It's part of why I hate the whole 'men and women of the armed service' bit. Yes, there are women in the armed service. But the inclusion of women alongside men in the phrase serves to eliminate the pain of men by somehow suggesting that the male relationship with the military and violent death is anything like the female. People are afraid to say it, don't care if it's swept under the rug, because only when women die or feel pain is it bad. But no, war first and foremost kills men. Everything first and foremost kills men.

lol my gf is a marine. But I'll respond in full when I'm back home. Typing on the phone takes forever.

I don't know man, with all due respect, I don't give a single shit what your girlfriend is. 'But I know a...' responses really don't matter.

People are afraid to say it, don't care if it's swept under the rug, because only when women die or feel pain is it bad. But no, war first and foremost kills men. Everything first and foremost kills men. — The Great Whatever

Sounds more like a cultural thing than anything else. Men indeed are seen as more expendable than women. But this can be changed, just as the racism of the nation has also been radically changed for the better.

Maybe, but just because something can change doesn't mean it will. I have no hope for it myself.

People are still just as racist as they ever were, btw -- and people become increasingly racist as they're forced to live in close quarters with other ethnic groups. I live in Chicago and this city has absolutely disgusting race relations, it's just a foul city.

That's true but "i don't know a.." backgrounds do kinda matter. I get the sense you don't know many women.

People are still just as racist as they ever were, btw -- and people become increasingly racist as they're forced to live in close quarters with other ethnic groups. I live in Chicago and this city has absolutely disgusting race relations, it's just a foul city. — The Great Whatever

But not you, right? You're not racist. I'm not racist. Apparently we're not part of the "people".

I don't. Truth be told, I don't really like being around them -- and I think it's similar to the way a lot of black people don't like being around white people. I think both attitudes are totally understandable. Being around people who dehumanize and hate you takes its toll -- I shouldn't be obligated to seek their company or favor, and certainly not to gain credibility in pointless internet arguments. I think that's what it boils down to, really -- I think women genuinely and deeply hate men. (I don't blame them for this hatred. Like I said, I agree with the radfems -- but I just don't want to be around them).

No, I'm definitely racist in a lot of ways. I don't feel good or bad about it. I mostly just want out.

I think women genuinely and deeply hate men. — The Great Whatever

Wowowowowow this is one hell of a silly thing to say.

There are some women who hate men. And there are some men who hate women. And then there's most people who only hate those who are mean, men and women alike.

At the end of the day, a woman sees you as something that, if her life were in danger, you would be expected to lay down and die so she could live. I think that's the bottom line, the brass tacks. You can wax about equality all you want when you're safe and nothing matters, but when it comes right down to it and the masks are taken off, who takes the bullet?

There are pretty disturbing convictions lying beneath people's everyday actions. It takes a little prod to bear them out.

Yeah idk I was willing to meet you halfway until the men-are-the-putty-of-the-cracks-of-the-world thing. Maybe. That stuff psychoanalyzes itself tho imho

I don't mean to be rude, but your meeting me halfway isn't really of any value to me. Thank you for listening, though.

Damn can I take it back?

At the end of the day, a woman sees you as something that, if her life were in danger, you would be expected to lay down and die so she could live. I think that's the bottom line, the brass tacks. You can wax about equality all you want when you're safe and nothing matters, but when it comes right down to it and the masks are taken off, who takes the bullet?

There are pretty disturbing convictions lying beneath people's everyday actions. It takes a little prod to bear them out. — The Great Whatever

No, only some women think this.

And psychodynamic theory is mostly bullshit, especially when done by unprofessionals.

If you want!

Though I don't like the kind of smug dismissal that implies since something can be psychoanalyzed it's therefore illegitimate. Why can't someone own up to, and defend, their neuroses?

There is a certain phenotype, for example, that likes DFW. I understand, and I think you do too, that you fit that phenotype to a T. But I don't think that's a point against you -- it's just part of a personality.

That's a fair point. But i was being for real about typing-on-a-phone, I'm outta this bar in 5 & will reapond when I'm back home (just down the street)

Though I don't like the kind of smug dismissal that implies since something can be psychoanalyzed it's therefore illegitimate. Why can't someone own up to, and defend, their neuroses? — The Great Whatever

They can. We usually call that bigotry.

They're not part of the world of appearances, but their transcendental ground ala Kant. Everything of the world of appearances is in time and space, but time and space are not in that world. — The Great Whatever

That's fine- it doesn't change much to the fact that time/space is NOT in the world as Will and that is what matters. We can parse Schop's analysis on the the world of phenomenon and the problem still remains. Anyways, the "ground" you name is of the phenomenal- which means that which is the backdrop for world of appearances, thus is part of this side of the coin if you will, and not of the world as thing-in-itself/Will.

The will doesn't need time, space, etc. Only presentation does. The will doesn't always objectify itself as presentation. — The Great Whatever

But his whole point is that the world is Will AND Representation, and yes, the "first eye" is the world of appearance, where time began, but there was no time before this, but presentation does not just come about on the scene out of nowhere- it is there from the beginning as FLIP SIDE of Will.

Again, I think this makes the mistake of reifying causality as something applying to the thing in itself. How does the will 'make' representations? — The Great Whatever

Again, it does not apply to the thing itself, it is the FLIP SIDE of Will.

This is just not Schop's position. Presentation is secondary, as one sort of behavior the will participates in (objectifying itself). Nothing needs to 'ensure' that there are objects. Objects only exist for representing creatures. — The Great Whatever

Yes, objects need subjects and subjects need objects- Will "needs" representation, representation "needs" Will. Will does not come "prior" to Representation. Will on its own is a force, yet this force does not "create". It simply does its thing, but its thing happens to be manifesting phenomenon for its own playground of sorts. The playground is the Will, but its other aspect. Though Schop does appear to put weight on Will being primary, it has another aspect which is immediate, and that is the world of appearance. It can't work any other way. There is no time before time where Will is doing this or that such that time and space are created at sub time x. The ground of time is part of Will's other aspect of its own existence. Since he is an idealist, this other aspect is in the minds of organisms. Thus we have Schop's ever present primitive organism. Just as the Will is eternal, so too is the primitive organism, as again the first organism was NOT created at any one point in time, since there was no time before it existed.

The organism does exist in a kind of timeless present, but that's not the same as it being eternal or having always existed in the past (eternality is not timelessness) -- to think this again seems to reify time inappropriately.

And again, causation doesn't apply to the will as such, only to the forms of representation, when time and space interact. But these are only veils used to objectify the will. — The Great Whatever

You are asserting that I did not mean that it exists in a timeless present. If I did say that, then I will just agree to the language of timeless present. Again, this is the oddity that I find not convincing- the ever present organism.

As for your idea of "veils used to objectify Will", you make it seem like there is a second party hiding the Will. It is all Will, but it is just another aspect of Will. What I think Schop emphasized most was that Will is the hidden aspect that may give us an understanding of what is behind the scenes of the phenomenal. The idea that the phenomenal is actually an illusion only makes sense in the context of the idea that humans may not realize the inner aspect, and take the phenomenal for all there is.

I'm actually kind of digging how two or three disparate threads are woven uncomfortably together right now. I would like nothing better than for this thread to spiral into a giant dissonant mess of overlapping conversations that would make Apokrisis too irritated to enjoy fractals.

It's a tricky thing. You mentioned, justifiably, that anecdotal 'I know a..." accounts don't mean much. I have a whole bundle of personal women-who-self-sacrificed anecdotes but these will, inevitably, be chalked up as exceptions, falsifications, romanticizations.

But the flip-side of that, is how do you defend the idea that women, for the most part, deeply hate men, without resorting yourself to anecdotes?

Does it come down to whoever can rally the most anecdotes for their cause?

Where does your insight into the female soul come from?

I don't think it's about a 'soul' -- all these things are based on contingent social privileges, but they are ones I don't realistically see changing any time soon, and in fact they seem to be getting further entrenched. Maybe they have some non-accidental grounding in biology, but that doesn't mean it's essential.

Mostly I try to read what people write when they aren't in public and so don't have to save face. That's why I like the internet so much. And I read a lot of feminist literature too.

You're right, I don't really have anecdotes, because I don't (and try not to) spend much time around women. Some people might think that you're in a worse position to judge with less personally at stake. but there's a flip side to that, being too personally invested can make you refuse to see what might be obvious to someone without that investment.

I'm not sure how to respond to this because, while you are free to believe what you want, a large portion of this is clearly contrary to Schopenhauer on any plausible reading of the text, so it becomes difficult to discuss if we're talking about his views and not ours.

Yes, objects need subjects and subjects need objects- Will "needs" representation, representation "needs" Will. — schopenhauer1

This seems to imply that the will is a 'subject' and the representation an 'object.' But this is wrong, subject and object are both contained in representation, and will is neither. Yes, the subject and object are co-essential. But neither is essential to the will.

Will does not come "prior" to Representation. — schopenhauer1

It does, in the sense that there is plenty of will without representation (the latter only exists in highly developed organisms), but not vice-versa.

There is no time before time where Will is doing this or that such that time and space are created at sub time x. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but this is not because representation is somehow essential to the will or has been propping it up for eternity, but rather because the will is timeless.

Just as the Will is eternal, so too is the primitive organism, as again the first organism was NOT created at any one point in time, since there was no time before it existed. — schopenhauer1

This is just wrong, though, both commonsensically and from what Schop. says. Obviously the organism did arise at some point in time, the world of presentation attests to this, and Schop. frequently speaks this way.

Time only functions when the organism is around, but so long as it does, it always retrojects backward to a time before that organism existed. You are confusing things and talking about time as if it were part of the thing in-itself. If you want to talk about time, you can only talk about it via representation, and in representation, time presents itself as preceding the life of the organism, always. And this suffices for the empirical reality of the fact that there was a time before the organism.

You are asserting that I did not mean that it exists in a timeless present. If I did say that, then I will just agree to the language of timeless present. Again, this is the oddity that I find not convincing- the ever present organism. — schopenhauer1

A timeless presence is not the same as ever-presence, as if this means the organism is very old or has been there since the beginning. It's just that the subject, as the one that projects time, is itself not temporal.

As for your idea of "veils used to objectify Will", you make it seem like there is a second party hiding the Will. It is all Will, but it is just another aspect of Will. What I think Schop emphasized most was that Will is the hidden aspect that may give us an understanding of what is behind the scenes of the phenomenal. The idea that the phenomenal is actually an illusion only makes sense in the context of the idea that humans may not realize the inner aspect, and take the phenomenal for all there is. — schopenhauer1

The language of veils is his, not mine.

This seems to imply that the will is a 'subject' and the representation an 'object.' But this is wrong, subject and object are both contained in representation, and will is neither. Yes, the subject and object are co-essential. But neither is essential to the will. — The Great Whatever

That is a fine reading, and I think you are right. His way of saying subject/object is kind of the most "universal" aspect of the phenomenal world.

It does, in the sense that there is plenty of will without representation (the latter only exists in highly developed organisms), but not vice-versa. — The Great Whatever

I agree with this interpretation, except I would not even say "higher". I think even the most basic level organisms may count- but that is nitpicking. The problem I have is right here- that the organism cannot just "come on the scene" because the "illusion" of representation/phenomenal/object-subject distinction then has to "appear on the scene" as well.

We have fundamentally different views about how to account for the illusion of the world of appearances. If we define Illusion as something which is almost a trick (it seems to exist but it does not "really"), then I think that the illusion itself still must be accounted for. If you say that, "It is accounted for! Will makes the illusion, duh!" then you are saying that the illusion is "later" or "after" the Will. This cannot be because after, later, secondary, or what not would mean that there was causality and clearly there is no causality in Will. The only conclusion to resolve this is to say that the illusion was there ALL ALONG WITH WILL, thus in the mind of the ever present organism. This then leads to the odd notion that there is an ever present organism that has the illusion of subject/object which, as I stated earlier just seems odd to me.

Time only functions when the organism is around, but so long as it does, it always retrojects backward to a time before that organism existed. You are confusing things and talking about time as if it were part of the thing in-itself. If you want to talk about time, you can only talk about it via representation, and in representation, time presents itself as preceding the life of the organism, always. And this suffices for the empirical reality of the fact that there was a time before the organism. — The Great Whatever

This seems simple handwaving and evading the problem purposefully or because you miss my point which I just stated above to your previous quote but will do so again here.

Yes, I understand that time is retrojected backward before the organism existed and only functions with the organism is around.

Yes time presents itself as preceding the life of organism, always.

Yes, this suffices for the empirical reality of the fact that there was a time before the organism.

HOWEVER, the organism itself still has to around for time to be retrojected. The world of time/space/causality and appearances are around only if the organism is around.

The organism is not created at some point x, because that would mean that there was time in an "absolute" sense (the reification of time you discuss) if an organism was created at a particular "x" time. Rather, the organism HAD TO ALWAYS BE AROUND because it could not have been caused. THIS is the odd conclusion. You may not think that there would be an ever present organism, but based on Schop's system, there has to be since time is ideal and not the thing-in-itself.

It's a tricky thing. You mentioned, justifiably, that anecdotal 'I know a..." accounts don't mean much. I have a whole bundle of personal women-who-self-sacrificed anecdotes but these will, inevitably, be chalked up as exceptions, falsifications, romanticizations.

But the flip-side of that, is how do you defend the idea that women, for the most part, deeply hate men, without resorting yourself to anecdotes?

Does it come down to whoever can rally the most anecdotes for their cause?

Where does your insight into the female soul come from? — csalisbury

(Y)

I don't think it's about a 'soul' -- all these things are based on contingent social privileges, but they are ones I don't realistically see changing any time soon, and in fact they seem to be getting further entrenched. Maybe they have some non-accidental grounding in biology, but that doesn't mean it's essential.

Mostly I try to read what people write when they aren't in public and so don't have to save face. That's why I like the internet so much. And I read a lot of feminist literature too.

You're right, I don't really have anecdotes, because I don't (and try not to) spend much time around women. Some people might think that you're in a worse position to judge with less personally at stake. but there's a flip side to that, being too personally invested can make you refuse to see what might be obvious to someone without that investment.

What things have you read on the internet though? You've made sweeping statements about women as a whole (even if that as-a-whole is contingent etc etc) and I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

I have a reading list of blogs and image boards. I've also hung out on leftist, rightist/alt-right, and nu-feminist forms. And read a bunch of radfem blogs and such. I'd like to stop, people can be pretty revolting.

It sounds like most of what you read by women is polemical feminist material. I guess that could make it seem like women in general hate men. What's your reason for seeking out this kind of literature in particular? Did you start reading this stuff out of general interest and gradually come to your conclusions?

It's edgy?

Yeah, but I think most of the attitudes they espouse are implicit in the way 'non-polemical' women behave. It's a slow, gradual disillusionment. 'But it's only a radical minority!' is always the first hurdle.

Yeah, but I think most of the attitudes they espouse are implicit in the way 'non-polemical' women behave.

Why do you think that?

But, again, what led you to start frequenting these sites?