Some resources for those interested -

On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and woman:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article]
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book]

On the institutional basis of gender differences in art:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf]

On the general myths regarding biological difference and behaviour, with respect to the recent 'Google memo' fracas:

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/ [article]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-better-than-women/ [article]

Other resources re: biological difference and behaviour:

https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920 — StreetlightX

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf] — StreetlightX

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article] — StreetlightX

https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book] — StreetlightX

https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920 — StreetlightX

If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.

How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.

They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!

That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality.

The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show.

And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.

When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good.

Few and treasured as the stars in the heavens are those who are truly moral in their hearts, and love God with all their mind, heart, body and soul. — Agustino

No, I've clearly made you my toy in our discussions, where you've been left a child well-"spanked"...:) — John Harris

That only makes the children you who aren't here to talk philosophy but immaturely try to get reactions out of people. How sad. — John Harris

Thanatos Harris Sand. — Buxtebuddha

Meister Eggcart can confirm - Kierkegaard was not a Christian mystic. — Buxtebuddha

But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them? — Mongrel

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue. — Mongrel

But if I understand you correctly, you'll delete any future sexist remarks from Agustino if I flag them? — Mongrel

Nothing happened. — Mongrel

Just to let you know: everybody thinks you're sexist. That's how you come across. I'm not sure whether you really care what anybody else thinks, though. — Mongrel

Are you Greek Orthodox? Or Catholic? — Mongrel

That one. Why are you inquiring? :P — Agustino

Just curious. Can't a person be curious? — Mongrel

>:O Yeahhh they can, but I'm curious why you're curious about it :P — Agustino

I don't really know much about Greek Orthodox. — Mongrel

We tend to be more Platonist, more lenient with priests (our priests get to marry), and more focused on contemplation/prayer :P — Agustino

They frequently don't know much about what the Bible says, but they don't realize they're clueless, so they'll start arguments with Protestants (not realizing that Protestants frequently have read the Bible) — Mongrel

I'm not sure if this is true with Catholics in Europe though. — Agustino

Anyway.. there is a difference between what the Bible says and what constitutes a Christian tradition. It just depends on what's being emphasized, what folklore has been added.. so on. — Mongrel

I agree. — Agustino

Could be. The US is heavily Protestant dominated just because the culture is sort of British.
BTW.. you seemed to suggest that rightists are sexist. That's not true at all in the US. Here, sexism is just wacko. — Mongrel

lol where did I suggest that? You seem to think I'm sexist, but that's quite false. Understanding the world isn't the same as sexism. — Agustino

Just to let you know: everybody thinks you're sexist. That's how you come across. I'm not sure whether you really care what anybody else thinks, though. — Mongrel

I'm not sure who this "everybody" is, but that's certainly not true. There's many people on these forums, including Americans by the way (and women too) who do not think my views are sexist, and who agree with them. I think you just don't know what you're talking about, or you're just refusing to accept the way things are, namely that there's biological differences between men and women, which is true. Do you want me to provide you with medical journals documenting these differences?
As for this wacky belief: — Agustino

Here, sexism is just wacko. — Mongrel

That screams fear from miles away. Sexism is more rampant in the US than in Europe for that matter, but it seems you'd like to deny even this fact. I actually don't think you quite understand what sexism even means. I'm absolutely not prejudiced against women based on sex, as I've made abundantly clear, the one best fit for the job should do the job. — Agustino

Fine. You don't want to hear what I'm telling you. I don't care. :P — Mongrel

lol - what you're telling me is absurd :P You're talking when you have a President who grabs women by the pussy and objectifies them? :s You're saying that's wacko in the US? Give me a break. — Agustino

Whatever dude. — Mongrel

We're dealing with a very big ignoramus in this thread. Whoever dares to say that Kierkegaard is an atheist/mystic who thinks Christianity is dead and he isn't trying to build anything on its grave has probably NEVER read Kierkegaard. If anything Kierkegaard was a conservative Christian who thought that the only way to cure the illnesses of modernity is to return to a personal relationship with God, which is for example a subject addressed in Sickness Unto Death.

Furthermore to suggest Kierkegaard doesn't believe in a personal God is ABSOLUTE lunacy!! Kierkegaard, the man who, along with Pascal, rejected the God of the philosophers for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! And to suggest that most Christian mystics don't believe in a personal God - oh dear!

