»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Women & Philosophy
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Women & Philosophy |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
I have noticed that not a lot of women come traipsing in here. (Actually, I haven't noticed many men either. <--not a slur on anyone's manhood, either, it's just been rather dead in this forum.  And yes, I felt a need to qualify that statement because I get more credit for sarcasm than I deserve.) Now, back to the subject--While I agree with Mary Warnock's observations that women, historically, didn't have the opportunity to join the guys in the smoking parlor--it's a bit different today, methinks. So where are all the women? Educate me, please. Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy? |
||
| © Copyright 2005 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
If that's true how come the wives always win disagreements with their husubands?  If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Because they withhold sex? (I'm gonna get in trouble for that one, I can just sense it) |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
 |
||
|
inot2B Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205Arkansas |
I've made very little comment in this section because it is usually about politics. Everyone says the same thing over and over. In fact, I have yet to read where anyone has had a change of heart and switched to the other side. I learned early in marriage not to withold sex. I get my way alot more by begging for more. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*chuckling* I'll bet you do!  Thanks for peeking in here too. Now let me see if I can get back to where I was going with this--naughty Larry--grins and chuckles here... In the book I am reading, What Philosopher's Think, Mary Warnock argues that there weren't necessarily more male philosophers than women, but that traditional roles hindered acceptance of women's thought as "proper" philosophy as their writing tended to be linked with religious doctrine - that the marriage of religion and philosophy made it more socially acceptable for women to have a voice. "It was perfectly acceptable for women to write religous, pious sorts of tracts, for want of a better word. That was an acceptable way for women to publish their thoughts and feelings, and I think it was because they weren't at that early stage educated in philosophy as a separate subject that, if they had philosophical thoughts, they tended to write them up as religious. So I think that is simply a matter of history." I'm interested in hearing thoughts on this, as I have often wondered why, in my experience, I have women friends in this forum who would speak privately on the various topics offered here, but seemed skittish about replying. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Naughty Larry here, I have never enjoyed philosophy from a personal perspective. When I took it in college there was an assignment on exestentialism(see I didn't even learn to spell it) that I refused to write because I had no interest in completing the reading of any of the articles we were to respond to. So 10 points cost me a letter grade, I didn't care. So you can't trick me into a philosophical debate about whether or not I have to beg for sex! If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
LMAO gawd I love ya Larry...  |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
Hi Karen "Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?" I loved philosophy when I was in college...and still do, but that doesn't mean that I loved standing up in front of my classmates and debating about it. I don't like doing that here either. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I love to philosophize, but no one wants to listen! so instead? I rant, rave, bitch, squak, complain, politicize, criticize... and all those other options left open to "WIMMEN" |
||
|
Gentle Spirit Member Patricius
since 2000-10-09
Posts 13989 |
I gotta agree with Kacy, I love philosophizing also, but usually no ones around that really is interested so I tend to do what Kacy does too..yanno.. complain, whine, bitch and moan and yanno what else?? No one listens then either! Honestly though I do think that many women did, once upon a time, and possibly even now, feel that they were/are to be seen and not heard, so they just didn't/don't speak up. |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
I'm just shy  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
gleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Now this is a party! and ladies, the silence is understandable - women have burned at the stake for less. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
How can you talk seriously to a man when his eyes are not on your face but on your bosom? |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I have a bosom? I have to tell you - if I am talking to a man and his eyes drift anywhere below my chin I let him know where I think he keeps his brain and that is the truth. Oh and by the way, inot2B, you are one smart cookie! |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Thank goodness for peripheral vision.  |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
You have started and interesting thread here, Karen.....thank you There have been many female Philosophers in history, unfortunately they have for the most part been subdued by sexist impulse passed down by generations of weak minded men... Kristina Wasa (Queen of Sweden) (1626-1689) and Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) are two of my favorites... (neither, to my knowledge were purveyors of religious or pious thought, at least what they expounded is short on those subjects) Karen "Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?" Not at all, to the contrary...Women seem to have the innate gift of strong intuition, which seems to me to be the foundation of most philosophical thought, considering this, I feel their predisposition sets them up better to speak of certain things, especially in the category of original thought.. Using sex as a weapon, it seems, has been used as a effective tool by women for centuries, perhaps because their men are not listening to their philosophies, and that is a sure way to get their attention... I enjoyed the discourse on the subject.....  inot2B "I learned early in marriage not to withhold sex. I get my way alot more by begging for more. " You are a wise woman, and you are philosophical...your statement proves that you have thought deeply, isn't that what Philosophy is, an expression of deep thought? Martie "I'm just shy" If you can write wonderful poetry (and you certainly do) then the "shy" thing must be eliminated as an excuse...it seems to me that poetry is a strong form of expressed philosophy..a personal view of the world though a poets eyes is amazing, when its fresh and new, and it opens up the readers mind in a most personal way if read seriously...by agreement or argument with the content of the poems words... Poet deVine "How can you talk seriously to a man when his eyes are not on your face but on your bosom? " A good question..? Perhaps by not wearing low cut blouses at a meeting of minds? Seriously, I understand the problem. Lord save me, I have been guilty of the sin... Again, thank you, Karen...this is a good, mind expanding subject, lets keep it going.... -----------------ice ><> |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Serenity, I read in here a lot and have picked up some interesting discussions. But.. I hesitate to post.I find that women are called "opinionated" if they talk too much. We really live our lives our way and it should hopefully show our philosophy on life. With you on this but staying mum.... martyjo |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I gotta agree with Kacy, as well, I love philosophizing also, but usually no one wants to listen, especially woman, or I've been deemed "a know it all", when actually, I'm asking the question, "What do you think?" or please join in? Also, I've gotta take advantage thanking Serenity very much, adding this Website is the very first that has allowed me express, (although afterwards, sometimes there were condiscending comments) but several confident woman in here have become good friends, b/c they agree or disagree but have a passion driven ability to discuss, share & allow. I find that invigorating! Also, while I'm on the subject, I've had the same experience with some male poets in here as well, fewer then the women, but I'm thankful for those men, b/c they are intersted enough to allow others to vocalizes, share and learn. There are many woman/men to, who if they don't like what you have to say, they shut you down? Or come back with a very rude comment to shut you up? Then ignore you forever or don't allow you in their click. It used to hurt me deeply, back then, but now, I could care less, as I figure, those people are not open minded and would have nothing to offer to a friendship, and do not want to learn or stand back and give someone else their day in the sun...or are jealous and afraid when others suceed. Also, in the past, I've known so many boys and men growing up, that are intimidated by a smart woman. And so, it was learned behavior on my part...in order to fit in, I adopted a dead head so to speak, or later in life, was surpressed of my opinions/beliefs and contributions to conversation, saying "OHHHH Lee J. your so deep" that I learned to be quiet, shy and afraid to share. I suppose that is one of the reasons for my poetry...it is the one place that I can go and express. I also ditto Ice/Ford...and agree with him totally. Regarding keeping sex from your man because your angry with him...or you don't get your way, is only going to come back and bite you right in the nose. Kindness flourishes...and Serenity, I've gotta say, if only more of society would listen and be open minded, we might intellectually be further along. We should be, I think anyway. Thank you for this Karen...yes, Lets keep going and share some insight....actually Karen, in answer to your question, I'm thinking that woman's sufferage has come a long long way, and there are certainly more open minded secure and confident men these days who find a woman's mind stimulating and I don't mean sexually. I really wish men could understand and allow, and realize that a lot of woman are not turned on by just good looks, but by a kind and allowing mind. To me, that is so beautiful. ...but there are still those men who think the only thing that woman are here for is to give them plesaure and talk about sex...I guess because they don't know how to relate to a woman....I dunno? Or perhaps that is the only way they feel good about themselves, but all talk with sexual connotations, to me is a turn off. I want to know more...yanno? There are also people who are afraid to learn/change... Philosophy is a grand awakening, and boy oh boy, if nobody else wants to listen, nature will not only listen, but also respond, thru her storms, animals, stars, flowers, trees, etc. hehe, now I know Ford understands that comment. [This message has been edited by LeeJ (12-02-2005 12:51 PM).] |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Serenity: I also thank you for this lead. You have helped to open up our mouths through our fingers at least. LeeJ: I agree with you. For too many years women were not listened to. I bit my tongue for many years. I do not think I am well educated but I can use what mind I have and do a little thinking! You are so much younger than me. So you can go from here. Anyone who reads you can see how intelligent you are. I read you and try learn from you. You are so far over my head that even when I try to answer I give up because I will sound stupid so I back out. But I admire a woman with a sharp mind and sharp wit and always read what you write at least twice. So get in here and shout out what you have to say. It stimulates my mind and helps to keep me sharper. Best to you both, martyjo |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Smiling here--I have to set the record straight. I do not use sex as a weapon. Wait. Let me re-phrase that.  (I happen to be retired, anyhow.) But in the past, when my husband and I would have one of our many differences of opinion, would I have sex with him? No, I would not. Now, men call that withholding sex. Women call that "I-am-pissed-at-you-and-if-it-weren't-for-the-kids-I-would-regret-ever-having-sex-with-you." There is a term for having sex with someone you are angry with, and it doesn't belong in this particular forum.  I can start that topic in Grok though, since so many seem to have much to say on that subject. I'm smiling, gratified that my original question was addressed too. I also thought you all might enjoy some background on one of my favorite early women philosophers: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hypatia.html Sadly enough, it was the potent combination of religion and philosophy that turned out to be the demise of Hypatia. (and um, yes, I guess I just "outed" myself too, as I have taken that name for a couple of arguments here in the Philosophy Forum--er, with apologies to my friends here, but at the time Hypatia seemed like a good idea and more likely to be taken seriously)  I'll be back, though. And Ford? I always knew you weren't afraid of wimmen. *grin* I gotta go get the storm troopers off to start their day now. Ta for now! |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Ice commented, quote:Emphasis added. I know several men, I won't even say most, or all, but certainly several, who do not rely on any discussion where the topic of the discourse cannot be seen or touched in reality. War can be seen. Politics touch us. Vice versa. Where men do come as close to having intuitive discourse is when it comes to Religion, something that can at times be seen, but in its true aspect, is nothing but a deep faith and belief - akin to intuition. Yet, some men have been prone to feel the hairs on the nape of their neck raise up when encountering something outside of what can be seen or touched. So when men like you, Ford, come into a conversation such as this, and allow that there is more to philosophy, well, that just makes me smile. Martie? I understand the shy. I get going on a thought, want to sound intelligent, and someone comes and gives me the raspberries. So I am prone to sitting back and reading, just to see where the thought processes are supposed to go, when it comes to philosophical discourse. However, I do love it when serenity comes in and shakes the bag! . |
||
|
inot2B Member Elite
since 2000-09-18
Posts 2205Arkansas |
I read your link on Hypatia, and I surmise the only reason she was allowed to come as far as she did is because of her fathers postiion. It was a time where women took a backseat to men. It is women who have allowed this to happen. Gender doesn't play a role in the ability to philosophize. It is the desire to stand up for what one believes in, be it male or female. Personally, I don't say too much in here is because I feel foolish and fear people will read it and say, "Just like a woman". Nobody has ever done that, it is just in my mind. I can't even do this without worry, I've edited this twice to make it not look dumb. Oh well! |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Martyjo, don't ever allow anyone to intimidate you or make you fear expression...or think that you would sound really dumb. No one can make you feel anyway but you...those who try would not be true friends anyway...so actually, Your better off without them. Always remember, YOU get to choose your friends, they don't choose you! And sometimes not being a follower can be a lonely walk, but at least you have the dignity in knowing you won't compromise your identity. Martyjo, I have only a high school education with a few added courses. Intellectual, far from it, I'm not being humble or looking for a pat on the back...it is only from experience, feelings and love that I write, as do many others....it is who I am and of that I'm very comfortable with. I have shouted out what I'v had to say, and at times, in here have been condescended...but in most cases, others shared with me, or gave me links to study, or encouraged me, I embrace those people and gravitate towards them, by the way, many thanks to you who have, you know who you are.  I'm hungry for knowledge, and when I add to forums, what I say is not written in stone, I'm certainly not perfect, as no one is...and don't believe one is smarter then the next, and anyone that feels that way, is closing a door to the ability to learn and go further. We are here to enhance each others journey and help each other along the way, even if they are younger then our own thoughts. It isn't about intellect, it is about opening the door to options, giving others and yourself consideration of expression, which opens a wide range of other perceptions, answers & truths... I don't believe all our questions will be answered, and don't believe there is one answer to every question. But this I do know, no one in the world is so smart they know everything. And so, dear MartyJo...intellegent, no...in the mornings when I write, I do open my mind to a vastness that cannot be explained in words. All I can say is, it's like being in a trance...which some other poets have been confident enough to admit the same. It is a vast spiritual world I speak of, connnecting all and everything, giving us the ability to perhaps mind travel crossing over dimensions...trancedental meditation, astro projection? Whatever it is, it's real and a very nice way to travel...there are no security guards taking away my nail file and grooming kit.... If you spoke with me in person, you would never know it was me, b/c I cannot articulate myself on a one on one basis nearly as well as when I write. I stammer, and grasp for words to describe what I'm trying to say, and that's the God's truth. I'm not ashamed or proud, just stating a fact. Serenity, I do not believe that there are fundamental differences between the intellect or the ability to be a philosoper between the genders...I believe there are aware, mature, confident & kind people from both genders who do possess the ability to allow others their time in the sun...then there are bigots who are so filled with hate, fear and a great lack of confidence in themselves. It is the bigot or the extreme left or right that frightens me the most. That to me, is the same mindset that killed the jews, or brings innocents to war. There should be no wars...in this world...the human race should be much further along. Much much further along. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay... let me try to digest what we have here so far... Do we all agree that women are as capable philosophers as men? If we do, then why is it a male dominated territory? I, myself, am guilty of referring to previous discussions here as "pissing contests", and tsk to me, because that is just as gender biased a statement as referring to a woman who speaks her mind with confidence as a "bitch". (Although, LeeJ, you but it much nicer with "know-it-all". I've been called both. I've been called stupid too.)Now, do you suppose the reluctance of women to debate/philosophize might be the result of a lasting cultural imprint upon the psyches of women? Do women willingly take a backseat to men regarding "intellectual" pursuits because we were raised to be "nice girls" and thus suffer from what has been termed a "disease to please"? Are women really more intuitive than men? Or perhaps we are simply perceived to be more intuitive because we are trained to anticipate need? Don't ask me what I think, because frankly, I haven't yet made up my mind. Even if I had, is it a woman's perogative to change her mind? And ladies, don't be afraid of the soapbox. That's what this is about, afterall. |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
Part of why I don't get on the soapbox has to do with my older brother. When I was young, he was quick to call anything I said, "stupid". Another fovorite line of his was, "if you had a brain you'd be dangerous". Of course he said these things where only I could here, and not our parents. I've called him on it recently, and he doesn't remember. I believe him that he doesn't. He only remembers that I was a "brat". I hope I was at least, that! LOL |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*laughing* My brother used to ask me: "How can somebody so smart be so stupid?" I was wondering the same. But oh-I-miss-that-man dearly. We had some lovely jousts. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Now, do you suppose the reluctance of women to debate/philosophize might be the result of a lasting cultural imprint upon the psyches of women? Do women willingly take a backseat to men regarding "intellectual" pursuits because we were raised to be "nice girls" and thus suffer from what has been termed a "disease to please"? Are women really more intuitive than men? Or perhaps we are simply perceived to be more intuitive because we are trained to anticipate need? I cannot speak for others but for myself and my own experiences, Yes, Karen, I believe some women, unknowingly take a backseat, although working within the corporate world, I do see expression from woman more so, then from a woman who is a housekeeper, mother, wife. But, yes, Karen...that's what I was trying to reinterate what I did up until about 3 years ago after a long time male friend said to me, "Lee J. I've known you since 7th grade, and playing stupid has become a part of you and your not" Well, let me tell you, he opened a great door for me to self explore and I began to realize it was indeed true, for many many years. Now I love a good debate, and am a very emotional speaker, but will not tolerate being put down, or made to feel I don't fit in. My philosophy is this, two people can not always agree, and you cannot "Make" people like you...so, I wish them well, telling them silently, go forward and flourish, we are not a good match is all. And that goes for women as well as men. Ohhhh I so love these talks. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Martie, brat or not, lets say you challenged him...yes? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Is hugging allowed in this forum? grin Love ya Lee...  and do you have any idea how long it took for me to learn how to say "no"? wince shaking my head Don't even venture a guess...and yanno? I thought about that "bitch" tag awhile too. And gee. Ow. that really hurts when I am called that... Women do philosophize. We just do it different. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
actually, that name becomes me....hehe it's called a mood with a tude... have a great weekend |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I really must market "Bitch" tiaras... grinning and yes, you too, Lee. and thank you, for sharing your thoughts with a wandering wondering me. |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
If someone called me a bitch, I would feel like I'd been given a compliment. Yes, I was brought up to be a "nice" girl. But sometimes I just want to break those bonds and shout...I am me!!! And I want to talk back to my elders....oh yes! When ever I said something that took me out of the place my parents put me in, my mother would say, "that doesn't sound like you". Grrrrrrr!  |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
One more thing....ah hum...in discussions, I could usually see from every point of view. It always made it difficult for me to take a stand on one thing. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm nodding, 'cause I do that too. Sometimes I come in here and read the archives, and I swear, when it's good, it's like watching a tennis match. grinning I think, "he's got a point" there and then I can be just as easily persuaded back again. But that's where the true fun begins. That's when I have to really think about what I actually believe. That's when self-discovery begins. And that's why I came here, and that's why I think it important for others to be here too. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
It seems I'm better off to just observe. But you know me... As I have watched the threads in this forum (and I read many of them) it seems that most people speak as if they are the final authority. I don't find much tolerance for intolerance so mostly I stay quiet. When I fail to maintain silence it usually is to smart off in an effort to lighten things up in here. And in that case I've never been ignored more effectively. But I gotta say, this is my favorite thread in here. Occupied by a bunch of my favorite people. So with much respect and admiration I will continue to observe this thread. And as long as hugs are being passed around... |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
hugging brave Larry not too many besides you, ice, and alicat dare venture in here wehn all of us are bitchin and I remember when 'bitchin' was a positive comment LOL, as in...isn't she bitchin? LOL, but I've gotta say this IS the most fun I've ever had in THIS forum but what do I know? I worke a 10-12 hour gravewyard shift and haven't slept but three winks today cuz my neighbors have a new puppy that's been whining his ass off all day! sigh...I do love philosophy though, it was one of my favorite subjects n college alongside...of all things...physics and I got B's and A's in both though nearly failed all my advanced MATH course folks? be patient with me please? the 'higher power(s)' isn''t through programming me yet! |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
LeeJ, I agree with everything you told me. I often use the same words to encourage others. And even reprimand myself for not talking to myself as I do to others. I am bad about putting myself down. It had to come from somewhere. I guess I was told once "you think your smart don't you" so I took to negating my own thoughts before someone did it for me. Something like making "fat jokes" and laughing at yourself before others do it. I have told people not to give their power away to someone else. That we control our feelings and cannot be hurt if we do not allow others the power to hurt us. So I am not hurt if someone disagrees with me because as you said, we are all entitled to our opinions and three people can be right and not agree with the others. I guess it is how the person disagrees. If they are just putting me down I have learned that is their problem. To make themselves feel good they have to down another. If they disagree in a debating manner that is great because I am open to learning. Some times there is no right or wrong, just someone's opinion. If I could remember half of what I have read over the years I would be smart. But I do not retain things as well as I wish I could. "Smart" is hard to define. Both my younger brother and I had to follow my older brother. He was handsome, outgoing, intelligent, creative, the high school football captain and the president of his class. He was also a good artist and got good grades without studying. I followed him three years later and the art teacher still had his photo on her desk! She was not too interested in me and once accused me of having someone else draw a picture I handed in. I took offense and must have said something because she demanded I apologize. I would not do it as I felt she was the one should apologize to me for insinuating I was a liar and a cheat and if I was anything I was neither of those. I have been in awe of him for many years. Lately I have come to see him as just a person and not especially half what I had projected for him. In other words he is just a regular guy. I had a girlfriend in school who was in the lowest grade in junior high school. I was in the top grade. That was because I read a lot and through me she also started to read. Once I was at her house and she was doing the NY crossword puzzle. She was so good at it, I said, "Jan, you always thought I was so smart. I could never do a cross word puzzle like you can". So as I got older I began to think the schools did a lot to hurt people. You know if you are in the "blue bird" reading group and others are in the "Red bird" group you soon know who is smarter. It doesn't matter how they divide you, the kids all know sooner or later and identify themselves by the group they are assigned to. If you are in 7A and the other is in 7F you soon learn the difference and you pin the label on yourself as they defined you. I sometimes think the one room schoolhouse was better. They were more or less allowed to move up at their own speed and had the older ones helping the younger. There is too much separation by someone's idea of what and how much "they" think you can learn. How many boys were told they should go to a Trade School when later they found out they not only went to trade school but became the president of the company after they got out of school and went to work as a trades man. We are too often weeded out and separated by what someone else thinks we can or cannot do. I have always hated the idea of a student's records following them to the next grade with all the remarks from the former teacher. If the next grade teacher did not read those reports or listen to the previous teacher until at least half way through the school year, or not at all because by then she would have seen the student for what she saw, the student would have a better chance. I do not even like the idea that teachers know the student's background or father's occupation. It causes discrimination right from the beginning of that grade. Sometimes it can be a personality factor that causes one kid to be put down by a teacher. I could go on and on. Having put six kids through school and adding my own experiences I fully believe this. They say the more a teacher knows about a family and the background the better to help them. But to be truthful all teachers are not so skilled and they are human too so they can make a lot of wrong calls. Better step-down off this box now and give someone else a chance. Thanks for the ear.Thank you for validating me. Martyjo |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Midnightsun, when I was in high school the physics teacher had a class of girls..I was unfortunate enough to have been one of them. He used to put an assignment on the board and take off. He said, "girls can not learn physics ". So I believed him. One or two of the girls did the work and the rest of us sat there or read a book. He should have been reported but what did we as a bunch of naive girls know about reporting a teacher? martyjo |
||
|
kayjay Member Elite
since 2002-06-24
Posts 2015Oregon |
I've a couple thoughts on this topic, but first I'd like to address the way that kids are classified and thereby treated in the K - 12 system. Somewhere in my reading, I found a study of the following situation. A teacher received the files of a new class. However, the quick ones were labeled slower and the slow ones were labeled quicker, but the teacher did not know this. (I submit that we all have different learning rates and family environment as youngsters has a great impact.) Well, in this paper, the author reported that the "slow" students suddenly did much better, and the "quick" students did worse. I wish I could recall the entire story and the source; I can't. My conclusion is that how we feel we are perceived is of tremendous import in forming out own sense of being able to learn. Well, I meandered a bit, but let me come back to the thread. I think, historically, that women were simply not taught to read, but those with some means were taught household management skills. Some women overcame that, but in the main, it was a means of subjugation. To me, philosophy is a "search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means." (Merriam-Webster) So, to debate in speculation what is right or best about a specific idea is, to me, the truest sense of that definition. We hope to discuss whether adopting certain ideas and viewpoints leads us to be wiser and more in tune with our place in the world. My vote would be that women can discourse more intelligently because they are able to exchange viewpoints, but men tend to want to win the argument. However, as women have not been allowed to express themselves, there is no tradition of women philosophers, hence not that much literature. Thoughts? Ken Through rubble and trouble and dark of night The yawn of a dawn will hasten the light |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
quote: Um Karen, men don't go shopping as much as we do, and trust me I use my wonderfully philosophical mind out there fighting those hoards of people in stores better than any darn man ever could. Actually was thinking of a new name for myself, "Shoposopher Sharon." Some of my favorite feminists were pretty darn good philosophers, dating back as far as 17th century, a woman by the name of Antoinette Bourignion, who fled her home to avoid an arranged marriage. Atta girl Antoinette! You may be familiar with this gal too from around the 17th century, Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyon. At first, she was the most militant expressionist of a doctrine of Quietism. That being a sort of passive meditation of all that is devine, while withdrawing from all worldly concerns, and thereby suppressing the will. She ticked off the Archbishop with her great philosophy. However, sadly just like a woman, she died in Paris saying she was a devout Catholic, go figure! She caved! Oh...but to answer your original question - women feel, men think. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
And I know what I felt! |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
"Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?" Is this a real question...or simply a thought in the mind of the goddess? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Actually, icebox, I think it's a good question that has rested in several of the responding women's minds for a long time. Of all of the times serenity might be teasing us, I've never seen her tease [much] under the Philosophy flag. She, like many others, comes in here to learn. Several have said it's like a tennis match; a man's game of "war" and having an ultimate victor. I have to agree with that. I would also suggest that the first definition that is found in my 1953 dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, is probably right on target for women: "1. originally, love of wisdom or knowledge." I also like this: "4.a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life." I have more thoughts, but I've also got to do some laundry.  . |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
"I have more thoughts, but I've also got to do some laundry" Of course. I do not believe it is a modern issue that most women's lives are made up of virtually endless, mostly mindless, details. It is only my personal belief that life is more easily lived as a male; it is more entertaining, offers more options, provides access to more freedoms, has fewer limitations. A male life well lived can provide an endless supply of women to meet an equally endless supply of purposes, including providing the freedom to sit and philosophize. Archeology and its younger sister Anthropology rediscover that reality on a regular basis. Organized academic Philosophy is, and continues to be, the product of access to the luxury of free time and free intellectual space. It is no secret that there are gender differences that can be defined as typical in the structure and wiring of human brains. These differences without question influence how perception and thought are processed, but just as all roads may lead to Rome, all thoughts no matter what their origin may lead to the ultimate understanding of existence; the paths taken simply may be different. Grandiose speculative thoughts, insights into human existence, the flashes of observational understanding, etc., that have fed the beast of Philosophy throughout time, may run as easily through a female’s neural network as a male’s. The differences seem situational. I have often thought Occam’s Razor was a gift from his mama, but he had the time to write it down. My guess is that she might have said to him something like, “Don’t deny the obvious child! It’s getting dark! Get in here and wash your hands, then sit down and eat your dinner before it gets cold!” as he dawdled in daydreams of angels dancing on pinheads in spotlights filtered through the deceptions of a late afternoon’s deepening orange sunbeams while his mama prepared the household for night. Much later in life, maybe while the next Mrs. Occam darned his socks to keep the hapless philosopher’s feet warm, he would drag up out of the jumble of thought and memory: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Or, in perhaps the cleanest version of Occam’s Razor, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." My own favorite version though always has been, “Don’t deny the obvious child.” Aristotle was able to observe that “Nature is opportunistic” simply because he had the opportunity to connect the dots and the time and resources to write down the thought. A woman with a laundry basket on one hip, a baby on the other and pasta boiling on the stove is not likely to write on the laundry room wall an epistemological epigram, no matter how brilliant. She might understand the thought and even accurately value its brilliance, but by the time she has cleaned up the boiled over pasta and quieted the baby, she has to feed the family, sort the laundry and not take time to jot down notes. Formal philosophy, and all that has flowed from it right down to the palest academies of today, is the luxury by product of a leisure class. Even within the leisure classes of history, women have been kept more busy. For example, the planning of an aristocratic wedding, no matter how politically practical the union might be, could take a decade; the needlepoint work alone could take years. There may have been time for the women of the court to sew angels into the tapestry borders but no time to speculate on how many could dance on the head of a pin. While all that was going on, the male principal player was learning to hunt, fish, fight, plan military slaughter, drink, carouse, gamble, dance, plot and contemplate; though not always encouraged to do so, he has had the time to write down his contemplations and he has spent almost all his youth in the company of other males. Testosterone is many things. It is an hallucinogenic drug, an irritant disrupting sleep, a catalyst that produces explosive outbursts of violent behavior and of argumentative thought; it accelerates linear thought and triggers quantum brain processes, encourages narrowness of focus, distorts time perception, drives the user to pursue ecstatic experiences, and it produces amnesia. It leads the user to be convinced of the ultimate brilliance of his insights and thoughts. It promotes the belief that his thoughts are so brilliant they must be shared with others. It is a mental steroid that fuels philosophical thinking. “This is the brain; this is the brain on testosterone.” Now having shared all that, I think I am going to see if one of the house pets has done the laundry and, more importantly, has made my coffee. *WINK* |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
And there lies only one of the possible answers to the question at hand. Did the pets prepare the coffee just right? Smiling at you. For all of the laundry, children, and spoiled boiled pasta...there is still more to the answer, I believe. And it is well entertwined with all you stated, Sir. I was going to write of my belief that in order to make all things simpler...women have given in to the ego of man, just to keep peace in the household, the office, in all avenues where men and women have to co-exist. Look back into history where women of various cultures did everything BUT go to war. And then look to the cultures where indeed, women DID take on the many wars that beset their tribes or families. That is but one aspect. Is it because people prefer to listen to a educated, deeper, pondering voice put forth ideas and thoughts that had rested like a gold nugget back in their own minds...and as you say, women just had their hands too full of responsibilities of all sorts and could not take the time to write it down? Let alone make it heard over the crying babes to a man or men who were "too tired" to listen to the golden nuggeted ramblings of a mere woman? I'll be back. I have to go pick up my husband's mother...because he just got up! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Karen shuffles in, hair still not combed, spilling her coffee as she cough/laughs. "I am very pleased to see you have wakened, sire. Pray tell, was thine sleep as sweet as mine?" *battin eyelashes* Um, yeah, right. But icebox, you proprose a very good question there. Am I serious? The answer to that one is in the face of Janus--I am always serious, even when I'm joking. And vice versa. I would have been here sooner, but I had to make a list of "things to do" for my flying monkey, who has now flown off to work painting somebody's mansion in Old Metairie. I like to keep my flying monkey encouraged, so I informed him that he will be working in the area in which Jimmy Page happens to keep his pets caged. My monkey only hesitated to gather some Led Zepplin cds's--just in case, and now he is a happy flying monkey too... But my first question was a bit of a tease. A formality to get the conversational ball rolling. I much prefer a conversation to a debate. Debates beg for a winner. Conversations are more of an exploration. Like you, I find the most interest in the things between the lines of such conversation. It's not a "trick"--it's just that I know that much of my supposed natural women's intuition is actually analyzation. I could argue, as many have, that women are more in tune with nature because of their biological make up--monthly cycles that tune into the lunar calendar which dictate gravitional pull and the rise and fall of tides here on our now-weary mother planet. I could argue that in one breath, but I'll be laughing, because the woman who is typing this is one who is still caught off guard by her own menses every month. Or every two weeks. Or every other month. (It depends.) Oh dear...now I'm laughing again. But anyhow, I'm so pleased you are here, because one of the many questions I have asked I would like to address to you, my sweet friend. Do you think women are more naturally intuitive than men? and grinning, even as I typed that, I thought I should check my Inbox, because you may well have already answered that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yes, but only to the extent someone doesn't need to spend 15 hours a day hunting and gathering. Once survival needs are met, everything is a luxury. If a woman is washing laundry, it's because she chose to wash laundry. For whatever reason, clean clothes took priority over something else she might have chosen to do. Gender isn't going to suddenly eliminate the need for those choices, though it well may change which choice is made. I have laundry to do, too, as well cooking dinner, washing dishes, and cleaning the house. They're just not real high on my list of priorities. Clean house? Soon . . . |
||
|
kayjay Member Elite
since 2002-06-24
Posts 2015Oregon |
Well, I'd like to chime in with a comment on intuition/sensitivity. I do think that women are more concerned with sensitive issues than men. I love the story of the woman who has been dating a man for a while and wants to know how he feels, so she says "Gee, we've been going out for some months now." He frowns. She thinks "Gee, he thinks I'm pushing him. Why can't I keep my big mouth shut?" But she continues "I've really enjoyed myself." His frown deepens and his jaw sort of tightens. She withdraws, but when he drops her off, they hug and kiss a bit and she feels better. Meanwhile, the man is thinking..."Yes, I just got this car before we started dating...I oughta get the oil changed. Wait. (deeper frown) Is that a new noise? The tranny better not be going out. (Jaw clenches) Man, that'll be 1500 at least." He too, is satisfied with the happy with the mild necking at the end of the evening. When she walks in the door, she gets on a conference call with 4 girl friends to discuss his facial expressions. Meanwhile, he pops a beer and turns on an NBA game he's taped. He has no idea what just happened. Ken Through rubble and trouble and dark of night |
||
|
Martie
Moderator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-09-21
Posts 28049California |
"Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?" I wonder if men were discussing pphilosophy while in the parlor with their smokes and drinks. Or is it a romanticized notion derived from romance novels. Maybe it was the woman who were left to their own devices, that talked of philosophy while busying themselves with clearing the table...or oops, didn't they have servants that did that? and Ron? Back then when choices were first made about who would be responsible for what....I wonder if men and woman didn't just naturally fall into the roles that seems to still play out in todays world. Certainly, the edges have blurred much. You must do all, because you choose not to partner up right now. Men, having bodies that are stronger and can more easily bag the dinner, and women then, in desire to be creative and to give birth to more than just children, grew and harvested gardens. Men had easier access to education....and because of that, they became more knowledgeable in math and science. Woman showed much strength when they overcame the stigma that men gave them, that they were only good for one thing. And, woman are still growing. I don't think it was as easy as choosing to wash laundry. Woman were raised to expect to play that role. And, it wasn't just men that put them there, it was there mothers and grandmothers who believed it to be worthwhile, for woman to sew and clean, and to take care of raising the children, especially the female children. Ken? Maybe men really are from Mars and woman from Venus. They certainly are different and that's a good thing, I think. It has much to do with hormones, although we also share hormones. I'm happy that I have a bit of testosterone in me and I like men who aren't afraid to show their feminine side. Ok...I got to get back to cleaning the house....big family gathering tonight for my father-in-law's 80'th birthday. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Tell him I said Happy Birthday. and smiling here, it's always the shy ones who amaze me the most. |
||
|
Kaoru
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892where the wild flowers grow |
Philosophy can be just as important to women as men, and not simply because men may or may not find it important and women feel they might chime in when they agree! I love philosophy, it's something that DOES have passion. It is the overwhelming desire to learn about something of which you have no clue, and still may have no clue even after you've learned all you possibly can. The possibilities are endless... Anyway, I can't really say WHY I haven't participated in the forums.. I guess I just don't ever think on my ideas enough to think they're worth sharing..hehe, but maybe they are. Or, I've lost touch with my curiousity. Wah! |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
What a fun philos0-poophy thread, Karen! thanks! Ken quote: and Ron? I NEVER choose to do the laundry...it simply attacks me as I walk in the back door where the washer resides. LOL If I want to make it safely into the kitchen, I must first grab a handful of that stinky stuff and shove it into the washer. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Hey! I do laundry and I even iron. Plus I love to bake and cook. I do dished and housekeeping (I even change sheets). But I practically never do windows. And as is apparent in this thread I don't even do philosphy. So admit it, it's hard to pigeon hole every man. If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Larry? It is indeed hard to pigeon hole every man. But I tried dag-nabbit. and *wink* |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Hey Larry, ask sweet Nancy if I can borrow you for a week or three???? LOL. And I'll even do my own windows! Heck, I'll come down to AZ and do yours too! just kiddin (about your windows) |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
I do not participate in the debates/discussions because I feel like I am in water over my head. (No need for back pats here...I know my limitations). There are a lot of extremely intelligent people here and although my opinion/belief may hold water (at least to me) I would only embarrass myself trying to express it. so I keep to watching. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"Debates beg for a winner. Conversations are more of an exploration." I think that's the whole point. Men tend to debate, while women tend to converse. My boyfriend always gets pissed when I refuse to take a solid stance on an issue, but I simply don't want to rule out any possibilities. Who am I to say that God does or does not exist, or whether entropy truly is a governing force in our existence (one that's been plaguing him lately)? A good example is the abortion debate. I take a hesitant pro-choice position not because I approve of abortion- I just think the rules governing our land don't necessarily govern a woman's (or a man's) body. Why? It's that intuition thing. I don't necessarily think women are naturally more intuitive than men, it's just more socially acceptable for us to express it. In society, women are supposed to say "I feel" and men are supposed to say "I think." My opinion (after writing an extensive paper on male rape and how gender roles negatively affect male victims' social and psychological outcomes) is that men and women both have equal capacity to think and feel, but because of socially acceptable ways we are supposed to behave, men are supposed to express thoughts, and women feelings. It's not just an issue of women being oppressed due to misogyny or sexism or what-have-you, it's the fact that both genders are constricted by social sanctions governing our behavior. Now, having been raised by a single mother, I was taught to voice my opinions and express my thoughts. In grade school, however, I did feel ostracized from my female peers who apparently did not care for "intellectual" conversations (insofar as 11 year olds can intellectually converse) but rather who liked what boy, who had cute clothes, etc. etc. ad nauseum. However, it is equally likely that boiys were confined to areas of competition (sports) and "thinking." I wouldn't know, I was never an 11 year old boy. Now, however, I don't care, and I flap my lips and let loose my "thinking" thoughts whenever the desire hits me, even when logically, it shouldn't. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
hush, quote: You crack me up! So now I'm trying to figure out how you chose your pen name. Karen, quote: I meant figuratively! Kacy! See you should have given me your address last summer when I was there. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Serenity and others, I work for Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and today the magazine came out. (I am not on campus as I work as a contract person to the FAA.) One of the featured stories was about a young woman sophomore majoring in mechanical engineering. She tells of Plato’s, The Allegory of the Cave. “In it he makes a comparison between philosophers as individuals who see things at a higher perspective and regular people who are not quite capable of grasping higher concepts. This young woman relates her experiences when she came from another country and moved to a state here in the United States. I do not know if I can quote the article, as I did not write it obviously. But her explanation of why she felt so out of place among her peers was interesting. They did not understand the things she talked about and had less ambition. Until she realized they had never left their small town and or seen anything beside the area where they lived. She was a little harsh on the town and the kids there so I cannot mention it. But I think she was on the right track on why woman or men for that matter do not always realize their potential. She had the ambition and vision to go out and get a good education in the field she was interested in. The other young women interviewed were all of the same caliber. I noticed they all had parents who were on their side, who were interested and active in their lives, who taught them they could do anything they put their mind to. This particular young lady said she was looked down upon by her peers and was very disappointed but had set a goal and went after it. The others interviewed all seem to have shared an early determination of what they were interested in life and how to go about getting there. I found the interviews very interesting, because Embry Riddle is predominately filled with young men, these gals are already setting a precedent. Good luck to them all. And now to go check out The Allegory of the Cave. Best, martyjo |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
She tells of Plato’s, The Allegory of the Cave. “In it he makes a comparison between philosophers as individuals who see things at a higher perspective and regular people who are not quite capable of grasping higher concepts. Now there ya go, I have always known this to be true, but the minute I vocalized it, boy oh boy, I got a double barreled shotgun salute by those who were intimidated by this. Yanno, there are people who are actually afraid to learn, to venture out into the darkness of questions...conditioned and afraid to go forth and simply investigate on their own. And yes, there are certainly people with higher perceptives...just as those who have suffered difficult lives and have changed emensely from it...they to are extra sensitive to other dimensions and nature's proof of a much much deeper sense of plains and mystery. Yes, yes, yes, tis true.... Poets, artists, are deeply insightful, sometimes not even aware of their messages....isn't it profound? I don't believe God stops at any one religion...I believe He is so much much deeper and so much more then what is written in the Bible....considering the dimensions, other plains, the spiritual proof on experiencing human bonds....with nature and all things, the great connection... Hugs to ya |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
"I don't believe God stops at any one religion...I believe He is so much deeper and so much more then what is written in the Bible....considering the dimensions, other plains, the spiritual proof on experiencing human bonds....with nature and all things, the great connection..." I agree with you here. I always thought that because of people needing different steps to lead them to a higher calling so they have to have different roads. All roads should ideally lead to the same God. I never felt comfortable with a lot of pomp so I prefer a quiet place outdoors to think clearly. But as have I said, I can go to a high church service if it means something to someone else and still derive a benefit. How would we know what we need or want if we have nothing else with which to compare? Just my thoughts. martyjo |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Amen! Like women right? hehe |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Larry- S'posed to remind me to shut up once in a while. Doesn't exactly work. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I'd also like to add, it has been, my experience, to have found some, not all, men to be much more sensitive then women. Once, a long time ago, and I feel very bad about this...a man I worked with wore shorts to work, we were always kidding each other, and so, I kidded him about his legs...thinking it all to be in fun...but, I hurt that poor souls feelings, and he never wore shorts again. I also have quit a few male friends who have been treated badly by their wives, abused verbally, cheated on...and they are less apt to bounce back and trust again...they're afraid...very afraid....and it's so sad...my oh my, if only we thought first before we acted out and hurt so many others? But yes, growing up the only girl in the neighborhood, I also found that a lot of boys were intimidated by smart, successful and independent girls... They seem to fear that word independence, which doesn't mean they are less able to love you, but probably diverse intellectual woman with a hunger for knowledge, travel, cultures, history. But they don't need to be with a man 24/7, yanno? There is nothing wrong with both partners having quality time of their own, without the other...I don't think anyway. Philosophy is thought provoking and fresh, alive, keeps the brain active.... but I do think women have a lot of great and valuable ideas to add to conversation, especially Karen...hehe, it's just that so many have been and are still being surpressed by men... and it is still not altogether sociably acceptable by men. Not all men, mind you... I work for a boss who doesn't like it when women have an opinion which is opposite from his. He doesn't like to hear the truth, he takes it as a personal attack against his personality...it's his culture, I think, his upbringing...he wants you to simply smile and agree...I can't do that..., I just can't. But in the generations to come, this to will change more and more, with time and understanding, and that percentage of men out there who will teach their children and grandchildren, to allow women... I hope? I believe, it's our job to teach our daughters, sons, it's ok and very important to have opinions and views, and they should never compromise they're beliefs or identity simply to be a couple...to teach them to be confident, self supporting and content... and respectful to the opinions/beliefs of others, the importantance of sharing, and allowing as well as listening. To be open to ideas...of others, and not fear the darkness, but to explore it and themselves? |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Lee I could answer each paragraph. And I did! I copied it to word and answered in red after each paragraph. But there is no way I can see to re post it that way. So all I can say is I agree with all you said. On a lighter note I will just tell about Jackie as a six or seven year old. She played with the boy across the street in our cul-de-sac. She always wore slacks but with a girls blouse. They were good friends. One day after they had been playmates for at least a year she was invited to his birthday party along with the other boys in the neighborhood. She wore a dress to the party and poor Thacher was in for big surprise. He told his Mom that he had always thought Jackie was a boy! Because of her name. I think she was more intimated by girls than boys. best to you, martyjo |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
oh darn martyjo, I really wish I could have seen what you wrote could you possibly email it to me? Lee J. |
||
|
Baba Michi Junior Member
since 2005-12-07
Posts 40Southern Germany |
I agree with you, Latearrival, in that spiritual/intellectual ambition can override gender stereotypes. I believe that, despite hormonal difficulties, there are mysterious, intuitive, and sensitive feminine elements within the human psyche that help us with things like poetry and religion, because we can better understand symbols at the non-linear, illogical level. Feminity is alot of times associated with access to the spirit realm (certain shamans in the northern tribes of alaska used to paint breasts on their clothes), and I also don't think it is a coincidence that the Greek muses are all female. I also believe that connecting to the rational and logical part of the psyche which is generally accredited to males can be very helpful in dealing with purely physical things like fixing cars and solving complex physics problems. Studies show that females in the first grade show a completely equal capacity for mathematics and science as males. I think that we learn early on to restrict ourselves to the resources within our psyche which create the path of least resistance socially; boys learn not to show their emotions to avoid being called weak for crying, and no girl wants to wear the stigma of being a "dyke" or an "uppity bitch" for being strong and outspoken. Of course, there are many other factors like testosterone, which I agree plays a huge role in the way thinkers interact with one another, and someone whose motives are not to prove the other person wrong and achieve intellectual victory at all costs is probably not going to be as likely to enter such social circles. However, getting back to my main point, I think that both the male and female areas of the mind are there to be used by whoever has the courage to do so, and can then be used to make one's philosophy richer and more relevant. For me it has always been a matter of keeping things balanced despite what others might think, using the beautiful mystery of feminine intuition to pinpoint the truth, and then masculine logic to express it rationally and then beat someone with a chair if they don't agree with you. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Baba Michi: I made a mistake in copying a part of LeeJ's post. It was she who wrote this. (quote) I don't believe God stops at any one religion...I believe He is so much deeper and so much more then what is written in the Bible....considering the dimensions, other plains, the spiritual proof on experiencing human bonds....with nature and all things, the great connection..."(/quote) She is the one who wrote the post to which you are referring.I think we are all three in agreement though. best, martyjo |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
I did it wrong again.no bars. quote I am trying /quote still doing it wrong... DUH |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
marty? I still can't do the quote thingie.  |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Just got done catching up on reading this thread.. Sheesh! I am drowning in a sea of thought, this is great, But I am late on returning,... so will not go over the finer points that so many have made here....adding only that many are well taken... What I will do is post a few quotes about the subject of female intelligence and philosophical abilities... Most of the quotes say my sentiments exactly, worded much better than I ever could......one is pure bull, and was written by a man who was speaking with the sexist atitude of his day.....something, unfortunately that still exists in some circles * Simone De Beauvoir (1908-1986) "The most mediocre of males feels himself a demigod as compared with women." "Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth" * William Wordsworth "A perfect woman, nobly planned, To warn, to comfort, and command; And yet a Spirit still, and bright With something of angelic light." ( "angelic light", wondeful that it is so...being a romantic, Billy just had to add that..... * Michel de Montaigne: (1533-1592) (A man far ahead of his time) "I say that male and female are cast in the same mould: save for education and custom the difference between them is not great. In The Republic Plato summons both men and women indifferently to a community of all studies, administrations, offices and vocations both in peace and war; Antisthenes the philosopher removed any distinction between their virtue and our own." * Charlotte Bronte... on the Power of Women "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will." * Petronius (c.27-66 AD) "Outward beauty is not enough; to be truly heard a woman must use words, wit, playfulness, sweet-talk, and laughter to transcend the gifts of Nature" (even the early scholars knew that women had it rough in the field of philosophy...you all had to work harder to be heard, by transcending your own special charms ("gifts of nature")...earlier in the thread there was a discussion about looking a woman in the eyes when you speak to her... This quote reminded me of that discussion) * Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1920) "When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality" (Freddy was an ass sometimes) * Yesterday was the death anniversary of a great songwriter and poet.... John Lennon was and still is a great inspiration to me...."Imagine" works its magic, almost every time I sit down to write something philosophical or poetical He knew about the trouble women had in finding equal footing on the earth with men....and so, even in his (our) day a lot of men still need to keep women down.....John knew this and wrote a song about it...some of you may have heard it.....It has the "N" word in it....as it should, considering the message he was trying to get across....hopefully no one is offended by the title... Woman is the nigger of the world (excerpt) By John Lennon "We make her paint her face and dance If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't love us If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man While putting her down, we pretend that she's above us" Peace to men and women ,all... __________ice/ford ><> |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, I honestly feel that men and women are "wired" differently. That doesn't mean better or worse. But our respective strengths and weaknesses create a complementariness (is that a word??) between the sexes. It doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to rules, but there is more of a nurturing side to females. The mistake I think, is in devaluing motherhood (for example) while uplifting philosophy. It is not without reason that many people have felt philosophy to be detached and often irrelevant. It is "abstract" thought. My wife is constantly pulling me out of the clouds and back down to earth. But, of course that doesn't mean that women can't be good philosophers, even though I think it is a stronger trait in men. I just don't think philosophy is a higher calling than other things necessarily. We have this bad habit of calling some very beatiful things in life, mundane, simply because they aren't as flashy and attention-getting. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Loving smiles to you all--and especially Baba Michi for this: " no girl wants to wear the stigma of being a "dyke" or an "uppity itch" for being strong and outspoken." No? "I understand what you mean," nodded the uppity itchy dyke as she typed. *cracking up now* Oh dear...I think I am having a compound nervous breakdown now. But nod, I saw this one comin'. And Stephen, m'bro, "wired DIFFERENTLY"??? I am just plain WIRED.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It takes Phil and Sophia to make Philosophy.  |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
came back to this interesting thread... yanno, I've been thinking a lot about this subject since you began this thread Karen and my thoughts have been this... and I apologize for getting off track...but, think about the many many women who were burned at the stake for having an opinion, or before that, wanting to participate in religious practices, but were banned from them simply b/c they were women? Shheesh, and I say, that wasn't, to me normal, for the men of that time to do...opening up another question, why did they do it...? If in fact they so believed in God, were men of the cloth, wouldn't they have realized that God made one (for) the other, not one to control the other, serve the other, with no voice? Doesn't make sense to me? What And b/c there is proof of this in early religious practices, (surpressing women), and the bible was written by men, well, I supppose you know where this is going? My question is...then how can we possibly believe & trust men of such shallow minded calaber? I don't believe for one minute that women were created to serve men, to walk behind them, to fear gaining an education, or contributing to religious cerimonies...and I don't believe men are any less either...but equal, human beings who could learn so so much from one another, if they'd realize that? Can you imagine, how much farther ahead, intellectually we'd be, if we'd listen, allow, and not take another person's ideas personal...not falling into society's expectations? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
shaking head... LeeJ, It sounds like you've had too big a dose of DaVinci Code-style "let's make religion a scapegoat" philosophy of feminism. Yes there was abuse in the past. But there's a lot you should also consider that you're not acknowledging. Give me some time, and I'll respond more fully. respectfully, Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
no Stephanos but yes, I did read the book, and it is my second favorite book that I've read...but no I've known this and pondered it for years...why were women surpressed so back then?, why were they kept from reading their Bible, why were their thoughts & ideas feared, surpressed? That is why I find it difficult to believe in the Bible, God wouldn't have wanted that for women...he gave them the greatest gift of all...giving life...yet, human men, took their freedom away? Why? Religion isn't the scapegoat, it is though, the political basis for most wars, right? And in the name of their religion, they persecuted women, burned them to the stake, calling the witches, because they had vocalized their views, opinions, and probably had much to offer at the table, other then swollen hands from cooking all day... [This message has been edited by LeeJ (07-20-2006 10:52 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ: quote: Call me if you need to borrow some reading material. I won't hold that against you. I read it too. Entertainment-wise? ... fair. Historically accurate? ... anything but. It's such a mixture of truth and error, that I think for those who take Brown's statement at the beginning of the book seriously, it can be extremely misleading. But rather than digress to the Davinci Code, I'll just respond to your statements ... which will inadvertently answer certain questions about Dan Brown's book as well. quote: Biblically speaking, the sad history of women being oppressed, was the result of sin. God pronounced judgements upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam. While speaking to Eve, God said prophetically that "... your desire will be for your husband. And he will rule over you.". That is an interesting statement. The Hebrew word for desire "Teshuqah" most often means an agressive desire, even a desire to conquer or overcome. And the word for "rule" is the Hebrew "Mashal" which most often means to rule by force or strength. In these descriptive statements, God anticipates the lamentable history of humanity where men would abuse authority, and women would often react in defiant resistance and indepedence. In this one little sentence God predicted the rampant errors of male chauvinism AND rabid feminism. But again, this was not prescriptive on God's part, but rather descriptive of the results of sin. When selfishness rules, authority almost always becomes oppressive and submission becomes a burden which seems less desirable than rebellion. God was not advocating this, only telling what would be. That's the original reason. But it really shouldn't surprise you, since sin and selfishness are central to the very definition of "oppression". But much can also be said, about secondary reasons as to why these have occurred. These kind of answers are equally valid, and would naturally involve psychology and anthropology, and would be concerned with historical particulars. Historical particulars ... hmmmmm. Remember that. Let's continue. quote: I'm really not aware of a historical instace where women were prevented from reading their bibles ... Although I can think of times when those in religious authority prevented masses of "commoners" from reading the scriptures. This was done most often to cover up practices and abuses which were at best unsupported by, and at worst condemned by the Bible. The Bible condemns hypocrisy and they didn't want to be found out. "We'll just tell you the parts of the Bible we want you to hear". If there are instances where only women were prevented from reading the bible, then maybe you could educate me here. quote: Why would anything of the sort make it diffiuclt for you to believe in the Bible? If women were prevented from reading it, it must have contained something which their oppressors wanted to withhold from them. If the Bible only reinforced the ancient practices of male oppression, rather than mitigating them, it would make no sense for men to keep such a text from women. It would be an indoctrination tool to buttress the status quo. I'm not saying that the Bible really was kept from women, I'm only following your line of reasoning. If it had been kept from women, I would suspect that it held some key to their liberation. And in fact, that may be closer to the truth than the myth that the world was "matriarchal" and feminine-friendly until chauvinistic Christianity came along and introduced patriarchal domination. The real situation was that the ancient world, during the time of Christ, was very hostile to women. It was common in Rome to view women as property. The Bible teaches that women are created and loved by God as his precious workmanship. It was common in Rome to keep a domestic "wife" for doing all the common work, and a "mistress" for sexual frivolities. The Bible teaches that there is no higher union on Earth than marriage ... that wives are worthy of faithfulness and respect ... and that sexual immorality is sinful and degrading. It was common also that women were used for prostitution both religiously and recreationally. The Bible teaches that women are worthy of respect, and should not be subjected to such degrading things. If the truth be told, Christianity greatly mitigated the misogyny of it's time. However, it did teach a certain authority structure within the Church and within the home. It's too bad that that "baby" gets tossed out with the bath, and that it's assumed that such an arrangement of authority means that women are "less". I think that those aspects of Christian teaching are greatly misunderstood and caricatured in their descriptions (and practices at times). Unfortunately the beauty of such a thing is not recognized. My wife and myself practice the Biblical view of authority and roles between husband and wife, and our marriage is the better for it. So bottom line is that you're right! ... God only wanted what is best for women and men. And the path to such a peace is given in the Bible. The abuses you describe are often done in a perversion of Biblical teaching, if not in direct contradiction to it. But Dan Brown (excuse my Rant!) and others like him, keep perpetuating the historical reconstructionism of a placid matriarchal world crushed by the rough and unenlightened hands of male-dominated Christianity. That, LeeJ, is propaganda. And as I know that you're one to think for yourself and not swallow everything that comes along, I hope you end up thinking outside that box. quote: Not sure that that can be said. Though ideologies of all kinds (our most strongly held beliefs) are likely to be behind war, since we are often the most willing to defend what we are passionate about. But that's a whole other thread. quote: The nebulous "they". Who are "they"? One irksome characteristic of this view, is that it is lacking in the historical particulars for support. Or at least that's the way I hear it described so often. The more general, the better. I get images of stern dark mitred faces above long raven robes with crosses and daggers dangling above their helpless but spiritually enlightened victims. It's movie material! It's Silas! lol. Seriously, I guess you're referring to the Salem witch trials? I would say that that was more of a religious-based persecution than a gender-based one. It just so happens that witchcraft is predominately female. Though there were male "witches" put to death as well. The propriety, justice, or even theological accuracy of the mindset which gave rise to the Salem witch trials could be discussed in another thread, it would doubtless be very interesting. But I don't think it's of any great use for your purpose here. And I do value your opinion, and what you "bring to the table". But, if you can excuse the traditional-role sterotype, I'll bet you're a mean cook too! Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Biblically speaking, the sad history of women being oppressed, was the result of sin. God pronounced judgements upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam. While speaking to Eve, God said prophetically that "... your desire will be for your husband. And he will rule over you." Oh Stephen...let us take a vote. I can't believe that you actually "went there." I shake my head. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Stephanos, I believe upon reading any book, any article, you are in fact reading someone else’s opinion, and felt it so important to be open minded in that respect, it was one of my son’s teachings, so yes, your perception of me is correct, thank you. Curiosity, to me, (who said, it is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education?)is perhaps a road to more knowledge…and I’m hungry for knowledge. One must deciper for himself/herself what is fact, and what works for them, but certainly not expect others to maintain their beliefs, because it might cause them to stagnate their learning ability and fulfill their capacity…to me anyway. Is the Di Vinci Code Legitimate? Who’s to say, as it does offer some very interesting & truthful facts, and certainly scares the heck out of fundamentalists, otherwise they wouldn’t be so threatened by it and try so darn hard to disprove or prove it. It’s just a book and the last time I looked this was a free nation, able to read and discover on their own. And I ‘d like to mention, that Brown’s book is certainly far from being the first concept of that subject. My art teacher back in 12th grade issued the theory to us then, including the painting which you can’t deny, as well as literature to read and study. Remember, artists back then were extremely censored from any propaganda (as their religious leaders viewed in their writings and paintings and were banned from socity or worse) so they painted in codes…or wrote in codes. While I’m inclined to agree with you in your statement, there is also much truth to Brown’s concept, and let me remind you again, that he is certainly far from being the first writer on this subject. Men have indeed questioned these issues way back through history. ******************************** 1st and foremost I’d like to apologize, Stephenos, I remember reading or hearing that Women were exempt from reading the Torah, but in fact I must be wrong, as I can find nothing on that subject now, but I have found similar material which does verify the suppression of woman caused by religions and their religious leaders, etc. I do believe the Bible is in it’s own entity, a sacred book, and a much needed tool to live life by, for man does need rules to govern him, without them, everything would be chaoitic. And also believe that is where each and every religion started from, at least someone in the beginning was smart enough to recognize they needed rules to survive (each other). All three parts of man was blemished by the fall: 1st, his soul was contaminated; 2nd, his body was transmuted into sinful flesh ; 3rd, his spirit was deadened. It IS important that we recognize the tactics put into motion by God’s enemy to corrupt man’s soul (his mind, emotion, and will), and maybe just maybe since if I believe in God, then I also believe in the devil, and one common denominator is the fact that there is a negative and positive energy in all things...just like a battery. Stephenos, I have a really difficult time believing that an entity designed all this, our entire solar system and beyond, all the animals, the perfection of the lands, it’s waterways and seas, that is so in sync, so faultless, including the balance of everything which is needed for the next thing to survive. Then, to boot, he designed and invented man…the intensity & complexity of structure alone is miraculous, which works ingeniously...along with the spirit and mind, of which we only use, I believe 1/3 of? Also, over one apple, man was contaminated and made to suffer for the rest of man’s existence and will most likely be his own demise. I mean, dude, just look at our history’s wars from the beginning, led by men, over land and religious indifferences…??? (a little humor there) The brutality of man to inflict pain, torture, corruption, simply to sustain power and justify it? Look at man’s intolerance alone, my goodness, the extreme lefts and rights as an example, the fear of being told we’re wrong, and admitting it…or to persecute another human being because of his/her beliefs. Society, to me, is a very complex and confused breed and so far behind their capacity, mentally and our social beliefs? We are men who thrive on conditioning, and wouldn’t know what in the heck to do, without someone else telling us what to do, how to do it, and look to others and to society for approval to be happy…not to mention, what to believe. We believe what we’re told as pure unadulterated fact, when we largely need to seek answers…go beyond the answers. The great artists had so many mental disabilities…because they were banned from society, because their genius was believed to be diverse and if a society cannot explain that difference, then it is given a negative label. Even today, people fear intelligence, fear saying to themselves and to others, hey I was wrong…they will stand by corruption because they fear taking a stand on their own, and being mocked or disliked for their beliefs???? How primitive? How old is man and we haven’t changed a whole lot in that respect? We’re stagnated within our own conditioning…by money, material wealth, politics, greed, corruption, etc. When it comes to authenticity of the Bible, well, I have a problem with it, due to it’s origin, which is man, who is in fact, by nature overpowered by the thought of power itself, inclined to persue desires of the flesh…Money, sex, control, wars are power. Man is deceiving by nature, to obtain all of these “things” I mean for example, what religion in it’s right would allow their religious leaders to violate children for years and still they have followers and contributers? And that is just one example. Even Jesus Christ denied the censored doctrine of the churches. Most of these writings have been censored, ignored by controlled orthodoxy, and even denied in an attempt to disprove the fact that mankind has always been able to metaphysically contact the higher sources, and even prophesy, or speak on behalf of those forces. The Bible states in the New Testament that the human race will see visions, prophesy, speak, and act on behalf of God and that these actions were never indigenous to the biblical men of old. Making this statement within the Bible itself, proves that the Bible was never intended to be the only canonized, holy word. When we have read and listened, we have denied most of the metaphysical musings of mankind as poetry and general literature, keeping holy only that which was decided for us by men???? The Nag Hammadi Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls have never been consecrated, although the thinking mind and spirit cannot deny the virtue of their metaphysical content. Documents such as The Book of Enoch have been omitted from the Bible. This is an amazing fact considering the Old Testament records Enoch having walked right with God and was taken into the clouds without dying. The Book of Enoch discusses the nature of mankind in accordance with the nature of angels and their plight, and the interweaving of the race of angels with the race of mankind. The Lost Books of the Bible openly discusses issues such as the afflictions of mankind at the hand of the dark angels, and the Forgotten Books of Eden explains at length upon the original spiritual affliction of this race of mankind through the deception of Adam and Eve. The Secret Doctrine, by Helen Blavastky, a commentary of The Dzyan Chohan (claimed to have originated in Atlantis), openly expounds on the nature of mankind in relation to the cosmic and universal forces, especially mankind's relationship within the oneness of the higher forces. The Nag Hammadi Texts and Dead Sea Scrolls have never been canonized, although the thinking mind and spirit cannot deny the virtue of their metaphysical content. The persecution of people for being witches, which began in the Medieval period, increased during this time. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued a bill declaring that Germany was full of witches. Two German inquisitors, Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Krämer, published the now infamous Malleus maleficarum (The Hammer of the Evildoers) in 1489. It became the authoritative guidebook for three centuries, followed by judges and church authorities alike. Anti-witch endeavors continued into the 1600s and 1700s, and carried out by the Protestant authorities as vigorously as Catholic ones, in both the Old World and the New World. In New England in 1692, nineteen men and women, all having been convicted of witchcraft by the Puritans in Salem, Massachusetts, were hanged. One man, who was more then eighty years old, was actually pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing to be tried for witchcraft. Hundreds were accused of witchcraft; dozens jailed for months without trials, including children. In the areas of education, women were traditionally exempt, and often discouraged from any study beyond an understanding of the practical aspects of the Torah, and the rules necessary in running a Jewish household, both of which they have an obligation to learn. Until the early 20th century, women were discouraged from learning Talmud and other advanced Jewish texts. Women were exempt from having to follow most of the set daily prayer services, and most other positive time bound mitzvot ("commandments"), such as wearing tefillin. (There are a number of notable exceptions). As such, the halakha (traditional law codes) specify that women are not eligible to be counted in a minyan for purposes of time-specific prayer, as a minyan. Women's behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much of the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. 1. Unmarried women were not allowed to leave their homes 2. They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority. 3. They could not testify in court. 4. They could not appear in public venues. 5. They were not allowed to talk to strangers. 6. In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light: Stephanos, I don’t know if the authenticity of the Bible is true or false or in-between…amd actually, I don’t really care…and won’t really know until the day I die, will I? No one really does, …but even more so, then debating religion and/or doctrines of religions…is man’s faith…isn’t that virtually the root of God’s grace? Why, just think about it…man has killed other men over this difference of opinion for thousands of years...and have we really come changed anything other then our fashions and form of travel? We still get involved in perfectly normal conversations which lead us into heated arguments and condescensions of anger out of fear of simply looking like a fool, (well so what, sighs) which in truth, starts wars between men? More sighs...and shaking my head... To me, that is so juvenile, so, such a waste of time of God’s perfection, and gift of life and lives.. Stephanos, I believe upon hurting another person, either physically, or mentally, with words, by torture, and/or by murder, your not only upsetting that one man’s life, but the entirety of his family, friends, who are grievously effected by his demise. These people are in turn horrifically changed along with their lives, and the lives of the persecutor, as well, including his families, friends, and maybe, just maybe, therein lives a horizon of answers?????? Until we realize, that our actions and decissions effect the lives of others so drastically, there will not be change...how can there be, when we constantaly inherit the dark sides of man, instead of learning something new...really really loving people and allowing. Take for instance, the man who is murdered by another man. The murdered man’s son, grows up living to revenge his father’s death…now, take into account the wife, her family, the son’s family, their children…the murder himself, and his family, his wife’s family, their children? Look at all the people whose journey might have been different if it hadn’t been for that one man’s action of murder, which has now stagnated how many generations from intellectual growth and much more importantly, how come we haven’t realized this yet in society? We're the same greedy people who will sometimes do anything for money, power, sex, and convince ourselves that we are justified in doing so. We even take our own children's demise and turn it into a gain for us...does that bring them back? No, but people sue every single day for gain of material wealth? We are so primitive and so youthful...we should be so much farther along. How come we have not taught this within our schools…to me, our educational system is so pre-historic. We could be so much better? Stephanos, I hope you know, there is nothing in this comment, that is directed at you to disvalue your beliefs or integrity or change your mind, what-so-ever, however, it is in fact me, the who of who I am, and what I believe.... I appreciate your kindness in sharing and expressing your beliefs as well…thanks so much for taking the time to do so. Anatole France said... The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards Now, excuse me while I go sing a chord from "I AM WOMAN" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Karen. Is that supposed to mean that the story itself is "androcentric" in your estimation? I honestly don't think so, since the judgement and consequences of sin was across the board ... touching Adam and Eve, as it were. And I did mention the descriptive (rather than causative) quality of the voice of God in the passage. I'm really surprised that you're surprised at my statement that one of the greatest ills in the world (practical misogyny) wasn't rooted somehow in the first few pages of Genesis. Of course, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. Do tell. respectfully, Stephen. (And LeeJ ... I'll be back. No time to respond right now. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
shaking my head but laughing this time S... I think you'd agree that we'd have to first agree on whether or not that story is true to argue the point. And yanno I ain't no literalist. Quaint little allegory though. Now admit it, you were just picking a fight for old time's sake, huh? So...in other words, you can go there if ya want. My thoughts on the subject can be found in a certain little poem in Mature Content. bwahahahahahahaha evil woman me |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Karen, your evil, evil, evil...in a good hearted humorous way... and you make me smile... would love to be a fly on the wall in your home...your a hoot thank you for opening this thread, the Amazon's would love ya... love ya gal... me |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ: quote: Being open minded ... Curiosity ... both are good things. I certainly don't discourage them. But testing whether something is really true is part of that process. You are hungry for "knowledge". But I don't think you would say that you are hungry for false knowledge. I'm wondering, are you just as curious about the possible problems with the main views as expressed in works like The DaVinci Code? Are you just as open-minded to the refutation of the anti-Christian "facts" set forth in the novel? quote: Interesting indeed. But I've found that much in TDC is not at all truthful. And that's really my challenge to you. If you're really "open minded" (and I believe you are), why not try to read one of the refuting books about the Davinci Code? And no, they're not all written by fundamentalists. Scholars of all ilks (religious and non-religious) take issue with Dan's book, not because he doesn't have the right to write fiction, but because he plainly states in his preface that his data is factual. And it really is so far from that, as to be almost comical at times. It's funny how you say that fundamentalists must be "scared" of this book, as evidenced by their refutation. But I'm quite sure that if fundamentalists didn't respond, the claim would be made "See ... It is true, otherwise they would have responded. They didn't respond because they weren't able to." Isn't that a no-win situation? I admit there's an overly anxious way of responding that might betray a lack of confidence in the truth, or an unseemly intimidation. But there is also a way of responding which is just natural for those who are concerned about truthful claims. And I think there's much written out there that falls under that heading. Yes, it's "just a book". And who is questioning your "freedom" or prerogative to "discover on your own"? You can hardly post your ideas in a philosophy forum and not expect critical analysis, cross-examination, or even outright disagreement at times can you? Whatever the truth is, it can take a few challenges. Likewise, I have no problem with you testing what I say. quote: Oh, I'm well aware that the ideas aren't new. Some of these ideas do go back to the 2nd / 3rd centuries A.D., though some of them originated much later. Dan Brown just does a nice job of summarizing them, in the form of pop-fiction. I'm simply making comments on their historical accuracy. I'm not trying to say these ideas are recent. But I will be making a case that such ideas, as concerning the early Christians and Jesus Christ, ARE later than the orthodox ones as recorded in the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. More on that later ... quote: I do, as do most scholars of art, doubt the veracity of Dan Brown's claims about DaVinci and his art. However, even if I grant that such things are true ... I'm still left with the dilemma of choosing between a view of Jesus that has its roots much later than the earliest writings, and what the canonical gospels say. If I already reject the gnostic writings because of their late dates, and dubious authorship, why would the hidden "codes" of a 15th century artist and inventor pull any weight? that's 15 centuries removed from the events themselves. quote: You're going to have to help me out here. You began this by saying that you "have a difficult time believing that an entity designed all this", and then followed with a fine description of the design argument with terms like "perfect", "in sync", "balance", "intensity", "complexity", "ingeniously". What's up here? Either I'm totally misunderstanding you, or the head of your paragraph is totally incongruous with the body, like a priest wearing a skeptic's hat. quote: It was the "fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil", not just some apple. . My point is, the fruit is representative, symbolic of something else: a choice that cut into the heart of our very being dividing us asunder, and introducing rebellion and the illusion of autonomy. And all the sad choices you describe in your commentary of the world's depravity, flow from that kind of choice, again and again and again. I don't disagree with you about these things. You're only describing The Fall, and you're only echoing Paul's description in Romans chapter one. (Read that if you get a chance).quote: The Bible's origin is not man, but God. The real question is, is God able, in spite of man's sinfulness, to give us a reliable revelation of his own mind and will. It's really a matter of faith in God, when people say that they can't believe the Bible because humans wrote it. One evidence that the Bible is of a "different spirit" is that it doesn't glorify things like money, lust, control, power, war, which you mentioned. If the bible is written by men who want power and thrive on corruption, I say it is the most backward path that sinners could take to such an end! So much of what is written condemns and hinders the very things you are describing. You even called it "desires of the flesh" a phrase right out of the Bible. It really fascinates me that you're almost paraphrasing the Bible verbatim, and yet use the very things the Bible condemns to deny the sacred origin of it. LeeJ, that's strange isn't it? You ought to ponder that a little. You may end up affirming it's divine origin after all. quote: Men are imperfect, even in the Churches. Do you deny that a "religion" can fall away from it's own original, or pure standard? The Bible also speaks against such things as this. It also speaks against covering up evil, and not dealing openly with it. Go figure. In all of these cases you are quoting an apostasy of sorts, a falling away, not something which should rightly cast doubt on origins beginnings or truth claims. There are also many righteous in the Church who have been anything but a bad example, who have exemplified a "Christ-likeness". Why do you fail to mention them? quote: Are you referring to the writings, such as the later "gospels" of Thomas, Barnabas, Peter, among others? These are known as "psuedepigraphal" writings. And the process you are referring to is canonization which involved answering the question of which documents were authentic or not. Such a determination had to happen, as the diversity of beliefs and claims multiplied through new writings. But it was not, as The Davinci code attests, an arbitary political move to garner power and selfish motives. Canon means "rule" or "measuring rod". And essentially it involved criteria by which writings were judged. The criteria included 1) Apostolicity- whether or not a document was really written by an eyewitness of Jesus, or someone who directly knew an eyewitness. 2) orthodoxy- whether or not a document was in agreement with what had already been establish and revealed as truth about Jesus. and 3) catholicity- whether or not a document was widely circulated and already recognized in the Churches as a wider community. Fringe usage by small groups who accepted a document not widely read, became suspect of something spurious. And since documents sometimes failed to exhibit all of these characteristics all the time, a “two out of three” apporach was used, if I’m not mistaken. So there were valid reasons why these documents you mention were rejected. Later dates, dubious authorship, and unorthodox teachings. And I would be happy to discuss with you any particular document you had in mind. But I assure you that Dan Brown's statement that the gnostic writings are the "earliest" documents about Jesus, is easily refuted. This idea is rejected as false by virtually ALL New Testament Scholars Christian and non-Christian. And you needn't go beyond orthodoxy and the canonical writings to affirm teaching that we may be in "contact" with higher beings, or the reality of prophecy, or mystical experience in God. Through faith, prayer, and communion with God, these things are possible. What the Bible does condemn, is the practice of blindly seeking spiritual power, outside of God's directives ... in essence sorcery, or divination, or witchcraft. Without God's leading, the spiritual realm is dangerous. It’s not that the Bible condemns supernatural experience per se, but only certain modes of it. quote: Yes, Dan Brown mentions the “Dead Sea Scrolls” as containing documents which the Church suppressed ... documents with the “other” story of Jesus. But actually the DSCs contain only earlier Jewish documents. NOTHING has been found in those scrolls about Jesus, or the apostles, or any of the events surrounding them. Dan has just tried to slip that in, and hope no one noticed that it is blatantly false, I suppose. As for the Nag Hammadi, it contained 50 or so “GNOSTIC” writings, which were rejected for dubious authorship, unorthodox teaching, and later dates. These documents are the ones I mentioned earlier which were rejected because they can boast no convincing connection with the historical events of Jesus Christ. quote: The problem with the book of Enoch, has nothing to do with Enoch. It has to do with it’s claims of authorship, and date. Scholars date the book (which may have even been a later compilation) at 150 - 80 B.C. Obviously the old testament “Enoch” did not write this, which is why the Jews naturally reject it as canonical, and the majority of the Christian church has followed their lead. quote: Yes, apocryphal (or psuedepigraphal) works, often had quite a blend of orthodox and heterodox teaching. That’s not surprising since heresies are offshoots of orthodoxy, and usually get their strength from the strands of accepted truth. If it was all new and strange, it wouldn’t gather much of a following. But you don’t need to point out truth in these false works to me. I acknowledge that it is there, along with what is false. I just deny that these works are divinely inspired, for the reasons I gave you earlier. quote: That was my point earlier ... Persecution of witches was religiously based, and had little to do with sexism. The fact that most witches were female is incidental. And even if the acts of punishment (civil and religious) were wrong, it does not therefore follow that witchcraft is sound practice and belief. People can often be right in their conclusion, and wrong in their response. quote: Nice try. The Hebrew scriptures do record the ill-treatment of women descriptively as having happened historically. But in its positive ethical teachings, the Bible does NOT cast women in a negative light. And though it’s a far cry from contemporary feminism, the Hebrew (and Christian) teachings were very honoring and liberating for women. quote: I don’t think anyone has to wait until they die, to know what they perhaps should have discovered long before. But you are correct that those who didn’t know, will know then. The question is whether the postponing of such knowledge will be harmful or not. quote: How do you know that “no one knows”? You are right to mention faith as the key to knowledge ... however the common view that faith is groundless belief, is wrong. quote: Lee ... I hope you know there is nothing in this comment that is directed at you to disvalue you ... though I’ll not hide the desire to change your mind on some things, and on other things show you that your thinking is more “biblical” than you know. Enjoying the conversation. Later, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Thank you for letting me know you're laughing. whew ... I thought I might be in trouble. It is good to hear you laugh. quote: Not at all. I always like to ask whether or not it fits the data we have ... whether or not it makes sense of what we are seeing. You can discuss those kinds of things, without affirming it as true, ipso facto. Actually I think that's how truth works on us. It "dawns" on us, or creeps up on us, or whatever. And I think asking questions is a part of that process. quote: And yanno, I don't think you have to be. I'm not either. I only try to be literal where the Bible is literal, and figurative where it is figurative. We don't always get that right, I'm sure. But regardless of whether you believe the simple Genesis story to be exact in all it's details, or merely a creative story to convey truth, one may still see the effects of a "fall" into de profundis. As much as philosophers have discussed "The problem of evil", I think that quaint little story is pretty profound, despite its rustic charm. quote: I thought it was you who picked the fight! lol. That's okay, I like a good fight every now and again, as long as it's fair. Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey, Stephanoes, I'm happy to see you... first and foremost, Its important you understand that Karen, cracks me up...even in the saddest of times, she finds humor, and that to me is an amazing quality...I wasn't laughing at you...or mocking you. Karen to me, is very special and I respect her poetry and grand sense of humor, enjoy her, and admire her. Now, Stephanoes, I don't believe they are anti Christian facts...really I don't..my boses church, (Catholic) placed TDC along with a lot of other material of the like, in front of their church encouraging people to read, research and come to their own conclusions...now, that's my kind of church! This issue here with me is not the Di Vinci code...loved the book, as it has become the most widely read books in the U.S....Stephanoes, do you really think God is intimidated by that book? I dont' believe its Anti Christian, I believe its a Christian's impression of his own faith? maybe not, but honestly, who really cares...? I can stand at the scene of an accident right along by your side, we see the same accident, but when the police arrive, we each give the officer a totally different description of the entire ordeal. That is my belief with any book, including the Bible. Love the Bible, but more so, I love Christ and His father....and don't wish to debate TDC cuz to me, it's not realatove or essential to my afterlife, regardless who is right and who is wrong...but I will stand by my convicions when stating again... No one knows for certain. And I apologize, I don't think of fundamentalists as a dirty word, as people who really and truly believe they're way is the ONLY right way, and they won't allow any other way of thinking... Religion and Science to me, are so closely tied, without one, the other couldn't be. and yes, it's a no win situation, but why does any one of us has to win...??? why can't we just allow each other our beliefs, our faith...and respect that...without shaking our heads? if I were you, I wouldn't be concerned about truthful claims until the day we meet those truths...yanno? I mean, does it really matter now, as long as we try hard to love each, to live our lives together, in some form of peace, respect for one another, remembering, we are we, and what we do, say, think, so strongly affects the lives of others... And no Stephanoes, I don't expect to post my ideas, without critical analysis, cross-examination, or disagreement, I want so badly to allow others, to me, that is most important for me and them, its the only way we learn. To me, Stephanoes, it is who I am, and quit frankly, it is the only truth, that I'm here this moment...and in that moment, if I give others my concern, consideration, trying to help them when I can, hoping for them a wealthy life in spirit, then what else is there? I care not in the least to test what you say....I've done that testing all through out my life, and this is what I've come up with and what works for me...lived with a man in marriage, whose entire family wanted me to believe like you did, and it didn't work for me. I continued to test, to study different religions, teach Sunday School, was a youth group advisor, and they were some of the memorable moments in my life, but it wasn't what "I" needed. Stephanoes, you seem irritated, because I don't believe in the Bible...and even more angry at Brown? I don't understand that debate. Why does it matter so much?...I don't choose between the dilemma of what to believe about Jesus...but I will say this... I think, it's an awesome concept that Jesus was given the experience to know the purity of a physical relationship between a man and a woman. Why not, and more so, his seed might be walking the earth at this moment...how utterly awesome! Without insult or injury to you or anyone else...I've been to the root of religions... Reformed, Catholic, Mennonite, Baptist, Revised Baptist, Luthern, and they were all so conviced that "their" religion was the ultimate word????...which is ok, but not for me. Its my choice and do refer to the Bible within my own personal life...it's a grand book to live by... I believe any one should wear a hat of question...as we are infinate in his image...are we not, and that curiosity might open doors? And I promise, I know what the apple symbolized...(sigh) and you are correct, it does not glorify material wealth... who decides a sinner? who judges a sinner? who defines what path to take...? I say, all I have to do, is look into a mirror and before me is my judge, & all I should worry about when it comes to sin...and the heck with anyone else...I've not walked in their shoes, and no matter their face, I don't know what really lives inside...it is I..that must do good, and to the best of my ability, regardless what anyone else thinks... and I don't care what that man's faith is over there...all I care about is that he gives me the same consideration and allowances that he would want for himself, in the very privet world he has built for himself...it takes a lifetime to accomplish that....and then some. Stepanoes, what you believe is sacred, and very personal to you, as my belief is to me. The fine line is when we tell others, "You ought to do this, you ought to do that, you ought to believe this way or that...which is wrong...we don't own people, not even our children. Yes, most certainly I can agree that a religion can fall away, and in the same, as you say, men are imperfect, and will fall away by desires of power...material things...religions and disagreements of such...just look at history...look at the wars...the torture, the senslessness of killing...over disagreements of religions...sheesh, when will people grow up? I don't believe that is what God wants, the wars, the killing, the persecution, arguments over beliefs...and I believe Stephanoes, when it comes to religion we haven't progressed, but stayed the same...as thousands of years ago. In all honesty, and meaning no insult...I don't really care which documents are truth, perphaps when I die, if I'm granted a heaven, then, God will reveal all the answers to me then...until then...my choices are the "free will" & gift from God...which only I will have to answer for.... the fact that most witches were female is not incidental...there I disagree with you...sorry kiddo. (and thats an affectionate kiddo, no matter your age) they were women who spoke out, who perhaps had insight, and a higher degree of perception, and yes there were some men, convicted of the same crime, but basically it was due to fear, because those people did not believe in the same rules and regulations, they had no right Yes, I am to, enjoying this conversation, thank you, as I'm overwhelmed that you took the time to explain, and share your beliefs & research with me. Many thanks and in appreciattion... Just hope you still like me, and won't burn me at the stake, I'm having company for dinner, yanno? What will they do if I'm not there? sincerely Lee J. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Perhaps, Lee, you might like to start a new thread? Women In Religion? I forgot to leave you a hug. That was a very sweet thing to say 'bout me, Lee. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I would rather ask Leej why she seems to center upon only the Christian and biblical world and then seems to generalize what she gets thereof upon basically all history. There are many other religions and cultural atmospheres in history than just the Christian and biblical. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LeeJ: quote: I do too! You need not explain yourself here, I didn't interpret your response as an insult. quote: That's a very post-modern style statement ... because there's much that the bible says, which if were not factual, would prove it's central message false. The Bible makes very definite and historical claims about Jesus and the early church, and TDVC paints another story entirely, even calling the story of the Gospels as a deception. That is indeed "anti-Christian". There are "anti-Christian" statements, unless you believe that Christianity means to believe whatever you want to about Jesus Christ. That's not closed minded, that's just a recognition that the Bible has a definite body of teaching, which may be either refuted or supported. And I'm all for the exploration of issues, such as the claims of the Davinci Code. Yes of course, every one should find out the truth for themselves. But I'll bet you anything, that your bosses Church takes a definitive stand on the issues raised by the DVC. Ask your boss about that and get back with me. Of course I'm just assuming your bosses church is not a Gnostic temple in disquise. quote: No, I don't. quote: You're right in saying "maybe not". Dan Brown is not a Christian if he believes what he writes. quote: Honestly, I do, as do many others. This gets into the distinction about what it really means to be a Christian. Though Dan Brown and others may claim to be "Christian", they reject the very centralities which define it. A Christian is someone who thinks that Jesus the Son of God literally and historically lived breathed and walked the earth, declared the Kingdom of God through miracles and teaching, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead. Therefore a Christian must indeed "care" if those things be true, or a deception as Dan Brown claims. Also, I would say that the reason I care, is that as a Christian, I think what we believe about Jesus Christ is essential to our salvation. And though thankfully many people recognize the dubious nature of Dan Brown's book as fiction, there are some who take it more seriously even to the point of basing their beliefs upon it. So, it is also for the sake of others that I care. quote: I have been at the scenes of several auto accidents. I am also an RN who sees patients who have been in accidents, and the remarkable thing about eyewitness reports is that they are amazingly similar, though they have different perspectives. Four guys named Matt Mark Luke and John claimed that a Black Taurus hit a White Prism, though their stories differ somewhat in minor details. Dan Brown is saying something far different, that the accident (crucifixion) really didn't happen at all, something that secular historians don't even doubt. quote: How do you know this for certain? quote: Lee, I have met those truths in significant ways experientially. I don't think the "truth" is something that has to wait until judgement day. Nor do I think it is undecipherable from our past. quote: No Lee, I'm not mad. I am zealous that you would know the truth, and perhaps that can be mistaken for anger. I've already explained above why it "Matters so much". Did you know that the Apostle Paul wrote this?: "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (2 Corinthians 11:2) and ... "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" It seems like it was considered "important" in the early Church at least. quote: What is the "cost" of such a concept though, in terms of Christianity? If that's what really happen, then he didn't die for our sins, and there is no ressurrection, and he is not "divine" but rather only an amiable person. That's a lot to give up isn't it? Why would it be "utterly awesome" to think that an ancient man has descendants alive today, if that man was merely another man? Why wouldn't it be even more awesome to think someone could love you and I enough to abstain from lawful things like marriage, chidlren, and family-life, just so our great and fearful sin-debt could be paid. He's not anti-marriage or anti-family. He's called the bridegroom, and the Church his bride. And believers are called the "Family of God". It's not that I think that's not good, I am thankful for marriage and children in my own life. I just think that Jesus withheld himself from a good thing, for a much better one. quote: I agree with you here. But one may hold absolute beliefs, and convey that to others, without being nasty. Firm in convictions, light in touch, is my motto. I will say however that a falling away from definite belief is not "progress" in religion, but a regression. It is not the answer to anger over absolutes ... the problem is our anger and reaction to it, not the definitive nature of religious belief. quote: I meant that witches were not persecuted primarily because they were women, but because they were witches, as evidenced by the persecution of male "warlocks" as well. Explain why you disagree with that, older kiddo. (wink) quote: Eat more? just kidding. Of course I still like you. Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey, good morning  Ess & Stephanos many thanks for your responses, but if you both don't mind, going to take this over to the new thread I started..."Woman & Regligon or Open forum, any topic goes....for instance, how perhaps Religion has affected/effected your lives? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For those that like DaVinci Code try this site. You can create your own Dan Brown Novel each time you click "refresh" |
||
|
patience_iago Member
since 2006-08-30
Posts 54 |
"Do you think there are fundamental differences in the roles of gender that predisposition men to be better at argument and philosophy?" Yes, i believe this is true, and it may go back to basic fundementals of socialogy. Men are kind of taught since birth to be the strong ones, who take care of their families, they dont cry often, they arent scared very often, it has most always been this way. So men feel the need to be right which is where some get into their arrogant ways (SOME not all), therefore i believe when it comes to arguement they just feel the need to be right, and this comes off so strongly, the confidence, shakes us off a bit from our arguement. Afterall, when someone is very confident it can sometimes intimidate you. I am having a horrible time putting this into the right words and i hope no one exaggerates this or takes it out of context. "There are some days where i believe i might die of an overdose of satisfaction" |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
