Many of the relationship-self-help books operate on suspect premises. On the one hand they intend to instruct women to get men to like or love them. But the problem encountered is that while we experience others as objects, and attempt to manipulate them as objects, we do not experience the 'other' as an object but through a mode of being. Hence our feeling loved or liked by another cannot be carried out through a ruse--it must be freely carried out by the man, and no matter what the promises of the relationship-self-help books, the woman will never experience this love if the premise of her 'attraction' is her dehumanization of a man. She wants the feeling, or the state of being, of love, yet she attempts to get love as if one were acquiring an asset, a plane ticket, a blouse, or a puppy dog.
A woman, so receptive to philosophical ideas, should be the very species to pursue what could be called an authentic approach to others. This approach does not embrace a crass, brute force method of human conduct. Rather, the women senses the limitations of how we experience others as objects and attempts to connect with the other through a state of being. The specifics of this state of being will be discussed in the works to follow.
Avoid women who do not pursue a project of authenticity. A woman who operates in tricks and games has lost her soul. Move away from her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"A woman, so receptive to philosophical ideas..."
ReplyDeleteProblematic. It may appear that she does, but I rather think a woman is more receptive to trends. By trends I mean other women. Philosophy supposes one be concerned with oneself through reflection. But women are only concerned with themselves as a woman among other women.
I once read this profound statement: "Women are society". I still think of it. It is a statement with depths I have yet to explore.
My point is that one woman exists as many women. She exists as part of a trend. I don't think you will ever bring her to the authenticity that is possible through certain philosophical work. You should work on changing the trend.
From here on out I reject the use of the terms "man" and "woman." Just on technical grounds of rigor and clarity. As I begin to write about the 'other,' you will see my point. Many people become hot and bothered by terminology--such as 'consciousness,' 'the other,' etc. In understand, as terminology often hides behind and masks the phenomenon at stake. 'Man' and 'woman' are two such terms. They need to be decompressed. There must be an explanation of their initial use. It would seem to me that, after all the work is done, their meanings shall fall into place. But never at the outset.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete