suppression of women — tim wood

I suggest you talk to as many women as you can. Ask them by whom they have felt most oppressed in their lives.

I bet at least some of them will reply that it was by other women.

baker@TheMadFoolLet me make sure I understand you two: in terms of obligations to wear certain clothing and not wear other clothing, according to you two, there is no difference between a Christian nun and a Moslem woman. That at least is what you appear to be arguing.

Have I got it? If not please correct. — tim wood

What do you mean here by "obligation"?

We've been saying all along that it's far more complex than that.


On the topic of obligation: I take it you're a male living in the Western world. And you wear pants, not a skirt or some other garment that covers the lower part of the body. Would you say you wear pants out obligation?

It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws. — Possibility

I agree. And what is worse, it's not uncommon for women to be complicit in these assumptions, supporting them.

In Western culture, much of the fashion advice given to women -- by other women! -- is about how to be attractive, and specifically, sexually attractive.

Pick up any women's magazine: on the fashion and relationship pages, women are advised to look attractive to men. Or watch an extreme make-over reality show: when they do an extreme make-over on a woman and then present her in her new look, that look is typically in clothes, shoes, and make up that is sexually revealing and is intended to be attractive to men. Even regardless of the woman's age!

Some, if not most, women have deeply internalized these norms and don't question them. An acquaintance of mine once complained to me about her shoes with high heels -- how her feet hurt because of them, how she began to slouch. And then she said, in a matter-of-fact manner, "But alas, what can you do, such shoes must be worn."

I don’t even see HOW you could categorize people in advance of engaging with them, so I’m certainly not advocating that anyone somehow do that. — Pfhorrest

I mean that you're presenting a model of different ways of engaging with people, based on whether they agree with you or not.
Not that you suggest that Tom be put in category 1, Dick in 3, and Harry in 5, based simply on their names or some such.

But after engaging with people, it will become clear whether their opinions are the ones you think are correct or not, and how strongly held those opinions are and for what reasons they’re held.

It’s then appropriate to engage with them differently based on those various factors.

I don't see it this way at all.
I can't even begin to understand why one would take this approach, at least not in philosophy(ish).

What you're saying makes sense in terms of politics (whether it's ordinary citizens or professional politicians discussing politics, or whether it's employees discussing workplace politics, and such).

But beyond that ...?

What you think should be the case is totally immaterial to what actually is the case. — Isaac

And you're here to tell him what actually is the case?

How would you multilaterally define the terms of engagement, since to do so one would have to first engage? — Isaac

I eschew the defining of terms of engagement in advance, and instead just follow the arguments/ideas.

It's an interpersonal communication dynamic, with emphasis on it being dynamic.

I see no need to categorize people in advance in such a forum setting.

The thing is that you chose a hot topic, one of the worst hot topics on the internet.

There are ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet that get a police officer sent to your door.

Then there are other ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet, ways which are more profitable.


My suggestion is that you get serious about this, and do some serious studying about this.

I think a good point to start is the work of Matthew Ratcliffe.

I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all. — Darkneos

If you want to solve the problem of solipsism, you will need to be more disciplined.
A haphazard, ameteurish approach to philosophizing is a recipe for disaster.

It might help you see better if you realize that it is proposed in juxtaposition to the common practice of treating people as only being in groups 1 or 5. I’m advocating more nuance than that. — Pfhorrest

Since I don't practice that common practice, the whole classification is moot for me.

Like I said: The categories in the OP are unilaterally defined terms of engagement.

God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator - an imperator who will be God. And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives. — Bartricks

Which still is not an imperative to join the Roman Catholic Church -- or whichever one.
IOW, the God of philosophers has no practical implications in the real world.

Once again, the question was not "How should I live my life?" but "Why do YOU choose to go on." — Kenosha Kid

From what I've seen in online forums, much of the time when people ask the latter, they mean the former.

I think he wants people to give him the answer he already knows he wants.

Obviously, a person can only understand things that are already within their scope of understanding.
Everyone is like that.

That is incorrect. Enjoyment of the film may be emotional or intellectual, but the decision to stop watching half an hour before the end is illogical, and the decision to watch to the end logical (other factors aside... if the cinema is on fire, leave). — Kenosha Kid

It's not illogical if one wishes to train oneself to come to terms with the fact that not everything in life has closure:

I believe that there are limits to human imagination, however, I also believe it is possible to imagine a being or thing which does not have limits. All sorts of Gods have been imagined by all kinds of human cultures and who’s to say which one is right or even if any of them are right? — Present awareness

In that case, it again comes down to one's purpose for trying to prove or disprove God's omnipotence.

Luck is problematic because it puts to the test some firmly held notions, such as "People deserve what they get".


But it's an big topic with many implications.

This is about the methods or strategies of debate. I think most people haven't thought about this much, and are just going with their gut feeling, or their favorite method (such as reductio ad absurdum).

Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard. — Jack Cummins

"Would" isn't going to get you to those wider areas.

I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others. — Jack Cummins

Not being locked into a certain position can also be detrimental to oneself and to others.
Like they say, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system. — Possibility

Exactly.

Further, in order to ge closer to the truth of this matter, we'd need to carefully interview these women, and also account for when they give socially desirable answers and why they do so.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. — Jack Cummins

People who don't fight for what they believe is right go crazy.

Romance is the opiate of the masses.

You've given a really good list there of the limits of psychological investigation. I'm largely in agreement. You've prefaced the list rather unfortunately though. These things do not escape those of us who study people professionally. We have no lesser access to them than others. — Isaac

Sure, you can do so as private persons (ie. when not in your professional capacity), or else, only produce qualitative case studies, which are of limited scientific value.

Outside of company time, it's no business of the company what a person says or does. — counterpunch

The thing is that it is the other way around already: People at large judge a company by its employees. If you know a guy who works for such and such company, and you don't like him, chances are you're going to hire some other company for some work you need done.

So it makes sense that a company's employees act in line with company policy 24/7 and that the company has some overview and control over it.

What is the purpose of ethics, then? — Philguy

If you look at the way theories of ethics are usually used, it's to judge, condemn, and punish people.

So one purpose of a theory of ethics is that it is used to justfify activities that are intended to bring about social order (a theory of ethics is implied in the content of the laws and in the way the legal system works).

Related to this, but on the level of the individual, they are used to inform psychological and physical boundaries between oneself and other (e.g. a person has a principle of not associating with people who drink alcohol, because they believe such an association is bad and ought not be done).

This thread is about whether an all powerful being can do anything - which is a philosophical question that can't be settled by appeal to the bible or anything else. — Bartricks

Damn straight it can't!

Let us imagine a God so powerful, that he could make an entire universe from absolutely nothing. A square circle would be child’s play to such a being.
As a human. I can’t imagine how either of those things could be done, but who am I to judge those whom believe it is possible? — Present awareness

If you can't imagine it, then why believe in it or assert it as possible??

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
— baker
It takes two to tango. Right!
— TheMadFool

Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves? — tim wood

*sigh*
Strawmen prove nothing.

Clearly, you are emotionally invested in this topic and are willing to look at it only from a very narrow perspective.

Sure, looking at things from a chronologically narrow perspective, they appear the way you describe them.

But this way, you're also asking us to believe that for millennia, women have been helpless victims of men.
That all men (or at least the vast majority of men) have been crazy, uncaring, aggressive, misogynist zombies.
And that the most that anyone can ever do in the face of prospective aggression is hunker down and give in.

Think about that.

All Moslem women are Moslem women. Not all Christian women are Christian nuns.. — tim wood

Becoming a Catholic nun is not entirely a free choice, out of context. One can, ideally, only ordain if one has received "the higher calling". Catholic nuns and monks will tell you that God chose them, and they answered the call. Not that they chose God, out of a multitude of options.

I was thinking more of political conversations with non-philosophers out there in the wild. — Pfhorrest

I don't see why a categorization like the one in the OP would be necessary or helpful. Other than in the case where one assumes one's superiority over others, and thus feels justified to unilaterally define the terms of engagement.

Because this is what the categories in the OP are: unilaterally defined terms of engagement.

So you're suggesting that studying something disposes one to biases but a lay approach, what, magically removes bias? — Isaac

Heh.
Some things do escape those who study people professionally.

For example, there are areas of studying people that are ethically prohibited for direct study (such as the behavior of people in their privacy, when they don't know they are being observed and have never agreed to being observed), then there are areas that would be prohibitively time-consuming or expensive (such as detailed long-term all-round studies).

Secondly, there are social phenomena that can only be studied emically, by the observer becoming a member of the group he's studying (like the motivation for taboos, or the content of public secrets), and are as such problematic.

