...to do things without offending/harming a single soul? — Agent Smith

Millions of tiny organisms die just so you can breathe. To say nothing of those who must die so that you can eat.

'so it is with women: [...] 'Ah, you want us to be merely objects of sensuality - all right, as objects of sensuality we will enslave you.'
— Dworkin, "Intercourse"

What Dworkin says here is basically what I outlined in the initial post of this thread. — _db

Bah. I don't believe this. I find men generally to be too aloof toward women for the above kind of reasoning to apply.

Let me try to give you a clearer picture of how many women argue. It’s honestly not about winning arguments - it’s about getting him to recognise that his supposedly ‘rationally justified’ position is distorted by affect before he’s even chosen his words. It may appear rational in his head, but it is impossible to present it as such. Because there is an established structure of affect between them that cannot be ignored, isolated or excluded in ANY interaction. Especially in disagreements. Every time he presents an isolated rational argument against her position, he disregards this. So, in order to bring this aspect of the interaction back to his attention, she presents the affected structure of her position, which he interprets as ‘crazy shit’ because it has no logical (or temporal) relation to his argument. That’s true, it doesn’t - but that’s honestly not the point. The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding. — Possibility

People are generally like that, this isn't limited to men-women interactions.

The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding.

Which happens when one or both of them don't actually want to be in the relationship, but refuse to acknowledge this and to act accordingly. This is also a tactic to break up a relationship, or the individual interaction; it's a tactic intended to create psychological distance between people (which can then translate into physical distance).

Burr’s statement that “there are plenty of reasons to hit a woman” is deliberately worded to rationally justify the potential for violence against women without inciting actual violence. And if you’ve ever witnessed how that potential for violence, hatred, etc is used to force compliance from a woman without ever hitting her, then you would understand how sinister it can be.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men.

Here’s a tip: acknowledge affect as a significant aspect of the interaction, and construct a mutual reasoning with this in mind.

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level.

The main delusions here are that a man is the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and women have subjective intention ONLY in relation to him. This assumption gives the false impression that a woman’s actions are determined in a necessary relation to men. Men who delude themselves that their own intentions are entirely rational, maintain this delusion by projecting all their fears and desires onto the world as external ‘forces’ against his rationality. A man acts on his reasoning, but a woman acts on her relation to a man’s desires? Nope. It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts.

Is it too much to recognise that both men and women act on AFFECT, translated from reasoning and inclusive of fears and desires? The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so - a man’s fears or desires are NOT a woman’s manipulation, responsibility, or fault. His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women. — Possibility

I think this is how people are in general, so I would replace all "man" and "woman" in your text with "person". Ie.

Each person tends to think of themselves as the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and other peoplen have subjective intention ONLY in relation to them. (And amended for the rest of your text.)

Yeah it's an all-too-common phenomenon that women are physically abused by men for not conforming to the expectations projected upon them by men. If you don't see women as people with intentions of their own then when they seem to express these intentions, they must be violently put back in their place. — _db

Men treat other men that way as well. Women treat other women that way too. It's how parents treat their children, employers their employees, teachers their students, the government its citizens.
It's a basic pattern of power dynamics among people. (It extends to how they treat animals as well.)

The actual use of physical force seems to be more a matter of convenience and the actual differences in physical prowess in any given situation.

I take objectification to mean the fixation/fetishization of the parts of a person's body and the ignoring of the person to whom this body belongs. Objectifying women == perceiving her as meat to be fucked in whatever way. — _db

But women objectify themselves and other women in this same way. Pick up pretty much any "women's" magazine, book, tv show, seminar, webinar, and there it is: "see yourself as a piece of meat to be fucked".

It's a bit of a stretch to say that women do this because they are the poor victims of patriarchy.

The West and the Ukraine, from the onset. They default to viewing Russia as the enemy and Putin as a monster. They've done so for a long time.

Genre. Do read up on it. It should answer our OP question.

I think the initial idea behind ‘romantic love’ was quickly subsumed. It originally refers to a recognition of non-commutable values in perceived potential: the quantitative efforts of a knight in relation to the qualitative values of beauty and nobility. It was turned into a value transaction: on one hand it was an opportunity for women to effect change, but it quickly became an expectation that beauty and nobility - values a woman possessed in her own right - can be reduced to a quantifiable potential or value. With women prevented from also possessing economic, political or even academic potential, any quantifiable value they were deemed to possess was subject to negotiations by the men around them. — Possibility

Where in the world (geographically) did this take place?

Thank you for clarifying. It was because in the OP you expound the men's reasoning ("key reasons", "Hence why..") without pointing out any faults in it. In the OP you don't seem to concur with the reasoning and you don't seem to reject it. So it's uncritical. It's worryingly uncritical because it leaves open the possibility that you concur. — Cuthbert

You're on this ice here.
Psychology works with statistical averages as the normative. That which is statistically average is the norm that all must comply with (lest they get branded as abnormal).
If the type of behavior as described in the OP is found to be statistically average, then it is normative, normal, and thus not to be criticized.

That's why Odin invented links!

