Why is it masculine to be cruel and domineering, and feminine to be loving and tempering though? I prefer to think of both in neutral, rather than such charged ways.

I doubt that women are good and tempering, and men are violent and domineering. I thought they were capable of the same things, and not that different? That pesky empathy making us partial to things we find attractive, and neglectful or hostile to things we don't is more likely the culprit.

Maybe, but having high openness does predict that you'd end up somewhere like this.

It's probably personality related. We took those big five personality tests recently, and all scored pretty high in openness, which is related with creativity. Men that score high on openness generally are interested in ideas, whereas women that do are generally interested in aesthetics.

Look at this place, it isn't exact all that gender diverse, you're pretty much expressing your masculinity by posting here, when you think about it.

Remember that society is just people, not some entity, and we're all products and producers of it. The claim then becomes a misanthropic, self-apologizing one, in which most are deceived and tyrannical, and we're victims of their oppression, and expectations. We, entirely unbiased, lovers of all ideas, expressions, identities, in no way check, expect, or impose opinions and ideologies, as we are altogether above such things.

There are plenty of positive masculine images.

The mechanist
The sage
The Prince
The athlete
The Craftsman
The Father
The Warrior
The Good King

There are a few. That men are all about rampant violence and sexual assault (except for me, I'm the white knight to protect all the women from them) brings nothing but stasis. In order to properly criticize something like this, I think that it has to be done in a system of polarities. The shadow, corrupted, immature, borderline, developed, skilled, veteran, master expressions of them, and cannot be denigrated or destroyed entirely, that leaves only stasis, confusion, and aimlessness.

i don't agree with everything they're saying. I agree that truth and objectivity are possible, but that doesn't mean that they, or I have attained it. Particularly the part about empathy favoring the cute, and not the ugly, and we can't have that. Are they then beyond that, and really don't trouble themselves with such human concerns, their significant others could look, and smell like a rotting corpse for all they care? They certainly have not transcended their emotions, and animalistic inclinations. Life is fundamentally different for Frankenstein than it is for a rock star. Just not killing them, perhaps telling them how beautiful they are out of pity will never change that. Their experiences of the world, and society will be fundamentally different. Monsters are made, by being treated as such. You can't understand another's position without walking in their shoes and all that. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone that imagines a class of people that are cruel and foolish, and themselves enlightened and good. That it was solely reason that was responsible for the changes over time is clearly not true. It's way more complex than that, rather than the ignorant masses running around being stupid and evil until supermen showed up to save them, most people, just as today were just living their lives, and sometimes killing people by accident because they were drunk, or out of passion. The people are utilized as pieces with deception coercion, or necessity. Either some political, religious, or hatemongering ideology, or because they were starving or in the midst of a disaster.

I do definitely believe in truth, and goodness, but I think that is damn hard to attain. I think that religions are the greatest sources of them. Thinking that they were ignorant plebs, and us brilliant moderns until the even more brilliant future people come along pays our ancestors a great disservice. It wasn't just reason itself, but the emotional maturity that is capable through the refinement, and transformations of our natures through the virtues espoused in all great religions.

Reason, truth, is universal in my view, not us, and not ours. We are those emotions, and through reason, can be transformed, but we have to listen.

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason#t-114294

That's a pretty good little animation, and a great little discussion.

That categories are real and true, and the universe is ultimately knowable by the mind.

I'm something of a fan of the Gnostic ascetics that were neoplatonists, but were murdered and silenced.

Our beliefs effect our attitudes and behaviors, and I think probably the inverse as well.

His "corrupting of the youth" was actually demonstrated in at least one case. He told a blacksmith's (I believe it was) son that he was doing the same work as slaves, and was better than that. The guy then became dissatisfied with his work with is father, as one would, but couldn't figure out what else to do, and took to drinking, and self-destructed basically.

Hegel actually argues that the Athenians demonstrated every single accusations they waged against him.

