Excellent resource on Deleuze and D&G: http://www.protevi.com/john/DG/index.html

>>10094


>where do you come from to criticise the authoritarian nature of monotheism? :P

>authoritarian nature
>one god-ism

I concur, that is not authoritarian, that is totalitarian

Dear faggots,
I shouldn't have to remind you, but if someone is posting something against the rules, please report it.

If you don't know how to report a post, please see our super-sugoi FAQ section on the front page.

Thank you for your co-operation.
-7chan

>>10228
>For a "linguist"
FOR ANYONE!!
Be sure to check out Slavoj Zizek too, there's plenty of complicated lectures as well as concise and straight-forward fragments on youtube. And he's pretty entertaining :3

>>10231

Hah, yea. It just always kinda cracks me up whenever he's introduced or refers to himself as "Noam Chomsky, linguist". !

Personally, not being a communist, not knowing more than the texas-education-board-approved-for-nationwide-consumtion curriculum taught us in 2 minutes on the subject, or even really being interested in teh subject, but being just clever enough to question how "lazy and evil" as an ideology could appeal to so many millions of people worldwide as a plan for individual and national success, it certainly was educational listening to his ideas on the subject. Anyone who might ever utter the words communism or socialism would benefit from hearing the modern concepts explained by him.

I'll check out Zizek as well, thanks!

1) "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time."

it comes from the idea that one is in competition with others - by gaining as much as possible with as little effort as possible

2) this is suitable enough when A: there's plenty to go around and B: when there's strains between what's around and a growing desire for more stuff

in situations where A: is that there's not much to go around, and B: hits... then you are hard working and evil

and when A: is there's lots of stuff to go around and when B: is you're not greedy - then you'll be moderately hard working and easy going

when A: is there's not much to go around and B: you're not really into getting lots of stuff, you are despondent



3) as for philosophical books - I'm particularly interested in metaphorical/rhetorical books, and I don't mind the "simpler" ones - there's a lot of information you can glean off them if you start looking at your own reactions to the events - and this is why they should be simple stories, because it's hard enough to do this with a simple stimuli considering people are complex
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

now let's take a look at the types of claims you make - lets take a look at the [citation needed] and [neutrality disputed] count here


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Society_and_behaviors


From the evidence, it can only be concluded that gender is socially constructed[citation needed] and each individual is unique in their gender characteristics, regardless of which biological sex they are, as every child is socialised to behave a certain way and have the ‘proper’ gender attributes. If individuals in society do not conform to this pressure, they are destined to be treated as abnormal; therefore it is personally greatly beneficial for them to cooperate in the determined ‘correct’ ordering of the world.[citation needed] In fact, the very construct of society is a product of and produces gender norms. There is bias in applying the word ‘gender’ to anyone in a finite way; rather each person is endowed with certain gender characteristics.[citation needed] The world cannot be egalitarian while there are ‘assigned’ genders and individuals are not given the right to express any gender characteristic they desire.[neutrality is disputed]


3 citations failed to be given, the claims have no backing

and by the end, it's evident that the neutrality of the information claimed is disputed


