Recently in Philosophy Category

Here is a situation:

A father and his university-aged son have a very rocky relationship. It's to the point where they no longer speak. The father is faced with a choice: try to rebuild the relationship with his son, or do whatever he can to ensure his son's future, including happiness. This might include working longer hours and away from the family for extended periods of time, or offering views that might not be popular, but that he believes must be heard for his son's survival, if only he would accept the words. Is that a true test of his love for his son? To sacrifice his relationship with him to ensure that he has a better life? Is it similar to dying for your son's freedom, but just less dramatic?

How about a man doing something similar for his woman? Is it different? Is it appropriate to say that he loves her so much that he is willing to lose her as long as she recovers from her illness, financial situation, family situation or whatever it is that is making her "sick", or threatening her survival, be it physical, spiritual, mental or financial?

Have you ever loved someone enough that you would be willing to sacrifice your relationship to that person? Is that even love?

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son...

Have you ever thought about masculinity? The more I read about it, the weaker it actually seems to me. It makes me think of the Emperor's new clothes; strong, majestic and noble, yet when you look directly at it, ridiculous and with no substance.

The thing about men and masculinity (as opposed to women and masculinity; some women have it, but it doesn't define them), is that although independence is often thought of as being part of masculinity, the truth is that is depends on women and other men to have any meaning at all. It depends on how much you can control and subordinate others, particularly women and female stand-ins. This largely explains why men are so often the perpetrators of violence against women, "lesser" men and children (although women are very often the violent ones, make no mistake). This explains why so many men insist that they have the final word on important decisions, because otherwise, they wouldn't feel as though they had any value in the running of the home. So much happens because men feel as though they have or don't have enough masculinity. It so important, yet can be so easily taken away, whether it be by women or by societal institutions (think: black American men and systemic discrimination, a topic too large to really get into here.).

In short, men can't be men without women to make them feel like men.

It must seem so silly to some women that the notion of appearing to be or feel like a man is so important to some men that they will literally do anything to achieve that masculinity. And I mean, ANYTHING. Some will sexually assault women because they threatened their authority, also known as manhood. (I've always slightly bristled at the term "manhood" in reference to one's penis, as though it is the sum total of a man.). Some will engage in violence for the same reason. Defending one's manhood is a little like defending one's honour. When you read about the things some people will do for it, you shake your head and wonder how it could possibly be that important.

I suppose you could say that femininity depends on others as well. Some women will do anything to be a mother, for example, including kidnapping and murder. It does happen. But in general, it seems more innate and less fluid than masculinity. Of course, this could simply seem that way because of female gender theorists that too easily criticize masculinity, but have little to say on how fragile femininity might be. I would have to do more research on that.

Only two things really happened to me this year. I made a career transition, and it went even better than I thought it could. Video game project management? That's pretty crazy. I got a copy of my game and showed it to my family. I showed them my name in the credits and it was very gratifying. But as big as that was, it's nothing compared to the drama that started on May 3. It's hard to do a wrap up when your year is like this. I'll try. It's easier when you have an archived blog.

January: I thought 2006 was bad. I was disappointed and worried about not getting a job offer, but it all worked out in the end.

February: More high hopes that were later dashed.

They say that the body and the spirit are connected. If this is true, then when is it reasonable to say that one is a reflection of the other? For example, four years ago I was at my heaviest I have ever been. 215 pounds. Granted, I do wear my weight fairly well, and people tell me that I have a large enough frame to pull it off. But I felt sluggish and fat all the time. I had no energy to speak of. Nothing was particularly interesting. At the same time in my life, I was very bitter about life and women. I hated a major part of every day. My job was killing me, and what a relief when it was over. I felt that women weren't worth much of an investment since they seemed to only want two things from me then: sex or someone to talk to/at, without giving me much else. (And I have plenty of examples to support this, as I am sure many of you have about men.) Luckily Rose has been able to teach me otherwise.

Now, once again my weight is creeping upwards. I briefly broke 210 the other day. I was recently in an emotional downward spiral, but I think that I already bottomed out and am on the rise again. During the dark time, my weight crept up little by little. I hope that it goes back down again. The last time it happened was 2004, where I hit a low of 194. I felt pretty damn good, I must say.

So I wonder how much I should link my physical body to my spiritual well-being. Right now, my physical body has been giving me problems for a couple of months now, and the emoitional/spitiual self has only just started making a comeback. Maybe one depends on the other.

Is it true for you? If so, how so?

Any blogger that talks about feeling something other than normal will be met with responses from a bunch of people that say that they aren't normal, that normals suck anyway, and yay for us. But I wonder what the "normals" say to posts like these? Nothing, I guess. Or do they want to be part of the hip club of offbeats, so they post? Just once, I would like a self-proclaimed "normal" person to stand up and claim an active opposition to the way we see ourselves, and the world. Just to see how they define themselves and the rest of us. To hear them say that, yes they are normal, the others aren't, and to justify any value judgements they may have.

Also, the fact that there are so many "I am so different" posts highlights the growing alienation that we feel as society "progresses".

Although it may look as though I am implying that the posters there are lame, I truly don't mean that. After all, I am considered to be rather different, too. I guess I am wondering how there could be SO many people (and I think that there are, and the blogosphere/Internet touches the tip of the iceberg) that consider themselves separate, distinct and at times excluded from normal society. Could it be that in reality those that are considered normal are in the minority? Do the offbeats really want to be normal? Do the normals want to be different?

There must be separate visions of ourselves. One that views us an a unique person, particularly in this individualized society, and one that views us as part of a larger community, whether it be that of your neighbourhood, your city, ethnic group, greater society or whatever. Maybe these things conflict on a regular basis. It's food for thought.