Philosophical Ramblings Thread

[Montmorency]

My impression of contemporary feminism is that it is rotten to the core with sociologism and libertarianism, but there is still something of value in it.

The full economic and cultural potential of women can not be realized with current assumptions and expectations in place. Gender roles/valuations between and within genders must be re-examined, but above all must be given space to change so that the "feminine" is not restricted to low-value activities and so that (typically "feminine") low-value activities can be more appreciated reflective of their true contribution.

We must completely rewrite our approach to sexual or intimate violence and coercion. Aside from the impinging of aforementioned gender roles, there are general cultural norms and taboos that contribute to relatively-high levels of violence and "intimate terrorism" by both sexes, even if as the 'weaker sex' women tend to be more vulnerable or come off worse.

I think primarily the above as general guiding principles are what we should take away from the typical feminist agenda.

A specific case-study:

For all the talk of sexual liberation of women, little has occurred but a deepening of willing slavery. Now that females are sanctioned to actively compete for mates, what we see is that women self-objectify and bend their existence ever more towards producing pleasure for men. Leaving aside lingering gender mores that simultaneously penalize aggressive or self-interested women along with disengaged or independent women for the moment, what this means is that women in general subordinate themselves to men as "accessories to penises". On the other end, this manifests as an ever-intensifying 'contest' between men to "hunt" for suitable females, with unworthy females considered beneath interacting with on any level. This complex situation then demeans both men and women and perpetuates a climate in which many experience long-lasting dissatisfaction and anomie for not being able to conform to standards of "love". Furthermore, as hinted at the situation for women increasingly is made to be one of dependence upon men.

The solution is to curtail opposing gender norms in "romance" and foster a climate of cooperation, partnership, and mutual interdependence as socially more just and productive and psychologically more healthy.

Above, I speak very broadly and coarsely out of deference to the nature of the thread. I don't really have much more to say specifically, at least without prompt.

[Montmorency]

If A mortally wounds B, and it takes B two days to die, once B has died at what point can we say that A became a killer?

Around the time of B's death? Around the time of the wounding? Somewhere in between?

I'm sure there's plenty of work with bearing on this, so links would be fine.

[Ironside]

If A mortally wounds B, and it takes B two days to die, once B has died at what point can we say that A became a killer?

Around the time of B's death? Around the time of the wounding? Somewhere in between?

I'm sure there's plenty of work with bearing on this, so links would be fine.

Time of death. That's because before that, we can't be certain that the wound was in fact lethal. A is a potential killer since the wounding though. You can then retroactivly apply the killer title to the time of the wounding if you want, but the moment of change is still B's death.

That applies even with the case with death is due to neglect from the hospital services, as long as the neglect wasn't worse than no help at all. Realistically forseen consequences and all that.

[Montmorency]

Morality is purported to be a system for accomplishing "right" goals or undertaking actions that "should" be taken. Actions that are somehow "moral" will ostensibly have relatively high value.

Already the immediate circularity of the concept is apparent. Underlying it is the same incoherent, hazy essentialism associated with "free will", "intentionality", "volition", or "agency".

Similarly, it is a confabulation that has arisen naturally from the functional organization of complex organisms, here attempting to regulate the behavior of not just others, but of themselves and of the very world as well.

No metaphysical account of morality, not even a theogenic model, has developed a concept that could be judged either true or untrue as a complete and contingent idea, due to the fundamental inability of such mythmaking to emerge from the mire of intuition, which hopes as its own branch to stand upon.

Indeed, it is thus that humans have generally been eager, whatever their backgrounds, to affirm the name of this agenerate shell. There has been no need - or perhaps capacity - to think things through and thereby discover that morality has not even achieved the status of a hypothetical, and that furthermore no amount of padding or circumlocution could create - never mind salvage - what is at its core an utter non-entity.

So much for this vexed and vexatious otiosity.

[Husar]

I understood only half of that, but it sounds good.

[Sigurd]

Careful, Erasmus.

[Tuuvi]

Morality is purported to be a system for accomplishing "right" goals or undertaking actions that "should" be taken. Actions that are somehow "moral" will ostensibly have relatively high value.

Already the immediate circularity of the concept is apparent. Underlying it is the same incoherent, hazy essentialism associated with "free will", "intentionality", "volition", or "agency".

Similarly, it is a confabulation that has arisen naturally from the functional organization of complex organisms, here attempting to regulate the behavior of not just others, but of themselves and of the very world as well.

No metaphysical account of morality, not even a theogenic model, has developed a concept that could be judged either true or untrue as a complete and contingent idea, due to the fundamental inability of such mythmaking to emerge from the mire of intuition, which hopes as its own branch to stand upon.

Indeed, it is thus that humans have generally been eager, whatever their backgrounds, to affirm the name of this agenerate shell. There has been no need - or perhaps capacity - to think things through and thereby discover that morality has not even achieved the status of a hypothetical, and that furthermore no amount of padding or circumlocution could create - never mind salvage - what is at its core an utter non-entity.

So much for this vexed and vexatious otiosity.

So I don't need to feel guilty for killing my girlfriend's newborn baby cause I didn't want to pay child support?

[Montmorency]

No, but you don't need not to either.

No man must must, if you will.

[Tuuvi]

No, but you don't need not to either.

No man must must, if you will.

Simon a ramona wey! It feels good to be liberated from my oppressive Christian morals. Now I'm off to go do whatever I feel like, without getting caught.