:D That is way better than those guys that take selfies and attach flower crown filters around their head. Or dandies as unenlightened would say.

It isn't entirely subjective. Whether someone is the stronger or weaker party is an objective fact. Say someone has a gun and the other person has a knife, the one with the gun is objectively stronger in most situations, even if he's a coward compared to the other one. Sure there is the extreme situation wherein he is such a coward that he cannot wield the gun well enough, but that's not what I'm talking about here. — Agustino

It is entirely subjective. What you say does not make someone masculine or feminine, it just makes someone stronger or weaker. This woman at my gym who has an arm the size of both my thighs is not masculine, she is just strong.

The identification to these so-called masculine attributes and gender-roles is so powerful that despite its imagined and hybrid status, people will continue to defend its existence as much as a racist would continue defending his position against the Other. The emotional attachment to this imagined masculine-feminine paradigm yields the actual belief that they love the person that personifies the same archetype and that those who conform to the same attitude are their friends and comrades. That is how stupid they are. It is nothing but a relational mode of identification.

And I wouldn't say being dedicated to righteousness is a "masculine" trait any more than it is a feminine one. Or do you mean to claim that women don't generally believe in honor, integrity and the like? I would think that that would be false - women can believe in honor and integrity just as much as men can and that doesn't make them masculine. — Agustino

Uh, you're not getting it.

Alright, think of it like the gender-neutral harmony between masculine and feminine attributes in Taoism; the Yin Yang solidifies an inseperable bond within that cultivates the dissolution of vicious or cruel behaviour through moral virtue and ethics. This is an individual, subjective challenge and whether physically you are a man or a woman, to find this balance you need to welcome and identify with both. Characteristics that form feminine attributes are soft, modest, non-violent while those of masculinity are firm, honourable and conditional or unforgiving. There is no dominant/subservient when seeking moral consciousness and to be genuinely loving but rather a unity or equality.

A woman that stays with a man because he controls and manipulates her into thinking she loves him and for him to think that she loves him is insanity, it will only last as long as he continues inflicting fear, which is why many men control women by preventing them from work or education because as soon as their partners start growing professionally, they begin to realise that they are not actually happy and end up leaving them. Real love is about two people who genuinely want one another, an equal balance.

LOL! I would say that that guy looks quite the opposite of masculine :P . You need to differentiate between masculinity as an objective fact and masculinity as a social construct. That guy may be thought of as masculine but the objective facts of the situation betray that he's not. It may be possible that for whatever reason females within a certain culture prefer a guy looking like that, but this cannot change the underlying reality. In this case, the said females would merely be deceived by what constitutes masculinity. And such states are artificial and will not last in the end. — Agustino

You need to understand that how you perceive masculinity is different according to the culture that you come from, hence the subjectivity. It has nothing to do with the objective facts, his physical form. In some cultures, women eating with men is just morally deplorable and it makes those men who witness a woman eating feel less masculine. Or a woman who gets circumcised is more feminine than a woman who doesn't. Just because a large cohort of people practice the same behaviour, does not make it real.

Because human beings are mimetic animals, meaning that our desires are not really our own but are acquired from others. — Agustino

We have the capacity to transcend and form our own identity; it may be that we are inevitably doomed to never escape this epistemic position but we can identify to Forms, to universal moral principals that we define according to our desire to perfect our own character. It is to translate that desire and communicate the best possible outcome for our inescapable condition.

Yeah, some tumbleweed just rolled right past you.

Anyhoot, I fear you know very little on the subject of semiotics as your post makes no sense. For instance:

Due to the local understanding we derive through semiotics, we might marvel at the sentient nature of energy fields as atoms bind with other atoms, and at the sentient nature of ourselves, but we can’t link them and can’t tie them to a greater concept. — MikeL

And then:

Rather than understanding a continuous flow of energy densities into atoms into molecules and seeing the wall as the arrangement of these energy densities, semiotics creates discreet worlds separated from the ones below and above it. — MikeL

Perhaps some clarity of what you are attempting to question?

Semiotics is needed though for the volume of information is staggering when we enter complex arrangements, and semiotics lets us hold the important information in mind. Semiotics is a necessary cognitive shorthand. Imagine trying to explain neuronal signalling by explaining the energy state changes in atoms – and yet it could be done. — MikeL

Que pasa?

I would say that masculinity is a natural acquisitive strategy that is predisposed to be chosen because of the average asymmetry in physical strength between men and women. The mimetic behavior of children quickly leads them into conflict when they imitate the other's acquisitive behavior for the same object (which obviously both can't possess). — Agustino

To attribute physical predispositions to masculinity is a mistake; as mentioned, many men work very hard to convey this physical image and character as 'tough' but the experience of masculinity is entirely subjective. I may be female, feminine and small in stature, but I have 'bigger balls' then most men because masculine attributes are socially constructed ideas that purport 'strength' i.e. being emotionless, being the breadwinner etc., and other pressures that often lead to unhappiness and a lack of satisfaction in life. If I am absolute in my dedication to righteousness that I would turn my back even on the closest of people if they committed evils, if I believe in honour, integrity that has become a part of the fabric of my personality, if I endure in the face of severe hardship and apply methods to strengthen my fearlessness and courage, does that mean - despite the fact that I possess feminine physical attributes and that I am naturally petite and quiet in nature - that I am masculine?

Masculine and feminine are subjective and almost ideological that it presents itself as reality; the value of 'power' and 'achievement' becomes a productive network that enables such stereotypes to efficiently maintain the structure of society but the fact is that any physical 'image' that people categorise as representative of this ideology is false.

