why do you always pretend like your experience should have any bearing on others and the real world? isn't your experience personal? shouldn't you let others be free to have their own personal stuff? and I love freedom, problem? you think every human (male) needs to have a balance ( as defined by you) have you considered that they are just traits? I pity the women in your life for they seem repressed and unable to express these traits to their full extent as they posses them, I speak in the same accent if I listen to them for a while, I prefer listening to the Irish for this reason as I find their accent more fun do you mean "the accent falling out of favour and it being less strictly enforced by punishing pupils with a slightly different accent" ? neither do I, I say that the people on youtube are no more qualified than Burns, news, Ragic etc because a culture is more than those things, and cultures can in fact have multiple philospophical and literary streams. you can dive in that river all you want but I think that you are wrong to tell me the shape of the delta ( which is usually delta shaped so my analogy falls apart once we talk about actual rivers)
Where did you get that "pretend" word from? In what world is extrapolating a personal experience called a pretense? I believe that certain experiences are universal, otherwise our classic art canon wouldn't mean anything since it portrays the zeitgeist of various periods of our culture. Plus, my personal experience is backed up by talking to a lot of people (both Russia and in the world) and studying cultural trends. It all works together so it really seems that you're just nitpicking my words. How is that relevant to what I said? Women too need to have a balance so it's not only men, but yes, that's what I think, again, coming from experience and observing people. That are seperate from the masculine/feminine binaries? Well, in their essence, sure, I suppose you could make that claim, but for some reason those traits are allocated accordingly among the sexes. classical lefty sophistic radicalization of statetement and subsequent worst case scenario based on association. (which, by the way, is a fairly typical feminine trait ingrained in their psychology.) In saying that I think that those traits are traditionally ascribed to men does not mean that women do not have them at all. They just have them to a lesser extent. Yeah, Irish accents are definitely more interesting. No, and you should stop picking out statements that fit into your agenda of portraying me as a snob. seriously, these kind of shenanigans aren't even funny anymore, it's odd that you're using them considering that you watched how an interviewer in C4 used them and miserably failed. Some are, some aren't. It depends on education and experience and how a person represents himself (how many times he ****ed up in debates etc.) Such broad generalizations aren't really worth discussing imo. Obviously it's more but that doesn't mean that those fields are unrelated as you ignorantly claim. You're basically saying that a person that has devoted years of his time to scrupulously study subjects that are probably the greatest distilled sources of understanding culture wrong in providing his opinion? I'd understand if you were talking about when someone imposes their viewpoints upon you, but classical cultural, fortunately, isn't like that. You know, Boris Pasternak, one of our prominent writers said: "The cultured are unobtrusive, ironic and self-loving(in a good way, untranslatable connotation), when the uncultured are didactic, bloodthirsty and selfish." Of course, you can ignore that and say that i'm using an "authority" figure to justify my claim, but really, I think when the majority of people that have are well educated in the classics all have similar traits which he has described, I think it goes to show something.
Still don't get where you're coming from. To question such premise is unintuitive to our nature. For example: I'm a human; I experience birth and death; Therefore, all humans are mortal. This is a syllogism purely based on logic. When we take my experience, it's not only based on rational self-examination, but also on multifarious observations on other people and the study of the current cultural paradigm in various marginal spheres and subcultures. Sure, you're free to argue against it, but you can't just say "that's wrong" and expect that that's enough when you're arguing against a whole tradition of culture based on that universality of personal experience which spans for thousands of years, right?
nah, not sure if I need to to be honest. my life is kinda sorted. (room clean; always.) I'd probably buy his Maps of Meaning at some point, but that's after I delve into Jung and Eliade.
I can't get enough of him and wanted to support him, so I bought two. I also back him on Patreon. I also bought Jung's Modern Man in Search of a Soul and the Gulag Archipelago, but haven't had a chance to read them yet.
