Nothing is random. Every activity is within the paradigm of "cause and effect". Random is just an idea that suggests "cause and... blah" or "blah... and effect".

Nothing is random. I would like to see a "something" that comes into existence by itself without any past, present or future connections.

Random, luck and chance are just common language for patterns beyond our understanding.

I'm a big fan of spiritual philosophy but, unfortunately, I can't stick to any one school of thought so I tend to mix and mash the teachings as much as they allow.

The first, and the last thing about him to always bear in mind, is that he has an almost "uncanny" ability to draw you into his way of thinking doing this in a psychological way which is so convincing, because it is pretends to be nothing else than pure philosophical thinking. — Daniel C

But I think Krishnamurti's teaching is very similar to Nāgārjuna albeit not expressed in scholastic terminology. Both Nāgārjuna and Krishnamurti are philosophical sceptics, in the original sense - doubting or denying any kind of methodology, claim or proposition. — Wayfarer

I also think they're quite similar in their approach to philosophy.

In the Bhagavad Gita, which I think offers the first mention of the term "SAMKHYA", it refers to a method of deriving knowledge (possibly wisdom) through application of reason (adherence to pure/strict 'logic'). It is also analogous (in many ways) to the methods of critique which were used by the classical Greek philosophers.
The original idea behind samkhya is to walk a "middle" or "unbiased" path of not identifying with anything but recognising everything and thus forming a relationship through knowledge (wisdom) even without direct or identical personal (physical/sense) experience.
However, Krishnamurti and Nagarjuna have different (not necessarily opposite) initial premises, such that, Krishnamurti begins with the premise that we have an innate bias (us - our identity, ego, self, or the language and idea that expresses or defines such relations) which we must first realise then overcome if we're to achieve the wisdom that comes with that path. While Nagarjuna begins with the premise that we're limited (relative) and therefore to become unbiased we must learn to conceptualize the unbiased which would not be manifest to limited/relative beings such as we (and 'things') are nor would it succcumb to our limited/relative influences, hence a kind of emptiness. That emptiness, being unbiased, is absolute and therefore fundamental to everything, from origin to being an ever-present factor.

I hope the explanation makes it easier to understand Krishnamurti's approach to philosophy.

The observer is the observed. — J. Krishnamurti

if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

The way you frame your questions is extremely convoluted, to the point that I am not sure I understand the original premise. — Drazjan

They are kinda synthesis between open and leading questions, the idea is not to have an exact answer but a thought process into possibilities and probabilities. The idea is to look into the varied thought processes that have taken place over millennia of human cultures and practices. The premise is, explain God.

Your definition based on self-awareness is a good one but I think some apes pass the mirror test — TheMadFool

Ok. Then, the only real difference left that I can note would be that humans can reflect without the impetus of an external influence, kind of like meditation. Our defining factor would be that we can interact through abstract forms, e.g. ideas, ideals, etc. So, that would make us something like homo philosophicus :grin: - I know, it's like there's a joke in there somewhere.

So, I would like to know if the definition can be improved or even perfected. — TheMadFool

How about homo intellect (or whatever the latin for intellect is). There is an idea that intellect is the capacity to 'know that you know'. It's not just about awareness or thinking, but also recognising the awareness or thoughts. For example, an animal can apply rationale to some degree (I have cats and I have seen it happen), but they can't know what rationale is. So, probably, they can think (make certain considerations) but they can't think about or reflect on those thoughts. And I think it also applies to animals which can mimic human expressions.

Both Einstein and Bohr were right. There is a definite configuration (of character/interactive form, activity, influence) which can be designated as an electron. Also, that designation is with respect to subjective human understanding. My take is that a difference in names does not translate into a difference in identity. No matter how an electron is explained, it does not alter its identity. It seems analogous to the gravity problem between Newton and Einstein's explanations - only the perspective differs.

Existence is absolute in the context that everything can be designated as such.

If evolution is true then why aren't new life-forms popping into existence? — TheMadFool

As far as I know, nothing has ever popped out of nothing. And even those who profess some quantum phenomena where particles wink in and out of existence, if their explanation is followed, it hints more of a rise and fall of vibration frequencies (to and from our range of perception) than instantaneous creation and annihilation.

There aren't new life-forms, only more advanced or better adapted life-forms which, gradually and eventually, manifest such distinct idiosyncratic characteristics that the relation to some progenitor is seemingly arbitrarily unlikely.

If you analyze the universe from a mathematical or a scientific perspective then it's a veritable masterpiece. — TheMadFool

:up:

That seems question begging in this context, for if omnipotence involves being able to determine what is or is not possible, then the logic would be created if, that is, an omnipotent being exists (or, alternatively, if we know in advance that logic is not created, we could then conclude that no omnipotent being exists). — Bartricks

Again, logic isn't created, it is an expression of a relation between points of reality (truths). If something exists (in or as a reality), then logic is how we express that existence with respect to that reality. For example, in this argument's parameters, we have an omnipotent being who creates a stone (that can't be lifted). By definition, omnipotence implies absoluteness/ultimate. Therefore, such a stone could not exist because it would imply a certain degree of impotence (limitation) by the supposedly omnipotent (absolute) being. And that would not be logical because any impossibility with respect to an omnipotent being automatically negates the designation of omnipotence. Unless your 'omnipotence' has another significance which I'm not aware of and which allows a degree of impotence (because that's what you would be suggesting).

And before anyone argues that by the fact that he's an omnipotent being means it can do everything/anything including create such a stone, then I should remind them that absoluteness negates every/any relativity (limitation). Also, this omnipotent being would not be subject to human parameters of existence or interaction e.g. possibilities/probabilities and impossibilities/improbabilities. In this argument, the premise is beyond human parameters and we should adjust our reasons accordingly. This also means we have to analyse the significance of 'lift' in 'a stone that can't be lifted'. If we are not limiting the meaning to the human circumstances - which includes muscles, moving against gravity, etc - then, by creating anything we could just as well infer the fact of the power to lift it (more specifically, absolute power over all creations). Then, the supposed paradox becomes a matter of misrepresentation.

On the other hand, an omnipotent being can choose not to lift a stone but that's another story for another day.

Why is design equated (to some degree) with effect. Every mention of Intelligent Design is accompanied by the hint of an Intelligent Designer. It's like design is synonymous with effect and thus we attempt to discover its cause (causative agent). I think the biggest difficulty hindering the conception of fundamental abstract principles in operation in the universe (or reality) is that we keep projecting our humanity (and its limitations) onto everything.

If intelligent design operates the universe (or reality), then it is absolute (or, at the least, superior to human intelligence). We (humans) are very limited in application of intelligence. Therefore,

[1.] The intelligence operating in and through us is a portion but not the whole of intelligence. It (the absolute or superior intelligence) cannot be fully manifest, at least, to us.

[2.] We cannot expect to fully define/characterise the absolute (or something superior) using our own limitations.

Logic isn't created. It is an expression of the connection/relation between two points in reality (truth).

I have to say, though, I am more sympathetic to Descartes' view. Surely being unable to do the impossible is a restriction? A being who is able to create stones too heavy for him to lift, and lift them, is surely more powerful than one who can't? — Bartricks

Is this about the omnipotent being's abilities or our (human) abilities? There is no impossibility for an omnipotent being, not at any moment of such existence. Therefore, there could never be a time/moment when anything (a stone) is impossible (unable to lift). The premise is illogical and any conclusions in support of such can only express the deficiency in one's reasoning.


Question: Can an omnipotent being create a stone which he cannot lift?
Answer: SORRY, CANNOT COMPUTE. THE PREMISE DOES NOT CONFORM TO VALID LOGICAL PARAMETERS.

I take ID to be an attempt to disprove evolution generally, not a developed theological position that attempts to establish a basis for why humans ought have dominion over the earth. — Hanover

I think it would be difficult to disprove evolution with ID arguments when the inherent premise is that evolution is an intelligent process (because it serves necessity and has utility). Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply a supreme being, it could be an interactive operation which is what nature is.

...the word "god" must imply something that words like "nature", "universe", "everything", etc do not capture. — ZhouBoTong

In a way, yes. And yet, all those words though having their own idiosyncratic meanings that prevent them from being completely identical, strive to express the same relevance within the domain of human understanding. To me, it seems that any special significance over the others is largely due to subjectivity.

The OP isn't strictly challenging the premise of intelligence, rather, also the conclusion that the universe was made for humans. And I totally agree with the second part. The resources of the universe; the provenance of life on earth; evolution; the inter-relation between different frequencies of energy with respect to forms, forces and activities within space and time; micro and macrocosm analogical similarities; identical fundamental components; etc, etc, all hint at a more diverse application than to propagate and nurture humans on one little blue planet.

For me, it would be unintelligent to waste such resources as are present in the universe on humans alone which is why I accept the premise of variety of alien life-forms. That is partly because, from the configurations and operations of existences within our planet, I choose to conclude the fact of intelligence based on the relation between simplicity and utility in nature.

Which is easier to accept, that there is no intelligence in the design or that it is wrong to conclude that everything was made solely for humans?

Here's an analogy to think about:

In terms of cosmic matter a black hole is considered to have a singularity (at the core), however it doesn't alter the nature of reality. Black holes provide a unique impetus to cosmic relations but it is itself just one of many cosmic configurations. In principle, the same will apply to a technological singularity - it will provide a great influence to our lives but ultimately it will just be a part of an even greater process, evolution.

As to God/Gods, we already have those.

We also have an absolute, it is called existence. This is why there is no condition, circumstance or identity which can negate the principle of existence. And if we postulated such to exist (for the hell of it), it would be, itself, an existence.

Fair, but what is 'nature'? — csalisbury

Here's some few comments I've made about what I think nature is:

To me, logic is the expression of the laws which govern activity in nature. Here, nature being interactive reality and thus the relative aspect or designation of reality. — BrianW

I believe everything is within the purview of nature (reality's mode of operation), otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognise them. Also, if logic is adhered to, nothing should be beyond nature, just beyond our understanding or appreciation of it... — BrianW

Also, I don't believe in randomness/chance because I believe reality works in intelligent mechanisms. For me, intelligence is definite and therefore negates randomness/chance. Also, if this were a random universe, it would lack the constancy of the laws of nature. — BrianW

I think the universe is thinking about the quark and the quark about the universe. — TheMadFool

Figuratively yes. I also think you just hinted that everything is conscious, not strictly in the metaphysical sense but in the representational analogy sense as explained through fractal patterns (micro/macro-cosm), the inter-connectivity of everything (perhaps through a fundamental principle e.g. energy) and the consequent implied unity (e.g. universe, reality, life, etc).

Music is like magic... — Eminem, Till I Collapse

There's a certain mystique to the real when we accept it and it reverberates through our feelings and thoughts. Great intelligence reflected in magnificent patterns or activities is awe-inspiring whether they move our passions or intrigue our rationale.

As in all the weird and wild theories are the adult equivalent of filling in the alphabet? — csalisbury

Yes. I don't believe in randomness or the supernatural or miraculous because I believe everything is within the purview of nature. The weird stuff is just stuff we're unfamiliar with.

Pseudo-science is just a misstep between logic and empiricism. Our understanding can never be as definitive as logic is. Logic is just a connection between events. In one sense, it is the link between cause and effect. Our perspective is limited, it cannot fill the holes of ignorance in our consciousness. For example, tell a child (who hasn't learnt the alphabet) that there is an 'A' an 'M' and a 'Z'. Then ask the child to fill the gaps between those letters. Considering a child's mind, the answers one gets are likely to completely lack perspective and proportion. It's the same with us when we observe events which we are not familiar with. Our answers are just speculations to various degrees in relation to possible and probable occurrence of events with respect to our perspectives. And even when we can predict various outcomes in patterns, there's still a lot of gaps with regard to the why, how, what, etc, of those events especially when they have a relation to a much larger scheme of occurrences (e.g. quantum phenomena).

I think, ultimately, it's our language and attitude that fail us because deep down we know our knowledge and understanding is not absolute.

As to jazz, I would say that, we had not realised how tenacious a musical pattern could be, such that, certain dynamic irregularities would still not collapse it. But then I suppose the intent was always to enhance the music positively. Jazz is amaze-balls! :wink: :cool:

Aren't animations (cartoons) simulations of consciousness? I mean, life-like robots (and AI) would be better simulations but that's a matter of degree not identity.
Anyone else think consciousness might be the faculty (or capacity/ability) for expressing intelligence? (hypothesis in the making)

While particular designations such as "Yahweh", "Allah", "Shiva", "Tao", "Ishvara", etc, etc, might not have existed before the conception of religions, there is ample evidence that all past human cultures recognised and idealised certain forces that were beyond human control. Eventually, names like God(s), demons, spirits, etc, came into usage.

One can choose to look at religions myopically as consequences of ignorant humanity or as a natural point on the human scale of progression. However, on the broader scale, everything in the past reflects, to certain degrees, both our limitations (ignorance) and ingenuity (creativity).

I think the only shortcoming of most religious cultures is the perfection with which they are endowed by those respective adherents/followers. Any critical mind will have doubts as to the whole premise of religion, and any investigative efforts will readily reveal a much less classical operation within such a supposedly balanced domain. And yet, even in our allegiance to what we refer to as scientific thinking, there is much which is analogous to religious sentiment, which is perhaps an indication of a more pronounced character within our human relations expressed through knowledge and understanding of our interactive realities with respect to the perceived vs the conceived constructs.

It may not be about what we believe in but how we came to believe in something. If we learn the methodology of belief then we can apply it however it suits us. For example, since we know how to bulk up our bodies with the use of exercise/gyms, anyone can be burly, not just those who work in fields with considerable manual labour as would have been expected in the past.

All I'm saying is, the idea that religions are special is quickly fading because its time is up. But, they will lose much those who insist/persist for and against it and forget what value they have/had in our societies. Not everything is good and not everything is bad about religion but some things will need to be learnt and remembered.

I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives. — RogueAI

I think he was right too. There's a saying which philosophers don't seem to pay heed to,

the least said, the soonest mended.

It's like with technology, the idea of machines is not new anymore but any new advancement is better than ideas without utility in our lives. I think philosophers need to say less and do more. I don't think the problem is new perspectives, it's that philosophers rarely intend to do anything beyond express ideas.

"Super hero/pop idol worship" has no such intentions, and, as far as I am concerned, does little good to the minds of our young. — Tzeentch

From my perspective, in this modern society where criticism is conflated by cynicism, I think holding up superhero/hero ideals is more genuine than most people care to admit. Basically, there is a belief in 'fighting the good fight' in such a culture.

Whereas humans do not know, but pretend to know, what human nature is or should be, and try to perform that - so that these archetypes are mere ideas, and humans live in ideas rather than reality. So one has endless arguments about what is or isn't a man, or a real man, or manly, instead of just assuming that what is manly is whatever men do. — unenlightened

What if being human is not about definite knowledge but about working our way up the spectrum towards more knowledge about stuff. Therefore the endless arguments could just be part of the process.

Thus the physical hero is the same archetype that might be called Heracles or Superman, or some other. The difficulty is to see from time to time what archetype one is enacting and giving new life to oneself - hero, villain, trickster, seeker, prophet, ... — unenlightened

I'm wondering why it happens, why do we do it? Is it in our nature, something inherent in humanity?

I don't disagree with your premise, but the idea that such worship is an instinct contradicts the idea that it come from indoctrination. As for the progress of humanity, it may be planned for, however if Conrad is correct, it comes about in a fog. — Drazjan

The worship isn't instinct, it is a practice. Characterisation of reality/life aspects, events, circumstances, etc, which leads to the generation of ideals, icons, archetypes, etc, etc, is what is instinctive (perhaps to our processes of consciousness). Worship (from its broadest sense) is just a means (possibly the simplest or earliest activated) of establishing those characters into the life patterns within our consciousness, a kind of qualification (cultivation). Indoctrination is merely an effective way to pass on the significance of such ideals, it isn't the cause.

Well, I assume you think it is ok that murders and thieves are 'under another's sword'? — ZhouBoTong

While our justice system is not perfect, it can also be argued that, in part, the murderers and thieves are under their own 'swords' because they determine their own consequences. We cannot allow people to deliberately harm others, therefore, the law turns such antagonists into victims of their own hostility with the aim of discouraging future acts. It is not perfect but effective - perfect application of law would still not be so accommodating as to allow injustice for fear of offending the offender.

