Please do me a favor, Agustino, and don't do me any favors. — Arkady

And that is supposed to mean what exactly? :-}

Indeed, "pop culture" and media lately seem to be producing a steady stream of works in which a strong female is the protagonist (the two most recent Star Wars films come to mind, for example). — Arkady

Yes no wonder, the feminazis from Hollywood are in power... :-}

It is the male view that it is right for men to dominate, for men especially to dictate what is right for men and for women — unenlightened

I disagree with this.

So respect is more of a virtue for women, and arrogance is less of a vice for men to take one of your examples. — unenlightened

I wouldn't agree with this.

And the circle is complete. It ought to be so because it is so, and if ever it isn't so it ought to be so because it is so. — unenlightened

Yes - it's the only way things can work and last. You're free to think otherwise and try it, but don't blame me when you'll fail :) The proof is in the pudding.

Why should they be more accentuated in the one than in the other? — Michael

Because by their nature men and women are so constituted to complement each other.

I understand you to be saying that womanly virtues are different from manly virtues in their expression; that women should behave differently than men. Have I got that wrong? — unenlightened

No that is wrong. Men and women have the same virtues, however, different accents are placed on different virtues for each. For example, a man being courageous is emphasised more than a woman being courageous. But a woman being compassionate is emphasised more than a man being compassionate - although both of these are virtues that belong to both. But they should be more accentuated in the one than in the other.

The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation — Michael

Still abstract and vague. The fact women are less likely to be involved in politics isn't even something to be bothered by. You need additional assumptions for that. We have had prominent women leaders through history. Cleopatra, Queen Seondeok, Lady Mishil, Joan D'Arc, etc.

The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children. — Michael

Right, and that's bad no? >:O Housework and raising children is inferior to having a career, right? >:O

Violence: women are more prone to being abused — Michael

Being more prone doesn't also mean they are abused more. But yes, this is or can be a problem.

Paid work: women are likely to be paid less — Michael

Ok, she should be paid equally for equal work.

Sexuality: women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively — Michael

It should be treated the same as a man's - promiscuity should never be encouraged or respected.

It is immoral for a woman to be and do what it is a virtue for a man to be and do — unenlightened

Right. So decency is immoral for a woman because it is moral for a man. great

You like the other progressives, rally your followers under these abstract definitions who no one knows what they really mean. You forget about the world as it exists concretely. You forget what patriarchy concretely stands for. What does a woman rebel against when she rebels against patriarchy? Is it a rebellion against decency? If not, then why does she go almost naked on the streets? What are these people? Tell me bruv... what are these?

No, patriarchy "is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property."1 — Michael

I won't give two taels for your abstract definition. What does this practically, in concreto, mean? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be decent people and take into account the feelings of their families? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be respectful instead of arrogant? Does it mean that women are encouraged to be chaste, instead of promiscuous? Is that a form of lacking in "social privilege"? :-}

Oh but see if you just define it differently then the other thing won't exist because that's how reality works see. — StreetlightX

"Renounce the bong, and it will be a hundread times better for everyone" - adaptation from the Tao Te Ching X-)

In truth, what is meant by patriarchy is really lumping virtues under a word with oppressive connotations. What patriarchy really stands for is discipline, respect, devotion, love and filial piety. Those who are against patriarchy are against the intimacy that is possible between a man and a woman when they are devoted to each other in marriage.

The old ways may be gone, but they're coming back, bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

My generation is too soon to be trying to see what women can be when they're free of patriarchy. — Mongrel

To be "free" of patriarchy is codename for being immoral and not worrying about it. Obligations freely chosen are part of freedom, and it would destroy freedom itself to destroy such obligations.

In my lifetime the old ways were mostly gone, but the ghost of patriarchy was still there. — Mongrel

>:O

I mean - there's a difference between being conflictual and being an idiot no? >:O

You must know, as "a very conflictual person... I enjoy conflicts" that conflicts can be extremely risky -- not that one will necessarily be shot (except if you live in Chicago) but one is more likely to get fired, passed over for promotion, demoted, shunned, etc. if one is too conflictual. — Bitter Crank

I don't fight battles that I'm certain to lose now, that would be silly no? I have a new client who hates Trump for example, and I had to listen to him yesterday for ~30mins ranting about Trump related things. Of course I kept my mouth shut, nod the head and agreed with him, otherwise I'm sure I would've lost the job >:O

Heister are you also #feminazi dear? :-}

Are you fucking kidding me? — Mongrel

She's a #feminazi ;)

No, but I said "sorry" so all is fine. — Emptyheady

>:O Sure, I don't mind. I actually did accidentally hit flag on yours lol

Women avoid excessive risk taking, and women are less likely to put up with living in a laboratory, making morning toast on a bunsen burner. Getting to the top appears to require laser focus on THE GOAL. But most men also don't take excessive risks, and like to be free in the evenings, and don't enjoy bureaucratic dog fights that much. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if it's just the risk... I've known women who are big risk takers, and fearless in the face of risk, so long as that risk doesn't include becoming directly engaged in conflict with other people.

I myself for example, am not a big risk taker. I'm a coward when it comes to risk, I want certainty. So I'm not sure that men are "bigger risk takers".

So did I, sorry. — Emptyheady

>:O Was it accidental?

Women in general seem to be unwilling to put in the same level of effort, commitment and sacrifice as men when it comes to excelling. — m-theory

It's not this. Rather they do what it takes to avoid conflict. Women hate conflict, at least most of them do. I'm a very conflictual person, I enjoy conflicts, and I see this quite frequently in women. They back down easily. Even men do, but they first put up some resistance.

Well I did actually accidentally flag it LOL no jokes. >:O

Heh, heh, heh. I accidentally flagged your comment. — Bitter Crank

Which one? X-)

Lol I accidentally flagged your comment man... sorry :-#

The people on the top (or out there in the .001% of high achievement) clawed, bought, or bullied their way to the top. It takes more than genius--it takes balls. And connections don't hurt, either. Most women don't have balls, but a few do. — Bitter Crank

I agree >:O genius!

Opportunity cost is a fundamental economic principle, an objective fact of life, not the fault of any institution. Many women can't fathom that, which is a shame but not a surprise. Only one woman got a Nobel prize in economics so far, compared to 73 men. — Emptyheady

It's THE fundamental economic - or better said business - principle. Every choice is a negation.

Men should be less ambitious and successful, so that we can become more equal. — Emptyheady

What's the point of being equal? How boring that would be...

Was Adolf onto something? — Emptyheady

No. Adolf Hitler was a progressive, and just like other progressives, he had ideas which were obviously crazy. Only that the progressives never realise their ideas are crazy, until it's too late. Just like today. God bless us that we got rid of Obama and Crooked Hillary >:O Those lunatics would have destroyed America!

Well it is a fact that Jewish people have done very well in terms of science historically. Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynmann, von Neumann, Steven Weinberg, maybe even Isaac Newton actually but the latter isn't certain.

But this doesn't mean they're oppressing the rest of us. It means that they're very well-organised, they work well together, they are very interested in science and learning from a young age. We should actually follow their example and make ourselves better!

It's the norms of study that I have a beef with, along with the norms of training that come from them. The fact is we do mind being different, and we mind others being different even more. That is why we want to measure and classify each other all the time. — unenlightened

But surely that's also part of understanding each other - understanding how it is we're different.

... is a bit of a waste of time, like studying the existence of obvious differences between chalk and cheese. One might wonder at cheesemongers bigging up the statistics on how much calcium there is in cheese. — unenlightened

Yes but it's still another area of study that should be approached normally, instead of with fear. Why should we mind being different? It's only if you presuppose that men are superior, that women being different becomes insulting. And indeed it's only if one presupposes that men are superior, that training women to behave like men becomes reasonable...

