Male Female differences/ Women Presidents etc

[aequalsa]

Guess what? My girlfriend would respond in the same way if you advanced the thesis that she should be submissive, non-competitive and non-confrontational. Go figure. Maybe because self confidence, rationality and intolerance of the arbitrary are traits that rational animals should have, no matter what's between their legs.

Personally I like women, not rugs. If you need to dominate someone in order to "know the joys" of life you are a second hander. Period.

Wow, you found a clone, Congrats!

If being a MAN to WOMAN makes me a second hander, I wear your slanderous phrase with pride, finding myself in the same good company as Howard Roark, Ragnar Danksjold, Francisco D' Anconia, John Galt, and every real man worth knowing that I have ever met. Enjoy your androgeny.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Mmmmm, argument by fictitious characters. What a weird genetic fallacy. Tasty, and ironically explicitly second-handed.

[aequalsa]

Mmmmm, argument by fictitious characters. What a weird genetic fallacy. Tasty, and ironically explicitly second-handed.

In fairness it was argument by ficticious characters in response argument by ad hominem...I thought it was a step up. Also, you'll notice that I also included real men I have known and admired who conduct themselves in the same way. But, being individuals that others on this board were not familiar with, I thought it best to emphasize the archtypes which everyone on the board would be familiar with.

[Inspector]

Mmmmm, argument by fictitious characters. What a weird genetic fallacy. Tasty, and ironically explicitly second-handed.

I think that argument put down its napkin and left the table in disgust a while back when mrocktor started calling us second handers. I agree with aequalsa's assessment of the situation: he can go and attempt to enjoy his life of androgeny. Good luck with that. But I don't see any fruitfulness in continuing to discuss the matter with him.

[IAmMetaphysical]

What would you call defining your identity in relation to others?

[Inspector]

Mmmmm, argument by fictitious characters. What a weird genetic fallacy. Tasty, and ironically explicitly second-handed.

I am not a big fan of the use of Ayn Rand's fictitious characters to show what her viewpoint was because the context of the characters, and the context that they are characters, often confuses the situation. It's so easy to do it badly or incorrectly.

But I don't think anything is confused in this example. (I suspect aequalsa agrees with this, but made an exception because the argument is already over, in order to make a good and valid point...)

I think that aequalsa's position is valid: that if you call someone who belives in masculinity and femininity a second-hander, then you are calling Ayn Rand a second hander, because she clearly believed in them. You can use her characters to illustrate this, but you don't need to. It was explicitly her position.

So if I am a second hander, at least I am in good company.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I believe in masculinity and femininity. Just because I disagree with your view doesn't mean I reject the concepts outright.

I would also argue that Howard Roark and John Galt acted the way they did, "like men" if you must, not because of anyone else, and not in reaction to someone else's femininity.

[aequalsa]

What would you call defining your identity in relation to others?

I call it a comparison. Not necessary in defining my identity to myself, or those who know me well, but maybe helpful in explaining myself to others. Communication is greatly helped by a common point of reference.

I could easily say, "I am Me, Gordon, my own special self, and I need no identifying,...I am beyond defintion". But that doesn't really provide any useful information. So I say instead, "I share the views of thomas jefferson on this matter", or "I think IAmMetaphysical's view on this issue is correct". Because it often saves a good deal of typing on my part and redundancy for the reader.

Comparing myself to someone, or labeling a belief I hold does not limit my individuality. The comparison is not causal to my personality as in the case of an actual second-hander. My personality allows for the comparison. The comparison is the result of my beliefs.

So to connect directly to the matter at hand, Mrocktor believes that my sexual view of women makes me a second hander. Which, since I agree whole-heartedly with Miss Rand's oppinion on the issue, as evidenced by her heroes approach to romance, means that Miss Rand, as well as the characters she presents in her novels are also second handers. In which case, I find myself wondering why anyone who feels that way would care for the novels at all. What with all those hairy-knuckled, misogynistic, decidedly masculine neanderthals raping women and throwing them about.

