Okay de Beauvoir,

Why are so many women unable to untie themselves from religion in order to derive more fulfillment from feminism? Must they be religious? If their religious faith limits them so much, if these religious practices render their gender equality goals impossible, why can't they just give it up? Must they continue drinking from this cup?

I find this situation bewildering.

sauer: Okay de Beauvoir,

Why are so many women unable to untie themselves from religion in order to derive more fulfillment from feminism? Must they be religious? If their religious faith limits them so much, if these religious practices render their gender equality goals impossible, why can't they just give it up? Must they continue drinking from this cup?

I find this situation bewildering.

Like I said in my post on the other thread, religious feminists have convinced themselves mostly through the use of apologetic arguments, that there is gender equality in their religions. They want to believe that equality exists and so they look for ways to defend that position through selective interpretation of their religious tenets. The most important requirement for being a feminist is believing that both genders are equal and neither is inferior or superior to the other so once religious feminists are able to carry out enough mental gymnastics to assure themselves that their books actually preach equality then they stop thinking they are restricted from being feminist in whichever way they choose and hence do not have to leave because of feminism.


Religious feminists don't think their faiths limit them from enjoying gender equality or equal opportunities as men because they give flawed interpretations to the sexist parts of their scriptures and tell themselves that they can also have all the rights and privileges as the men so they really don't really do not think that they are restricted from practicing their feminism however they choose.
They don't think there is sexism or inequality and so they will not leave for reasons of sexism and inequality.

Abi? Does it make sense to you?

[size=3pt]It'd better.[/size]

What does your signature mean by the way? I tried using Google translate to interpret it but what it translated did not make any sense to me.

De Beauvoir:

Like I said in my post on the other thread, religious feminists have convinced themselves mostly through the use of apologetic arguments, that there is gender equality in their religions. They want to believe that equality exists and so they look for ways to defend that position through selective interpretation of their religious tenets. The most important requirement for being a feminist is believing that both genders are equal and neither is inferior or superior to the other so once religious feminists are able to carry out enough mental gymnastics to assure themselves that their books actually preach equality then they stop thinking they are restricted from being feminist in whichever way they choose and hence do not have to leave because of feminism.


Religious feminists don't think their faiths limit them from enjoying gender equality or equal opportunities as men because they give flawed interpretations to the sexist parts of their scriptures and tell themselves that they can also have all the rights and privileges as the men so they really don't really do not think that they are restricted from practicing their feminism however they choose.
They don't think there is sexism or inequality and so they will not leave for reasons of sexism and inequality.

Abi? Does it make sense to you?

[size=3pt]It'd better.[/size]

Yeah, I agree with you mostly. But those who take the religious tenets seriously see that they must play second fiddle to a man. Those religious books don't leave them in doubt about that.
Really, I wish more Nigerian women would divorce themselves from these religious texts and actually voice out their opinion more and more. They need to realize that religion is crushing their goals and that their pastor's words need to take a backseat.

At the same time, I think it's really about social acceptance again. Those who don't go to church in Nigeria are not welcomed into specific social circles. And I hate to say this, but many women are very social; the thought of losing friends and significance could pretty much kill them, so they must continue associating with church and church activities even as feminists.

Now a few questions: I know you face challenges as a Nigerian feminist. Would you care to share this? I have always wondered what it is to be black and be a feminist. It's so easy to associate feminism with white women, but I know there are millions of black women feminists as well. Does it bother you that men want you to behave in a specific way? And how to do handle moral questions in your daily life without being religious?

De Beauvoir: What does your signature mean by the way? I tried using Google translate to interpret it but what it translated did not make any sense to me.

I just used Google Translate now. It actually hasn't done that much of a bad job.
Part of the text is from a German fairytale. I think the Grimm Brothers, I can't remember now. But I was spinning the day I wrote this. Just concluded the story and it sounded weird. The signature means:

He became jealous and cut off his brother's head, took immediately from the root of life and with it brought him back to life. (That's part of the story from the fairytale). That's your strange story, isn't it? (That's what I thought about it).

Don't mind me, I just spin off sometimes!

sauer:

Yeah, I agree with you mostly. But those who take the religious tenets seriously see that they must play second fiddle to a man. Those religious books don't leave them in doubt about that.
Really, I wish more Nigerian women would divorce themselves from these religious texts and actually voice out their opinion more and more. They need to realize that religion is crushing their goals and that their pastor's words need to take a backseat.

At the same time, I think it's really about social acceptance again. Those who don't go to church in Nigeria are not welcomed into specific social circles. And I hate to say this, but many women are very social; the thought of losing friends and significance could pretty much kill them, so they must continue associating with church and church activities even as feminists.

Now a few questions: I know you face challenges as a Nigerian feminist. Would you care to share this? I have always wondered what it is to be black and be a feminist. It's so easy to associate feminism with white women, but I know there are millions of black women feminists as well. Does it bother you that men want you to behave in a specific way? And how to do handle moral questions in your daily life without being religious?

Women are under more pressure to conform that's the reason why they are not as individual minded as men. An unconventional man will receive more acceptance and encouragement than an unconventional woman because the roles of women is widely believed to be that of a wives/mothers.

Challenges as a Nigerian feminist.....The greatest challenge is the ignorance of Nigerians about feminism, many of them don't know what it means or what it sets out to achieve. Feminists are often portrayed as angry and lonely man haters and due to this reason, many women passionately try to distance themselves from the movement. Even women who believe in granting equal rights to both genders vehemently deny being feminists because they don't want to be negatively stereotyped. So unfortunately feminism is not gaining grounds and not accomplishing its goals quickly enough.

Another challenge is the inability of Nigerians to see the need for feminism because they don't understand that many of our native cultures are discriminatory towards women. People simply assume that these discriminatory practices are necessary parts of our culture which we need to abide by in order to continue living in peace and well being. They just follow these practices without questioning or without to see if they make sense and are beneficial.
In Nigeria, many violent and abusive behaviors that are directed towards women are overlooked and enough is not being done to protect women from these things, domestic violence and rape for example are widespread but they are seen as mundane issues, in many cases the woman is blamed for her husband's violent behaviour and for falling victim to rape.
Then there is culture of paying bride price (as if the woman is property) and the culture of making wives bear their husband's names. In short generally, there is a culture of placing more value on the male child than the female, in order to be regarded as truly successful and fulfilled, a woman has to be married and living under a man, women cannot carry on their family names after marriage and in some tribes they have to bear sons in order to be considered as part of their husband's family. These acts of discrimination make many men loose respect for women as they see them as less important surbodinates, this lack of respect is reflected in the way they deal with women and interact with them. As for women, they are conditioned to see themselves as inferior and this doesn't do well for their self esteems.
Unfortunately, many Nigerians are too afraid to step out of the box and challenge these things because they don't want to be seen as wierd/abnormal or because they fear that if our cultures are challenged or changed, then we would spiral into confusion and mayhem.
So about the challenges that's basically it, ignorance and unwillingness of people to discard backward traditions.

How I determine my morals as an irreligious person; I derive some of my morals from religious. And legal laws, there are religious laws that are put in place to ensure the wellbeing of people and to protect their interests, laws like those that prohibit theft or murder or disturbing the public peace. Basically laws that serve to keep avarice and greed in check and ensure that people consider the needs of those around them before they make decisions on what to do. I find that life is easier and more enjoyable for you if you are at peace with those around you, things go smoothly for us when there isn't malice or ill will in our hearts for each other so I follow those religious and legal laws that seek to ensure that we continue to have nothing but good will for each other.
I also derive some of my morals from humanistic principles. In humanism emphasis is placed on the value and organization of human beings and there is respect for the freewill ie letting people choose what they want to do with their lives instead of tying them down to societal roles. Consideration and compassion for others is another principle of humanism.
That's it


How do you determine your morals and ethics sauer?

sauer:

I just used Google Translate now. It actually hasn't done that much of a bad job.
Part of the text is from a German fairytale. I think the Grimm Brothers, I can't remember now. But I was spinning the day I wrote this. Just concluded the story and it sounded weird. The signature means:

He became jealous and cut off his brother's head, took immediately from the root of life and with it brought him back to life. (That's part of the story from the fairytale). That's your strange story, isn't it? (That's what I thought about it).

Don't mind me, I just spin off sometimes!

It seems you really like the German language. Your signature is German and your name is German. Is that where you live?

De Beauvoir:

Women are under more pressure to conform that's the reason why they are not as individual minded as men. An unconventional man will receive more acceptance and encouragement than an unconventional woman because the roles of women is widely believed to be that of a wives/mothers.

Challenges as a Nigerian feminist.....The greatest challenge is the ignorance of Nigerians about feminism, many of them don't know what it means or what it sets out to achieve. Feminists are often portrayed as angry and lonely man haters and due to this reason, many women passionately try to distance themselves from the movement. Even women who believe in granting equal rights to both genders vehemently deny being feminists because they don't want to be negatively stereotyped. So unfortunately feminism is not gaining grounds and not accomplishing its goals quickly enough.

Another challenge is the inability of Nigerians to see the need for feminism because they don't understand that many of our native cultures are discriminatory towards women. People simply assume that these discriminatory practices are necessary parts of our culture which we need to abide by in order to continue living in peace and well being. They just follow these practices without questioning or without to see if they make sense and are beneficial.
In Nigeria, many violent and abusive behaviors that are directed towards women are overlooked and enough is not being done to protect women from these things, domestic violence and rape for example are widespread but they are seen as mundane issues, in many cases the woman is blamed for her husband's violent behaviour and for falling victim to rape.
Then there is culture of paying bride price (as if the woman is property) and the culture of making wives bear their husband's names. In short generally, there is a culture of placing more value on the male child than the female, in order to be regarded as truly successful and fulfilled, a woman has to be married and living under a man, women cannot carry on their family names after marriage and in some tribes they have to bear sons in order to be considered as part of their husband's family. These acts of discrimination make many men loose respect for women as they see them as less important surbodinates, this lack of respect is reflected in the way they deal with women and interact with them. As for women, they are conditioned to see themselves as inferior and this doesn't do well for their self esteems.
Unfortunately, many Nigerians are too afraid to step out of the box and challenge these things because they don't want to be seen as wierd/abnormal or because they fear that if our cultures are challenged or changed, then we would spiral into confusion and mayhem.
So about the challenges that's basically it, ignorance and unwillingness of people to discard backward traditions.

Your point about culture influencing the treatment of women is very true. I remember talking to a Kenyan woman sometime ago and she pointed out to me that it's not unusual in Kenya for a lady to leave her parents and go take an apartment on her own. If a Nigerian lady as much as suggests this to her parents, na war!
If only Nigerians could just open up a bit and leave these women to make their own decisions. Must a woman be judged by whether she is married or not? However, I think once Nigerians start being more receptive to unconventional ideas, maybe things might in fact change for the better.

De Beauvoir:
How I determine my morals as an irreligious person; I derive some of my morals from religious. And legal laws, there are religious laws that are put in place to ensure the wellbeing of people and to protect their interests, laws like those that prohibit theft or murder or disturbing the public peace. Basically laws that serve to keep avarice and greed in check and ensure that people consider the needs of those around them before they make decisions on what to do. I find that life is easier and more enjoyable for you if you are at peace with those around you, things go smoothly for us when there isn't malice or ill will in our hearts for each other so I follow those religious and legal laws that seek to ensure that we continue to have nothing but good will for each other.
I also derive some of my morals from humanistic principles. In humanism emphasis is placed on the value and organization of human beings and there is respect for the freewill ie letting people choose what they want to do with their lives instead of tying them down to societal roles. Consideration and compassion for others is another principle of humanism.
That's it


How do you determine your morals and ethics sauer?

For me, this is a tough question. You know, when you have a source for moral laws, a source where everything is written in black and white, it becomes super easy to live and to make choices. You know what to do when to do it. When you have got no source and must make ultimate moral decisions, it becomes quite difficult to live. This is really true; and is without doubt the reason for the existence of all these varying philosophical schools, from Pythagoreanism to Kantianism. The thing is, you have no basis for deciding whether to help a beggar who has not a idea where his source of bread will come from that day, but has hands and legs to actually source for this daily bread. When you think about it and you ponder and ponder and ponder, you just might go with your whims sometimes. But then going with your whims means you have no principles you live by, so you just might end up with some weird sect (Scientology?) or probably just u-turn back to Christianity anywyz.....

To avoid falling in that hole, I just try to draw living principles from secular humanism. Secular humanists believe that humans are capable of being ethical without depending on a god to be so. In addition to their constant search for truth, they also demonstrate a strong inclination to assume responsibility for ethical consequences of their decisions. So, I do to others what I don't mind them doing to me. I try to do that which is "good" and refrain from doing that which is "evil". "Good" and "Evil" in this case are my own terms, but I make sure if anyone's gonna get hurt it should be me and me alone. It's difficult to have to live like this in Nigeria, but honesty always pays after all. Besides, there is an innate satisfaction I derive in following these principles. Plus, the joy of freedom and independence from religious balderdash is particularly enthralling.