Men learn that "masculinity" or physical violence (or at least the threat of it) can get them what they want. Women learn that "femininity" or non-physical forms of violence (manipulation, whether through beauty or otherwise) can get them what they want while avoiding their weakness (lack of physical strength). — Agustino

As mentioned, just like political ideology can become the impetus that can promote mobilisation and a productive sociopolitical network as it functions in contrast to an Other that ultimately defines power, conformity can also do the same socially. As said by Anderson: "Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings.”

These social constructs form a bond, a community that in their own imagination develop a sense of belonging. At the moment, this so-called masculine look is very popular where I am from:



The worst part about it is that every guy who now has this look thinks he is original. How exactly is it possible for people to think they are independent and individual when they are doing what everyone else is doing? Is it not a sickness when you see young girls all trying to appear 'original' when they are mimicking the Kardashians?

For example, two men may like the same women, and the more one of them likes her, the more the other will like her (because they imitate each other). If one of them is more masculine than the other (they have bigger muscles, more money, etc.) then they will use violence to get the woman for themselves. And the violence in our day is mostly invisible - only the unspoken threat of it is sufficient. Simply being bulkier, having more money, etc. is enough to convince the double. — Agustino

The girl has nothing to do with it; it is just a display and entirely subjective for want of power. If either one actually loved the girl, it can easily be proven [think Solomon and the baby with two mothers].

...which is then effaced and projected unto a victim - oh it was her who didn't like him, she liked me. — Agustino

:s Such morons, its almost painful.

I wrote about gravitational waves and LIGO in my blog a couple of months ago. I'm at the gym now, but super excited about this. They deserve it.

You can't have it all ways -- that masculinity is a sickness, instinctual, and a social construct -- because the causation is quite different, like social norms vs. biological instinct. — Bitter Crank

From a Lacanian perspective, you certainly can. The desire/sickness is formed by our unconscious ego that mirrors society.

First, that masculinity is a social construct... Style is socially constructed, certainly. The style in which some men present themselves--powerful, woman-abusing, insensitive--is one construction. — Bitter Crank

The point I was attempting to convey is that this image that we portray - call it 'style' - is empty, a vacuous expression formed by creating an false image of themselves according to the social attitudes masculinity or femininity represents in their environments. Being physically bulky by taking steroids, wearing certain forms of clothes, having a beard, what are they if this man is a coward? If he thoroughly enjoys hurting or watching someone being hurt who is vulnerable and in need of his support? This is where Kant comes in; a rational, autonomous being - a person who transcends this social bullshit - forms an idealised version of themselves based on moral principles that universalises their conscience to their identity. They can still be strong, still get defensive, but they will do it in favour of those that need their help, they will fight for injustice, for a cause.

No matter how big or small you are, a 'real man' is fearless. Fearless enough to be loving.

Is there a certain way that we ought to express masculinity? For the sake of the thread, I'd like to focus on men rather than the loving and caring female that tempers the drive to express one's masculinity. — Posty McPostface

'Masculinity' is a sickness, it is a pathology stemming from a self-defeating desire that mirrors a distorted and imaginative ideal saturated by the influence of fear. Our desires are formed by unconscious or instinctual needs and children initially mirror the stimuli illustrated by their family and then social environment as they relationally develop a language that motivates how they perceive and identify with the external world. Even our emotions are structured and asserted by a relational narrative formed by others - like a child of a racist growing to feel real hatred and anger for this Other; its not actually real - usually starting with one's father and then moving on to their social environment as they begin to form an idealised version of themselves.

Men who take steroids and act tough are no different to women who get plastic surgery and inject shit into their lips; they are both creating an idealised version of themselves based on this self-defeating pathology that stems from the fear of rejection. If, as children, we mirror our parents where our ego is formed by this negative differentiation, the fear of being rejected ensures doubt within us until we reach an age where this is transferred to our social environment; others form the language of our identity and therefore we become socially constructed ourselves.

And yet, they are congratulated for forming this public image that solidifies this identification to their ideal. Why? Think of it like Stockholm syndrome or traumatic bonding, where a hostage begins to defend and sympathise with the captor; women don't find aggressive men attractive, they are afraid of them that they act passive and gentle to save themselves from becoming a victim. A man in a tolerable but unhappy relationship for long enough will eventually think he is happy and in love. We are erroneously responding to the trauma from the potential fear of being a victim that we submit only to end up defending this unidentifiable social aggressor.

So what is the difference between an image of this ideal version of man and an authentic one? Men acting aggressive and macho are actually exposing the same emptiness as a woman who acts sweet and lovely but is actually inadvertently cruel and bitchy [backstabbers with a smile]. There is a lack of moral substance. I don't think anyone has said it better than the Solomon: For the lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil. But in the end she is as bitter as poison, as dangerous as a double-edged sword. What makes a beautiful woman? It is the substance, the very 'within' of a person and not an image that is nothing but a mindless display. Those men that desire those women are still attempting to express this ideal version of masculinity because having such women is another part of this display.

They lack moral consciousness, genuine love. They are incapable of giving love because their identity is structured on an image, not on themselves. Only by transcending this social and environmental ideal version of 'masculine' or 'beauty' by forming an idealised version of ourselves based on virtue and morality can one ever identify with who they are independent of this influence. It is no longer an image that articulates their identity, but love. A masculine man is not someone who fights with his fists but one who fights for righteousness and someone who follows other people cannot ever understand what it is to feel despair at injustice, who will see no value nor understand the importance of defending and supporting the vulnerable and weak. They are slaves to their own fears.

Masculinity is a social construct.

That barely scratches the surface of how men are treated as less than human and less than equal because of their sex. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

From experience, I have been treated as an object more by women then I have by men, but I have come to realise that those who have treated me that way - either men or women - are those with the least self-esteem and such people, in their vulnerability, can be rather monstrous. They follow others and even steal other people's personality; if A is attracted to B, then they are also attracted to B, because what they seek is the esteem given to them by others. I have encountered people who copy and then ridicule or ostracise the person that they are copying as though trying to separate themselves from the fact that they are slaves to this lack of self-esteem and they are so petrified of being independent and alone that overtime they lose their humanity.

I have been treated that way by some women and men because my independence is clear and my kindness is genuine, and that can be threatening since their identity is formed under the assumption that obedience to societal expectations is absolute, that you cannot actually have real self-esteem but only if others give it to you. Society, being cunning, enables them to trick themselves into assuming that they are somehow 'individuals' when they clearly follow this desired image. Our attitude to ourselves is all a result of our social and environmental training. We "buy" and "sell" ourselves to others and social networking has become a perfect platform that enables and strengthens this lie.

“What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her "beauty" his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.” Naomi Wolf

There are subtle albeit very effective behavioural demands and real power is strengthened when people believe that they are the one's making that decision. The man thinks he has made the choice of living with this beautiful woman because he wants her, and though he lives with anxiety or takes drugs or whatever that are clear indicators of his misery, he remains content living in that lie because he has acquired the esteem of others. It is like working in a dead end, horrible job year after year as long as you are getting paid. As said by Aldous Huxley:

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”

This inequality does exist in men also, I will not deny that and will say that the problem is greater than sex. That is why I said that I am not a feminist because that merely scratches the surface. The problem is in humanity, it is social and environmental, cultural and religious. These conditions transcend sex. The fault, again I will reiterate, in your argument is that you are still thinking that somehow feminism is the issue.

An essential feature of the clock (whether it is the sun moving, an atomic clock, or a light clock) is that it requires something - a phenomenon - that is taken as a reference point. Namely, one day corresponds to one appearance and disappearance of the sun, and it does so all the time. If it doesn't, then time cannot be measured anymore.

This means that physical time is always relative, and in a certain sense immanent. — Agustino

... to the observer. I assume that this phenomenon is actually a space-time interval that is calculated between two endpoints, and being so time becomes more of a dimension of sorts that explains this position. It is not time but distance that is the problem here, as time converts these coordinates into distances. Proper time measures this distance so to speak between two events as though a clock had passed through it and enables a causal connection. Coordinates are essentially used as labels in science that help us identify spatial events and time actually holds no real significance in the physical sense; take time dilation, for instance.

Theoretical problems can be brought against this scientific conception of time. Namely, what happens if everything, as it were, speeds up in equal proportions, including the phenomenon that we take to be the stable unit of time? It would seem that if that is the case, then scientific time cannot tell us. For our festival that we took 5 days to complete, will still take 5 days now, only that the former 5 days aren't the same as the latter. Clearly, physical time will never be able to capture this occurrence. But is this phenomenon a chimera of our imaginations? — Agustino

The propagation of information cannot move faster than the speed of light and it is why we have the theory of special relativity.

Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. No one experiences the future. What we do experience is some action that we imagine as a possible future. Possibilities, however are not future time. Imagined possibilities are not duration. — Rich

No one experiences the present. It is only future and past.

That's not what I meant by "letting go of hopes." There was no turning my back. My friend and I are better friends than we were before. Long ago she told me that love cannot include expectations or obligations. I understood what she meant, but it took me a long time to put it into practice. Lao Tzu said "hope is as hollow as fear." — T Clark

The man I thought I loved lacked empathy and wanted me sexually alone, which I never permitted as my virtue is more important to me than anything else. It was the most horrible feeling having him hate me so much because he never attained what he wanted that I felt so worthless. I still hoped for a friendship because I could see the potential in him and my feelings were honorable and real. My hope was to inspire that empathy and compassion so that a friendship would form and he could start seeing me for more than just my body. But, he couldn't do it, he kept on lying and digging a deeper hole until I gave up because it was hurting too much.

What you have done is beautiful and you should be so proud for that. It is real love that you gave.

One thing to watch out for when considering questions of legitimacy is to what extent any discussion remains at the level of procedures and rules. One has to always consider to what extent one can/should make a so-called 'illegitimate' claim to governmental redress - think about the sit in protests during the civil rights era, or the occupation of public space during the recent Occupy protests and so on. Certain forms or conceptions of illigitimacy (because not done though the 'right' channels of political participation) may serve as covers for the denial of political representation or redress and undermine democratic expression. — StreetlightX

I agree that the subject of legitimacy is both descriptive with a normative core as legitimacy is a property that supplants conditions to the quality of an outcome; any sphere of influence without these standards contains a risk of lacking such quality and it was indeed why I questioned earlier whether the US is even a democracy. I doubt there exists any mechanisms that can demonstrate equal fairness in the decision-making process since majority rule and a two-party system of governance undermines the conditions that satisfy 'legitimacy' that we all just seem to presuppose because we vote (or choose not to) and other participatory procedures. The epistemic part that forms this sociopolitical will is interesting (have you heard of Condorcet Jury Theorem)? Justice and Democracy are in disagreement when procedural legitimacy is used as an instrument to communicate presuppositions in this sphere of influence, so we can approach a descriptive analysis of the procedural values that citizens and governments hold.

There are generally two ways to approach this: say that we need more ideal mechanisms so that we don't need such eruptive moments, or to accept that these eruptions are part and parcel of politics and need to be afforded a place. If it isn't obvious I think the former is quite obviously an utterly naive approach to things. — StreetlightX

The latter momentum or fluidity may be an inevitable requisite that contests the standards that form our understanding of the properties or quality of legitimacy, but in doing so would mean that there is no legitimacy in legitimacy and that therein would contain no properties or quality at all. How do we draw the line?

