I'm wondering who among us really knows enough philosophy to post on such a forum?
I mean real philosophy, now, not OUR philosophies, but the real stuff.
I know damned well I'm not conversant about the real debates that exist in that field.
Are any of us really qualified to pontificate like a philosopher here?
Probably not to the level to discuss with philosophers, but we could discuss philosophers. I took Western Civ. Many of my other classes had reference to the thinkers of past times. It isn't that hard to read someones work and agree or disagree, we do it all the time. Here, Ill start, there's plenty to disagree with View attachment 7915
oiy.
let me begin by saying that mine and jamies marriage is not one of indentured servitude. we are partners, lovers, friends, and companions. she is my goddess, and i her god. there is a lack of the typical socially approved division of labor, and sometimes she and i clash over who will do what, but we are partners. when our infant was born, she would take care of the first nocturnal feeding, and i the second, for example. but then jamie is atypical, if there is such a thing as a typical female. but then, she and i are both reformed pagans. lol!
too often feminism actually denigrates the woman, stripping her of part of who she is, and i was gratified to see in this piece that the author allowed for a wide range of potentials for describing women, even, i would assume, as a traditional wife if so inclined.
intellectual adeptness doesn't always indicate a corresponding emotional adeptness, and then nietzsche had his own demons to wrestle with. he was expected to follow in his fathers footsteps into the ministry. it is entirely likely that his attitude towards women was in some measure supporting the typical attitude about women expressed by many christians even today, to atone for his inability or unwillingness to fill those familial boots. as i recall, his father died when fred was young ( and on second glance that was also mentioned in the piece) , and so he would have to be raised by his mother, and so his attitude (this sounds so freudian) could be a backlash against that. regardless, as was mentioned, he was a product of his time.
i appreciate this "It is a fact that living things tend to be neglected by ardent pursuit of any artistic or epic endeavor, and that tending to those needful beings lends one to neglect scholarly work," having said much the same about holy men, seers, shamans etc having to remove themselves from others so they can come in contact/experience what others will not, cannot or dont want to. to excel beyond the "normal" requires sacrifice, no matter what the endeavor.
my postition is that women are the cornerstone of civilization, and are women only as they are thinking or acting for the benefit of the family. in any other capacity, they are not women. i say this as i have looked for characteristics that only are shared among women, and have found only their ability to give life. otherwise, i dont think there can be said anything about womens thinking process or behavior that cannot also be said of men.