However, it is precisely these areas that ordinary people routinely have access to and in which they have to function. They can study these areas qualitatively, but not quantitatively (which would be relevant for generalizing scientific purposes).

I see, so we're back to the delusion that what seems to you to be the case is actually the case. You personally have a sense of what constitutes encroaching upon other's freedoms, other people have a different sense.

Really...most people grasp theory of mind by the age of three and you're still having trouble with it. — Isaac

Understanding that other people think differently than oneself doesn't automatically lead to caring about that.

Things being in two different categories is insufficient to justify any two responses to them. You must show how each category justifies each response. — Isaac

Indeed. I have so far been unable to get this answer from free speech absolutists (FSAs).

But if that were the case, then all disagreement would be trivial. There'd be no reason at all to resolve it.

Not just attempts to resolve disagreement, but any situation where people use language to accomplish anything would become trivial.

It appears that the FSA position is internally inconsistent.

It wasn't an historical question. I was asking why you believe they should be treated differently, not why other people might have come to.

I don't believe they are in different categories, I'm not a FSA.

He believes that the mind is computational. She believes that mind is connectionist. He comes in the debate dripping with hatred for her position, calling her argument the "worst thing I've ever seen".. intersperse with ACTUAL content.. more ad personum attacks.. the End. — schopenhauer1

Hold on. I've yet to see this! People who discuss models of the mind and use terms like "computational" and "connectionist" actually use phrases like "worst thing I've ever seen" and who knows what name calling??

I thought that at that level, even the ad homs would be more classy ...

Another way of putting it might be that ideas are either meaningless or they affect the world. If the former, then what's the point in resolving disagreement? If the latter then it's no less morally relevant to hold an idea that it is to act.

We dismiss, ostracise, even fight with people whose behaviour is in opposition to our moral codes. Why do ideas get treated differently? — Isaac

The constitutional clause of freedom speech drives a wedge between words and actions, as if the two would be in different categories.

People who want to uphold the constitutional clause of freedom speech have to, if they want to be internally consistent, maintain that words and actions are two different categories.

Some free speech absolutists, for example, believe that words (ideas) can be neither moral or immoral or have anything to do with morality. It's the old sticks and stones.

Why do ideas get treated differently?

Probably because the general consensus is that thinking or speaking about killing someone is not so bad as actually killing someone, for example.

Somehow, for some people, this "not so bad" faded into oblivion, or the above clause got truncated to "thinking or speaking about killing someone is not so bad", and further to "thinking or speaking about killing someone is not bad".

I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.
— baker
Of which you counted me among. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, based on what you said about yourself.

Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.
— baker
I think it's because, as Gus has pointed out, he doesn't field answers he's not predisposed to agree with.

That's bad faith on your part.

Other people's happiness appears to be a big problem for him.

I yet have to see proof of that.

No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
— baker
I didn't go to a public school. Stop making stuff up, it's pointless.

Start reading what I write, it'll help.

For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.
— baker
That's the problem. People can and successfully do get medical assistance in dealing with depression. It is scientifically quite well understood. It is harmful to peddle nonsense about it being merely a projection of a power structure as it ignores the actual causes. Depression is not madness. We're not in Foucault territory here. It is a biological concern (e.g. Strawbridge R, Young AH, Cleare AJ. Biomarkers for depression: recent insights, current challenges and future prospects. Neuropsychiatry Dis Treat. 2017;13:1245-1262. Published 2017 May 10. doi:10.2147/NDT.S114542)

*sigh*
Oh, the irony ...

And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?
— baker
Because evidence-based reasoning is a good way to avoid bad faith activity.

While ignoring how psychological definitions and diagnoses come about, of course.

I don't know if it's possible for someone who enjoys life generally to get fed up with it; I suspect there are edge cases, but on the whole happy people, barring accidents and even in spite of them, seem pretty happy forever in my experience.

The thing is that neither you, nor mainstream psychologists can give actionable instructions on how to enjoy life. You just dismiss that person as "depressed", and that's it for you.

Well, there's a lesson in this: One should not expect that other people will care about one's happiness.

Again, none of that is relevant. The question was:

I want to know WHY people choose to go on.
— Darkneos

Has it ever occured to you that this was a somewhat clumsy attempt to formulate an existential problem, rather than an attack on other people's happiness?

There is an endless supply of people complaining that life is all meaningless suffering. This thread gets repeated every few weeks with variations. What's worse though, is that the same people come back again and again to the point where one has to wonder if they don't enjoy their misery, and think themselves fine, wise and brave philosophers for facing the unpleasant truth. — unenlightened

A person in pain can search for an answer, a way out. But because of the pain, they can also become bewildered.
If the bewilderment guides the search, this just exacerbates the problem.

I am quite sure there are many things you have not heard yet. What concerns me is I don't think you have a desire to learn of things you do not already know. — Athena

If Christians want me to change my mind about them, they're going to have to do better than pass the buck for the witch hunts.

It's a tabooed topic.
— baker

No it isn't. — unenlightened

I'm talking about the limits of discussing such topics in open forums, or in "polite society" in general -- I took that this is what you were referring to when you said:

It's odd how people speculate about why people go on living as if it is something that they wouldn't consider for themselves, but surely there must be some reason such a lot of THEM do?

It doesn't seem like ...
An honest discussion ...
— Darkneos
... to me. If you are a person, and you go on living, its personal isn't it? — unenlightened

I know a case where a forum poster was talking about "the meaning of life" rather candidly, and the moderator called the police, gave them the poster's IP address, and the police actually went to that poster's home to check on them.

Knowing that you could have the police called on you if you're too candid online is quite a deterrent from discussing existential issues "honestly".

Happiness is not at all a middle class privilege, but rather depression is.

Some conceptions of happiness are an (upper)middle class privilege. It's those conceptions that I criticize.

My point was that philosophical agreements are either trivial or they have moral connotations (with all that's incumbent). — Isaac

Sure. So where seems to be the problem?

Your equating of wealth and happiness is false. — Kenosha Kid

Of course it's false, because I'm not doing it.
I've been talking about people whose happiness depends on material wellbeing, and what applies to those people.

Again, nothing to do with it. Darkneos' objection was not that he couldn't afford to go scuba diving: there are other fun things to do.

And I'm not talking only about what he's saying.

His objection is that doing anything for enjoyment sounds like a "chore". That is not a financial issue. It sounds like depression, which is probably why he keeps hitting that wall in conversations.

Or he's hitting a wall in conversations because he's not talking to anyone who can "take him to the next level", so to speak.

Depression is not a traditional means of the wealthy to oppress the poor.

And noone said it was ...

You are not only misrepresenting my economic status

No, I'm talking about your outlook, your mentality. It's perfectly possible to be of lower middle class (and lower) and have an upper middle class mentality. If you went to a public school, that's what you probably got there.
Mainstream psychology and mainstream education are, essentially (upper)middle class mentality.

you are misrepresenting societal inertia in recognising depression as a physical illness.

For presenting or misrepresenting it like that, I'd have to believe it's a physical illness. Which I don't.

If you give a homeless person with terminal cancer a piece of chocolate, do you really think they are in any position "to make the most of it"?
— baker
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.

It's a testing point for you: You keep talking about "all the more reason to enjoy life while you can". I'm giving you an example that puts your attitude to the test.

I want to see how profound their happiness is. If they bask in their happiness and stigmatize everyone who isn't like them
— baker
That is hysterical and paranoid.

And why you subscribe to mainstream psychology -- to avoid the stigma?



In short, I maintain that it is possible to become fed up with the pursuit of pleasure, and that this is not necessarily due to an illness. This is not a popular view in modern culture. But it is the starting point in some religious/spiritual traditions.

Yes, people were ignorant and superstitious and yes the Church attempted to create social order, but if we are speaking of the Catholics, they were not in favor of claiming people are witches and burning them at the stake. That was more a protestant thing and there were so many different groups of protestants they never had the power the Catholics had. Actually, the witch hunts were more secular than religious. Someone wrote a book about witches and educated people used the book to hunt witches. Here is a marvelous explanation of why witch hunts spread like a pandemic.....

“Similar to how contemporary Republican and Democrat candidates focus campaign activity in political battlegrounds during elections to attract the loyalty of undecided voters, historical Catholic and Protestant officials focused witch-trial activity in confessional battlegrounds during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to attract the loyalty of undecided Christians,” write the study’s authors, Peter T. Leeson, an economist at George Mason University, and Jacob W. Russ, an economist at Bloom Intelligence, a big-data analysis firm.
— Gwynn Guilford — Athena

Oh, that's cute! I haven't heard this one yet.

Well, you can make up your own religion; or, if you're going to discuss religion, work with the claims that a particular religion actually makes.

I think necessity does not exist, — Bartricks

We'll just wait until your next toothache.