I assumed it was me :D guess not. I can read. There was no tag and it was directly under my post and fit enough for me to assume as I did.

If not no biggie ;)

I never said feminine/masculine traits are defined by sex. In fact I made that blatantly clear so read more carefully.

The rest of what you said has no bearing I can see. In terms of psychological traits there is a lot of variation to the point where stating any single man or woman must have this or that trait is complete nonsense. You can make some statistical bets because there are some reasonably large difference (as in ratios of 3:2).

We can take a thousand women and a thousand men off the street and be reasonably confident that the ‘differences’ (where they are commonly seen at their largest) will play out … it is statistics neither prove nor disprove ‘bias’ anymore than ‘explorer’ proved or disproved the existence of a teapot orbiting Saturn.

The reasons these traits propagate will obviously be due to many different factors including ‘culture’. I am certainly not saying it is black and white.

Anything else to put into my mouth?

It seems to me that male traits are seen in a more positive light than female ones still and that traits like nurturing, caring and kindness and forgiveness are seen as weaknesses. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. That has been a common trend for a long time. The ‘fairer’/‘weaker’ sex. Undoubtedly there are many hang ups still around that propagate these ideas. In reality all psychological traits are seemingly neutral. Even ‘moderation’ is bad in some circumstances.

In some cultures what you or I may refer to as ‘bravery’ would been deemed as ‘cowardice’. ‘Rashness’ viewed as ‘quick reactions’ depending on the success or failure of the action. We are fickle and stupid creatures, but it appears our ‘stupidity’/‘mistakes’ occasionally stumble upon novel solutions to hard problems.

The larger extent to which women have been, and are being, liberated across the globe is still transitioning and likely always will be. Stagnation is death. If no women/men are complaining it is not because there is nothing wrong, it is because they have lost their voice in the public sphere.

There has been a rather large push to create more female role-models in mass media. There are many different conflicting forces controlling these so-called ‘role-models’. Undoubtedly Wonder Woman was something of a sex symbol that was created to cater to both men’s and women’s fantasies.

I do sometimes get a little concerned when people act like ‘beauty’ is some kind of cultural creation. The hyper sexuality prevalent in advertising works. Everyone used to mock people like Mary Whitehouse but I think they probably did not listen carefully enough. There are certainly factors in society that are almost completely unchecked and out of governmental/social control. ‘Memes’ if you will.

All that said, I think there are good number of people wary of the power of AI and the influence it can exert over vast numbers of people. I do not think we are dumb enough to handover complete ‘control’ simply because we are scared of responsibility.

If I wanted to be more Chinese I would have to have skin colour and feature alterations under surgery to Match the biological reality of ethnic Chinese eating loads of Chinese food and learning to speak mandarin would not make me Chinese. — Andrew4Handel

It depends. I would actually say that being ‘Chinese’ is a cultural item rather than a biological one. Being ‘Chinese’ is not genetic as someone born to Chinese parents and raised in the US would, cultural speaking, be american if they were raised in the US and spoke only English and educated under the US system.

Nationalities are nationalities not genetic distinctions. There is obviously some ‘genetic’ similarity between peoples living the same regions for very obvious reasons.

The question underneath all this is the riddle of trying to define ‘culture’ … which is problematic as it covers practically everything a d is likely why many jump on the bandwagon when something is attributed to ‘culture’. Such ubiquitous terms are easy prey to misuse by over-application.

AI would choose the one they wish to suffer the most I imagine. A lone human is no longer ‘human’ they are just a defunct dead-end doomed to misery and suffering in pure solitude.

Who would likely suffer more I wonder. A man or a woman? If inflicting suffering was the purpose of the AI.

If you were serious and you cannot fathom why that comment is ‘sexist’ then you clearly have no idea what ‘sexism’ is. You are not stupid though and know what I was referring to … so why the game of ‘what do you mean?’

Provocation is the only reason I can see. So I am ‘provoked’ … merely to see if you go anywhere with this or have glaring double-standards :)

You jokingly viewed males and lesser than females. I was joking in my response too … unless you were serious?

Very sexist.

There are differences between feminine and masculine, but those are not the same as male and female.

In psychological terms there are differences but they are not huge. Women tend to be more risk adverse so that could be interpreted as ‘nurturing’ in some situations. There is also the argument for such differences being ‘cultural’ but I do not think that makes complete sense if taken too far.

Men and women are psychologically different but do not seem to be different to the same extremes that they are in physical terms.

