Sorry, I still don’t see a clear question here.

Yeah! :D It is more or less a definition of human behaviour

The floor is yours. Say something.

Toxic masculinity. I thought that meant threatening to use or actually using physical force to settle differences or arguments. — Agent Smith

It is a stupid term that in some instances tries to ignore the use of any physical dominance over anyone. It is often used in the ‘be a man’ way, but in some situations saying ‘be a man’ is perfectly viable as it can simply be taken to mean something akin to being courageous.

Using physical force can be cowardly and can be courageous. Not all physical force (even if initiated by said person) should be considered as ‘toxic’.

It is mostly part of the weird ‘woke’ nonsense and on the surface seems perfectly reasonable but often does its best to make sweeping statements about how people should or should not behave with not regard for contextual nuance (that is how I define ‘woke’ btw).

It should do nothing, be it can do a lot.

Meaning that activism is activism and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy should first and foremost be about expressing, exchanging and picking apart different ideas and approaches with rigour in order to expose new questions or rank the use of question/s at hand.

Of course these things can impact and have impacted how society functions. Like with mathematics or science I don’t see it as a way of determining how we ‘should’ live but more about how we ‘can’ live. Like with mathematics and science simple curiosity often comes before any view to use gained knowledge, but generally can lead to being of more practical use for future generations.

Even when it comes to ethics I don’t follow the idea that we should or shouldn’t live a certain way as a human being - such is too much of an individual item than as a means of setting out an overarching scheme to suit all.

And I STILL never said otherwise.

Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’.

Theoretical Physics and such are not exactly pseudoscience. There are some highly speculative ideas and some more tangible ones. You are asking what can be said about ‘god’ and I am saying nothing of worth at all if said ‘god’ is defined as existing in some beyond, in a realm wholly removed and outside of human conceptualisation.

If we are talking about something ‘outside’ of space and time all we have are some mathematical equations that do not really tell us about any ‘reality’ because reality to us is space and time.

However I still think that a child would grow "Better" if he engages in strong love relationships from his birth to his maturity. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I never said otherwise.

In some Chinese cultures brothers share a wife due to the number of women in their community. It works because they share common genetic makeup so are willing to protect the genes.

In other instances the ‘father’ (biological father) has little to nothing to do with their children until they reach a certain age. In those cases the brother of the mother generally takes in the role of ‘father’ in how we would imagine it.

Point being, our personal experience of male and female roles in the societies we are familiar with are not necessarily any better than any other simply because they are more commonly known to us. It could be that they are but I have not seen a reason to suggest anything other than a child being well adjusted enough if they are exposed to stable and loving care (who this comes from is not massively important unless it is viewed as a social taboo).

perhaps you are defining ‘healthy family’ in a way that suggests any other option is ‘unhealthy’.

The idea of ‘father figure’ and ‘mother figure’ are not natural laws. There are instances in different societies where the biological father does not take on the same role in modern western societies.

This is not my opinion (not just something I think), it is something I know from reading anthropological sources.

Yes, but they can and do sometimes come from sources the child has strong emotional ties to - siblings or other relatives/friends.

There are also societies where the role of ‘father’ is quite different to what we are used to where such a role is divided between other relatives in the family.

I went in LamSagrada Familia for what I thought would be 30-60 mins max. 3hrs later still open mouthed!

If you go make sure you get sundown for the full effect. Literally breathtaking. I walked outside after over two hours and had to go back in because I couldn’t believe how amazing it was!

The problem: Father and mother figure. In the first case, which of them both is the father figure for the child? In the second case, which of them both is the mother figure for the child? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Doesn’t really matter as long as there is a stable relationship to observe and a male and female role model around. Point being about the child being exposed to people providing parental guidance and people in stable loving relationships (these need not be from the same people).

There are one mother and one father, biologically. Evidently there is not a strong relationship between biological and social truths, at all. However, when we are talking about a child, we are not allowed to talk socially, but biologically, as he/she is not developed enough. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I don’t understand what this means/refers to?

Fair enough. I just get annoyed when people think people always get depressed ‘for a reason’ when it is simply brain chemistry just going awry.

