Philosophy is political, and politics would be better if it were more philosophical ie wiser after considered debate. But Western philosophy is occupied by people who call themselves philosophers who neither ask nor answer questions and are too afraid to define terms.
Just like politicians, philosophers flee from engagement and debate because they are trying to hide their failure.
In a matriarchy, none of the important institutions of state are fit for purpose.
What is the point of having philosophers who don't know what principles are and have none, who are in effect nihilists because they are atheists?
Even if these philosophers claim to support a political ideology or have a religious belief, they will not be articulating or defending them.
In a degenerate matriarchy, even supposedly religious people will not defend their principles.
38 comments:
I am waiting for you to actually present an argument. You know, where you build a case using reason and evidence.
There is nothing interesting or reasonable about your personal peccadillos and opinions, asserted as "truths" with absolute certainty but with zero supporting references and research.
What is it you are after here?
Are you on a mission to proselytize Islam, at least your swanky new version of it?
Or do you want someone to try to talk you out of this mission? Because, let' face it, Secular Koranism based on your New School of Sharia is unlikely to fly in the West.
I have already built up a case and you have been unable to challenge any of what I have said other than to express incredulity, say no one agrees with me while not even attempting to disprove the truth of my claims. I am delighted that you think Secular Koranism is a "swanky new version" of Islam. It is precisely my view that Muslims have been misinterpreting their Koran for centuries which is why they have ended up as they are: a despised and feared minority in the West. With my help, Westerners could metaphorically snatch their book out of their hands and interpret it with better results. Indeed, WW3 could be avoided by getting the Israelis and China to adopt it too.
When things get worse for the West, my proposal will seem like a shining beacon in the gathering darkness.
There are many configurations for family life today, and none should be discounted or penalized, except where family members are being harmed. And family members can be harmed just as readily inside families with married parents and a dominant male head, as can be harmed inside single-parent families with the mother in charge or same-sex-parent families.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740905000174
https://www.creatingfamilies.com/benefits-of-same-sex-parenting/
Only marriageable people should be parents because marriage is for legitimate children. If you are gay, you are obviously not marriageable because gay sex cannot produce offspring.
Claire, you seem to be fighting with shadows. You group philosophers and every other type of person together when every one will have a different combination of beliefs and a different view of morality.
My own morality is based on doing as I would be done by. In different countries I would adapt my behaviour into what was acceptable as long as that didn't mean hurting anyone.
There are lots of things I would like to see altered but I believe in democracy and accept that the individual is part of a body politic.
Most European countries are similarly constituted. Far from perfect but capable of changing from within according to the will of the population even if not always for the best.
You tell us how you think we should live our lives if not like this?
You approach has a hint of superiority...as if you think we are not seeing some grand truth you are privity to.
Please tell us in simple terms as I have done what system is better and why.
I propose restoring the patriarchy because to discover that your society is a matriarchy is like discovering it has cancer.
Do you believe that there is only one version of moral behaviour and that is represented by the words of the Koran ? Just to be clear about where you are coming from, as they say.
If you agreed with my definition of morality that it is a system of rules designed to keep the group in existence and apart from others, we can go on to discuss which moral systems are more effective at bringing this about and why.
How about an answer to my question? One morality or several ...? Religion preaches one morality. Different religions different rules. Secular society is more pragmatic with rules.
So do you believe in one morality... that maybe you mean should be kept apart from those who have other ideas?
Please be clear.
There are many competing moral systems but religions are the most efficacious in keeping the group in existence and apart from others. Out of the five world religions, Judaism has the most impressive track record and we already know that Christianity and Islam are derived from Judaism. Christianity has failed and been replaced by liberalism which is now failing. It would appear that Islam should be the new religion of the West.
Moral behaviour is related to your ideological compatriots. Obviously, different moral systems would have different ideas and beliefs producing different rules of behaviour. Which one is the most efficacious, only time will tell. It seems to me obvious that Christianity is waning while Islam is waxing. Maybe we should read the writing on the wall and act on the message,, and jump before we are pushed.
What would be the advantage of a Patriarchy and what exactly do you mean by that? Men tell you what to do? And in what way is our society a matriarchy...or to which society do you refer?
Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married parents. Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring who are the agents of chaos and criminality. All advanced civilisations are patriarchies. All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to extinct societies are matriarchies. To discover that your society is a matriarchy is like discovering it has cancer. The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. The West is a matriarchy. Jamaica has an illegitimacy rate of 86%.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/marriage-matters_52111
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic. It should also be borne mind that every bastard represents a trinity of sin because every bastard has a pair of parents who should be treated as sex offenders according to quran.com/24/2
'Matriarchy is a social system in which females (most notably in mammals) hold the primary power positions in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. While those definitions apply in general English, definitions specific to the disciplines of anthropology and feminism differ in some respects. Most anthropologists hold that there are no known anthropological societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist currently or may have existed in the past'.