I believe in masculinity and femininity. Just because I disagree with your view doesn't mean I reject the concepts outright.

I would also argue that Howard Roark and John Galt acted the way they did, "like men" if you must, not because of anyone else, and not in reaction to someone else's femininity.

Are you suggesting that Howard Roark does not respond to Dominique's femininity? It could have just as easily have been one of his coworkers in the quarry, so long as he held a proper view of existence?

[aequalsa]

I am not a big fan of the use of Ayn Rand's fictitious characters to show what her viewpoint was because the context of the characters, and the context that they are characters, often confuses the situation. It's so easy to do it badly or incorrectly.

But I don't think anything is confused in this example. (I suspect aequalsa agrees with this, but made an exception because the argument is already over, in order to make a good and valid point...)

I do agree.

I think that aequalsa's position is valid: that if you call someone who belives in masculinity and femininity a second-hander, then you are calling Ayn Rand a second hander, because she clearly believed in them. You can use her characters to illustrate this, but you don't need to. It was explicitly her position.

So if I am a second hander, at least I am in good company.

We should start a club. "Second Hand Individualists Association" ...."Individualists for the Preservation of the Second Hand"...or...oh, I like this one..."Knights of the Second Hand Order"

[Inspector]

I believe in masculinity and femininity. Just because I disagree with your view doesn't mean I reject the concepts outright.

I didn't think you did. Which is why I wonder why you defend mrocktor. Because he does reject them outright.

I would also argue that Howard Roark and John Galt acted the way they did, "like men" if you must, not because of anyone else, and not in reaction to someone else's femininity.

Sort of. It's not because of anyone else, no: it's because of your own nature. But your nature is what it is vis a vis a woman's nature and that is essential to defining it. You can't separate that fact from the whole. So you're right in that it isn't second-handed. (obviously! That is my whole point, thankyouverymuch) But you're wrong in thinking that the proper male/female relationship as concerns masculinity/femininity doesn't involve the male dominating the female.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

Are you suggesting that Howard Roark does not respond to Dominique's femininity?

Being heterosexual is not the essence of either gender.

I didn't think you did. Which is why I wonder why you defend mrocktor. Because he does reject them outright.

I do not defend him per se, I just take issue with what seemed like an appeal to authority, which seems to happen in EVERY thread about sexuality.

So to connect directly to the matter at hand, Mrocktor believes that my sexual view of women makes me a second hander. Which, since I agree whole-heartedly with Miss Rand's oppinion on the issue, as evidenced by her heroes approach to romance, means that Miss Rand, as well as the characters she presents in her novels are also second handers.

Maybe Mrock and I have different views on why your view is "second-handed." I do not mean to imply that anyone holding that view or belief is being second-handed. I mean to say that anyone with that view is defining each of the genders as second-handed, i.e. defining them strictly in relation to each other so that masculinity makes femininity and vice versa, which has been established already as circular reasoning. Now while you two may identify your own gender identities in relation to your significant other's on a level as to warrant the title of someone living second-handed is beyond my present knowledge.

My theory on the subject is that gender self-identification is done(in most if not all cases) apart from any direct consideration of another's gender identity. So while you may think that you self identify in reaction to femininity, I think you actually are attracted to femininity in reaction to your own sense of masculinity(this is all speculation of course.)

