suffices. Its not taking comfort of immortality in the indiscriminate sea of mankind per se, in the belief that "the species will live on", but a very refined, discriminate selection to Risk your immortality in the selection of that one...  this is what "sampling" really means in the sacred sense. This is what Evola means when he calls soul-full love an initiatory crisis and salvation...
I can simplify all of this. It's merely biology, a natural method of gambling.

Some females have the tendency to have many children, other females have the tendency to have very few, one, or none. This is nature's way of creating two competing life strategies.

Quality or Quantity, but again, females need to do nothing. Females have no need. Genes is the easiest, simplest explanation for female copulation and mate pairing.


Lyssa wrote:
Women cannot Do philosophy because they lack personality in the sense its women who give birth and therefore the female psyche Identifies with the mother/subconscious in this similarity, while the male psyche sensing the difference Differentiates itself from the mother/subconscious;
Males are naturally unwanted in nature. Females are naturally wanted. Males are out group. Females are in group.

This is also the reason why females are better on average caring for animals and children. Instincts compel this group cohesive force. Female instinct. Females are socialists. Males are individualists.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:22 pm

Lyssa wrote:
The male psyche is geared for attack, for differentiation, and the feminine for conserving. It IS memory.
Females represent the fact that gene, is meme. Who females choose for sexual gratification, men whom women have children with, this is nature's method of preserving memories. Memes = genes. The males who are not chosen, who are disposable, who will die without reproducing, will not be remembered by nature. This is why males are mortal, and females are immortal.

Females keep some males out of the gene pool, and others, in. Population trends represent that. Despite all the hate rhetoric "bad boys" receive, and that women "hate" abusive men, yet, still these men overwhelmingly reproduce and have children, often much more children than the "nice guys". Why does this occur? Because reality is greater than truth and lies. It's a simple lie. It's false.

Nature dictates the reality on this one. Females want those memories to be passed on. All the "criminals", the murderers, rapists, and thieves, the ones most "hated" by society, are also some of the most successful at reproducing. So why is this?

Because those memories are valuable. They are genes, biologically encoded memories. There is an immortality to behaviors.

Philosophers in ancient, christian catholic dominated european history, wrote and speculated on these issues centuries ago. Like "original sin", where does it come from and why does it persist?

This philosophy is over a 1000 years old, nothing new here. I prefer new philosophy, cutting edge stuff. The old philosophy is done already.


Lyssa wrote:
Even the most aggressive masculine feminist philosopher is still only Defensive when she attacks.
She attacks to Defend, to conserve.

Its why a revolution cannot occur.

To revolutionize, to Attack is to Offend non-conservatively.
History is the mother he differentiates himself from. This is why part of forgetting/non-conservation of the past is important to unshackle yourself from the shadow of the "terrible mother" that can "devour" you...
This is why when a female tries philosophy, tries to "do" it, it is fluff. Pointless. No umph, no power behind it.

It is a repetition of what is already accomplished. A representation of an unoriginal, far derived need. An echo. A copy and paste.

A has been.


Lyssa wrote:
A female consciousness amplifies, intensifies what is already present; like a seed blossoming into a flower... they unearth incredible patterns and the amazing thoughts and ideas locked away in crevices... they re-cover wisdom.
Man dis-covers knowledge.

The re-covery of wisdom is the art of filling holes, filling the gaps. Its a harmony.
Dis-covering knowledge is offensive drilling holes, creating gaps, putting distances between oneself and the rest. It is anarchy.

The feminine is in-tensive and a timing, the masc. is an ex-tensive and a spacing.

Females Real-ize hidden potentials. Her masc. side is in the aggressive of the digging, probing, etc.

Males Gene-rate possibilities. His fem. side is in the harmonizing of many opposites and contradictions from which alone possibilities emerge.
Innovation and creativity mean nothing than the endurance for chaos, contradictions, errors...

"Theory of chance. The soul a selective and self-nourishing entity, perpetually extremely shrewd and creative (this creative force is usually overlooked! is conceived only as "passive").

To recognize the active force, the creative force in the chance event:-

chance itself is only the clash of creative impulses." [N., WTP, 673]

Man Maximizes Chance.

Woman Redeems it.


When the likes of Schmoe and Schizo-smears talk of women revolutionizing philosophy, the word revolution needs rigour.

Yes, women have indeed 'revolutionized' many ideas silently [a silent revolution is still a revolution], but what does revolution mean here, but the bringing to the "fore" of many thoughts, notions, angles, that went unattended. It is Attentivity.
It is cunning Alertness that Athena signifies as a more masc. mental figure taking birth from Zeus' head.

Masc. revolution is the exact opposite of Attentivity. It is the refusal to attend-to...  
It is challenging that very "fore" not by recovery of thoughts, but abandoning the very sky above it we call Madness, Inspiration, and the very ground below it we call Neurosis, Melancholia.

Masc. revolution is not to build a better compass to elicit a clearer direction [which is fem. revolution], but Naming. To determine direction itself.

So if Marie-Curie and who else... Simone de beauvoir, etc. have "revolutionized" human thinking, they did so by En-riching, adding to the foreground, to the consciousness, many depths.

But real Philosophy is about Naming, about Personality, fating your initial into a destiny...

You Are the Direction, a Way and a Way-faring. Not a clearer compass.

This is called being offensive.  

A woman cannot afford to do this because her psyche is trained to give the world a chance. She is hope. (Why the sight of females crying and in despair is the most ugly...)

A man is trained to give chance a world, to Seize it into a world of possibility... He is pride. (Why the sight of males shying of godly strength, of being lucifers (light-bringers), and whimpering in weakness is the most ugly...)


Now Who will tell Schizo-smears how Ugly he is???!!

Who will tell Schmoe how Pathetic he is...


In the ideal,

To marry a woman is to marry your highest hope. Because you generate possibility, only a woman can redeem a possibility into a world and grant you freedom. She is your redemption.

To marry a man is to marry your strongest refuge. Because you have seen into the crevices, into the patterns that will blossom into a flower, you wish to give the world a chance, to conserve that memory that is You, only a man can protect it from oblivion, by shaping that fate to a destiny, by giving her his Name. He is her salvation.

The chalice and the sword leads to the holy grail of the philosopher's stone...
Yes, maleness revolves around pride.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:39 pm

Aeon wrote:
Lyssa wrote:Do you agree Philosophy is about ruling?Philosophy is first about curiosity, learning, and exploring all, yourself and the universe.

Politics is about ruling, a secondary matter. Politics does stem from philosophy. There is a difference between ruling and conquering. Ruling implies that nature is already conquered. I would not extend philosophy into such speculation and dogma.

I wasn't referring to petty politics. But philosophy as a grand art is about cultivation of the best - politics in that sense.


Quote :
Lyssa wrote:When you make the demand for female Platos, what are you really seeking?

An equal, a companion, a compatriot, a woman I can respect.

The best men of pagan antiquity were those who had vigour - inherited bodily strength and character from their mothers; these were not thinking women.
Over-intellect might even deplete that vigour she passes on.


Quote :
Man and woman share nothing in common. And I mean nothing.

That's too extreme. There are couples who have shared common visions, common goals, common values.



Quote :

Lyssa wrote:There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.

I doubt it, unless these women produced me, and other philosophers.Producers of men.

That's what I meant.


