More of the collected wit and wisdom of Tnerb
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
- Status
StreetPeaches
Registered Senior Member
Genji sendz his luv
Gender relations and PostModernism
All of the discussion which has been being discussed about philosophy and such for ages, at least from my opinion to the day, been very exceptional however I've been being informed recently that a philosophy which a woman would accept as exceptional also is an idea worth pursuing I feel.
Irregardless.... There is a lot of shit out there, rape and such which people have not seem to care for in any regards whatsoever. So that a universal philosophical approach seems fairly important to the day.
Consider for a moment really, all of the talk about post modernism which has been going on. In post modernism many women are exceptionally excited with regards to their right as being free within post modernism. There are a few profound movements which are undergoing whatever they are undergoing exactly.
Anyways. All that I am really trying to expose here folks, is I believe that I have most all of the ideas regarding post modernism and such covered, answered cleared etc. If one takes for instance my first example or case.
Cultural relativism is the movement which really underlys the entire feminist movement. They proclaim that they're able to progress (god damn im smart) with a form of their own rights in a society which accepts their truths as true- this is really the main concern primarially. What I'm saying is that philosophys are usually supposed to be important. One reads Nietzsche for precisely that reason. His is a romantic philosophy or a philosophy of love. But with regards to the feminazi movement, and the dissatisfaction with what Nietzsche has called a will to power, one could perhaps consider that despite whatever good that the person has in them they are still not really able to consider that their philosophy of "Will to Power" and "Revaluation of all Values" as-- and this is the point, a philosophy of what is the real defination of love. What a woman wants is to be able to fall in love with such a philosophy. Reading the revaluation or the first book of it anyway one gets the feeling that it (was not completed) and were it would it establish all rights of a movement regarding this love which a woman desires- and for all men? Or, rather would it establish a universal theory of something from a person which is to be the universal truth. IT is hard to word it without claiming that "the person" is this universal proclaimation of such right. And yet if his philosophy is entirely true than his philosophy is a universal theory of everything produced by him and himself alone.... which would make it from a man to a woman in any regard the ultimate expression of a philosophy of love....
This gets deep into Post Modern philosophy which touches on the cyborg issues and things related or regarding the creation of some kind of feminist movement which regards or touches upon all sorts of things about sexuality and there being a universal truth or whatnot. And I cannot stress this point enough.
I am going to in the following summary express what I feel that my philosophy (as a man) is proclaiming. A woman would have the precisely similar sentiments with regards to a philosophy of love, and yet they are never able to touch upon one either. It is them afterall which accepts the love or whatever.....:shrug:
So, here are a few of my ideas. There is an exception to philosohical progress in Kant and the modern period. Descartes starting with his I think therefore I am issue, raising nothing much more than the certainty of his existance in my opinion (which was likley total hosh with regards what one knows about current theories from my so very lame perspective..). As I was saying Kant raised the issues regarding a god or whatever it is that our current philosophical understanding takes us usually it takes us back to Kant and his amazing position he created with philosophy there.
Then, there is as you are obviously aware,
The issue of Kierkegaard (this is a summary of modern philosophy) and his creation of existentialism. Existentialism sure has many ideas regarding the love of a man to a woman however where is the philosophy regarding the love of a man to a woman? Is there one?
My declaration lies here. There is no real existence of any real form within the movements proclaimed in modernism. None of them really touch upon any real and firm truths to our existences which we can hold as true. The very closest that I can consider to know is Carl Jaspers who proclaims individual right as the foundation of philosophy. This mans philosophy is the exceptional of and beyond all of the philosophys that I am currently aware of.
So all of my suggestion goes to an invitation to read Carl Jaspers' work....
Now. All I can really say is with modernism and the objectification of being and Such with heiddegger and Sartre, none really have touched much upon the light of the matter. Consider they have touched upon quite simply, Being in its full essense. What being is there in the full essense of being really anyway? We're trying to uncover not only a twin tower of love but a philosophy which a female can universally accept. Is there one? A question for anyone who cares now to answer for themselves.
