Yup! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

But I'm still *just* attached enough to my male-side that I prefer to say androgenous man. I, too, am attached to things no one cares about and will do it anyway without explanation because you wouldn't understand anyways and fuck it I'm a man. ;)

But I'm also ooey gooey, at times, and really don't mind sharing that side of me, and anymore prefer the predictable to the chaotic. I call it practical

So it just seems to kind of fit.

Yes -- but I've been acknowledging biology while saying it's the one with lesser influence on identity. Testosterone, I think, actually is an important factor in how men are, but things get complicated -- and it's just what I think, rather than a scientific belief. We don't walk around the world with testosterone concentration kits or estrogen concentration kits. This is the language of causes and science as opposed to the language of identity and intent.

A pop-biology isn't an insult as much as it's an acknowledgement of how we get by in these conversations. While I do biochemistry, it has nothing to do with the biochemistry of gender identity -- but my biochemistry background is what makes me suspicious of claiming that we're biologically this or that way. Especially if we're just referencing the genome, which is incredibly small in comparison to the proteome which arises from the genome (which is where I'd at least *predict* hormone differences to be predictable... but I don't know). The cutting-edge stuff in medicine is all about being able to simultaneously tailor medicines to an individuals genome because it's acknowledged that what's actually happening in the proteome is dependent upon the actual sequence you're working with rather than a generalized description of the chromosomes.

Philosophy, even in a world run by scientific fact alone, is still relevant because we, as people, will never be able to make decisions with respect to scientific fact. It just takes too long to figure out. So it's worth noting that this is a pop-biology, at least to say that we're not really doing science here.

From what I understand you identify as a male. Transitioned from boyhood to manhood. — Amity

Yes. Though my preference is to say "adulthood", in truth. I'm a man, but I can tell that my own mode of expression differs from a lot of people who are men. Might have something to do with my theory, eh? ;)

Else, I'm not a man. But that's somehow more confusing to me. That fits even less! So -- androgenous man is the gender identity I've come to prefer, but I'm not settled on the wording. I'm surprised to find others don't feel like me -- but isn't that all part of the path of self-discovery?

You focus on social traits (rather than physical, mental or psychological factors) related to being a woman or a man. Why?

Because if you compare cultures then men and women behave differently in those cultures than they do in other cultures -- suggesting that the social make-up is what accounts for variation among societies. If we expected the genetic factors, at least, you'd predict a lot more uniformity of roles across cultures than we observe. At least so my thinking goes. So I infer that the social has more influence than the biological from that, as well as because there are many people who break the expected traits to think that genetics is highly determinative of behavior.

What do you mean by 'social traits'? — Amity

The role which a person is to fulfill.

Do you mean the forming of personality or character/istics including the emotions, whether or not they are masculine/feminine?

Nope.

The emotions are deeper than these identities, I think. Or perhaps a better phrasing is that at childhood we have undifferentiated emotions which we can relate to one another, but through development we attain differentiation as well.

The Kate Millet tripartite division is Biology:Mentality:Role, and she turns this on its head in saying that role is primary, and the mentality is grafted onto biological traits in order to make an excuse for said role. So within patriarchy the reason women (biology) fit into the role of caregiver is because the mentality that arises from the biology is one that nurtures, and the reason men are the breadwinners is because their biological makeup influences their psyche to prefer the roles of risk-taking that men are associated with.

You think that the difference between the feminine/masculine (or men and women) is less relevant than the transition from boyhood>manhood (or girlhood>womanhood) when it comes to understanding 'Masculinity'.
Have I understood you correctly? I don't think it is that simple.

Complexities arise when you consider that males (young and adult) can have a heady mix of masculinities and femininities along a spectrum of human characteristics/traits.

This becomes even more complicated in the case of Gender Dysphoria.
For example, transitioning from male to female during puberty. Growing from boyhood to womanhood.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
and treatment (psychological and medical):
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/
Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Side-effects.
In general, people wanting masculinisation usually take testosterone and people after feminisation usually take oestrogen.
— NHS
Then, surgery. — Amity

I hope not to oversimplify. If anything the issue of gender identity is not simple.

However I think that these complexities arise at exactly the time my notion would predict -- if it's the transition from childhood to adulthood which is the defining time, then puberty is the time when differences between gender identities (for whatever causal reason) would become more prominent.
While I'm astride the gender dichotomy, I am cisgendered, so I don't want to speculate too much on the psychology here. It's complicated, but I think the heady mixture is only in the minds of those who don't understand -- if anyone is certain of their gender identity, it's the trans person willing to undergo social scrutiny just to be who they are.

What do you mean by 'except when it gets ugly'? — Amity

I'm thinking of toxic masculinities here which are built around resentment of female power over a man -- real or imagined. Hence, ugly.

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age. The whole society is sick and we all suffer from it. — Baden

Yup.

The realities of class overrun our educated chatter about sex, gender, men (masculinity), and women (femininity). Educated, professional workers are just not in the same boat as blue-collar / gray collar workers. I've been both. The latter is definitely more pleasant than the latter. — BC

I think bringing class into the mix only heightens the notion of patriarchy, rather than downplaying it. The reason it's convenient to say that women do woman occupations and men do men occupations due to their nature is that it provides justification for the pay-gap -- they all purportedly had a choice in what they were to become (as if families don't pressure children to fit roles, or schools, or workplaces) and freely chose the professions where men are paid more and women are paid less, on whole.

The professions that need unions are often female dominated, by the numbers. Working class politics works hand in hand with feminism rather than being in opposition.

This caught my attention. I’m conscious of the effort to not explain ‘maleness’ in opposition to the notion of ‘female’, and I recognise this is a personal reflection, but it’s difficult not to consider answers such as these without asking ‘as opposed to…?’ Especially when reading it as a woman. — Possibility

I agree that these questions come up, and that asking "as opposed to...?" is a good avenue -- and I'm offering childhood as opposed to feminity as the contrast-class. So that. . .

Aggression, for instance, is traditionally considered a masculine trait - yet young women these days, freed from learned expectations of passivity as ‘feminine’, are often (not always) more openly aggressive than their mothers and grandmothers were. They no longer need to appear ‘ladylike’.

...is a perfectly acceptable form of femininity. Appearing ladylike isn't the feminine, but being an adult is. And isn't it the truth that women find ways to express their aggression when they aren't allowed?