:-} Great. Now even studying the existence of obvious differences between men and women is sexist, because... you're not assuming they are equal in all respects. Great inquiry blocking logic! >:O

Kant liked to deflect away from himself and personal questions, and only ever gave vague, dismissive comments about his personal life. He definitely was ashamed of something. Like the least was wrong with him from what I could tell. Why so obsessed with being good? Why books over people? — Wosret

Kant was quite possibly a virgin all his life, with little to no interest in sex for the sake of pleasure.

I work with young girls from disadvantaged backgrounds — TimeLine

Good job :)

"No woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophical traditions" — Emptyheady

I think there have been some women holding this status - Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Simone Weil, etc.

I do not consider Arendt, Nussbaum significant and/or original -- neither Foot or Anscombe. They are certainly not on the level of Kant and Hume. — Emptyheady

That they are not the level of Kant or Hume that is certain. But that doesn't mean they aren't great philosophers. Kant and Hume, just like Wittgenstein, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Aquinas, etc. these people are unique - they are on an entirely different level. When we speak of philosophers, we don't speak of those very rare few only. Probably nobody in the whole world (whether they be male or female) today is at the same level as those people, and that alone speaks volumes.

In addition to this, men have often had access through history to education first - meaning that women only got the chance if there were sufficient resources left after educating men. And education was never culturally emphasised for women. Even today, education is only emphasised for women in-so-far as they are told to get a degree so that they can be given a job, not to learn for learning's sake. Furthermore, society, since women were directly needed for reproduction, has always had a much stronger interest in indoctrinating women to unthinkingly join the masses and adhere to social indoctrination - even today. As Schopenhauer said:

"If a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.”

You said "Why Democracy?" -- I gave a reason for why Democracy. What I did not give a reason for was "Why is Democracy better than Constitutional Monarchy", much less "Why is Democracy better than Agustino's vision of Constitutional Monarchy" -- What I had to work with was ,after all, "Fuck Democracy -- why democracy?" — Moliere

OK :)

One reason why you might desire a Democratic nation, though, is that you can criticism said nation without retaliation from the nation -- even if your criticisms are merely restatements of conviction. — Moliere

And who said a constitutional monarchy would involve retaliation from the nation? Who said Aristocracy would entail retaliation from the nation? Really this is nothing but the democratic meme that all non-democratic regimes are totalitarian >:O

Insofar that public expression is valuable then Democracy is valuable to that end. — Moliere

Public expression of what is wrong and immoral is not valuable at all, and must be limited, not given free reign as in democracy. This is exactly Plato's criticism. Democracy gives free reign to what is worse in man - and since the majority of men are low and weak, democracy ends up being a downward force, like a big weight hanging on someone's neck while they're trying to swim and save their lives.

For most of us that means more power, since most of us are not in charge -- so it's also just a basic self-interest for the majority to be in favor of Democracy when we do, in fact, have people in charge. — Moliere

Yes more power to engage in vice and destruction.

Further, Democracy can change with the times — Moliere

Yes it becomes worse. The average level is always pulled down by the more and more influential plebs - and I'm not speaking of plebs in terms of their financial status, but in terms of their lack of culture and morality, and their weakness.

Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority — Wikipedia on Plato

Alternative tyrants — Punshhh

:s No, I actually said timocracy as Plato discussed it. Did you actually read my post where I quoted the Wikipedia article on Plato's political philosophy?

So, are facts always true? — Question

Only if you assume that to be is also to be true.

And what are 'facts' exactly? — Question

States of affairs.

Can the fact that Joe believes it isn't raining outside, while it is actually raining outside be thought to be true? — Question

The truth of the two facts is independent from each other. The fact that Joe believes so and so is referring to what his beliefs are. The fact that it is raining outside is referring to what the states of affairs outside are. So yes, surprise surprise, but Joe could actually have wrong beliefs >:O

What a cheat... when I prove him wrong by showing him how Trump doesn't qualify as a tyrant, but instead would qualify as a superior form of government, he goes on with the liberal memes :-}

Really Wayfarer - stop peddling liberal shit without using your head. I gave you something to read. I didn't give it to you for nothing. Go back to reading it, and tell me where does Trump fit? And tell me also, why do your worship democracy?

