No man is free who is not a master of himself

Use this forum to discuss the May 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Sy Borg »

So in what circumstances should one beat one's slave? What "crime" would need to be committed by a concubine slave to incur a beating? And what kind of beating, and by whom?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Belindi »

heracleitos wrote: May 27th, 2022, 9:51 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 27th, 2022, 8:59 pm That is just cultural imperialism. I suppose it's funny for the slave owners, if not the slaves.
Slavery in the Islamic world cannot be compared to the Atlantic slave trade.

The use of slaves in agriculture and industry was outlawed. There simply were no plantations full of slaves. The largest numbers were imported as soldiers (men) and concubines (women) of wealthy and powerful men.

In my opinion, it was primarily a tool against nepotism.

These foreign slaves had no family in the empire of whom to favor the interests. I think that the approach successfully reduced corruption in the bureaucracy. It also left the clergy, which was also the judiciary, as the true, stable pillar of somewhat hidden power.

I think that it is not a bad idea that only foreign slaves can be policemen. They cannot be really arrogant or disrespectful, because even though they may be in power, in the end, they are still slaves, and therefore lower in social rank.


Thanks for the useful information. Employment of foreign nationals for all sorts of civil services is a good thing. Policemen, career politicians, civil servants at the higher grades, judiciary , priests, if these were all foreigners with no financial or sentimental interest in the country that employs them there would be no nepotism. On the other hand foreigners may still be bribed by the powerful in their adopted countries.

I ask Heracleitos, how could they be lower in social rank if they hold positions of power such as do policemen or soldiers? After all, these employees are trusted with guns and means of torture. I suppose the person who bought the slave soldiers and policemen and was legally their owner could arbitrate over their slaves' lives and deaths. Therefore the Islamic slave system would not suit modern democracies. Modern democracies are ethically founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic of freedom for the poor and downtrodden. However the Islamic slave system is a better alternative to Judeo-Christianity than is totalitarian rule
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by heracleitos »

Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am On the other hand foreigners may still be bribed by the powerful in their adopted countries.
Yes, agreed. There was obviously still corruption. Power corrupts. In my opinion, the problem of corruption is fundamentally unsolvable.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am I suppose the person who bought the slave soldiers and policemen and was legally their owner could arbitrate over their slaves' lives and deaths.
The Sultan had quite a bit of power over his civil servants, but no absolute power. In fact, the risk that the foreign slave generals would kill the Sultan was much more acute than the other way around. That is probably why the Ottoman Sultan kept a small but very effective cavalry of native "Sipahis" who were rivals of the foreign slave soldier caste. But then again, the Janissaries (foreign slave corps) still succeeded once in a while in overthrowing the Sultan and forcing the new Sultan to increase their pay. The native cavalry, on the other hand, were so beholden to local clans, that they were not always particularly reliable. If the foreign Janissaries did not get paid (enough), then they would indeed viciously turn on the Sultan, who could only hope that his small native cavalry would be able to contain them. All of that did not happen all the time, but there were certainly "incidents".

It was a bit the same problem as in the Roman empire. Hiring Teutonic tribes for the Roman legions was all good and well, but these people could easily become unruly. The Roman foreign slave soldiers also had to be regularly appeased with "donativa" (extra monetary gifts). After a while, it is even them who decided who became the next emperor. Quite quickly, the Roman empire became a military dictatorship controlled by foreign slave soldiers. Furthermore, the Praetorian guard would also regularly overthrow a Roman emperor. The problems in the Roman empire and the Ottoman one were often of a similar nature.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am Modern democracies are ethically founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic of freedom for the poor and downtrodden.
The last "real" Christian empire was the Byzantine one. They were very much like the Ottomans. The Byzantine legions were full of enslaved Armenians, Bulgarians, and so on. At some times, there was probably not one real Byzantine in the army. It is not clear to me if the Byzantines also applied the principle (of using foreign slaves) to the bureaucracy and the police force, like the Ottomans did.

You see, there were reasons why you could not trust the natives in positions of power. However, human nature being what it is, you will also run into issues with foreign slaves.

The Romans were very well aware of the problem that the Ottomans also had, i.e. that these foreign slave soldiers always wanted more money.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am However the Islamic slave system is a better alternative to Judeo-Christianity than is totalitarian rule
Native Muslims were freeborn and did not get enrolled into the military slave system. On the contrary, they were excluded from employment in positions reserved to (foreign) slaves. Sometimes native Muslims would try to fake things and use corruption to get hired in the military slave caste anyway (or as a concubine for the elite), but the Sultan apparently managed to keep that phenomenon under control. In fact, these foreign slaves, both men and women, were at times hated for their (real or perceived) privileges.

In my opinion, there were two major barriers against totalitarian rule, which the Roman empire probably did not have.

First of all, as large parts of the Ottoman population were organized into large native family-based clans, they would not allow the Sultan or his bureaucracy to truly oppress them. In my impression, the Sultan did not even try. Secondly, the clergy could easily overthrow the regime. In my impression, it was the clergy that was the real power in the empire. Christianity also had a similar system. At times, it was the Church that was the real power. The Church could "excommunicate" the king or the ruler, and then he would be in very serious trouble. That was pretty much the same as in the Islamic system.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Belindi »

heracleitos wrote: May 28th, 2022, 10:57 am
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am On the other hand foreigners may still be bribed by the powerful in their adopted countries.
Yes, agreed. There was obviously still corruption. Power corrupts. In my opinion, the problem of corruption is fundamentally unsolvable.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am I suppose the person who bought the slave soldiers and policemen and was legally their owner could arbitrate over their slaves' lives and deaths.
The Sultan had quite a bit of power over his civil servants, but no absolute power. In fact, the risk that the foreign slave generals would kill the Sultan was much more acute than the other way around. That is probably why the Ottoman Sultan kept a small but very effective cavalry of native "Sipahis" who were rivals of the foreign slave soldier caste. But then again, the Janissaries (foreign slave corps) still succeeded once in a while in overthrowing the Sultan and forcing the new Sultan to increase their pay. The native cavalry, on the other hand, were so beholden to local clans, that they were not always particularly reliable. If the foreign Janissaries did not get paid (enough), then they would indeed viciously turn on the Sultan, who could only hope that his small native cavalry would be able to contain them. All of that did not happen all the time, but there were certainly "incidents".

It was a bit the same problem as in the Roman empire. Hiring Teutonic tribes for the Roman legions was all good and well, but these people could easily become unruly. The Roman foreign slave soldiers also had to be regularly appeased with "donativa" (extra monetary gifts). After a while, it is even them who decided who became the next emperor. Quite quickly, the Roman empire became a military dictatorship controlled by foreign slave soldiers. Furthermore, the Praetorian guard would also regularly overthrow a Roman emperor. The problems in the Roman empire and the Ottoman one were often of a similar nature.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am Modern democracies are ethically founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic of freedom for the poor and downtrodden.
The last "real" Christian empire was the Byzantine one. They were very much like the Ottomans. The Byzantine legions were full of enslaved Armenians, Bulgarians, and so on. At some times, there was probably not one real Byzantine in the army. It is not clear to me if the Byzantines also applied the principle (of using foreign slaves) to the bureaucracy and the police force, like the Ottomans did.

You see, there were reasons why you could not trust the natives in positions of power. However, human nature being what it is, you will also run into issues with foreign slaves.

The Romans were very well aware of the problem that the Ottomans also had, i.e. that these foreign slave soldiers always wanted more money.
Belindi wrote: May 28th, 2022, 4:28 am However the Islamic slave system is a better alternative to Judeo-Christianity than is totalitarian rule
Native Muslims were freeborn and did not get enrolled into the military slave system. On the contrary, they were excluded from employment in positions reserved to (foreign) slaves. Sometimes native Muslims would try to fake things and use corruption to get hired in the military slave caste anyway (or as a concubine for the elite), but the Sultan apparently managed to keep that phenomenon under control. In fact, these foreign slaves, both men and women, were at times hated for their (real or perceived) privileges.

In my opinion, there were two major barriers against totalitarian rule, which the Roman empire probably did not have.

First of all, as large parts of the Ottoman population were organized into large native family-based clans, they would not allow the Sultan or his bureaucracy to truly oppress them. In my impression, the Sultan did not even try. Secondly, the clergy could easily overthrow the regime. In my impression, it was the clergy that was the real power in the empire. Christianity also had a similar system. At times, it was the Church that was the real power. The Church could "excommunicate" the king or the ruler, and then he would be in very serious trouble. That was pretty much the same as in the Islamic system.
Family-based clans in the Scottish Highlands , after the defeat of Jacobites at Culloden, were defeated in the longer run by decree of the Hanoverians' regime and also by some of the clan chiefs who preferred personal wealth to loyalty to their tenants. The Scottish version of Protestantism had become a political force to be reckoned with and that too did not help the RC Jacobites or the poorer sort of people who lacked money or political power.
https://stirlingcentrescottishstudies.w ... -culloden/

France has recently banned the wearing of the hijab in public. Modern regimes all to some degree encourage nationalistic sentiment. I understand The US propagates nationalist sentiment by pseudo- religious ceremonial singing and bodily postures. China propagates nationalistic sentiment by deliberate and scientific cultural genocide. Personally, I still trust multiculturism.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Sy Borg »

So in what circumstances should one beat one's slave? What "crime" would need to be committed by a concubine slave to incur a beating? And what kind of beating, and by whom?
Heracleitos, once again you "forgot" to reply to this question. Given that Islamic State has issued a pamphlet guide, one would expect a learned man such as yourself would know plenty about it. Still, in case you are not aware, here are some of the instructions:
"It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: '[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]'..." the document is translated as saying.

"Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?" one question asks.

"It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse," the response is translated.

"Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?" another question is translated.

"If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn't, her uterus must be purified [first]" the response is given, with purification taken to mean after she has had a period.

The advice also appears to suggest it is "permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property, which can be disposed of".

It also forbids the selling of a woman who is pregnant with her "owner's" child, and from separating her from her children, but allows the separation of women and their children if the children are older.

The document purportedly says any non-Muslim woman can be taken as a captive, but bars taking any Muslim women, even if they have become "apostates" or non-believers.

A group of men who all "own" the same woman cannot all have sex with her, the document appears to say, but only one man who "owns her" entirely. It also appears to give advice on the withdrawal method for sex with captured women and girls.

The document appears to give instructions about what parts of the body of a captured woman have to be covered during the visits of other men and at the mosque.

It finally suggests that beating the captured women and girls is permissable, as long as they are not hit in the face, or tortured just for the pleasure of an owner. It gives the punishments doled out for the captives who escape, saying it is the "gravest of sins" and they should be "reprimanded.. to deter others like her from escaping."

Haras Rafiq, an expert at British counter-terrorism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, told the Mail he views the report as genuine: "It is a sick and disgusting document, and it takes the world back to the Dark Ages.

"There is no place for slavery in the modern world. There have been widespread reports of IS fighters raping female captives, which has now become part of the anti-IS propaganda. This document may be a way to regulate the behaviours of these fighters."

Human Rights Watch said it could not independently verify the document, but told VICE News it was consistent with interviews they had done with captured women who had escaped from IS fighters.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Belindi »

At least for the purpose of evaluation we are going to need to define what constitutes slavery. Once, a child was owned by his parents, and a wife by her male relative. Once, an indentured apprentice was owned by his employer. Feudal system serfs were owned by the lords of manors, maybe somewhat alleviated by a right to petition the king. There were and still are slaves to machines actual and metaphorical.

Nietzsche and the idea of the super man sets the pace for all men potentially to become supermen now that the social order no longer needs God. Romantic glorification of the individual furthered the cause of the man who was born into or otherwise thrust into a lesser caste.

Heracleitos said (my papaphrase) corruption is endemic to human nature. It's important to understand how in the 1930s-1940s in Spain and Germany Nietzche's radical idea of the death of God plus the rise of the super man was corrupted for personal gain. "Out of the strong comes forth sweetness" said Solomon : the greater the number of strong individuals the stronger is the society. And so it's useful to define slaves as weak individuals with no blame attached to their weakness.

I am not entirely sure about the political stance of Jesus. Did he intend to propagate the status quo of Roman occupation of Palestine or did he really bring a sword?
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by heracleitos »

Sy Borg wrote: May 28th, 2022, 6:23 pm
So in what circumstances should one beat one's slave? What "crime" would need to be committed by a concubine slave to incur a beating? And what kind of beating, and by whom?
Heracleitos, once again you "forgot" to reply to this question. Given that Islamic State has issued a pamphlet guide, one would expect a learned man such as yourself would know plenty about it. Still, in case you are not aware, here are some of the instructions:
This is rather a question for an Islamic scholar ("mufti") specializing in religious jurisprudence. Furthermore, you will need several answers from independent religious scholars ("ulema") justifying their advisories from scripture, in order to establish whether consensus ("ijma") exists on the matter.

My own personal opinion is not properly motivated in terms of religious law. It is much more an informal take.

If the relationship with a woman does not work, my own opinion is that there is clearly no shortage of candidates to replace her. If there is such shortage, especially over here, then the man has another problem altogether.

The animosity could be about sex. Well, in that case, have sex with another concubine, and rotate the unwilling one out. If it is about money, well, "my wallet my choice".

In the area where I currently live, i.e. the Indochinese archipelago, there is no commercial slavery system at the moment. So, I obviously don't make use of something that does not even exist.

Over here, the man is supposed to pay the virgin price in order to get with the girl, but that occurs in a family context, and not with a third-party trader. So, it is not formally a slavery system. There are some similarities, but "similar" is not "exactly the same".

Over here, you only have to pay the virgin price for a "good" family girl.

The ones with looser sexual behavior and generally more questionable sexual morals, you can get them for free (even though they also end up costing money later on), without formalities with the family. I don't recommend them, however. You get what you pay for, and if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Seriously, sometimes it is better to just pay.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Sy Borg »

In other words, Islamic men have rules for how to pass woman-objects around between each other. When it comes to beating up those women, that's a question for the scholars.

