A lot of studies prove people are on the whole narrow-minded dillweeds. But you don't need studies for that, just go out and talk to someone... anyone. Talk to me, I'll only crap on about how narrow-minded and superficial this all is.
Well this is so obviously about self-presentational concern (self-esteem). It hardly needs mentioning that none of this would be a problem if one's sense of worth was not contingent on domains as unstable as one's physical appearance.
Some interesting thoughts on the subject here, but most of them appear to be rather naive, and assume that self-esteem is somehow axiomatic. That one cannot be content without the positive approval of others, and that justifies changing who you are in order to attain approval or to avoid disapproval.
What is more irrational; accepting that you need infinity when you need infinity, or rejecting that you need infinity and arbitrarily plugging in a result?
Or that's not precisely the problem; it's more like this:
It takes a lot of courage to take the unconscious seriously and to tackle the problems it raises. Most people are too indolent to think deeply about even those moral aspects of which they are conscious; they are certainly too lazy to consider how the unconscious affects them. - M. - L. von Franz, Man And His Symbols (Carl Jung), P. 176
Our face is a mask which occassionally betrays our subconscious motives.
We wear the mask that grins and lies, It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,-- This debt we pay to human guile; With torn and bleeding hearts we smile, And mouth with myriad subtleties.
[...]
~ We Wear The Mask by Paul Laurence Dunbar
Regarding "mouth with myriad subtleties" check out FACS (Facial Action Coding System) and Tendai Johnson's art exhibit "Contingent Identities".
"The world is not dialectical -- it is sworn to extremes, not to equilibrium, sworn to radical antagonism, not to reconciliation or synthesis. This is also the principle of evil." - Jean Baudrillard
Amazing how an event like this, that should open our minds to the arbitrariness of our concepts actually fuels more debate. So you have this range of cuisine's which you *want* to classify into two groups and set-up and abritrary division between that which has a slice of bread on top and bottom, and that which is encased or has just a single slice of bread. Perhaps once you've determined that such and such is classified as a "sandwich" then you become a "sandwichist" and assert that your definition of "sandwich" is the only plausible or realistic definition and that all other so-called "sandwiches" are not actually sandwiches but imposters. Sounds like the recipe for a World War.
See, I'm talking about the reality beyond our relative conceptualizations and in-fact the reality which informs the construction of concepts like "Man" and "Woman". The ad could have said the drink was a "Humanly" drink, and no-one would be excluded from the category, but this is not it, they are saying it is a "Manly" drink, which whether done to hook men's pride or any other emotion associated with an identity as "Man" is vastly different from "Humanly".
It doesn't work with "Humanly" because humans do not generally identify themselves with totality, they identify themselves with some one aspect of the totality, such as being either male or female. Everyone is a human and everyone is included in that category, so we almost never talk about us all being humans. For our egotistical purposes we find ways of subdividing humanity into discrete categories like "Man" and "Woman" from which we can assume and infer all kinds of differences, which provide a basis for any and all humor, envy, pride or what-not associated with one or the other of the division.
I'm focusing on the very fact of the division, which precludes any discussion depending on the division.
I'm using the word "special" not to refer to an oddity but to a feeling. One wants to feel "special" i.e. loved over and above others and feel that they belong to a group that is "special" i.e. deserving of love over and above others.
I should stress that my statements are generally relating to a very subtle level of analysis. Not taking anything like gender categories as axiomatic, but assuming that such are like packages whose contents can be unpacked to reveal their hidden modalities.
One's sense of humor is bound-up in their self-image. IMHO, everything relates back to self-hood, and that is because it is the only possible existence.
Some people who derive a sense of self from identity with a group think it is funny to deride and ridicule others, it boosts their own self-esteem and they laugh doing it.
Others who derive more sense of self-worth from imaginging themselves as righteous, would quite frankly be disturbed by what the others found humorous.
If there was no appeal to self-hood here, then there would be no mention of group-identity; there would be no mention of men or women. Even if the split was between non-human animals and humans, it would still be appealing to one's identity as human.
I hope we aren't talking about what a "sandwich" really is, in and of itself, because that would be total nonsense. Outside of our arbitrary definitions of "sandwich" there is no such thing as a sandwich.
Think about the looseness of words like "sandwich" and "planet". These are words we use everyday, and think we know what they mean, but then an event like this forces us to observe the looseness of words.
Now, think about words like "God" and "Nature", how well defined are they? Do you normally talk as if you know what these things are?
Some interesting thoughts on the subject here, but most of them appear to be rather naive, and assume that self-esteem is somehow axiomatic. That one cannot be content without the positive approval of others, and that justifies changing who you are in order to attain approval or to avoid disapproval.
If I had a definition for weak-willed...
Stop Me Before I Start Making Sense Black/L
It takes a lot of courage to take the unconscious seriously and to tackle the problems it raises. Most people are too indolent to think deeply about even those moral aspects of which they are conscious; they are certainly too lazy to consider how the unconscious affects them. - M. - L. von Franz, Man And His Symbols (Carl Jung), P. 176
We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,--
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.
[...]
~ We Wear The Mask by Paul Laurence Dunbar
Regarding "mouth with myriad subtleties" check out FACS (Facial Action Coding System) and Tendai Johnson's art exhibit "Contingent Identities".
"The world is not dialectical -- it is sworn to extremes, not to equilibrium, sworn to radical antagonism, not to reconciliation or synthesis. This is also the principle of evil." - Jean Baudrillard
No, I don't think I did...
See, I'm talking about the reality beyond our relative conceptualizations and in-fact the reality which informs the construction of concepts like "Man" and "Woman". The ad could have said the drink was a "Humanly" drink, and no-one would be excluded from the category, but this is not it, they are saying it is a "Manly" drink, which whether done to hook men's pride or any other emotion associated with an identity as "Man" is vastly different from "Humanly".
It doesn't work with "Humanly" because humans do not generally identify themselves with totality, they identify themselves with some one aspect of the totality, such as being either male or female. Everyone is a human and everyone is included in that category, so we almost never talk about us all being humans. For our egotistical purposes we find ways of subdividing humanity into discrete categories like "Man" and "Woman" from which we can assume and infer all kinds of differences, which provide a basis for any and all humor, envy, pride or what-not associated with one or the other of the division.
I'm focusing on the very fact of the division, which precludes any discussion depending on the division.
I'm using the word "special" not to refer to an oddity but to a feeling. One wants to feel "special" i.e. loved over and above others and feel that they belong to a group that is "special" i.e. deserving of love over and above others.
One's sense of humor is bound-up in their self-image. IMHO, everything relates back to self-hood, and that is because it is the only possible existence.
Some people who derive a sense of self from identity with a group think it is funny to deride and ridicule others, it boosts their own self-esteem and they laugh doing it.
Others who derive more sense of self-worth from imaginging themselves as righteous, would quite frankly be disturbed by what the others found humorous.
If there was no appeal to self-hood here, then there would be no mention of group-identity; there would be no mention of men or women. Even if the split was between non-human animals and humans, it would still be appealing to one's identity as human.
Think about the looseness of words like "sandwich" and "planet". These are words we use everyday, and think we know what they mean, but then an event like this forces us to observe the looseness of words.
Now, think about words like "God" and "Nature", how well defined are they? Do you normally talk as if you know what these things are?