Meanwhile, am curious to know what you think of the relationship between Sartre & de Beauvoir? Am sure you must have read about it. Do you think it was going to work at all? And whose side do you take?

De Beauvoir:

It seems you really like the German language. Your signature is German and your name is German. Is that where you live?

Yea, I love the German language. I did study it in Germany a while, after encountering it during my numerous forays into philosophy. But no, I don't live in Germany.

sauer:
To avoid falling in that hole, I just try to draw living principles from secular humanism. Secular humanists believe that humans are capable of being ethical without depending on a god to be so. In addition to their constant search for truth, they also demonstrate a strong inclination to assume responsibility for ethical consequences of their decisions. So, I do to others what I don't mind them doing to me. I try to do that which is "good" and refrain from doing that which is "evil". "Good" and "Evil" in this case are my own terms, but I make sure if anyone's gonna get hurt it should be me and me alone. It's difficult to have to live like this in Nigeria, but honesty always pays after all. Besides, there is an innate satisfaction I derive in following these principles. Plus, the joy of freedom and independence from religious balderdash is particularly enthralling.

Secular humanism is a good philosophy to base your morality on. I think combining humanism and existentialism in deciding your ethics and personal principles would be the best way to live a fulfilling and satisfying life because with existentialism you are free to become whatever you want to be in life but in spite of having personal freedom you'd still live a life of consideration for others because of the humanist laws you follow.
It's seems like the best choice anyone could make.

sauer: Meanwhile, am curious to know what you think of the relationship between Sartre & de Beauvoir? Am sure you must have read about it. Do you think it was going to work at all? And whose side do you take?

Their relationship was the most unconventional thing ever. So unusual....

They didn't place any type of restriction on their individual freedoms and they agreed to have an open relationship where they were free to date whoever they liked but yet it never made them resent each other. They dated while living as free and autonomous human beings, not showing desire to possess or restrict the other person and not depending too greatly on them.
In spite of the fact that they were dating other people, they still loved and respected each other and maintained a very tight bond, sartre could read beauver's personal diary and beauvoir could read sartre's. The closeness of the bond they shared is easily seen in the letters they sent to each other. They were very much in love with each other up until their old age and even while they dated other people, they still placed each other first.
I think all of that is very touching and romantic
I don't support or admire the way they randomly went into intimate affairs with many people; especially Sartre (so many STDs out there) but I like how they were able to still maintain a tight bond with mutual respect and love all through their lives. It's impressive.

De Beauvoir:
Secular humanism is a good philosophy to base your morality on. I think combining humanism and existentialism in deciding your ethics and personal principles would be the best way to live a fulfilling and satisfying life because with existentialism you are free to become whatever you want to be in life but in spite of having personal freedom you'd still live a life of consideration for others because of the humanist laws you follow.
It's seems like the best choice anyone could make.

I'd look at this. Am not sure if existentialism actually had its own associated moral principles, or if moral principles are simply derived from it. I'll look it up. But I get the crux of your argument.

De Beauvoir:
Their relationship was the most unconventional thing ever. So unusual....

They didn't place any type of restriction on their individual freedoms and they agreed to have an open relationship where they were free to date whoever they liked but yet it never made them resent each other. They dated while living as free and autonomous human beings, not showing desire to possess or restrict the other person and not depending too greatly on them.
In spite of the fact that they were dating other people, they still loved and respected each other and maintained a very tight bond, sartre could read beauver's personal diary and beauvoir could read sartre's. The closeness of the bond they shared is easily seen in the letters they sent to each other. They were very much in love with each other up until their old age and even while they dated other people, they still placed each other first.
I think all of that is very touching and romantic
I don't support or admire the way they randomly went into intimate affairs with many people; especially Sartre (so many STDs out there) but I like how they were able to still maintain a tight bond with mutual respect and love all through their lives. It's impressive.

Yes, the de Beauvoir and Sartre relationship was most unconventional. Did I observe you getting all effusively emotional over it?
I actually Sartre kind of came out on top of the relationship, in spite of de Beavoiur's supposed personal independence. I think she became jealous in some instances and in the end couldn't even do without Sartre. Yea, they were so in love.
What I admire most about the relationship is their decision not to get married, yet stay together till the very end. Am pretty sure many other marriages crashed and crashed in the interval they stayed together. Theirs is almost an example in how not marrying could be the best to happen to a couple, if you can call them a couple.

Do you think they might have fought to sustain their relationship simply to sustain the truth of their philosophy, which sees nothing wrong with such open relationships? Am thinking they probably had to. Cos in the later years, there was less and less intimacy between both of them.

Have you read about Amelia Earhart? Do you know her own marriage story?

sauer:
I'd look at this. Am not sure if existentialism actually had its own associated moral principles, or if moral principles are simply derived from it. I'll look it up. But I get the crux of your argument.

Existentialism does not have it's own moral principles but rather moral principles are derived from it.
Since freedom in personal experiences of life is respected, existentialist thinkers generally agree that respect for others' freedoms is a basic moral principle that true existentialists have to follow. In order to promote original/free thinking in the world, we all need to promote the freedom of others so that they too can experience fulfilled, free lives.

Yes, the de Beauvoir and Sartre relationship was most unconventional. Did I observe you getting all effusively emotional over it?
I actually Sartre kind of came out on top of the relationship, in spite of de Beavoiur's supposed personal independence. I think she became jealous in some instances and in the end couldn't even do without Sartre. Yea, they were so in love.
What I admire most about the relationship is their decision not to get married, yet stay together till the very end. Am pretty sure many other marriages crashed and crashed in the interval they stayed together. Theirs is almost an example in how not marrying could be the best to happen to a couple, if you can call them a couple.
Do you think they might have fought to sustain their relationship simply to sustain the truth of their philosophy, which sees nothing wrong with such open relationships? Am thinking they probably had to. Cos in the later years, there was less and less intimacy between both of them.
Have you read about Amelia Earhart? Do you know her own marriage story?

Of course Sartre had the upper hand in the relationship and was the one getting the most out of it. In a book published by one of their shared lovers, de Beauvoir was reportedly rather docile around him and she frequently let him be the decision maker. The author of the book also mentioned that de Beauvoir suffered emotionally because of Sartre's numerous affairs but she never opposed him or restricted him because of her personal philosophies.
I am led to believe that de Beauvoir was not truly and completely convinced of her arguments regarding gender equality. This is cos while writing the second sex, she spoke of women in the third person, she didn't use the word 'we' or 'our' or any similar term to associate herself with the female gender. Rather she used words like 'they', 'their' etc, as if she wasn't a woman or as if she wanted to distance herself from them. Critics have even accused her of showing subconscious misogyny in the way she wrote the book. If she did have doubts about her positions on gender equality or if she still subconsciously thought she had to stick to gender roles, then that could have held her back from living her life the way she truly pleased.

