• DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    I would like to bring clarity to the issue on whether or not Nietzsche was a misogynist. The short and sweet answer is: no, the long answer: fuck no...

    My poor attempt at ice breaking aside, let's delve into the long answer, for real. Let's start by diving into the details of what the heck Nietzsche's position on "Woman" even is... let us venture to his very first aphorism written in Birth of Tragedy, as it's a seed sprouted for us, and we can trace it through the rest of his work as his thoughts grow upon this topic, we can even will discuss possible criticism of his own concept in Birth of Tragedy:

    We shall have gained much for the science of æsthetics, when once we have perceived not only by logical inference, but by the immediate certainty of intuition, that the continuous development of art is bound up with the duplexity of the Apollonian and the Dionysian: in like manner as procreation is dependent on the duality of the sexes*, involving perpetual conflicts with only periodically intervening reconciliations...both these so heterogeneous tendencies run parallel to each other, for the most part openly at variance, and* continually inciting each other to new and more powerful births*, to perpetuate in them the strife of* this antithesis*, which is but* seemingly bridged over by their mutual term... — Nietzsche, BoT § 1

    Let us first approach this by leveling a criticism at this from Nietzsche's later stance...which he will criticize for being too dialectical but also too democratic with...

    Duality of Sexes: In nature, yes there is a bimodal representation that highlights the extremes in sex, but we can see here that Nietzsche details these extremes as an antithesis of parallel heterogeneous tendencies ... in other words he's viewing the TWO from the antithesis of values... (the dialectical approach). He overcomes this position by Human All Too Human (HATH), and we can see by the time we get to Thus Spoke Zarathustra (TSZ), and Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), that instead of through an antithesis of values Nietzsche understands it takes both male and female reproductive material to produce a sex, such that sex is that which intertwines both male and female (BGE 2) as essentially coming from the same material, but the overwhelming majority are partitioned, and noncommunicating, this is what Deleuze details in Anti-Oedipus when he says:

    everyone is bisexual, everyone has two sexes, but partitioned, noncommunicating; the man is merely the one in whom the male part, and the woman the one in whom the female part, dominates statistically. — Deleuze, Anti Oedipus

    So there's still an antagonism through the oppositions, but rather than an antithesis of two heterogeneous values, sex is more so that which grows out of the interplay of male and female sexual reproductive forces, an active becoming rather than a rigid dichotomy through statistical dominance of genetic expression via the male/female sexual reproductive material. Just as the human grows out of that which intertwines the animal and the superman, hence the human is the rope intertwining two opposites, enmeshing them as one (Prologue TSZ). One can think of this rope as the flower whose roots bind the two concepts together. For the male, however, the plant's roots are statistically dominated in the male spectrum of the soil, and yes, males even have roots that stem in the feminine but are drowned out by the noise of the genetic statistical dominance of and vice versa.

    So why the hell does any of this matter? Well, we can see through out Nietzsche's work a running theme of overcoming oneself in one's opposite. From the very get go all the way through Ecce Homo. More or less, analogous of how Nietzsche see's Humans as the "hybrid" (a coming together of two) of "phantom and plant" (Prologue TSZ) that grows (hence plant; like the Tree on the Hill in TSZ) out of a multiplicity of wills (phantom), each fighting for its own dominion, its own triumphant affirmation... sex is a coming together of the two into a single expressed through statistical dominance. So again why does this matter?

    Because for Nietzsche: The highest presentment of man was through the doctrine of Athena (in man's opposite, a woman) as seen in 177 of Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions (Part 1 of HATH Book 2) :

    The presentment of the highest man, the most simple and at the same time the most complete, has hitherto been beyond the scope of all artists. Perhaps, however, the Greeks, in the doctrine of Athena, saw farther than any men did before or after their time. — Nietzsche, HATH Book 2 § 177

    What exactly is the doctrine of Athena to Nietzsche? Well, as someone pointed out before, Athena is known as Athena the Wise, for her harsh wisdom, Athena the Serpent, Nietzsche's love of harsh wisdom, Nietzsche's serpent, Nietzsche's harsh wisdom the harsh wisdom that the Semites turned upside down into the "original sin" a crime against nature ... Athena the Serpent, aka Satan ... the serpent persuades Eve (woman) to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God had forbidden, arguing that doing so would not lead to death but rather to enlightenment.

    "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5)

    This moment marks a rupture in innocence, a transition from an undivided, pre-moral existence into a realm of self-awareness, knowledge, and internalized suffering. However as Nietzsche details (and as Deleuze so adequately details in a summary of Nietzsche) the following on Birth of Tragedy 9:

    Even the Titans do not yet know the incredible Semitic and Christian inventions, bad conscience, fault and responsibility. At the time of the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche contrasts the Titan and Promethean crime to original sin. But he does it in dark and symbolic terms, because this opposition is his negative secret like the mystery of Ariadne is his positive one. He writes that, "in original sin, curiosity, mendacious deception, susceptibility to seduction, lust — in short a series of pre-eminently feminine affects was considered the origin of evil . . . Thus the Aryans understand sacrilege as something masculine; while the Semites understand sin as feminine. This is not Nietzschean misogyny; Ariadne is Nietzsche's first secret, the first feminine power, the anima, the inseparable fiancée of Dionysian affirmation." — Deleuze

    Nietzsche declares this in Ecce Homo as he discusses his invention of the Dionysian dithyrambs:

    What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb. Hearken unto the manner in which Zarathustra speaks to his soul Before Sunrise (iii. 48). Before my time such emerald joys and divine tenderness had found no tongue. Even the profoundest melancholy of such a Dionysus takes shape as a dithyramb. As an example of this I take "The Night-Song,"—the immortal plaint of one who, thanks to his superabundance of light and power, thanks to the sun within him, is condemned never to love.... Such things have never been written, never been felt, never been suffered: only a God, only Dionysus suffers in this way. The reply to such a dithyramb on the sun's solitude in light would be Ariadne. ... Who knows, but I, who Ariadne is! — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

    If you're unaware of who Ariadne is ... Ariadne represents the feminine instinct, the anima, the nurturing, Dionysian acceptance of life’s suffering. She is a Grecian symbol of amor fati, the willing embrace of fate. For Nietzsche, she is the secret key to his philosophy, (Yes-saying) to life, the inseparable companion (Fettered-Heart Free-Spirit BGE 87) to Dionysian affirmation that protects man from being torn to pieces by his own minotaur of bad conscience as Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil 29:

    It’s the business of very few people to be independent: - that is a right of the strong. And whoever attempts it - even with the best right to it, but without being compelled to - shows by that action that he is probably not only strong but exuberantly daring. He is entering a labyrinth; he is increasing a thousand-fold the dangers which life already brings with it, not the least of which is the fact that no one’s eyes see how and where he goes astray, gets isolated, and is torn to pieces by some cavern-dwelling Minotaur of conscience. Suppose such a person comes to a bad end, that happens so far away from men’s understanding that they feel nothing and have no sympathy: - and he cannot go back anymore! — Nietzsche, BGE § 29

    We can see that to Nietzsche the metaphorical representation of Ariadne as a part of the human instinct is a vital element he uses in his dithyrambs, that nurturing divine tenderness which sooths the soul of the suffering, to overcome the horrors of existence... a necessary counterpart to the wild, overwhelming nature of Dionysus—she embodies a form of surrender that is not weakness, but rather an affirmation of the necessity of suffering and passion. A form of Yea-Saying to even the shit in life. A style of thinking that is abolished by the Semitic and Christian way of life by posing the feminine instincts as a sin, a divorce of man from God.