"God is an underlying creative force... something like that."
— Mongrel
>:O >:O >:O >:O Yeah right, cause Christians are New Age believers! — Agustino

Yep. He was a mystic. My goodness... two posts attacking me. :D — Mongrel

How was he a mystic if he rejected the God of the philosophers and rather accepted the personal God who directly and literarily spoke with Abraham? :s You're the first person I hear who claims K. to be a mystic, quite a lot of the secondary literature on him that I've read finds him to be anti-mystical if anything. — Agustino

Anyone who spends much time contemplating union with the divine is a mystic. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret that as anti-mystical.

We're some ways off topic now. — Mongrel

Reference? — Mongrel

Read Sickness unto Death, or Either/Or. Also you can check out this book:

Struggling with God: Kierkegaard and the Temptation of Spiritual Trial — Agustino

Kierkegaard's emphasis upon God's transcendence could also play an important role in tempering the intimacy of the mystic's relation with God... It is only be an act of grace on God's part and not by the mystic's striving for experience of or union with the Divine that he comes into God's presence. It is in making clear these truths that the value of Kierkegaard's anti-mysticism lies. — quote from Struggling with God

By the way you should already be aware that merging into God is HERESY in Christian theology. So Christian mysticism is different than other forms of mysticism. Even Eckhart's mysticism is different.

Theosis - which is union with the Trinity - and is the goal of life according to Orthodox Christianity does not mean the annihilation of the self into God, but rather the self being deified and joining the Three Persons of the Trinity in communion, but still remaining separate. — Agustino

I agree he meant that striving doesn't get one there..."power which is impotence"

What document is your quote referencing? — Mongrel

The book I recommended you. — Agustino

From Amazon's description of that book:

" Invoking the biblical motif of Jacob's struggle with the Face of God (Genesis 32), Simon D. Podmore undertakes a constructive theological account of 'spiritual trial' (tentatio; known in German mystical and Lutheran tradition as Anfechtung) in relation to enduring questions of the otherness and hiddenness of God and the self, the problem of suffering and evil, the freedom of Spirit, and the anxious relationship between temptation and ordeal, fear and desire. This book traces a genealogy of spiritual trial from medieval German mystical theology, through Lutheran and Pietistic thought (Tauler; Luther; Arndt; Boehme), and reconstructs Kierkegaard's innovative yet under-examined recovery of the category (Anfægtelse: a Danish cognate for Anfechtung) within the modern context of the 'spiritless' decline of Christendom. Developing the relationship between struggle (Anfechtung) and release (Gelassenheit), Podmore proposes a Kierkegaardian theology of spiritual trial which elaborates the kenosis of the self before God in terms of Spirit's restless longing to rest transparently in God. Offering an original rehabilitation of the temptation of spiritual trial, this book strives for a renewed theological hermeneutic which speaks to the enduring human struggle to realise the unchanging love of God in the face of spiritual darkness."

:-}

What's kenosis? Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk. — Mongrel

Yes what about it? Why aren't you happy about it? It will dispel your misconceptions about the Christian spirituality that K. was advocating and you'll see that it's actually a very Orthodox view. — Agustino

And it will certainly cure you of your idea that Christianity is dead. — Agustino

I just saw the "spectacular" additions to your post ...

What's kenosis?
— Mongrel

Kenosis means self-emptying through loving activity.

Anyway, we're done. Life's too short for me to spend much time talking to a sexist jerk.
— Mongrel

:-} Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist. — Agustino

This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?

Same thing with the statue of Lee. The message it sends to both whites and blacks is counter to what We the People have declared we are and will be.

But as I mentioned to you in PM.. if you make it about personality, you're right. Humanity is a bunch of flawed rascals. — Mongrel

What does it tell US about this God and in relation to what WE can understand and observe in history as sorry and suffering and tragical little human beings? — Beebert

It was described in a newspaper article. No, I don't believe newspapers to be reliable about everything, but there almost surely really was that conference. There'd be no motive to make it up. It probably took place in 1983. I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up. — Michael Ossipoff

The article was brief, and was a long time ago. I couldn't tell you what the conferees' credentials were, though the article might have briefly mentioned them.. — Michael Ossipoff

Good question. I was wondering the same thing. Most likely there are mutual contractions among the Bible's quotes of Jesus. If different quotes in the Bible contradict eachother, then at least one of them must be false. — Michael Ossipoff