Yes, I think they both struggled to sustain their relationships towards the end especially after Sartre started to become religious but in spite of all that their love for each other remained till death.This is particularly true for de Beauvoir who became a profound alcoholic after Sartre's death and took great pains before publishing her memoirs to see that almost every thing she wrote in it about him portrayed him in good light.

I don't know about Amelia Earhart's marriage, I only know she was a pilot and a supporter of gender equality.
I will try to read up on her life.

De Beauvoir:
Of course Sartre had the upper hand in the relationship and was the one getting the most out of it. In a book published by one of their shared lovers, de Beauvoir was reportedly rather docile around him and she frequently let him be the decision maker. The author of the book also mentioned that de Beauvoir suffered emotionally because of Sartre's numerous affairs but she never opposed him or restricted him because of her personal philosophies.
I am led to believe that de Beauvoir was not truly and completely convinced of her arguments regarding gender equality. This is cos while writing the second sex, she spoke of women in the third person, she didn't use the word 'we' or 'our' or any similar term to associate herself with the female gender. Rather she used words like 'they', 'their' etc, as if she wasn't a woman or as if she wanted to distance herself from them. Critics have even accused her of showing subconscious misogyny in the way she wrote the book. If she did have doubts about her positions on gender equality or if she still subconsciously thought she had to stick to gender roles, then that could have held her back from living her life the way she truly pleased.

Yes, I think they both struggled to sustain their relationships towards the end especially after Sartre started to become religious but in spite of all that their love for each other remained till death.This is particularly true for de Beauvoir who became a profound alcoholic after Sartre's death and took great pains before publishing her memoirs to see that almost every thing she wrote in it about him portrayed him in good light.

I don't know about Amelia Earhart's marriage, I only know she was a pilot and a supporter of gender equality.
I will try to read up on her life.

No doubt Sartre gained more from the relationship. I have not read Second Sex, though I have read a bit about the book. Yea, one is indeed led to believe de Beauvoir never really took her own theories to heart. Perhaps she did in some instances; but when it came to Sartre, she certainly never did. You really have read Second Sex, haven't you?
Are you also aware of other existentialists such as Camus and Kierkegaard? I'm particularly fascinated by Kierkegaard's book, Purity of the Heart is to Will One Thing. I stumbled across that book in the strangest of places and got hooked after only a few verses. Frankly, it's amazing what the authors can conjure once they get it going. Philosophy is a beautiful thing and those who have the ability to weave something out of it are true gifts of nature.
Do you know this book, Sophie's World? That's another beautiful book that don't happen too often.
What do you think of Nietzsche and his essays, btw? Have you had time to examine him?

Amelia Earhart was a pilot. I think the first female pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic. She crashed into the Pacific in her pursuit to circumnavigate the earth. She was involved in a marriage which she referred to as a "partnership with dual control". I don't know why I just love that phrase . This is at a time women had no choice but to marry; at a time where a man was a woman's benefactor. This was even before de Beauvoir. I have the greatest respect for this woman. I admire her drive and I wish many could take a cue from it.

sauer:

No doubt Sartre gained more from the relationship. I have not read Second Sex, though I have read a bit about the book. Yea, one is indeed led to believe de Beauvoir never really took her own theories to heart. Perhaps she did in some instances; but when it came to Sartre, she certainly never did. You really have read Second Sex, haven't you?
Are you also aware of other existentialists such as Camus and Kierkegaard? I'm particularly fascinated by Kierkegaard's book, Purity of the Heart is to Will One Thing. I stumbled across that book in the strangest of places and got hooked after only a few verses. Frankly, it's amazing what the authors can conjure once they get it going. Philosophy is a beautiful thing and those who have the ability to weave something out of it are true gifts of nature.
Do you know this book, Sophie's World? That's another beautiful book that don't happen too often.
What do you think of Nietzsche and his essays, btw? Have you had time to examine him?

@bolded, what is the book about?

Nietzsche was an intelligent man and a forerunner in philosophy and I greatly respect his intelligence and think highly of him but I believe there were some problems with his philosophies, like the philosophy of the Over man. I do support individuality and original thinking but there are some things people just have to take into consideration when trying to live an individualistic life. It's not enough to despise norms or look down on the mentality of the masses or the herd as Nietzsche described them but we ought to ask ourselves why the herd acts the way they do and truly understand this before we discard or despise their ways of life.

Nietzsche advocated a total rejection of social customs and standard: the general rejection of established laws and beliefs, especially the laws related to morality and religion and he believed in the destruction of authority to create a just and more satisfying world, Nietzsche also criticized humanitarian feelings, and he despised how pity and altruism were ways for the weak to take power over the strong.

One thing he didn't take into consideration was the fact that these things which he criticize were an essential part of what helped us survive and evolve as a specie. Certain behaviors or emotions were adaptive in particular situations in our ancestors environment and those that possessed these behaviors were more likely to reproduce and survive than those who did not possess them. Some of the aspects of human nature which Nietzsche despised were hard-wired into our brains by natural selection during the process of our evolution.

First of all, Nietzsche advocated rejecting social mores; as humans we live in extremely complex and interdependent societies, where people band together in groups for mutual aid and protection. Such groups include families, friendships, associations, states and nations. The members of these groups work together to help each other. Also, since the group enhances the members' chances of survival, group survival means personal survival. The individual benefits by supporting the group, because the group reciprocates by supporting the individual. When we try to be Over men and women and discard social mores, we will most likely end up alone in our decisions and might loose the acceptance of the people around us. Since this acceptance has proven to be vital to our survival as a species then why exactly should we discard it? Wouldn't doing so turn out to be detrimental to us one way or another?
Human beings all have an innate desire to be accepted (scientifically proven) not necessarily accepted by all and sundry, but by some people at least and when we decide to be individualistic and entirely original in our ways of life, we separate ourselves from the acceptable behaviour of the people in our social circle and would most likely be rejected by them for going against their lifestyles.
If we all decided to be individualistic over men there will be very little unity among humans and I believe this situation will lead to conflict in after a short while because as humans, we love and accept the familiar, we side with people that are like us, we love those who behave like us and have the same values we do.
If we are to take the over man as standard, we would basically be living like islands, with each man inventing his own moral laws and values and the unity we enjoy from sharing similar beliefs, morals and values would be lost.
And most importantly, despite assertions to the contrary, possessiveness in one form or another is a pervasive element of human existence. It evolved from the territoriality of our animal ancestors, who protect their hunting grounds, and many times their mates, from potential rivals. Humans have the possessive instinct; males and females alike resent being cheated on and no one likes to have his possessions stolen by a rival or a thief. In short human possessiveness may have been one of the driving forces behind the evolution of the justice and fair play.
So since possessiveness is part of our innate natures and since it is something we all evolved to have, don't you think that people will let this aspect of their personalities get the better of them if they start to decide their own values? Don't you think there will be more theft, covetousness, excessive greed and tight fistedness among us? Wouldn't we end up as savage inconsiderate brutes if we are left to decide our own morals when we all evolved to have innate possessive and greedy characters?
Also, Nietzsche also criticized humanitarian feelings, and said pity and altruism were ways for the weak to take power over the strong. That is not entirely correct because love and empathy are are simply adaptations to the environment faced by our ancestors. Those who are empathetic and take action to relieve others' suffering may become better-liked and respected, causing others to be more likely to adopt the empathizer's other behaviors and those who are helped by the empathetic action may feel obligated to the empathizer, and help him later on in the future.
If we discard humanitarian feelings it would certainly lead to brutal and animalistic behaviour among humans.

