seems like it

"Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined"

feminine attributes to maintain imagined division so that men can continue to dominate

:|

We construct our identity under a shared discourse within an 'imagined community' according to Anderson, where our values are designed within social constructs that are invented to hold the community together, what Hobsbawm similarly concluded viz., an administration of a State where ideology motivates a national character that enables social cohesion. The continuity of these imagined landscapes are rooted in traditions and while such beliefs are imagined, the experience itself is actually real because it provides an interpretation of this experience with others.

It can also, however, be used as an instrument to mobilise rather strategically a shared agenda that legitimises power, hence Othering where the anti-semite creates the Jew as Sartre would agree. The Other and the apparent existence of properties that are universal becomes the source that legitimises their created identity and ultimately the domination. It is a desire for power.

Women have in many patriarchal societies become the Other where properties - that is feminine attributes - are universally enforced as an apparatus to maintain this imagined division so that men from these societies can continue to dominate and subjugate such women. Men themselves are also required to have masculine functions and why many patriarchal cultures have high rates of gender-based violence against women. These masculine/feminine attributes and essentialist categorisations or characteristics are imagined, however as mentioned earlier are nevertheless real because as Foucault states, power in discourse is enabling a productive network that efficiently strengthens hierarchies by authenticating 'truths' within these imagined concepts, i.e. gender.

So it is 'true' that all women have feminine attributes and it is 'true' that all men have masculine attributes, when we all know that this is not true. There are many women with masculine attributes and many men with feminine and so, gender is imagined. Sex/biology and feminine/masculine are two different concepts. — TimeLine

I like the idea that the more girly a girl is the more submissive she will be to a man. While on the opposite end of the spektrum the more dikey a girl is the more she will resist man and be a feminist. Of course there will be exceptions to this but it won't discredit how much it actually occurs. Think about if epigenetic traits were passed down to females from the victorian era and further that controlled a woman's unconscious mind to make her choose the feminine things in life to subconsciously express her willingness to be dominated to the man. Is this sort of what you are getting at?

Even though this is sure to alienate those I have always loved and identified with the most, I'm no exception, and this ought to be clear. Everything I've gained, I've stolen too, and don't actually understand. I fucking hate being judged, being seen as deficient, or anything but good. I'm deeply scarred from my childhood, and all of the terrible judgments I received. I hate it so so fucking much. I don't claim to be the best at anything, I just continually imply that I'm the most moral, and just, and know all of the most moral truths. I stole them all, and only know they're true because of the results, and that is all.

I can tell you what will happen if this or that occurs, or how this implies that, and so forth, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not. I still don't know my moral standing, not really. I know that I'm great at discerning what is factual, and reasonable, but I have no fucking clue if it's good or not -- or the value of it. Every one of them stole it from tradition, and could only ever refer back to tradition to justify it -- or just their own magical fiat... and when they refused to submit, their lives concluded in destructive insanity.

That's how things appear to me. That's what I really believe. I'm not super human though, could be wrong. — Wosret

But you can say the same thing about knowledge in general. We claim to know how things work but in reality all we know is how this affects that and what implies what but we still don't know what is really going on, we just observe correlations and the same is true for morals. Does the fact that you don't know in an absolute sense discount your moral notions so far?

Using ridiculously unlikely data undermines your credibility. — T Clark

Didn't you get the message? that is besides the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage of female brick layers. Lol, how could you stray so far from the subject matter just to prove some point that is skewed from the original statement. building trades are more encompassing than bricklayers alone so don't build a straw man here. The stats for where i live is 0% for most trades...



ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT, you fool. We were talking about how at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.

Cross your bridges when you come to them.
Forewarned is forearmed.

What will be, will be.
Life is what you make it.

The bigger, the better.
The best things come in small packages.

Actions speak louder than words.
The pen is mightier than the sword.

Better to remain silent and be thouth a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
The squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Haste makes waste.
Time waits for no man.

Winners never quit.
Quit while you're ahead.

The squeaking wheel gets the grease.
Silence is golden.

Don’t judge a book by its cover.
Clothes make the man.

Many hands make light work.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.

But there are female bricklayers. — Cavacava

yeah but that is besides the point. Just because there is one in the whole world doesn't negate the validity of what is said. The point is the ratio... and at the moment it is like 1 million males to 0.00000000000001 female brick layers lol.

Gender roles are absolutely learned, but at the moment of birth it is determined (by probability) what gender roles the child will inevitably learn.

Hitch your wagon to a star.
Don’t bite off more that you can chew.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Nice guys finish last.

Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

It’s better to be safe than sorry.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

A word to the wise is sufficient.
Talk is cheap.

You’re never too old to learn.
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Haste makes waste.
Time waits for no man.

Two heads are better than one.
Paddle your own canoe.

Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.
Don’t cross the bridge until you come to it.

I think all of these proverbs (including the ones posted above) don't actually contradict each other. At least, they would only do so if you make the contexts of the two proverbs the same, but to do that would be equivocation. For instance:

"Two heads are better than one vs Too many cooks spoil the broth" Two heads are better than one but any more would spoil the broth.

"Look before you leap vs He who hesitates is lost" You can look before you leap and then jump thereby not hesitating.

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder. vs Out of sight, out of mind." Things out of sight are out of mind and the longer they are out of mind the more the heart grows fond of it.

And so on down the line for all the "supposed" contradictory proverbs...

OK, so if I understand what you are saying, gender/sex is confirmed at birth, but gender role is socially constructed, it is not given at birth and it is malleable. — Cavacava

Well if at birth it is known what the socially constructed gender roles are in society then it is confirmed for the baby isn't it? Although not confirmed in the future obviously but it's pretty easy to predict women arn't gonna turn into bricklayers any time soon.

I notice people tend to move from a conversation to an argument very quickly as soon as topics get complex or opinions differ. What people unconsciously end up doing is always trying to take the opposing viewpoint and end up actually supporting viewpoints they would otherwise disagree with, purely because they are in an argument and they want to compete and win. Rarely do I meet people who try to find the truth in the other person's statements, it is more people trying to find the flaw so that they can use it to justify that they can win an argument against you. Defence mechanisms of the ego, which all developed because our primate lineage. Kind of sad because we are living in the most technologically advanced age and yet still behave like we did 2,000, nay 10,000, nay 2 million years ago.

The second any of those fields/disciplines loses this structure then you can invent a new name for them all.



It is just useful to distinguish those fields (biology, physics, chemistry, etc) from other fields like fashion design, carpentry which is more of art or practice.

I agree with the OP that certain brains are wired in a more systematic way that can process and analyze data with more calculation than other brains. Although I thought I was was a more system 1 sort of guy but since I have been taking algebra and calculus at university I am coming to see that most people can learn it if they apply themselves (i flunked maths at school). Nevertheless the correlation with math wiz's and people who are almost autistic about understanding the in's and outs of life, romance, friends and the fine things like philosophy is not out of place. I put engineers into that category too.

What I want to know is... was this a phenomena before the age of enlightenment genetically? Or did it spawn after romanticism when generations were influenced by the trade of their forefathers?

as it ceases upon death event though all the substances remain) is what I based my speculations on, as there is no known scientific evidence regarding what allows life to continue. Life from nonliving matter has never been recreated in a lab. — Lone Wolf

You don't know whether substances remain. All you know is a vantage point from which you see other people disappearing and "apparent" energy being re-used and re-utilized by the universe. If you hypothetically knew reality existed in the way you conceive it currently and had grounds and evidence for it then sure, but at the moment your assertion that life must be more than matter because matter is never destroyed is not supported. You are confined to subjectivity and your postulations unto objectivity about the nature of it is only speculation derived from a limited understanding of the functions of the universe.

Nonetheless, as information cannot be created nor destroyed, your mother obviously existed, even if it was just in the form of information. — Lone Wolf

When you use the term "your mother" it doesn't have the same meaning as what I thought was my mother so therefore it is not my mother. In other words, if i think my mother is part of a physical reality with her occupying her own body with her own experience then that is NOT the same thing as her just being information like a computer code. Completely different.

The theory is questionable in other ways; as humans would have never discovered anything beyond that of what was expected. Humans are not that creative to have thought of the everything in the universe, nor in such detail. By that system, we should still be believing the world is flat because that would have been our sensory perception. — Lone Wolf

Yeah, agreed. The issue though is that believing in flat-earth theory uses assumptions based of sensory information. Believing that reality exist the way we assume it does is using assumptions based of sensory information and a few techno gadgets that are made FROM our conceptions of how we perceive reality that we use to confirm that our conception of reality is correct (minus disciplines like quantum-physics which very few know what the fark is going on).

Also, for those who believe in an after life, one has no way to know if the next form will be any better than the one we are in now. — Lone Wolf

The undiscovered country from whose bourn. No traveler returns, puzzles the will. And makes us rather bear those ills we have. Than fly to others that we know not of.

Life must be more than mere chemical and physical matter — Lone Wolf

proof?

Suicide seems to be a selfish way to harm the people who are close to the person committing it. And a lack of thought of what life really is. — Lone Wolf

there is no proof that others exist, or will continue to exist outside of sensory perception. That is a belief based on the consistency of how much the same sensory experiences occur.

For instance, every day you wake up go to the kitchen and see your mum in there. -> therefore, your mum exists... until you swallow the red pill and realise that she never existed, it was all an illusion you believed based on your education conditioning from a young age in to naive realism.

My advice is, if you are that miserable then just leave the party... BUT BEFORE YOU DO... make sure you talk to everyone, and try anything possible to try and get you back in the mood... and that includes large doses of psychedelic chemicals that have the power to re-enrich peoples perception and understanding of life.

Either way it is probable that after death it is a win win. If there is nothing, then that is great for there is no one to cast value on anything anymore. If there is something then thank god we are out of the human form and that there is something beyond this absurd creation called human existence.

Profound... thanks ;)

Value is subjective. If you want to conceive of the value of [human] life "outside of a human perspective", you will still require an evaluating subject. In the eyes of God, one human life is worth more than the universe; in the eyes of the Devil, the worth is similar (though for different goals); in the eyes of Dracula, one human life is worth as much as a nice steak for us. In the eyes of the Matrix, we are worth plenty. And so on. — Mariner

So if I can't go beyond subjectivity, how can I know the truth about what a human life is worth. Is there not an absolute truth to all things? A prime explanation? If there wasn't, then how could anything exist? Anything that can exist, can be explained. Likewise, with the value of a human life.

Let's say you are right, and that worth is only subjective. Well then, the universe would be no worse off without my existence AND that all the "tragedy" that occurred from my death would actually just be some cooked-up bullshit that my peers felt because they (humans) need emotions to keep families bonded for survival. They need this ability to define worth for survival even though it bears no relation to objective existence? For no worth can be encountered in objectivity?

Yes, speaking figuratively, but nonetheless truly. — Wayfarer

Why are animalistic tendencies demonic or just bad? Do you the say the same for necessary functions like shitting?

There is more than truth and happiness. There is experience alone, of both good and bad that define the value of life itself. We always chase one over the other because happiness is more pleasurable, but sorrow can be enjoyable if you have the ability to see how.

Also worth a mention is buddhist monks and other ascetics who don't live for happiness but for contentment and altered states of consciousness.

If you ask me, I say it doesn't matter. It is all meaningless... at least at our level of consciousness. There may be a higher order or system of processes going on that we are apart of in the universe... but to us, it is mostly meaningless and this is somewhat of a massive burden in defining life as valuable (even though we somehow seem to do well at justifying life as "worthwhile", i suspect though that this has something to do with our fear of death, lol). We realize this unconsciously by early adulthood and learn to adopt societies (mass amounts of peoples actions) dogmatism in teaching that chasing happiness is pretty much the only worthwhile pursuing. What is pleasurable -> good... that is what all animals who can't think act on... you think... so don't you think you should think about that some more?

Any brain can be taught anything we can possibly conceive of given they have adequate "normal" cerebral abilities. We should break away from arguments about whether a future civilization could be understandable and further look in to other things the OP questions about epistemology itself. "Or there might be a ultimate state from which things are understandable and could be imagined even if technology is much more advanced?" Such an ultimate state so as to be beyond physical boundaries? Like looking in from heaven? If not then be careful with phrases like "ultimate state".

The world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. -eddington

YOUR PREMISE LACKS AND ADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
By 'adequate', I mean based on the vast amount of existing verified knowledge that we now have. Here is an adequate classification system, based on levels of intelligence:

Working from this classification system, then the answer is 'no' - nature is not immoral - since it does not have the extended reasoning to make moral judgements. — Numi Who

Thanks, I guess I ought to work on that.

Again I talked about why you don't need to be a reasoning being to be a moral system in my OP which a few on here seemed to miss. Let me repost it

Now I know some of you will agree that you can blame physical process for unethical behaviour as you need an agent of will to cause injustice and lay blame to but I think it is fair enough to say that physical process can be immoral in the outcomes or effects of their processes on to conscious creatures even if those physical processes do not have a will of their own. For instance, if an oil rig explodes and the oil harms or kills conscious marine lifeforms in the area then you could say that what occurred is violating to the marine lifeforms even if the accident occurred by natural causes and not human error. However blaming your chainsaw for "accidentally" chopping off your arm is completely foolish and another matter entirely.

"Nature" is neither immoral nor moral, neither bad nor good. "Nature" is perceived by us to exist as a process (which we might personify as "mother nature") but doesn't have an existence such as "knowing itself".

It is absurd to speak of nature being a moral subject. — Bitter Crank

That was already covered in the OP, if you just cared to look... you could have responded to that specifically but I notice you have a tendency to not do that.

There are two ways to see this:

1. Morality is an exclusively human construct. I don't know what percent of all life humans represent but I surmise it's less than 1%. The rest (99%) haven't even thought of morality. If so are we justified in throwing the cloak of human morality over all of life?

2. As thinking animals we're gifted with self-awareness and rationality - very important and powerful tools with universal application. If these tools say that there's something wrong with carnivory (is this a real word?) we should do well to heed it. — TheMadFool

1. No animal likes to feel pain, therefore they inherently agree with our morality by their actions to avoid pain. Our morality is simply pain = bad therefore don't inflict pain on others. Unfortunately animals don't have the capacity of consciousness to understand not to hurt others and all they want to do is eat other animals when they are hungry. Yet, the animals all agree implicitly (without needing to be stated) that they do not want to feel pain because we can observe it in their behaviour. I would say that that is adequate enough to account for 100% of life (excluding a few weirdos who like to be tied up and whipped for sexual pleasure) because all living things seek survival and our morality holds survival as well as healthy living in utmost recognition.

2. That is a bit harder to pin down because we have no indicators of how accurate self-awareness and rationality depict and remodel the "real" world if there even is one. Either way, it is irrelevant if we just want to make claims about the nature of life for ourselves without needing to be justified by an objective order of some kind (aka truth). So we can only say at the moment that it is subjectively true from a human perspective that "nature is immoral".

Yes, of course one can always make everything that is non-material into material, and everything that is purely subjective, personal, and unmeasurable into emergent and call it Hinduism (that is precisely what Hindus do, i.e. everything is Hindu), but atn done point it is worth considering the possibility that not all things are material, and indeed there may be immaterial and material. Such a new line of inquiry can be quite exciting and illuminating. No reason to get stuck along one path especially when other paths are begging to be traveled. — Rich

Yes all possibilities aside, I am interested in understanding how physicalism fails in providing an accurate reflection of death. Does the fact that we don't understand consciousness grant us reason to infer beyond annihilation at death?