philosopher's club

[HoffaLives]

so it's done. let 'er rip, boys. this is the thread to ask the meaty questions. rhetoric and theology and polemics elsewhere, okay?

for those rusty on the subject, philosophical arguments/discussions are based on GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACTS. it isn't about determining what is, it's about taking what we accept as true and applying it to a specific situation.

An example would be, you believe that there are more men skippers than women. in discussing why this may be, you could talk about testosterone and male aggression, female passivity as a social construct, male socialisation to pursue power, that kind of thing.

examples of what wouldn't be philosophy as applied to the same question:

a) men are dicks
b) god wants it that way.
c) it just is, and you're an idiot.

while all these might apply, they're non-starters as far as philosophical discussion goes, because they aren't objective.

who wants to go first?

[gypsywomen]

I'll be your huckleberry,

As a women I feel there are more men skippers because, men can be alone with themselves much easier then women. Their needs are more simple and appericiate quietness and nature.
Women like people, to talk to, to be around,to talk about. Women are at thier best when they are multitasking and doing many differant things. Being involved with groups and family. Very social people. Of course I am talking about cruising.

[AjariBonten]

I concur with gypsywoman; and would like to posit a possible reason.

I think it is in our genes all the way back to pre-history and the hunter/gatherer society.

Hunting is (or can be) a solitary endeavor, and is certainly a quiet one where communication takes place with body language, hand signals, etc.

Gathering is a communal activity, with active forms of communication. Also, continual chatter can be useful to keep away small predators, keep track of the young-uns, and inform the group about useful finds.

The stereotype is that women were the gatherers, and men the hunters. If this is true, it fits very well with the current male/female stereotypes that are observed today; and fits with gypsy's comments above.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by HoffaLives

so it's done. let 'er rip, boys. this is the thread to ask the meaty questions. rhetoric and theology and polemics elsewhere, okay?

for those rusty on the subject, philosophical arguments/discussions are based on GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACTS. it isn't about determining what is, it's about taking what we accept as true and applying it to a specific situation.

An example would be, you believe that there are more men skippers than women. in discussing why this may be, you could talk about testosterone and male aggression, female passivity as a social construct, male socialisation to pursue power, that kind of thing.

examples of what wouldn't be philosophy as applied to the same question:

a) men are dicks
b) god wants it that way.
c) it just is, and you're an idiot.

while all these might apply, they're non-starters as far as philosophical discussion goes, because they aren't objective.

who wants to go first?

While an interesting thread, the definition of philosophy is way off, IMHO.

How did you settle on narrowing subjects with "GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACTS"?

Philosophy is simply the study if ideas. As I've written two or three the field has five branches.

Views on the nature of Reality, Man's nature and his role is that Reality, Metaphysics.

What is knowledge, how is it amassed and organized, Epistemology.

The broad principles of how Man should live his life is the field of Ethics.

From Ethics we get how societies should be formed, Politics.

From Ethics we also get the field of Esthetics.

So long as one is mentally healthy, one holds views in all these areas, be they conscious or subconscious. Further, with few exceptions, the views held in each field integrate as per this outline.

So irrespective of the validity of,

a) men are dicks
b) god wants it that way.
c) it just is, and you're an idiot.

These issues are, in the strongest sense, philosophical.

[poopdeckpappy]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

While an interesting thread, the definition of philosophy is way off, IMHO.

How did you settle on narrowing subjects with "GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACTS"?

Philosophy is simply the study if ideas. As I've written two or three the field has five branches.

Views on the nature of Reality, Man's nature and his role is that Reality, Metaphysics.

What is knowledge, how is it amassed and organized, Epistemology.

The broad principles of how Man should live his life is the field of Ethics.

From Ethics we get how societies should be formed, Politics.

From Ethics we also get the field of Esthetics.

So long as one is mentally healthy, one holds views in all these areas, be they conscious or subconscious. Further, with few exceptions, the views held in each field integrate as per this outline.

This can never become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for fine-spun arguments in favour of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths.

[camaraderie]

Oh good...Politics is one of the 5!! I can hardly wait to get started!! (g)

[PBzeer]

Philosophy is basically the practice of complicating common sense. The act of contemplation, rather than acting. It could be postulated that the pronouncement of a philosophical position is the ultimate form of egotism.

But then, what do I know?

[HoffaLives]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

While an interesting thread, the definition of philosophy is way off, IMHO.

How did you settle on narrowing subjects with "GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACTS"?

P

i guess it is good to define the parameters. because any argument begins with assumptions about reality, in order for the argument to be meaningful, you have to start with some basic mutuals understanding on what is real.

you can't have a debate on the ethical treatment of martians, because most won't agree that martians exist. you can have a debate on the ethical treatment of sailor's wives, because most agree that they do exist, and as the wives of sailors, constitute a distinct group worthy of consideration.

you folks are off to a good start, but i would challenge you to develop your arguments further -go deeper.

[HoffaLives]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Philosophy is basically the practice of complicating common sense. The act of contemplation, rather than acting. It could be postulated that the pronouncement of a philosophical position is the ultimate form of egotism.

But then, what do I know?

the problem with this position is that it pretends that most assertions are by nature represent a philosophical position. this isn't philosophy as in Hegal or Derrida, it's talking about what we think of certain issues, with a deeper look at our beliefs and positions.

[HoffaLives]

Originally Posted by gypsywomen

I'll be your huckleberry,

As a women I feel there are more men skippers because, men can be alone with themselves much easier then women. Their needs are more simple and appericiate quietness and nature.
Women like people, to talk to, to be around,to talk about. Women are at thier best when they are multitasking and doing many differant things. Being involved with groups and family. Very social people. Of course I am talking about cruising.

but what's to prevent women from being social on a boat? from what i've seen, women tend to be more easily disturbed by what can go wrong, and are more easily upset when it does. i'm not talking the "hysterical" woman, but i've found that women just are less likely to take physical risks, and feel less of a need to challenge themselves against the physical world. sailing is very much, or can be, a test of skills, endurance, knowledge, courage, wisdom and stamina. some of these women share in, some of them they don't.

i agree that women are far more social than men, but most guys don't do the solo thing either; they want their partner to at least crew for them; i suspect most guys solo because their women won't go.

so is sailing just the h. sapiens, sapiens, version of dragging home the carcass? are we just recreating an instinctual role in fiberglass?

does that make it a little silly?