The constitution of 'the people' is - for me anyway - the key problem to be worked though in political theory. It also nicely mediates between 'real politics' and philosophical approaches quite nicely. — StreetlightX

What is your take on referendums?

I really like the way you've worded this part of the sentence, and I believe this is exactly why adding "unconditional" into the mix actually takes away from the genuineness of love. — John Days

This is what it is like with unconditional love. You can see the way people talk about it, like this very special thing that is so rare that it is hardly ever practiced, and yet the examples people give of unconditional love is the kind of behavior all people should be practicing as just something normal. — John Days

I don't see the connection here. Are you saying that we should view unconditional love as just a normal practice of giving love?

What I have said here is that I believe that women's liberation has done nothing to address or correct how men suffer as men.

Apparently feminism categorically denies that men suffer as men, I now must conclude (see the quote that inspired this thread). — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I disagree. Studies at tertiary institutions on men and masculinities is interdisciplinary in gender studies and sociology. The idea is that if the social construction of masculinity is causally to blame for the existence of misogyny, a focus on how masculinity effects men in turn transforms the very reality that feminists seeks to stop. It should not just be one voice trying to defend itself but men and women working together.

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/masculinity-studies-and-feminist-theory/9780231122795

Hmm, that is indeed an interesting scenario. There are two kinds of men who would declare that. Those who really don't care that they are cowards, and want to go on living in that way, and those who do not think they are cowards but reply so nevertheless just to shut up the one who accuses them that they are cowards since they do not want to engage in discussion. They really have no preference whether they appear as cowards, their concern is solely with the reality. — Agustino

To me cowardice is a type of feeble-mindedness, a person who lacks will and prefers others to think on his behalf and a man who needs to bulk up by taking steroids is a coward because they are following a false image, what makes one in the Thrasymachian sense appear as a 'man' when subjectively they are worms. It is no different to those women who use botox and get implants etc because it is all a game, a competition of who can pull off the best lie. Add a touch of superficial kindness to that mask and everyone applauds and congratulates it - look at the Kardashians, a bunch of psychotic people that everyone defends tooth and nail. Being cowardly does not mean being scared or afraid in the way that we often interpret it, but succumbing to that lack of self-esteem that makes one enslaved by the need to garner other people's approval. They sacrifice their own identity and hand their souls over for others to think on their behalf. It disgusts me.

In everything that I remember reading in the Republic, Thrasymachus was indeed the most appealing to me
— TimeLine
Can you expand on what you mean? — Agustino

Why do you need me to expand? Thrasymachus was most appealing because of his interpretation of injustice hiding behind the appearance of justice, the very purpose of this thread in that he did not impose moral ideals but rather interpreted politics through a realism of human motivation.

Where?
— TimeLine
Oh, in the behavior of the many who follow it :P — Agustino

No, I meant where or who states that conventional morality is to do whatsoever is good for you, regardless of whether it is good for others. As in, why conventional morality?

"The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself" - Plato — Agustino

The consequences of cowardice is irrelevant to one willing to be enslaved or to follow the herd; I have heard grown men who inject themselves with steroids to appear masculine retort "yep, I am a coward!" and though that disgusts me, the reality is that the masses prefer to follow, hence knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave. This returns back to the problem of what good leadership entails and the Platonic 'philosopher-King' is nothing more than a moral ideation and the very source of what I am having trouble with. In everything that I remember reading in the Republic, Thrasymachus was indeed the most appealing to me and particularly the position of religion and tradition in authoritarian forms of so-called 'justice' where domination is stronger and more sustainable in the event that the people are manipulated to believe that it is for the right reasons.

Conventional morality does say to do whatsoever is good for you, regardless of whether it is good for others. — Agustino

Where?

Also, re: Machiavelli and Thrasymachus: one thing that is often forgotten is that Machiavelli was not, himself, 'Machiavellian' in the sense of simply being a power-hungry schemer. The goal for Machiavelli was never simply power but the cultivation of virtù, the achievement of greatness or excellence (not unlike, by the way, the great deeds of the Homeric heroes). This in turn meant paying attention to the winds of forunta, those opportune moments that arose for the taking (again, not unlike the Greek notion of kairos, which, unsurprisingly, Plato was supremely suspicious of).

There's a deep attention to political reality in Machiavelli, which sets him very much against the 'ideal-theory' orientation of Plato and Rawls. But importantly this doesn't mean that the only thing to be concerned about is power and it's pursuit, even as they at least now become important considerations. Thrasymachus in this sense is a caricature of Machiavelli, who is far more subtle in his understanding of politics than either Plato or Thrasymachus. — StreetlightX

Indeed, a philosopher seeks to articulate moral standards in an attempt to ascertain the most effective political system, but there appears some hesitation to confront legitimacy within these standards imposed. The Nazi regime were also imposing moral standards, clearly the fabric of their intent was domination and the death of millions were the outcome of a necessity to motivate human mobilisation for this very intention [they needed an 'Other']. Modernity itself is rife with a plethora of examples that have almost institutionalised injustice, but with a smile - hence why I thought of Thrasymachus.

The war in Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance, was littered with crystal clear examples of the manipulation of public opinion where injustice hid behind the appearance of justice, with the US public appearing to exemplify the farcical concept of 'individualism' though blindly moved in masses. At the time they teared down anyone that questioned the legitimacy behind these decisions. How profitable was the war? Are governments managing the drug-trade? Why does it seem to always occur when the Conservatives are in power? Is the US really a democracy? And here we are again with North Korea and at the cost of how many potential lives? Then you have Rawls all ladida and while I wholeheartedly agree that notwithstanding the brilliance of his work, it has put a stain on philosophical progress at a time where political progress is eroding globally at an exponential rate.

