Satyr wrote:This shall be my last response to you, unless you offer an angle which is more sophisticated or creative.
Maybe that would be for the best.
Anyway, I think that we are much more alike than you would care to admit. But let's look at the differences first:
Satyr wrote:you contradict the real with your ideal.
Of course. That's what ideals are for.
Satyr wrote:WHAT?!!
You have got to be kidding me?
You didn't just say that, did you stupid?
But I did. And I kid you not. If ideals did not contradict reality, as you quite correctly observed they do, then they would merely describe it, and thus be rather useless. I think we can agree that the real world is not an ideal world:
Satyr wrote:Ideas are not ideals, you idiot.
My idea of life as being mortal is not my ideal.
My idea of my self is not my ideal. It is that it is NOT my ideal that makes me strive and struggle and suffer to become more.
I suppose that you strive and struggle in some particular direction, towards something somehow preferable to your present situation. Maybe what you strive for is not an ideal, maybe you set your sights lower, being realistic about what's possible, but whatever you project, if you extrapolate it far enough, what you have is an ideal, contradicting reality and thus being useful to you as a beacon, a guiding light in your struggle.
You may claim that you despise ideals and that you have none. But it seems to me that you have gathered a set of notions like individuality, freedom, competition, strenght, action and domination, identifying these as masculine, while their opposites - collectivity, security, cooperation, weakness, passivity and submission - you identify as feminine and denounce.
Is this idea of the superior male not an ideal of yours? And is it not also an obsolete ideal, a romantic dream of a time when men were men?
Yes, I know that you despise romantic dreams, but this ideal of yours is becoming less relevant in reality every day, as our culture continues to evolve towards greater connectivity, socialisation and necessary cooperation. You have observed it yourself; the feminisation of mankind is a main theme of yours. You know that it's happening in reality, and you complain about it, because it clashes with your ideals and threatens your view of the world, the one you have created in order to feel good about yourself.
Yes, we are more alike than you would care to admit.
Satyr wrote:No little girl, a nihilist is someone who denounces or denies the world as it is, replacing it with a more preferable, ideal one.
That's not my definition of a nihilist, but it describes what you do too, doesn't it?
Satyr wrote:When you denounce war and violence and superior/inferior and male competitiveness, you are, in fact, denouncing all the elements that made humans dominant in the animal kingdom.
Those are far from all the elements. Most important is our capability to contradict present reality with dreams of a better future; our capability to communicate abstract ideas through language and thus cooperate in making these dreams real. You might even attribute our progress to creative laziness; man began creating tools because he was too lazy to do the work by hand.
Satyr wrote:That you worship peace, love, brotherhood, humanity, altruism, oneness, God, is an indication that you now want to change the rules that made you possible, thinking that this will not change anything other than it will make things "better".
But the rules are changing, as they have already changed. (I suppose that you are talking about evolution when you speak of rules.) However, whether biological or cultural, evolution is not a game you can play, with rules that you can learn. Nature is what we are and evolution just happens. The rules of yesterday are not the same as the rules of tomorrow. It seems to me that it's you who are afraid of change, you who cling to "male" ideals that just won't cut it in the future. You are afraid of the hive, not because you fear that mankind will be overrun by other species, but because it has no place for you.
