I think the '50s were just an anodyne place for later generations to direct post-modern nostalgia. Go too far back it's pre-war depression, war, post-war disruption. Go too far forward it's cultural and sexual revolution. The '50s were also a time of relative prosperity.

I think Hollywood still exists — ssu

Hollywood and the studio system is long gone, as is that worldview. There are other systems and worldviews in operation.

I think the 20th century theories are still quite accurate. What is your 21st century update for psycho-analysis then? By the way, I didn't say that the psyche is located in the brain. — TaySan

I find that triune models help me to make sense of reality. Nihilism, unism (dividing by one), dualism are all good but they need something more. Dividing everything by 3 adds some extra value. At least for me. — TaySan

I just think there is plenty of neuroscientific research that debunks Freudian theories. I do prefer a triadic model of reality myself - it’s more stable. But I find that the psyche and how it relates to the brain is more complex than this. Lisa Feldman Barrett, for one, has done important research in the relation between neuroscience and psychology, and found the classic triune model to be severely lacking. But I’m no expert on psycho-analysis, so this is just opinion, really.

I'm mostly familiar with the Christ. His teachings seem to contradict an institution like the church. But being a renegade christian is too hard. If you cannot celebrate the rituals together, what is the point? Then you better disidentify. — TaySan

I’m with you there on the contradiction. But I don’t think it’s about the rituals, either. In my mind it’s about an example of human interaction with the world, and the lessons that can be learned (and practised) with regard to a model of truth.

Hollywood and the studio system is long gone, as is that worldview. There are other systems and worldviews in operation. — Tom Storm

If you refer to the Studio system lead by Eastern European Jewish immigrants, that has changed. But still the industry that is based in the US exists, even if the films and series are made physically in other places.

Thank you! I love how you worded the important difference between Pirard bringing us together to make a decision and Kirk moving us forward. Kirk was much more physically defensive than Picard who put his ship and crew at risk.

In reality this would be conservatives holding us to our past, and liberals pushing us to change and think of things differently. How fearful are we of change, or of not changing?

Is it is all those centuries of ascribing the feminine as the source of evil? — Valentinus

I assume you meant to say something like, “Is it because of all the centuries during which men ascribed to women the source of evil?” Well, let me just suggest that, were we to make a survey of all the instances when great male writers spoke about the evils of women, we might just make a case that there is such a thing as toxic femininity.

Because being too feminine doesn't kill people. — Banno

Perhaps it doesn’t...but then there are worse things than death.

No, I did not assign a cause.
All the thinkers who want to ascribe a special quality to "women" don't show much interest beyond their view of being male.
Funny from some points of view.

male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. — BigThoughtDropper

Not sure about the youngish. Not humanities educated, not nerdy in the traditional sense. Think delinquent.

My understanding of the current political narrative is that men are merely a broken version of woman. Which has no logic to it, but that is not an apparent requisite for a political climate, so no worries there.

I accept that people have very little use for me until they suddenly do. Like many things, value is only assigned based on necessity, and until the shit storm hits, some of us have very little value; our presence makes people nervous. My phone rings when something has gone wrong and needs to be fixed, the pager goes off when something has gone very wrong. Otherwise, my life is relaxed and quiet.

The modern man is an oddity to me; I have no use for him, or the modern woman for that matter. I will judge based on actions, words, and integrity. Gender is not part of that equation, nor is anything else immediately visible.

What pager?

Conformity was very much a part of the 1950s but that does not mean a lack of independent thinking. However, your argument certainly does push for a better definition of independent thinking. Perhaps we should speak of critical thinking skills, authority, and responsibility?

First I will point out those cowboys were rugged individualists and Picard of Star Trek is not. Conforming to rugged individuality is both conformity and individuality. Individual thinking is a matter of critical thinking skills and the whackos we have today are not critical thinkers! These whackos are running on feelings, not critical thinking.

Here is one explanation of critical thinking.

The key critical thinking skills are: analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, self-regulation, open-mindedness, and problem-solving.
In order to apply the basic principles of critical thinking, follow these steps: identify the problem, gather data, analyze and evaluate, identify assumptions, establish significance, make a decision, and communicate.
To become a better critical thinker: ask simple questions, challenge common assumptions, be aware of your biases, and read more. — Michael Tomaszewski,

This is not the thinking process of Qanon nor Evangelist Christians, or cult followers. These folks are running on emotion, not critical thinking. Having a different notion of reality does not make one an independent thinker.

Important to the difference between independent thinking and groupthink is the organization of relationships. The group thinker will be under a policy, the independent thinker is not. This is a difference in authority and responsibility. The difference begins with education. Education for technology prepared the young to rely on experts instead of being independent thinkers. A leader with charisma will have followers such as Hitler and Trump had followers, and at the trails following WWII, the defense was "I was just following orders." Qanon and Evangelist Christians do not have a formal policy, but rather an informal policy and you are not one of them if you don't comply with it. A Trump follower must be 100% loyal to Trump. Either you are one of us or you are not. That is not the hallmark of being independent thinkers.

First I will point out those cowboys were rugged individualists and Picard of Star Trek is not. — Athena

I wonder what you think a "rugged individualist" to be. If cowboys were, would others who earn a living by being part of a group moving commodities from place to place be rugged individualists as well? I assume that you believe there's something else about cowboys that make them rugged and individualists.

Thanks. I will look into it. :cheer:

I just think there is plenty of neuroscientific research that debunks Freudian theories. — Possibility

:100:

Im a stereotypical guy guy. silent, aggressive (not in a bad way) and seldom feel anxiety and am not the nurturing type. I kinda have that look, stern, no emotion look with furrowed eyes. And I’m mostly logical and don’t get swayed by my emotions. For me, a man is a guy capable of aggression (force) you can be a nurse guy or someone else but as long as you got that then you are golden in my eyes. Ofc there are masculine traits like aggression and competitiveness.

You should read up on personality psychology (big five) and look at the statistics about male and females.

with furrowed eyes. — Caleb Mercado

Those lines and wrinkles in your eyes must make it hard to see, though.

Hehe. I’m blind to alot of things :)

Something to add to this. You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest.

I offer a sentiment written by someone who may have been one of the last philosophers for your approval or disapproval:

“And here is where the whole business turns nasty. The souls of men—their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character—must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo—the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central NATURAL passion in men’s souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty—was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. The feminists were only completing a job begun by Hobbes in his project of taming the harsh elements in the soul. With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. Thus...men must be re-educated according to an abstract project. They must accept the “feminine” elements in their nature...Men tend to undergo this re-education somewhat sullenly but studiously, in order to keep the peace with their wives and girlfriends. And it is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them “care” is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.”

You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest. — Caleb Mercado

Very true.

You actually see what you aim at. And not the rest. — Caleb Mercado

Actually, some training methods have you focus on the front sight blade, not what you aim at.

Also, situational awareness has you seeing the rest.

But to make them “care” is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail.” — Todd Martin

Ah, another exercise in futility. Must be a philosopher, alright. We can hope one of the last of them.

I wonder what you think a "rugged individualist" to be. If cowboys were, would others who earn a living by being part of a group moving commodities from place to place be rugged individualists as well? I assume that you believe there's something else about cowboys that make them rugged and individualists. — Ciceronianus the White

:lol: You don't want to take on Granny from the TV show Beverly Hillbillies. Being a rugged individual can be the result of living in a harsh environment. Memory fails me, there was a great Persian leader who insisted on living in a region where life was hard because he did not want to become soft like those living where life is easy.

Genghis Khan commanded his people to never settle down and never start accumulating stuff, like the people in cities. He thought cities lead to people being immoral.

:lol: When I was young, I thought it was important to be tough! That meant wearing black leather, smoking, and willing to go to a fight with the intention of fighting. :lol: Today, I have a very different understanding of being tough. I am not sure how tough I am, but it is good I do not depend on anyone to take care of me because there is no one for me to depend on. On the other hand, I am not as tough as some elderly homeless people are. I think I would rather be dead than attempt to live without the comforts of my home.

And some of us are very onery :lol: You can take the high-tech stuff the young are so proud of and throw it in the trash. I want a human being to answer the phone, or to check me in when I see a doctor and I am not dealing with organizations if technology gives me a problem and I can avoid it. I have ideas of how people are to be treated and how they are to behave, and I am not as flexible about such things as when I was young. :lol: That may not belong in a thread about men, but it has something to do with being tough and independent. As we age I think many of us are set in our ways and become less flexible.

Maturity is important and I am a little concerned that culturally the US has gone from the young wanting to prove they are adults, to the young having no respect for their elders and staying immature for a long, long time. Storming the Capitol Building and being a violent demonstrator is not very grown-up. Keeping one's cool and dignity and figuring out how to have political power is much better.

You don't want to take on Granny from the TV show Beverly Hillbillies. — Athena

Not after her epic battle with the jackrabbit, which some call a kangaroo.

Being submissive and disguising it as dominance and following and bowing to the attitudes and views of real men who in reality seek your own self-inflicted destruction and punishment and on occasion real women and conforming to a society that claims to be one is exclusively by doing as described.

Not after her epic battle with the jackrabbit, which some call a kangaroo. — Ciceronianus the White

Now that is a highly intellectual consideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQJjbJQdymA

There's a giant jackrabbit waiting for us all, I think.

Great that should be enough to feed all of us if we have a symposium. :grin:

do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world? — BigThoughtDropper

Sure do, I would dare say most women are attracted to masculinity as you described it.

I thought some time whether I had something to say about this subject and realised I couldn't really think of anything.

Being a person: not worrying about the answer to this OP.. .?

. The modern world has par excellence a male chauvinistic worldview ... Throughout all the ages the world has been always male oriented ... The whole history of humanity is male oriented ... Have you ever noticed that?! ...

. And evey man is trying to conquer the world ... We live in an imperialistic world, whether consciously or unconsciously ...

. I want you to understand this ...

. The ego is very clever. Once it is there, it is very imperialistic. It wants its empire to be as big as possible. Your house becomes part of your ego, your garden becomes part of your ego, your children become part of your ego, your husband, your wife become part of your ego. You make a very imaginary empire, and this empire is bound to bring you in conflict with nature. But you are at fault, not nature.

. I have heard about a professor of philosophy, head of the department of philosophy in the university of Paris. He was a little eccentric, as philosophers are bound to be.

. His students had become accustomed to his eccentricities, but one day he surpassed himself. He came into the class and said, “I want to make a declaration; if anyone is against it he can stand up. My statement is, that I am the greatest man in the whole world! Has anybody any objection?”

. The students said, “This is too much! We have been tolerating this fellow, anything he says, but now…!”

. One student said, “We are all wanting to know… what is your evidence that you are the greatest man in the world?”

. The professor laughed, he said, “That is very simple. Just answer a few questions. One: which country is the best in the world?”

. The students could not suspect that they were getting caught in the professor’s net. Naturally – they were all French – they said, “Of course, France! There is no question about it.”

. The professor said, “Much is settled. So only France is left. I have to prove myself the greatest man in France, and that will prove me to be the greatest man in the world.”

. The student said, “That is true.”

. Then he said, “In France, which is the biggest city?”

. Now the students became suspicious that he was coming closer, but there was no way of going back. “Paris, of course, is the best city in France.” He said, “Much is settled. Now I want to know which institution in the city of Paris is the greatest, the highest?” Obviously, it was the university.

. And he said, “Now, things are very simple. Which department in the university is the highest and the greatest?” The students looked at each other. They had to accept that it is the department of philosophy. How can any other department be higher than the department of philosophy?

. The old man sat in his chair, and he said, “Now, I am the head of the department of philosophy in the greatest city, Paris, in the greatest country, France. Do you have any objection to my statement that I am the greatest man in the whole world?”

. They had objections, but no logic. The professor had brought them to a point where they had to accept, unwillingly, that he is the greatest man in the world.

. This is the work of the ego that is going on in everybody. Everybody somehow is trying to feel, to convince himself, that he is the greatest man in the world: somebody because he has more muscular strength; somebody because he has more intellectual, argumentative rationality; somebody because she is more beautiful than anybody else.

. And you can always find something that will be supportive to you – but it is not really nourishing to you. It is cutting you off from existence. And then on every step there is going to be trouble; you will find that you are chained.