All concept formation is done by observing differences and similarities. In the case of gender the differentiation is an important part, one must realize that there are in fact two basic themes that the human body exists as, and that these themes coincide with the two sexes(abnormalities not withstanding.) So the distinction between the two genders, the fact that they are distinct, is not in question and I would venture to say that it is self-evident. What is up for debate is what are those distinctions and of those distinctions what is essential. While it is valid to illustrate the differences by contrasting and comparing the two genders in order to clearly isolate those differences, the comparitive nature of those illustrations don't serve well in abstracting the essentials. So things like "stronger than" or "hero-worship" or "more beuatiful than" do not serve well in this function. To accurately describe something, you must describe what it is, not what it "is not." So while it is valid to describe masculinity as "strength" or "efficiency" or even "hero", it is invalid to then describe femininity as "weakness" "inefficiency" or "hero-worshipper." "Weakness and inefficiency" is the essence of something much to evil to be a metaphysical fact of anyone's nature. Women are not weak, nor inefficient(to any great extent), but this does not make them masculine, because strength and efficiency--while they may define masculinity-- play no part in defining femininity. To define the feminine we must look at what women are, not at what they aren't.

The key to the genders is that you have to look at them from an aesthetic angle, which is what Rand does in her novels, and I believe missaplies an aesthetic formulation to ethics with her "woman president" stance. But I do think her aesthetic evaluation is correct. (Masculine)men are the abstract symbol of a hero, as a theme their bodies represent all the virtues needed for being a hero. A (feminine)woman as a symbol symbolizes something different, although it is possible for her to be a heroine in the same sense as a man can, although qua feminine woman, she can never consistently symbolize it physically. It is in this sense that a woman "worships" a man, as the essence of female heterosexual lust, for the man's abstract symbolizing of human virtue. She identifies herself as being a symbol of something in particular(which I won't mention since I havent fully formulated it in my mind as of yet) and also identifies the nature of the symbol of masculinity and realizes that she doesn't symbolize that, what follows is intrigue and curiosity, and then "worship" if that concept can be given a rational expression. In the same sense a masculine man will "worship" the feminine, in the same way, as an object of intrigue, an abstract symbol of a certain type of human virtue, a piece of art if you will.

[aequalsa]

The key to the genders is that you have to look at them from an aesthetic angle, which is what Rand does in her novels,

That was well formulated. I agree with the essentialization of man as a hero. If I understand you correctly to be advocating that.

Aesthetically I would essentialize women as the personification of beauty. In movement, in appearance, in character, and well, in essence. A naturally occuring work of art, if that makes sense.

So if a statue of a man in his proper essentials would be heroic...engaged in some epic struggle...possibly even scarred.

A woman would be better represented in a state of serenity. A symbol of life itself. She shouldn't be marred and bloody on a battle field. To see a woman there, I would immediately wonder what went horribly wrong for her to be in that place. She should be in a sanctuary, lots of flowers around. (Actually, some of IFAT's art conjures the right image of femininity for me). A living embodiment of the reward of achievment. The treasure the hero comes back to at the end of his battle.

That is my thought on at least the aesthetic essence of gender. I would be very interested in the oppinion of women as to how they would essentialize themselves as women. I think that might be insightful if there are any introspective women on the board.(yeah that was a poke at your pride, to get you all to write )

So they are relational. I don't know that they define each other, but the descriptions don't make sense without the existence of the other. If man were the only animal on the planet, classifying him as rational wouldn't be necessary. The way a man is different from a woman is only important if women exist. So on some level, they have to be referent to each other. I disagree that it is circular. It is an identification of reality and not a proof. Also, I don't think second-handed applies to their descriptions even if the definitions are reliant on one another. As I stated before, comparing existents does not equivocate to becoming something as a response to someone elses desires. Men become masculine and women feminine as a result of and to the extent of their natures. Not because they are trying to be not-male or not-female. It is a natural, but not automatic response to what they are.

[aequalsa]

My theory on the subject is that gender self-identification is done(in most if not all cases) apart from any direct consideration of another's gender identity. So while you may think that you self identify in reaction to femininity, I think you actually are attracted to femininity in reaction to your own sense of masculinity(this is all speculation of course.)

See, they might identify themselves in a general way without regard to others, but when they identify themselves as women or men, they must take the other sex into account. That is where the differentiation occurs. There is no other sex they can refer to. Those are their options. "I am this, and not that."