now let's look back at the fundamentals of biology
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>10223
>>10224
Right, your characterisation of feminist ideas…..
to start off, gender and social construction are related terminological phrases in the sense that when we speak about gender (in the social sciences) we understand that to be something that exists only as a result of interaction between many people (or many animals). So it's a terminological, not evidence-based concept, which you shouldn't really bother arguing against because if you can't even name what you're talking about you can't talk at all and then the discussions over; so please just accept that these are generally accepted terms - if you're interested in discussion, these terms will help us not confuse biological with social (nature and culture).
THen you mention gender attributes but really gender has much more to do with roles. Attributes - and I immediately have a connotation with children's toys - only have a secondary function as supporting the role, the primary function of gender as a distribution of labour within society. So a boy playing with a toy gun fits the male gender as a protector, strong, combating etc. A girl playing with a baby doll fits the female gender as mother, caring, nurturing etc.
The third point starts to get to an interesting philosophical subject. You suggest that a subject may choose or not to take a certain role, however the ideas that have been put forth by the likes of Chomsky and Foucault show that knowledge is constructed in relation to power - those who have control may decide what others know, even including what someone knows about themselves. And we know what we do about ourselves based on looking at others, recognising (or being told) that we are the same so then you get to media issues - what kind of image are we being shown of ourselves and is this advantageous to us? Hence the choice that you suggested does not exist if we have only been taught one possible answer.
Gender in itself has been described as a binary: male and female. Both these genders have binary (or polar - i'm not sure of the correct english phrase here) connotations: male/female; strong/weak; stoic/sensitive; rational/natural. So these inform the identities that people adopt which of course plays a part in the construction of society as it denotes their place in society. And as I made clear at the start, without society we would not have gender (in accepted terminology). The last point has to do with this as these gender-roles decide peoples place within society (women not in the workplace - not in academia - not as individuals; relative to three 'waves' of feminism). It is not so much that people should be absolutely free to choose or design their own genders, biology pretty much makes that impossible and I doubt it Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>I don't have much of a rebuttle against your lengthy story about biology as this is indeed a philosophy board and not a science board. I absolutely accept what you said on biology, however it is not relevant to the subject or very much to gender at all and thus makes it 'moot'


science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge,"


Samuel Johnson was refuting George Berkeley.

Refutation of Bishop Berkely

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together
of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of
matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed,
that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

variation in question?

well, you'd need at least two things to compare, those things could be anything that IS a concept, CAN be conceptualized, or even just exists, as long as there's two

so if I say everything and nothing, the concepts can be compared

if I say one thing or nothing, then it can be compared

this situation can also be compared to say...

one compared to two, compared to nothing

and then there's various variations that can be compared to the other comparisons and so on and it just keeps going on and on until we don't care about it anymore

File 136936972683.jpg - (163.41KB , 2048x1536 , image.jpg )

>>10222

I just drew a fish flying a bicycle. I didn't invent the fish, the bicycle, or flying. I'm most certainly not the first person to imagine or even draw such a conglomeration. But having not ever seen such a drawing before, this image is original to me, and even with that unknown, I'll still bet you a thousand dollars no one has drawn this image just like I did here.

So is it original or not?

nice picture, reminds me of teddy ruxpin for some reason, but then I was watching dave chapelle's red balls too lately

originality depends on the measures used to determine it - the specificity is important here

"a thing" versus "this picture with particle structure that will never be duplicated ever again even if someone uses a fine electron microscope to totally nerd out and make their best version of a replica"

there's a lot of room in between those two extremes

OP, the answer to your initial question is at about 2 years old.

Before that, they're just a puddle of cellular goo that's no more advanced or impressive than a tiny puppy or a fish. We're just conditioned to place a disproportionate amount of value on them because we imagine they have "potential" to be awesome human beings, when in reality, most will not be awesome. ...and because over thousands of generations, those that didn't place an insane amount of value on their offspring died off earlier than those that did, for obvious reasons.

There's nothing magical or supernatural about offspring, any more than any other species offspring. You have a potential human before 2. You have a potential human in the womb. You have a potential human at 3 months. You have a potential human upon fertilization. You have a potential human getting wadded up in a sanitary napkin and left in a public toilet once a month. You have millions of potential humans dying off every day, whether you inseminate someone, or not, or jack off, or not.

Life is wasteful.

>>10209
so would you abort a child of 1 year 11 months?

>>10220
Abort early & often.

File 136929612458.png - (181.11KB , 904x1340 , VI.png )

File 136929617195.png - (19.22KB , 620x248 , VII.png )

File 136929621053.png - (40.09KB , 647x394 , VIII.png )

/post

Yeah yeah yeah, how's about I get you one of them mass market fusion reactors. Would that soothe your colic?

>what a shame that the most enjoyable experiences tend to be the most conjusive to the destruction of the facities which enable us to explore the enjoyable.

not sure that part is really true. Sex doesnt destroy the facility, neither does painting, or walking hills...

>>10161

>tend to be