You really do come across as a Putin troll, you do know that, don't you? — Wayfarer

:-} Since you don't bother yourself to read anything that I give you, I might as well write it out for you:

A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[1] The governors of timocracy value power, which they seek to attain primarily by means of military conquest and the acquisition of honors, rather than intellectual means. Plato characterizes timocracy as a mixture of the elements of two different regime types — aristocracy and oligarchy. Just like the leaders of Platonic aristocracies, timocratic governors will apply great effort in gymnastics and the arts of war, as well as the virtue that pertains to them, that of courage. They will also be contemptuous towards manual activities and trade, and will lead a life in public communion. Just like oligarchs, however, they will yearn for material wealth and will not trust thinkers to be placed in positions of power. Timocrats will have a tendency to accumulate wealth in pernicious ways, and hide their possessions from public view. They will also be spendthrift and hedonistic.Because their voluptuous nature will not be, like that of philosopher-kings, pacified in a philosophical education, law can only be imposed onto them by means of force.

For Plato, timocracies were clearly superior to most regimes that prevailed in Greece in his time, which were mostly oligarchies or democracies. Crete and Sparta are two examples of timocracies given in Plato's Republic. In the Symposium, Sparta's founder, Lycurgus, is given high praise for his wisdom. And both Crete and Sparta continued to be held in admiration by Plato in one of his latest works, the Laws, for having constitutions which, unlike that of most other Greek cities, go beyond mere enumeration of laws, and focus instead on the cultivation of virtues (or at least one of them, that of courage). Plato, however, does present a criticism against those cities — that their constitutions neglected two other virtues essential to a perfectly just city such as his aristocracy, namely wisdom and moderation.

Of the man who represents a timocratic state, Socrates says that his nature is primarily good: He may see in his father (who himself would correspond to an aristocractic state) a man who doesn't bother his soul with power displays and civil disputes, but instead busies himself only with cultivating his own virtues. However, that same young man may find in other persons in his house a resentment of the father's indifference to status. Thus, by observing his father and listening to his reasoning, he's tempted to the flourishing of his own intellect and virtues; but influenced by others in his house or city, he may become power craving. He thus assents to the portion of his soul that is intermediate between reason and desire (see Plato's tripartite theory of soul), the one that is aggressive and courageous (thus the timocracy's military character).

As to the man whose character reflects that of an oligarchy, Plato explains his psychology with a similar scheme to the one used for the timocratic man. Just like Plato explains the timocratic character as the result of social corruption of a parent aristocratic principle, the oligarch is explained as deriving from a timocratic familial background. Thus, at first, the oligarchic son emulates his timocratic father, being ambitious and craving honor and fame. When, however, he witnesses the problems his father faces due to those timocratic tendencies — say, he wastes public goods in a military campaign, and then is brought before the court, losing his properties after trial —, the future oligarch becomes poor. He then turns against the ambitions he had in his soul, which he now sees as harmful, and puts in their place craving for money, instead of honor, and a parsimonious cautiousness. Such men, the oligarchs, live only to enrich themselves, and through their private means they seek to fulfill only their most urgent needs. However, when in charge of public goods, they become quite 'generous'.

Oligarchs do, however, value at least one virtue, that of temperance and moderation — not out of an ethical principle or spiritual concern, but because by dominating wasteful tendencies they succeed in accumulating money. Thus even though he has bad desires — which Plato compares to the anarchic tendencies of the poor people in oligarchies - by virtue of temperance the oligarch manages to establish a fragile order in his soul. Thus the oligarch may seem, at least in appearance, superior to the majority of men.