In terms of positive characteristics you tend to see trends of women taking on more prominent ‘masculine’ roles in societies in modern times. In the 1980’s women even wore big shoulder pads to appear more ‘male’ and assert dominance in office environments. This was strangely anti-feminine yet also helped propel women into higher paid jobs etc.,.

In society womens’ ‘traits’ (if we can call them that?) are generally not rewarded because they are good for roles/jobs that tend to see long term benefits rather than short term benefits - hence the pay of teaching and nursing.

Note: A good proportion of men are feminine and a good proportion of women are masculine. I am talking in an ‘overall’ sense here.

Of course not. It is outdated and useless.

My knowledge of myself is both infinite and out of reach.

‘Knowledge’ for me is just ‘that which is under scrutiny’. ‘Pure Knowledge’ is that which I pay no heed to, such as the fact that I breath … but once it is brought under ‘scrutiny’ (into conscious attention) it is necessarily ‘questioned’ as an item rather than blindly happening whilst my focus is elsewhere.

It boils down to how you wish to use the term ‘knowledge’ and how, if you so desire, you wish to communicate this idea rather than just using it in a colloquial sense.

The ‘truth’ of lived life is often something I ignore entirely. I am very much in favour of the Husserlian attitude being that the ‘existence’ of something is irrelevant and only ‘experience of’ matters. So in terms of consciousness ‘truth’ is neither here nor there, it is just a term smuggled in from strictly delineated areas where it is of use. In life ‘truth’ is not clear because the rules and boundaries of life are indeterminate/undetermined … all we have is the ‘experience of’ and it can be too easy to extrapolate some rigid claim of ‘truth’ from that.

I would prefer higher quality content. Who wouldn’t? It is what is … a ‘stepping stone’, at best, onto other things, a pool of boredom and squalor at worst.

I learnt before joining this forum that it would serve mainly as a place to hone my writing and reading in a more critical way. That is all.

Bertrand Russell’s ‘A History of Western Philosophy’ is one well trod route so probably worth adding to the other suggestions too.

Honestly though, I would just look into a particular area that grabs you and just go with the flow. All roads lead to Rome ;)

Welcome to your own personal struggle with the age old ‘existential crisis’.

Life is. The rest is blind speculation that’s sometimes dressed up as ‘meaning’/‘purpose’.

Then they must exist in some capacity surely? Just because I cannot hold the number 1 in my hand it does not mean it exists it only means it has no visceral physicality.

I am very much on the side of phenomenology when it comes to this kind of debate. There is no debate. People can argue over this or that but I will always maintain (correctly) that ‘something’ is being argued over and the concept of ‘nothing’ is still something that exists.

Things that do not exist we cannot talk about or refer to. This is one of the most obvious things that Kant pointed out that SO SO many find hard to grasp. The Noumenon is a concept that ‘refers to’ the ‘lack of being able to refer to’ and some find that hard to get their head around.

What is meant by ‘good’ and ‘ethics’ are questions meta ethics deals with. It is not a means of prescribing or judging one view or another, just asking why we bother to make up different schemes of ‘value’ what we ‘value’ and what ‘value’ means too.

For me the point is more or less about what I state publicly being just a public statement. We all fall prey to ‘looking’ good to help ourselves. The real issue for me is to not waste time saying this or that to you or anyone else, but to shut my mouth and be brutally honest with myself and do my nest not to ‘pretend’ I am something I merely wish to be.

This is not something I would prescribe to anyone though. All I say is I strongly believe it is a waste of time debating ‘ethics’ because to debate you are already playing a social game rather than exploring your own take on the world regardless of whether others agree or not … it is important what others think because we are social but I do not see it as being the main reason I should act one way rather than another.

It would be easy to frame me as a ‘moral relativist’ and you can do so if you wish. I would not say that about myself though. I find ‘ethics’ to be unethical and ‘morals’ to be immoral.

It literally has to be as we are social creatures prone to self-deception and continually checking our own behaviour in various situations. Self-preservation most often trumps everything else.

If you have a discussion around women about women, then if you are a woman you would speak more freely as a woman, but around men or if you were a man the dynamic changes.

No matter how we sit in a social context there is fluctuations between individual and group ‘good’ ALL of which is mixed up in ignorances, different perspectives and various levels of ‘judgement’.

When it comes to ethical debate the real work is internal and excruciating… we are never willing to truly expose ourselves to ourselves let alone anyone else. Ergo, ‘ethical’ claims are far beyond the reality of the individual.

Meta ethics approaches these problems where ethics does nothing as it is never under investigation of itself as a concept.

If abstractions like words do not exist then this debate is non-existent.

If that is how we are using the term ‘exist’ (another abstract I should add) then maybe the reality of the term ‘exist’ exists less than say the concept of ‘number’? :D

Pre-language children (under a year old) react to inanimate objects appearing to ‘attack’ each other.

I am sure you would agree that base emotions are innate and if that is the case, being social creatures too, how can we not come develop ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ due to mirror neurons assisting in helping us ‘feel’/‘understand the pain of others.

In general I do find the generall view of ‘ethics’ to be garbage. I am more about meta ethics as there is undeniably (as far as I can see?) a pretty strong case to state that ‘ethics’ is more of a political tool than a real investigation into the human conidition.

The Master Servant dichotomy will exist to some extend always and there will always be those that serve more than others.

Democracy at work (a 'true' democracy) would seem to result in some form of tyranny for some regardless of what we do.

The ideal is more likely to be systems that are used for certain circumstances. For large-scale projects a more tyrannical/authoritarian approach makes sense and the 'democratic' ideal would kick in right after said project is complete ... rather than the 'Master/s' holding on to power after the need has subsided.

None of them fit for me either but they did at least ask for closest answer.

Oh, sorry. I did not read your definitions properly. I guess my answer still fits ‘roughly’

Sounds like convoluted rubbish. I think I have the gist though. It is a tail-eating-snake kind of problem. In a highly ‘structured social environment’ the non-conformists appear as disorientated and confused. In a social structure far less rigid the ‘highly structured’ lives lived appear as disorientated and confused.

The main problem with taking this to any extreme, in any aspect of human sociopolitical make up, is that ‘society’ is necessarily a concept of ‘structures’ not a concept of ‘non-structures’.

I have said for many, many years now that if I was to venture out and write a philosophical work it would be titled something like “Dichotomies & Magnitudes” … I would not waste time with layers of analogies though and use the term ‘schizophrenia’ as a means of describing society (be this in terms of economics or any other societal category of thought).

Note: I actually believe that what is psychologically framed as ‘schizophrenia’ is basically unconscious contents spilling onto the conscious sphere. I believe that everyone had ‘episodes’ it is only that some recall them and others do not - but I am mostly referring to psychosis here rather than the specific brain-disorder of ‘schizophrenia’.

Thanks for insight. I might look into it one day. As is my initial impression is that this is probably something that will not appeal to me as it looks like an obscurantism.

I have no problem with wacky analogies and bizarre ideas, but when they have no real anchor and concatenate into analogies of analogies of analogies … nah thanks :)

You could have probably started by saying ‘political/social schizophrenia’ and then stated that you meant this ‘figuratively, symbolically and literally’ … but then the problem would be you cannot use it ‘literally’ because it is LITERALLY not a term used to cover human beings on a ‘social/political’ spectrum’. It is a psychological term used to describe a particular brain disorder/state where the sense of self is loosely described as being ‘shattered’.

If you are just using the term ‘analogously’ to describe modern human society at large then it is not particularly hard to say so … because I just did so. To say it is a complex matter is also not really much of an excuse. Many things are complication that can be summed up in an ad hoc manner to begin with.

All you appear to have presented up to now is a list of terms used in polarity without exposing why, how or why I or anyone else should care.

If it merely boils down to political and social institutions and methodologies approaching human life as something that is either highly structured or essentially chaotic … then again, you can just say so.

If you cannot offer a reasonably concise definition when asked I am not really interested. Sorry.

I would honestly like a clearer definition of this ‘political/social schizophrenia’ … I will read around a bit but in the OP there is not a definition I can see that has any real clarity.

No. Look at the link I gave above your post. It is not really up for debate. He had no ‘language’ and managed to cross a border and get a job working as a gardener without ANY concept of signed/spoken/written words.

If someone can do this I cannot possibly see how they cannot be conscious. He remembers his life put calls it a ‘darkness’.

If we mean ‘language’ in a much broader sense (mapping out the world around us and such through narratives) then no, not possible. He refers to going back to groups of other people like he was and watching them act out a scene for 10-15 minutes that was essentially nothing more than saying ‘remember the time when the cow ran around and chased that man’.

Narratives are essential for consciousness it seems. Ww all need to attribute meaning and purpose in action and learning and memory requires narrative structures.

As in the written/spoken/signed words used here for example?

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

I am not sure how long I could stomach ‘living’ (afterliving or otherwise). 200 years? 500? Maybe I could stretch to 1000 but I doubt I would tolerate it that far into the future … hard to say without knowing what state I will be in or the world around me.

I would hope I never entered it and just dissipated - that is if it entailed ‘eternity’. No thank you!

An end is meaningful eternity is nothing.

You mention Rome. Does ‘Rome’ exist and in what capacity does it exist?

Does the term ‘exist’ exist? I have never held ‘exist’ in my hand (imagined or otherwise).

Basically, start by exploring what exactly/vaguely you mean by ‘exist’ before stating what does and does not ‘exist’. You will find anything you think up necessarily ‘exists’ in some way. What you cannot think of does not ‘exist’ but referring to some non-existing item makes it exist as a non-item too.

The issue is in the use of language (or rather than misuse).

If I was to answer your question more or less as I think you meant it then the probable truth would be that I would meddle a lot and be rather tyrannical and possibly murderous. Such would likely result in self-hatred and then mass murder too most likely.

After that madness and cataclysmic suicide OR madness and complete nonchalance.

This would be the me god that had powers at my fingers tips with little to no effort involved. I do genuinely believe we are all ‘gods’ though but such powers are just harder to gain and retain, that most are not willing to suffer the work involved in obtaining them and that admitting to yourself you have almost endless untapped potential generally results in self-loathing and guilt.

Note: I think humans are amazing. Not putting a downer on human existence at all :) just sayin’ … a lot of what we wish for is often just wrapped in the nonsense of what we believe others will think of us rather than what would truly drive us to live ‘better’ lives.

The OP describes my life so I guess I would just continue as normal. I am Alpha and Omega. The ‘world’ is my ‘creation’.

‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are just silly items like ‘happy’ and ‘sad’.

This is where I side with the Phenomenology of Husserl and stop worrying about such questions :D

I meant Ethics will be viewed as Phrenology is today not meta ethics.

I am deadly serious but understand that I am somewhat on the fringes. Ethics is too wrapped up in a death spiral of convoluted lies, misconceptions and band-wagoning.

No one cares what they mean by ‘ethics’ only what use they can make to impose their will on others or deflect the will of others. Pointless masturbation and ironically it is more than likely detrimental to their own being and everyone else’s.

@ToothyMaw The points in the OP are pointless.

Justification is irrelevant because claim of higher morality is immoral.

It is nothing more than pretending actions and reasons for actions are not preluded by opinions of, and impositions of, social convention.

Someone acting as they wish to act, does so genuinely, irrespective of social conventions. Non of are genuine and therefore none of have an inkling of some higher morality other than by-way-of playing for or against ideas of what is or is not ‘justified’.

I can justify killing someone but justification is just as likely an ‘excuse’ as a ‘reason’. Given that we are bound by societal mechanisms we cannot escape them and cannot ever really lay claim to some pure reason because of this.

Meta ethics has supplanted Ethics it is just that people are slow to realise this. In a few hundred years it will likely be viewed as laughable ad phrenology is.

Note: Obviously I’m not saying this from a ‘moral high ground’ :D

The only ‘right’ thing we can do is acting as we see fit rather than bending to the will of others mindlessly. In that sense we can hardly ever judge what we do as being right or wrong but we are always unable to escape from the idea that what we have done, or do, is a defining part of how we navigate through life.

Morality and ethics are social apparatus. We are not bound by pure subjectivity yet we are enchanted by the idea that we choose as an individual for ourselves and independent of others’ views.

It is a sea of hidden nuances and dead ends. I this respect it has more in common with the general outline of science being a constant riling against convention for the sake of seeking ‘better’ pathways to fuller understanding.

It is possible to communicate with more than words. It is impossible to paint a picture of ‘and’ and have anyone recognise it as ‘and’ without literally spelling the term out with ‘a-n-d’.

Yet I can state clearly that ‘and’ cannot be painted yet it is still ‘there’ in every painting when a conscious eye gazes on it. ‘And’ is necessary for consciousness even if there is no ‘worded’ term ‘and’ expressed in a common communicated language like in speech, signs or symbols used on a universal scale.

I gaze on a painting and my mind is touched by the principles of ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘why’ and even ‘of’ yet my minds tongue need never utter such delineations of conscious existence.

‘Ineffable’ I take to mean that there is a tenuous line between an experience and the ability to share said experience in any useful way worded terms that other people can easily grasp or that we can conjure up.

I agree that a high level of ability to take such experiences and shift human communication towards a slightly better way to approach such intangible experiences is precisely what great philosophers can do and many artists too.

It is tricky to fish for the exact fish you wish to catch if you have never seen it before.