The common ‘why are you depressed’ when said to someone suffering depression can aggravate or ignore the underlying issue of a chemical imbalance (which may be congenial).

Could logic have a feminine incarnation? The Greeks thought that rationality was masculine and the passions as girly. — Agent Smith

Athena was decidedly ‘feminine’ though :)

The psychological differences between males and females is not that significant for most except at the extremes.

Most differences noted through numerous studies are based on the mean average. Plucking any random person from the planet and having them take a personal test (based on traits) would not really help you determine their sex.

If however we were to take large cross sections of any given society and averaged out the responses given for males and females, and then tried to figure out which group was male and which female, it would revel a marked difference (the bigger the sample).

From individual to individual there is next to no discernible difference, although there may be some telltale signs due to cultural attitudes or phase of life (I can imagine parenthood and relationship status could reveal something?).

Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. — Gnomon

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. It is more or less the case of asking someone to show evidence of ‘a round sound washing a cup of yellow yesterday weekend’. Evidence of any kind can only be presented when what is being asked of is clear.

Given that the concept of ‘deity’ commonly thrown around is at best extremely nebulous or, at worst, completely nonsensical, how can anyone provide something called ‘evidence’ for such a highly ambiguous or half-hearted fogy concept?

Point being, talking about something literally ‘outside’ of space and time is to talk about something outside of human experience. Which means it is literally nothing to us because we cannot know what we cannot know.

I hope we can agree that what we cannot know is not even a ‘what’. That we can merely pose a question about some vague idea does not make it anything other than an expression of humans doing human things.

The modern concept of a ‘family unit’ is a little stagnant due to tradition.

In reality - there are many examples - a ‘healthy family’ requires children to have strong roel models. Both men and women have different things to offer and from person to person there are obviously differences too.

I think, in general, that a good social environment is needed. A balance of different ages, sexes and attitudes reflective of the society lived in is also a damn good idea.

‘Free love’ (assuming you mean people sleeping around without any problems) has next to nothing to do with how children are raised. If there is one women and two men or two women and one man, no matter. As long as there are examples of loving relationships reflective of the society on ready display to the child everything will be as fine as it could be.

Could you make your point/question a little clearer please?

Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. — Tom Storm

If they had there would be no point in saying anything.

@Banno One thing in particular that is present in all ‘religions’ is a tradition of ritual that is known to induce altered states of consciousness:
- Trance Dance
- Prayer
- Meditation
- Fasting
- Sleep Deprivation
- Intense Focus
- Sensory Deprivation
- Mnemonics

All of the above are present in religious practices, but some are more subtle than others. Theatre and ceremony are also pretty much the same thing it is just that in the modern era we have become more and more detached from ‘theatre’. Meaning, in the past we were active participants far more often. Today the ‘theatre’ personal experiences of ‘theatrics’ far more distanced and passive.

In comparison to patriotism we see this is more mild forms with national anthems and memorable symbols infused with emotion.

I’ve always been fond of this one:

Clifford Geertz: “A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”.

It basically describes what it is to be human really. You can literally replace the term ‘religion’ with a number of things and still find that it makes sense.

Note: As you may know the in depth explanation of this is several pages long. I did find Geertz’s over all attitude to the concept of ‘religion’ a little off in places though. The book this is taken from shows his lack of scholarship in that he often veers into opinion rather than giving an objective account.

Here is an example (not picking on this person, it is just a random example):

“Perhaps with the logical anticipation, or hope even, that his conventional foe will physically respond in kind by swinging at or hitting him, the unprovoked initiator/aggressor will feel confident and angered enough to willfully physically continue, finishing what he had essentially inexcusably started.”

I think we can all agree that this sentence doesn’t need to be anywhere near this long. Furthermore, the actual meaning is more easily lost and a second reading may be needed to get at the meaning.

Such writing wastes the time of the reader/writer when it comes to having a fruitful discussion.

And just to make clear I am not picking on anyone here in particular here is a snippet from one of my unedited pieces:

“Competition and cooperation across and between variegated strata, and the relative efficiencies of populations of said competition and cooperative manifolds.”

I have no idea what is in that episode. If you watch them all you’ll get a clearer picture.

I was not suggesting trauma doesn’t factor in. My point was that there are cases where no trauma does not mean no depression, schizophrenia nor bipolar. It is not simply about being beaten or abused.

As for psychopathy having certain genes does make the chances of developing psychopathy more likely. Like you point out, there is not exactly a clear line drawn between genetic predisposition and external factors.

A great many cases where people ask ‘Why are you depressed?’ cannot be answered. It might be more helpful for people to attach a reason for what is happening in their brain, but it can quite simply be your brain and is, I imagine, far more likely to be due to dietary issues than some childhood trauma.

It just feels like exceptions are being given the basis for laying down a general rule. I have had depression and later realised it was brought on by psychosis that I simply blocked out. The issue was my brain chemistry not childhood trauma. The ‘reason’ for my depression was baffling because I had no good reason to be depressed at all. A later in life instance of accidental, self-induced psychosis due to lack of sleep, intense concentration and fasting, effectively awakened my past memories of psychosis (hearing voices in these cases).

At worse I have mild bipolar … but to be honest I think it was something else as it appears the experiences I had were more conducive to other brain disorders. I personally believe it is a lack of trauma that is more damaging to the psyche than individual instances in childhood amounting to little more than ‘growing up’ in a world that is not exactly safe.

We’re like two peas in a pod, you and I :)

‘Communication’ meaning what exactly?

I do assume they are anymore than a future civilisation would view assume a Barbie Doll is the representation of some goddess.

Real anthropologists and archaeologists are VERY careful about applying opinions and personal views to ancient artefacts of which they have little to no information about.

There is nothing wrong with conjecture as long as it is understood as conjecture. Cognitive Archaeology can help a little in this area too.

If you read Orwell’s essay he was not against metaphors at all.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

That is dubious evidence at best. I’m well aware of Stone Age figurines … that should not be assumed to be anything to do with religious worship though.

also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods — Jack Cummins

Where do you get that from?

Here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtImgnj5DN0

It is common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.

Stephen Fry did a rather informative documentary on bipolar/depression. You can find it on youtube I think? It’s called The Secret Life of Depression or something like that.

Ask god maybe? It’s clear you cannot read or simply don’t understand what you’re reading (which amount the same thing). I won’t be responding any more to anything you say - other than by reporting it to mods.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when the same person calls science ‘dogmatic’.

Nonsense. There are genes related to psychopathy. This is a fact not a fiction.

You can do the research or keep spouting crap that will likely get you removed from this forum. Your choice.

Try reading the entire thing rather going for the ignorant knee jerk reaction. The fact that there are genes that correspond to psychopathic behaviour is OLD news. Very old news.

In conclusion, expression of ZNF132 in neurons and RPL10P9 in both neurons and astrocytes is markedly abnormal among habitually violent offenders and these findings are strongly associated with the degree of psychopathic symptoms. The changes in protein levels observed here point to alteration in insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, and previous literature has shown that abnormal glucose metabolism is the only predictor for violent crimes which can surpass the accuracy of PCL-R [35]. We also observed changes in the opioid system, which has been shown to support prosocial functions, such as empathy, among humans and nonhuman primates [12, 13, 37, 38].

Anything else moron? Care to call me a lunatic again?

Shut up

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z

@Philosophim I was referring to a state I have personally experienced although I may have said it on another thread?

Calling people ‘crazy’ or a ‘lunatic’ simply because they have experienced psychosis is rather insulting. My point was that I understand perfectly well how what I experienced would’ve been seen in a different manner had I not had a particularly secular upbringing.

We map experiences onto stories/ideas/perspectives that make ready sense to us. The Jungian Axis Mundi.

My point was that people can suddenly be depression even though their life has been perfectly fine (including childhood).

Some people can be psychopaths due to a gene. But not all people who possess the gene become psychopaths. Some people’s neurochemistry simply changes to a certain degree in later life that can cause quite severe depression (irrespective of outside influences).

Of course there are some from column A and some from column B, but it is (as has been suggested by some one) plain wrong to state that it is all about life experiences.

Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid" — Philosophim

Agree 100%. But some people are just plain stupid too. Some are religious and some are not. (See above)