A Real Man Is...

[Eudaimonist]

Right! If there is a cultural influence, the evolutionary definition doesn't apply. There is a cultural influence, therefore limiting the definition of man to unmitigated evolutionary inclinations and impulses (if that's even possible, which I don't think is, given that the inclination to culture is itself evolved) doesn't jive.

So we're back to the position that defining a "man" is meaningless without cultural definitions, and therefore cultural relativism.

I must not have made it clear, but I do think there is an inevitable cultural relativitistic component. All I wanted to do is have culture react to something that is actually is in one's nature, so that it's not all an arbitrary product of culture, but something where one can say: "Okay, I can see how that culture would produce that idea."

We still haven't shaken off the desire to look for simplifying panaceas that make it easy to categorise people accurately. It simply isn't that straightforward, and I think we would be better off actively disregarding that tendency. Very few of the generalisations it produces seem to actually work and be represented by the facts.

I regard that as a strong counterargument.

Anyway, I was just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here, partly with myself. The perspectives are interesting, and help me to sort through these issues. Thanks!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Survival of the fittest gender memes?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Performative utterances?

 

[Received]

I must not have made it clear, but I do think there is an inevitable cultural relativitistic component. All I wanted to do is have culture react to something that is actually is in one's nature, so that it's not all an arbitrary product of culture, but something where one can say: "Okay, I can see how that culture would produce that idea."

I agree with this. I think culture is inevitable with human beings, so speaking (as I originally did) of the difference between "just evolution" and cultural influences is a bit erroneous. Rather, the cultural inclination itself is built into us genetically, so there's no point in dividing the two. At the same time, this might be called the one evolution-granted inclination that allows detachment from other evolution-granted inclinations.

 

[variant]

A real man as opposed to, what exactly? A fake man? An unreal man?

I find it funny that the practicer of religions constantly denigrate humanity also hold certain gender roll ideals to an unrealistic reality...

All men are real men. As in they really are what men are. If you look past that fact you have no reality, just a hollow ideal.

 

[1234321]

So, a man that rapes children, eats them, and sells drugs to invalids is a real man because... he is anatomically a man? So, hopefully you keep that same mentality when you turn on your local news and see things like this, instead of resorting to calling him an "animal," a "monster," a "beast," or the like.

 

[variant]

So, a man that rapes children, eats them, and sells drugs to invalids is a real man because... he is anatomically a man? So, hopefully you keep that same mentality when you turn on your local news and see things like this, instead of resorting to calling him an "animal," a "monster," a "beast," or the like.

Right, I recognize humanity for what it is, good and bad.

Men can be animals, monsters and beasts as easily as they can be saints, heroes and role-models.

The reality of man is what man does.

One should never equivocate reality and virtue.

 

[1234321]

Right, I recognize humanity for what it is, good and bad.

Men can be animals, monsters and beasts as easily as they can be saints, heroes and role-models.

The reality of man is what man does.

One should never equivocate reality with rightness.

No. Men are men. Animals are animals. Monsters are monster. Beasts are beasts. Saints are saints. Heroes are heroes. Role-models are role-models.

You cannot blanket attributes of distinct personalities and identities, especially when each one shares its own uniqueness independent of the other. You cannot call a man an animal unless you are sure of the attributes that distinguish a man from an animal. If you believe anatomy defines the reality of a creature, then you cannot cross-identify. A man (no matter how much murder, violence, and bad he commits,) is still a real man because of his anatomy, and despite his character.

Perhaps the problem is the oversimplification of what humanity is - accepting that being human means the inevitability of heinous acts. There is no incentive to want to define humanity as anything more than dualism (good and bad.) Moreover, it becomes futility for some to even want to distinguish uniqueness in humanity. It is much easier to say all humans are [capable of] good and evil; that is just humanity.

 

[variant]

No. Men are men. Animals are animals. Monsters are monster. Beasts are beasts. Saints are saints. Heroes are heroes. Role-models are role-models.

You cannot blanket attributes of distinct personalities and identities, especially when each one shares its own uniqueness independent of the other. You cannot call a man an animal unless you are sure of the attributes that distinguish a man from an animal. If you believe anatomy defines the reality of a creature, then you cannot cross-identify. A man (no matter how much murder, violence, and bad he commits,) is still a real man because of his anatomy, and despite his character.