Entropy describes the inert, the dead matter, but life is the opposite. The universe began in a state of maximum order. We are trying to conqueror death in every moment. We're all born heroes, trying to save our worlds. Describe it in any terms you want to, that we're all going to die anyway has always been the nihilistic imposition on life. The hope, and the goal in every single moment, has always been that death is conquerable, even ultimately conquerable.

That death is inevitable, and unconquerable, eternal, and the ultimate reality is quitter talk.

I didn't mean it to be like a criticism, or putting him down. I just thought it was funny is all. We all put Edison down though, fuck that guy.

Life fundamentally creates, and is negentropy, and only aims towards entropy in desperate, or unpraiseworthy states. Why isn't life here to save the world? It fits fine within your model, and is both physically, and emotionally how we operate, yo.

Sorry about the videoes, can't help myself...

He said that because of all of the slave driving of his employees that he took all of the credit for their inventions from.

I happen to be Chinese today. — szardosszemagad

Is what you said. I'm not so low in reading comprehension as much as that is low in intelligiblity. A lot of interpretation was involved, I assumed it meant that you were Chinese, both that day and every other. It could have also meant that you were in Chinese, neither one in anyway would suggest that "therefore you'd know" as it implied.

I didn't know what you meant by you saying that they do, and me saying they don't. I wasn't purposefully misinterpreting you. I switched the dos and don'ts, because I thought that I was saying that people do stuff... I don't know what I said that people don't do.

Nah, I don't like to talk about things in a removed fashion, as if doing so renders me immune. We're all biased, and acknowledging that doesn't in any sense render us less so.

I don't think that people grasp the implications of anthropomorphizing reason. To strip teleology from the cosmos. That leaves only chaos.

You mean that you say that they don't use teleological language? You're just uninformed then. You can posture against facts all you like, if you're just after persuasion, that may work for some.

I just showed that that is clearly not true. Basically all moderns are totes against teleology, and all over explaining it away in biology, and theorizing about a biology devoid of teleological language, and explaining it away, but none of that has actually happened. Biology is still ripe with teleological language. Even Dennett and Dawkins address their frequent uses of it, and attempt to explain it away, and rationalize it, but still do it.

People love rendering the opposing position as ridiculously, and unbelievably as possible, they really love to learn fuck all.

Read it closer, and not just cherry pick out the things that you believe only supports your position, and miss the point, before saying too much? That's what I'd do.

There is a sense in which teleology itself becomes overextended, and restrictive, and that is when we think not only are things for certain purposes, but only for those purposes, and nothing else. That's clearly absurd as well, but so is the antithesis.

That evolution occurred is difficult to deny... but to completely remove teleology from biology gets incoherent, and absurd pretty quickly. Nothing is for anything then, and no traits exist in order to bring about future results. There is no reason, or intention behind anything. Wings are no more for flying than literally anything else, teeth are not for biting or chewing or anything like that. That's just nonsense talk. Projecting your dirty primate rationality onto the meaningless universe, yo.

I'm going to guess that you just don't know... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Hey, I gave that lots of people can say it doesn't... but people can say many things that they can't actually do.

Every biologist. Lots of people can nod in the direction that it doesn't, but name any actual text on the subject that isn't ripe with teleological language. Even Dennett uses "free floating rationality". You can't talk about biology without teleology.

I simply utilize my 12th level intellect to discern all the ancient secrets 's'all.

It's not true, light speed is only constant in a vacuum, it varies in speed while moving through any medium. Scientific concepts tend to take place removed from most conditions in, a more or less theoretical void... So the opposite of that is actually true.

Monkey's aren't random, eh. There is nothing stopping them from typing just "s" for eternity.

Omg, I did it!

That's because he's an emotionless kyubey that lacks hope!



Why doesn't the image thing ever work?

Yup, politics is definitely what happens when you're bored and not busy with your own life... you become interested and controlling of everyone else'.