Quote :

Lyssa wrote:As I was telling someone recently, a Male wants to spread himself as much as possible, through genes and memes, the latter being philosophy, maximal seeding of your memes, your memory on the world, while, a rare kind of female finds it sufficient to live on in the memory of just one person.

I want to teach and educate somebody, but not spread myself thin.

You don't become void by ruling the minds of many; you multiply.

Quote :
Philosophy ought not, and does not, belong to the common or average.

Not everybody has a right to every kind of philosophy, but this doesn't mean phil. itself isn't the art of cultivating the best and the best individuals can only arise from a stable culture, a paideia of teaching, nurtuing... a whole society directed and raised by shared norms, values, ideals.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:That pressing urge isn't there and its part of why they don't become philosophers to want to be remembered by many.

The very obvious fact that you say "remembered by many", or all, or mention "spreading yourself thin", exposes your own wants, desires, and rationale, not mine.

Not mine or yours; I am speaking in general. Phil. is max. destiny and imprinting yourself for the longest duration. This is the only kind of eternity a man has.
The genius has a longer temporality.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:While the more whorish sort in touch with their mortality, seeks and sees individuality, yet she cannot take comfort in any one individual, and that's why she's a whore. No One is good enough.

On the contrary, to females, all men are "good enough".

No, that's how a mother thinks, not the whore.

The mother is indiscriminate and any man will do as long as he helps assist the continuity of the species.

The whore finds satisfaction in nobody.


Quote :
Females are immortal, except that some women do not have sex and do not have children. We could explore this possibility, but, it would veer too far off topic.

go on.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:19 pm

Lyssa wrote:
I wasn't referring to petty politics. But philosophy as a grand art is about cultivation of the best - politics in that sense.
Then apply my statements and premise using logic.

What does a philosopher do? He explores, discovers, learns, and understands. Is this act of exploration and learning, a political act? Does it result in a political lifestyle? You can argue yes. To live life in a certain way, maybe a political action. Maybe you can rationalize politics in this way.

To explore, requires courage. Therefore to do philosophy, requires courage.


Lyssa wrote:
The best men of pagan antiquity were those who had vigour - inherited bodily strength and character from their mothers; these were not thinking women.
Over-intellect might even deplete that vigour she passes on.
Learning requires courage, courage that you are wrong, weak, stupid, ignorant, and know little, if anything.

A potential humility waiting to happen. Is there any single human who has unlimited knowledge, intellect, thought, power? No.

The answer is obvious. To learn requires realization of limits. There is an extent in life of the ability to learn. And also a limit to bravery and courage. When fear enters the picture, so does emotion, and then reason ends. Emotion over reason.


Lyssa wrote:
That's too extreme. There are couples who have shared common visions, common goals, common values.
How did this coupling synthesize except through female submission to the male?


Lyssa wrote:
That's what I meant.
I don't consider that philosophical. Besides, the result and production of a philosopher, a son, doesn't have to be intended.

That would mean that a "philosophical woman" is also not intentional.

And how can you imply that a philosopher, a man, comes from a "philosophical woman"? This implies genetic determinism.

"Thieving men come from thieving wombs of thieving women." Do you agree?


Lyssa wrote:
Not everybody has a right to every kind of philosophy, but this doesn't mean phil. itself isn't the art of cultivating the best and the best individuals can only arise from a stable culture, a paideia of teaching, nurtuing... a whole society directed and raised by shared norms, values, ideals.
Led by men, because how do you know what to teach when you form a dependency on repeating what you're told?

Your reputation precedes you. Which threads do you create and which men do you inspire into philosophy and lead, teach, about philosophy?

Any? Name one.


Lyssa wrote:
go on.
The female sex drive is distinct from the male.

Females really have no reason nor excuse to avoid having sex and children. Women have the sex, so why not use it? Why destroy yourself? A female only needs to spread her legs, to reaffirm life. Men have to work, risk, gamble, challenge, and conquest for sex. Men must earn sex. Women own sex, as an asset.

All a woman needs to do is give up her asset, her sex. That's it.

Maybe it is women who are truly prideful, not men. Because why would any organism deny itself immortality, generation after generation of life and children, why not?

I can only think of self hate, hatred of life. Suicide. An immortal being, trying to kill itself. But you see, not even the infertile, sterile, frigid women of the world, can destroy femininity. Because all women must die, for "woman" to die. It is an inverse dynamic to maleness, and therefore an inverted form of male biology and sexuality.

Males are not immortal, never so. Always mortal. Always fighting to survive. While for females, it is intrinsically guaranteed.

Due to group dynamics. One woman, represents all women.

Why?

I ask rhetorically. I already have reasons for this question. Do you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:12 pm

Perceiveing this sensation as if though you are whining at whatever the situation happens to be. I think women on average have much harder lives(designed & forced to feel/care more). Are males not granted immortality through the contributions, ideas, and legacy they pass on? Even if only a few take all the glory, there's this great thrill in being apart of something greater than one self. I think a lot of reproduction can be attributed to a sort of unproductive narsicm that I dislike. It should be the result of relationships with meaningful intimacy, a way of passing on that meaning, furthering great experiences. Not soley for the sake of ego driven perpetuation. For me I'd much rather have a relationship with a beautiful women with say alzheimers(unwilling to reproduce due to risk of inheritance), than with one lacking grace. Because nothing lasts, but at the same time nothing is forgotten. Find the things that really have meaning to you, always great novel beauty to be found out there.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14413
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:02 pm

The common definition of philosophy comes straight from modern academics, trying to become a reflection of modern sciences.
The "philosopher" is supposed to remain stringent upon linguistic conventions, treating words like numbers, and he must occupy himself with precedent, the up-to-date research, the latest theories, full of famous names and the titles of their works.

There is a different approach one we can find in the pre-Socratics, and particularly Heralitus.
Philosophy, and the sciences it birthed, is no more than the study of humanity, and the human condition.
To understand the world one can only begin with what is most intimate, close, working outward in concentric circles, slowly encompassing reality, but never finalizing the deal with an end.

And what is the most intimate part of the universe, for a man, any man, at any time, in any place?


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:09 am

There Will Be Blood wrote:
Perceiveing this sensation as if though you are whining at whatever the situation happens to be. I think women on average have much harder lives(designed & forced to feel/care more). Are males not granted immortality through the contributions, ideas, and legacy they pass on? Even if only a few take all the glory, there's this great thrill in being apart of something greater than one self. I think a lot of reproduction can be attributed to a sort of unproductive narsicm that I dislike. It should be the result of relationships with meaningful intimacy, a way of passing on that meaning, furthering great experiences. Not soley for the sake of ego driven perpetuation. For me I'd much rather have a relationship with a beautiful women with say alzheimers(unwilling to reproduce due to risk of inheritance), than with one lacking grace. Because nothing lasts, but at the same time nothing is forgotten. Find the things that really have meaning to you, always great novel beauty to be found out there.
I judge morality based on genes and biology, not memes. Memes are forgotten quite easily. And no, not all memories last forever.

Consider how much you forget from one day to the next. The mind of an adult is not the same absorption as that of a child. Children have an easier time retaining memories, due to the "fresh" quality of the mind, the blank slate. Any actual blank slate represents a forgetfulness or inability to retain memories.

How do memories exist? Through repetition. The simpler the pattern, the simpler the memory, the easier it is to repeat it and reproduce it.