So I suggest that it's a mode of expression rather than a trait which makes the difference (and, further, it's both pscyho-social, so the topic is naturally vague, making these conversations difficul for more than just because people are attached to them, but also because they aren't clear)

Protection to the vulnerable, too, without these learned expectations, is increasingly recognised as a human trait, rather than a particularly masculine one. As a woman, it isn’t that I have no intention to protect the vulnerable, only that in many (but by no means all) situations I recognise a lack of physical or political capacity to individually eliminate a threat. That I have and make use of other means to protect the vulnerable rarely registers as action on my part, or is dismissed as ‘underhanded’ or ‘manipulative’ because it lacks this physically or politically overt individual action. I gather the support of relationships, adjust the circumstances, lend my capacity to others…

The ‘maleness’ described here appears to prioritise individual agency and attributable action - a sense of identity and ownership found in isolating one’s self from the world as the subject. Competitiveness and conflict over collaboration - my life, my decisions, my honour, my family, my desire, as opposed to others and their (dis)agreement, vulnerability, etc.

When we use this kind of language, the frustration as a woman is that it isn’t as important for me to be recognised as the subject behind every event as it is for the event to occur. I, too, want protection for the vulnerable, I want less conflict, I want change, I want reliable and intimate relationships, and I’m willing to do what I can to achieve this - but this ‘maleness’ seems more about consolidating identity through attributable action than intentionality.

I think that's the sort of thing I want to highlight as being a very partial part of masculinity -- the part of the masculine identity that's close to the imagination of one's self and what one expects from oneself. The man, in his imagination, wants to be the provider of values to the world (what a lucky world it is!) such that even he isn't dependent but rather allows others to depend upon him. The man in his imagination can subdue even the world itself to his will. But the man in his reality shares a lot with women, even if the story gets told a certain way to make him happy.

or step back to critique the settings of social system that is seeking to over-simplify us. — apokrisis

Exactly! :D That's the spirit of this thread, or at least what I aimed for in my opening.

Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ... — 180 Proof

Well, naturally, that's where this all leads for me. :D

So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, — Hanover

I agree with your first sentence, but I disagree with your last one. The cause is social I think, primarily, though I'm not a priori refusing genetic causal influence. Attributing social causes doesn't mean that it's not-real, or somehow lesser. Also I'll note that the language of causes differs from the language of intent, and with respect to how we self-identify or understand the identity of others then the language of intent is also important.

If we were talking genetics, though, we'd be referencing papers about such. But the truth is that we don't have enough knowledge about our biological makeup to construct something as complicated as an identity. That's kind of the mind/body problem in a nutshell.

So, given that scientific knowledge is incomplete, I propose that we "get by" through accepted social forms which can be understood by looking at their respective histories. But histories don't boil down into scientific fact very well -- they contain too much of the emotive aspect of living to do that. Which means that this genetics is, in fact, a pop-biology that's not looking at the wide range of expressions which are possible.

For instance -- I think that focusing on what a man's occupation does, that's the part that our culture generally takes for granted as being an important part of one's masculinity. But why should our occupations even be attached to our gender? I think that's because of our cultural notions of real manhood being tied to being breadwinners from the traditional roles of man/woman within a nuclear family household.

I don't usually do hot takes but here's one: it's about risk. I doubt it's entirely a social construction, but if I suggested that male mammals are more, shall we say, disposable, that would be a just-so story. Vaguely the right place to start though, to find the material social construction has to work with.

The roles men are expected to take on -- with the usual caveats here -- that neither women nor children are, are risky. Men go to war, not just because of their aptitude for violence, but also because there is considerable risk.

The Pony Express used to run this ad: "Wanted. Young, skinny, wiry fellows. Not over 18. Must be expert riders. Willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred." As a group essential but individually disposable.

I won't multiply examples, but I'll add that it might make sense for a society to arrange itself partly in terms of risk. There have generally been dangerous things that need doing, so you probably don't want everyone doing them. Obviously today we have women soldiers, fire fighters, and so on, and we have child soldiers too. Yay. — Srap Tasmaner

I think this gets at why men are easy to coax into risky roles -- and also gets along with my notion that men are deeply passionate, rather than emotionless. I think men are deeply passionate about all kinds of things which others don't particularly care for, which is why men don't bother to share what they are passionate about -- the silence is preferable because others won't understand why I take this risk or push that boundary anyways. Something about men makes it easier to have them be attached to this aspect of life. In fact I'd say it's the deeply felt emotions of men that are their most attractive aspect.

Of course my thought is that the cause for men's masculinity is more social, but that's a causal description rather than a description of manliness and why men are masculine in their various capacities. Your answer is exactly what I'm looking for -- at the very least to let things sit beside one another.

Also why I didn't want to seem like I was emasculating. I think that masculinity is a sensitive topic, and it's good to let the views live together even if they contradict.

Why would you say that you are not interested in being/becoming a 'real man' in the sense of growth you describe? — Amity

Asking this is sort of like asking me why I'm not interested in being or becoming something I'm not. I grew up into something but I don't think it fits with "real men", whatever that is. If I happen to fit the social traits of "real man" then that's not reason to keep my expressions the same, and if I happen to not fit the social traits of "real man" then that's no reason to change myself or feel shame about myself or who I am.

Interestingly, given the prior expressions of apathy towards turning masculinity into words this fits with notions of masculinity and real manliness put forward.

But this kind of goes to what I'm trying to do with the distinction between boyhood/manhood and feminine/masculine -- our adult selves are differentiated from our childhood selves more than they are differentiated from the other gender. We look for differences between men and women because that's part of the gender game is to find differences to confirm that we're different but complementary to one another. But in coming to understand masculinity I'm suggesting that the coming-to-age story is more relevant than the game of gender differences.

If that's so then it's actually a non sequiter to bring up that women can be tough, for instance. Of course they can! That's because masculinity and feminity don't have to be defined by one another -- they can co-exist with the same traits and acknowledge that the difference is more of how we express than who we are. It's partly a social dance, but then the social dance becomes a part of who we are too so things get confusing.

So, yes, I'm good with being an adult. But whatever my notion of adulthood is this idea of real manhood doesn't really do it for me.

Perhaps a more probative inquiry:
What are the functions, or duties, normatively expected of men at (this) historical moment and by (this) culture / in (this) society? And what does such an expectation 'to be a man' mean to (for) each concretely situated person?
A socio-psychological topic, however, rather than philosophical aporia, no? — 180 Proof

Somewhere in-between, I think -- "in the wild" there's a difference between what we say and what we do with respect to gender roles and gender identity, which is what makes room for philosophical reflection to have a place. At the very least to demonstrate that the topic isn't clear cut, that it "needs further research" and what a real man is isn't so clear-cut if what we mean is some singular definition of masculinity. It's too dependent upon social context.