    Nietzsche does not see ressentiment (it's your fault) and bad conscience (it's my fault) and their common fruit (responsibility) as simple psychological events but rather as the fundamental categories of Semitic and Christian thought, of our way of thinking and interpreting existence in general. Nietzsche takes on the tasks of providing a new interpretation and another way of thinking. — Deleuze

    Nietzsche’s critique of "woman" is often misunderstood as misogyny when, in reality, it is largely a critique of the Semitic and Christian moral construction of womanhood. There are several aphorisms that point to this very fact, we can see them in The Gay Science (GS), BGE, and Twilight of Idols (TI):

    GS 68: Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men,—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."
    BGE 86: In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman".
    TI 13: Man created woman—out of what? Out of a rib of his god,—of his “ideal.”
    — Nietzsche

    Nietzsche argues that in previous, stronger societies, women played a powerful and indirect role through their instincts, cunning, and nature. That the feminism in his time was mostly a masculinization of women though seeking equal footing in a rational, legalistic, "masculine" way, such that women lose their unique strength, becoming "boring" (tedious) instead of seductive, dangerous, or fascinating. Due to the feminine instinct being exiled as Sin in the pious interpretation of existence. Deleuze details this succinctly in a passage from his book on Nietzsche pg 21:

    The imputation of wrongs and responsibilities, the bitter recrimination, the perpetual accusation, the ressentiment - this is the pious interpretation of existence. "It's your fault, it's your fault", until the accused, in turn, says, "it's my fault" and the desolated world resounds with all these moans and their echoes. "Everywhere where responsibilities have been sought it is the instinct of revenge that has sought them. This instinct of revenge has gained such a hold on humanity through the centuries that all of metaphysics, psychology, history and above all morality bear its imprint. — Deleuze

    Nietzsche does not advocate for the oppression of women, but he argues that their traditional role—shaped by centuries under Semitic and Christian moral constructs—once carried a distinct power and vitality that modernity is now eroding without providing a worthy alternative. Instead, modernity further undermines feminine instincts by further imposing masculinized roles, via the democratic enlightenment, another step in stripping away the unique strengths that once defined the feminine. This masculinizing of the feminine is what Nietzsche rails on about in BGE 238:

    To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of "man and woman," to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, to dream here perhaps of equal rights, equal training, equal claims and obligations: that is a TYPICAL sign of shallow-mindedness; and a thinker who has proved himself shallow at this dangerous spot—shallow in instinct! — Nietzsche, BGE § 238

    Reducing woman to mere equality with man in the modern sense is a form of democratic leveling—erasing the essential differences that give her unique power and vitality. But what happens when the profoundest antagonism, the necessary and eternally hostile tension that drives growth and elevation, is lost? Without this tension—without man and woman as opposing yet complementary forces—neither can truly ascend. As Nietzsche shows his thoughts in BGE 236, that noble men believe the eternally feminine nurtures them aloft and vice versa:

    I have no doubt that every noble woman will oppose what Dante and Goethe believed about woman—the former when he sang, "ELLA GUARDAVA SUSO, ED IO IN LEI," and the latter when he interpreted it, "the eternally feminine draws us ALOFT"; for THIS is just what she believes of the eternally masculine. — Nietzsche

    Because of the nature of Dionysian affirmation, the overcoming of oneself in their opposite, in this case, as we already detailed, for Nietzsche, the highest presentment of man was through the doctrine of Athena: "Careless, mocking, forceful—so does wisdom wish us: she is a woman, and never loves any one but a warrior." That harsh wisdom that the Semites equate as coming from Satan. That harsh wisdom that Nietzsche himself is an advocate of.

    How can Nietzsche be a misogynist when the feminine instinct is woven into the very fabric of his highest equation in Dionysian affirmation—amor fati—manifested through the Grecian symbolism of Ariadne, the embodiment of eternal embrace and becoming? And if he were a misogynist, why would he declare the highest presentment of man was shaped under the doctrine of the woman Athena?

    You would think old Bertie would at least have a clue having written about the history of western philosophy... but apparently he missed the fundamental thrust of Nietzsche's philosophy entirely. Russell falls into the trap of projecting his own dialectially moral framework onto Nietzsche, distorting the very essence of his thought. Russell's critique not only misrepresents Nietzsche but also misses the profound, liberating aspects of Nietzsche's works, especially when it comes to Nietzsche's metaphors surrounding "woman," which are far from being misogynistic, but rather rooted in his equation for the affirmation of life: Amor Fati
  • Tzeentch
    4k
    Well written.

    Funnily enough, for some reason I mistakenly read the title and assumed you were arguing that Nietzsche was misogynist. I had that "Oh brother, here we go..." moment and as I was reading I was thinking to myself, "How can any of this possibly be interpreted as misogynist?", until eventually I understood I had misread the title. :sweat:

    Some of these excerpts of Nietzsche show he was a visionary in many ways. Aren't we now living in the culmination of what he warned us of?

    Many "modern" societies reject femininity, especially in women, and implicitly and explicitly tell women to be more like men. Men are subjected to a similar treatment but the other way around.

    One can only wonder what strange pathos spawned this soft-boiled 'modernity', but I do know that Nietzsche would be turning in his grave.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    what I find really interesting is Nietzsche's discusses the spasmodic release of repressed instincts:

    It was man, who, lacking external enemies and obstacles, and imprisoned as he was in the oppressive narrowness and monotony of custom, in his own impatience lacerated, persecuted, gnawed, frightened, and ill-treated himself; it was this animal in the hands of the tamer, which beat itself against the bars of its cage; it was this being who, pining and yearning for that desert home of which it had been deprived, was compelled to create out of its own self, an adventure, a torture-chamber, a hazardous and perilous desert—it was this fool, this homesick and desperate prisoner—who invented the "bad conscience." But thereby he introduced that most grave and sinister illness, from which mankind has not yet recovered, the suffering of man from the disease called man, as the result of a violent breaking from his animal past, the result, as it were, of a spasmodic plunge into a new environment and new conditions of existence, the result of a declaration of war against the old instincts, which up to that time had been the staple of his power, his joy, his formidableness. — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals 2nd Essay § 23

    Why I find this interesting is that after 2000+ years of repressing the feminine instinct, were now suddenly experiencing an explosion in transgenderism in part due to humanity proving to be shallow in instinct. Being "mistaken in the fundamental problem of 'man and woman,' to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension."
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    Guys seriously... If Nietzsche declares Tragedy the most beautiful art, and effeminacy is responsible for bringing it about, then we can clearly say Nietzsche is a god damned champion of the feminine...
    On Corruption Gay Science 23:

    Secondly, a society in which corruption takes a hold is blamed for effeminacy: for the appreciation of war, and the delight in war, perceptibly diminish in such a society, and the conveniences of life are now just as eagerly sought after as were military and gymnastic honours formerly. But one is accustomed to overlook the fact that the old national energy and national passion, which acquired a magnificent splendour in war and in the tourney, has now transferred itself into innumerable private passions, and has merely become less visible; indeed in periods of "corruption" the quantity and quality of the expended energy of a people is probably greater than ever, and the individual spends it lavishly, to such an extent as could not be done formerly—he was not then rich enough to do so! And thus it is precisely in times of "effeminacy" that tragedy runs at large in and out of doors, it is then that ardent love and ardent hatred are born, and the flame of knowledge flashes heavenward in full blaze. — Nietzsche

    This is why for Nietzsche the highest presentment of man is under the feminine goddess of war... because of the feminine traits that temper the destructive qualities of the masculine...

    Just because you're so used to seeing him bash the Semitic conception of "woman" doesn't mean you're assigning Nietzsche's belief correctly... you're assigning his critique about something that irks him as his belief...

    There's a reason noone has challenged this thread. And any accusations of Nietzsche being overtly masculine to the point of undermining the feminine well, you're all wrong and I can throw the proof at anyone here until they are drowning in it.

    And do note Effeminacy is the feminine instinct in man... Ariadne... that keeps man's minotaurs at bay. So the most destructive parts of masculinity doesn't break them.

    There is always at least a double orbit going on for Nietzsche.
  • Gregory
    4.9k
    affects was considered the origin of evil . . . Thus the Aryans understand sacrilege as something masculine; while the Semites understand sin as feminine — Deleuze

    My experience is that women are just as fierce and revengfully violent as men. They just do it differently. I don't think they love deeper than men but maybe it is felt deeper. Men can act on thought alone; women need an emotion to accompany a thought in order to do anything

    . "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women — Nietzsche

    No they corrupt themselves. No anatman crap. We're all responsible for our actions
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    It’s called parable... Nietzsche is speaking in parable.

    Before the Semites women weren't viewed as sin, corruption, and basically uttershit shameful... it was the Semites who detailed woman as shit.

    Athena is the Goddess of War and Harsh Wisdom, she is associated with Owls and Snakes...

    In the story of Genesis, the Snake is a complete reversal of the values of Athena. When become synonymous with sin and corruption. In HATH Nietzsche details at 415 That the love idolatry practiced by women was originally an intelligent device to reign in man. Though after centuries of becoming accustomed to it forgot the origin of the device and became ensnared and deceived by ot more than men.

    At HATH 411 we see that Nietzsche details the perfect woman as a higher type of humanity than the perfect man.

    Because having lost their way, women have come down from an elevation to be caged by man. (BGE 237A)

    Now back to 23 on Corruption: here Nietzsche details that for the past 2000+ years corruption has been blamed upon woman and the feminine instinct, but Nietzsche critiques this by saying on thw contrary the feminine instinct is not responsible for corruption but rather the highest art of enlightenment through the birth of tragedy.

    Nietzsche further details the patriarchal structure of how man keeps woman caged through her idolatry of love. Being more deceived by the device than men, man turns this upon women by creating the ideal of woman which women mold themselves to in order to obtain love. (GS 68) Further still, Nietzsche details the Semitic way of that in action through parable:

    Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche, GS § 68

    How to "educate" men to not corrupt women, well, one critique of Nietzsche I have is he offers few solutions, and the ones he does offer aren't exactly straightforward and prone to poor interpretations especially now that so many people have learned to read.
  • Gregory
    4.9k
    At HATH 411 we see that Nietzsche details the perfect woman as a higher type of humanity than the perfect man.

    Because having lost their way, women have come down from an elevation to be caged by man. (BGE 237A)
    DifferentiatingEgg

    Although i agree that Semite theology is shit generally, i don't think women are "doubly innocent". Aquinas said that women are metaphysically inferior to men and in that he us wrong because men and women are equal (hence Nietszche is wrong too), however i personally think he was right in saying women generally are morally inferior to men. It's all about free will. How many little terrible things that female do in their hearts and feelings throughout the day. More then men i surmise. It's not about who kills more people (although there is the abortion question), it is about having a feeling conscience.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    men and women are equalGregory
    Lol, no one is equal to any other person... we're all different, even clones would differentiate.

    It's all about free will.Gregory

    Oh yeah? Free from what?

    How many little terrible things that female do in their hearts and feelings throughout the day. More then men i surmise.Gregory

    So much for free will... you surmise that women have more terrible thoughts with their free will all day because of being woman.

    Which means a difference between man and woman and that means man and woman aren't equal...
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    Man and woman start from the same place as a human being. They are equally human was my point. Their brains work differently though. If you are asking why i thought women tend to be more wicked than men even though it's all from a will free from compulsion, i would have to answer with something about fate, free will, and predestination but that would be very difficult to discuss. You might know what your child will do even though it is free. We shouldn't put chains around the doctrine of liberty.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    They are equally human was my point.Gregory

    And for Nietzsche the rope between two things makes them essentially one and the same, it's what he calls the dangerous perhaps. (BGE 2)

    Thus human is the rope between man and woman. Because of the teleological cause.
  • Gregory
    4.9k
    And for Nietzsche the rope between two things makes them essentially one and the same, it's what he calls the dangerous perhaps. (BGE 2)

    Thus human is the rope between man and woman. Because of the teleological cause
    DifferentiatingEgg

    Is this about how many sexes there are?
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    I would say on one side there is full male-ness and feminity on the other. Most people are all man or all woman. There are some who are both or neither. They are all equally human and sexuality is a nature. It's just that it can be combined in novel ways.

    And I don't think women need you to defend them via Neitszche. They run the world anyway lol
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    No

    To build a better picture of what I'm discussing, let's first discuss another way Nietzsche uses the rope metaphor (other than the rope between animal and the overman). That is: "cultivating one's garden"

    Think of that which intertwines two opposites as the roots of a plant that grows out of the soil of two (or even more) antagonistic forces.

    The roots of the plant man are statistically dominated within the male soil, with some roots in the female soil (because the opposites are enmeshed by the intertwining of opposites by the roots of the plant), however it's almost always the case that the roots within the feminine for man are partitioned in a noncommunicating sense and vice versa.

    And to be certain the most complete human beings recognize within themselves their combined genealogy, rather than "man is man with nothing inherited by woman and vice versa."
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    I'm not sure i get your point(s). Men and women complete each other because they have what they lack themselves. The physical isn't hard to understand. Whether one has a male soul or a female soul or if Spirit is feminine or male, nonetheless, all that takes wisdom to understand. It's hard also not to jump to conclusions
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    its kinda actually easy to understand you're a dualist who believes in the antithesis of values so it's nearly impossible for you to fathom beyond such a concept of two completely different un related types... that you thomk man and woman are.

    You're a 1699 representative of sperm... that thinks there's a little man inside sperm that only grows inside a woman and doesn't combine with female genetic material to become a human... you think the little man in sperm becomes a man without a female egg.

    In the 21st century though, we know sperm and egg combines and a person is both a combination of male and female genetic material from their father and mother... thus, they are part male and part female regardless of whichever sex they're statistically dominated by.
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    I have literally never had those thoughts in my head before
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    How does your continuous fluidity doctrine fare against criticism like Kant's second antinomy. There are clearly units
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    I wouldn't doubt that to be the truth as I was teasing you from the way your perspective seems to me. Sex isn't as simple as binary antithesis. Simone de Beauvoir's "The (Second) Sex" will bring you more up to speed on the pluralists conception of sex. I don't really care to waste time on detailing it to you because it's going to take a deep dive for you really, which Simone de Beauvoir has already provided. You either know it or you don't. What I was suggesting to you is that you don’t even have a your own generational understanding of sex... fr the age you live in but some archaic definition that needs a damn update.

    I wouldn't say continuous fluidity... every flow has its breaks think something along the lines of anima and animus, which are symbolic for the unconscious femininity (in males) and masculinity (in females) due to the persons genetic material still coming from both man and woman... the genetic material a man takes from his mother is inherently feminine. And inside the man...doesn't mean his sex is some hybridization... just means there is genetic material within you that is fundamentally feminine in origin. Even if it's expressed in the form of man...

    Sex is a concept to express a style of differentiation... human sex always comes from a plurality that differentiates, into a singular plant. But the roots of the flowering plant are always established in the plurality.
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    It seems to me that there has to be a first pair of humans from which our 7 billion come from. Evolution too strides recklessly through the gates of Zeno's paradoxes. Mathematics itself is inpossible without basic units. You have to be speaking about something. If the human ancestry went back into time forever there could never be a person now. Forget using the kalam. Humans into the infinite past and beyond is obviously impossible and since it is accidental whether there be humans within the "eternal" universe than it follows that an eternal past is impossible. Forget about time having eternity to complete infinity. That is just math. Biology is psycho-organic and the post modern world has a real problem with the concept of origins
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    You're still a dualist who denies men and women come from a man and woman and thus genetic material of both is in the one. I don't give a fuck how you wanna hocus pocus your words you still sound dumb, it's literally why I said you think a little man is in sperm and the woman is just an incubator for man because you think: "Man is only male DNA." Little more than archaic metaphysics... which means under the same model, since woman is only female DNA, women reproduce asexually via an unfertilized egg.

    You know what's interesting about humans is our cells show we likely came from two single celled organisms forming a symbiotic relationship. The cell and the mitochondria... the mitochondrial dna is always from the mother. The first man always had a mitochondria too because we came from something before male female pairing...furthermore it's characteristics towards dna are more similar to bacterial dna.
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    Philosophy trumps science every time. Science is what is dumb
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    Well, it's not my desire to try and take that perspective from you. I assumed poorly, that you took it more seriously.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    379
    Well, it's not my desire to try and take that perspective from you. I assumed poorly, that you took it more seriously.
  • Gregory
    4.9k


    Science, as Hume proved, is always contingent. Is this quark causing that? Why not that electron thru the quark. The cause of causality is noumena and is never presented. Any prediction science makes can be wrong. Philosophy deals with eternal life and eternal truths. If science conflicts with that, reject that part of science and dont think about it anymore. Life is too short. The only thing never changing is Him
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.