The Rational Male

Black Swan wrote: »

From an alternative viewpoint, how many alpha males will be attracted to, or stay attracted to those subordinated females raised by an alpha father? To what extent would a strong, intelligent, self-reliant, confident, and highly successful alpha want a similar female partner (i.e., alpha female)? Although Hollywood characters and fictional roles lack any scientific rigour, it appears anecdotally to me that there has been a shift to more female heroes in films of late. To what extent has this shift to Lara Croft-like alpha female characters been prompted by a stronger male attraction to such female roles? Is there any recent scholarly research that suggests this shift, that may also fly in the face of Tomassi's return to the old Ozzy and Harriet WWII era (and before) gender role male domination model?

To those of us less able to decipher the motives of changes such as these, the cynic in me presumes the more female dominant characters is more movies response to the modern concept of equality. In short , shoehorn a load of woman characters in to even things out and give the perception of equality. I remember having a discussion with a psychologist and asked why do we have to do things so badly when it comes to change. They suggested that we often go from one extreme (abortion, religion, sexism, equal rights , politics etc) to the exact opposite in an almost over compensating way. That’s how I feel would interpret what’s going on, an over balancing of what was an unbalanced system.

Ripley, in aliens, is one of the most iconic and arguably my favourite action hero’s of all time and yet most woman heroes are rehashes or copy and paste of male counterparts. I love the uniqueness of her character and strength she gets from vulnerability that I’m not sure many other characters can claim. That’s my benchmark for female role models but I feel it’s disastrous having Hollywood imprint their own narrative - copy and paste luke = Rey. Copy and paste captain America = Wonder Woman with less desire to protect humanity :pac:

Lara Croft is more a sexualised fantasy then captain marvel or even black widow (who uses her sexuality when required) but I wouldn’t say is comparable with Croft in terms of motive for bringing these characters to the big screen.

You mentioned earlier that Rollo is not a philosper but I thought we were all our own unique philosophers but some are just less informed , more ignorant , more strategic or less aware of the concept? This is a genuine question, do you have to be constantly engaged in philosophy or how the world works or can it be an interest? Also, whatever the answer, I get the impression a true philosopher lives their lives based on their own philosophical findings. I’m reading a book discussing Stoicism and it mentions marcus aurelius who sounds like a fascinating person (any good books for newbs in philosophy on him?) who lived his life true to his philosophical beliefs. Do people here who consider themselves philosophers feel they live their lives true to what they have learned or does talking or learning about it qualify one as a philosopher ?

What’s also funny is that supposedly philosophical schools used to pander to certain crowds like you accuse Rollo of Doing. Some actually picking and choosing snippets of philosophy from other schools to try and entice more students. This suggests Rollo pandering to an audience is not something alien to philosophers hundreds of years ago. Again I’m only reading this stuff now, I’m not correcting you only repeating what I’ve read. Perhaps Rollo is just a person exploiting a niche like Peterson, perhaps that’s what you mean, but what separates these guys from philosophers? (Genuine question, I don’t know the answer).

I’m only beginning to scratch the surface of philosophy but find it over whelming at times. Even on my down time I’m listening to information that is fascinating. Heads a bit melted to be fair. Also any sort of lectures or places where people discuss philosophy that doesnt require extensive academic knowledge?

Black Swan wrote: »

There are some who contend that all people are philosophical in varying degrees, but I doubt all would be called philosophers. There is a focus on philosophy by philosophers missing for most of us. A formally constructed philosophy is essential to be a philosopher, that is why I do not believe that Jacques Derrida was a postmodern philosopher, as he lacked one. Rather I would classify him as a philosophical methodologist, or one who deconstructs the formally stated positions of other philosophers in such a way as to better understand them.

This raises the question if a formally constructed philosophy must be written by the philosopher? Socrates lectured but did not write down his philosophy. Members of his philosophical circle, including Plato and Xenophon wrote it.


Methinks it is safe to say that Socrates lived his philosophy during classical times, as did Jacques Derrida live his philosophical deconstruction in postmodern times. There are many others. But should an experiential component be a requirement for the philosopher label?

What defines a philosopher? I’m genuinely curious as I couldn’t say, but I’ve only a shallow understanding of this subject.

Does a persons logic/teachings/musings, their actions (or following of said teachings) or both? Is it doing a Philosophy course in college or trying to live your life according to thought out and reasoned analysis? Anybody can throw out counter arguments to most things, is that not a philosophical challange ? If your philosophy of life is ignorance and greed, does that preclude you from the Philosophers circle?

People who take advantage of capitalism in all it’s glory, but doing so with full understanding of what they are doing and intentionally manipulating events for an unethical hedonistic life. Do they have to stop and think about their actions or can you be an instinctive philosopher where you see the world with open , informed eyes but choose to make it fit whatever is your own creed?