Quote:
All women are not insane. Repeat until it actually sinks in.
Are some women crazy? Yes. Are some men crazy? Yes. Are there differences between how people of each gender tend to act that may come across as bizarre, disturbing or insane? Yes.
If you're finding that all the women that you hook up with/date/are interested in all share a set of undesirable commonalities, what you really need to look at is your pre-selection process. If the only commonality in all of these different relationships (using the term in a general sense, not to denote an exclusive dating scenario) is you, the problem most likely lies with you--in the kind of women that you're attracted to, the kind that you pursue, the type of women who are attracted to how you present yourself, ect.
Imar, 100% rationality is impossible for anyone. For one thing, our emotions and preconceptions color everything that we do, hear or see--the idea of rationality/reason encumbered by emotion/passion is a dangerous fallacy. For another, claiming that you are rational is an assertion that you are rational by a specific set of standards, most likely decided upon by yourself (or, if not, by some outside entity. It doesn't matter, though, the same critique applies). Those standards are themselves subjective and do not adhere to any absolute, universal set of conditions. One man's standards for rationality are another man's standards for insanity. Unless you can demonstrate that your definition of rationality was derived from completely rational, objective and unbiased means (an impossibility given the inherently interpretive nature of the human brain--everything that we experience is unconsciously imbued with meaning by our brains. Without this interpretation, we wouldn't be able to function in the world--it's why, when we see a horizontal slab of wood supported by four vertical beams, one at each corner, we see a table rather than an object to which we can assign no function or meaning.), your standards are themselves flawed, thereby negating your claim of being 100% rational.
Hello Melissa. Apparently you read Foucault or some other postmodern thinker. There is no real sane-insane division, it's discours, people create standards as a control mechanism, I'm not aware of the representation of the self and how I do not deconstruct it, etc. It's an argument of authority, but with a purpose: I know what you are saying. I'm doing a phd regarding deconstruction and representation. I read all those works. And mostly I agree with your line of argument.
It will be a big shock to you, but yes, I am a feminist. I regard everyone as being equal and will not see myself as the better man. Why do I write this anyway? Because I also do believe in trying to be objective about a situation: analysing the interaction between people and their structures. How they think, how they act, the influence of social structures, the permanent changing of every situation, etc. That's my rationality. And we can debate about it. I'm a firm believer of the universal goals of Enlightenment: scientific thought will set us free. There is no other option. But I never, really, never encountered a woman who can detach her emotions from a necessary objective, clinical view to solve a problem in daily interaction. It's always with the drama. And I, as a man believing in Enlightenment, have three choices: I go with the drama, I don't give a damn about the drama or I'm being pragmatic about the drama. I have chosen the third option: I'm just trying to figure out how to handle people in the most effective way, without being unethical. I'm not going to manipulate people, I just try to follow my own ethical standard. And I'm completely honest as I'm rational. If I want to have sex with you, I'm not going to open a box of magic manipulative tricks. You will know that I want to have sex with you. But you also have a lot of assholes who do use them, just because they know how to manipulate women with their feelings, and everytime those women will not see it coming. On the other, me as being a rational guy, can tell immediately what that guy is doing.
That's the difference in a nutshell and my definition of rationality.
CHAT
Gadamer's hermeneutics recreate the singular of that interaction, but at the same time it's stuck within its own reconstruction. You need to translate the understanding of the concrete in more universal abstract concepts. The concrete can never be explained by the concrete. I don't like Popper, falsification does not eliminate the old questions of the verification procedure. And he didn't understand Hegel or Marx.