Lots of different definitions, nothing about whether women are married or unmarried.
I am afraid you have your mind already made up...or others have told you what to believe since you were born. Every religion has its rules, but some of us are not religious and think these things out for ourselves.
'Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.
Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Sociologists hold varied opinions on whether patriarchy is a social product or an outcome of innate differences between the sexes.
Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious, and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.'
If you want to explain how either of these extremes are a good thing I am sure you will find someone to argue with.
I think we can agree that patriarchy cannot exist without marriage, can't we?
Would you agree that a matriarchy is a society that doesn't practise marriage?
You are aware that feminists have equated patriarchy with domestic violence in order to destroy its practice, aren't you?
Would you agree that the modus operandi of feminism is to bribe men with fornication and other forms of extramarital sex to distract them from marriage to weaken the institution of marriage?
an we agree that there was a time before marriage was invented and that kind of society was matriarchy represented by Neanderthal Man who were subsequently superseded by Home Sapiens who practised marriage?
Do you feel a moral imperative to choose the lesser evil when confronted with a choice?
Stop making assumptions.about what other people think.
Look Claire, you have obviously got s lot of stuff you believe and you are making me and others your 'whipping boy' .
I've got other things to do. I don't want to be rude but I have finished with this topic.
What assumptions are you accusing me of making?
Have I made you my "whipping boy"? My perception is that you have made a point of being insulting and aggressive towards me. The fact that you are unable to rebut or refute my argument and are about to disengage by flouncing out of the room in a huff is revealing and all too predictable. What a shame no feminist is able to have a rational discussion about this, and what a shame men are too frightened to be seen to be discussing this.
NO to all. Every person has different. circumstances. Men and women are people and have equal rights. Whether they are married or not doesn't matter to me but in my opinion it is immoral not to be responsible for children
...and the law supports that.
There are plenty of things I think are immoral but the idea of marriage being some sort of condition connected with politics is ridiculous in my opinion and so much so it would be futile to discuss it further. No offense.
Your outraged reaction to the idea that laws regarding who can have sex with whom is evidence of shows how political this subject is. You regard it is as in some way sacred and regard me as a heretic. In the same way that you are outraged that anyone would ever dare question the sexual freedom of consenting adults, there are those who are outraged at the idea of incest, adultery. underage sex and sodomy. It is clear that groups who choose to exercise moral restraint on certain kinds of sexual relationships are the ones that endure compared to those favouring a dysgenic sexual free for all. It may interest you to know that chimpanzees do better than bonobos in the survival stakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
“In the same way that you are outraged that anyone would ever dare question the sexual freedom of consenting adults, there are those who are outraged at the idea of incest, adultery. underage sex and sodomy. It is clear that groups who choose to exercise moral restraint on certain kinds of sexual relationships are the ones that endure compared to those favouring a dysgenic sexual free for all.”
Still hung-up about sex, I see. Why not seek professional help?
Better still, why not buy a one-way ticket to some Islamic theocracy, COVID-permitting? There you might feel much more at home with your ideas about morality, gender and sexuality. In theory, at least. In practice, I’ll wager you would get a rude wake-up call about the rights, freedoms, diversity and inclusion you are trashing in your current Western home.
To refute or rebut my arguments, you need to do more than simply contradict me without giving reasons while continuing to insult me and telling me to leave the West.
Since you don't seem to have any idea at all how how to go about undermining my arguments, other than repeated insults and expressions of incredulity, may I suggest the following?
“Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married parents.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to demonstrate that patriarchy is other than what I say it is.
“Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring who are the agents of chaos and criminality.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to demonstrate that matriarchy is other than what I say it is.
“All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to cite a matriarchy that is an advanced civilisation that is also not declining.
“All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to cite a matriarchy that is not primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct.
“To discover that your society is a matriarchy is like discovering it has cancer.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to prove that discovering your society is a matriarchy is a good thing.
“The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents.”
“The West is a matriarchy.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to say why you think my definition of the perfect patriarchy/matriarchy is wrong.
You also need to prove that the West is a patriarchy and define it in an objective way.
“Jamaica has an illegitimacy rate of 86%.”
'False!'
To undermine my claim, you need to cite a source that the illegitimacy rate of Jamaica is higher or lower.
I hope you now have a better grasp of what you have to do to win the argument.
it is futile to spend time rebutting claims that should be self-evidently false. For example:
"“Patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married parents.”
Who says so? Where are you getting your information from? What references can you provide to back your claim?
And, no, it is NOT my responsibility to disprove your claim. It is your responsibility to prove it.
“Matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring who are the agents of chaos and criminality.”
Ditto!
Can you name a patriarchy whose members mostly do not practise traditional marriage?
Can you name a matriarchy that respects the rules of traditional marriage?
Cite me a single patriarchy that does not support marriage and practise it.
Cite me a single matriarchy that is an advanced civilisation that is not in decline.
I don't know how many times you have to be told that the onus is on YOU to prove the claims you make, It is not on ME to disprove them.
Why don't you know this?
You said:
“The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. The West is a matriarchy.”
Please provide evidence that in 100% of Western families the parents are unmarried.
I never said the West is a matriarchy because 100% of parents in the West are unmarried. We can tell the West is a matriarchy because all men are lower in status than unmarried mothers because no senior politician since 1974 have dared to criticise the morals of unmarried mothers. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
When did a senior male politician in the West - other than Keith Joseph - criticise the morals of unmarried mothers?
Even the leader of the world's greatest superpower is lower in status than unmarried mothers. That would be both Trump and Biden.
Every bastard represents a trinity of sin and this means no politician in a representative democracy fighting a closely fought election will ever call out unmarried parents. This means the West will be heading for the crime rates of Jamaica unless it becomes a one-party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism.
"When did a senior male politician in the West - other than Keith Joseph - criticise the morals of unmarried mothers?"
Never, I would hope. Unless they criticized the morals of married mothers, unmarried fathers, and married fathers as well.
"Even the leader of the world's greatest superpower is lower in status than unmarried mothers. That would be both Trump and Biden."
This doesn't make sense.
"Every bastard represents a trinity of sin....................."
Excuse me? Who are you referring to with that disgraceful language? Kindly keep your prejudices to yourself. This is a professional forum. Whether *you* like it or not, in the modern, civilized West we do not denigrate children born out of wedlock. All children are accepted and treated equally under the law, no matter what the circumstances of their birth.
You are so out of order and so out of place.
Are we not allowed to mention "sin", "trinity" or illegitimacy now under the censorship of the matriarchy? How is even talking about this a display of prejudice? My point is not to denigrate children who never asked to be born, but to challenge and defeat the matriarchy, whose existence you seem to be denying. Are you or aren't you denying the existence of the matriarchy? It seems to me that you were denying its existence but now you are asserting its authority over me.
I am well aware that I am in a professional forum in which I am trying to make a point. You are the one saying that I do not have the right to make it. On what basis are you claiming that I cannot refer to these things, however much it offends you?
As woman who understands logical and illogical argument, I would say this:
Patriarchy describes a social system whereby men have the power and predominate in areas of politics, medicine, engineering, culture, education and so on.
A matriarchy describes a social system whereby women have the power and predominate in areas of politics, medicine, engineering, culture, education and so on.
Up until the late 20th Century, we were a patriarchal society (and in some cultures this is still the case because of religious beliefs). This was borne of men wielding power of women since the dawn of time. Men have controlled what we wear, who we marry, how much we're worth, what we could learn, who we could see, what we can do, can't do, with some cultures deeming females to be untermensch worthy of nothing more than producing babies and providing men with sex when demanded.
If anything the most destructive thing to happen to humanity thus far is the patriarchy.
But can you deny that all advanced civilisations are patriarchies or that all primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies?
Do we not have the moral imperative to choose the lesser evil when confronted with a choice of evils?
How are we to measure evil when we know it is the price of enjoying good and that good and evil are both sides of the same coin that drives our survival?
In any case, we know that God if He exists created both good and evil.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045%3A7&version=KJV
Perhaps we can agree that it would be a good thing if the human race continued in existence or at any rate that our civilisation, race or nation continues to remain in existence?
Jews are the world's most ancient and powerful tribe because they worship the most powerful deity conceivable - the Abrahamic God.
But for Judaism, Jews would not exist. Christianity and Islam are both derived from Judaism which is testament to the power of the Abrahamic God in the imaginations of men and women throughout the ages.
If God was a creation of Man, then He must have been created for the purpose of making our moral system work more efficaciously.
"Only marriageable people should be parents because marriage is for legitimate children."
Your prejudices are showing again. In a liberal, secular democracy, ALL children are legitimate, irrespective of the marital status of their parents.
Who cares what *you* think?
"If you are gay, you are obviously not marriageable because gay sex cannot produce offspring."
How quaint and offensive you are. The fact is that gay and lesbian couples can and do have children through alternate means, thanks to modern medicine.
Again, who cares what *you* think?
I think you care very much what I think which is why you keep returning to insult me and tell me to leave the West as if you think I have no right to express a political view because of what you perceive to be my racial, national or religious background, which could be construed as hate speech. (Under Secular Koranism your right to insult me will be guaranteed by quran.com/2/256, I hasten to add.)
Obviously, I am proposing that married parents be considered higher status than unmarried parents who should be treated as sex offenders as prescribed by quran.com/24/2
I realise that this proposal may alarm A J Humpage but I hasten to add that I have thought the whole thing through and am very firm on there being no retrospective legislation or ex post facto law.