Ultimately, it is about deconstructing the conceptualisation of actual or present experiences without the motivation to identify where morality could be imposed as Arendt almost clinically articulated, because the fact of the matter is the world is shit right now and we need to actualise realistically as to why. Everyone demonised Machiavelli because our role is to impose moral standards, we are supposed to avoid unjust power and rightly so, but it obscures reality, the very fabric of how injustice continues. The just-war theory perhaps touches this to a degree. Morality itself is not entirely coherent - for instance power during emergency situations - and so this reliance is concerning. Even in criminal activity like the mafia there are 'rules'.

Ahhh you're in for a treat : D. And I know Kymlicka's text - it's an undergrad standard - and you'd definitely come away with the impression that you have re: applied moral theory having read it. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I actually purchased it a number of years back when I was completing my studies in political science, but I never got around to it and then a number of years doing law made me forget my love for politics. But my recent decision to start applying for some international positions in human rights and my passion for injustice led me back the desire to focus on the subject and thus returned to Klymika, which affords a good introduction for undergrads, but also a really good recap for people like myself. I really can't wait now!

Heh, you're not alone in this concern. Raymond Geuss, among other others, has basically made his career out of criticizing what he calls 'ethics first' political philosophy, and it helps that he is probably among the best and most erudite writers in the English language (check out in particular his little book, Philosophy and Real Politics). — StreetlightX

I just bought it online. This occurred to me after just finishing Contemporary Political Philosophy by Will Kymlicka and call me a logical positivist, but moral questions applied to political concerns has somehow put the subject of 'politics' as a human activity at a stand still, particularly from Rawls. I get that it is just as implausible to campaign for a more detached approach to normative concepts entirely, but I feel that conversely we narrow a satisfactory vision of 'real politics' that restricts a broader appreciation of the contemporary dynamics of political activities that we are experiencing today at a global level. Once I receive and read the book, I may prompt this thread up again if I have any questions. I can also see where you are going with the Foucauldian discourse analysis from a political philosophy, but the historical angle once again narrows a critique toward a more ontological reading.

Mainstream Poli P still tends to labour under the more or less awful influence of Rawls and is indeed a whole of bunch of applied moral theory. — StreetlightX

(Y) That made me laugh.

The most basic source, now that I think about it, would be Machiavelli, who wisely counseled that one of the principal lessons the Prince ought to learn is how not to be good. — StreetlightX

Ah, preceding him, perhaps Thrasymachus? It is realistic to accept that political decisions have been made that contradict intent for what is best for the people. Any realistic qualitatative observation of social and political affairs would be amorphous when we neglect the possibility that political systems and institutions are not contained within such singular attributes of what they ought to be but are in fact not good intentionally, since those who try "to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good."

I was just thinking about how to respond to you and this thought came to me. The thing that makes love unconditional is compassion. — T Clark

That is what I already said, it is the enabling experience, empathy and what makes us human; it didn't just come to you.

I have also been thinking about something that happened to me several years ago. I'm getting old, thinking about death sometimes. Not really afraid, but sorry that I haven't done more with my life. It struck me then - the secret is to be ready when the time comes. If it comes three minutes from now, be ready not to hold on to life, but to let go. Have your bags packed. At the same time I was dealing with emotional issues with a good friend. Again I was struck - love is the same as life. I guess Joni Mitchell was right. With love, you have to be ready to let go now. You have to pack your bags now. I don't mean letting go of the love, I mean letting go of hopes. — T Clark

For me, it is about letting go of the lies that keep you living in a hole or a shell. I had a severe car accident and preceding that was bullied and harassed and I was forced to confront the truly disgusting side of the people around me. My vulnerable situation proved not just how vicious others can be but how much I was wasting my time with the wrong sort. It was what strengthened me, despite crying almost every day as I came to confront this unreal reality as though an existential withdrawal of an ethereal drug that I was addicted to.

Only authenticity in your perceptions of the external world matter and it compels the genuine experience of love. Whether your hopes are real in the first place, or whether it is merely a mirror for something subjectively wrong in you is questionable.

To turn your back on someone and stop hoping is what I did too only because after the long and difficult experience above, I realised he was not what I wanted him to be. He was a monster, and that's that.

What standards (other than morality) are available as a basis for political evaluations? — Galuchat

That is the very problem here. Moral standards confuse the suggestion that discourse on political legitimacy in virtue of political systems and institutions cannot be detached in order to take a more descriptive approach to the subject. The subject in the contemporary arena appears more applied moral philosophy rather than political philosophy.

To stop at calling feminism incoherent would be generous, it seems. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Call this misandry, but are you having some spat with your ex?

Singling out an object of love is basically defining a set of conditions. Our feeling may not depend on the object of our affection giving anything in return, but the feeling nevertheless depends on the object remaining true to our limited conception. If it didn't that would only suggest that we're in love with the conception rather than anything in the real world. The feeling also depends on our conception and values remaining relatively constant. — praxis

That makes no sense. The feeling is the enabling experience otherwise 'love' would not exist at all; empathy is the source of our moral consciousness of others in an external world and what differentiates from a sociopath. The object mirrors the authenticity of our motivation.

To me, it would make more sense to say that unconditional love has no object or focus, and would be a spiritual sense. — praxis

As I said, unconditional love is symbolic of this experience of giving love.

You can love someone you can't be with. That's part of its unconditionality. — T Clark

This certainly serves some food for thought. It depends on why you cannot be with them; if you choose not to because your circumstances would be less appealing by being with the person that you love, you have set a condition or made the choice and it is entirely selfish. If they are in a relationship and though you love them, you choose to refrain from those feelings hoping that they are happy or if they have hurt you and you are reasonable enough to keep your distance but still hope that they are happy, then perhaps.

Of course it's not constant, a feeling of love is fleeting and dependent on particular conditions. The difference between a feeling of love and 'unconditional love' is that the latter implies unconditional future acceptance and support, otherwise it's expressing a meaningless sentiment. — praxis

An expression of love is fleeting; a feeling of love is not fleeting, on the contrary is the very fabric of our humanity. It is what enables the experience, just like how empathy can cause pangs of conscience that differs entirely to a sociopath. We are enabled with authenticity or genuine love when we experience giving love to another without any return (conditions), where we thus transcend from being a mindless drone to a human being and where morality is thus born. Moral consciousness is a combination of this capacity together with reason, to be conscious or aware of ourselves and applying it to our expressions and why these expressions of love contain conditions and rightly so. Yet, without self-awareness reason itself is useless or even dangerous; it is what makes a person vote for Trump. As I said earlier, a mother defending her son tooth and nail despite him being a murderer is not showing unconditional love, on the contrary the condition of her actions is selfish and unreasonable.

Unconditional love is symbolic of this ability, a symbol of our ability to give love authentically or genuinely. It is the very ability we have to feel love, basically, before all else starts to follow.

Indeed, in our day and age people actually "love" the economics and social condition of their situation and not their partners, or they abandon their children or they say nasty things with a smile on their face and sweet lips; it is all just a show, a display and there is nothing genuine in their behaviour whether it is romantically or morally. Whenever these people end up finding something better or even worse when they start thinking that they are better, bang, out comes the disloyalty and it could even be years and years later. There is no future in inauthentic love even if they say it is unconditional.

"If, then"? Love isn't logic, buddy. Just as there are those who are completely emotional without reason, you are trying to find some complete definition without emotion. You are creating the conditions all by your wee little bonny lass.

Again, and please for pity's sake read this, it is not a constant but an expression and that there are and can be those that express unconditional love.

Exactly. We say the love is unconditional, yet we define it with conditions. Maybe it is just semantics, but if that's so, why the insistence on the contradiction? I believe it's because there's a whole lot of room for hiding in contradictions. — John Days

No, we don't say that love is unconditional. We say that unconditional love is unconditional. It is an expression of love, as is romantic love, brotherly love etc &c., and does not define a constant state. Brotherly love - my favourite kind of love - which is really just genuine friendship, contains conditions. Heck, romantic or erotic love needs conditions. Familial love and so on, they are all ways in which we can express this subjective sentiment or feeling, but to say that 'love' is just one of them is mistaken.

Mens Rea is a comparative example that explains how intention plays a role in criminal behaviour vis-a-vis justice. You can be charitable, for instance, but if the act of giving is only because you know that in doing so people will acknowledge you for being wonderful, the intent or motivation behind the act is false and the condition has been set, namely that you are only giving love to receive appreciation for it.

Unconditional love denotes a purity of this motivation to give love to another or others without a moments thought about receiving anything in return. The other or others' welfare or happiness or immediate concerns are the only concern for you and not your own. But you cannot give love without the right frame of mind and so it is only possible when one transcends or basically has an authentic understanding of themselves, their feelings or sentiments; to become morally conscious.

True love is not 'hollywood' but when two people are capable of giving love rather than solely wanting it, so the only condition here is that to genuinely love someone - with the right frame of mind and a genuine understanding of your own feelings - one must learn how to give love unconditionally.

I wasn't endorsing it as a strategy, I was describing it as a phenomenon. — T Clark

I never said you were.

You will probably not be thinking, "Ok, they are terrible parents, but at least they have unconditional love for their kids" because the conditions for what it means to be loving are not met. — John Days

Somehow I feel that I could have a more fruitful conversation with a log. Conditions according to who?

I'm going to bed. :-d

My brother is a very good uncle, but he has never had kids. Once, when my children were running around being kids - yelling, crying, making noise, he said "I have trouble with all this emotionalism," by which he meant emotion. Calling it "emotionalism" let's you put distance between yourself and feelings. — T Clark

I hope not too far a distance; emotions are a part of our humanity, it is about finding that balance between reason and our feelings.

Without conditions, what reason do we have to distinguish between good behavior and bad? Just because a mother says, "I love my son unconditionally despite him bullying his class mate" doesn't mean he should be exempt from facing the consequences of his actions.. That would be UNloving to the person he bullied. Love requires that there should be SOME kind of consequence for bad behavior, even though the person being judged is still loved while being punished. — John Days

According to who? Some cultures would think it is righteous to honour kill their own children.

Actually, I strongly believe that love cannot be love without justice or righteousness, so it may be that our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what you think "we" are talking about. — John Days

Preceding justice and righteousness is love (morality); justice itself is an expression of righteousness and morality and one cannot be just or righteousness if they are unable to... *drum - roll* give love. It is the ability to be able to give love to others without expecting anything in return, including emotionally. The conditions come where the emotions leave-off, when it is solely about reason. But we, as humans, require both - love and emotions - in order to express this sentiment. That is all that unconditional love is referent to, an expression, a symbol.

You are making the mistake of emphasising conditions by creating conditions yourself, saying "this is what love is" and indeed, when justice and righteousness are in question, this is certainly the case. But unconditional love is the act, what compels, the very motivation. When you are thinking of justice, you should think about the concept of intent.

Well, this situation is easily testable. If someone gives expecting something in return, will you say this is unconditional love? Of course you will not. Why? because the condition of "giving without expecting anything in return" is not met. — John Days

I just said to you - actually, I wrote it so I am unsure of how you could have missed it - that if someone gives expecting something in return, then it is conditional love. Your "emotionalism" or what I assume to be the emotionally decisive responses that lacks reason would mean that a person compelled to defend a murderer because they apparently 'love' that person is entirely selfish and unreasonable and they have made this decision because they emotionally want the love to be returned back from the murderer. Being "emotional" can also be an attempt to avoid emotional pain or hurt as well and it is why emotions without reason is dangerous.