Maybe they compared the post-Nicea Bible to the pre-Nicea Bible. — Michael Ossipoff

No, I wouldn't make it up.I have no reason to bullshit. — Michael Ossipoff

The Nicea re-write of the Bible doesn't inspire confidence. — Michael Ossipoff

Then do you also believe that God told Joshua to perpetrate all those massacres in Canaan? — Michael Ossipoff

As for Abraham & Isaac, you're saying that God ordered a murder, to test someone's obedience regarding violence and murder.. — Michael Ossipoff

That doesn't sound like God. That sounds like some of those authoritarian authors. — Michael Ossipoff

Does anyone really believe that God told Abraham to kill his son? — Michael Ossipoff

I'll take that as agreement. — Michael Ossipoff

An international conference of Christian scholars concluded that Christ is heavily misquoted in the Bible. — Michael Ossipoff

On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could. — Beebert

I have read Nietzschean criticism... It was hilarious haha xD — Beebert

The Stoics write in a way that help one focus on one's own behavior and self-improvement, and give advice on how to deal with people who challenge our equanimity. Have you read Epictetus' Enchirdion? And his Discourses? — anonymous66

Getting back to the OP. I was looking into metaphysics, and Heidegger's name came up. He is controversial because he joined the Nazi party, was an anti-Semite (he made anti-Semitic comments in his Black Notebooks written in 1931-1941 , first published in 2014), and never apologized for his affiliation with the Nazis. — anonymous66

Heidegger had a long and highly problematic romantic relationship with Hannah Arendt and a steamy affair (over many decades) with Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany before the start of World War II and resumed contact with both of them after the war.[38] Heidegger's letters to his wife contain information about several other affairs of his. — Wikipedia

It's not evolutionary theory, physics, economics, or any of the other usual suspects that a lot of people do not know and are illiterate in.

It is geography.

I am convinced that the geographic thinking of 99% of people begins and ends with political maps.

99% of people do not know any concepts or theories from the science of human geography, such as push and pull factors in migration; settlement forms; urban morphology; etc. They certainly do not know geographic research methods; cartography as a form of communication; etc. They may be familiar with GPS (the device on their car dashboard, anyway; they probably know nothing about the system/network behind it) because they don't use printed maps, but they don't know what GIS is.

I don't even know what the geography-illiterate think. They think that the locations of cities, soils, water, etc. were randomly determined​ by the flip of a coin, maybe? Places are in vacuums and do not affect each other, maybe?

How does​ so much obliviousness to geography continue in highly-educated societies? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's not clear that he actually struck anyone with a whip. In any case even if Christ did use violence, presumably he knew what he was doing and why. The principle of non-violence is for mere mortals who cannot be sure they would be justified in causing harm to, much less killing. others. — Janus

What I mean is that the truth is potent, in the sense of authentic, only insofar as it is intuited and experienced. In other words if people merely pay lip service to what they have been told is the truth, then their service is not authentic (potent). — Janus

The unfortunate part is that they have distorted the teachings. — Janus

There's that voluntarism rearing its ugly, morally repugnant head again. I would direct you to the following verse:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. — Thorongil

Right, which is the one he gave me. — Thorongil

Not sure the relevance of this. — Thorongil

I had no idea I was speaking to this man: — Thorongil

Now I know why Beebert has been so exasperated. — Thorongil

Because he gave us the law and, more importantly, expects us to follow it. — Thorongil

Imagine if I had a child and told him that it was good to eat vegetables and that he must eat vegetables or else I will punish him, but I then refuse to eat vegetables myself and rebuke the child for questioning why I refuse to do so. — Thorongil

That wouldn't endear the child to me, just as God breaking his own moral law doesn't endear him to us. — Thorongil

Non-believer: That may be so, but then I am only exercising the fallible organs God gave me. The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect.