Were Secular Koranism to be adopted officially on 1/1/2021, there will be a period of grace in which anyone becoming an unmarried parent will not be given the punishment prescribed at quran.com/24/2 until 1/1/2022. You can't say fairer than that, can you?
It occurs to me that I should have an incentive scheme for unmarried parents to get with the programme by competing with each other to be the earliest to express repentance for their fornication leading to the birth of illegitimate offspring and in this way achieve status over each other. I am anxious to reassure unmarried parents that penitence is possible and there will be established channels for formal expressions of remorse.
I suggest you leave the West because the views you are expressing are alien for our culture, and because opinions are cheap until they are tested against the mettle of reality.
It's easy to mouth off about what you perceive to be the failings of Western society when you are privileged and protected by the rights and freedoms within that very society. Spending some time in an Islamic theocracy would test the courage of your convictions.
As for why I keep responding to you, I am a psychologist 😉 . However, as tempting as it is to keep observing and tangling with you, I will exit now and leave you to try to convince A J Humpage of the wisdom of Secular Koranism (an oxymoron, if ever there was one!).
Even if I leave the West, the problems of degeneracy, chaos and criminality caused by widespread illegitimacy will continue to harm Westerners and bring down Western civilisation. I feel it is my duty to remain until I feel that there has been a genuine attempt to understand the issues I have raised by educated, rational and principled men in senior positions of political power who care about the long term national interest and who are not intimidated by the immoral and irresponsible women who wield so much power over them through no fault divorce and the right to accuse them of historic sexual offences without having to produce independent corroborating evidence.
I see that you think I want to replicate the harshness of sharia in Saudi Arabia in the West. That is not my intention at all.
Can you tell us a little about unacknowledged trauma?
“It occurs to me that I should have an incentive scheme for unmarried parents to get with the programme."
That would be a programme solely constructed by perceptions, culture, religious belief and social hierarchies.
The rest of the Western world doesn’t care whether people are bound by a certificate. Children do not parents to be married, it has no bearing on them, and penitence means absolutely nothing to anyone who does not follow a god, or any religion.
“there will be established channels for formal expressions of remorse.”
Remorse is a sentiment proliferated by guilt of wrongdoing. You cannot feel remorse for an act that is not actually wrong.
You are aware of the link between illegitimacy and criminality, are you not?
https://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
“can you deny that advanced civilisations are patriarchies or that all primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies?”
Not all civilisations have been patriarchies. Modern matriarchal societies exist in Kenya, such as the Umoja, the Mosuo in China and the Garos of India, which are neither extinct or primitive. The worst civilisations in history have been patriarchal – more so those following religion.
How are we to measure evil...that God if He exists created both good and evil."
You need to define evil in order to measure it. Evil is prevalent in all societies. If God ever existed, and is supposed to be supreme, why would he create good and evil? It’s utterly illogical.
Jews are not the world’s most ancient, powerful tribe. The Sanātana Dharma is, who worship the most powerful deity in their religion, just as Muslims worship the powerful deity in theirs. God is only powerful to those who worship him.
“If God was a creation of Man, then He must have been created for the purpose of making our moral system work more efficaciously.”
The moral system of religion was built on the Old Testament, which showed God to be a murderous, jealous, hateful, vengeful, enraged being.
"Even if I leave the West, the problems of degeneracy, chaos and criminality caused by widespread illegitimacy will continue to harm Westerners and bring down Western civilisation. I feel it is my duty to remain until.............................."
Martyrdom is so not a good look in the West.
"Can you tell us a little about unacknowledged trauma?"
Yours, I assume?
No need to answer.
AJH has demolished all the unfounded claims you raised for her. I can see why you brought her in 😉.
I'll leave you to it.
@AJH "The moral system of religion was built on the Old Testament, which showed God to be a murderous, jealous, hateful, vengeful, enraged being. "
Someone has to say no!
"Modern matriarchal societies exist in Kenya, such as the Umoja, the Mosuo in China and the Garos of India, which are neither extinct or primitive."
They are hardly great civilisations. If you're not capable of sustaining city life, you are primitive.
"The worst civilisations in history have been patriarchal – more so those following religion."
"There is nothing good or bad. only thinking makes it so."
"Men have controlled what we wear, who we marry, how much we're worth, what we could learn, who we could see, what we can do, can't do, with some cultures deeming females to be untermensch worthy of nothing more than producing babies and providing men with sex when demanded."
@Dr H I am saying that senor male politicians have collectively suffered unacknowledged trauma. I feel quite well, thank you for your concern. I was once told that I was the sanest person someone ever knew, and he was older than me.
I am a little surprised that you cannot tell the difference between a discussion in a progress and a matter having been settled.
Post a Comment