GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote: On the other hand, if a person's core value is happiness, then it is possible for him to use logic to come to the conclusion that the greatest happiness for him lies in pursuing truth.

Since happiness is sensual/emotional and unrational - - why dont' we categorize it under femininity?

Simon wrote:

David Quinn wrote: On the other hand, if a person's core value is happiness, then it is possible for him to use logic to come to the conclusion that the greatest happiness for him lies in pursuiing truth.

Since happiness is sensual/emotional and unrational - - why dont' we categorize it under femininity?

Why categorize at all?

Well, how about this then:

Why don't we consider happiness femininity?

hades wrote:Why categorize at all?

Why ask questions?

Matt Gregory wrote:

hades wrote:Why categorize at all?

Why ask questions?

Why post on a philosophy board?

Simon: if you confuse happiness with pleasure, then you are absolutely correct. Happiness would be feminine. But I do not believe that the word "happiness" should be defined in that way, since I can readily imagine a man immersed in pleasure all the time being deeply unhappy... or a man in the pits of despair and depression having the most profound happiness.

Happiness -- true happiness -- is more rational than most people give it credit for.

BTW, is hades a troll?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:BTW, is hades a troll?

He didn't used to be. People change.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:

hades wrote:Why categorize at all?

Why ask questions?

Why post on a philosophy board?

Why respond to a question with another question on a philosophy board?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:BTW, is hades a troll?

He might be, but I think he's serious. There are a lot of people who really do crawl into that black cave and stay there.

Who is asking questions?

Maybe I am a troll. RAWR!

I would have said Imp myself, but since we're not categorising....

Why don't we categorize Happiness as an "Black-man thing"

And we can categorize Logic as a "White-man thing"

Its fun and arbitrary too!

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Simon: if you confuse happiness with pleasure, then you are absolutely correct. Happiness would be feminine. But I do not believe that the word "happiness" should be defined in that way, since I can readily imagine a man immersed in pleasure all the time being deeply unhappy... or a man in the pits of despair and depression having the most profound happiness.

Does pleasure make the mind impure? Or does the mind make pleasure impure?

You see, why don't we just say: pure happiness, is pure femininity, which results from pure masculinity.

impure happiness, is impure femininty, which results from impure masculinity.

We should try to stay consistent with ancient texts which assert that one must be both masculine and feminine.

Hades is right, though. It is arbitrary to use the label "femininity" the way you're doing it. What would masculinity then be, sadness? Doesn't make sense. I think those labels only make sense in terms of doing things. Things can be done in a feminine way or a masculine way.

Matt Gregory wrote:Hades is right, though. It is arbitrary to use the label "femininity" the way you're doing it. What would masculinity then be, sadness?

No, sadness, according to my logic on this thread, is the result of impure masculinity/femininty.

Happines, is the result of pure masculinity/femininity.

Pure masculinity knows pure femininity.

Impure can only know the impure.

I agree that labeling everything as masculine or feminine is silly (I thought it was quite silly when I was learning French, and find it equally silly in English). There is a point to some of it, and there would be another point to lableing some things as "girly" and other things as "mature" - but an overused device loses its impact.

Simon,

Does pleasure make the mind impure? Or does the mind make pleasure impure?

Pleasure is an emotional response. It's value is dependent entirely on your opinion of the worth of emotions.

You see, why don't we just say: pure happiness, is pure femininity, which results from pure masculinity.

We don't say such a thing because happiness is not femininity, and femininity does not arise from masculinity. There are ways to define happiness apart from emotions, such as how often and how well one engages in activities that are valuable for their own sake.

You will need to define happiness more clearly than you are doing so here.

impure happiness, is impure femininty, which results from impure masculinity.

Those parts of the mind considered "masculine" are later developments than those considered "feminine". Femininity does not result from masculinity.

We should try to stay consistent with ancient texts which assert that one must be both masculine and feminine.

For what reason? Because they are old?

Hades,

Why don't we categorize Happiness as an "Black-man thing"

And we can categorize Logic as a "White-man thing"

Its fun and arbitrary too!

Are you deliberately trying to be as stupid as possible? I don't think l've encountered a more moronic response in a long time, and that's saying something.

Why categorize at all?

Why categorize categorizing as a useless activity?

-

Simon,

DQ: On the other hand, if a person's core value is happiness, then it is possible for him to use logic to come to the conclusion that the greatest happiness for him lies in pursuing truth.

S: Since happiness is sensual/emotional and unrational - - why dont' we categorize it under femininity?

Given that we are all programmed by Nature to seek happiness as a matter of course, categorizing it as either masculinity or femininity doesn't mean anything. It is how we choose to seek this happiness which makes the difference.

For example, seeking happiness through submission to the crowd, or to an authority figure, or to a pre-packaged set of beliefs, or to drugs, can be classed as feminine. Such behaviour is passive, unthinking, driven by anxiety, desirous of a more unconscious bliss, seeking to palm off personal responsibility, a form of trying not to exist, etc - all of which are classic feminine traits.

By contrast, seeking happiness via the exercise of reason and the overcoming of one's ignorance is active, intelligent, and conscious in nature, and therefore masculine.

-

David Quinn wrote: seeking happiness through submission to the crowd, or to an authority figure, or to a pre-packaged set of beliefs, or to drugs, can be classed as feminine. Such behaviour is passive, unthinking, driven by anxiety, desirous of a more unconscious bliss, seeking to palm off personal responsibility, a form of trying not to exist, etc - all of which are classic feminine traits.

By contrast, seeking happiness via the exercise of reason and the overcoming of one's ignorance is active, intelligent, and conscious in nature, and therefore masculine.

Masculinity and femininty are useful concepts when used to illustrate the contrast in the manner that David draws above. It's seems perfectly reasonable to me.

David Quinn wrote:Hades,

Why don't we categorize Happiness as an "Black-man thing"

And we can categorize Logic as a "White-man thing"

Its fun and arbitrary too!

Are you deliberately trying to be as stupid as possible? I don't think l've encountered a more moronic response in a long time, and that's saying something.

Ya, those examples are pretty silly aren't they? Thats what happens when you imagine arbitrary categories like Masculine and Feminine, and then randomly start sticking other concepts into them in order to develop a twisted world-view, based on no criteria at all except your own desires and value system.

Happiness in the Feminine category?
Logic in the Masculine?

What next, Numbers in the Nerd category?


That IS pretty fucken moronic, I agree.

Such behaviour is passive, unthinking, driven by anxiety, desirous of a more unconscious bliss, seeking to palm off personal responsibility, a form of trying not to exist, etc - all of which are classic feminine traits.

Are you deliberately trying to sound stupid? All those things you describe are classical masculine traits as well.

Hades,

You have been here since Dec. 2005, and pretty much been pretty quiet. Now suddenly you are throwing a temper tantrum. What is really going on? Have you simply decided it is time for people to talk to you, and so lack confidence in your ability to type something wise, that you have decided to become a wise-ass instead?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Hades,

You have been here since Dec. 2005, and pretty much been pretty quiet. Now suddenly you are throwing a temper tantrum. What is really going on? Have you simply decided it is time for people to talk to you, and so lack confidence in your ability to type something wise, that you have decided to become a wise-ass instead?

I AM HAVING A TANTRUM BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL SO WISE!!!!!

LOL, seriously though, I have certain expectations of this forum due to its advertisements. Things like :

~Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment~


And it just doesn't live up to it.

Only a tiny tiny bit.