Thus emasculating you respondents. — Banno

I hope not!

I have a mate who owns a property near Wangaratta, drives a John Deere all day, keeps his cigs tucked in the shoulder of his singlet, and always has a half-smile on his face. He saw the title of the book "Real men don't eat quiche", and murmured quietly "Real men eat whatever they fuckin' want."

:D

Perfect.

There are certain characteristics I have that I am confident about - that are part of how I think about myself, my identity. These include that I am my three children's father, I am intelligent, I write well, I am a Clark, I think like an engineer, I see the world in ways that not many other people do, I am loyal, and I am a man. My maleness manifests as intellectual aggressiveness; an ability to deal with conflict in an honorable way; competitiveness; a strong drive to make and take responsibility for decisions that affect my life sometimes without waiting for other's agreement; a desire to protect my family, friends, and people who are more vulnerable than I am; and a desire for emotional and sexual intimacy with women. That's what being a man means to me. — T Clark

Wonderful reflection. Thank you for sharing. Responsibility, action, loyalty, aggression, providing protection to the vulnerable, and sexual attraction to women are perfect explications of a masculinity.

If I'm reading you correctly you're making a hard distinction between the biological and the social in how you treat the two nouns -- a man is biologically defined, and masculinity is defined in this more psychological, spiritual, ontological, or social sense.

Heh. Maybe he is :D -- I identify as an androgenous man, though my presentation is very masculine. Once upon a time I cared about living up to the expectations, but I've let go of that now. I think it's a masculine trait to be able to claim whatever one does is manly -- or maybe a better way to say that is that the expression is a masculine expression, though other genders can certainly feel stubborn in that similar way.

Ask a reductionist question and you get a reductionist answer. Masculinity gets defined as being the kind of matter which possess a certain collection of properties or essences.

So a problem is created right at the start. We have to identify a set of characteristics that are then arguably just accidents and which lack any contextual justification.

This is not a good way to proceed. — apokrisis

Great response apokrisis. Much to think through and on.

Hopefully the general reflection addressed some of this. I'm still bundling, I'm just not bundling characteristics, essences, or properties.

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other".

Of course, that would be the feminine. Well perhaps. We might start down this road and start to think that the masculine~feminine dichotomy isn't that massively useful after all. It kind of gets at something, but lacks strong explanatory value.

Logic demands we get down to useful dichotomies – polarised limits that capture a critical axis of difference. And the truth of biology is that male and female involves considerable overlap. The truth of culture is that humans are remarkably plastic.

How are we telling the truth of the world when we allow dialectical argument to drive us to opposing extremes that are mostly about just putting small tilts one way or the other under a giant magnifying lens? — apokrisis

I think there are masculinities which pit themselves against the feminine, absolutely. It's a darker masculinity, in that it can feed into misogyny, but feminist theory has pointed out that misogyny comes from hating that women have the power to emasculate or masculate, that their worth as men is in the hands of women who get to say whether or not they are real men -- an obviously toxic identity, but one which does occur.

There's masculinities which are softer than that ugly look, though, which still puts a hard distinction. I think I'd say my upbringing and @Hanover's exposition is along these lines.

I agree with you that the truth of biology is that male and female involve overlap, and that human beings are remarkably plastic. It's part of the difficulty in trying to put the notion to words: there's something there, but it's not crisp. (as if biology was crisp... no. It's just even more fuzzy than biology)

So sure, we could give an accurate answer about maleness as biological identity and masculinity as cultural trope. We can put the small statistical differences under a spotlight. That is an interesting game, especially when you are a masculine male wanting an easy check list to confirm what you suspect.

But philosophically, we have to start by realising how the current gender wars are a cultural symptom more than a metaphysical question. — apokrisis

Oh yes. We're in agreement there. I put this in ethics for that very reason -- it's more a reflection on norms than a question of knowledge or ontology.

I still believe that gender identity is a real thing, though -- in spite of the culture wars. It took me a minute to get there, because I like all the second wave feminist stuff which is more about gender abolition and I like my Marxism which is impersonal rather than personal. Again, a line I've said in my general reflection, just too many people care about their gender identity and express it in various ways to dismiss it, even if it's not ontological. Maybe not quite ethical, but certainly close to value-theoretic thinking.

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective.

One others to construct the outsider. The other others to deconstruct the legitimacy of leaving anyone out. The right promotes over-exclusion. The left promotes over-inclusion. And for both it is the only political game left to them as real world control has been taken off the table.

To join in with a reductionist analysis is not going to help solve anything. Male~female is already a marginal kind of dialectical difference, not worthy of cashing out in the language of substance ontology – what is the "right stuff" in terms of a set of metaphysical-strength properties.

What we should be more worried about is how left~right became such a politically neutered debate in terms of actual economic and institutional power, even as it became such a fevered debate in terms of gender politics and other superficial identity issues.

Personal identity counts for shit in the world of real politik. Because real politik has now institutionalised the impersonal flows of capital and entropy. — apokrisis

The one thing that keeps me in favor of exploring these is that I think social organisms only change because "regular" people come together to force them to -- the people who purportedly the whole organization is about. Because of that we're taught various things which dissuade people from engaging their governments.

I see the issue of gender identity coming to light because of the efforts of regular, marginalized people kept speaking up about their problems. And the whole social-movement approach to understanding the change of social organisms is pretty much my orientation.

The real politik is what the nationalists practice. And it has real effects, so it's worth paying attention to. But so do social movements, and they are likewise worth paying attention to.

As always, I'm threading needles between competing thoughts. I don't want to dismiss the realpolitik, but I think that personal identity has more influence on the real politik given how regular people speaking up have become a prominent topic by doing nothing but talking about their identities and what they need. (feminism counts here, too -- not just the recent trans stuff)



I think that's a good expression of a masculine self-image from the perspective of a man. It's the thing men often like to look up to and act towards in the sense of fully Being the Man I should be. Thanks for sharing.

Where's your thoughts now?

What differences are magnified? Who does this and for what purpose? For whose benefit? — Amity

Here I'm riffing from @Hanover's thread but into a separate topic to see what the differences are between the thread on defining "Woman" and a thread on masculinity. Different emphasis because of our respective beliefs, but I thought it'd be interesting to explore this notion given my various commitments.