Unconditional love is not just being swept away by emotions, it is thinking reasonably about the welfare of others and caring enough to believe their needs and happiness - irrelevant to your own - is worth something. It is moral consciousness.

Where is the real disagreement here? I suggest it is in the emotional value of the concept. Unconditional love provides a seriously convenient method of escape from accountability. But justice is impossible without standards or conditions, and for you to say that justice is separate from love opens a whole new can of worms. — John Days

Yes, it is emotional, if it lacks reason and if love lacks reason, it would contain conditions because it is solely emotional. We are not talking about justice or righteousness. We are talking about the expression of unconditional love.

and not want anything in return.
— TimeLine

Which is a condition. — John Days

No, it isn't.

If the love really was unconditional, then whether or not you were hurt would be irrelevant. — John Days

It may not be irrelevant, on the contrary giving love is not always a pleasurable experience, but these feelings have no effect on my decisions to give love. That is why it is unconditional, what I feel is irrelevant because reason prevails.

Reason and hope are the conditions on which those decisions are made. There is no way you can try to define something which is unconditional, because the attempt itself to define that concept requires conditions. Therefore, unconditional love is an emotional concept which is specifically designed to overlook conditions which may contradict what real love is for the sake of satisfying emotional desire. — John Days

You are just not getting it. A "condition" is getting something in return for giving and so the decision to give is to get. You set conditions against others for yourself. Having hope that someone improves for their own sake and happiness without desiring anything in return - including awareness of the things that you do to help - would make it is unconditional. It would only satisfy your emotional desire if it had conditions, because it would imply selfish rather than a selfless act.

No, because the condition is that the wrong-doer is HER child; not some other person's child, and, her love may not be real love at all if it causes her to ignore injustice toward those who are not her child. If unconditional love is meant to be symbolic, then a better symbol is needed than a word which suggests that standards do not matter. — John Days

It is not about her child or not. A lover could do the same, defend a murderer tooth and nail. Again, the motherly love concept is symbolic.

"Giving" is a condition. If the giving does not happen, then the condition is not met and the love is not unconditional. the concept is a contradiction which is based purely on emotionalism. It's tempting to suspend standards when we feel strongly about an issue, but claiming that our suspension of standards is an expression of love is just hypocrisy and convenience. It is not rational to suspend conditions for the sake of love, because that would suggest that love could be unjust. — John Days

Nope. Giving love is to give love to someone and not want anything in return. Wanting love or something in return is a condition and if it is the reason for giving love then it is no longer unconditional.

What is emotionalism, by the way? This little rant of yours against unconditional love?

No, it is unconditional when the conditions are no longer about what you want - so you do not receive anything - whereas conditional love is that you do; unconditional is about what is best for the other person. It is an act of giving love.

The concept makes no sense. Any attempt you make to define what unconditional love is will result in conditional criteria. "Unconditional" itself if a condition. For the love to be different from conditional love, the condition is that it must be unconditional.

And yet, people will argue tooth and nail that it is a real thing. One of the most common examples is that of a mother's love for her child, but the first condition is that the child must be hers.

I believe the reason for the popularity of this concept is that it is convenient. It is akin to "the devil made me do it". It is tempting to legitimize the removal of standards and conditions on the basis of love. This kind of reasoning is not based on real love, but rather emotional appeal.
— John Days

The biggest problem is that since the most defining experiencing during adulthood is the experience of romantic love, most people assume that this is what love actually is and thus compares the experience to the interpretation as a whole. Unfortunately, romantic love is merely an expression as is a number of other - familial, brotherly/friendship etc - but if you think of unconditional love as symbolic, referent to things like motherly love where, for instance, in the event that her child does some wrongdoing to her she still cannot stop loving him, it may start to make some sense.

I believe unconditional love is an expression of how a person gives love, that is, to give love without seeking anything in return. For most people, love is something that they want, they seek it from others and they behave and express themselves in a way where they can present an ideal person - beautiful woman or strong man or wealthy etc - in order to receive the love from other/s. Unconditional love works in reverse; it is a person who is not seeking this love from others, but rather giving it; being charitable is an expression of unconditional love, showing mercy is an expression of unconditional love. The act of giving without the desire for any accolades and applaud in return.

I may have been hurt by a man, for instance, but showing him unconditional love would be to hope that he improves rather than desire revenge. It is not appealing to emotion if there are reasonable grounds in this hope, because love itself is a decision and a choice and as such requires reason and intelligence in making those choices. A mother who defends tooth and nail a son who committed murder is selfish and appealing to emotion alone, there is nothing reasonable about her actions and it is conditional love for that reason, the condition being for her own benefit. But, if I have been hurt by a man and choose to not speak to the man and may even reasonably conclude that it is impossible for the man to improve, I would be showing unconditional love by having the hope that he improves and would show kindness and mercy if he does. It is unconditional because the hope is not for myself, but for him. It is still an act of giving love.

I have loved a child that was not my own, by the way, very deeply and still do. I took care of her for a long while when she was a baby because her mother couldn't and I am still heartbroken that I could not adopt her for my own.

Every feminist source I encounter is oblivious to men suffering as men. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Feminism is not oblivious to the suffering of men but concerns itself with the study of women. That is the point.

For the most part, being a feminist is not about being an aggressive woman walking around topless and having sex with whoever you want, but it is having the attributes of one who fearlessly continues despite their vulnerabilities, those that fight hatred and violence and cruelty with goodness and love, by never giving up. It is about being yourself, whether you feel feminine in nature or not, and being virtuous and principled. This is the same for men. There needn't be a stereotype, an image that would classify you as a 'man' or a 'woman' but it is wholly subjective.

My father was taught to be 'manly' and that masculine attributes were physical in nature as well as being aggressive and showing dominance. He would boast about stories on how he made people disabled and would often beat my mother up - she was a tiny woman mind you - because in his pathetic culture violence against women had become normalised. He was a mindless follower of the constructions of masculinity and did the every bidding of his social environment that he cared for more than his own family and children, his false facade showcasing someone different to what we experienced when he came home.

I care about the construction of masculinity because of the impact it has on me and my mother (who became lost because she could not escape) and siblings, all of whom bullied and harassed me as I was the youngest in the family to vent their frustrations. I have never had sex neither even kissed a man because I was for a very long time scared of men and of being hurt. While I am lucky that I was never raped or severely hurt in some physical way, psychological and in particular emotional trauma was significant because of the constant threat of violence and it took a lot to recover from the realisation that I was long hiding from the pain pretending I was protecting myself since I thought men were the enemy. I know now that by exposing my vulnerability and being myself, I am much stronger than my father.

At the same time, it is not difficult for us to hastily generalise when you see the incredibly significant and widespread gender violence that occurs globally. I believe that masculinity studies is relevant to feminism because it will enable feminists to understand the underlying cause of why gender bias exists and encourage an interdisciplinary approach to the subject.

But it has never been the kind of dominant, mainstream narrative that feminism has been. It has struggled for relevance. Considering the attitude in the quote at the start of this thread, are the latter and former any surprise? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The problem with the construction of masculinity is that a man exposing his vulnerabilities is considered 'weak' - for a very long time, men never exposed their experiences of sexual assault where a terrible number of boys had been raped and remained quiet; this includes the alarming rate of suicide. What you appear to be confused about is that you seem to be blaming feminism for this failure, but on the contrary, it is the construction of masculinity that has prevented the struggle of men to be voiced.

If anything, you should perhaps be praising feminism for working hard to fight these social constructions and stereotypes for ultimately shedding light on the issues that men face.

I can think of plenty of examples where women's accomplishments are celebrated with no reference to their looks. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

When you think of a good woman who is highly intelligent, perhaps prone to philosophy and science and hangs out on philosophy forums, what type of woman do you see?

Either she is ugly or old, at which point no one really cares. Or she is attractive. But when the latter, such attributes no longer exist in her because an attractive woman cannot also be a good woman who is highly intelligent. Suddenly, the woman gets bullied and harassed by men who try to dominate her, make her feel inferior by saying comments that damage her confidence to silence her to submission, either that or she puts up a fight to save herself, her identity and who she is. Women are not allowed to be who they are without being forced into a category because as Benkei pointed out, perceptions are epistemic for the most part. This is the same with men, that strength is depicted physically rather than mentally, that turning the other cheek is a sign of weakness and it is why I said that masculinity studies is just as necessary as feminist studies.

I highly doubt you "see" the actual person that she is and would be motivated by a number of other reasons to make it worth your while to get to know her as a friend.

I'll have to respectfully disagree for the simple fact that it is so omnipresent that a certain tolerance is requirement to function in society. It's in everything; why do we dress the way we dress? Why do we have make up, botox, facelifts, breast implants? Plus, why not adhere to all these gender stereotypes when it works for a significant part of society (beautiful women, rich white men, powerful athletes, popular movie stars, etc. etc.)? You cannot expect people to wage that uphill battle all the time. — Benkei

There is a fine line between tolerance and becoming disillusioned; morally speaking, if there is a crime, inaction can make one just as guilty despite being able to say "I didn't do it". A woman can wear some make up when they go to an evening out, wear a swimsuit in public, but tolerance to botox, lip jobs and breast implants? No, such tolerance breeds dysfunction in society and eventually, as I said earlier, you end up a mindless drone and disillusioned yourself. Indeed, there is a level necessary, but if you are aware of this reality where people become entrenched with the belief that somehow how they look matters and forget everything else - a world where the amount of money spent per year in the USA on lipstick alone could feed and provide reproductive health to women in the global south - your place in tolerating this would, as you say, prove there is culpability indeed.

That doesn't sound realistic at all. — John Days

Oh, sorry, did I give you the impression that your opinion mattered? My bad.

Nah, there's lots of fantastical or delusion ideals which don't actually work in real life. — John Days

That is why I said that it is all a story. It works for the delusional. How's things going in your real life by the way?

You say:

It's like you have no idea what it's like to live on Earth. — John Days

And then:

...why artists or passionate creators will talk of prostituting themselves even though it has nothing to do with physical meshing of genitalia. — John Days

I must be on Saturn.

Are you suggesting the world's resources are not finite? — John Days

No, I am suggesting that you cannot assume an answer must be true because it contains capitalised words. I am also suggesting that evil is subjective, an absence of subjective value judgements, and money or resources explains this objectively. It is the motivational structure that enables the force for the mechanics of evil to act; the Ring of Gyges is clarity enough about how access to empowering resources can determine the genuine motivational structure of a person.

Completely contradicts your previous statement about how money doesn't buy power. — John Days

No, all it does is show your inability to capish.

I think we agree. When I say we cannot blame them; I refer to the subconscious judgments and classifications we render as a result of such cultural imprint. Once we're made aware of the subconscious we do have a duty to rationally correct ourselves. If we then don't there is culpability indeed. — Benkei

If, indeed, culture imprints these classifications and if we become aware of the subconscious and rationally correct ourselves, does it also become our duty to enable others access to this awareness? Such cultural phenomenon is a product of our learned behaviour and social interaction and communication develops these classifications that in turn transmit these perceptions. It would seem that tolerance to such behaviour would make one just as culpable.