The marks of human experience are value judgments
and planned action. The marks of the Dao are freedom from judgment and
spontaneity — Beebert

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Tao Te Ching — Beebert

All values are only human conventions that we
project onto the world. — Beebert

You mean, the authority of one born in a manger. What kind of authority is that? — Wayfarer

What I'm talking about is 'authoritarianism', generally, which overall I think ought to be resisted. — Wayfarer

And how did Abraham know it was the voice of God telling him to murder his son? — Thorongil

Your claim that God is beyond good and evil doesn't excuse him from commanding the latter. — Thorongil

If I were Abraham, I would dismiss the voice as that of a demon. — Thorongil

There is a rank absurdity in the idea that God endows human beings with the natural law and expects them to follow it, but who then proceeds to break it himself and berate humans for not understanding why he has done so. What the hell does he expect is going to happen? — Thorongil

And, apparently, very many ugly and repugnant things. — Thorongil

What's so admirable about that? — Thorongil

What is meant by a natural or moral law from God? Look at the nature... We know the Church Fathers(most of them) were pathetically wrong in claiming that there was no death before the fall, that the earth is 5000-6000 years old, that before the fall the lion was friend with the sheep etc. Nature is cruel, period. At least if one has a "christian moral conscience". Nature is indifferent, wasteful, just as much destructive as creative, murderous, etc. Christians says this is because of the fall, which we know is a big fat lie. That is, Christian theologians have(knowingly or unknowingly) wanted to blame the whole cosmic tragedy on mankind. A wolf killing a sheep? Man's fault. A shark eating a fish? Man's fault. A snake eating a mouse? Man's fault... So does God wants us to go against this "morally beautiful" nature he created? We nature as a work of art and sure, it might be said to be beautiful. But moral? ... Nature itself is then beyond good and evil. So we shall be anti-nature... But it is obvious: The Fathers in their fantasies claimed that there was no animal death before Adam ate the apple... Aha! No cell-death either then? What about the apple then? We know for sure that this view is wrong. Death and destruction has been a part of life since life began, long before human beings were evolved, so at least the majority of the Church Fathers were extremely wrong here. Plenty of christian theologians talk as if man is the corrupter of nature, in that he makes wolfs, tigers and bears into murderers, and not only this: Man is also collectively guilty for hanging a man who lived 2000 years ago on the cross! We are all born as murderers and destroyers of nature! And life is a good thing? Marriage is supported? To willingly avoid having children in marriage is a sin? — Beebert

Take, for example, Christ's teaching of non-resistance to evil by violence, or resistance to evil by non-violence, if you prefer. That teaching, which is absolutely central to the gospels, has never been institutionalized, practiced or even recommended for practice by any ecclesiastical or political authority. — Janus

I have to say I'm with ↪Wayfarer on this. Truth may or may not triumph, because it is only truly potent insofar as it is found in, and founded upon, personal experience and/or or freely believed on the basis of conscience and intuition. Truth has nothing whatsoever to do with authority. — Janus

The "law of gravity" example seems glaringly inapt because gravity is beyond dispute; whereas no doctrine is indisputable. The attempt to objectify doctrine is the first step towards religious bigotry and fundamentalism. When it comes to religion, truths are not determinate like empirical matters of fact; religion and spirituality are, and should remain, deeply personal, uncoerced, matters. There is no religious or spiritual truth apart from that. — Janus

Again, I think your attitude is probably based in fear of disorder or social collapse, and as a consequence, the belief in the necessity of a strong authority to maintain order and the tradition. — Wayfarer

You are entitled to your view, but I don't think it has anything to do with the 'gospel of love' that I take to be central to Christianity. — Wayfarer

It seems contradictory to say that something is defined "in-itself" and that it has no independent existence. You say good and evil have no existence apart form the "Law". This is not to define good and evil "in-themselves" but rather in terms of the "Law". To attempt to define them "in-themselves' would seem to constitute the kind of "subversive reification" you referred to earlier. — Janus

How very condescending. — Wayfarer

My political views tend towards what in the US would be democrat with respect to health, education, taxation and financial services regulation, but I am socially conservative. Small-l liberal, would probably be close to the mark. — Wayfarer

Reading Descartes' Meditations might similarly lift your vision and make the troubles in your life seem less important. — Brian A

it is hard to grasp the idea of something uncaused and all-powerful, eternal, beyond all being and non-being etc — Beebert

But what is the cause for something uncaused? — Beebert

Ah, now I get it. — Noble Dust

Yet though, does he know why he is? If he has a conscious mind, if He Is He Who Is... — Beebert

Well, so if I asked God; "Why do you exist?", would he then answer "Well... In a sense I don't actually"? :P Is that really an answer? xD — Beebert