Philosophy Now Forum

There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 am There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:42 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 am There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

The OP had a bit of humor in it but it did include an observation which will raise some growls.

The princess who transformed the frog did so through the gift of love while the feminist turned the prince into a frog through the use of power. Love vs. power. Building up vs. tearing down. I'll stick with the woman who knows how and why to kiss a frog.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:26 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:42 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 am There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Both of them are 'feminists' of the same form if he agrees to something she proposed. How do you intepret their separation from 'royalty' as related to her power unless you presume Harry acted in submission to her wishes ALONE? He never knew anything distinct from being royalty and appears to have opted to leave for another concern besides themselves: the people's growing distaste for the institution of Royalty and the constant harassment.

The OP had a bit of humor in it but it did include an observation which will raise some growls.

The princess who transformed the frog did so through the gift of love while the feminist turned the prince into a frog through the use of power. Love vs. power. Building up vs. tearing down. I'll stick with the woman who knows how and why to kiss a frog.

Yes, I got the joke.

But given this was a deeper thinking forum thread, I thought you might be implying more than just a single post thread stating a joke [such as what might be a 'Tweet' instead.]

feminism can only flourish in a developed and well-fed society

These two people have every right to establish their own future in which ever way they see fit, bravo and best wishes to them.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 am There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Castration is never progress.

I predict princess will dump eunuch within the year.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:40 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:12 am There are many stories in which a princess through her love transforms a frog into a prince. Meghan Markle is the first feminist I know of who has transformed a prince into a frog. Progress?

Castration is never progress.

I predict princess will dump eunuch within the year.

You may be right but the old fashioned attraction to love as an ideal for the modern feminist has been abandoned for the attraction to power. The princess turning the frog into a prince seems somehow demeaning. I find it sad when I see how many young girls have been taught to abandon what they feel at the depths of their heart and what it means to be a woman in favor of being as foolish as men.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:41 pm I find it sad when I see how many young girls have been taught to abandon what they feel at the depths of their heart and what it means to be a woman in favor of being as foolish as men.

It's not foolish to be a man, Nick. Nor to be a woman. But it is foolish for a woman to behave like a man, or a man to behave like a woman.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 6:04 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:41 pm I find it sad when I see how many young girls have been taught to abandon what they feel at the depths of their heart and what it means to be a woman in favor of being as foolish as men.

It's not foolish to be a man, Nick. Nor to be a woman. But it is foolish for a woman to behave like a man, or a man to behave like a woman.

We appreciate Christianity differently. You seem primarily concerned with the outer man or what we DO. The Christianity I know is concerned with what we ARE or the inner man.

From this perspective the division of male into female has special significance. For the purpose of propogation the male is concerned with quantity or creating many offspring. The female preserves the the human quality of our species. The female strives to select a male capable of reflecting human quality. she possesses.

Modern secularism rejects the idea of objective quality so consequently the young who feel it are condemned assuring the young of both sexes due to modern education will gradually experience the collective loss of the inner awareness of objective quality.

When the women no longer reflect the respect for objective quality most men will just be concerned with quantity and the recognition of God as the Great Beast or society itself. How could it be other if women are denied the ability to understand what objective quality is in relation to human being and can only reason in terms of social appearance.

The Christianity I know by heredity is concerned with the vertical middle between God and Man which enables the essence of Man to consciously evolve to become the potential for human being. This idea must be hated by the world but needed by those not of the world. The essence of women is an essential part of awakening which is why it must be attacked in favor of establishing conditioned fantasy and inner corruption.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:56 pm We appreciate Christianity differently.

Umm...yes.

You seem primarily concerned with the outer man or what we DO. The Christianity I know is concerned with what we ARE or the inner man.

Umm...no.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:03 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:56 pm We appreciate Christianity differently.

Umm...yes.

You seem primarily concerned with the outer man or what we DO. The Christianity I know is concerned with what we ARE or the inner man.

Umm...no.

Behavior or what we do is a product of the outer man. It is important in the world. Christianity is not concerned with what we do but rather the light within which it is done.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:20 am Christianity is not concerned with what we do but rather the light within which it is done.

It's not an either-or, Nick. It's a both-and.

Christianity concerns both the character of the good person, and what the good person does. "By their fruits you will know them," remember? The "fruits" are their manifest actions; the thing you get to "know" by that is their true character.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:53 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:20 am Christianity is not concerned with what we do but rather the light within which it is done.

It's not an either-or, Nick. It's a both-and.

Christianity concerns both the character of the good person, and what the good person does. "By their fruits you will know them," remember? The "fruits" are their manifest actions; the thing you get to "know" by that is their true character.

And who determines good character? Is the defense of communism preaching equality a sign of good character? Fruits can be deceptive. I'll stick with Meister Eckhart on this one

People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works.