Don't you think it is unrealistic for Nietzsche to demand that the Over man should contradict not only the common man of the present but also the common men of the past whose behavior shaped our evolution and natural selection? Wouldn't adopting the Over man's lifestyle be going contrary to what evolution intended for us?

By the way,I am very sorry for writing that very long wall of text to you, I just want to see if you can bring up a good defense for why the over man is considered superior and worthy of emulation. Personally I agree with and support the concept of the over man. I just want a debate.
Sorry

@ De Beaviour: Is your feminism inspired by Simone De Beaviour ? If so, have you read 'The Second Sex' ? Please summarize it for me, I have read about it through others comments but want your take.

Uyi Iredia: @ De Beaviour: Is your feminism inspired by Simone De Beaviour ? If so, have you read 'The Second Sex' ? Please summarize it for me, I have read about it through others comments but want your take.

I support a lot of what she said/taught but I wouldn't say my feminism is inspired by her, I just like her and her ideas.

De Beauvoir was basically asking why the male behavior is set as the standard for human behavior, why the male nature and male attributes were sen as the superior standards of behavior for humans and instead of appreciating the varying natures of our different genders we look down on female qualities like softness and tenderness while we praise male qualities like aggressiveness and forcefulness.
She was criticizing the habit of people seeing femininity as inferior and sometimes contemptible. She spoke against the widespread treatment of women as beings who could only be immanent or existing within a specified role while men could be transcendent or free to achieve any heights they desired.
In the book she advocated the acceptance of women as they are without negatively stereotyping their intrinsic qualities because they are also humans. She spoke against marriage and described it as a means of tying women down and she gave some suggestions of how the problems of gender inequality can be resolved.

You should download the book.

De Beauvoir:


Their relationship was the most unconventional thing ever. So unusual....

They didn't place any type of restriction on their individual freedoms and they agreed to have an open relationship where they were free to date whoever they liked but yet it never made them resent each other. They dated while living as free and autonomous human beings, not showing desire to possess or restrict the other person and not depending too greatly on them.
In spite of the fact that they were dating other people, they still loved and respected each other and maintained a very tight bond, sartre could read beauver's personal diary and beauvoir could read sartre's. The closeness of the bond they shared is easily seen in the letters they sent to each other. They were very much in love with each other up until their old age and even while they dated other people, they still placed each other first.
I think all of that is very touching and romantic
I don't support or admire the way they randomly went into intimate affairs with many people; especially Sartre (so many STDs out there) but I like how they were able to still maintain a tight bond with mutual respect and love all through their lives. It's impressive.

I would love a partber who wouldn't mind doing the bolded but Nigerian girls aren't like that, or maybe they pretend not to be. It take true love and some level of longsuffering to love a person even when she dates or has affairs with others. Sighs !

Okay.

First of all, you don't go about like that tearing Nietzsche to pieces. I'm gonna have to report you the philosophical council in the galaxy, far far away. Just kidding...

You see, one of the greatest tragedies of 20th century philosophy was that people could take Nietzsche's philosophy and twist it for their own gains. A number of intellectuals did that; so did the Nazis. I think this was easy to do, cos not soon after Nietzsche's death at the turn of the century the world kind of fell apart. There was the first and then the Second World War. People were looking for anything they could grapple at to explain away moral duties, anything they could use to make their own selfish decisions. And Nietzsche's philosophy came in handy.

I like to call it der Uebermensch, so I'll just call it der Uebermensch.
That term, to me, was merely a step at an explanation in Nietzsche's philosophy, as opposed to what many regard it as. What many other philosophers called "truth", "reason" or "essence" in their philosophies, is what Nietzsche merely rounded up as "der Uebermensch". When he declared in that book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, that "God is dead", he was indeed waking us all up to recognise an essence within us that now has the greater responsibility of life, of truth and of morality (der Uebermensch). Personally, all I see is the impossibility of rising to the task of der Uebermensch. I mean, the demands are just so strong that it's immediately unrealistic to have any Uebermensch at all. Ergo, it's an arbitrary concept.

De Beauvoir:
Nietzsche advocated a total rejection of social customs and standard: the general rejection of established laws and beliefs, especially the laws related to morality and religion and he believed in the destruction of authority to create a just and more satisfying world, Nietzsche also criticized humanitarian feelings, and he despised how pity and altruism were ways for the weak to take power over the strong.

One thing he didn't take into consideration was the fact that these things which he criticize were an essential part of what helped us survive and evolve as a specie. Certain behaviors or emotions were adaptive in particular situations in our ancestors environment and those that possessed these behaviors were more likely to reproduce and survive than those who did not possess them. Some of the aspects of human nature which Nietzsche despised were hard-wired into our brains by natural selection during the process of our evolution.

Am not sure where this comes from. Certainly not from der Uebermensch concept. Perhaps his idea of nihilism? Maybe, his writings suggested a total rejection of social standards; maybe they did allude to annihilation of authority and imposition of individual freedom. And certainly they did reject Christian values of pity. But isn't he correct? Fast forward to the 21st century: if Nietzsche had wrote this during this time, quite a number would indeed agree with him and probably buy his books. To me, the man was ahead of his time. He had such inspirational ideas as da Vinci or Copernicus had that other writers needed to wait a 100 years to appreciate his works.
I particularly support his rejection of Christianity. He was right. Christianity is depressingly pitful. The feelings it evokes from man and those it demands from him are not soul-uplifting, but soul-denigrating. Of course, many didn't believe it when he wrote it. Now though, how many more Germans go to church these days?