The foundation of Sciences rests in this premise. Science is about memory.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:11 am

Satyr wrote:
And what is the most intimate part of the universe, for a man, any man, at any time, in any place?
Himself
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:34 pm

Æon wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
I wasn't referring to petty politics. But philosophy as a grand art is about cultivation of the best - politics in that sense.
Then apply my statements and premise using logic.

What does a philosopher do?  He explores, discovers, learns, and understands.  Is this act of exploration and learning, a political act?  Does it result in a political lifestyle?  You can argue yes.  To live life in a certain way, maybe a political action.  Maybe you can rationalize politics in this way.

I can.
Phil. is self-sculpting... gradually aiming to work on the world as an artist...
Sculpting is selection, evaluation, ranking, judging, playing with patience... politics.
The political is about power, efficiency, the art of economy; philosophy is the science of economy ('what is the best life?', etc.).
Phil. is maximal politics.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
That's too extreme. There are couples who have shared common visions, common goals, common values.

How did this coupling synthesize except through female submission to the male?

A real female submits from firmness.
The strongest bamboo is the supplest, it bends.
Is every submission immediately from a lack to you?


Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
That's what I meant.
I don't consider that philosophical.

I do.

If philosophy is about courage, then the courage for knowing where to stop is philosophical. To resist from acting.

Quote :
 Besides, the result and production of a philosopher, a son, doesn't have to be intended. That means a 'philosophical woman' isn't intentional

Who said that?

I said "some females", didn't I?

Quote :

And how can you imply that a philosopher, a man, comes from a "philosophical woman"?  This implies genetic determinism.

Its called placing hope, raising your possibility, not implying. Is absolutism the only way you know of reading genetic determinism?

Quote :
"Thieving men come from thieving wombs of thieving women."  Do you agree?

The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree... that doesn't mean I immediately believe in 100% determinism. Genetic memory sometimes doesn't show up till generations later down the line... the effect of "thieving men from thieving women" need/may not be seen immediately... we call this atavism.

Quote :

Your reputation precedes you.

Which one? I have many.

I have one for being a Bore, and I have one for being a Whore... and then some.

But you already know of the former, no?

Quote :
 Which threads do you create and which men do you inspire into philosophy and lead, teach, about philosophy?

Any?  Name one.

Why do we fight? What are we fighting for? What is the price and cost of what we stand to lose?

The roundest philosophical consciousness needs the deepest historical awareness; I do not concern myself with the rest.

I do not put the cart before the horse no matter how tempting it may be to do so; doing philosophy is a discipline and it doesn't matter how boring one appears. I am not concerned with images.


Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
go on.
The female sex drive is distinct from the male.

Females really have no reason nor excuse to avoid having sex and children.  Women have the sex, so why not use it?  Why destroy yourself?  A female only needs to spread her legs, to reaffirm life.  Men have to work, risk, gamble, challenge, and conquest for sex.  Men must earn sex.  Women own sex, as an asset.

All a woman needs to do is give up her asset, her sex.  That's it.

Maybe it is women who are truly prideful, not men.  Because why would any organism deny itself immortality, generation after generation of life and children, why not?

That's like saying why don't I keep crawling just because I can and be proud about it?

Not every woman procreates like an animal just because she can, maybe the majority.
Some women find it painful to capitalize on it, some women are forced to compromise painfully. There's no pride involved in it, only duty and self-respect.

Quote :
 But you see, not even the infertile, sterile, frigid women of the world, can destroy femininity.  Because all women must die, for "woman" to die.  It is an inverse dynamic to maleness, and therefore an inverted form of male biology and sexuality.

Except feminism was a male ideology.

Quote :
Males are not immortal, never so.  Always mortal.  Always fighting to survive.  While for females, it is intrinsically guaranteed.

If one cannot find a philosophical female, one commits to whoever... and trains, or raises his daughter to be one.

The future is bleak, but it doesn't have to be.
The prospect of men doesn't have to look so victimized.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:49 pm

Lyssa wrote:
I can.
Phil. is self-sculpting... gradually aiming to work on the world as an artist...
Sculpting is selection, evaluation, ranking, judging, playing with patience... politics.
The political is about power, efficiency, the art of economy; philosophy is the science of economy ('what is the best life?', etc.).
Phil. is maximal politics.
Yet, politics is secondary. Learning, exploring, having courage to breach the limits, is primary to philosophy.

You are conflating primary with secondary needs. Sculpting comes after learning, understanding, needing.

Lyssa wrote:
A real female submits from firmness.
The strongest bamboo is the supplest, it bends.
Is every submission immediately from a lack to you?
By literal definition, it must be, otherwise you must explain your rationale differently.

Is a tree bending and twisting under the power of a strong wind, feminine? Is the tree surrendering to nature? Does this represent willpower?

These are the terms of this forum and social setting, not my personal preference. I don't see the world as feminine and masculine, but rather as object and subject.


Lyssa wrote:
I do.

If philosophy is about courage, then the courage for knowing where to stop is philosophical. To resist from acting.
Knowing is not courageous. To know is to defeat fear, using familiarity.

After I learn and know all about airplanes, I no longer fear flying, because I control the plane. I know what its malfunctions are. I know how to escape in a parachute. I know the ins and outs.

The courageous action regarding to knowledge is realizing and confronting the fact that you do NOT know something. Ignorance is humbling. And ignorance teaches people to learn the hard way, rather than the easy way. Can you get in an airplane and randomly, by chance, fly it? Is it a coincidence? No.


Lyssa wrote:
Its called placing hope, raising your possibility, not implying. Is absolutism the only way you know of reading genetic determinism?

The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree... that doesn't mean I immediately believe in 100% determinism. Genetic memory sometimes doesn't show up till generations later down the line... the effect of "thieving men from thieving women" need/may not be seen immediately... we call this atavism.
Then justify how you believe in 26% or 77% genetic determinism. It's nonsense. How does a person "only 33%" believe that the sun revolves around the earth? What would that even mean? Quantity is not quality.


Lyssa wrote:
Which one? I have many.

I have one for being a Bore, and I have one for being a Whore... and then some.

But you already know of the former, no?
I already know of both.


Lyssa wrote:
Why do we fight? What are we fighting for? What is the price and cost of what we stand to lose?

The roundest philosophical consciousness needs the deepest historical awareness; I do not concern myself with the rest.

I do not put the cart before the horse no matter how tempting it may be to do so; doing philosophy is a discipline and it doesn't matter how boring one appears. I am not concerned with images.


That's like saying why don't I keep crawling just because I can and be proud about it?

Not every woman procreates like an animal just because she can, maybe the majority.
Some women find it painful to capitalize on it, some women are forced to compromise painfully. There's no pride involved in it, only duty and self-respect.
Self-respect is pride.


Lyssa wrote:
Except feminism was a male ideology.

If one cannot find a philosophical female, one commits to whoever... and trains, or raises his daughter to be one.

The future is bleak, but it doesn't have to be.
The prospect of men doesn't have to look so victimized.
You misunderstand philosophy then.

You cannot teach a child "to learn". The child either has the intrinsic curiosity, or does not. Some children are more curious than others. The philosopher child is most curious of all, and also is forever unsatisfied with the current authority or society. A philosopher does not find sufficient answers from the commoner and average man, manimal. A philosopher seeks the highest education.