My very own suggestion is to ask that all consideration of existentialism and the criticism here raised of philosphy be not taken too seriously. Any knowledge such as, for example, an interpreation of not knowing anything before we really know it and ANY establishment proclaimed by hitherto philosophy weather it be correct or not has not and likley will not ever as it stands from this point in the writing, (dear christ!), proclaim a love which we can know and accept as true from my perspective. I am glad that whoever reads this can understand this point.: And what really is the point besides there not being any particular signifigant love which has been proclaimed? Can anyone at this point in time PLEASE show me one? I do not believe that one could do so.
And this therefore is the amazement of a universal philosophy. Some philosophy which is able to proclaim either say Nietzsche reached some form of puppy eyes with his girl in his romanticism, is it proceeded to be called puppy eyes by any females. Perhaps that is the case as they strut their stuff.
Yet with out all of the philosophy that I know or are aware I can perhaps say that if one considers what is usually written in books or something such as this, you will find exactly what is written below:
Feminist movements regarding cultural relativism and the creation of a political busy body out of cyborgs which are beyond our control. Sexually anyhow this touches upon issues of a creation of some norm which is not able to be loved. And if one were to consider who exactly would be able to love something which is not proclaimed to them as a philosophy that is loving. You in my opinion, would reach a dead end, finding love and all of it you want within the person you are in love with. Sure right. That kind of love is acceptable is it not? What kind of childhood love would they have together? Something acceptable by the whole entire bunch of other people? All of their philosophys shouting out to them that they cannot have what is proclaimed because it is not loving. I see nothing better than a philosophy where love is proclaimed personally.
And yet, my opinion would be that within all of the philosophy that is written Kierkeggard has achieved the closest approximation. His approximation of a leap of faith in which God and everything is accepted. Yet where is this theory which proclaims that this is not so? Where is cultural relativism mistaken within the ideas or theories of other women? Where is a truth to be found which proclaims that it is the truth. Surely not the truth as a truth. For afterall any philosophy which stands twin peaks in love with each other is no philosophy is it. What is one philosophy which proclaims a love for someone?
My ideas are these:
Cultural relativism regards feminism as something to be understood regarding their superiority. In other words call me somewhat of a feminist or masculanist or whatever. Typically a woman who stresses their superiority over a male, well they have every right to do so do they not. Who ever is superior in the end is the question which our politics are currently attempting (by all means) resolve and come to an answer or conclusion.
However none of this is really necessary is it?
And yet who can find a real answer to our questions about philosophy or should I say where does one exist? This is my question.
My opinion is that the answer lies precisely in philosophy and not physics or anything else. That there is an answer which proclaims that there is a truth. What truth though are we searching for is it physical is it something else.
If you have any thoughts feel free to share I will probably post some later thank you
All of the discussion which has been being discussed about philosophy and such for ages, at least from my opinion to the day, been very exceptional however I've been being informed recently that a philosophy which a woman would accept as exceptional also is an idea worth pursuing I feel.
Irregardless.... There is a lot of shit out there, rape and such which people have not seem to care for in any regards whatsoever. So that a universal philosophical approach seems fairly important to the day.
Consider for a moment really, all of the talk about post modernism which has been going on. In post modernism many women are exceptionally excited with regards to their right as being free within post modernism. There are a few profound movements which are undergoing whatever they are undergoing exactly.
Anyways. All that I am really trying to expose here folks, is I believe that I have most all of the ideas regarding post modernism and such covered, answered cleared etc. If one takes for instance my first example or case.
Cultural relativism is the movement which really underlys the entire feminist movement. They proclaim that they're able to progress (god damn im smart) with a form of their own rights in a society which accepts their truths as true- this is really the main concern primarially. What I'm saying is that philosophys are usually supposed to be important. One reads Nietzsche for precisely that reason. His is a romantic philosophy or a philosophy of love. But with regards to the feminazi movement, and the dissatisfaction with what Nietzsche has called a will to power, one could perhaps consider that despite whatever good that the person has in them they are still not really able to consider that their philosophy of "Will to Power" and "Revaluation of all Values" as-- and this is the point, a philosophy of what is the real defination of love. What a woman wants is to be able to fall in love with such a philosophy. Reading the revaluation or the first book of it anyway one gets the feeling that it (was not completed) and were it would it establish all rights of a movement regarding this love which a woman desires- and for all men? Or, rather would it establish a universal theory of something from a person which is to be the universal truth. IT is hard to word it without claiming that "the person" is this universal proclaimation of such right. And yet if his philosophy is entirely true than his philosophy is a universal theory of everything produced by him and himself alone.... which would make it from a man to a woman in any regard the ultimate expression of a philosophy of love....
This gets deep into Post Modern philosophy which touches on the cyborg issues and things related or regarding the creation of some kind of feminist movement which regards or touches upon all sorts of things about sexuality and there being a universal truth or whatnot. And I cannot stress this point enough.
I am going to in the following summary express what I feel that my philosophy (as a man) is proclaiming. A woman would have the precisely similar sentiments with regards to a philosophy of love, and yet they are never able to touch upon one either. It is them afterall which accepts the love or whatever.....:shrug:
So, here are a few of my ideas. There is an exception to philosohical progress in Kant and the modern period. Descartes starting with his I think therefore I am issue, raising nothing much more than the certainty of his existance in my opinion (which was likley total hosh with regards what one knows about current theories from my so very lame perspective..). As I was saying Kant raised the issues regarding a god or whatever it is that our current philosophical understanding takes us usually it takes us back to Kant and his amazing position he created with philosophy there.
Then, there is as you are obviously aware,
The issue of Kierkegaard (this is a summary of modern philosophy) and his creation of existentialism. Existentialism sure has many ideas regarding the love of a man to a woman however where is the philosophy regarding the love of a man to a woman? Is there one?
My declaration lies here. There is no real existence of any real form within the movements proclaimed in modernism. None of them really touch upon any real and firm truths to our existences which we can hold as true. The very closest that I can consider to know is Carl Jaspers who proclaims individual right as the foundation of philosophy. This mans philosophy is the exceptional of and beyond all of the philosophys that I am currently aware of.
So all of my suggestion goes to an invitation to read Carl Jaspers' work....
Now. All I can really say is with modernism and the objectification of being and Such with heiddegger and Sartre, none really have touched much upon the light of the matter. Consider they have touched upon quite simply, Being in its full essense. What being is there in the full essense of being really anyway? We're trying to uncover not only a twin tower of love but a philosophy which a female can universally accept. Is there one? A question for anyone who cares now to answer for themselves.
My very own suggestion is to ask that all consideration of existentialism and the criticism here raised of philosphy be not taken too seriously. Any knowledge such as, for example, an interpreation of not knowing anything before we really know it and ANY establishment proclaimed by hitherto philosophy weather it be correct or not has not and likley will not ever as it stands from this point in the writing, (dear christ!), proclaim a love which we can know and accept as true from my perspective. I am glad that whoever reads this can understand this point.: And what really is the point besides there not being any particular signifigant love which has been proclaimed? Can anyone at this point in time PLEASE show me one? I do not believe that one could do so.
And this therefore is the amazement of a universal philosophy. Some philosophy which is able to proclaim either say Nietzsche reached some form of puppy eyes with his girl in his romanticism, is it proceeded to be called puppy eyes by any females. Perhaps that is the case as they strut their stuff.
Yet with out all of the philosophy that I know or are aware I can perhaps say that if one considers what is usually written in books or something such as this, you will find exactly what is written below:
Feminist movements regarding cultural relativism and the creation of a political busy body out of cyborgs which are beyond our control. Sexually anyhow this touches upon issues of a creation of some norm which is not able to be loved. And if one were to consider who exactly would be able to love something which is not proclaimed to them as a philosophy that is loving. You in my opinion, would reach a dead end, finding love and all of it you want within the person you are in love with. Sure right. That kind of love is acceptable is it not? What kind of childhood love would they have together? Something acceptable by the whole entire bunch of other people? All of their philosophys shouting out to them that they cannot have what is proclaimed because it is not loving. I see nothing better than a philosophy where love is proclaimed personally.