So -- it's for my benefit. Naturally. :D

I agree with this line of questioning:

"As opposed to what?" — Amity

However, I think the patterns point out that there is an oppositional notion -- the boy who couldn't become man. For many masculinities the oppositional point, to speak to @apokrisis's point, isn't feminity as much as boyhood. To journey to manhood is itself a story, and the question of what a real man is is a way of differentiating one's childhood, immature, or adolescent self from one's responsible, grown-up, and mature self.

It's a Bildungsroman more than an opposition to the other sex, except when it gets ugly.

I haven't been around, so have missed this. Also, I haven't read much about philosophy and gender issues, so thanks for this thought-provoking thread. More interested now as I begin to appreciate the political implications — Amity

Cool :). I call myself a feminist because I've read the feminist works and agree with them. (I don't call myself a feminist because most people have ideas about what a man calling themself a feminist is, and it doesn't correspond to why I like feminism)

How many still think in absolute terms of masculinity/femininity?
Talking about being a 'real' woman or man...the extremes. Is that where we want to go, to be? — Amity

Worldwide? Many.

If you ask what the differences are, given its cultural dimension, you'll find contradictory accounts.

But I don't think the simple demand to abolish gender roles works because it's too central for too many people. At least, so it seems.

What do men do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man, built by a man, driven on a road laid down by a man. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man with dirt on his hands and his name on his shirt. The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man. And most, real men I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because what real men do.

This is meant as a celebration of the man. The celebration of the woman is just as real, but looks much different. Their hand rocks the cradle and therefore rules the world.

Such outdated thinking I know. But I also know that someone here reads this and says "Thank God there are still people who say this." I wrote this for you. — Hanover

I accept your panegyric to manhood. Obviously I'm more on the other side, but it accords with much of my upbringing, and my commitment to masculinities makes room for this kind of masculine identity.

Ask a woman. Ask Science Fiction. Don't ask the dicks round here, they'll start talking about their genitals and how they can lay bricks with them. — unenlightened

:rofl:

That's a wonderful image of the masculine imagination. :D

A "female man" is a woman with a man's mind, her body and soul still female.[2] Joanna's metaphorical transformation refers to her decision to seek equality by rejecting women's dependence on men and mirrors the journeys made by the other three protagonists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Man

Or if you prefer your critique less angry, The Left Hand of Darkness.

On Gethen, the permanently male Genly Ai is an oddity, and is seen as a "pervert" by the natives; according to reviewers, this is Le Guin's way of gently critiquing masculinity.
— wiki — unenlightened

More books on the list, now. I agree with you that asking a woman or science fiction is a great method, if one is ready for the truth.

:D

OK, funny -- I laughed. There's too much interplay between the sexes, and cross-support (especially in a family structure) to define men by their occupation. The men may build things, but they don't do everything (there are women at the worksite who are just as capable), and they rely upon the network of women in the more traditional set-up.

One thing I'd note, though, is that you're equating men and women in terms of ability -- which I agree with -- but you're not setting out what it means to be a man, unlike @Hanover. We may disagree on masculinity, but he answered the question. Do you have an answer?

The strictly biological answer could be about how a man is an adult human with XY chromosomes, and that is easy enough. But the more one thinks about it 'being a man' is an abstraction... it's a personal identity, a social identity, and the biological answer is only the starting point, not the end point. So, there is no definitive or all encompassing answer for what masculinity is. If I tried to take a stab at it, I'd say masculinity is a set of behaviors biological males tend to exhibit and society expects men to have, both good and bad. Since men often exhibit these behaviors and also are expected to, it forms a closed circle of selective reinforcement. — GRWelsh

I'm hesitant to accept "behaviors" for the reasons I've already mentioned. What men exhibit, yes -- but I'm more inclined to parse masculinity in terms of social or psychological terms rather than behaviors.

That's a perfect example of toxic masculinity. Force your son to become a real man by getting them killed in a senseless war!

I definitely don't think there's a point to providing a strict set of requirements. However I'd say that gender identity, and especially masculine gender identity, isn't oft discussed and it's worthwhile to explore.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

Yup!

Most of us know particular men and women who are not typical of men and women - in general. Take 1 million women and 1 million men and there will be significant differences. — BC

Oh, sure. "significant" being determined by the measurer, but I don't deny difference. It's a plastic difference, in light of @apokrisis's comments, but a difference that seems to persist in our perceptions at least.

But the topic isn't difference, unless masculinity is defined by the feminine. I don't think it is. I think men have various attachments, expectations, feelings, and modes of expression.

I think evolutionary explanations are useful from time to time. But to think they are THE explanation is to fall for the myth of origins (Derrida? or someone else?). We are equipped with ears, and their evolutionary usefulness is the best explanation (short of an account of the evolutionary process) that I can think of. But what we make of them is a different matter. — Ludwig V

Cool. I think we're pretty close in our understandings then.

It took me a long time to even acknowledge evolutionary forces on the human psyche because of how awful evolutionary psychology is. Or, at least, what I encountered of it. But simultaneously I didn't believe we were created by God as a distinct ontological category, so that's the needle I thread in thinking through.

It wasn't that I want to tear us away from our evolutionary heritage as much as I'm suspicious of Bad Faith, in Sartre's sense -- I do such and such because evolution being a perfect example of Bad Faith. (in the language of causes it may be true, but in the language of intent it's a way to defer responsibility)

Yes. I once read "Origin of Species" all the way through. The biggest takeaway for me is that he spent vast amounts of time arguing that species are not hard and fast; he argues it every which way he can think of. It is the foundation of evolutionary theory. What's more (as Darwin points out) we mostly know it already. Evolution takes our practice of selective breeding and pushes it through centuries and millennia. — Ludwig V

I'm impressed! I've only done selections, though I always feel that's a failing. I learned about evolution in the text book way rather than the proper, historical way.(well, proper to me)I was persuaded by the information provided, though. Due to my background I didn't know the theory of evolution when I went to college, and being an inquisitive sort I'd ask questions after class to make sense of it all.

But yup! "Natural selection" was a metaphor for what we've been doing for a long time, but then noting how nature can act in a similar fashion over a long period of time.

I don't know enough about them. Bees and ants seem to have rigid practices which do not need enforcing. Mammals are more complicated and do seem to need to enforce the rules - which are made and enforced by the alpha dog/lion/chimp. Are they sufficiently like laws to count? I'm not sure whether it is important to give a definite answer. Perhaps noting the similarities and differences is enough. — Ludwig V

Fair. To really answer the question we'd have to do more research. One thing I'd push against is bees and ants, though -- they have rigid practices, but since they do not need enforcing then that's not an example of law. Laws are made to punish people who break them. And, in a more general sense, we frequently prioritize our social life over our basic needs life. People wouldn't go through hazing rituals, among other things, unless they cared about what their fellow homo sapiens would say or think about them -- it's not their immediate needs that matters, it's how the other members babble that is prioritized.

