First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply How do you feel about Transcendentalism?
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15 , edited 4/19/15
Transcendentalism is an 19th century philopophy associated with writers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mary Fuller, or Henry David Thoreau.

If not... look it up.
But anyways, Iv'e always been interested in these people. They were kind of like proto-hippies.

Let me run down the things I like and dislike about them

Likes
I like how people such as Henry David Thoreau fought slavery. He's gotta be one of my favorite Abolitionist activists since John Brown. His philopophy was like this... if you support unjust laws, you're an unjust person. He went to prison for refusing to pay poll taxes and support a government which enslaves people.
I wish more people understood following bad laws makes you bad. Especially the cops, this concept seems to escape them.

I like idea as a whole with a few exceptions... I don't believe in the inherent goodness of man. Sorry, but that's one doctrine I disagree with, god or no god. I do agree that man can change a lot of stuff through an almost super natural way. Y'all saw my thread supporting ex-gays, and how I spoke of the power of the soul. I like how such abilities from a Transcendentalism perspective would be "The god inside you". They'd probably approach a situation saying it's God, and he's inside you and all of us and we can do things through him. Personally I see it as just the soul itself with power from God, but God being in you is an interesting concept.

Dislikes
The philopophical ideas of them influenced feminism a lot. And for most of what they say, I agree with some of Margret Fuller's statements...
However, she be trippin' though...
Temperance... okay, now the bitch wanna take our booze... hold up, Margret Fuller be trippin'... the whole temperance movement was nothing but religion/feminism gone wild. It was devastating. I bet they ain't make no law against nagging. Overall, I see this as the beginning of negative feminism. Feminism based on the desire to control men, rather than be equal. And I see feminist desire to control men as the driving force of the Temperance movement

This picture is funny... Who would wanna kiss someone that ugly... I mean it. Look at all these busted lookin' broads. No wonder all the men are drinking

The second thing is that I disagree that gender roles and gender coding are wrong. I think having activities, clothing and items directed at a gender is fine. I have no shame in admitting I'd never allow a son of mine to wear a tiara or play with a barbie. In fact, I see gender roles as good. I like the idea of submissive women who take care of kids being with hard working men who act tough. I also enjoy the fact that gender roles are based on what the opposite sex wants... Some men love the idea of quiet submissive women. Some women like the idea of buff guys, so body building is popular with men. I hope women stop lifting getting muscle. Muscle is not sexy on a woman. So there's nothing wrong with gender roles, just when it's enforced through hatred. As long as you don't hate those who break them. Gender norms should be enforced and taught at a young age

But hey, that's just my philopophy
2841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Houston, Tx
Offline
Posted 4/19/15
It was an Era of many Reforms.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 4/19/15 , edited 4/19/15
"Lips that touch liquor. will not touch ours"
Kek, I think the only way someone would even kiss them is if they downed an entire bottle of Jack Daniels..


(I'm only commenting on the feminism points because I am at work and can't be bothered to make a point arguing against that "ex gay"((which I think is utter bullshit, you dont get to change your sexuality by choice.. you cant suddenly wake up and decide you like or dislike your same gender)) point you made)


Also, I agree with your point about there is nothing wrong with gender roles as long as its what people are voluntarily putting themselves into; on the other hand, forcing gender roles upon people is unethical and wrong.

There are certain activities that are inherently more attractive to men and some that are inherently more attractive to women.

I hate modern feminism, I really do.

Modern feminism is not about "equality" its about pumping out nazi propaganda and using scare tactics to make every woman feel that every man has a vagina seeking missile in his pants that wants to rape you.

5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15

Biggle wrote:

It was an Era of many Reforms.


yea... they truely were hippies before it was cool
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:

"Lips that touch liquor. will not touch ours"
Kek, I think the only way someone would even kiss them is if they downed an entire bottle of Jack Daniels..


(I'm only commenting on the feminism points because I am at work and can't be bothered to make a point arguing against that "ex gay"((which I think is utter bullshit, you dont get to change your sexuality by choice.. you cant suddenly wake up and decide you like or dislike your same gender)) point you made)


Also, There is nothing wrong with gender roles as long as its what people are voluntarily putting themselves into; however, forcing gender roles upon people is unethical and wrong.

There are certain activities that are inherently more attractive to men and some that are inherently more attractive to women.

I hate modern feminism, I really do.

Modern feminism is not about "equality" its about pumping out nazi propaganda and using scare tactics to make every woman feel that every man has a vagina seeking missile in his pants that wants to rape you.


I know right. Them ladies looked like horror movie characters.

Exactly... and I feel it rooted in the Temperance movement. It was when feminism went from equality to womens specific interest. They had an interest in stopping men from drinking. So they supported prohibition regardless of whether it effected equality between women and men
They needed to control men in some ways....
Nowadays, all you need to do is go to court and get child support payments from him.

Obviously, Margret Fuller isn't a fucked up nutjob like say.. #freebleeders.. but look at their mentality. They want to do what they want for their own self-interest, regardless of how society feels
Posted 4/19/15
Nothing personal, but philosophy is the bane of my existence.
55105 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / West
Offline
Posted 4/19/15
On and on and on, through the winter of our discontent.
When the wind blows up the collar and the ears are frostbitten too
I said I could describe the leaves for Samuel and what it means to you and me
You may call my love Sophia, but I call my love Philosophy.

Didn't I come to bring you a sense of wonder
Didn't I come to lift your fiery vision
Didn't I come to bring you a sense of wonder in the flame.
34946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/19/15
So you reject one of the core assumptions of transcendentalism (the inherent goodness of people), and specifically the core tenet which underlies the asserted value of the self-reliant individual. If people are not intrinsically good, and if therefore evil acts on the part of people are not merely the product of corrupting influences such as a state or religious body, then transcendentalists' assumption that a community of free and self-reliant people as they've defined the terms would be inherently better than the one they opposed is seriously weakened. If people aren't inherently good the enemy isn't the state or church. It's people. Humanity itself.

Now, here's where rejecting that tenet gets really ugly: its rejection necessarily leads to rejection of the second core tenet of transcendentalism. It is asserted by transcendentalism that nature is inherently good, and that a person's movement toward what they considered a natural state of being (freedom and self-reliance) marked a person's movement toward their own inherent goodness and away from corrupting influences such as the state or church. Transcendentalism does not, however, argue that people are separate from nature. It merely asserts that people are a corrupted part of nature which needs its purity returned by the dissolution of corrupting influences' grip upon us. If people are a part of nature, but are also not inherently good, then the transcendentalist argument becomes contradictory once it is asserted that nature is inherently good.

If you reject both the assertion that nature and people are inherently good then you're choosing to disagree with transcendentalism in its entirety. You cannot have one part but not the other with transcendentalism, and that's because it's an absolutist and idealist religious and political viewpoint. There is no compromise in it: people are part of nature, nature is inherently good, people are therefore inherently good too and have merely been corrupted. What corrupted them? The state. That's transcendentalism.
Posted 4/19/15
i love how in the beginning feminists were treated with such disdain but now they are something to b feared.
Dragon
58340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Online
Posted 4/19/15
Well, if we're just talking about gender roles.. I've worn a tiara, and think muscle-y women can be quite attractive. Haven't worn a dress myself, though my older (married, with child) brother has in the past. Oh, and he and I are both quite straight.

Personally, I think you're just trying to stir up trouble. Again.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15 , edited 4/19/15

BlueOni wrote:

So you reject one of the core assumptions of transcendentalism (the inherent goodness of people), and specifically the core tenet which underlies the asserted value of the self-reliant individual. If people are not intrinsically good, and if therefore evil acts on the part of people are not merely the product of corrupting influences such as a state or religious body, then transcendentalists' assumption that a community of free and self-reliant people as they've defined the terms would be inherently better than the one they opposed is seriously weakened. If people aren't inherently good the enemy isn't the state or church. It's people. Humanity itself.

Now, here's where rejecting that tenet gets really ugly: its rejection necessarily leads to rejection of the second core tenet of transcendentalism. It is asserted by transcendentalism that nature is inherently good, and that a person's movement toward what they considered a natural state of being (freedom and self-reliance) marked a person's movement toward their own inherent goodness and away from corrupting influences such as the state or church. Transcendentalism does not, however, argue that people are separate from nature. It merely asserts that people are a corrupted part of nature which needs its purity returned by the dissolution of corrupting influences' grip upon us. If people are a part of nature, but are also not inherently good, then the transcendentalist argument becomes contradictory once it is asserted that nature is inherently good.

If you reject both the assertion that nature and people are inherently good then you're choosing to disagree with transcendentalism in its entirety. You cannot have one part but not the other with transcendentalism, and that's because it's an absolutist and idealist religious and political viewpoint. There is no compromise in it: people are part of nature, nature is inherently good, people are therefore inherently good too and have merely been corrupted. What corrupted them? The state. That's transcendentalism.


Well... I'm not a transcendentalist. There's just a few concepts that I support and find interesting
" If people aren't inherently good the enemy isn't the state or church. It's people. Humanity itself."
That is EXACTLY how I feel

I believe nature is just that... nature. I don't see it as inherently good or evil. And therefore, so is man neither good nor evil


MakotoKamui wrote:

Well, if we're just talking about gender roles.. I've worn a tiara, and think muscle-y women can be quite attractive. Haven't worn a dress myself, though my older (married, with child) brother has in the past. Oh, and he and I are both quite straight.

Personally, I think you're just trying to stir up trouble. Again.


I'm not against men doing that. I'm against the idea that those clothing are not feminine nor masculine. I just don't like the idea of a society where nothing is codded towards gender. I have no issues with breaking gender norms, I myself do that. But acknowledge it and don't pretend it's normal.
It's not normal for me to be brony. If it were normal, it wouldn't' be a subculture
34946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/19/15 , edited 4/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:

Well... I'm not a transcendentalist. There's just a few concepts that I support and find interesting


I was more using your statement of disagreement with the assertion that people are inherently good as a nucleus for illustrating how the two core tenets of transcendentalism are irrevocably linked. It wasn't as much an argument against you as an exploration of transcendentalism's key concepts while using your statement as a springboard.


" If people aren't inherently good the enemy isn't the state or church. It's people. Humanity itself."
That is EXACTLY how I feel

I believe nature is just that... nature. I don't see it as inherently good or evil. And therefore, so is man neither good nor evil


In this the state becomes valuable and necessary. Of course, even if people were inherently good the state would still be valuable and necessary since states have proven to be very effective apparatuses for carrying out collective action, coordinating resources (particularly military assets), establishing uniformity of law, and ensuring public goods' continued provision and quality. Frankly, the transcendentalist bent toward opposition to states and assertion that nature is inherently good are the roots of my strongest objections. I'm open to criticism of the state, and I'd hardly pretend there's a single state which has been, is now, or will ever be which was/is/will be free of flaws. Nevertheless, the assertion that states are inherently corrupt and corrupting is a step over the line.


I'm not against men doing that. I'm against the idea that those clothing are not feminine nor masculine. I just don't like the idea of a society where nothing is codded towards gender. I have no issues with breaking gender norms, I myself do that. But acknowledge it and don't pretend it's normal.

It's not normal for me to be brony. If it were normal, it wouldn't' be a subculture


Keeping to the tiara example, one would be quick to point out that there's nothing inherently masculine or feminine about tiaras. In one context a tiara could be considered the manliest thing on the planet, and in another it could be considered a strongly feminine item. In yet another context it might carry absolutely no gendered connotations whatsoever. That's how social constructs are: they change based upon what society you're looking at. There is no zero point, no objective "normal". There's just the tendency within a given society.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15

BlueOni wrote:

In this the state becomes valuable and necessary. Of course, even if people were inherently good the state would still be valuable and necessary since states have proven to be very effective apparatuses for carrying out collective action, coordinating resources (particularly military assets), establishing uniformity of law, and ensuring public goods' continued provision and quality. Frankly, the transcendentalist bent toward opposition to states and assertion that nature is inherently good are the roots of my strongest objections. I'm open to criticism of the state, and I'd hardly pretend there's a single state which has been, is now, or will ever be which was/is/will be free of flaws. Nevertheless, the assertion that states are inherently corrupt and corrupting is a step over the line.


Agreed



BlueOni wrote:
Keeping to the tiara example, one would be quick to point out that there's nothing inherently masculine or feminine about tiaras. In one context a tiara could be considered the manliest thing on the planet, and in another it could be considered a strongly feminine item. In yet another context it might carry absolutely no gendered connotations whatsoever. That's how social constructs are: they change based upon what society you're looking at. There is no zero point, no objective "normal". There's just the tendency within a given society.


I know there isn't an objective normal. But there is a collective idea of normal.
Dragon
58340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Online
Posted 4/19/15

silversongwriter wrote:

I'm not against men doing that. I'm against the idea that those clothing are not feminine nor masculine. I just don't like the idea of a society where nothing is codded towards gender. I have no issues with breaking gender norms, I myself do that. But acknowledge it and don't pretend it's normal.
It's not normal for me to be brony. If it were normal, it wouldn't' be a subculture


So.. you're okay being a brony (i your last line example). But if it emerges beyond a subculture, suddenly it's a problem? Sorry, I don't understand this. It's like when people don't like popular anime because it's popular. The anime doesn't change, just how many people like it.
5613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/19/15 , edited 4/19/15

MakotoKamui wrote:


silversongwriter wrote:

I'm not against men doing that. I'm against the idea that those clothing are not feminine nor masculine. I just don't like the idea of a society where nothing is codded towards gender. I have no issues with breaking gender norms, I myself do that. But acknowledge it and don't pretend it's normal.
It's not normal for me to be brony. If it were normal, it wouldn't' be a subculture


So.. you're okay being a brony (i your last line example). But if it emerges beyond a subculture, suddenly it's a problem? Sorry, I don't understand this. It's like when people don't like popular anime because it's popular. The anime doesn't change, just how many people like it.


I got no problem with it emerging beyond a subculture, in fact, you could say it already has

But I've met bronies who adamantly refuse to acknowledge MLP as a show that was meant for young girls. They argue that the show was never meant specifically for little girls to begin with

I think it's okay to buy MLP pony toys (I don't do that though, seriously), however, you can't refuse to acknowledge the fact they're for girls
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.