What is a man?

If you were asked what is in a box, when told you cannot look inside yourself, you can imagine, theorize or take the person with the box's word for it. The more serious issue is that the person with the box isn't aware of what is there either; it's just that you are also physically separated from it while they are only mentally separated.
A good attitude, taking into account all this lack of positive knowledge, is to start wars online about who is more in the wrong.

The solution is to adopt an ontological approach of defining such a social construct as a self-schema. I do not see a useful alternative, other than imposing undesired and/or arbitrary social constructs and behaviour-modelling upon others. (beyond that which is reasonable)
 
I think it's useful for a whole lot more things than just gender!! Ascertaining epistemologies and morality can be advanced significantly through the dialectic.

Well yes, I do too, but this thread is about what a man is :)
 
The solution is to adopt an ontological approach of defining such a social construct as a self-schema. I do not see a useful alternative, other than imposing undesired and/or arbitrary social constructs and behaviour-modelling upon others. (beyond that which is reasonable)
The problem is that people try to communicate about stuff without even having to be of the view they grasp what they are trying to communicate about. It's human. It's also the opposite of achieving something (which may also be simply human).
In a way, only communicating observations about closed and/or axiom-set systems is sensible, but of course it wouldn't be realistic irl.
 
The problem is that people try to communicate about stuff without even having to be of the view they grasp what they are trying to communicate about. It's human. It's also the opposite of achieving something (which may also be simply human).
In a way, only communicating observations about closed and/or axiom-set systems is sensible, but of course it wouldn't be realistic irl.

I think such communication can nevertheless be useful as a path forward to greater understanding, so long as the dialogue is aimed towards collaboration towards ascertaining the greater truth. When it is not, it is useless.
 
A man is not an animal?
The box test usually gets passed.



The most interesting thing about people is that they spend their limited time on what they think is important.

I think about that a lot.

So, we tend baffle each other on priorities. :think:

I don't think the gom jabbar test is apt for this thread. Consider that the vast majority of the people who are given it are women - Bene Gesserit students in the Chapterhouses. Jessica herself went through it, and countless generations of BG students before her.

The test is meant to sift human from animal. So yes, the BG think Paul is important enough to test. But they don't go around testing every ducal heir. They test those who either already matter or who have the potential to matter in the various Bene Gesserit schemes (the quest to breed a Kwisatz Haderach is only part of their list of long-term goals).
 
Perhaps we should start by eliminating things that are not men and that will give us a clue.

Gas pumps: cannot be man. Women also can have gas. Not man.

Books: men are born, not printed. Not man.

The final season of Family Matters: has men, but is not in itself a man.

Borneo: “no man is an island,” not man.

DEVO: proven not men in 1978, Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are DEVO!
 
Perhaps we should start by eliminating things that are not men and that will give us a clue.

Gas pumps: cannot be man. Women also can have gas. Not man.

Books: men are born, not printed. Not man.

The final season of Family Matters: has men, but is not in itself a man.

Borneo: “no man is an island,” not man.

DEVO: proven not men in 1978, Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are DEVO!

Is the set of all men a man?
 
If only we could figure it out.

Spoiler :
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
 
Last edited:
^^ That sure takes me back many many years. IIRC I had to memorize it and present to my 6th? grade class.
 
For what is a man?
What has he got?
If not himself, then he is not.

Not to say the things, that he truly feels
And not the words, of someone who kneels

Let the record show, I took all the blows
And did it my way
 
For what is a man?
What has he got?
If not himself, then he is not.

Not to say the things, that he truly feels
And not the words, of someone who kneels

Let the record show, I took all the blows
And did it my way
That is going to be stuck in my head.
 
The cycle up there is... odd.
 
Top Bottom