This is compulsory, therefore, instinctive.

Genetic determinism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Quantity v Quality Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:21 pm

Most online philosophy forums, accessible through common search engines, appeal to commoners. They are easiest to find, therefore, easiest to read, join, and use. Most of these forums fulfill the inner desire of the Administrator. The creation of a philosophy website ought to include philosophy. But it also can be a case of false representation or the lure of a particular kind of crowd and audience. The administrator doesn't need to do any philosophy, or even be versed in it, but the need to be surrounded by it, and "enjoy it", is enough. Philosophy forums represent their creators who create specific types of foundations for dialogues. Some are more or less "free" with their speech. The freest speech allows for the greatest perversions, such as the internet pedophiles who regularly, routinely, predictably use such arenas to voice their "child love" and other socially taboo and criminalized compulsions.

You presume that a higher quality forum will have less quantity. There should be less people on a philosophy forum demanding the highest quality. I disagree, why not have both quantity and quality? Why not achieve both? This much rarer possibility is lost on too many minds. There is such a thing as a large mass of the best. There is such thing as a small mass of the worst. Why focus on just one, when you can achieve both? I focus on both, more quantity, and, more quality. Have the best of both. I don't limit my possibilities by shooting myself in the foot just out of the holster. Why limit yourself?

A popular philosophy forum most probably will value quantity over quality. A certain high quality is handicapped and censored at certain points. You are not allowed to be "too good". You must stupify yourself. You must lower yourself to the level of the commoner and average. You must hold their hands like children, and guide them from one point to the next. These brains are like children, but, they're real, actual adults who live throughout this country. They're your next door neighbor. They're your family and fiends. Commoners, not trained nor versed in philosophy.

They cannot carry a conversation beyond a certain point. It's usually when "value judgments" enter the scene, opinions representing the specialized perspective, that people begin "agreeing to disagree". Humanity is a specie. And despite certain arguments, the whole, the mass, the manimal, will not tread on certain disagreements for long, if at all. You can uncover this fact about society very easily and quickly on most "popular" philosophy forums, focusing on quantity. Stepping on toes will get you banned. And their toes are very, very sensitive.

The boat has become too worn and delicate. Any little push will topple the whole thing. A room filled with gas, lighting a match will cause a massive explosion. People's feelings are starting to get hurt there. Emotions come before reason, for the manimal, and for the wombmen. Everything revolves around their emotions. And anything that rocks the boat, is offensive, hurtful, mean, cruel, bullying.

The only "bullying" allowed, in postmodernity, is the bullying of the systemic institution, against those who resist "authority". What authority, who is it? God in hiding. The jews and christians got their way in the western hemisphere. Do not speak His name. Better yet, when the atheists pronounce Him dead, then agree with them. God is dead, tee hee hee. But is He really? No, it is better that the masses are unaware of this "God" everybody serves. THE authority, is what I mean. You are not allowed to say certain things, broach certain topics.

Not even on these "philosophy" forums. All reality and existence is worthy to explore, EXCEPT, these topics.

Here are some of these topics.
Race
Sex
Gender
Intelligence
Ability (superior/inferior judgments)

Most liberal philosophy websites will ban you for stepping into these topics too deeply. And liberalism is the rule of the day, the monumental force of postmodernity. "All is allowed, except, challenging the status quo." Free speech, except, when it comes to race, or sex, or gender, or equality, or intelligence. Don't talk about these.

Just....shut your mouth. Why are you even talking about these topics? There must be something wrong with you.

If you broach race,
Then you are a white supremacist Hitler lover who wants to slaughter 6 million jews.

If you broach sex,
Then you are a pathetic virgin (males only) who can't get laid, obviously, you fucking faggot!

If you broach gender,
Then you are a misogynist who hates women, because, ha ha, you can't get laid, faggot!

If you broach equality,
Then, again, you are a white supremacist NAZI, NAZI, we got a fucking NAZI over here!!!

If you broach intelligence,
Then evolution stops at the neck up. Every specie, race, and organism is "evolving" and selecting, EXCEPT, the human race. And there is only one race, the human race.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Emphasizing Feminine Philosophy Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:01 pm

1. Philosophy is driven by curiosity and an innate mental need to explore all
2. Courage is required to back curiosity, and push individuals into unexplored areas

It is within this second factor, that females lack. Wombman is the coward gender. Wombmen are cowards. They do not commit to anything in life. Like a gust of wind, changing direction sporadically, this is the feminine disposition. They require "real men" to make choices for them. In other words, women depend on authorities, to become responsible, so that women can remain irresponsible, unaccountable for their actions, and therefore....privileged. Female privilege depends on this childlike irresponsibility. No wombman, no matter how old or wise or philosophical, ever becomes "self responsible", and therefore, never becomes "self conscious" as well.

Women are not courageous, but cowards. And women do not need to become courageous all the while, men are taking risks on behalf of wombmen.

We see this in young boys. A group of teenage boys 14-16 are at the swimming hole, jumping off the rocks. They climb higher and higher, while down below is a group of 14-16 year old, half naked, blondie girls. These girls cheer on the brave, courageous boys, offering them a promise of sex and sexuality to the "winner", the dominant, the alpha male who leaves the biggest impression. So the boys ascend the cliff, jumping from greater heights. One boy, the tallest and strongest, most agile and charismatic, climbs to the top of the cliff and lunges off, effortlessly. It's second nature to him, a born leader. Another male comes up behind, slower, less sure, less confident. This second male jumps off the cliff, not far enough outward, hits the cliff face during his plummet, gets his face torn off and skull bashed inside, and lands in the water. He is taken to the hospital, pronounced dead after three months in a coma.

Survival of the fittest, sorry boys. And sorry girls, you are not, never were, are not now, never will become, philosophers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


To conclude, women lack the need to "do" philosophy. And so will never do philosophy.

A final note and point,

Since as long as I have been on philosophy forums, or even "in real life" in philosophy discussions with liberal art college boys and girls, women add nothing to philosophy. Fluff posts and responses. Women almost never, or never, have intentional "points". Women don't have a point, and are pointless. They are talking "just to talk", just to fill an uncomfortable void of silence. A sign of nervousness released. And wombmen do talk at length, what do they say?

They say nothing. They repeat, they echo, they copy and paste men's words, never their own. Because women never "own" their own words. They are forever irresponsible of what they say, in a way that lacks self confidence. What they say is not based on their own confidence, but the confidence of the original speaker of the words.

It is in this specific way that philosphers create memetic legacies, and the passages, words, and writings of philosophers are echoed throughout the ages. And almost every belief, thought, word, imagination, concept, and fantasy, can become traced, and pinpointed backward in time, into the past, to represent specific perspective of specific eras long since past.

And if you are attuned enough, with an acute mind, and a small relative sense of history, then you can seek out these origins, understand them, and predict their trends in time and human history.

There are no female philosophers, never were, are not now, never will become.

An impossibility. A limit. And I avoid limits to the best of my ability. But even blind faith, hope, have limits, as does my life.

It is time to end my faith in wombman, to abandon all hope. I have no faith, no hope, and therefore, no respect in the feminine. With respect to philosophy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Self-Discipline Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:08 pm

It is difficult to control yourself as a man.