Ayn Rand related the impact of a story she read around the age of 11, I think, that seems to have done that for her. If I remember correctly, it was a comic book sort of thing about an efficacious hunter. She read that, and realized simultaneously that he(the hero) was not what she was, but was what she loved.

[Maarten]

Aequalsa,

but it would just be plain bad to give "Man is more rational than other animals." as the definition of description man. Proper definitions never directly compare to something else, so why would you want to do it here? The only way in which this would make sense, is if there are only two concepts that are mutually exclusive in all areas. Then it might make sense to define only one of them and say: Well, the other concept is what the first isn't. But in this case, I do not think that applies. The essence of masculinity and femininity is not directly opposed to each other, and therefore the relational description doesn't make sense. It would be ever so much clearer what femininity is if someone actually sat down and defined it in terms that are meaningful without a comparison. It would be clearer to me, anyway.

[hunterrose]

A woman who chastises herself for wanting to feel protected or a man who believes that he should not be sexually aggressive with a woman that he wants severely(assuming a proper relationship) would both fit this description [of impropriety].

You're assuming cases where a person wants to do something (as a part of her nature) and acts against it. What if a particular woman, as a part of her nature, doesn't want to be protected or a particular man doesn't want to be the romantic initiator? Do you then say that they should act against their own nature, and act on the nature of their collective?

I only meant to demonstrate the importance of integrity between ones nature and actions.

Then why are you arguing for "integrity" between one's own actions and a collective nature??

[mrocktor]

Because he does reject them outright.

No definition. Rejected. I'm not denying that men and women are different biologically. I'm not denying that biological differences can affect perception and emotions. Man however is not defined by biology, sensory apparatus or hormones - man is defined by his rational volitional mind.

So, until you forward a derivation from the nature of male and female individuals to the behavior that you are preaching is right for them, being dismissed out of hand is all you deserve.

All concept formation is done by observing differences and similarities. In the case of gender the differentiation is an important part, one must realize that there are in fact two basic themes that the human body exists as, and that these themes coincide with the two sexes(abnormalities not withstanding.) So the distinction between the two genders, the fact that they are distinct, is not in question and I would venture to say that it is self-evident. What is up for debate is what are those distinctions and of those distinctions what is essential. While it is valid to illustrate the differences by contrasting and comparing the two genders in order to clearly isolate those differences, the comparitive nature of those illustrations don't serve well in abstracting the essentials. So things like "stronger than" or "hero-worship" or "more beuatiful than" do not serve well in this function. To accurately describe something, you must describe what it is, not what it "is not." So while it is valid to describe masculinity as "strength" or "efficiency" or even "hero", it is invalid to then describe femininity as "weakness" "inefficiency" or "hero-worshipper." "Weakness and inefficiency" is the essence of something much to evil to be a metaphysical fact of anyone's nature. Women are not weak, nor inefficient(to any great extent), but this does not make them masculine, because strength and efficiency--while they may define masculinity-- play no part in defining femininity. To define the feminine we must look at what women are, not at what they aren't.

Read that well, it is a concise summation of your epistemological error.

As to the charges of ad hominem, they are unfounded.

1. Someone sees "X" as essential to their identity and self-worth;

2. Said person defines "X" as being better than someone else;

3. Said person is a second hander.

In this case "X" is "masculinity". If the description above fits you, you are a second hander - but the argument does not rest on that.

EDIT:

Then why are you arguing for "integrity" between one's own actions and a collective nature??

And this is obvious even to the one who's not an Objectivist. Sweet irony.

Edited February 1, 2007 by mrocktor

[mrocktor]

because strength and efficiency--while they may define masculinity--

One small nit to pick, on the third reading. Strength and efficiency can't define masculinity unless they differentiate the masculine from the rest of the genus (assumed to be "rational animals"). By defining masculinity as "strength and efficiency" (presuming you mean a broad definition of strength: physical, mental, moral) suddenly the ideal woman is... also masculine. Since "strength" and "efficiency" are virtues for all rational animals.

While "rational animals who have strength and efficiency" makes for a proper definition, its completely gender neutral and I'd hardly associate it with masculinity and femininity.

Edited February 1, 2007 by mrocktor

[Inspector]

Being heterosexual is not the essence of either gender.

I disagree.

I mean to say that anyone with that view is defining each of the genders as second-handed, i.e. defining them strictly in relation to each other so that masculinity makes femininity and vice versa, which has been established already as circular reasoning.

No it doesn't, and it has been established to be no such thing. You saying you have established it doesn't establish it.

My theory on the subject is that gender self-identification is done(in most if not all cases) apart from any direct consideration of another's gender identity.

Where did you get this idea of an individual man identifying his gender identity on the basis of a single person? Who said anything about that?

While it is valid to illustrate the differences by contrasting and comparing the two genders in order to clearly isolate those differences, the comparative nature of those illustrations don't serve well in abstracting the essentials.

Why not? I think the problem is that you're focusing on the comparative negatives rather than the comparative positives, or you're conflating the two.

So things like "stronger than" or "hero-worship" or "more beautiful than" do not serve well in this function.

Sure they do. They serve just fine. Men are stronger than women. Thus strength is a masculine trait.

To accurately describe something, you must describe what it is, not what it "is not."

Man (male) is stronger than woman. There is an "is" right there. Your problem is that you are conflating the positive and negative comparatives. Take my example of strength: now look at it from the reverse: women are not the stronger sex. So strength is not an attribute of femininity. Does that mean that weakness, per se, is? No; not per se. Because this is a negative comparative; it only describes what a woman isn't. It's still describing something, but not something as essential.

it is invalid to then describe femininity as "weakness" "inefficiency" or "hero-worshipper."

See, now you're package-dealing the three. The first two are the negative descriptors and so are not good descriptors of the essence of femininity. It's not that the woman is "weak" but she can't be strong like a man is. A negative descriptor can only be used to see what something must not be. To get the essence of femininity, you need to look for what she has more of: beauty, grace, etc. The descriptor "hero-worshipper" is not a description of a particular attribute like strength or grace, but rather the overall description of her role in relation to the opposite sex.

"Weakness and inefficiency" is the essence of something much to evil to be a metaphysical fact of anyone's nature. Women are not weak, nor inefficient(to any great extent), but this does not make them masculine, because strength and efficiency--while they may define masculinity-- play no part in defining femininity.

Here, this phrase is clearly the key to your position. Your mistake is thinking that just because something is a part of the total of femininity that it must suddenly be "the" essence of it. And so you think it evil to include any negative attributes in the definition. Therefore you refuse to consider them whatsoever ("play no part in defining")

This is an error on your part. Including a "weak" attribute in femininity doesn't mean suddenly that "the essence of femininity is weakness." It just means that it is ONE attribute of femininity. By including it, you are not accusing all women of evil.

To define the feminine we must look at what women are, not at what they aren't.

Primarily yes, but in total you must look at both. Both are facts of reality.

A (feminine)woman as a symbol symbolizes something different

Yes, and that something different is, in her words: "A hero worshipper."

In the same sense a masculine man will "worship" the feminine, in the same way, as an object of intrigue, an abstract symbol of a certain type of human virtue, a piece of art if you will.

Nope! He is intrigued in the feminine sure, but this is not worship. Woman is the worshipper, man is the worshipped. A man cherishes his woman. The feeling is equally strong, but what he does is from the position of strength.

being dismissed out of hand is all you deserve.

Oh, do not start on what is deserved here. What you deserve is not permitted by the rules, you rude little person.

