If we use this logic then you should also consider non-black thinkers superiour to black thinkers....ksolway wrote: It seems that men (or at least, masculine people) are better thinkers than women. For example, there are no great female philosophical thinkers, or geniuses.
There are genetic reasons that we know about that would account for the fact that there are no female geniuses or great philosophical thinkers. But we do no know about any such reasons to explain the lack of great black geniuses. The reason for the lack may be purely cultural, rather than genetic. We just don't know.hades wrote:If we use this logic then you should also consider non-black thinkers superior to black thinkers....
oh...Tell me about these genetic reasons.ksolway wrote:There are genetic reasons that we know about that would account for the fact that there are no female geniuses or great philosophical thinkers. But we do no know about any such reasons to explain the lack of great black geniuses. The reason for the lack may be purely cultural, rather than genetic. We just don't know.hades wrote:If we use this logic then you should also consider non-black thinkers superior to black thinkers....
In the sense that culture and genetics are just causes, there is no difference. But culture is probably easier to overcome than genetics. But it is important to remember that no group of people is inherently inferior or superior. People are only what they are because they are caused to be that way. For example, a person only thinks himself "superior" at something if he chooses to value the things he is good at. If he were to value the things he is bad at, he would have to think himself inferior.hades wrote:Preaching Masculinity over Femininity or Males over Females is no different than glorifying White Power over the Black man....no?
Whilst the gaining of power of masculinity over femininity plays a role, the overarching solution is the eradication of femininity in each and every one of us, regardless of our colour.hades wrote:Preaching Masculinity over Femininity or Males over Females is no different than glorifying White Power over the Black man....
no?
This seems like a pretty adequate explanation. I don't think the fact that it turned up on what appeared to be a White nationalist website negates it either. The article doesn't contain anything which would spark a frothing at the mouth response.Negro culture inferiority is the consequence of the physical inadequacy of the Negro brain in dealing with abstract concepts. On the other hand, the Negro shows an ability approaching that of the White at mental tasks requiring only memory. That is why the Negro can be trained relatively easily to adapt to many aspects of White culture.
His verbal ability and his ability to imitate allow him, when properly motivated, to assume much of the outward appearance of "equality." In a decade of special college-admission quotas for Blacks, many thousands of Blacks have obtained college diplomas -- but only in those disciplines in which a glib tongue and a good memory suffice. There have been virtually no Black graduates in the physical sciences and very few in engineering.
Thus the Negroes inability to handle the abstract concepts required in problem-solving and technological innovation make a mockery of outward appearances. And this inability is genetic in nature, rooted in the physical structure of the Negro brain.
Secondary to what? I think any human behaviour can be attributed to cultural or genetic causes.I think the main reason for the lack of black genii is neither genetic nor "cultural" - or those reasons are merely secondary.
....AgentB wrote:Doing a google search on this subject brings up some interesting results. Here's something I found which seems relevant:
Oh shit, ofcourse they are being honest and fair! Why would a great organization such as the kkk or that biased-ignorant-white-supremacist website ever want to make a racial report claiming the inferiority of the negroid?!!This seems like a pretty adequate explanation. I don't think the fact that it turned up on what appeared to be a White nationalist website negates it either.
Secondary to the 'philosophical perspective'. (You should've read my whole post, it wasn't that long.) That's why I can't really accept such opinions you've posted as they're based on modern scientifical preconceptions, not on philosophical experience.AgentB wrote:Secondary to what? I think any human behaviour can be attributed to cultural or genetic causes.Bondi wrote:I think the main reason for the lack of black genii is neither genetic nor "cultural" - or those reasons are merely secondary.
At the risk of seeming racist (one way or the other)...Bondi wrote:For instance, one of my colleagues is from Congo (i.e he's black) -- and he's studying to be an engineer. And he is far more intelligent than any of my English (i.e. white) colleagues.
That is actually quite a fascinating idea. I'm guessing that in order to have a noticeable effect on the characteristics of the slaves that some very prolonged, controlled and repeated decisions about slave breeding and slave elimination would have had to be going on. If that was the case it would be very weird. Would there have been enough time or generations to make an impact? I don't know that much about the the American slave era.DHodges wrote:
Could it be that, in the US, what amounted to a eugenics program actually had the effect it seemed designed to produce?
I don't know; I was just throwing it out there as an idea. There seems to be different opinions on the topic.Jason wrote: Would there have been enough time or generations to make an impact? I don't know that much about the the American slave era.
The Village Voice seems to have a different opinion:“Some plantations stopped producing commodities and focused on breeding humans,†she explains. “The law allowed for this, since slaves and slaves born were the property of the owner.†According to Bridgewater, slave breeding became “more prominent than cotton†and was written about in newspapers and farming journals as a type of animal husbandry.
“You’d see a piece in a farming journal that would say, ‘Such and such got a good yield by doing X,’†says Bridgewater, who notes that slaveholders would experiment with such techniques as locking slave women in a room with many slave men. Slave women of “good breeding stock†were highly valued, a point illustrated by one advertisement Bridgewater found for a slave woman who could “breed like a cat.â€
It seems it'd take quite a bit of research, comparing the genetics of African-Americans with Africans, to see if there really is a significant difference. Meanwhile it looks speculative.Two years ago, ex-Green Bay Packers defensive end Reggie White told Fox News Channel that he agreed with former CBS football analyst Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder, who was fired in 1988 after saying that a black athlete was better than a white athlete because "he's been bred to be that way because of his thigh size and big size." Snyder added that slave owners would breed big black men with big women to produce big black children, leading to superior black athletes today. "I agree with what Jimmy 'the Greek' said . . . that slaves, bigger slaves, were pretty much used as studs. And the comments that he made about that was true. That did happen," White told Fox.
In his book, Entine quotes other black sports greats who agreed with Snyder, such as former Dallas Cowboys running back Calvin Hill; Bernie Casey, a former receiver for the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers; and Tommy Smith, the sprinter who gave the clenched-fist salute from the victory stand during the National Anthem at the 1968 Olympics. "I think Jimmy 'the Greek' Snyder was absolutely wrong in what he said even though some blacks have supported what he said," Entine argues. "The reality is that the body-type differences we see in blacks and whites are really the results of thousands of years of evolution—not 100 or 200 years. And there is almost no evidence to suggest that there was any real breeding going on. That's one of these myths that a lot of blacks and whites have adopted. Jimmy 'the Greek' was right in the sense that he recognized that there were different body types, but he was wrong in ascribing it to slavery."
Fascinating. I happen to have a rock here. How do I tell if it is enlightened? It seems kind of heavy.Bondi wrote:Philosophically, even a cheetah, or a chimpanzee, or a tree, or a piece of a rock has the possibility to attain enlightenment,
You have to be enlightened to tell that.DHodges wrote:Fascinating. I happen to have a rock here. How do I tell if it is enlightened? It seems kind of heavy.Bondi wrote:Philosophically, even a cheetah, or a chimpanzee, or a tree, or a piece of a rock has the possibility to attain enlightenment,
Women as a whole seem different in the way that they think, and not in the quality of their thoughts. They are less linear and more conceptual, and generally seem to have a better grasp of truth and good than most men. In addition, men as philosophers only begin to peak when their testosterone begins to shut down, and allow their brains to work properly, both linearly and conceptually, in the same sense that both men and women should work together to arrive at truth. My guess is that women are born philosophers, with the true object of all philosophy always before them, of living well, surviving life, and putting up with the stupidiity of humanity in its prevelant form: of young, bonebrained, men.hades wrote:I said : It seems to me some of you think men are superiour to women, mentally, why is that?
ksolway wrote: It seems that men
I would say less conceptual and more dreamy.propellerbeanie wrote:[Women] are less linear and more conceptual
Yet, strangely, women do not value truth.. . . and generally seem to have a better grasp of truth and good than most men.
I don't agree with that. Men tend to do their best thinking in their early twenties. However, in the case of men who get caught up with women early in life, and get married, or get a job, then it can take them a couple of decades to get out of the mess they have made for themselves. Only once they have extracted themselves can they begin to think again.In addition, men as philosophers only begin to peak when their testosterone begins to shut down.
