Gender constructs: what is real and what is not real

[christian5327]

Depends on the age of humans (?) you refer to. According to wiki, homo sapiens sapiens achieved behavioral modernity only 50,000 years ago.

That aside, these "artificial constructs" that you are talking about have been essential in ensuring the survival of the human race. Average lifespans, I believe, have more than tripled since the Neolithic Age. We have also become less violent (by this I mean on a day-to-day basis) than our forefathers because of the existence of societal limitations.

What kind of freedom are you talking about in the first place?

Behavioral modernity is different from anatomical modernity. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 1 million years. I suspect behavioral modernity is the beginning of artificial constructs. The problem with wiki is that it is just a jumping off point. Before behavioral modernity, humans acted the same way for about 950,000 years. Problem is that nobody knows for sure what this entailed.

[sakiman]

Also, there are some philosophical dilemmas, one of which is a situation where a human being must choose between construct and human nature. For example, prostitution is frowned upon by most societies, especially Christian societies. A male has urges that cannot be satisfied because he lacks a partner. Masturbation is also not chosen because it is isolating. So, if the man chooses to be with a prostitute then he is choosing his nature as a sexual being to fulfill a basic urge but societal constructs label him in a negative way. If he chooses the so called proper behavior based on societal norms such as morals, then he would be denying his nature as a sexual being.

ah so, on some things you want to imitate piranha behaviour, on some things you want to imitate a buddhist monk. which is natural? which is right?

[curiouser]

I never said that constructs were not necessary. I merely state that constructs interfere with realizing our nature as social animals/humans. We can never live again as completely natural beings because human populations need more constructs as they grow. In the beginning, humans were only 10,000-15,000 in population. Hermits do live apart from society but this just means physical contact. They are in contact with human creations in their reality which is a form of social behavior.

There is a sacrifice for the benefits of constructs at the expense of what is natural to humans as animals. The problem is that society ignores the delicate balance between nature and construct. Modern society is all about 24/7, artificial food, artificial living environments, artificial ways of interacting with one's fellow human, etc. When we lose touch with our humanity completely, we lose touch for the very basis of it all----self preservation.

Your first two sentences underscore the key points you are trying to make, but are contradictory. You say that constructs are unnecessary, (thereby making them necessary), but you think they interfere with realizing our "true nature." If you don't survive because you don't have a construct, does this mean your true nature is, in fact, extinction? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The way that the construct has evolved is a consequence of its very nature (specifically, the nature of its components). You may not like it, but you need it to survive. If you don't like it, you're free to live without it. You can complain all you want, but unless everybody realizes the need for a change, there will not be any, collectively.

While the outcome is, for all intents and purposes, "artificial," it is only natural that it evolved this way, as a result of our sentience. And as sentience is intrinsically part of our "natural" humanity, the artificiality of things is only but "natural."

[christian5327]

Behavioral modernity is different from anatomical modernity. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 1 million years. I suspect behavioral modernity is the beginning of artificial constructs. The problem with wiki is that it is just a jumping off point. Before behavioral modernity, humans acted the same way for about 950,000 years. Problem is that nobody knows for sure what this entailed.

Freedom that is no longer possible in modern society. Early humans were free from all of the disadvantages of society. Pollution, deadly wars, debt, etc. How about simply waking up to the sun and sleeping when it gets dark? How about only using what you need since notions of materialism spring from modern notions of a consumer culture? How about enjoying the warmth of a real fire with people that actually know you? How about tasting food without any chemicals and essentially free range? Early humans didn't work 60+ hour work weeks though they spent much time gathering and hunting food but with cooperation.

[christian5327]

Your first two sentences underscore the key points you are trying to make, but are contradictory. You say that constructs are unnecessary, (thereby making them necessary), but you think they interfere with realizing our "true nature." If you don't survive because you don't have a construct, does this mean your true nature is, in fact, extinction? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The way that the construct has evolved is a consequence of its very nature (specifically, the nature of its components). You may not like it, but you need it to survive. If you don't like it, you're free to live without it. You can complain all you want, but unless everybody realizes the need for a change, there will not be any, collectively.

While the outcome is, for all intents and purposes, "artificial," it is only natural that it evolved this way, as a result of our sentience. And as sentience is intrinsically part of our "natural" humanity, the artificiality of things is only but "natural."

I never said that constructs were not necessary.

The above sentence means that I am not arguing that constructs are frivolous. Not necessary=unnecessary. So, I never said that constructs were unnecessary.

My two sentences are not contradictory, they are paradoxical.

Constructs are necessary but they still interfere with human nature. It would be like the drug Cumadin for heart patients. Cumadin is a blood thinner needed after bypass surgery. Although it is necessary Cumadin interferes with the body's natural blood clotting process. Sometimes, the body overcompensates which has serious effects on the body.

[sakiman]

Behavioral modernity is different from anatomical modernity. Homo Sapiens has been around for about 1 million years. I suspect behavioral modernity is the beginning of artificial constructs. The problem with wiki is that it is just a jumping off point. Before behavioral modernity, humans acted the same way for about 950,000 years. Problem is that nobody knows for sure what this entailed.

yeh behavioral modernity. should there be a difference between your neighbor chewing you and animals chewing other animals?

[sakiman]

Freedom that is no longer possible in modern society. Early humans were free from all of the disadvantages of society. Pollution, deadly wars, debt, etc. How about simply waking up to the sun and sleeping when it gets dark? How about only using what you need since notions of materialism spring from modern notions of a consumer culture? How about enjoying the warmth of a real fire with people that actually know you? How about tasting food without any chemicals and essentially free range? Early humans didn't work 60+ hour work weeks though they spent much time gathering and hunting food but with cooperation.

yes but i repeat, what animal problem solving mechanism do you want to apply?

[christian5327]

Your first two sentences underscore the key points you are trying to make, but are contradictory. You say that constructs are unnecessary, (thereby making them necessary), but you think they interfere with realizing our "true nature." If you don't survive because you don't have a construct, does this mean your true nature is, in fact, extinction? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

The way that the construct has evolved is a consequence of its very nature (specifically, the nature of its components). You may not like it, but you need it to survive. If you don't like it, you're free to live without it. You can complain all you want, but unless everybody realizes the need for a change, there will not be any, collectively.

While the outcome is, for all intents and purposes, "artificial," it is only natural that it evolved this way, as a result of our sentience. And as sentience is intrinsically part of our "natural" humanity, the artificiality of things is only but "natural."

I disagree with the last part concerning evolution of artificial constructs. We don't know how other sentient beings like us in the universe have dealt with or without constructs. The evolution is particular to human beings but it still is unexplained as to why it only occurred very recently. After all, if it really is a part of our "natural" humanity then humans would have evolved these constructs all along. Remember, homo sapiens is at least 1 million years old. Nobody knows why things were dormant for 900K+ years. All of a sudden, social constructs appear within the last 50,000 years.

[sakiman]

I never said that constructs were not necessary.

The above sentence means that I am not arguing that constructs are frivolous. Not necessary=unnecessary. So, I never said that constructs were unnecessary.

My two sentences are not contradictory, they are paradoxical.

Constructs are necessary but they still interfere with human nature. It would be like the drug Cumadin for heart patients. Cumadin is a blood thinner needed after bypass surgery. Although it is necessary Cumadin interferes with the body's natural blood clotting process. Sometimes, the body overcompensates which has serious effects on the body.

why don't you just say its too advanced for you. you have no answer.

[sakiman]

I disagree with the last part concerning evolution of artificial constructs. We don't know how other sentient beings like us in the universe have dealt with or without constructs. The evolution is particular to human beings but it still is unexplained as to why it only occurred very recently. After all, if it really is a part of our "natural" humanity then humans would have evolved these constructs all along. Remember, homo sapiens is at least 1 million years old. Nobody knows why things were dormant for 900K+ years. All of a sudden, social constructs appear within the last 50,000 years.

do animals have social constructs?