Perhaps the problem is the oversimplification of what humanity is - accepting that being human means the inevitability of heinous acts. There is no incentive to want to define humanity as anything more than dualism (good and bad.) Moreover, it becomes futility for some to even want to distinguish uniqueness in humanity. It is much easier to say all humans are [capable of] good and evil; that is just humanity.

I am saying that a man can be and is often any of those things.

So, yes, I can say exactly what I said.

I did not say that any particular man was any or all of those things.

Being a man doesn't make you a good man, nor does being a good man make you more of a "real" man.

That is the problem of this thread and I have refuted it.

 

[1234321]

I am saying that a man can be and is often any of those things.

So, yes, I can say exactly what I said.

I did not say that any particular man was any or all of those things.

Being a man doesn't make you a good man.

Let's use use a bit of logic, so you can see why there is even an argument between us.

You stated "All men are real men ."

You stated "Being a man does not make you a good man ."

Therefore, "Bad men are real men."

I am arguing that calling a bad man a real man is a misnomer, because it implies certain character flaws (such as, say, eating children, raping them, and dealing drugs,) makes those men categorically equal to a man that, for example, takes care of his family, feeds the poor, works hard, saves lives, etc. This isn't a question of anatomy, it is a question of character. It would be insulting to equate a human like Christ with a human like Dahmer just because they share the same anatomy.

 

[variant]

Let's use use a bit of logic, so you can see why there is even an argument between us.

You stated "All men are real men ."

You stated "Being a man does not make you a good man ."

Therefore, "Bad men are real men."

I am arguing that calling a bad man a real man is a misnomer, because it implies certain character flaws (such as, say, eating children, raping them, and dealing drugs,) makes those men categorically equal to a man that, for example, takes care of his family, feeds the poor, works hard, saves lives, etc. This isn't a question of anatomy, it is a question of character. It would be insulting to equate a human like Christ with a human like Dahmer just because they share the same anatomy.

What is unreal about bad men?

As I said bad character makes someone no less real a man.

Not all people in the same category are equal, that is horrid logic.

Being a man is morally neutral. If you want to talk about a mans character don't talk about his gender being real.

Man =/ Good

Real=/ Good

 

[Eudaimonist]

A real man as opposed to, what exactly? A fake man? An unreal man?

No, an unfully actualized man. This makes sense to me from my eudaimonistic philosophical perspective, at least.

Men who are not mench-like have failed in some way to develop their potentials for being an excellent and integrated human being. Yes, this does suppose that human potentials are something good when actualized (that we are not born with nothing more than the potential to be Orcs), and that the worst aspects of human nature are the result of incomplete actualization.

Just to give a basic example, we have the potential to be rational beings who act with full awareness and respect for facts, but not everyone actually lives up to the potentials of their rational faculty. Much evil results from this.

So, saying that murder is part of human nature doesn't mean that murder is reflected in the best of what humanity is capable of in maturing and growing as human individuals. We are capable of taking an intelligent, prudent, and wise perspective on violence, reserving our capacity for violence only for the defence of innocents, for instance, instead of the impulsive use of violence suggested by the gangs from A Clockwork Orange.

So, yes, the term "a real man" makes sense to me in this light, although one could argue that "a real human being" (both men and women included) may be preferable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I absolutely oppose trying to blend the sexes into the generic person. There are legitimate differences between man and woman other than physical traits.

Such as?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Mark. Drawing an analogy between human and plant flourishing. Different plants need different conditions to thrive. Is there such a thing as a 'rational cactus' and if so is it (and the ecological conditions promoting it) a second rate option in some sense? *smiles*

 

[1234321]

No, an unfully actualized man. This makes sense to me from my eudaimonistic philosophical perspective, at least.

Yes. Which is why I posted this in the philosophy section, and not the physical and life sciences section.

 

[variant]

No, an unfully actualized man. This makes sense to me from my eudaimonistic philosophical perspective, at least.

Men who are not mench-like have failed in some way to develop their potentials for being an excellent and integrated human being. Yes, this does suppose that human potentials are something good when actualized (that we are not born with nothing more than the potential to be Orcs), and that the worst aspects of human nature are the result of incomplete actualization.

