I disagree that contempt is denial of value, for one can hardly hold a whole person in contempt, even should it feel like it at the time. One feels contempt as consequence to an action or inaction. Sure, one may suffer from psychological projection, but my position is that one can feel contempt without so doing. Just because one may feel contempt for somebody that refuses to pay them back money, it does not follow that they have a problem with being honest over money themselves.. — celebritydiscodave

I can only speak to my own experiences. What I've observed. I know what it feels like to be impotently angry - thrashing around, yelling and cursing. When I'm like that, I always say something I have to apologize for later. I know what it feels like to be effectively angry - cold and calm with a determination to hold someone accountable for their actions. That's a clean feeling. Not pleasant, but good. As I said, contempt is something completely different than either of those.

Maybe you and I mean different things by "contempt." Here's a test. If you feel your upper lip rising up over your front teeth in the start of a sneer, that's contempt.

B.Crank, sounds intelligent, but what is a model of modern enlightenment for god`s sake, does that even make any sense? — celebritydiscodave

BC was referring to the way men over 60 treat women in response to my snort. Both he and I are members of that class. His statement was tongue-in-cheek, which is not unusual. Tongue-in-cheek but not necessarily wrong.

I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well -- let it get worse!

Now the real timeline has stood up. — Bitter Crank

This is where I find myself agreeing with the biblical suggestion: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." What is being authentic and in being so, does that enable one to actually be 'good' or to have moral autonomy? I think so.

People adopt an appearance and women can do this by presenting themselves as attractive - hence the disease fed into society through make-up and cosmetic surgery - but also through 'pleasant manners' and behaving in a way that will make them lovable all the while appearing unique or different from the rest of the herd despite blindly moving with the masses. Through this as though there is some collective delusion people actually believe that by being popular and having sex appeal that somehow it amounts to some satisfactory existence, that they deserve to be loved when - despite presenting themselves as 'good' people - they actually produce nothing.

The sophistication of how to present oneself as 'good' is getting better and better; there are some girls here who have lived a privileged life, who spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on cosmetics, and who publicly pretend that they hold some sort of concern for the bad things that go on in this world. 'I am a vegetarian because I love animals and animal rights' while wearing lipstick with animal in it or used on it, wearing clothing made in sweat shops, taking selfies while saying they are heartbroken about Syria before spending two hours doing their hair. Being morally concerned is now an image and a false one used to increase popularity. Even when I say 'you must learn to love yourself' they think that taking selfies is a form of loving yourself when it is actually turning your back on this wave of faux appearances.

Perhaps this is a product of capitalism and the marketing schema that feeds into the vulnerability of the masses and they, in turn, respond by purchasing what they are told they need and a certain way of looking becomes symbolic of truth, that it is fact and so convincing that by feeding back into the system by buying the beauty products, they can reap the rewards of popularity. It is only the courage to transcend this and to act - to give love and not to work hard at trying to be loveable - that one actually goes against the grain of this system and produces. So, only through this autonomy, this consciousness can one transcend to a mental state that can enable the person to think for themselves enough - first of all - to not get swept into this wave, but also to start helping others, doing or producing.

Working hard to appear loveable usually means spending years and years in that cycle and never producing anything, never changing or improving. They are stuck.

I don't see this kind of behavior so much in younger men, like 20s to 40s. Younger men do seem to usually have better attitudes toward women. Do you find this to be true? — Bitter Crank

It is everywhere, just done differently to those who are older. I have had several experiences only over the last few years where men have actually become aggressive towards me because I do not respond to them sexually and while it is not physical violence, they are dismissive when I talk, insinuate things I do not think and even slander me in some strange endeavour to get me to submit, like some alpha-gorilla thumping his chest. I believe there was a ridiculous discussion even here about how women apparently respond to such men, but this attitude has largely resulted in a shift in women who do respond because of the social pressure.

It doesn't work with me and the young girls that I mentor because they are learning what self-respect actually is. And that is all that equality is. Respect. The social pressure to behave and appear a certain way that is apparently acceptable is like rearing a fatted cow ready for slaughter.

While in the west there are some cultural shifts where equality and respect for women is reaching a level of consciousness, it really exists in the minority.

That's an awful lot of unsubstantiated opinion there which, when entirely harmless, is fine, but you've insulted a substantial population of women and, by definition, the majority of men with virtually no evidence.

despite presenting themselves as 'good' people - they actually produce nothing. — TimeLine

Produce nothing by whose standards - yours? What is wrong with producing a comforting and stable partner for someone, or even a transient sexual partner for a single night of mutual enjoyment. What's wrong with having your own beauty (in the eyes of others) as an objective? Not everyone has the intellectual capability to be a CEO, and not everyone buys into the modern crap about productivity. Some people are happy just happy to have sex, raise children, watch the sunrise and 'produce' nothing much by modern standards.

A woman (or man for that matter), is doing less harm just prettying themselves up as a object for someone else's' affection with animal-tested make up than the CEO of the company making the product, who has real power to change things but doesn't in order to impress her colleagues with what a 'productive' hard-headed businesswoman she is.Or are you suggesting that it wouldn't happen under a female CEO?

I dislike this double standard, where people assume they can speak for the whole of woman-kind, and assume to know the motives of the majority of men, when at the same time railing against that very stereotyping when perpetrated by the other party.

Either we have some biological, evolutionary, or sociological evidence supporting a belief that certain groups of people (men and women in this case) have certain characteristics, or, we must admit that we cannot know what most of any group want, or are like. What does not make any philosophical sense is to reject scientific knowledge (reasonable in itself, given the speculative nature at the moment), reject other people's stereotyping, but then claim to know anything about the majority of any group, just from personal experience.

Not everyone has the intellectual capability to be a CEO, and not everyone buys into the modern crap about productivity. — Pseudonym

The standard I speak of is Kantian moral autonomy and while you may endorse a type of hedonism, which is neither 'good' nor 'evil' what I was attempting to convey is if there is anything wrong with humanity, it stems from those who are incapable of loving themselves, since love is about giving or being capable of giving love (which is goodness) and one cannot give love if they are incapable of thinking correctly because love or goodness is a practical attitude and a part of our rational faculty, not some random, spontaneous feeling independent of our will. It is also not directed to one object, but all.

Most people work very hard - usually through popularity or sex appeal and even presenting qualities that pretend to having some moral compass - only to attain the love from others, but what is 'bad' here is the inability to give love despite presenting themselves as 'good' people. To 'give' love is to produce and what that means is produce independent or morally autonomous thoughts, the person who will defend someone who is being hurt rather than being a bystander or looking the other way; being professionally successful is no different to having sex appeal, it is meaningless without this capacity to think with moral consciousness.

This boils down to intent, the will, authenticity and this is largely - particularly if you think of the Ring of Gyges - what distinguishes us morally, not the presentation or this false image.

A woman (or man for that matter), is doing less harm just prettying themselves up as a object for someone else's' affection with animal-tested make up than the CEO of the company making the product, who has real power to change things but doesn't in order to impress her colleagues with what a 'productive' hard-headed businesswoman she is. — Pseudonym

I am a woman and the comparative and original rationale was about me (you should read the quote I was responding to), that is, what stands in stark contrast to me. Which is real, which is not? The only way one can distinguish this is about the output, the rational output and indeed I may be professionally successful, I may have studied and travelled the world, but none of that matters in comparison to my capacity to give love, which in turn means the young men and women who I have supported, mentored, loved and I do this while additionally taking care of myself and enjoy this world just as much as I would want anyone too. But, there has been numerous times where it has been suggested that 'good' is self-sacrificial and even your statements here appear to be contrasting with this notion, this 'well why can't we just live and enjoy life' and you certainly can while additionally being capable of giving love. In fact, you need to take care of and respect yourself to correctly and common sensically be capable of giving love to others.

What is peculiar is that while people attempt to make themselves attractive and popular within this social pattern of exchange, the intensity of this exchange - that is automatic 'truth' that being popular equates to being lovable - only exemplifies the depth of their loneliness just as much as material success and the commodity market governs values. This is the power of discourse that Foucault speaks of. It is about very thoughts and perceptions people have because a CEO just like a politician only has enough power that we give to them. If society believes that they should buy the latest lipstick and spend millions of dollars on them, isn't that being complicit, given them the very power?

I don't object to the conclusion you draw about those that do not give, but only expect, I object to the implication (by your descriptions of such people) that you could identify them by their behaviour with regards to making themselves sexually attractive, by the standards of the latest cultural preferences.

I don't see anything about wanting other people to find you sexually attractive, even in a superficial way, that automatically means you have nothing to give to society. Nor, conversely, do I see anything automatically moral in giving to others by not engaging in such rituals but focussing instead on something like teaching. Teaching can be as narcissistic an exercise as any other, relishing the adoration of those who hang on your every word etc.. Equally, dressing up in full, conventional make-up just to attract a partner for a one night stand, can be nothing more than a fun distraction for someone otherwise committed to making the world a better place.

If we are to draw conclusions about people's moral demeanour from their behaviours (and I believe we can) then we should do so by virtue of some evidence that such behaviour actually causes harms intrinsically. Attempting to divine their motives is overreaching our abilities.

I don't object to the conclusion you draw about those that do not give, but only expect, I object to the implication (by your descriptions of such people) that you could identify them by their behaviour with regards to making themselves sexually attractive, by the standards of the latest cultural preferences. — Pseudonym

It is not to say that I myself do not participate in society. I too have pleasant manners, I too enjoy taking care of myself physically, but I actually give a great deal by supporting women and children, mentoring young girls and many teen boys, my focus is on human rights both practically and theoretically, because goodness does not stem from some 'self-sacrifice' - this image that you are only good when you give yourself up like some martyr - but rather being a part of society. It is all about intent or the will that drives us that determines whether someone is genuinely good and whether someone presents a false good. I have no qualms refusing to follow social expectations, for instance how I choose to wait for the right partner or my commitment to a personal virtue that is in stark contrast with how women and men want women to behave.

There is no 'automatic' implication that such individuals are unable to contribute further in society, but the intention or will of the actions in those that present a false image relies on the congratulations they will receive and not because they actually care, which is why they often showcase their charity (just like those who pray publically to apparently showcase religious devotion). It stems from a vulnerability, but can lead to evil; think Cain and Abel, where the intention was to receive love from God but when this was not returned in favour of the other, he committed murder. It is not about trying to be loved, but about knowing how to give love and, further still, that this is genuine and that therefore 'good' is only possible in this intent.

So, the woman who stands in stark contrast to me, the opposite of who I am, are those women who attempt to make themselves attractive by forming pleasant manners, by focusing on beauty and attempting to be popular, who use 'good' only as a way to further climb this ladder such as pretending to be a vegetarian because they think about animals and animal rights (when it is likely just an image that they follow or for weight loss) all the while wearing tonnes of make-up that contribute to issues with animal and even social welfare, and all this without any purpose other than the presentation. How often do such women bully other women who are more attractive then them, or tries to actually be them? The primary impetus in their will is about their image.

So, you could be a man who enjoys life, but your intentions would be to disagree about negative views or opinions despite a bunch of other men holding them, that you could care about the environment enough to actually be conscious of what you and others are doing, to help the elderly lady, just as much as for a man who stands in stark contrast to you would attempt to be successful and financially secure or physically strong or other attempts at being socially powerful they they would not even see that elderly lady even if they walked past them, or any other type of moral consciousness unless it was socially a positive way to reinforce this image that their will pushes them to identify with. Such men have 'trophy' partners, people who are popular and would turn their back on love.

How are such men living?

I make the sum total of what you have said to be about neutral,, which in philosophical terms is zero surely - In a single line then what is your position, and what does that add to philosophy? You do however suggest tot intent, quite why you did n`t stop there I do n`t know, so I take it from this then that your notion for a good person leaves it at intent, and apart from being successful nothing besides? Are you certain that you are not creating a notion for what constitutes a good person merely around how you and those in your social circles tend to live their lives? It reads like that. To make headway in philosophy self and ego have to be put entirely to one side. All that and you`ve said just one word, a term, "intent", that`s philosophy, and this is precisely in agreement with my previous post. The only thing which I`ve added to your contribution of "intent" is that this should constitute the main measure, that some consideration, by individual psychology, needs on occasion to be afforded their actual actions on the outside, so that there is no clear to define answer.to this question of what constitutes a good person. Perhaps God knows?.