And I really can't figure how our survival is tied to the many things Nietzsche criticized. Are you saying pity and altruism, acceptance of established laws, etc are things that help us survive and evolve as a specie? Well, de Beauvoir, I disagree. I think Nietzsche got it right. Feelings of pity, and sometimes altruism, can impede our evolutionary development. In a survival of the fittest, only those who are witty and strong survive; only they are able to reproduce their kind, and only they become everlasting. While weak humans may encourage pity in order to ensure their own offspring stands a chance, nature has no space for pity and compassion and forgiveness in its bid to help species thrive. It lives the battle to the strongest. Am not saying this is good for business. That would mean I'm inconsiderate. I should reflect those virtues I have unfortunately learned in this our human gatherings. But then, nature feels nothing and knows nothing of my virtues, hence nature has no guilt. A philosopher's duty is to tell the truth, so it's important that he/she sides with nature in this regard. Nietzsche did that.

I don't think Nietzsche completely disregarded the need for society, while advocating exclusive individuality. If anything, I think he more or less drew our attention to the great responsibilities an individual has in ensuring that society survives. Perhaps in doing this, he didn't mention society all too often, nor wrote theses on why society is the absolute. His writings, however, always reiterated the need for individual, as a cell of the society, to recognize the enormous responsibility that has been thrust upon it in ensuring that society works well and smoothly. Some trace of this can be seen in his concept of der Uebermensch, and then in his other concept of the Will to Power, where individuals can aspire to "power" in a bid to restore humanity to equilibrium.

I think the problem with Nietzsche is that many of his philosophies are as esoteric as they are two-sided. It's so easy to take one part of it and interpreting it a completely different way from what was meant. He tended to be very complicated in his musings; I think this stems from his brilliance and his incredible knowledge of the philosophies of his predecessor. You can't take a Descartes, for example, and compare it with a Nietzsche. They talked from two completely different angles.

It could also have been the time during which he wrote. There were several contesting philosophies at that time, and it was essential to stand out and not be counted among the crowd (or the herd, if you like). Apparently, this was essential for Nietzsche. He did succeed. He was never and has never been counted among the philosophical crowd of his time; the end result is the Nietzsche we have today.

At the same time, philosophy is such a beautiful thing. Far from telling the truth about man, my feelings are its main purpose is to encourage discussions. Nietzsche's arguments have done that very successfully. They helped liberate many souls and at the same time enabled fervent discussions in Europe and every other place. Perhaps a few people misinterpreted his words and affected the lives of others badly. Won't these same people have done the same thing anywyz, without Nietzsche? He might have wrote against pity and weakness, but even he himself was pitiful and weak in his last days. Is there any more evidence that his philosophies were no more than to stir discussions?

Ok. I saw you mention evolution in some phrases over there. What are you feelings about the topic?

sauer: Okay.

First of all, you don't go about like that tearing Nietzsche to pieces. I'm gonna have to report you the philosophical council in the galaxy, far far away. Just kidding...

Am not sure where this comes from. Certainly not from der Uebermensch concept. Perhaps his idea of nihilism? Maybe, his writings suggested a total rejection of social standards; maybe they did allude to annihilation of authority and imposition of individual freedom. And certainly they did reject Christian values of pity. But isn't he correct? Fast forward to the 21st century: if Nietzsche had wrote this during this time, quite a number would indeed agree with him and probably buy his books. To me, the man was ahead of his time. He had such inspirational ideas as da Vinci or Copernicus had that other writers needed to wait a 100 years to appreciate his works.
I particularly support his rejection of Christianity. He was right. Christianity is depressingly pitful. The feelings it evokes from man and those it demands from him are not soul-uplifting, but soul-denigrating. Of course, many didn't believe it when he wrote it. Now though, how many more Germans go to church these days?

And I really can't figure how our survival is tied to the many things Nietzsche criticized. Are you saying pity and altruism, acceptance of established laws, etc are things that help us survive and evolve as a specie? Well, de Beauvoir, I disagree. I think Nietzsche got it right. Feelings of pity, and sometimes altruism, can impede our evolutionary development. In a survival of the fittest, only those who are witty and strong survive; only they are able to reproduce their kind, and only they become everlasting. While weak humans may encourage pity in order to ensure their own offspring stands a chance, nature has no space for pity and compassion and forgiveness in its bid to help species thrive. It lives the battle to the strongest. Am not saying this is good for business. That would mean I'm inconsiderate. I should reflect those virtues I have unfortunately learned in this our human gatherings. But then, nature feels nothing and knows nothing of my virtues, hence nature has no guilt. A philosopher's duty is to tell the truth, so it's important that he/she sides with nature in this regard. Nietzsche did that.

I don't think Nietzsche completely disregarded the need for society, while advocating exclusive individuality. If anything, I think he more or less drew our attention to the great responsibilities an individual has in ensuring that society survives. Perhaps in doing this, he didn't mention society all too often, nor wrote theses on why society is the absolute. His writings, however, always reiterated the need for individual, as a cell of the society, to recognize the enormous responsibility that has been thrust upon it in ensuring that society works well and smoothly. Some trace of this can be seen in his concept of der Uebermensch, and then in his other concept of the Will to Power, where individuals can aspire to "power" in a bid to restore humanity to equilibrium.


Ok. I saw you mention evolution in some phrases over there. What are you feelings about the topic?

Yes I just had to tear Nietzsche down because I like doing stuff like that.
I don't know how to respect authority and if others fawn over him, I will criticize him because I think its fun to do so

Okay, what you wrote; I didn't say that Nietzsche advocated the destruction of society and unity, on the contrary he encouraged the formation of a well ordered society with his over man concept. I was trying to show you that some of the values in that concept might lead to some disunity because of the very strong emphasis on individualistic thinking and rejection of group morals. That was why I brought in the part about how people evolved to be closer and more loving to those they share the same values and beliefs with.
About Nietzsche's critisism of christianity, don't you think it was harsh and excessive? I mean it's not like the religion is entirely bad, there are some good aspects in it, laws like showing love to one's neighbour and not coveting another's property etc. And he was tolerant to pagan religions which also contain some of the vile aspects of christianity he despised so why did he direct his hatred for god and religion specifically towards christianity?
And regarding your views on empathy/compassion, let me just pretend you didn't say nature has no space for pity and compassion. What kind of unfeeling robot are you?
We can't live without empathy even if we tried, it is actually a part of nature. Empathy/pity/compassion are things we are born with and they have been scientifically proven to be present in very small children that don't fully understand how the world works. You said that nature doesn't care about our feelings and it deals with the survival of the fittest and ensures that only the smart and strong survive, have you considered that part of smartness involves showing empathy to those around you to keep them on your side so you can have people to fall back on if you need help? Survival of the fittest involves intelligence and wittiness, you are correct when you say that but part of being intelligent is knowing how to interact with those around you in order to ensure your continued existence amongst them. Empathy and compassion are actually parts of nature, it's not possible to discard them so maybe Nietzsche was wrong when he suggested that we should do that or what do you think?

Evolution: I accept it as the best explanation of where we came from as a specie and why we act the way we do. I was too hasty and jumped to conclude that you also accept evolution when I mentioned it before so do you believe in evolution or do you have other ideas apart from it about our origins?

Uyi Iredia:

I would love a partber who wouldn't mind doing the bolded but Nigerian girls aren't like that, or maybe they pretend not to be. It take true love and some level of longsuffering to love a person even when she dates or has affairs with others. Sighs !

So you want an open marriage/relationship eh?

That's intriguing. I take it you're not religious then?

An open marriage is not a bad idea on its own but it takes a special kind of person or persons for it to work. There are many instances where open relationships fail just like how there are successful ones, you must have a lot of maturity and intelligence to live like that with your partner.

De Beauvoir:

Yes I just had to tear Nietzsche down because I like doing stuff like that.
I don't know how to respect authority and if others fawn over him, I will criticize him because I think its fun to do so

Of course, I agree. It definitely is absolute fun. Criticize ahead, milady!

De Beauvoir:
Okay, what you wrote; I didn't say that Nietzsche advocated the destruction of society and unity, on the contrary he encouraged the formation of a well ordered society with his over man concept. I was trying to show you that some of the values in that concept might lead to some disunity because of the very strong emphasis on individualistic thinking and rejection of group morals. That was why I brought in the part about how people evolved to be closer and more loving to those they share the same values and beliefs with.
About Nietzsche's critisism of christianity, don't you think it was harsh and excessive? I mean it's not like the religion is entirely bad, there are some good aspects in it, laws like showing love to one's neighbour and not coveting another's property etc. And he was tolerant to pagan religions which also contain some of the vile aspects of christianity he despised so why did he direct his hatred for god and religion specifically towards christianity?
And regarding your views on empathy/compassion, let me just pretend you didn't say nature has no space for pity and compassion. What kind of unfeeling robot are you?
We can't live without empathy even if we tried, it is actually a part of nature. Empathy/pity/compassion are things we are born with and they have been scientifically proven to be present in very small children that don't fully understand how the world works. You said that nature doesn't care about our feelings and it deals with the survival of the fittest and ensures that only the smart and strong survive, have you considered that part of smartness involves showing empathy to those around you to keep them on your side so you can have people to fall back on if you need help? Survival of the fittest involves intelligence and wittiness, you are correct when you say that but part of being intelligent is knowing how to interact with those around you in order to ensure your continued existence amongst them. Empathy and compassion are actually parts of nature, it's not possible to discard them so maybe Nietzsche was wrong when he suggested that we should do that or what do you think?

Evolution: I accept it as the best explanation of where we came from as a specie and why we act the way we do. I was too hasty and jumped to conclude that you also accept evolution when I mentioned it before so do you believe in evolution or do you have other ideas apart from it about our origins?

Well, am not an unfeeling robot. Just trying to say it the way it is. Empathy, pity and compassion are nice things. I'd be lying if I denied that these aren't expressions I feel as well. Am just trying to state the obvious. Darwin's theory says it as much. Natural selection seeks its own benefits; the strong survive and the weak, sorry, must take the back seat. Don't get me wrong! Nature is beautiful and sometimes considerate. Community has somewhat helped us regard nature as more tender and loving. I think this is a good thing. But in the end, when nature unleashes its fang on us, it certainly comes out victorious with ease. This doesn't make Darwin's theory evil; it just makes it what it is....Darwin's theory!

Try read the Origin of Species.

Yea, I accept evolution as an explanation of how we have come about. But certainly not wholeheartedly. I think there may be some gaps in the explanations we currently have at our disposal. It simply is insufficient. Not to get me wrong; I certainly am not favoring creationism over evolution. I mean, it's pretty clear: many-celled organisms can only have come from single-celled organisms. The complex can only have come from the simple. But what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists sell me is kinda incomplete. Little wonder Stephen Jay Gould had to expound additional theories to wish away the little gaps in the theory of evolution. I'm particularly impressed by Dawkins's effort to publicize evolution. His many books throw more light on the subject; these books tell the story of evolution from its infancy, through adulthood to maturity. Excellent creative writing. But they still do nothing about the pertinent questions key to the riddle of evolution. We have still got no answers to the gaps in the fossil records, some of the research methodologies are questionable and critics have a field day questioning every bit of the theory.
Whatever the case though, I think it's still the best explanation we have at hand about our origins. Nevertheless, whoever can do more work about it needs put more energy into establishing more facts about the theory.


Meanwhile, I wish to digress. Have you seen all the Star Wars episodes?

And have you ever read Descartes?

sauer: And have you ever read Descartes?

Yes but only in GST classes
I know he worked on philosophy and maths and science and said somethings about how the mind works but I don't have an indepth knowledge of his philosophy.

Do you want to discuss a philosophical claim about freewill?

sauer:
Yea, I accept evolution as an explanation of how we have come about. But certainly not wholeheartedly. I think there may be some gaps in the explanations we currently have at our disposal. It simply is insufficient. Not to get me wrong; I certainly am not favoring creationism over evolution. I mean, it's pretty clear: many-celled organisms can only have come from single-celled organisms. The complex can only have come from the simple. But what Darwin and other evolutionary biologists sell me is kinda incomplete. Little wonder Stephen Jay Gould had to expound additional theories to wish away the little gaps in the theory of evolution. I'm particularly impressed by Dawkins's effort to publicize evolution. His many books throw more light on the subject; these books tell the story of evolution from its infancy, through adulthood to maturity. Excellent creative writing. But they still do nothing about the pertinent questions key to the riddle of evolution. We have still got no answers to the gaps in the fossil records, some of the research methodologies are questionable and critics have a field day questioning every bit of the theory.
Whatever the case though, I think it's still the best explanation we have at hand about our origins. Nevertheless, whoever can do more work about it needs put more energy into establishing more facts about the theory.


Meanwhile, I wish to digress. Have you seen all the Star Wars episodes?

Star wars? Seriously?
O my goodness you are such a nerd. First the programming now this

I haven't seen it though....sorry. Is it any good?

De Beauvoir:

Yes but only in GST classes
I know he worked on philosophy and maths and science and said somethings about how the mind works but I don't have an indepth knowledge of his philosophy.

Do you want to discuss a philosophical claim about freewill?

You should. I mentioned him, while contrasting with Nietzsche, cos he is one of the most lucid philosophers out there. He just spells it out. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of his philosophies either, but it's not a bad idea to do a check on them.

Yea, let's discuss freewill. You think humans have freewill? Let me hear (or read?) your arguments.

De Beauvoir:

Star wars? Seriously?
O my goodness you are such a nerd. First the programming now this

I haven't seen it though....sorry. Is it any good?

Yea. Seriously. Am a nerd, I know that
Star Wars is interesting. I didn't even expect you wouldn't have seen it. But wait a minute! Even non-nerds love Star Wars, right?

sauer:

You should. I mentioned him, while contrasting with Nietzsche, cos he is one of the most lucid philosophers out there. He just spells it out. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of his philosophies either, but it's not a bad idea to do a check on them.

Yea, let's discuss freewill. You think humans have freewill? Let me hear (or read?) your arguments.


Yea. Seriously. Am a nerd, I know that
Star Wars is interesting. I didn't even expect you wouldn't have seen it. But wait a minute! Even non-nerds love Star Wars, right?

Non nerds love star wars as well, and I am sure it is a very interesting movie but I have never been able to watch it because it is just too long. Everytime I try to watch it, I always end up falling asleep midway into the movie or I get distracted and lose track of the plot. The film is too long.....I think about three hours or so and not only that, it is a trilogy so it has two other parts and I am sure they also have similar lengths as the first part. If I am ever able to concentrate and stay awake long enough to watch part 1, I am not sure I would be able to do so for parts 2 and 3.
I hardly watch very long movies, it's not just a star wars thing. I usually just read up on the movies on Wikipedia or IMDB if I am very interested in a long film.

About free will;
Let me base my assertions on the definition of free will that explains it as the ability to act or make choices as a free and independent being and not as a result of compulsion or predestination.

As humans, it is safer to assume that we have free will. This is because it will help us maintain order in our lives and in society.
Acceptance of the knowledge that we possess free will to choose is what helps us live in accordance with our personal values and beliefs. If we believe that we have the freedom to decide what choices to make in life, we can choose to live our lives a certain way and according to certain guidelines but if we tell ourselves that we don't have that freedom then there will be no point in making decisions or plans and that would only lead to a life of chaos.
Another reason why we should assume that we have free will is because there will be no need to create laws when people don't decide the actions they take for themselves. If a robber is jailed for theft for instance, he faces punishment because it is believed that he acted on his own free will, he chose to steal and break the law so he deserves to be punished for it. Same thing applies when we reward a person for doing good.
We don't have total and complete free will in life but we do have the ability to make choices for ourselves.

De Beauvoir:

Non nerds love star wars as well, and I am sure it is a very interesting movie but I have never been able to watch it because it is just too long. Everytime I try to watch it, I always end up falling asleep midway into the movie or I get distracted and lose track of the plot. The film is too long.....I think about three hours or so and not only that, it is a trilogy so it has two other parts and I am sure they also have similar lengths as the first part. If I am ever able to concentrate and stay awake long enough to watch part 1, I am not sure I would be able to do so for parts 2 and 3.
I hardly watch very long movies, it's not just a star wars thing. I usually just read up on the movies on Wikipedia or IMDB if I am very interested in a long film.

I'm unsuccessfully trying to understand your distaste for Star Wars. Maybe you could try the prequels and see whether you'll be able to stay awake or not . Those aint that long either. I think they are like regular movies cos they came later. The older episodes are certainly long, I admit.

De Beauvoir:
About free will;
Let me base my assertions on the definition of free will that explains it as the ability to act or make choices as a free and independent being and not as a result of compulsion or predestination.

As humans, it is safer to assume that we have free will. This is because it will help us maintain order in our lives and in society.
Acceptance of the knowledge that we possess free will to choose is what helps us live in accordance with our personal values and beliefs. If we believe that we have the freedom to decide what choices to make in life, we can choose to live our lives a certain way and according to certain guidelines but if we tell ourselves that we don't have that freedom then there will be no point in making decisions or plans and that would only lead to a life of chaos.
Another reason why we should assume that we have free will is because there will be no need to create laws when people don't decide the actions they take for themselves. If a robber is jailed for theft for instance, he faces punishment because it is believed that he acted on his own free will, he chose to steal and break the law so he deserves to be punished for it. Same thing applies when we reward a person for doing good.
We don't have total and complete free will in life but we do have the ability to make choices for ourselves.

Hmmm.
Yea, it's safer to assume we have freewill, but is it true? I kinda agree with you, but I might just want to stretch the argument. What if it isn't exactly our decisions that stir our lives? What if our innate conditioning is responsible for our choices? By innate conditioning, I mean our biology.
This would mean that our decisions aren't exactly our decisions, cos we have not arrived at them after careful thought. Instead, our biology merely instructed us on what to do when to do it. For example, someone who suffers pains would want to take pain killers, not because that's his/her choice, but because his biological situation tells him to. So no freewill there exactly. By innate conditioning then, I mean those biological instructions our body delivers, but which we have no physical sensation of. Isn't that what's driving the anxious to be watchful, the calm to not bother, the timid to be fearful, and the hysterical to go paranoid?
Just saying. You still insist living our lives in a "certain" way is from our freewill?

And I really do think the existence of established laws says nothing about whether we have freewill or not. For all we know, everyone that has been jailed might very well not be responsible for their actions. It's still left for us to prove it.

Freewill is a hot topic. I do believe we have freewill, but I think it's very difficult to prove. One thing I like about the topic though, is that it disputes the existence of a god who is all-knowing, that is the christian god. Do you agree with this?

Wanted to ask though, are you atheist or agnostic? or are you of a mix of both? What are your feelings about absolute atheism?

De Beauvoir:

So you want an open marriage/relationship eh?

That's intriguing. I take it you're not religious then?

An open marriage is not a bad idea on its own but it takes a special kind of person or persons for it to work. There are many instances where open relationships fail just like how there are successful ones, you must have a lot of maturity and intelligence to live like that with your partner.

An open relationship especially. I wouldn't mind an open marriage but the social stigma for even thinking such, I fear, may overwhelm me and/or my partner. And yes I am irreligious atm. Yes, one needs maturity, but it so happens I'm being prepared for such, where before I only mentally fortified myself for it. My girlfriend as at now, has other boyfriends, I got her to tell me and told her I don't mind insofar she's comes clean as too her feeling towards me.