And you're right to point out that social hierarchies are established by other species. That's similar to law, but not quite the same I think because we can dig up old laws, re-interpret them, and people will prioritize that re-interpretation for whatever reason (sometimes material, sometimes spiritual). That dance among the ideals which turns a homo sapien against its own happiness -- well, it seems like a strange thing in the animal world to me.

Still: noting the similarities and differences is probably enough.

This has been quite a range of responses! I'm going to start with a general reflection.

One is that I think the lack of really caring about one's masculinity is itself a masculine trait. Who are you to tell me what kind of man I am? I can get by on my own without your approval -- like a man. This isn't intended as a criticsm of the mindset. As I said in the opening, I'm aware of the patterns. This is a common one I come across, though not universal. Which gets to something which is probably important to acknowledge and I should have started out with it -- there isn't so much a masculinity as there are masculinities.

I don't think that undermines the phenomena, though.

Another is that in my experience of masculinity I'd say that men tend to be deeply passionate. The notion that men are without emotions or somehow less emotional than women is false. It's the mode of expression which is different, not the actual emotional life of the person.

Another is a memory, which is sure to annoy. However in the military I recall that it was the women who tended to be "tougher" than the men (especially those in leadership positions). I believe this is because of self-selection among other reasons. But what this shows me -- I know it's anecdote so I don't expect to convince here, only sharing -- is that sexual difference doesn't account for some of the cliche's associated with men like toughness and strength. I've known too many people who do or do not live up to the cliches across the sex line to think sex is very determinative of one's traits or abilities. So I try not to look at gender identity as a collection of traits at all as much as a collection of attachments, expectations, feelings, and modes of expression. We can all be tough, but a tough man expresses differently from a tough woman, even though they are both tough.

Lastly, in light of there being masculinities, I fully expect there to be some competing notions of the masculine. I think it best to look at these in concert -- an individual will probably have a masculinity, but in thinking through masculinity in general it's OK that there are different ways to express the gender identity.

If you mean the concepts of "wary", "fear", "anxiety", you were right, not in the sense that I don't know what the words ordinarily mean, but in the sense that I was working out what to say about them in this philosophical context.

Hence, there was no blunder on your part. I couldn't see why you thought it was a blunder, which suggests something that you should have avoided. That back-and-to was, for me a normal part of the process.

Being an auto-didact is neither here nor there. I'm out of date. Hopefully, we're both learning. That's the point of the exercise. — Ludwig V

Cool. :)

That makes sense. How far it interprets Derrida, I couldn't say. I read some of his earlier work carefully and thought it made sense, at least in the context of Wittgenstein. The later work lost me completely and I had other preoccupations, so I never read it carefully.

If you are a master of interpreting texts, everything is text. But isn't that like thinking that everything is a nail because you've got a hammer? — Ludwig V

I've read Of Grammatology deeply, and Voice and Phenomenon through a reading group here. Some other stuff to help understand, but my interpretation is just my memory of these two -- and they're both dealing with language and the sign -- one of Saussurean linguistics and the other of the sign in Husserlian phenomenology.

I once thought what you end with -- I thought it was turning things on its head to make the world look like language. But now I think it's turning language on its head to make it begin with the world -- and our inscriptions on dead leaves or the phonic substance are special cases of this more general meaning.

Or, rather -- it's how I interpret it because it makes sense of these relationships which language has to animal life. Basically I'm thinking of Writing as a living creature -- to strive, to mark, to differentiate -- is the transcendental base for writing of the homo sapien. Or, at least, this is how the deconstructive process would go by first setting up the transcendental condition and then knocking it down to allow something between the categories to shine through.

At least, that's my head cannon.

I have a prejudice against "what differentiates us from other animals". I'm constantly finding that proposed differentiations don't work. As in this case. A dog interprets certain of my behaviours as threatening and others as friendly - or so it seems to me. (They are also like a horse and not like a horse). Animals are both like humans and not like humans, in ways that slightly scramble our paradigm ideas of what a person is (i.e. a human being). So, philosophically at least, slightly confusing. Mammals are seem to be more like us that fish or insects, never mind bacteria and algae. Those living beings seem so alien that it is much harder to worry about what differentiates "us" from "them". Yet they are like us (and the mammals) in many ways - the fundamentals of being alive apply to them as well. (But what about whales and dolphins?) — Ludwig V

I share this distaste. And actually I am hesitant to utilize evolutionary explanations for our emotional life, in spite of that. What a bundle of contradictory impulses.

I'm often uncertain about how to go about this territory. It, too, is ambiguous. Hence its attraction to me! But your questions here are the questions I ask!

Looking at the evolutionary story philosophically it seems we couldn't maintain an ontological distinction between ourselves and the other creatures. Even "Species" is not a hard category because the evolutionary story shows that creatures morph over time into other creatures due to environmental pressures on sexual reproduction(EDIT: I should say, in our case. There's the even more curious case of asexual reproduction, at least curious to us sexual creatures).

But then I think: do dolphins have laws? Or is the homo sapien the only creature sick enough to treat its own babbling as more important than its basic needs on a regular basis?

it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks. — Vera Mont

Oh! Well -- I'm interested then. Care to say more?

I'm going to take that as a joke. — Ludwig V

Oh, and no joke -- I thought you were uncertain about the locution since it invokes various meanings, but your later post suggested that you were uncertain about the concepts, so I thought I was off-base.

I'm sorry. I haven't heard that distinction before. Could you explain, please? — Ludwig V

No worries. It's my interpretation of Derrida. Which is informed but... I'm an autodidact and Derrida is hard.

Writing in the big sense is the cliche: Everything is text. Writing in the small sense is what we're doing to communicate as homo sapiens -- with words we usually recognize as writing.

What I like about it is how it relates and differentiates us from other animals -- meaning is in the world, every creature is Writing, and we write about it.

Apparently, the real big issue is concern for the safety of 'genuine' females if false claimants are allowed into their sacrosanct space. — Vera Mont

That's the imagined issue. As @Baden has pointed out, that fear isn't based in facts.

