Just to clarify for you, the comments I think you’re referring to here were from @TheMadFool.

I think when we argue for average physical characteristics (such as size or strength) as the binary measure of a gender’s value/potential, not only do we exclude those individuals who may not fit this ‘stereotype’, but we also sacrifice accuracy in favour of probability. While it seems logical as a sweeping generalisation, as a prediction of individual interaction, it’s almost useless. Think QM as an alternative method...

Also, I suggest you use the ‘reply to’ option (click on the three dots below the comment and select the back arrow), so that they’re notified when you respond to what someone has posted.

Actually,I think that my response was more in relation to the mad fool. I am really just challeng rigid definitions of gender on the basis of appearances.
Perhaps I am involved in the wrong thread but it began with Jung and what I would say is that the internal world of aesthetics is at the heart of it. Thinking about Kant, his own exploration of a priority truths was based on truth discovered in the mind, even it is based on transcendental concepts or archetypes.
My own contribution would be that we may all have to confront the shadow of the unknown, or the uncanny as Freud called it. Perhaps this could even be an aesthetics of ugliness and embracing the freakish, but this does not mean abandoning eros or traditional aesthetics but simply expanding it. Of course, you may ask why is this important at all and for some conventional aesthetics, including those regarding gender are satisfactory but I believe that for many conventional aesthetics are limiting and a source of unhappiness.

It was not my intention to dismiss our so-called facade argument. Quite honestly I would welcome another thread that captures this phenomenon. The reason is because not only was I going to elucidate the same argument, but it has personal relevance in the spirit of putting theory into practice. I'll share more of the experience when you open another thread. The thesis consists of a thought experiment being put into practice by virtue of experiencing a visit to a nudist colony.

Accordingly, the pragmatic's of that experiment yielded some insights from both a philosophical as well as cognitive perspective. Much like this thread, a new thread might uncover some intrigue vis-a-vis human nature.

What do you think? — 3017amen

I’m not one for starting discussions, so don’t hold your breath on this one... we’ll see...

To all,
I think a new thread is needed because the last couple of days of discussion have been going into tangents and I originally sought this thread because I am interested in Jung.

I admit that my responses have been poor, which have been partly because I am feeling really low in mood. Maybe I would be better on a psychological forum but I am actually interested in the area in between psychology and philosophy.

I don't simply wish to discuss my own issues but the search to understand truth and reality. The whole part about aesthetics and gender just led me into my own angst while in fact I want to get into philosophy debate to get away from personal problems. But at the moment I am not feeling up to starting a thread, but did feel that the discussion going was rather fuzzy anyway and I was simply trying to stimulate new areas of debate.

I am replying to Amen and Possibility, my phone doesn't seem to give me arrows to ensure that you will get an email.

Anyway, I did finally finish reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason today, although it was quite a difficult read. My thoughts on it were that I think Kant's view is important and the current world is too focused on the empirical. The last academic course I did, 5 years ago, was entirely evidence-based. The tutor insisted that every point made in the essay for the course had to be backed up an evidence based study or a published paper and I found this to be going too far. Even though the course was related to nursing it still gave no scope for critical reasoning ability.

Nevertheless, I think that Jung's emphasis on the integration of the four faculties of reason, sensations, feelings and intuition are important to for getting a most thorough knowledge of reality. This does not dismiss the role of logic and in Jung's televised interview he made the famous remark about his understanding of God, that he did not simply believe in God, but 'I know.'
What both Jung and Kant both recognise is that important of the inner world as a source of knowledge. The inner world is often dismissed in current psychology as I found out on psychology modules on various courses I have done, apart from one on art psychotherapy. But on that one it seemed that feeling was stressed above all others. When I was given clinical supervision by an art therapist he told me that I was 'too much in my own head' because I was often philosophical. Of course I don't wish to be out of balance and I have undertaken a period of personal Jungian therapy and I hope this has offered me some integration.

But the point I am trying to make is that I think Kant does offer a worthy viewpoint although his perspective is limited to reason alone. It is worth reading his writing as a means for understanding the importance of reason which is often ignored in present day thinking, and by looking at his perspective we can gain recognition of the faculty of reason. In the time of Jung's writing the sensory, bodily world was the shadow and perhaps now in the 21st century transcendent logic has become the new shadow.

I don't know if this little essay offers anything worthwhile to the thread but as it seems to have stopped anyway I thought I might as well say something. I was a bit disturbed that I seemed to have shut down the thread because even though I may have appeared critical it was not my intention to interrupt and sabotage the discussion but just open things up for new ways of exploration. We don't want Kant to be buried as a long lost prophet, but to be alive as the authority figure he should be in current philosophy.