Makhnov

If you are a moderator here, please indicate this in your messages. Thanks.


I have actually started a thread on this forum that raises the question about whether Kant was a hippie. I say that he was not. Here is the irony - the person who said that "Kant was the first hippie" was none other than Ayn Rand. So if I am looking to disprove this about him, this places me firmly against her interpretation of that old german.

(The fact that Baraka Guru overlooked this reference is telling.)

---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 AM ----------

This is dishonest in the extreme. You are pointing at another human being who does not agree with the laws in the United States of America, and then you are declaring the person's worldview to be "skewed". You should know.. I don't know if you do -- You should know for a fact that the laws in the USA are not formulated by intellectuals in an ivory tower, and they never have been.

Habermas is a follower in the tradition of post-structuralism. The most important name in post-structuralist philosophy is none other than Michel Foucault. And lets be honest about what kinds of changes Foucault wanted. Foucault, along with a circle of other french intellectuals, wanted to abolish the AOC. (I am not here to discuss AOC. We can start another thread on that.) The larger point supported by this example is that even the most highly-educated, highly-read philosophers of the Western World were not happy with the laws. In fact the most radical of social ideologues come from halls of the universities. This was never more true than in pre-revolution Russia. 1960s France is also a prime example.

Your contention that if I study philosophy at the graduate level, that I will somehow come to realize the deep wisdom of the laws in the USA. Baraka Guru, sir, that idea is pure bullshit and you know it. (more on this later).

I'm not into death metal or gangsta rap. Thank you for bringing up Fight Club. I have never liked that movie. I don't like it now. I completely do not understand why everyone around me keeps telling me that movie is "So good". I can't see what is good about it. The main character was not in control of his mind. Not mine kind of hero, sorry.

Please spare me these "kind-of-guy" posts. It is nothing but slander and flame-war baiting.





"Post-feminism" is a word that I made up. It is not to be confused with Feminism proper. Feminism proper, in my lingo stands for that which is taught in university depts usually called Women's Studies. Post-feminism is characterized by a handful of mostly american sensibilities about how the sexes "should" interact with each other. Just to give you a cursory glance at some of the aspects of post-feminism, I will drop a few statements. But keep in mind the topic is much larger than just these statements. The following things should be taken as small bites out of a much larger argument (of which I don't feel like wasting my time talking about right now.) But you should get a general feeling from these cursory examples. It is very likely you have heard many of these before.

1. "Men do not have strong preferences because they are supposed to bed anything they can get. And as much as they can get. For this reason, they are not picky about their partners."
2. "Men hunt. Women nest."
3. "Women want commitment while men are naturally promiscuous."
etc.
etc.

And sure. Many of these claims at the heart of post-feminism are supported by all sorts of elaborate arguments about paleolithic cave men. These kinds of botched myths are very compelling to many americans who are more than ready to yell them loudly in conversation in support of their modern lifestyle.

This is part and parcel of people who think the laws and mores and morals of their local culture are supported by the very fabric of biology and physical reality. They are not. Every culture thinks it is enlightened. Humans have been playing this justification game since at least the early medieval era.