If the urge to explore all is unrestrained then this is dangerous and you, Philosopher, are going to hurt a lot of people and damage a lot of things. How do you explore all? How do you explore reality, the universe, people, yourself? You take a good, long, hard look in the mirror. Recollect where & when you came from originally. Know yourself, your family, your blood, your parents, your lineage. Accept the good and bad and evil. Accept nature. Succumb, submit to it. Become emasculated before the higher forces of masculine spirituality, gods, and feminine paganism, nature. Masculine and feminine combined into one, is mankind. While wombman kind is only feminine, no masculinity, devoid of maleness. A woman's "masculinity" is her ability to copy, reproduce, and replicate memes. Words she doesn't understand, but enjoys to see and draw effects from. Statements have meaning in context. And women intuitively learn this and repeat it. A wombman echoes, what she does best, not completely understanding the how and why, and not caring. Who cares?

The philosopher cares, and this is enough.

If you cannot learn to control yourself, Philosopher, then higher forces will for you. Don't worry, one way or another, you will stumble across your limits in life. Your failings, whether internal or external, will shine through. You trip and fall, stumble, sometimes. You are mortal, man. You are not wombman. You are not immortal as females are. Your life is not guaranteed. You are mortal, fallible, weak, life is temporary and precious for you, and you only, Man. Philosopher. You know too well the delicacy of your life, after introspecting and investigating and inquiring for far, far too long. There is such a thing as too much "knowing yourself". You knew yourself far too well and far too often.

There is such a thing as too much wisdom, too much smarts, too much intelligence. Too much strength, wealth, beauty. All of these virtues require an upkeep, energy to maintain them. If you improve one then you deny others.

All of this becomes your self-discipline, Philosopher. My epiphany is finished. My vision is clearer than any before me. I will see through all. My enlightenment. My revelations.

I only speak to you, Philosopher. Learn to control your learning. You cannot learn all, because time, your life, your masculinity, is limited. How much of your life will you spend learning instead of living? Is living, only learning? No, it is also practicing, and teaching. These represent the other half of philosophy, the abundance and overflow of wisdom. The fruits of the philosophical labor.


Off topic,
There are three types of labor. Digging into the ground. Chopping down trees. Or smashing rocks apart with pick or sledge hammer. Three types of labor and production.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Dedicated To, Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:16 pm

I dedicate all of myself, I abandon and sacrifice myself, to you, Philosopher.

I realize now all of my life is spent to you, Philosopher. You are my ideal, my man, my identity. Philosopher. This represents my emasculation, my femininity, my homosexuality.

Because every female I ever cross can only repeat what already exists. She never crosses into the unknown. She never explores. And she is only good, useful, prized, valued, known for her repetitions. Females are driven to copy men, attempt to repeat the mind of men. And women fail in this. Males, mankind, produces a pattern. Females copy this pattern to the best of their ability. And their repetitions are fragmented, impure, imperfect copies of men.

A woman can never truly match men, never truly equal, always slightly imperfect and therefore inferior to men. Because women never, not once in existence nor time, match men. Because women never need as men do. Women are never mortal and expendable and disposable as men are.

The time for childishness is ended. My time is limited. My death is imminent. Every day one breath closer to the finale. Everyday one step closer to my final end. Philosopher knows too much of the world, and in this wisdom, knows death too well. It is from this wellspring of knowledge, surrounding death, and therefore life, that the most courage can become derived and exploded into existence.

There is nothing to respect in woman, except perhaps, in how she copies and repeats what is already known to men. Woman is the preservation force of life. She preserves life, by copying mankind, by repeating the Philosopher. Philosopher I write to you. I finally have a target, an audience. I finally have communion. I finally have companionship. I finally have my voice. I finally have everything I searched for in life.

My ideal, I will become Philosopher.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:34 pm

Æon wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
I can.
Phil. is self-sculpting... gradually aiming to work on the world as an artist...
Sculpting is selection, evaluation, ranking, judging, playing with patience... politics.
The political is about power, efficiency, the art of economy; philosophy is the science of economy ('what is the best life?', etc.).
Phil. is maximal politics.

Yet, politics is secondary.  Learning, exploring, having courage to breach the limits, is primary to philosophy.

You are conflating primary with secondary needs.  Sculpting comes after learning, understanding, needing.

No. The primary is political; the self is the emergence of political arrangement of inner drives.
Defining what is self and other in the cellular level is a political act - shaping, forming, selecting, etc.



Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
Its called placing hope, raising your possibility, not implying. Is absolutism the only way you know of reading genetic determinism?

The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree... that doesn't mean I immediately believe in 100% determinism. Genetic memory sometimes doesn't show up till generations later down the line... the effect of "thieving men from thieving women" need/may not be seen immediately... we call this atavism.
Then justify how you believe in 26% or 77% genetic determinism.  It's nonsense.  How does a person "only 33%" believe that the sun revolves around the earth?  What would that even mean?  Quantity is not quality.

I meant I can only place hope; I can't be responsible for how the gene of the other combines with mine and what that results in.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:46 pm

Lyssa wrote:
No. The primary is political; the self is the emergence of political arrangement of inner drives.
Defining what is self and other in the cellular level is a political act - shaping, forming, selecting, etc.
Wrong.

Exploring comes first. Defining new phenomenon comes much later, after patterns are formed and consciousness solidifies into memories.

To define the world is political, yes, but is secondary to the act of exploring and learning.

In fact, you just exposed your underlying value and motive here. Your first priority is politics, not philosophy. You just learned something about yourself.


Lyssa wrote:
I meant I can only place hope; I can't be responsible for how the gene of the other combines with mine and what that results in.
Nonsense

I repeat my question. How do you "only 33% believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow? Explain yourself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Who is Philosopher? Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:30 pm

Every writer needs a reader. Every speaker needs a listener.

The philosopher is a rarest type of man. He must be the most curious and courageous of all men. He must never shrink back from the precipice of the void. He must dive head first into the unknown. If he does retreat from his fear then he must return and give the challenge another go. The goal is to learn about All. Understanding comes next. You learn, you understand, and you attempt to know about All. I mean learn of yourself, others, and the universe. Learn about everything and nothing.

Cowards need not apply. This is why female philosophy is impossible. As before, the females, the blondies on the beach cheering and encouraging the young boys to jump off tall rocks, are spectators. Do nothings. Offer yourself as a possibility to the most courageous type. Passive participants, cheerleaders. That is all a woman can hope to become, not, a participator herself. Because she is a coward. And men do not fault women for this, but rather enjoy the natural male-female sexual dynamic. Traditional gender roles.

The Philosopher is always a Man and never a Wombman. Today I speak to Him, The Philosopher. When do you live, Philosopher? Maybe you lived in the far, far forgotten past. You lived in 1333AD. Or maybe you are not even born yet, and you live in 3333AD. Do you live in the past or future? Do you live right now, on earth? Are you born today? Did you die today? Did I miss you? Am I you? The Philosopher, whenever you are, hear my words as they are intended, only, for you. The highest philosophy appeals to the highest philosopher.

If you ought to write and speak then obviously, why not to the highest reader and listener? The Philosopher listens and reads all, but, most discriminating. Not all information is equal. Not all knowledge is useful. Not all context is needed. Remember, I mentioned that the Philosopher is a man. And so he is mortal. And so his lifetime is limited. He seeks the unknown, not the already known. And so the already known is not in the interest of the Philosopher, although He will return to it from time to time.