If there is government, we are all under someone's sword (and without government, might makes right so I guess we would still be 'under someone's sword'). If it is democracy, there is the tyranny of the majority. — ZhouBoTong

Ours is a flawed practice of government and democracy and should be improved. Our ideals may hint at something sublime but usually they aren't yet realised to the extent they can be readily practiced. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have those ideals. The law should, in part, represent the ideals we hope to attain and, in part, provide the path towards their attainment. Presently, our laws are just demands without the comprehensive corresponding interpretations, executions and appreciation. However, more often than not, our failings are due to our ambition/discipline imbalance (that is, too much ambition vs too little discipline or great expectations and very little effort applied).

I think the equality of law is such that it should allow everybody to be whatever they want. But it should not allow anyone to be under another's 'sword'.

My questioning of reverse racism should suggest I am on your side, but I get the sense I may be missing something...feel free to point me in the right direction. — ZhouBoTong

The point is to get people to think about what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said about fighting discrimination:

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - I Have A Dream

That it doesn't matter who is the majority or who is the minority. That there is no "little" discrimination in the fight against discrimination. That there is no reverse racism and it's all just plain old racism no matter where it comes from. Hate can't be dissipated by hate.

Equality in the law is only the beginning - it sets the stage for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to effect change at the level of subjective experience. — Possibility

I said that:

Equality can only be realised in principle through the laws that assert equality; beyond that, individuals have to apply the principles as best they can. — BrianW

Calling them ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ is counterproductive, and is itself a form of discrimination. — Possibility

I'm not calling them stupid to their faces. In this discussion I'm just pointing out the root cause.

Women don't want to be objectified... right? So there's no way they would exemplify objectification towards aspects like sexuality... right? — BrianW

I don't think objectification is discrimination unless it is only directed towards a particular people and not others. The truth of human relations is that we do objectify each other, men and women alike. However, it is not objectification in the ultimate sense of its meaning. It is more like we get caught up in the assumed and uncritical significance of the value of the "things" we have or consider. Objectification is just stupid (unintelligent, unreasonable) and has no indication in human relations because a fundamental proposition of human relations is that the participants are human, not objects. (This would mean that sexuality and objectification are diametrically in opposition.)

Therefore, with respect to women's sexuality, there is no call for objectification no matter how it is represented. Women, no matter how they express themselves, do not support, enable or propagate objectification. Being sexy or sexual is not a pass for overlooking the inherent humanity within or the deserved decency by everybody. So, even when a woman is dressed skimpily or in their birthday suit, it means nothing more beyond just that - that a woman is dressed however the hell she chooses. It doesn't turn her into an insensate artificial doll. Deal with that.

That being said, we should treat women with as much regard as men. I think it is half past the time we allowed women the same opportunities as men and, beyond that, whatever other opportunities they seek.

[3.] Expectations and desired responses (wrt pride and status) are greater factors in discrimination (from the point of view of our demands) than actual human value... right? — BrianW

Everybody wishes their response against discrimination is in the same context as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s great 'I have a dream' speech. In this case, wishes aren't horses. To be in the same context or even in the vicinity, there is a demand for great application of intellect, a greater application of compassion (for the attackers, retaliators and victims) and an unyielding focus on the right target (harmony and unity).

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - I Have A Dream

Therefore, it is unjust for "black" people to think they can use the n-word and deny the "white" people that same opportunity. If we know and believe the n-word to be derogatory, then it should be taboo for everybody.

Have you ever genuinely been on the receiving end of discrimination? — Possibility

I have. And, my actions and reactions were stupid once upon a time. They don't have to be, still.

The way I see it, this pride statement means ‘I won’t hide my ‘black’-ness just to be considered as a human being - this is who I am, so take notice.’ It has nothing to do with flaunting anything OVER anyone else. — Possibility

In part, yes. Also, there are so many other "things" that we have that are far more significant. That pride statement only seems appropriate because of a certain level of ignorance shared by both parties in that dispute.