Something that's been mentioned is this 0.5% marker -- this is traditionally the reason for special accommodations. It's recognized that in a democracy minorities will not be represented by the majority, but in a liberal democracy with individual rights you can only maintain that ideal by carving out exceptions for minorities.

Worldwide thats 40 million people. Not a small number. US-nationally that's about 1.6 million people.

That's a lot of people.

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts. — Hanover

Surely with the bathroom you agree that it has always been a gender-based policing?

And that's where we started.

With sports I feel like the only reason womens sports exist is because it was a compromise -- women's sports didn't get funding until title 9, as I understand it historically. But we could just fund "sports" -- and people could compete regardless of their sex, may the best person win.

Locker rooms -- @Banno covered that with more dividers. That's not a big demand. That's something like the ADA accommodations.

What other context?

I didn't mean to suggest that. On the contrary, I think that "wary" is perfect (as near as one ever gets, anyway). — Ludwig V

Ah! Then another blunder on my part here.



The picture of hoarding, to explain the psychology I'm thinking through, comes from anxiety as explanation for why people seek power and money beyond even what their needs are -- the thought is that conceiving of our non-existence is to treat death like a person which, if you amass enough wealth or power, you can defeat them. Obviously no one really believes they can kill death, but the craving for wealth and power beyond what one needs can serve as a kind of substitute for defeating death.

But you are right to say the action of hoarding isn't right for the examples you listed, and then I thought of how crows demonstrate the ability to plan too. Also while that psychological story makes a kind of sense, it only makes a kind of sense from afar. I'm not sure to what extent I could determine that really the fear of death built up into an anxiety spiral is what is driving someone to amass wealth and power. Also it should be noted that wealth and power aren't the only ways to attempt to satisfy the unsatisfiable desire to escape mortality.

So I'm trying again:

Anxiety of death seems to me to require verbalization since we never experience death. The bird is wary of being eaten, and the evolutionary story would say this is because animals which are wary tend to reproduce more, but the bird is not anxious about the end of their existence.

I'm sticking to "verbalization" because I want to simultaneously maintain the distinction between Writing and writing -- I think it's a very helpful way of looking at language. Here I'm thinking it's writing in the small sense which seems to make the emotional life different. The bird is wary because that's how birds feel and it generally directs them to move their eyes about and that just so happens to help them avoid predators. But the homo sapien is anxious because they know that they will die, and that this is the only life they have, and they had better do something with it given that you only have one chance -- give it your all, experience it all, dominate it all. All are worthy distractions from the inevitable.

Except it makes us anxious, and that's unpleasant. But in the face of death anxiety is fine!

By the way, I'm still thinking about "wary". It's not the same as fear or anxiety, not obviously an emotion or a mood, more like a policy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/wary defines it as "having or showing a close attentiveness to avoiding danger or trouble". The lists of synonyms and antonyms is interesting. No emotions or moods occur, yet clearly "fear" and "anxiety" are related. — Ludwig V

I'm content with changing the locution from "wary" to something else -- it's the verbal aspect of fear and anxiety that I was picking up on as the important distinction. There's an emotional relationship between ourselves and other life, for sure, but being able to verbalize is what changes the emotional life of a being to have anxieties which compound upon themselves through the imagination.

Shades of grey, on the border between categories. Partly empirical, partly conceptual. Hence difficult for philosophy. Nonetheless, important for understanding human beings. — Ludwig V

Definitely. Also why I like it :D -- I'm usually attracted to the ambiguous and uncertain concepts. And even though I know in trying to clarify the ambiguous I usually lose what I was attempting to understand, I just do it again anyways. Failing better every day.

It was all going so well, until the last sentence, and I thought, first of squirrels hoarding their nuts, and then of The ant and the grasshopper. One might suggest that even plants hoard sunlight as sugars and other carbohydrates in seeds or bulbs. In this case the evolution of DNA informed by consistent long term environmental pressures does the 'planning' - " Make hay while the sun shines, and make seed (or bulb, or tuber) when it starts to shine less." Thus the rationale that we make for what plants do because the ones that didn't died out. We understand:- plants just grow and make seed. — unenlightened

Good point.

That's what I get for importing ancient psychology -- that's the Epicurean explanation for anxiety. Epicurean psychology hints at the irrational, but ultimately it is a rational psychology. So it has weaknesses.

That's obvious, yes.

I'm only objecting to the use of biology as an obvious thing -- it's not as obvious as we thought, in my opinion at least. The relationship between biological description and man/woman designations is not so easy as I once thought.

That's just not true. What's recent is the general acceptance of socially recognized female traits to biological males in Western society. That's what this change is about. — Hanover

"biological males" -- that's not a biological term at all. In general we call males those who provide gametes to eggs, but there's nothing about Western society in that. Seahorses, for instance, on the biological level, function on both sides of what we call male and female.

What I'd say is recent is that people who thought biology mattered have found out that it doesn't.

You'll have to do a genetic sequencing.

Which should at least hint at showing how the biological isn't what we mean, but only refer to.

This speaks to something I'm worried about.

The pressure on trans people is to "pass" -- they can be themselves as long as cis people can't tell and treat them the same. With further pressures on gendered spaces from political reactionaries the desire to to be "pure", the desire to transition *rightly* is intensified.

And, truth be told, we don't know if "few" trans women go undetected. That's the dream -- to be undetected, and finally be treated as one is.

We have gender roles and we have biology. The two are distinct — frank

Yup.

And what I'm claiming is that we don't use biology to police gendered spaces. We use gender. So putting "XX" or "XY" on the doors won't address anything at all, since the topic is social rather than biological. It's the biological definition being strictly applied which is novel. Historically speaking "Woman" and "Man" have social, rather than biological, meanings.

At the folk-biological level, yes. At the molecular biological level? No. Not even close. We're all so very different, and don't know enough about our biology to even begin to parse something as complicated as a gender identity or a gender role.

We refer to genetics, to body functions, or even just descriptions of the body.

We don't mean that though. We mean "Woman" and "Man". We're not referencing studies about hormone concentration effects on bone density. To be a man is not to have the right chromosomes. In fact, many people who have the right chromosomes are often denigrated as not being real men. Masculinity refers to the penis, but the performance is in defeating someone else -- or at least trying and accepting the outcome if you lose. Like a man.

"Woman" and "Man" are older than biological classifications. Especially at the chromosomal level. If they are biological then they are a folk-biology which roughly groups together some body functions with gender roles rather than a genetic description.