Solzhenytzin's Gulag is really big, I suggest you start from Dostoevsky to get a feel for Russian philosophy and the general character archetypes that our culture has come up with.
like drug use leading to greater understanding of the universe? you can see how that makes me doubt your stance on experience and how yours should be applied. welcome to the internet. where do you think my opinions are from? for what reason, allocated how. I know you are more a nature than a nurture guy but you are leaving a lot open. you blame culture on traits where the reverse might very well be more aplicable. ""Hi Im Gutsalakhani and I can't have fun on internet forums" I know you really seem to like the word tradition(ally) but traditionally Russians have a high mortality rate due to alchohol and gunshot related aflictions. im just here to take things out of context and have fun, and I am all out of context. you don't have to be such a snob about it though. eh if we're still talking about experiences then I've certainly experienced this on this forum soooooooooooooooo. wasn't this thread about star wars?
@Alakhami please don't waste your time with this troll. He exists purely to waste your time and attention and is incapable of seeing another viewpoint.
Drugs weren't the susbstance of the universal experience, they were accidental (just like the mythological basis of science is accidental to science and does not make science a mythological system) I'm not exactly blaming culture on traits. It's more of a paradigm shift that envelops culture too. Fundamentally, I believe the reverse to be true (humans having those traits ingrained in them in birth) That's a relatively late tradition. A gruesome one nonetheless.
I see where you might get this impression, which means what you wrote is wrong. while I would agree that humans do quickly develop personalities after birth I would say that the culture people are raised in shapes them more than instinctual traits do. culture is a self enforcing tradition, and traditions can be wrong. I say the old tradition... the old culture was in many ways wrong. you seemed to propose that traits are based in psychological needs and that the old traditon/culture was correct in enforcing itself.
In terms of the feminine and masculine traits, I'm inclined to believe that they weren't really forced onto anyone. Recently I started speak to a lot of women about feminism and how they understand the womens role in society and most actually aren't big fans of the emancipation. Obviously, my assumption merely comes from face-to-face contact and sporadic observations (I haven't looked up studies or polls etc.) so I'm not claiming that the following is 100% true, but inspite of the many pathological things that happened in many of the old traditions (although they tend to get exaggerated by people that have superficial understanding of how people lived and thought back then), this cultural role allocation seemed to work pretty well and still does up to this day and seems to be naturally stemming from our physiology. The women that have the unique predisposition for hard work and careerism seem to be more of an exception from the rule, but are perfectly fine in my book if they feel that such path suit them best.
but according to Ragic and stuff they don't deserve role models or to actually do some stuff because they "RUIN IT!" A lot of us do not feel marginalized or threatened by this but they do, and you seem to agree with their fantasy of societal decline. so because this is the internet your answer makes it seem like you want to have the cake and also eat it.
there are lots of good movies with strong female characters that I like. Aliens, Terminator etc... but they aren't marry sues. and they also didn't have to dumb down the males around them to make them look good.
i suspect we can all agree that in many cases, "strong female lead" gets mistaken or mis-written as "female lead that's just a gender swap away from james bond". the character isn't necessarily interesting, but they do interesting things and Firk exotic women so who cares (atomic blonde maybe ?) and i'd agree that those sorts of movies are vapid, flash in the pan, summer fun type movies at the best of times (male or female lead). i don't have a problem with them being male rather than female, or vice versa, but it does irk me when people talk about movies that are basically genderswaps of old-ass stories like they're new, revolutionary, or whatever occupational hazard i guess
Funnily enough, Horizon: Zero Dawn (the game that a lot of bloggers considered feminist) has an amazing female lead character while at the same time being an implicit criticism of the foundation of cultural Marxism -- fanaticism.
Rey is definitely a Mary Sue. She doesn't have any internal flaws to overcome in the film and her arc is extremely shallow. I don't agree about the "bringing down the men around her" thing but she isn't a particularly well-developed character and she would still not be a well-developed character if she were a man.