You’ve got this wrong. It’s not in response to someone flaunting their ‘whiteness’. It’s in response to a silent assumption that there is the world that makes sense, that is expected, ordered and regular - and then there is ‘black’-ness. — Possibility

No, I'm sticking to my opinion on this one. I think the response is validating the other person's point of view. The response shows a kind of fear that there may be some truth to the bias. I'm not saying discrimination should be totally ignored, but it should be fought against in principle. Equality can only be realised in principle through the laws that assert equality; beyond that, individuals have to apply the principles as best they can. That takes us to the sphere of subjectivity in which stupid people will say and do stupid things, and there is no way around it. If discrimination was a case of being denied acceptance then, all the people one was never friends with, all the societies and social circles one never became a part of, etc, would be proof of discrimination. There is no need for the racist to accept me (or anyone else) if the laws apply to us all equally. We just need to learn the right application of law. For example, we've all seen women in hollywood demand equal pay to men. And, credit to hollywood, they seem to be responding positively albeit not as promptly. However, they could just as well have refused and employed subtle tactics with the aim of maintaining their unequal status quo with regards to men/women earnings (some are attempting to do that). However, as an approximate example, suppose hollywood had a law that declared something like, "actors who accrue a certain minimum percentage of time are considered to be main actors and should all be paid equally including bonuses." With something like that there would have been no need to wait for a response because equal pay would have been certain and immediate. So it is with the law and in principle - once we understand equality, it becomes our duty to uphold it with utmost consideration in our actions. This means no one is exempt from being reasonable, not even those responding to the unreasonable.

The ‘dumb-ass’ is the one who thinks ‘black’-ness and ‘white’-ness currently describe the same ‘thing’-ness in human experience. This is about restoring the pride of being a human being to anyone we might describe as ‘black’. — Possibility

No amount of pride can be restored without the proper reason and understanding. Equality is a matter of principle not acceptance. "Blacks" and "whites" have been equal since the dawn of humanity. They haven't always acted with such understanding and for that they're both at fault (for the kind of mistakes that arise from that ignorance). The remedy - application of wisdom (right understanding), but not a propagation of the violence and hatred which stemmed from ignorant acts.

Human experience is a tool for extracting the value we designate as understanding. To that end, we transcend whatever "thing-ness" we experience. They are ignorant those who get caught up in the experience of "things" and deny themselves the upgrade of understanding which should be the hallmark of all homo sapiens.

If someone flaunts their "thing-ness" (white-ness) over others, then in response those others reverse the point of bias and attempt to flaunt their "thing-ness" (black-ness) back at them, doesn't that make dumb-asses of both?

I should think that those determined to end discrimination/bias would have the presence of mind to point out that a "thing" is nothing to have pride in. Also, exemplifying a "thing" should be seen as a sign of immaturity.

what would that look like? — ZhouBoTong

I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out what a discriminating (racially biased) response to discrimination (racial bias) would be. I mean, it is fundamentally still discrimination (racism), but it is also specifically a response. Does that make it reverse discrimination (racism)?

I am "black" and proud.
I am "white" and proud.

I am tall and proud.
I am short and proud.

I am skinny/thin and proud.
I am fat and proud.

I am rich and proud.
I am poor and proud.

(No one really says they're "poor and proud". Although, Socrates may have insinuated something close to that, if translated loosely or poorly :wink: )


Anyways, aren't the above statements the kind of nonsense that enable discrimination? If that pride is the consequence of possessing a "thing", doesn't that mean the lack of that "thing" is a cause for shame? Otherwise, we would all just be proud, period.

[2.] Nowadays, some discrimination is more accepted and/or mitigated than others... right? — BrianW

I don't know. I'm not sure. I think there's a universal understanding that some kinds of discrimination have lost whatever advantage they may have been employed to give. For example, racial discrimination does not mean anyone will become another's slave, not anymore. And, something like financial discrimination can work only because people are willing to demean themselves for the sake of money. However, that seems to be a personal "weakness" type of affair. (There are many poor people that do not succumb to that kind of "madness".)

Men discriminate against women primarily because of the prevailing stereotypes against women. I think while we're working towards gender equality, the particular channels through which the inequalities and biases are expressed have not been as comprehensively addressed for the sake of a quicker revolution.
Our gender stereotypes need to be updated. For example, women are still portrayed as being physically weaker even when they seem to perform more physical activities especially domestically. Meanwhile, for men, usually the less physically imposing guy is often represented as being swifter or more agile (in some cases, more intelligent). Also, men are often represented as better decision-makers when culturally it is women who appear to be more level headed in terms of resisting egotism.


So, maybe it's not that some discrimination is given more/less acceptance or mitigation, but perhaps there are other kinds of discrimination/biases which have received less attention, are equally detrimental and, in some ways, are just as captivating to the egotistical mind. It may be that discrimination wont really go away unless we illuminate every part of it, and its shadows.