Edited for missing word.

We should not worship a God who shows favoritism. — stressyandmessy

What good is a god who doesn't show favoritism?

But unlike the mother, God has complete control over the qualities that define and are part of each of its "children" that it creates. — Harry Hindu

That's Hindu thinking. It's unintelligible to someone with a Christian (or generally, Abrahamic) background.

I'm talking about the genre of a text, and your apparent inability to recognize it.

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

you don't get to decide if someone invades you or not — jorndoe

Sometimes, you do, and sometimes, you do have some say in the terms of engagement, even if you're the weaker party.

The only ones one really has to fear are those who value only things money can buy and who dismiss everything else. One is in even graver danger if one is that way oneself.

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism. — Wayfarer

You can't negotiate with bad faith. It's why the whole thing started anyway: a party that makes clear that they are only willing to deal in bad faith makes thereby clear that they understand only one thing: lethal force.

But what could philosophy do with real life urgent questions? — Ansiktsburk

Suck up to the capitalists or otherwise play to their advantage, as usual.

What does advertizing and fame have to do with the genre of a text?

Yes. I have no moral duty to put myself at risk of harm or to harm others. — Michael

You don't pay others enough to do it for you, though.

Not sure the percentages are correct, but something like that it might be. There are huge differences. — ssu

Which is which? Red tones are for yes, or for no to the question at the top?

Why shoulldn't the Biblia Sacra be considered a(n) (unsually long) Zen koan? — Agent Smith

Because it is not advertised as one and it does not classifiy itself as a Zen koan.

Nor is it advertised or does is classify itself as a logico-philosophical tractatus. (If it did, then we would be justified to expect a rigid internal consistency from it, at the very minimum.)

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. — _db

A man who can be thusly overpowered isn't much of a man, then.

Question: Is the Biblia Sacra one long frigging Zen koan? — Agent Smith

If it would be advertised and classifiy itself as a logico-philosophical tractatus, then, perhaps.

But it is not and it does no such thing. It's a collection of witness testimonies, tribal histories, personal histories, didactic aphorisms, poetry, prophecies, mystic visions, ... Which makes it clear that its genre is definitely not that of a logico-philosophical tractatus and that it shouldn't be read as such.

Why spend one's time with whatever just any person claims is true about hell and how to get there?

Actual religions have actual doctrines, and those are what one should refer to; everything else is just personal opinion.

You're missing that the various experessions of this qualitative variability still all function on the same platform, namely that of craving.
— baker

No, they don’t - that’s only because you assume all forms of expression are a craving, a dissatisfaction with the world. But have you considered that many expressions of qualitative variability in the human condition don’t reach your attention, specifically because they are not an expression of craving, or not requiring your interaction? Are we aware of human expressions of inclusive collaboration with the world, or are we attune only to suffering? — Possibility

I think you underestimate craving, tanha.

What attracts our attention is usually tied to our perceived potential - our capacity to interact intentionally with the world. But in moments when we are genuinely doing nothing, fully awake and alert (such as in meditation),

That's not "meditation", that's zoning out.

we are able to explore a more complete awareness of reality, inclusive of what has no need of our potential to interact. I’m not saying this is an easy state to reach, and there is certainly plenty on our radar to pull our attention back to what society says we ‘should’ be striving for. But both Buddhism and Taoism encourage an intentional stillness or emptiness that enables us to embody the quality and logic of reality, without striving. In this state, we relate to the possibility for energy to flow freely, the possibility of no suffering - and with this develop an awareness of our own creative capacity to intentionally

minimise suffering in the way we connect and collaborate.

Early Buddhism isn't interested in merely minimizing suffering. It proposes a complete cessation of suffering. This makes it a whole other category than what many other paths teach.

The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy.

That's not Early Buddhism, just to be clear, and not to misuse terminology.

I’m simply saying that there is more to a conscious existence than you are describing here, and choosing not to follow a particular socio-cultural agenda does not necessarily entail premature death, pessimism or antinatalism. — Possibility

You'll need to spell this out. What other options are there?
In specific terms, please, not just anything that might fall under "awareness, connection, collaboration".

Reading and listening to music is increasing awareness. Talking with others and most discussions of philosophy are connection. Collaboration is maximising a collective efficiency of limited resources. — Possibility

All this is still firmly in the realm of craving, tanha. The craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, and the craving for non-becoming.

(Your project is based on what is sometimes termed "the third-and-a-half noble truth: suffering is manageable".)

I know it's an idiom. I simply thought the idiom didn't sit right. People can be content or cheerful when you think they should be miserable. — Tom Storm

Which is a potential indicator that happiness cannot be found "outside".

The afore-mentioned assumption is that people should do things that they enjoy, that they are "passionate" about, and that one's whole life can and should be filled with such things as much as possible.
— baker

As opposed to the assumption that people should do things they hate and are indifferent to.

No, no such opposition. The idea is that doing things that one finds pleasurable (in the broadest sense of the word) cannot actually make one happy. Ie. that it's in the nature of doing worldly things that they cannot satisfy. (This is also the theme in Ecclesiastes, so it's not some "esoteric Eastern" notion.)