And yet, my opinion would be that within all of the philosophy that is written Kierkeggard has achieved the closest approximation. His approximation of a leap of faith in which God and everything is accepted. Yet where is this theory which proclaims that this is not so? Where is cultural relativism mistaken within the ideas or theories of other women? Where is a truth to be found which proclaims that it is the truth. Surely not the truth as a truth. For afterall any philosophy which stands twin peaks in love with each other is no philosophy is it. What is one philosophy which proclaims a love for someone?
My ideas are these:
Cultural relativism regards feminism as something to be understood regarding their superiority. In other words call me somewhat of a feminist or masculanist or whatever. Typically a woman who stresses their superiority over a male, well they have every right to do so do they not. Who ever is superior in the end is the question which our politics are currently attempting (by all means) resolve and come to an answer or conclusion.
However none of this is really necessary is it?
And yet who can find a real answer to our questions about philosophy or should I say where does one exist? This is my question.
My opinion is that the answer lies precisely in philosophy and not physics or anything else. That there is an answer which proclaims that there is a truth. What truth though are we searching for is it physical is it something else.
If you have any thoughts feel free to share I will probably post some later thank you
thread title change upset
Yeah my thread philosophical toe was changed to post modernism and gender relations. I feel that a philosophical toe is only possibly through an investigation of such gender issues. Which means that (you guessed it), most gender issues are entirely mistaken.
Here's to yelling at you again sciforums
Yeah my thread philosophical toe was changed to post modernism and gender relations. I feel that a philosophical toe is only possibly through an investigation of such gender issues. Which means that (you guessed it), most gender issues are entirely mistaken.
Here's to yelling at you again sciforums
Should 'ave extended it...
Well, given his first post upon his return, something makes me think brent's quickly on his way out again....
very funny
Philosohical toe. It was simply an objectification of the issue's importance. A philosophical toe, your considering it to be utterly meaningless, is kind of like saying that there doesn't exist gender relations which are utterly meaningless as well (I'm not saying that there are not gender relations which are utterly meaningless). I am upset at you glaucon a great great deal for doin that !
Think about this.
With the proceeding chapters of history we arrive at nothing but a consideration of the tumbling buildings. This may sound like a gender relation and post modernism, but it is not. It is a philosophical toe you know. Kind of like saying, that there is a theory of everything within philosophy, sort of like a completed and objectified version of philosophy. It has nothing to do with gender issues. It more has to do with finding the theory of everything within philosophy. Most of the way that you would do that though is considering some of the thoughts I had.
Therefore I sort of made it a telling story as best as I could do you think I did not? I'm not saying you didn't but just remember that the philosophical toe lies within usually these consideration of gender issues. It has nothing to do with gender issues and post modernism. It's just gender issues and a philosphical toe, for the main part you find the philosophical toe by understanding how wrong the feminists are and such.... I know you disagree. Feel free to do so.
very funny
It wasn't meant to be.
None of this makes any sense.
ibid
ibid
This is not a very funny post.
The whole issue regarding the theory of everything with philosphical movements and ideas or understandings really reach out and touch the feminist movement.
If you say so glaucon.
But if you were to ask me, my sentence isn't really nonsensical:
Touching the feminist movement or not, all it does is express the importance of the philosophical theory of everything which for the most part usually regards you know feminism and I don't know equal consideration of the male (who usually is most dominate). Therefore it just says that it is touching the boundaries of proclaimed ideas regarding feminism. It's hard to say it much easier.
Help guys
I'm dealing with a criminal sociopath who has every intention to ruin my life. Threatening to rape me until I cannot have children. If you were to ask me, it is the most of retardation and utter mad mind that I have ever seen who needs to die for what he is doing to me.
Now, for the sympathy that I have for the person and the utter and apparent lack to communicate with him or her, I must say that I have no ability to leave him in comforting him. How do I get rid of a criminal sociopath who is intent on ruining my life depending on the choices that I make?
I'm dealing with a criminal sociopath who has every intention to ruin my life. Threatening to rape me until I cannot have children. If you were to ask me, it is the most of retardation and utter mad mind that I have ever seen who needs to die for what he is doing to me.
Now, for the sympathy that I have for the person and the utter and apparent lack to communicate with him or her, I must say that I have no ability to leave him in comforting him. How do I get rid of a criminal sociopath who is intent on ruining my life depending on the choices that I make?
Last edited:
- Status