But why? We don't even have a unified global idea of masculinity today, nevermind the span of history.

Why is it that middle eastern cultures see men holding hands to demonstrate platonic affection, whereas the same act would be distinctly unmasculine in most western cultures?

Why do most modern western cultures view weeping as distinctly unmasculine, but in ancient Greece it was considered unmasculine to not weep when faced with sorrow?

If different cultures, across different time periods, can see masculinity recognized and performed in different ways, then is it not clear that there is a separation between sex and gender?

If myths and stories impact on humans in a way that adds to their meaning and experience of their life, then them believing it has meaning is a natural consequence. Neither Jung not Peterson argued for a theistic religions fiction to be true, just of the psychological impacts that belief in a God, myths etc has. If you only believed what you could prove, of that we live a meaningless existence on a rock which will eventually be burned up by its star then it feels a lot hollower than a purposeful design. That's not to say it's true, but I think more people feel that than not and to believe in the nihilistic view is arguably harmful to the psyche. Which I believe is what jung and Peterson are getting at, of the benefits of such a belief. Not that any religion etc is correct, I believe Jung talked about how when he killed a God they appeared elsewhere, as a guide for the psyche. Nature for example could be seen as a God in the current zeitgeist with pollution and mankind's greed it's demon.

>For Butler, it makes no sense to talk about biological “sex” existing outside of its social meanings.

Can someone elaborate on this. Isn't biological sex based on biology that doesn't rely on social meanings?

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I like his realm

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I’m an ex-Christian and I understand your criticism but I do think it rings empty for believers.

Asking “god, grant me” is a literal request, like you said, but (in my upbringing) the appeal to god is more about humility and invoking the spiritual. By selecting this prayer and holding it in their heart a person has made the decision to focus their intentions this way. It’s a different type of communication is all.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

What are some good books to read as an introduction into philosophy? I’ve always loved philosophical discussions but I feel I’m at a much lower level than most people on this sub, and I want to catch up lol. Any and all suggestions are welcome!

>Consciousness is any system of active sensors feeding data to memory (of any sort) with any amount of intelligence that can/could act upon it. Remember that ants have some amount of intelligence. Amoeba hunt down their prey.

Depending on how intelligence is defined by that definition of consciousness all of the animal kingdom (and most of the other kingdoms of life) is conscious. As well as any self teaching AI.

[removed]

I can see why they say that, it's just not right. Take, for example, what Judith Butler says in an interview with the guardian: "Perhaps we should think of gender as something that is imposed at birth, through sex assignment and all the cultural assumptions that usually go along with that. Yet gender is also what is made along the way – we can take over the power of assignment, make it into self-assignment, which can include sex reassignment at a legal and medical level."

There is no presumption here that the body is merely a blank surface for signification to come onto after the fact. I insist on the fact that Butler ties their theory of performativity precisely to already-established conventions, but says that these conventions are not fully constraining. I mean, in a certain sense that even seems to be a truism. Cultural conventions have an impact but are not immutable.