Further, the unaddressed point is that the policing of gendered spaces is social, and not biological. The biological is what we refer to, the social is what we mean. So, yes, a woman can have XY chromosomes, and a man can have XX chromosomes -- "woman" and "man" having always been gender roles, even if we thought biology had something to do with those roles.

Anyway, I would suggest that animals are wary, not anxious. I think anxiety is very much verbal in origin.
Birds have to be constantly wary of cats, and other birds, whereas anxiety always seems to arise in a place of safety, the dis-ease of armchair philosophers rather than rock-climbing philosophers. But that story of the difference between animal and human is fleshed out in the other thread in more detail. — unenlightened

That's a helpful distinction, and I accept this correction. There is something about being able to articulate an emotional life that changes it -- discriminations between the discriminations. The fear of things not present is what I was thinking about with anxiety, and relating that to the bird. But the verbal dimension compounds this fear through the imagination.

At least this gets along with my understanding of Epicurean psychology.

Anxiety of death, in particular, seems to me to require verbalization since we never experience death. The bird is wary of being eaten, and the evolutionary story would say this is because animals which are wary tend to reproduce more, but the bird is not anxious about the end of their existence. They cannot hoard to fight off the inevitable impending death. That requires planning.

Perhaps. I would hope that a rock-climbing philosopher would be at least somewhat fearful. It shouldn't be a surprise if there were few anxious people among them. Anxious people will tend to avoid rock-climbing, won't they? — Ludwig V

To remove the idea of danger I'd suggest that the anxiety of rock-climbing is similar to the anxiety of dancing. Absolutely nothing harmful will happen if you dance in front of people, but people have so much anxiety to let loose and go in front of others that they exempt themselves from this simple pleasure.

But if you start to dance it's not like the anxiety goes away. It's still there. But then there's an excitement in the creation of the moment -- you don't know how the dance will end, but that's not the point. It's the self-expression and creation in light of anxiety that drives the thrill.

Eventually the anxiety fades away.

This is easier with dancing because there's a positive element. It's harder with pain because no one wants to feel pain. That's sort of its function. But there's truth to the notion that we can accept pain, be wary of it, but not anxious in the sense of building it up as something verbal. Letting go of the anxiety is how pain is easy to endure. Or, well -- easier. Because pain with anxiety about more pain is even more unpleasant.

But that's easier to say than do, I think.

Then there's the odd phenomena of becoming accustomed to dangerous situations. I think thrill-seekers go through this -- the fear is the point. It's an adrenaline ride which powers you through fear to do more than you would have. The fear is still there, of course, otherwise the thrill wouldn't be there.

A bit meandery, but these are the thoughts that came to mind.

Since the historical basis of the seperate bathrooms was the result of the sexual distinctions and not the gender based distinctions, you cannot allow the gender based women access simply because of the happenstance of their both now using the term "woman." — Hanover

We already do and have done so, because the "check" at the bathroom door is a social check, not a biological one. Even if you put "XX" and "XY", these will simply work as substitutes for "Woman" and "Man", and the people who "pass" will get to use the bathroom they want to. I think it's always been a gender-based social enforcement, even if we used the language of sex.

how do people who don't get anxious cope with not knowing? — Ludwig V

I'm not sure that many people live entirely without anxiety, so hopefully this clarifies: my confusion. Anxiety seems pretty common to me. I'm not sure it's as universal as the existentialists stress, but I'd go as far as to say it's a cross-cultural and cross-species phenomena. It's reasonable to tie the phenomena of anxiety to the evolutionary story, as you do.

A possible path might be curiosity, but I'm not sure that's a passion as much as a habit or character trait (and many a scientist would fit "curious" when in fact "anxious" applies, hence my hesitation to name it a passion). Even with a joyful attitude towards the unknown I don't think this is a total lack of anxiety, either. The joy of discovery works as kind of temper to the anxiety of not-knowing, to continue a theme. While there's a certain amount of anxiety there's also joy in finding out things -- but what I remain uncertain of is why some things I don't know about cause anxiety, and other things I don't know about don't.

For instance, it's not like I worry that I don't know how many grains of sand Mars contains. And with a far out fact like that I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of irrelevant questions which ask after answers but clearly aren't related to the anxiety of not-knowing. We worry about a small portion of all that we do not know.

The part that's curious to me is that often times knowing doesn't really cure the anxiety. The vicious circle you mention can spiral even with knowledge because the imagination is captivated by something more than just the knowledge (or, rather, the lack thereof).

So, yes -- it makes sense to want to know. I didn't mean to be that obtuse. :D That's a natural desire which helps us cope with the world around us. Only that it's curious that it does do so, given how there's so much we do not know (and it can even be fun to not know), and a lot of what we do not know doesn't matter to us, and how even after we know the imagination can continue its anxiety spiral regardless of that desire for knowledge being satiated.

All off-topic to atheist dogma, but I found the topic interesting to continue. Sorry un.

Yes and no. By which I mean that, as well as provoking and inspiring us, they sometimes puzzle or frighten us. Though, to be honest, I'm not at all sure what "understanding" means. Certainly, knowing about my hormonal system explains nothing, in the relevant sense. — Ludwig V

Right!

And so the ancient wisdom from the religious traditions still has an appeal because it deals with this non-factual understanding that's hard to really articulate.

For the modern Humean such stories are thought to be nothing but falsity, but this non-factual understanding is a part of their attraction, I think.

The flexibility of all this is quite tiresome. Philosophers, at least, regarded the subjective ("introspection") as preferable because they thought it was immune to error - the same reason as their preference for mathematics. Aiming for something objective meant risk to them - something to be avoided at all costs. — Ludwig V

For fear of being tiresome (but admitting that I hold things flexible and open, and it can be tiresome): Is that not the desire to be invulnerable?

Here the philosophers cast the objective as vulnerable, the subjective as invulnerable -- so we have a certitude from which we can build towards the objective. Or vice-versa, for thems who think that measurement is invulnerable, and introspection is vulnerable, we can have certitude from measurement and build towards introspection.