Strange then, that there are no female philosophers.My guess is that women are born philosophers
No, philosophy is about truth only. Those things you mention come under the category of "worldly living".with the true object of all philosophy always before them, of living well, surviving life, and putting up with the stupidiity of humanity in its prevelant form: of young, bonebrained, men.
Which is nearly impossible without some grasp of truth having some correspondence with external reality. Life for us is something like the ultimate truth. Life gives all things meaning. Pksolway wrote:No, philosophy is about truth only. Those things you mention come under the category of "worldly living".
Which camp are you in, Kevin?Strange then, that there are no female philosophers.
Are you going to measure philosophy by the dick, or by abstraction?ksolway: I think the core symbol of masculinity is abstraction (reason, science, invention, planning, etc). The penis doesn't even make it on the radar - not even to a woman, I suspect.
The camp of truth.Leyla Shen wrote:Which camp are you in, Kevin?
Naturally, if you measure it by the dick, such things as testosterone, celibacy and the rejection of all things “worldly†become paramount in ascertaining philosophical potency.
On the other hand, if you measure it by (the quality of and ability toward) abstraction, you would not pose the question in such a manner in the first place.
A philosopher devotes his life to understanding the deep truth or truths of things, and then hopefully communicating those truths to others.Even you, as a male philosopher -- a sage, no less -- partake of worldy things. Is it this appearance that determines the philosopher, or the intellectual manner through which that partaking takes place?
I would not call a person a sage unless they were also a philosopher. A sage is an advanced philosopher. Therefore, in my view, every sage is a philosopher. Those people who cut themselves off from the world as much as they can are not strong enough to immerse themselves in it.Every philosopher may be a sage, but not every sage is a philosopher. Some are merely ascetics.
I think there are many complex and interacting reasons. Most men, also, will not become philosophers, and this is for many reasons. It's just that there are more reasons working against women.That females appear not to have the capacity for suffering guilt has more to do with the manner in which the death drive is and has been sublimated for women as a whole (which should probably be defined as those who identify themselves with the female body and all its apparent insecurities) than to do with an inherent incapacity for it. This is the only reason that "female" philosophers cannot appear: and a big reason it is.
I can't relate to the symbol of the penis for maleness. For me, the penis is a symbol of weakness.You, too, believe in the symbolic supremacy of the penis. Apparently, you are (at best, wilfully) unconscious of this despite the fact of regularly speaking it.
Where is your conscience?
OK. So, using truth as the benchmark, I’d like to consider this statement:LS: Which camp are you in, Kevin?
KS: The camp of truth.
KS: I was only observing that there are no female philosophers. It doesn't mean there can't be any.
KS: A philosopher devotes his life to understanding the deep truth or truths of things, and then hopefully communicating those truths to others.
Yes, but the difference in The West is still relatively marginal, it seems (Statistics). A difference of 5% (below retirement age) based on figures from the UK Office for National Statistics (it proved a little more difficult to find ABS statistics without an obvious bias like, “in the workforce,†or “fertility decision making“).KS: Men tend to have more of a confidence that they can stand alone and survive, without friends, family, children, approval of any kind, etc.
KS: Few women have this kind of confidence. This confidence of men is largely justified. But in women it is rarely justified, because of women's different biology and mental skills.
OK.KS: I can't relate to the symbol of the penis for maleness. For me, the penis is a symbol of weakness.
There may be female philosophers somewhere in the Universe. Saying that there are "no female philosophers" is just a figure of speech.Leyla Shen wrote:KS: I was only observing that there are no female philosophers. It doesn't mean there can't be any.
Don’t you mean “aren’t†any, rather than “can’t be†any?
Yes, but the difference in The West is still relatively marginal,KS: Men tend to have more of a confidence that they can stand alone and survive, without friends, family, children, approval of any kind, etc.
Would you agree that a culture can only be as ignorant as the majority of the people who created it?The reason for the lack may be purely cultural, rather than genetic. We just don't know.