Just to give a basic example, we have the potential to be rational beings who act with full awareness and respect for facts, but not everyone actually lives up to the potentials of their rational faculty. Much evil results from this.

So, saying that murder is part of human nature doesn't mean that murder is reflected in the best of what humanity is capable of in maturing and growing as human individuals. We are capable of taking an intelligent, prudent, and wise perspective on violence, reserving our capacity for violence only for the defence of innocents, for instance, instead of the impulsive use of violence suggested by the gangs from A Clockwork Orange.

So, yes, the term "a real man" makes sense to me in this light, although one could argue that "a real human being" (both men and women included) may be preferable.


eudaimonia,

Markst.

If you mean good say good.

Actualizing your potential for goodness makes you more good not more real. You can make yourself better, you can not make yourself more or less real.

Why say real when you mean good? Interlacing the word "reality" with the connotation of "good" just muddies the waters in my opinion.

It gets people like you and 1234321 to not be able to separate words that clearly mean different things. This sort of thinking is sloppy and haphazard.

Then we can just have a discussion about what makes men good rather than convolute our discussion with terms that don't work in context.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

thats a clever post variant.

 

[Gracchus]

Perhaps some examples will clear things up for the confused.

James (007) Bond is not a real man. Boy George is a real man. Adolph Hitler was a real man. Sherlock Holmes was not a real man. Barney Frank is a real man. Ann Coulter is not a real man.

 

[Crandaddy]

No, an unfully actualized man. This makes sense to me from my eudaimonistic philosophical perspective, at least.

Men who are not [...]like have failed in some way to develop their potentials for being an excellent and integrated human being. Yes, this does suppose that human potentials are something good when actualized (that we are not born with nothing more than the potential to be Orcs), and that the worst aspects of human nature are the result of incomplete actualization.

Just to give a basic example, we have the potential to be rational beings who act with full awareness and respect for facts, but not everyone actually lives up to the potentials of their rational faculty. Much evil results from this.

So, saying that murder is part of human nature doesn't mean that murder is reflected in the best of what humanity is capable of in maturing and growing as human individuals. We are capable of taking an intelligent, prudent, and wise perspective on violence, reserving our capacity for violence only for the defence of innocents, for instance, instead of the impulsive use of violence suggested by the gangs from A Clockwork Orange.

So, yes, the term "a real man" makes sense to me in this light, although one could argue that "a real human being" (both men and women included) may be preferable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Actually , this is not all that terribly different from my own moral philosophy. On my view, moral goodness, which is that goodness attributable to ourselves as rational agents, consists in the degree to which we actualize our potential to be true persons. This true personhood is the ideally virtuous human nature. So we are true persons to the degree that we possess (or actualize) the ideally virtuous human nature.

Perhaps where we would diverge (correct me if I'm wrong) is that I would say that this (ideal) human nature, to what degree it is manifested, is an objective part of our ontological constitution. It objectively makes us to be what we are insofar as we are actual persons, regardless of whether or not we happen to recognize it or like it.

Thus, assuming our cognitive faculties are functioning properly, we can analyze however it is we happen to be and determine, from a rational perspective, whether or not that is how we ought to be, regardless of whether or not we happen to like our present condition. So, for example, if I suffer from the vice of cowardice, then I can recognize this and rationally determine that this is not how I ought to be and that it is something that I need to work on, even though it would be much easier for me to continue running away than to confront my fears. I should try to cultivate the virtue of courage, not in order to accomplish some other (self-serving) goal, but in order to be an objectively better (more actualized) person.

*note: I omitted the "mench" hyperlink from the quote because for some bizarre reason, I'm not allowed to post links of any kind until I reach 50 posts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you mean good say good.

I don't mean that.

You actualize your humanity, but success at that happens to be good and beautiful, not Orclike.

Actualizing your potential for goodness makes you more good not more real.

You are being pedantically literal. Terms don't have to be coined with philosophical completeness. For instance, the term "necessary evil" does not mean that evil is necessary, but that an evil is tied to a necessary good.

I am not going to argue over word choice in the term "real man".


eudaimonia,

Mark