[christian5327]

How does a construct affect human nature? I gave my prostitution example above but I will give another one. Whether people care to admit it or not, adult males gravitate towards females that are between the ages of 15-17. Why? Scientists say that this happens to be the healthiest, most fertile time for females and youthful entities have no marks of disease upon them. Society condemns this through statutory rape laws. This is an example of construct affecting an aspect of human nature.

[curiouser]

^Right. Are not paradoxes intrinsically contradictory statements? But I won't that point.

In your example of that drug, you are faced with a choice - you either need to take it to make sure your bypass surgery is a success and you survive, or you choose not to take it to make your blood clot naturally. You can even take this one step further and choose not to have that surgery to begin with, so as to make your blood clot naturally. Obviously, a rational human being will take the one which will increase his chances of survival (self-preservation).

It may not be the most convenient choice, but it still is a means to your ultimate end. Given your cognitive capacity, you are also able to establish workarounds, or just endure the situation for its natural duration.

In the same way, if you are fed up with society's restrictiveness, you are free to go out and live your own life outside of it. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. But, see, I don't see you doing that. Because even if you feel that you are being restricted, you will still choose to live within society because its overarching purpose in your existence far outweighs the benefits of being "natural" and "free."

[christian5327]

why don't you just say its too advanced for you. you have no answer.

Dimwit, I just explained how my two sentences work together as a paradox.

[sakiman]

How does a construct affect human nature? I gave my prostitution example above but I will give another one. Whether people care to admit it or not, adult males gravitate towards females that are between the ages of 15-17. Why? Scientists say that this happens to be the healthiest, most fertile time for females and youthful entities have no marks of disease upon them. Society condemns this through statutory rape laws. This is an example of construct affecting an aspect of human nature.

do animals have social constructs? its very clear, the question that is

[sakiman]

Dimwit, I just explained how my two sentences work together as a paradox.

right meaning your brain is in a rollercoaster.

[christian5327]

^Right. Are not paradoxes intrinsically contradictory statements? But I won't that point.

In your example of that drug, you are faced with a choice - you either need to take it to make sure your bypass surgery is a success and you survive, or you choose not to take it to make your blood clot naturally. You can even take this one step further and choose not to have that surgery to begin with, so as to make your blood clot naturally. Obviously, a rational human being will take the one which will increase his chances of survival (self-preservation).

It may not be the most convenient choice, but it still is a means to your ultimate end. Given your cognitive capacity, you are also able to establish workarounds, or just endure the situation for its natural duration.

In the same way, if you are fed up with society's restrictiveness, you are free to go out and live your own life outside of it. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. But, see, I don't see you doing that. Because even if you feel that you are being restricted, you will still choose to live within society because its overarching purpose in your existence far outweighs the benefits of being "natural" and "free."

A paradox is a contradiction that is true. So, technically it is an ironic contradiction because contradictions by their nature work against each other: contra---latin for against----diction-----latin verb dicere to say----diction----that which has been said.

[sakiman]

A paradox is a contradiction that is true. So, technically it is an ironic contradiction because contradictions by their nature work against each other: contra---latin for against----diction-----latin verb dicere to say----diction----that which has been said.

what animal problem solving mechanism do you want?

[curiouser]

^Right, so you chose to focus on that point instead, which is tangential to the topic at hand.

It may be an ironic contradiction, but it is a contradiction, nonetheless, isn't it? A paradox is a group of statements that work against each other.

Can you explain how:

(1) constructs are not unnecessary (i.e. necessary)

and

(2) constructs interfere with our "true nature"

actually serve to not work against each other?

If they do work against each other, will you concede that they contradict each other, despite the fact that they are also ironic contradictions and form a paradox?

[gs09]

Homo sapiens sapiens have become anatomically around for 200,000 years, not 1 million. You probably mean homo erectus? They are intellectually inferior.

I'll get back to this later.

[TTJ]

Mas gusto ko pang basahin ang STS readings ko eh