One small nit to pick, on the third reading. Strength and efficiency can't define masculinity

Oh, but stop! Masculinity does not exist! Quick: reject yourself!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Inspector

[aequalsa]

Aequalsa,

but it would just be plain bad to give "Man is more rational than other animals." as the definition of description man. Proper definitions never directly compare to something else, so why would you want to do it here? The only way in which this would make sense, is if there are only two concepts that are mutually exclusive in all areas. Then it might make sense to define only one of them and say: Well, the other concept is what the first isn't. But in this case, I do not think that applies. The essence of masculinity and femininity is not directly opposed to each other, and therefore the relational description doesn't make sense. It would be ever so much clearer what femininity is if someone actually sat down and defined it in terms that are meaningful without a comparison. It would be clearer to me, anyway.

Masculine and feminine are very different kinds of concepts then man is. Man is a noun. A ist level concept and easily definable. These are adjectives, to start with. And worse, they are adjectives which encapsolate a number of other fairly disparate descriptive(relational) concepts. So I don't know a particular word to make this all tidy, but I'll work out the concepts.

Adjectives are descriptions of nouns. Their meaning is relational to the subject. You access this by referencing the noun(s) it is applicable to.(eg fast, could not be explained without reference to nouns) So masculine and feminine are descriptions of a particular type of noun, humans. So for now, I am going to call this genus, human descriptors. Now it is not on the same level in the hiearchy as the particulars they subsume (strong, sesitive,etc) and they are not all inclusive of descrptions of humans, nor are the particulars uninclusive of non-humans(eg a tiger can be strong also) It would be in the same catagory as athletic traits, or cerebrel traits. Associations of a group of particular descriptions that have something in common. (again, not sure about the word, but that is the catagory) So this concept I'll call sex-based associations of human descriptors, for lack of a better word It is broken down further into the two traits in question.

Feminine traits are those which are more pronounced and more easily achieved by women as humans, and masculine traits are those traits more pronounced and more easily achieved by men as humans. That's the differentia, relational to the nouns they represent.

Regarding the lack of particular words, please keep in mind that this is largely an excercise in Rationalism. Rationalism often breaks down in regard to describing reality because it is often possible that words do not exist to identify undiscovered or unconsidered concepts. This is why induction is so necessary. Looking at reality you can easily identify women or men. Watching a cartoon with undifferentiated stick figures where one behaved in a feminine way and the other in a masculine way, you would know which was feminine and which was masculine. The reality is the same no matter how nicely the words line up.

[Inspector]

but it would just be plain bad to give "Man is more rational than other animals." as the definition of description man.

That's because animals aren't rational at all. If there were rational, but less so than men, then it might be perfectly fine to give that as part of the definition of man.

[mrocktor]

No it doesn't, and it has been established to be no such thing.

A is not B. What is B? Not A. Oh, OK then.

They serve just fine. Men are stronger than women. Thus strength is a masculine trait.

Oh no you don't. Which man is stronger than which woman now? Collectives don't have attributes, only actual existents do. Seriously, this is not something that should have to be pointed out to an Objectivist.

What you deserve is not permitted by the rules, you rude little person.

You are wrong. I shoved it in your face. Deal with it. Myself, I'm used to your emotional reaction whenever your unfounded claims are challenged by reason. I expected it.

Oh, but stop! Masculinity does not exist! Quick: reject yourself!

I pointed out that his definition does not differentiate something that has any connection with gender and thus does not work as the definition of "masculinity" (presumably something related to being male, somehow) he is searching for. Pretty clear in the original text, of course.

[aequalsa]

You're assuming cases where a person wants to do something (as a part of her nature) and acts against it. What if a particular woman, as a part of her nature, doesn't want to be protected or a particular man doesn't want to be the romantic initiator? Do you then say that they should act against their own nature, and act on the nature of their collective?

Then why are you arguing for "integrity" between one's own actions and a collective nature??

