I said "science." That excludes Freud and Jung.
Like.
I wanted you to clarify a statement. And that's fine, here's why:
To eliminate this disruptive and destructive ebb and flow of male competition, man invented monogamy and the institution of marriage, thusly harnessing a females sexual power and managing to incorporate as many males as possible within its unity.
I fooled around with an absolutely gorgeous, caring, sweet, green-haired girl last weekend while my boyfriend hung out with us. I'm fixated on making sure the two of them will be happy and down with a repeat this weekend. You're fixated on male dominance and the compromises that marriage and children entail.
How can you formulate a criticism relevent to my life?
Oh, and I'm totally bragging now. See, this is me bragging. Brag brag brag.
(Yes, I know that nobody cares)
How your adolescent experimentations and your attempt to live on the fringe will work out we shall see.
Just be prepared to be slowly left behind, if you aren't willing to make compromises.
I guess what I say is about an average, not some sadomasochist getting his kicks on every weekend or living a secret life on the side, or some homo who's very existence is owed to the system that shelters him from the worse of his difference, or some dude into bestiality ashamed to even admit his passion.
All sexual drives and desires which are not strictly interested in reproduction expose the individual's inner turmoil or anxieties.
Repression often comes forth via alternative routes. One of which is sex.
Wanting to get beaten up during intercourse, let's say, is a symptom of an inner pressure.
A man wanting another to shove his penis up his ass, and calls this love, is also a symptom.
That sex in more sophisticated organism takes on added roles as a social lubricant or a psychological pressure release is evidence of the repression all social interactions cause in individual organisms that must compromises and control certain drives and expressions of self so as to remain acceptable and welcomed.
The cultured man, the civilized man, is a man that exhibits a level of self-control and repression which becomes admirable because it is so welcomed by the whole.
We call it politeness or civility or culture.
The relevance is that you are a symptom of decadence and an environment where sex is trivial and only a pastime or a form of escapism.
The decline of the western traditional family is another symptom.
What the long-term consequences of this will be we shall see. I have some ideas but they are not certain.
Also, with the exception of mind-body, mostly ignored by anyone doing philosophy in the real world.
And yet it underlies many 'progressive' ideologies, as a given.
It's called selective reasoning where one logic is applied in one area and another, often a completely contradictory one, in another.
In fact when it suits them the liberal glorifies empiricism as the height of human reasoning and the purest of all methodologies in the search for reality.
But when it does not suit his social and ideological interests empiricism is defamed, degraded and cast aside as superficial or hiding 'deeper realities' or a common source which equates all multiplicity as a farce.
In racial matters, for example, color is deemed irrelevant and skin-deep, just as beauty is to comfort the less than beautiful.
And yet we use color to determine quality in every other area.
And yet they do not follow their own logic and consider form and taste and smell and texture similarly irrelevant and superficial, because here there are no cultural connotations or uncomfortable 'truth's to hide.
It is the same method Christians use to defend their need for God.
They use the cause/effect erroneous dichotomy to come to a creator god, but then they change the rules saying that here, for no apparent reason, the effect has no cause.
The question for all you liberal, bleeding heart, enlightened, new-aged modern intellects is:
Is nature superfluous?
If not then does not all difference denote a difference not only of appearance but of essence?
If not then why does man differentiate and judge reality using his senses and his perception of differences to evaluate the world?
What similarities in behavior one perceives in modern social unities is one created artificially and using repression, indoctrination, technology, education and force, which limits certain choices, denies certain drives and produces a level of shared mediocrity.
I see you harping. I know that you are like a Dodge truck in your rugged, masculine individuality, and that you detest my feminine weakness and sensitivity, and that you are just as awesome as can be, but you still DO refuse to shut up about how my approach is inferior.
Your feminine weakness?
There's little about you that fits this label, unless you force it or play that part to find solace in being accepted and in finding a boyfriend.
Who the fuck are you talking to here?
Nope, you are. Most of your arguments, "I am teh creator!" and "Socialism and Christianity betray the same worldview" and "OMG we've entered the age of the herd!" and "the weak resent the strong so they change values" are just straight up lifted from Nietzsche.
If you were whining "OMG social control has become invisible in the guise of reform" or "types of thought can be organized and diagrammed" I'd mock you for lifting off of Foucault and Fodor, respectively.
Having mentors or minds you share opinions with is, for you, something shameful?
Did you come to this world ready made?
Do not some people put words to your ideas or offer you the courage to express them?
Being taught is not shameful. Remaining a student is.
And by the way a creation ceases belonging to the creator once it is shared.
Organized labor is a social invention. So, for that matter, is work beyond a sustinance level.
And.
Oh gawd. First off, ever been in a small town? You really think they tolerate diversity more there than in a city?
How
[insult deleted] are you?
A small town doesn't exist on tis own. It is a small town in a large nation. It isn't independent from it.
Diversity is tolerated in smaller independent groups because here the talents and efforts of each individual are a matter of survival.
No member is expendable.
Second, "diversity" is perfectly manufactured. Individuality is this new great myth from the cult of the self, but the whole concept (although I'm sure you are a beautiful and unique snowflake) derives from grossly generalizing thought patterns.
Yup.
Diversity within the confines of nature and what the species is.
Uniqueness is the slow cutting away from this heritage.
A temporal distancing, like a singularity.
Each individual is a combination of the same instincts and needs and drives to different degrees and with different intensities.