Ha, I get it. But I am not a Buddhist, and actually think that Schop's attempt to point to asceticism is too optimistic, believe it or not. There is no escape.. — schopenhauer1

Mere asceticism doesn't solve the problem, indeed.

And even if there was, my grip remains.. We are at X place, and we need to be at Y place (Enlightenment), that in itself is a situation I find troubling.. The origin I place squarely on being a human born into the world as humans develop "selves" by mere fact of our species relation with language and the environment.

Need, need, need, must, must, must. You have such a compulsion around all this.
Birth is compulsory, making an effort is compulsory, compulsion is compulsory ... A fullblown compulsory compulsion.


You could, perhaps, cut all this compulsory compulsion short, and conclude that existence itself is burdensome. Much like Early Buddhism or Ecclesiastes.

A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. — dclements

Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?!

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here) — Bitter Crank

I think the main reasons why so many people have such difficulty understanding Putin are these:

1. The very concept of "benevolent ruler" has become unintelligible to them. To them, it's a contradiction in terms. They do not believe that a benevolent ruler can even exist.

2. They are so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even imagine that someone else might not.

For both of these, democarcy is to blame. Democracy effectively absolves everyone (the voters and the elected) from any and all responsibility for the situation in the election jurisdiction, on account that responsibility is so dispersed that no single person can be meaningfully held responsible for anything.
Secondly, it encourages people to think in simplistic black and white terms, us vs. them. Thirdly, it lowers the political discourse onto the level of a battle of wills, with little or no consideration given to the quality of the proposals of each party. Fourthy, and most perniciously, it teaches people to understand only one thing: lethal force.

I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. That’s why he said it would depend on the situation on the ground, i.e., on his requests being met. — Apollodorus

Yes.
The West is so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even conceive that someone else would not do the same.

An Ukrainian drone fell down in Croatia.
One theory is that it was intended for Yarun, Ukraine, but that the navigators might have been using Google Maps, typed in Jarun, and that led it to Jarun, Croatia, about a 1,000 km off.

How the 6 tonnes drone was able to fly across the airspace of at least two Nato countries without being detected remains a mystery.

But you've been examining this scheme for years ... And to what effect?


I think of this:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

You're conjecturing about topics that fall into the category of "the origin of the world", and you're quite predictably, vexed by doing so.

Perhaps you're not quite vexed enough yet ...

Incidentally, the swastika was used by many countries — Apollodorus

The swastika symbol /.../ is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
/.../
In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s

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

Right, but getting to nirvana is a sort of discipline no? — schopenhauer1

If by "discipline", you mean something like a 'systematic effort', then yes.

I’m saying this is one more burden, one of the do (not do) of Buddhism.

A burden only the willing shoulder. It's kind of silly to sit next to the "burden" and gripe about it.

If there’s a delusion of self there’s being non deluded but that takes X thing that one must deal with like everything else from being born at all..hence my pessimism of even Buddhism which ironically is a kind of path forward from its own pessimistic evaluations

I don't know how to help you any longer. It seems like you're at a crossroads and decisive action is required on your part ...

I don't think that's it at all. Personally I don't drink, am indifferent to food and rarely go out. — Tom Storm

It's an idiom.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/eat-drink-and-be-merry

The afore-mentioned assumption is that people should do things that they enjoy, that they are "passionate" about, and that one's whole life can and should be filled with such things as much as possible.

And secondly, that in a normal person, this constant pursuit of pleasure (here pleasure is understood in a broad sense, it can mean eating, drinking, partying, or listening to classical music, bungee-jumping, or volunteering, etc. etc.) is 1. possible, and 2. inherently satisfying. Some (such as Schopenhauer and Early Buddhism) would say that these two points are not true.

That wasn't grand, that was underhanded.

Boredom --pathological one--is more like apathy. Nothing can interest you or make sense to you. It's close to death. Temporary, transient boredom is of course a totally different thing.
— Alkis Piskas

To me that sounds like depression. — Tom Storm

Or maybe the widely held and tabooed assumption that life is for eating, drinking, and making merry, is not justified.

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. Or let's say the US response to the war in Ukraine makes this obvious. — ssu

Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor?

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. There's multitude ways to try to influence things, but annexing parts of another countries simply isn't one.

Bad faith always wins. Always.

they report from behind the frontline, on the effects on the civilians. — Olivier5

Democracy comes with a price.

Only under a dictator would civilians be innocent. Under a democratically elected leader, they are all accountable.

So you're saying that because the Russians are liars, Ukraine (who obviously never told a lie in their lives, and probably are being considered for beatification as we speak) can't negotiate. You're basically saying that the only situation in which two sides can negotiate peace is one in which there's no propaganda. Do you realise what a hawkish position that is? You're basically advocating full on war for every dispute until one side is utterly wasted. — Isaac

Hardly a new attitude in the human scope. In the discourse of this recent crisis there is plenty of textbook cases of psychological defense mechanisms ... Or maybe it's all just about what people really want.