If I believed that I had only one hand and most other humans had two hands, I would double check to see if I was right. Maybe I lost it, maybe I was born without it, or maybe I just hadn't noticed it before. Obviously this is a little silly with regard to hands but when applied to your psychology it is an entirely good idea to reconsider and reevaluate yourself on a semi-regular basis. Feelings can be repressed, capacities can remain unfulfilled. I am not claiming that every guy needs to be a 300lb monster to be masculine. But maybe you shy away from strength because you equate it with being a dumb jock, or uncivilized. Or maybe it really doesn't matter to you. It is an individual decision. But it helps to be aware of what humans are. That I am capable of rationality...that I possess the ability to be in focus or not...that I will not ever be able to lift 900lbs over my head. I am human with some of the capacities and all of the restrictions that entails. By that same token, I also should be aware that I am male, with all of the capacities and limitations that includes.

Being aware of and accepting your nature is a just a good idea. Your nature includes a group of traits possessed by other people to one degree or another, and by looking at them, you can learn more about yourself. Hero worship is not second-handed for the same reason. You are witnessing an aspect of yourself exemplified by another human being. Humans have a larger number of mirror cells then any other species on the planet. These are nuerons that fire off the same way when you see something done as when you actully do it yourself. It is how we learn complex thought. We see it, imagine ourselves doing it, then do it ourselves. No one here would argue that learning is second handed. "Stealing someone elses ideas". Learning from others is not basing ones actions on the collective. You still must consider each idea individually and integrate it within your own knowledge set.

[Inspector]

Oh no you don't. Which man is stronger than which woman now? Collectives don't have attributes, only actual existents do. Seriously, this is not something that should have to be pointed out to an Objectivist.

Wow. Just wow.

You are wrong. I shoved it in your face. Deal with it. Myself, I'm used to your emotional reaction whenever your unfounded claims are challenged by reason. I expected it.

Nuh-uh. I know you are but what am I?

Man, you crack me up.

Yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now.

[aequalsa]

Oh no you don't. Which man is stronger than which woman now? Collectives don't have attributes, only actual existents do. Seriously, this is not something that should have to be pointed out to an Objectivist.

I was thinking along these same lines. All men are not rational all the time, so he really can't be defined collectively as a rational animal. And when I thought further, I realized that any way I try to define animals, as conscious or mobile also break down since they can be asleep or dead...Aristotle...what an idiot. He should have realized that all concepts are just forms of collectivism and should be dispensed with...

Edited February 1, 2007 by aequalsa

[mrocktor]

Yeah, I'm going to stop talking to you now.

I stopped talking to you long ago. I talk about what you write, for the benefit of the other people who read these threads.

I was thinking along these same lines. All men are not rational all the time, so he really can't be defined collectively as a rational animal. And when I thought further, I realized that any way I try to define animals, as conscious or mobile also break down since they can be asleep or dead...Aristotle...what an idiot. He should have realized that all concepts are just forms of collectivism and should be dispensed with...

I understand what you mean, but the comparison is not valid. You are failing to apply proper differentiation and integration in defining your concepts.

In defining "man" as "rational animal" the full definition is "an animal with a rational faculty", i.e. capable of reason. The fact that he may choose not to use it or be asleep does not change the fact that he is a rational animal. On the other hand, a human without a brain is not a man. Neither is a dead body. Thats why we say "he was a good man" about some deceased person.

Now in your case you define "masculine" as "posessed of strength". How much? "More than a woman". The necessary question is which woman? Your definition fails because no one can take only your definition and sort out individuals into "masculine" and "not-masculine". Of course if you define "masculine" as "possessed of enough strength to bench press 500lbs", that would be a proper definition - though completely arbitrary.

The problem is that you are operating on the idea that "men" (the collective) have a determinable "strength" and "women" (the collective) have a determinable "strength" and that you can compare the two. That is absurd. There is no such problem with the definition of "animal", nor "man", nor "table" nor "furniture". A chair is not "a piece of furniture more sittable than a tables". An animal is not "a living being being more mobile than plants".

Edited February 1, 2007 by mrocktor