Philosopher, you seek the unknown. And so, if I must write, and debase myself before people and thinkers I never respected, not once, then let me appeal to you most of all, firstly and foremost. I've spent my life seeking you, and although I will not cross your path within my lifetime, most probably, then my words will extend to you, in the past or in the future. I missed you, or, you will have a chance to read these words in a thousand years.

I offer you the unknown. I offer you possibilities worthy to doubt. I offer you the greatest challenges. Because I have attempted to learn All. And I have attempted to doubt All. And it is always in the things, the values, that humans cannot doubt or refuse to doubt most of all, that their values become crystal clear as the light of day, and a manimal exposes his or her soul to the inquiry of philosophy. Using philosophy, you can see through the lives of the human animals. These, manimals, have easy, simple, slave values. They inherit them biologically and culturally. They receive stupidities from their parents, family, and friends. They receive stupidities from their societies. And they never think to doubt.

And their curiosity is tiny, infinitesimal, compared to yours and mine. And my curiosity in my short lifetime, during my contemporary age of postmodernity, will also become small compared to yours. Consume the fruits of my labor. Because they are meant for you. I sacrifice these and give up my excess, for you, Philosopher.

I have doubted too much, it seems. I doubt so much. I doubt all. I destroy all prepositions, all presumptions, all premises, all everything with my mind. And I have surpassed all of my peers. They no longer interest me, so am forced to write to you. My contemporaries appear as children to me. Their own doubts are smaller than mine. Where they stop doubting, I was never content to stop. And I extended my doubt far beyond where it ought to go. I doubted all.

And when there is no truth, then there is no lies. There is only the searching for knowledge. This result, the search for knowledge, leads to memories. People value their memories in life. And they refuse to doubt them. Yesterday seems so real, does it not? Ask the commoner, the peasant of his or her opinion. Yes, they value yesterday, and cannot let it go. It is real. It was real. Their delusions are real. Their fantasies are real. They are unwilling to give up their dreams and nightmares. Because they feel so real.

But what is the result of indiscriminate doubt? Doubt pushed far beyond its boundary? You doubt yourself, others, all. To the peasant, Philosopher, You seem like a coward and introvert. Too cautious and withdrawn. You lock yourself away from the world, and they call you a coward. They don't realize that your courage topples them all. Because you see through all of their faith, their blind faith. You know the institutions of their certainties and beliefs. You know their religion and dogma. You know their dreams and nightmares. And you know how the manimal sees you, from their perspectives.

But I know you, or, at least I attempted to know you. You are most courageous. And where there is faith, the most supreme doubt will see through it and expose the underlying fear, hope, and emotion. Because petty beliefs rest on petty emotions of petty lives. Unexamined lives. None of these manimals are philosophers or especially philosophical. They're not. The manimal is religious. He and she has their lives dictated by a book of faith.

Only the greatest faith can match the greatest doubt. And so Philosopher, your enemy, your natural nemesis in your life, will be the most faithful man, the most religious man, the man with most certainty and conviction.

The postmoderns, today, link certain bravado with confidence. You have to be a fool to earn their respect. You have to rush headfirst into improbabilities and "don't think" about the danger. Don't think at all. Don't doubt at all. This is the premise of postmodernity, where quantity and the meek have triumphed over quality and the excellent. You must be a fool, in my age and time. Fools are most adorned, not you, Philosopher.

I can only hope that your time was, is, or will become, much different than mine. In postmodernity, Philosopher, you are most hated for your brilliance and impossible doubts. That you see through all false faith and insecurities is most unwelcome. They will hate you for uncovering their fear. And you must cover the fact that you know them better than they know themselves.

Because they will not doubt themselves. And they will not doubt, period.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
perpetualburn

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 936
Join date : 2013-01-04
Location : MA

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:53 pm

Lyssa wrote:
There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.

As I was telling someone recently, a Male wants to spread himself as much as possible, through genes and memes, the latter being philosophy, maximal seeding of your memes, your memory on the world, while, a rare kind of female finds it sufficient to live on in the memory of just one person. That pressing urge isn't there and its part of why they don't become philosophers to want to be remembered by many.
The great scholarly works and contributions by women, if anything, show their deep "impersonality"...  even a Kristeva speaks "on behalf of all women".... not for herself.

Its why Weininger says motherly women aren't that troubled by their mortality, they feel indestructible because they feel they will live on in the species... individuality doesn't matter. Pressing your memory on many others doesn't matter when you feel immortal through the indiscriminate species of man.

Mothers in the Bible:

Quote :
However, the role of matriarch is not only to defend her chosen heir but to promote God’s will by choosing the “right” heir, the one designated in prophecy. Sarah and Rebecca are both acting on prophecy when they promote Isaac and Jacob.6 They are agents of deity. The parallels between women like Sarah and Rebecca and the gevirah may support the assertions of scholars that the queen mother played a sacred function in the court.

Scholars like Susan Ackerman have suggested, based on references in the Bible, ancient Near Eastern literature, and archaeology, that the notion of God having a feminine counterpart, an Asherah, remained part of Israelite religion up until the first Exile. In this analysis, the gevirah played a human role similar to the divine role of Asherah as mother of the gods.7 Ackerman theorizes that the gevirah may have served as a priestess of Asherah during  a period when Asherah received worship in the Temple. She further notes that legends of Asherah depict her as a provider of the heir to the throne, as in an epic myth where Baal says: “Lady Asherah, give me one of your sons, and I shall make him king.”8 Further, Daniel Dever’s recent book Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel9 asserts, based on archeological evidence of home altars, that the women of an Israelite household had a ritual role within the local cult, making offerings in the home and at meals honoring the dead. This strengthens the possibility that the queen mother played a similar role within her household, providing both ritual leadership and political advice as a representative of the deity.

Whether or not one accepts the priestess theory, the notion of a divine mother with a regal role (Asherah, Isis, Cybele, etc.) was common throughout the ancient Near East and had a vast impact on the mindset of residents of the region. Indeed, these images eventually percolated into Christianity, and transformed Mary into the Mother of God, portrayed triumphanton a throne, holding her regnant son.10 The matriarchs of Genesis may well represent a demythicized version of the Asherah figure; the mother who provides a son to govern the nation and order the cosmos. In that respect, the women of Genesis are similar to the queen mothers who, officially or otherwise, represent the same concept.

Yet there is a glaring difference between the queen mothers and the Genesis matriarchs. We hear about the queen mothers before and after their sons come to power; sometimes exclusively after their sons come to power. Bathsheba, for example, occupies a throne at her son’s right hand and offers him advice. In the Song of Songs we have a reference to a queen mother crowning her son on his wedding day, basking in the glory of his adulthood. 11 We only hear about matriarchs before their sons become patriarchs. Once a young man becomes patriarch, his mother is never mentioned again, except in reference to her tomb. Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah are all whisked away (through death or simple disappearance) before their sons’ coronations, and in fact Pharaoh’s daughter and Yocheved, the adoptive and biological mothers of Moses, receive the same fate.

If we accept that the matriarchal narratives are in some way related to the gevirah narratives, we may recognize two models of the mother: a) a situation in which wives fight bitterly to secure power for their sons but then fade away when that task is over; and b) a situation in which mothers who successfully raise an heir become women of wisdom and prestige after their sons’ assumption of power. The latter may represent the position of queen mothers and may also indicate an archetypal role of “wise mother” as described in the Book of Proverbs12; the former may represent an attempt by Genesis to alter, revise, and/or conceal that role.

Quote :
The comparison between the second chapter of Exodus and II Kings 12 suggests that Genesis seeks to revise the role of mother precisely to make sure her role continues to be a supporting role. The desire for the mother to be present and make the heir safe is in conflict with the fear that the mother will seek to take center stage. The stories of Maacah and of Athaliah suggest this fear. Jehosheba, Pharaoh’s daughter, and their counterparts are antidotes to this anxiety about the mother’s influence: they provide examples of women who hold power, yet choose to exercise it on behalf of vulnerable male infants rather than on their own behalf. In fact, Jehosheba and Pharaoh’s daughter both reject their own parent in order to protect God’s chosen heirs. These are the mothers with whom the Genesis text – and perhaps even the Kings text – feels most comfortable.

The “mother’s influence” on some level represents the power of women – whether it is religious power, political power, or simply the power to give birth. The text does not wish to abolish this power, seeing it as crucial to the support of kings and patriarchs. Indeed, the power is sacred, carrying as it does some symbolic resonance with the divine mother. Yet the power of the mother cannot be confirmed, because of its dangers. The power can be used to seize control, invoke other deities, even kill. Therefore Genesis makes a compromise, cutting off the lives of the matriarchs before problems of sovereignty-sharing arise.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by perpetualburn on Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2478
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:49 pm

Æon wrote:
the females, the blondies on the beach cheering and encouraging the young boys to jump off tall rocks, are spectators.

Thus females are the driving force of male vigor; of course, those with more (self)consciousness can also use its libido to project it upon personal development not in urge for female attention.
But the former is the most usual.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:40 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.

As I was telling someone recently, a Male wants to spread himself as much as possible, through genes and memes, the latter being philosophy, maximal seeding of your memes, your memory on the world, while, a rare kind of female finds it sufficient to live on in the memory of just one person. That pressing urge isn't there and its part of why they don't become philosophers to want to be remembered by many.
The great scholarly works and contributions by women, if anything, show their deep "impersonality"...  even a Kristeva speaks "on behalf of all women".... not for herself.

Its why Weininger says motherly women aren't that troubled by their mortality, they feel indestructible because they feel they will live on in the species... individuality doesn't matter. Pressing your memory on many others doesn't matter when you feel immortal through the indiscriminate species of man.

Mothers in the Bible:

Quote :
However, the role of matriarch is not only to defend her chosen heir but to promote God’s will by choosing the “right” heir, the one designated in prophecy. Sarah and Rebecca are both acting on prophecy when they promote Isaac and Jacob.6 They are agents of deity. The parallels between women like Sarah and Rebecca and the gevirah may support the assertions of scholars that the queen mother played a sacred function in the court.

Scholars like Susan Ackerman have suggested, based on references in the Bible, ancient Near Eastern literature, and archaeology, that the notion of God having a feminine counterpart, an Asherah, remained part of Israelite religion up until the first Exile. In this analysis, the gevirah played a human role similar to the divine role of Asherah as mother of the gods.7 Ackerman theorizes that the gevirah may have served as a priestess of Asherah during  a period when Asherah received worship in the Temple. She further notes that legends of Asherah depict her as a provider of the heir to the throne, as in an epic myth where Baal says: “Lady Asherah, give me one of your sons, and I shall make him king.”8 Further, Daniel Dever’s recent book Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel9 asserts, based on archeological evidence of home altars, that the women of an Israelite household had a ritual role within the local cult, making offerings in the home and at meals honoring the dead. This strengthens the possibility that the queen mother played a similar role within her household, providing both ritual leadership and political advice as a representative of the deity.

Whether or not one accepts the priestess theory, the notion of a divine mother with a regal role (Asherah, Isis, Cybele, etc.) was common throughout the ancient Near East and had a vast impact on the mindset of residents of the region. Indeed, these images eventually percolated into Christianity, and transformed Mary into the Mother of God, portrayed triumphanton a throne, holding her regnant son.10 The matriarchs of Genesis may well represent a demythicized version of the Asherah figure; the mother who provides a son to govern the nation and order the cosmos. In that respect, the women of Genesis are similar to the queen mothers who, officially or otherwise, represent the same concept.

Yet there is a glaring difference between the queen mothers and the Genesis matriarchs. We hear about the queen mothers before and after their sons come to power; sometimes exclusively after their sons come to power. Bathsheba, for example, occupies a throne at her son’s right hand and offers him advice. In the Song of Songs we have a reference to a queen mother crowning her son on his wedding day, basking in the glory of his adulthood. 11 We only hear about matriarchs before their sons become patriarchs. Once a young man becomes patriarch, his mother is never mentioned again, except in reference to her tomb. Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah are all whisked away (through death or simple disappearance) before their sons’ coronations, and in fact Pharaoh’s daughter and Yocheved, the adoptive and biological mothers of Moses, receive the same fate.

If we accept that the matriarchal narratives are in some way related to the gevirah narratives, we may recognize two models of the mother: a) a situation in which wives fight bitterly to secure power for their sons but then fade away when that task is over; and b) a situation in which mothers who successfully raise an heir become women of wisdom and prestige after their sons’ assumption of power. The latter may represent the position of queen mothers and may also indicate an archetypal role of “wise mother” as described in the Book of Proverbs12; the former may represent an attempt by Genesis to alter, revise, and/or conceal that role.

Quote :
The comparison between the second chapter of Exodus and II Kings 12 suggests that Genesis seeks to revise the role of mother precisely to make sure her role continues to be a supporting role. The desire for the mother to be present and make the heir safe is in conflict with the fear that the mother will seek to take center stage. The stories of Maacah and of Athaliah suggest this fear. Jehosheba, Pharaoh’s daughter, and their counterparts are antidotes to this anxiety about the mother’s influence: they provide examples of women who hold power, yet choose to exercise it on behalf of vulnerable male infants rather than on their own behalf. In fact, Jehosheba and Pharaoh’s daughter both reject their own parent in order to protect God’s chosen heirs. These are the mothers with whom the Genesis text – and perhaps even the Kings text – feels most comfortable.

The “mother’s influence” on some level represents the power of women – whether it is religious power, political power, or simply the power to give birth. The text does not wish to abolish this power, seeing it as crucial to the support of kings and patriarchs. Indeed, the power is sacred, carrying as it does some symbolic resonance with the divine mother. Yet the power of the mother cannot be confirmed, because of its dangers. The power can be used to seize control, invoke other deities, even kill. Therefore Genesis makes a compromise, cutting off the lives of the matriarchs before problems of sovereignty-sharing arise.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Weininger wrote:
"...only maternal love indiscriminately encompasses everything that the mother has ever carried in her womb. It is a cruel admission to make to oneself, as well as to the mother and the child, that this is precisely what reveals the totally unethical nature of maternal love, the love that persists regardless of whether the son becomes a saint or a criminal, a king or a beggar, whether he remains an angel or degenerates into a monster. However, the belief of many children that they are entitled to their mother’s love, simply because they are her children (this applies in particular to daughters, although sons are usually also negligent in this respect) is equally base. Maternal love is immoral because it does not relate to another self, but represents a fusion right from the outset: like any immoral behavior toward others, it crosses a border. An ethical re- lationship can only exist between one individual and another. Maternal love, which is indiscriminate and intrusive, rules out individuality.

The relationship between a mother and her child is in all eternity a system of near-reflexes linking the two. If the child suddenly calls out or cries while the mother is sitting in the next room, the mother will jump up as if stung by a bee and hurry to the child (incidentally, a good opportunity to tell at once whether a woman is more a mother or a pros- titute), and later on, when the child has grown up, every wish and every complaint of that adult is also immediately communicated or, so to speak, conducted and transplanted to her, and becomes, unquestioned and unchecked, her own wish and complaint. The nature of motherhood is that of an unbroken conduit between the mother and anything that was ever connected with her through the umbilical cord.

Therefore I am unable to join in the general admiration of maternal love and cannot help thinking that its most reprehensible feature is precisely what is so often praised about it: its lack of discrimination. Incidentally, I believe that this has been recognized, and only kept quiet about, by many outstanding thinkers and artists. The once so widespread overestimation of Raphael has subsided, and there are no other singers of maternal love above the modest rank of Fischart or Richepin. Maternal love is instinctive and driven: it exists in animals no less than in humans. This alone would be enough to prove that this kind of love cannot be genuine love, this kind of altruism cannot be true morality, for all morality stems from the intelligible character, which animals lack, since they are totally unfree. The ethical imperative can only be obeyed by a rational be- ing: there is no instinctive, but only conscious, morality." [Sex and Character]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:43 pm

Æon wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
No. The primary is political; the self is the emergence of political arrangement of inner drives.
Defining what is self and other in the cellular level is a political act - shaping, forming, selecting, etc.
Wrong.

Exploring comes first.  Defining new phenomenon comes much later, after patterns are formed and consciousness solidifies into memories.

I am talking at the cellular level. The emergence of a self, is a political arrangement of drives foremost. Without this political structure, this semblance of a unity, no unit, no "individual" would come to exist in the first place.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
I meant I can only place hope; I can't be responsible for how the gene of the other combines with mine and what that results in.
Nonsense

I repeat my question.  How do you "only 33% believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow?  Explain yourself.

Isn't that what Feminization is?

Memes "Out-Determining" genetic-determinism...

Get it?


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:52 pm

Æon wrote:
Every writer needs a reader.  Every speaker needs a listener.

The philosopher is a rarest type of man.  He must be the most curious and courageous of all men.  He must never shrink back from the precipice of the void.  He must dive head first into the unknown.  If he does retreat from his fear then he must return and give the challenge another go.  The goal is to learn about All.  Understanding comes next.  You learn, you understand, and you attempt to know about All.  I mean learn of yourself, others, and the universe.  Learn about everything and nothing.

I have doubted too much, it seems.  I doubt so much.  I doubt all.  I destroy all prepositions, all presumptions, all premises, all everything with my mind.  And I have surpassed all of my peers.  They no longer interest me, so am forced to write to you.  My contemporaries appear as children to me.  Their own doubts are smaller than mine. Where they stop doubting, I was never content to stop.  And I extended my doubt far beyond where it ought to go.  I doubted all.

How amusing.

The Philosopher is a validation of what you take for granted and do not doubt...
Ironically you then exhort all to doubt but never doubt yourself.

Have you doubted Your Self?

Have you doubted your own Invincibility?

Can you doubt that you are Not a philosopher?

Can you doubt that such a Philosopher may not exist?

Can you doubt that your writings may never reach the Philosopher you write for, that it will stand the test of time long enough to reach one?

Have you doubted if you are a Narcissist?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:33 pm

I will say briefly that everything you mention I have not doubted, I already doubted a thousand times each.

You are only beginning to catch up to where I have already traveled, long ago.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:34 pm

perpetualburn wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
There are women who are both beautiful and intelligent and content to rule through their sons and grandsons. They are "philosophical enough" to let their heirs DO the philosophy.

In the ideal,

To marry a woman is to marry your highest hope. Because you generate possibility, only a woman can redeem a possibility into a world and grant you freedom. She is your redemption.

To marry a man is to marry your strongest refuge. Because you have seen into the crevices, into the patterns that will blossom into a flower, you wish to give the world a chance, to conserve that memory that is You, only a man can protect it from oblivion, by shaping that fate to a destiny, by giving her his Name. He is her salvation.



Nietzsche wrote:
"The female intellect. - Women's intellect is manifested as perfect control, presence of mind, and utilization of all advantages. They bequeath it as their fundamental character to their children, and the father furnishes the darker background of will. His influence determines the rhythm and harmony, so to speak, to which the new life is to be played out; but its melody comes from the woman.
To say it for those who know how to explain a thing: women have the intelligence, men the heart and passion. This is not contradicted by the fact that men actually get so much farther with their intelligence: they have the deeper, more powerful drives; these take their intelligence, which is in itself something passive, forward. Women are often privately amazed at the great honor men pay to their hearts.
When men look especially for a profound, warm-hearted being, in choosing their spouse, and women for a clever, alert, and brilliant being, one sees very clearly how a man is looking for an idealized man, and a woman for an idealized woman--that is, not for a complement, but for the perfection of their own merits." [HATH, 411]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1805
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy? Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:45 pm

OhFortunae wrote:
Thus females are the driving force of male vigor; of course, those with more (self)consciousness can also use its libido to project it upon personal development not in urge for female attention.
But the former is the most usual.
I am considering new possibilities with new experiences in life.

There is a human elite, a "top 1%" of genetics. At the very, tip top, every sexual choice is a step down, never a step up. It is from this precipice that the "top males", the Ubermenschen, will have no women to choose from. So these men will not become inspired by females, but, by purely ideals. Men already do this to a degree. Males already have an inclination to fantasize and form a "dream girl". But there is a difference between fantasizing because one is unwanted, versus having no high quality females present in the environment.

We are approaching, or already settled in, a time and era where there are no "top women". There are no inspirational females to "cheer us on", to climb higher and jump off from the tip top cliff. The aryan females are vanished since 1945. Surely there are blondie blue eyes out there encouraging men on in different arenas of life.

But this is philosophy. Do you see any females present? I don't. There was one pretty girl around philosophy forums, for a short while, but they vanish after learning that philosophy is not a cake walk, a walk in the park. Females get "bored" of philosophy, because females themselves, are boring.

Currently, there are no worthwhile females on this forum, at least, that I have seen or have pictures of. Maybe Lyssa is pretty, maybe not. But who does she encourage and cheerlead for? Who is she cheering on? Who is her champion?

This is simple, child philosophy. We should move beyond this.

Since philosophy has not one, not one, female philosopher in the history books, then we must understand who the female spectators and cheerleaders of philosophy are. Who are these women? I have never met one, personally. I've seen a couple of pictures of cute girls, but only temporary. They don't last long.

And finally, who are their respective champions? Again, we live in an ignoble age.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: What is Philosophy?

Back to top Go down
 
What is Philosophy?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» On Zen Masters - some thoughts from Stuart Lachs
» Insightful Essay: Post-Traditional Buddhism - the Quiet Revolution
» Taha Chuan: State law pursues the philosophy of autocracy will not respond to the criticisms of MPs Majid Asadi and the Barzani Thursday, March 22 / March 2012 18:25
» Free Esoteric Podcasts
» Movie Philosophy

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: