Some would argue it is not an ‘extension’ but rather a piece of the ‘machinery’ of language - spoken or otherwise.

The Chorus in ancient Greece kind of outline what I mean by this. There is something interesting about how they were used in drama - and of course we have a rather myopic view of ‘drama’ in the modern world today but it was/is more ‘ritualistic’ in other cultures.

Clifford Geertz did some nice work in Bali on this. The ‘audience’ participated in ‘plays’ and entered trance states. In modern cinema it is easy to view ‘viewing a movie’ as something passive rather than an active engagement because that is how it has evolved over time.

The term ‘light’ is similar, in some ways, to the term ‘god’. It is ‘created’ as a means of encapsulating phenomena.

For me the so-called ‘religious tendency’ of humanity is more or less about creative interpretation that happens to serve memory and recall through emotive power. It is not much of a stretch to see how such a power mental tool can fashion a ‘god’ as an overarching view of ‘reality’.

Tell me what you mean by ‘god’ and see if I reject it.

My point was ‘atheism’ is a term created by people of religious belief to define others that couldn’t care less. When it gets to a point where so-called believers are actively affecting those that don’t care they might not be passive and perhaps question what it is the others are saying they have ‘rejected’.

Not believing in the teapot orbiting Jupiter is along the same lines. Why would I believe such a thing? Whatever this ‘god’ is define it and see what I think.

Also, I could state I believe all kinds of things that you may never have thought about or care for. I would not then need to create a term to marginalise your personal views on such matters though would I?

‘Let there be light’ and so ‘light’ becomes ;)

Well the whole ‘love of wisdom’ is merely a roughshod translation from a ancient language.

Having a ‘love of wisdom’ is kind of pointless if you are talking about ‘wisdom’ in a sense that means something different from others.

You are right. The more common modern conception frames philosophy as more concerned with questions. I think that might be why a great many people feel they are able to jump in as they feel it is ‘safe’ to avoid conclusions.

Frankly that is utter garbage. An atheist doesn’t ‘reject’ god, they just never really considered it at all and when told about some said ‘god’ simply don’t know/understand what the hell people are talking about - hence comparison to Santa.

You can see this is hunter gatherer tribes who were told of some ‘god’ and they asked where the god was. They believe what they see and have some vague belief in a possible afterlife (but they are non-committal).

Everyone is born an atheist because everyone is born without any real conception of themselves let alone some hypothetical being.

@Agent Smith It helps to understand a so-called ‘theist’ by asking what they mean by ‘god’ or whatever term they pick.

You will find there is a limitation to how well they can define what they are talking about, and if they are genuine they might even say they cannot possibly state what they feel/mean.

Have you red much of Eliade? The Sacred and The Profane is a nice book.

Our conception of existence is necessarily done so through a narrative. The ‘we’ that we are is only possible through narrative. Before we create a story there is no ‘we’.

Through certain studies we can see that we are born with empathy and project certain feelings onto objects that appear to interact with each other. Projecting agency onto objects is where the ‘narrative’ sprouts from.

The ‘narrative’ of ‘narratives’ is our nature.

Patriotism is a disease.

Women are generally less aggressive than men. There have been multiple studies to discern this. I believe the chance of a woman being more aggressive than a man is something like 40-60. The real divider is the physical strength obviously.

Aa for ‘fight’ it is not a technical term. It can mean ‘verbal exchange,’ ‘physical exchange’ or even ‘personal struggle’ in an abstract sense. An argument can be a fight. I would guess any possible distinction would come about due to the level of passion and hostility involved.

I can disagree with my partner but that doesn’t mean we fight about it. I can fight with my partner too but we have never exchanged physical blows or had any kind of hostile physical interaction. I would never raise a hand to her and she would never raise a hand to me either. I know this.

Anyway, why do women hate men? Is it alos because of ‘sex’?

Don’t be silly. You can figure that out for yourself. Minimal force is fine, be this grabbing arms or pushing away - both of which can result in some injury being incurred.

If there are weapons involved then a light kick or punch is fine.

If you’re trying to make out I would happily pound someone in the face repeatedly then absolutely not. Lethal force is possible for both sexes but more likely for men as they generally possess greater strength. If we were talking about some muscle-bound woman who was adept at cage fighting then I would likely reply in kind to a punch to the face. It is a matter of judging what is appropriate in the circumstances whether who you face is male or female, but I would repeat that same sex has a different dynamic for sure because men are generally brought up to protect women not assault them, and women often seek protection and security from men rather than the other way around.

This is a surprisingly common question on this forum. There are different ways to define what we mean by ‘philosopher’ depending on the context:

- Someone who actively studies philosophical texts with rigour (a scholar of philosophy).
- Someone who is erudite and interested in multiple fields that enjoys sharing and discussing/expressing ideas (more of a colloquial definition).
- Someone who builds ideas on previous works by philosophers with a high degree of analytic, discursive and critical thought (more of a professor/student level beyond scholarship).
- Someone interested in knowledge and information, meaning and existence and general ‘purpose’ of living/life questions without much rigour (more of an armchair philosopher or navel gazer).
- Someone actively involved in ‘spiritual’ pursuits. Be this of religious doctrines or other esoteric ideas and views.

Only two of these are technically viable whilst the others are just colloquial terms. For myself I straddle between the professional and colloquial sense. I am interested in multiple fields and have always been inclined to think and study. I have studied philosophical texts and lectures to some degree, but my over all view is not really akin to framing myself as a ‘philosopher’.

A lot of people just think they can call themselves a ‘philosopher’ because they have done a degree in philosophy or simply because they sit around thinking about things a lot. Others have themselves as a guru of sorts. Many others are failed politicians or wannabe politicians.

In a derogatory sense I guess I am more of a ‘sit around and think a lot’ person. I didn’t bother to read much actual philosophy until I was in my thirties.

I have repeatedly defined myself as a wannabe intellectual. I sometimes think I have the potential to offer up something of value to everyone … other times I view the pursuit as a whimsy. There is something egotistical involved to announcing yourself as a ‘philosopher’ I feel, but it is more or less a thankless task that is only ever really appreciated by future generations long after we’re gone (unless we get the opportunity to publish something popular or teach).

I have a general contempt for anyone calling themselves a ‘philosopher’ if I’m being brutally honest - but that is part of my anarchical nature.

‘Fighting’ doesn’t always mean physical violence though.

If a woman hit me repeatedly and wouldn’t stop I would hit her back - but not full force.

In any relationship between a man and woman if one hits the other end the relationship instantly.

In a relationship between members of the same sex the dynamics are different so violence might help relieve the situation and so I wouldn’t say it is an instant ‘end the relationship’ scenario in every case.

Note: Not quite sure what this has to do with reasons for men hating women (who hits who)?

The reasons men may hate a particular woman is pretty much the same as for why they might hate a particular man. Hating one woman does not make anyone a ‘woman hater’ … I find the idea rather ridiculous and if such a degree of hatred towards a woman existed it would likely stem from a poor relationship with their mother rather than some association with sexual intercourse.

Of course some extreme ‘feminist’ types would then accuse me of ‘blaming women’ for men’s said ‘hatred’ of women. That is nonsense. A person causes someone to hate not an entire category of people. If someone has poor relations with some/any category of people then it is fairly easy to understand why they may overextend such feelings.

I don’t know what could mean to ‘excel at being a woman’ and I stated that it is unlikely to untangle it from culture (you just chose ‘society’ as a replacement for the term ‘culture’).

I don’t think it is hard to argue that men and women are different, but sometimes people forget that compared to most species the distinctions between male and female are small in humans. We can talk about general trends but given that, psychologically speaking, men and women are far more alike than different from individual to individual it is mostly conjecture. We are better off talking about what allows humans to ‘excel’ rather than reduce humans into select categories.

If we are talking about the structure of societies we could even argue about what does and doesn’t constitute a ‘society’ and whether or not social structures inhibit certain aspects of our nature or not. It is endless.

In terms of ‘excelling’ at being a man or a woman my view is that it is completely dependent upon the circumstances said men/women find themselves in. When it comes to circumstances that tilt towards physiological differences then men and women are equipped differently.

When it comes to leadership both masculine and feminine traits serve society. The biggest error in colloquial thought is that ‘masculine’ means ‘male’ and ‘feminine’ means ‘female’. I don’t see how society can shift this thought without destroying the truth of these reasonably distinctive categories that shed light of human psychology. I see it as rather bizarre that women who act like men - buy into power structures and act aggressively and competitively) think they are empowering women … they are neither empowering women nor disempowering women, they are merely empowering the system that is already in place.

I heard an interesting, and highly speculative, idea put forth by the guy who wrote Homosapiens. He posed that males have a better psychological make up for ruling over large portions of the population (with something of a hypnotic effect). I don’t really think so myself but it did make me think about population size versus certain innate psychological traits. I do wonder if certain traits at one level cause problems in leadership roles where at another level they are a boon (in terms of sphere of influence and numbers). For example neuroticism may be extremely useful on a one-to-one basis as it can reveal difficult problems at an intimate level whereas on a large scale it would look more like mob mentality.

Levi-Strauss did a fair bit to show how different family/tribe relations can be. In one instance the mother’s brother had more of a role in bringing up the child than the father - who was more of an uncle weirdly.

The most common factor is simply down to DNA. Brothers sharing a wife makes sense as their family genes are being past on.

In communal living where mother’s and father’s are not known and children mingle they don’t tend to see each other as anything other than brothers and sisters, so that is problematic.

For any large scale society to function for prolonged periods I believe there is a need for higher than normal levels of tolerance (to differing members of said society), or rather a ‘mechanism’ in place that allows different members of a given society to adapt.

Ideas of sex, sexual orientation and sexuality are just small pieces that can cloud judgement if not considered alongside various other factors, but need to be looked at so as not to miss their importance in combination with other aspects of human interaction.

It just may be that women that excel at being women suit positions that differ from men that excel at being men … the question is then more about what exactly we could possibly mean by saying ‘excel’ here and this inevitably cannot be disentangled from cultural factors above mere physiological processes.

There is then the issue of fertility and age. Women and men are in better positions to contribute to a given society in different episodes of their lives. I think people do not tend to view the elderly in as good a light as they used to (in Western Culture especially).

To keep on track with the topic how do roles differ between older men and women? Is there less difference?

Basically, I presume matriarchy is both necessary and natural to the maintenance of a matrilineal society to at least an extent that makes it a noteworthy difference from Western culture which is patrilineal and patriarchal. — unenlightened

The history of Iceland brings this into question. To this day girls inherit their mother’s name and boys inherit their father’s name. Women also used to fight, control ships and lead others. I guess such women would be viewed as ‘patriarchal’ though because they were ‘acting as men’ or some such nonsense?

The notion of ‘power’ in matriarchal society would be more associated with qualitative potential or creative capacity than any quantifiable consolidations of potential or possession of value. The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall. — Possibility

Why? You have not presented any kind of argument here.

It would depend on the level of justification. I may sympathise with their position if their argument is articulate enough and may even be slightly swayed?

I don’t believe any of my positions (points of view, opinions and/or beliefs) should be viewed as unmovable objects.

I stated I am personally against conscription in general. The caveat being I assume there is some possible scenario that would make conscription more appealing as an idea.

Fans of Carol Adams I assume?

@Amity @Tobias

Iceland

[replyWow! Okay[r I hope for your sake that is satire.

‘Everything’ … so then it not worthy of note.

How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.

I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence).

maybe we were talking past each other? Let me know …

My stance is pretty simple.

1) Any war can be ‘justified’ and such ‘justification’ comes from a personal/collective perspective.

2) Conscription is a Law enforced by a state. Citizens can abide by the rules of law where they were born, suffer the consequences of not adhering to the laws, or leave (be this easy or hard).

3) Forced Conscription is a Law made in wartime. If I didn’t agree with the war I would leave the country most likely rather than fight back against the state. Hard to say how I would react though in reality. Other people may or may not share my views.

4) If I was the leader of a State I would not say unilaterally that I would NOT declare Forced Conscription. It would depend wholly on circumstances as I am aware there are hard choices to make and sacrifices to be made for some perceived ‘betterment’.

5) I also believe there can be scenarios where starting a war is ‘better’ than not starting a war - but I by no means see this as anything like a common occurrence NOR can I offer a historical example of such a war.

Laws are not real. I am not ‘preaching’ anything, just stating that the Laws does not have complete control over our personal choices and views, yet I concede easily that it obviously impacts upon them. I’ve had this view since adolescence and would most certainly have gone to prison rather than fight in a war when I was a teenager (I was far more stubborn back then).

Now I’m older a have a more nuanced take and understand that there could be reasons to fight, but I’m still at heart an anarchist of sorts when it comes to taking orders without question from so-called figures of authority.

If I was in my country of birth and they declared that I had to fight in a war I believe was utterly wrong I would do my upmost to flee asap. If stopped then I’m not convinced I would be staunch enough to refuse if threatened with imprisonment, torture or execution. I like to believe imprisonment maybe, torture too (depending on extent), but the execution would likely sway my hand :)

My argument is NOT that people should be forced to fight? I have no idea where you got that from. My point was that I am not saying it is inconceivable that there would be a circumstance to literally knowing send people to their slaughter. There is certainly a great, great danger within such thoughts and views BUT they are being displayed here in light of understanding there can be extreme circumstances that break the general rule.

As a general ‘rule’/‘law’ I am not for Forced Conscription at all (that should be obvious). Just because I admit there could be a situation that may contradict this does not make my position contradictory. ‘Justification’ is an extremely grey term.

Agreed. We don’t really have a choice though. We have to choose! :D

If you’re going to be silly I can stop talking? You get my point I’m sure. The idea that we are ‘forced’ is a convenient ‘excuse’ to just follow rules you don’t believe in.

Don’t get me wrong. I ‘fall in line’ everyday in one way or another and fool myself enough into thinking I ‘pick my fights’ well and with nobility. I know I’m mostly a coward though at the end of the day and maybe that knowledge will be enough one day to prevent a poor decision.

If my country was going to declare war, and I was against it wholeheartedly, then I would leave asap rather than allow the government to lock me up for refusing to fight … or so I would like to believe! Maybe in reality I would simply fall in line and pretend that I could ‘help from within’ or some such nonsense to placate my sense of self respect? Who knows.

There is a choice. Stating you were ‘forced’ to do something really just means that you refused to accept the consequences of refusing to do what you were told was right.

In one sense I was ‘forced’ to go to school, but in another sense I chose to go to school rather than suffer the consequences of playing truant in my childhood years.

Generally speaking ‘adults’ are in a slightly better position to ‘choose’ between action and inaction having developed beyond adolescence. That is not to say I think it is ‘fair’ to judge someone as ‘mature’ enough to make such decisions based merely on the number of days spent on Earth.

Does just war exist？ — Howard

That question doesn’t really make much sense to me.

There are ‘reasons’ to start a war. Any reason can seem ‘justified’ in the eye of the beholder, and I don’t find it inconceivable that a scenario could not be imagined in which a declaration of war was what I would call ‘appropriate’ - maybe a ‘global threat’ instigated by another body of people that would indirectly cause death/genocide.

In reality the chances of such hypothetical scenarios coming into play is likely really small. This is why people talk of ‘justification’ for any action. There is a need to weigh and balance the good against better and the bad against worse rather than to just assume everything as merely good versus bad (which in my personal experience does not exist other than in abstraction/delusion).

It is not literally ‘forced’. They can choose to face the consequences of refusing to play by rules they don’t agree with. Suffering is unavoidable when matters get serious.

Why do you want to contrive a scenario that might justify torturing a baby, or any one? — unenlightened

Because they are sensible and care I expect. Those not willing to do so are usually the ones more likely to actually carry out such acts because in their minds they would never do such a thing!

Torture is never justified, under any circumstance. — Tzeentch

You lack imagination :D

No. Life is not ‘fair’ though. If I did not believe in a war then I like to believe I would accept prison instead.

I believe people should fight for what they believe in. They might be right, they might be wrong. The important thing is to try your damn hardest to act as you believe is ‘best’.

I believe ‘steeling’ is wrong, yet if I ‘stole’ something to help save many innocent lives I would like to think I would do it regardless of the consequences. Doing the ‘right’ thing can be sometimes be easy and sometimes be very, very hard. The true test of character comes in the later.

I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men. — Amity

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war.

Hatred leads to violence quite often compared to anything else. Sexual relations are merely more add-ons than affecters surely?

War is more than likely started because people (men and women) often want a cause to throw themselves into. In life situations where people feel belittled and useless they crave more and more a cause to side with. War offers people an often overly simplistic way of siding with some perceived ‘good’ against an enemy.

If we look at the example of the conflict in the Ukraine we see a great many people wanting to help, and even fight and risk their lives to help. War is often brought about by a sense of higher nobility that supplants personal safety (a greater good). Sadly there don’t seem to be any black and white situations in such conflicts and inevitably the ‘noble’ cause can turn out to be tyrannical as a repercussion of investing in somethings wholeheartedly to the point where any actual ‘wrongs’ are viewed as ‘good’ again some enemy rather than measured against personal principles over the principles of the ‘cause’ being fought for (by whatever means).

@Possibility Not interested in your drivel. Bye

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology. — Possibility

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!).

What do you care soooo much about my reasons? — Olivier5

On a philosophy forum? Caring about someone’s reasoning? How strange! :D

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. — Possibility

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it).

one of us is stupid. Others can be the judge. Bye

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large.

I my personal experience of outside of western spheres of influence there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards marriage and relationships. In one way (I admit) it seems more archaic to me, but in others I can see that there are bonuses.

Refer to Bill Burr on reasons to hit a woman (comedy but it does highlight a problem). Is it naive to assume it is all about sexual domination as women can, and do, objectify men just as much as men objectify women - physically, dues to social status and intellect too.

I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion, but point out merely that it is not limited to governments and nation states. — unenlightened

I know. I framed the colloquial meaning as being more about state/nationhood. If you don’t agree that’s fine.