Usually I opt to drop subjective/objective as a distinction because it's more confusing than helpful. Within a practice it's fairly easy to differentiate. But In general, like in a philosophical discussion, especially a general philosophical discussion, I've noticed the terms are worm-like. (to use a vague but hopefully accurate metaphor)

Well, emotions and values are ineradicable (saving certain ideas like Buddhism (nirvana) or Stoicism/Epicureanism (ataraxia)) from human life. We need to understand them whatever their status. Human life is a good place to start to identify what's valuable (and therefore to be desired or avoided, loved or hated, feared or welcomed. Where else would be better?). — Ludwig V

And even with those ideas, depending on how we interpret emotion and values they are not ineradicable as much as they can be "tamed" to live a certain way. Marcus Aurelius certainly felt things, as demonstrated by his meditations -- he just addressed his feelings from a stoic perspective. (though I'll note I even interpret Kant as emotion-driven in this sense -- since respect for others is an emotional attachment, and that's a simplified but close interpretation of what holds his ethics together on the emotional side)

I think the question I'd ask is -- human life is a good place to start, but how do you get there in such a way that one can understand emotions and values? And is it even wise to try? Don't we have a kind of understanding of emotions and values through our commitments and emotions we carry? Why do we need to understand these things at all?

You're right about that. But people do hunger for something decisive. Not knowing makes for anxiety. — Ludwig V

True. Though have you ever wondered why not knowing makes for anxiety? And why are some people comfortable with how little we know? Is this hunger for something decisive worth feeding?

Going back to dogma, amazingly (thank you for your patience!): Kantian dogma might be that set of beliefs which he thought were contrary to reason but which people believed mostly due to this hunger for something decisive where nothing decisive could be said.


****

Also, an afterthought @unenlightened -- while I at first thought it more important to focus on science as dogma, and dropping point 1, now I can see how fact/value is atheist dogma in your sense.

I think it goes like this : Given fear of death, fear of tigers and poisonous snakes is 'reasonable' in the sense that they are capable of causing death, whereas fear of mice is not. But as Hume famously didn't say, "you can't get an emotion from a fact". Fear of death is not reasonable, merely common. — unenlightened

I agree. There has to be something aside from the emotion in order to be able to say that a fear is unreasonable or reasonable (it can even be another emotion about the emotion). One environment where I think this classification can be appropriate is the therapeutic environment. If a person fears death so much that they aren't able to live life, and they want to live life, then it is unreasonable, by that desire, to fear death (that much). This is a simplification, though, for how we evaluate desires as being reasonable or unreasonable. There's truth to your:

Reasonable passions are what decent, {ie English} people feel. The Continentals cannot control themselves, and the savages don't even try. — unenlightened

Not only because we compare back to ourselves in judging others reasonable, but also because of the notion of self-control: a peculiar notion which always feels contradictory to me. As if anyone could be other than who they are (when the notion is usually invoked to say that a person lacks self-control, which is to say, they dislike how that person behaves -- rather than it being a character trait)

Why do we want to get rid of it? — Ludwig V

Because then we can be more correct than the other guy, objectively ;). "He can carry on with his thoughts, but I know the truth, and here are my reasons, and here are the people who will respect me for this belief", to interpret "objective" as a more competitive desire than a cooperative one. If my beliefs are objective than I can state them proudly, declaring their truth in spite of opposition. Or I can choose to quietly move on. Either way I am invulnerable to my interlocutor whose beliefs are wrong or dogmatic or subjective.

If my beliefs are subjective then while they are important to me they aren't important to others except insofar that they take an interest in me, and likewise in order to find out what's important to them I'd have to listen. But that's no fun in comparison to being right so we get rid of the subjective in favor of the objective in order to win the game of being right, and having been right all along.

At least this is another motivation for the game of reasons that lives alongside the cooperative motivations. And the subjective, in relation to that motivation, is a position of vulnerability rather than invulnerability. Whether either is called for depends upon circumstance, though -- I don't think that can be decided ahead of time. And, however we might spell out objective/subjective, we'll always be both of these things at once.

In another part of the jungle, the is/ought distinction shows that theoretical reason is not relevant to the passions. But that doesn’t need to mean that they are irrational. There are reasonable fears and unreasonable fears, reasonable joys (winning the race) and unreasonable joys (preventing an opponent from winning the race – unreasonable because it undermines the point of the practice of racing.) (Actually, “reasonable” is useful also in theoretical contexts, when formal conclusive proof is not available.) — Ludwig V

"Reasonable" works well. I think that's more or less our limit as human beings -- we can be reasonable within a particular practice which requires reason. I have to say it's a particular practice because I'm skeptical about reason in general. I think reason gets re-expressed and re-interpreted depending upon what we're doing rather than having it act like an arbiter or judge of the reasonable.

I'm in full agreement that the passions are not necessarily irrational, though. That's one reason why the distinction is fuzzy in normal use. There are frequent examples which touch on both the objective and the subjective, such as the category of "reasonable emotions" -- which I endorse as a good way of looking at one's emotions under certain circumstances, but in others I'd say it's inappropriate such as what someone feels while watching a play.

:D

A curse! ;)

One of my cravings is for boredom. May I never have another interesting thing happen to me again. I march to the drum of the blinking last man who wants good sleep.

I don't think I would, actually. I don't reject or renounce my negative feelings. They're not pleasant, but they're reasonable, necessary; they serve a function and fill a need I could probably explain if I took the time and attention to articulate it - probably; not really sure. — Vera Mont

Then I've misinterpreted you in my own way as I try to mark out distinctions and such.

I agree with this in that I don't reject or renounce negative feelings. I think the Epicurean philosophy can lead one to being even more able to feel those feelings. They are healthy to feel, I think.

But then another aspect of my life has changed over time: my physical world, and especially my social world, has shrunk, even as my info-sphere has expanded. Perspective is skewed; it's an entirely different configuration and dimensions from what it was 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. — Vera Mont

I'm at about the 20, 30 line -- not the 40, 50 line. But I still can empathize with perspective being skewed, and feeling like everything is different now from whenever.

To retain some amount of Epicurean credence, the beginning of the letter to Monoeceus:

And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come.

I think Epicurus is right on happiness, and I think happiness makes us more willing to do good towards one another, but the world is such that people aren't happy, do cruel things, and the Epicurean philosophy isn't enough to stop them.

You have to want tranquility, and most people are attached to, as Epicurus would say it, groundless desires.

And given that we're a social species, and even more deeply interconnected now through a world economy, what others do matters for the purposes of living a tranquil life.

So there might be a political angle I could work in. But given the time I wouldn't want to make it consequential -- I'd want it to be virtue-theoretic somehow.

But for me ethics can never be finished. It's always a reflection which I come back to and think through. Which isn't to say I can say, in the abstract, when it's a good thing to take on anxiety. Only that I've made that choice before and it felt right, even though the dogma said it was wrong.

Heh. Then for all my studying you are more devout than me, and you'd still ask "Why not hedonism?" where I would say "well, sometimes anxiety is worth it -- and not because it leads to a calmer state of mind"