Modern Islam is tyranny - the polar opposite to freedom - a mockery of the growing enlightenment of the Islamic world up to around the thirteenth century:
Just as there is no simple explanation for the success of Arabic science, there is no simple explanation for its gradual — not sudden, as al-Afghani claims — demise. The most significant factor was physical and geopolitical. As early as the tenth or eleventh century, the Abbasid empire began to factionalize and fragment due to increased provincial autonomy and frequent uprisings. By 1258, the little that was left of the Abbasid state was swept away by the Mongol invasion. And in Spain, Christians reconquered Córdoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. But the Islamic turn away from scholarship actually preceded the civilization’s geopolitical decline — it can be traced back to the rise of the anti-philosophical Ash’arism school among Sunni Muslims, who comprise the vast majority of the Muslim world.

To understand this anti-rationalist movement, we once again turn our gaze back to the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. Al-Mamun picked up the pro-science torch lit by the second caliph, al-Mansur, and ran with it. He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism. To this end, he imposed an inquisition, under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging, imprisonment, or beheading. But the caliphs who followed al-Mamun upheld the doctrine with less fervor, and within a few decades, adherence to it became a punishable offense. The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science. With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... om-science
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by heracleitos »

Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2022, 4:15 pm In other words, Islamic men have rules for how to pass woman-objects around between each other.
I wonder why so many women complain about being objectified when they incessantly do it themselves? What else is public nudity and makeup supposed to achieve besides drawing male attention to "the product"?

If women think of themselves as more than just an attractive body to have sex with, why do they post all these immodest images of themselves on Instagram or Facebook? They even turn it into a complete business model on OnlyFans.

In my opinion, the real problem is: the phenomenon of self-objectification.
Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2022, 4:15 pm When it comes to beating up those women, that's a question for the scholars.
The issue is too sensitive for informal opinions.

My own personal view is that, if it comes to that, you'd better just "ghost her". Other men seem to agree. There is currently no epidemic of "domestic violence". There is currently much more a growing epidemic of ghosting.

In Islamic law, you are supposed to send a final "talaq" message before blocking the woman off your communication accounts. So, according to religious law, you must effectively say that the relationship is over before disappearing.

In theory, you also need to give her the opportunity to make it up with you, unless she did something really unacceptable. That is the difference between a "talaq" and a "triple talaq". But then again, there is a lot of jurisprudence about that. I am not an expert on the matter.

My own, personal take is that you do need to send "talaq talaq talaq" when you will be blocking and ghosting the former "object of your affection".
Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2022, 4:15 pm Modern Islam is tyranny
It is self-inflicted tyranny. It's a bit like the gym. If you force yourself to do 20 reps instead of 10, it is still your own choice.
He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism.
The Mutazili were an attempt at instituting a misguided form of logicism in Islam. God would somehow be subordinate to reason.

I object to that view because in my opinion, first of all, the transcendental part of religion, i.e. liturgy and prayer, are completely unrelated to reason, and make use of other mental faculties. Reason is at the core of religious law, but that is just one part of religion. The transcendental part is also essential to the religious experience.

Secondly, the link between the universal theory (=reason) and the universe itself is not bidirectional.

Every proposition that is provable from the universal theory, is also true ("theorem of soundness") in the physical universe, but not the other way around ("incompleteness theorem").

If the universal theory effectively contains Robinson's fragment Q of Peano arithmetic theory, then it is fundamentally incomplete.

In the context of incompleteness, much of the truth in the universe cannot be explained by reason.

The universe is then replete with Godelian facts that are true but not provable. Hence, reason cannot possibly be the sole governing principle of the universe.

In other words, in the context of syntactic incompleteness, possessing a copy of the theory of everything, is not enough for God to be All-Knowing. God also has a copy of the Preserved Tablet, i.e. the entire history of the universe. This is in fact pretty much standard Islamic doctrine.

The Mutazili implicitly argued that possessing a copy of the universal theory would be enough for the purpose of acquiring All-Knowing powers. According to modern mathematics, this view is almost surely incorrect.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Sy Borg »

heracleitos wrote: May 29th, 2022, 8:50 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2022, 4:15 pm In other words, Islamic men have rules for how to pass woman-objects around between each other.
I wonder why so many women complain about being objectified when they incessantly do it themselves? What else is public nudity and makeup supposed to achieve besides drawing male attention to "the product"?

If women think of themselves as more than just an attractive body to have sex with, why do they post all these immodest images of themselves on Instagram or Facebook? They even turn it into a complete business model on OnlyFans.

In my opinion, the real problem is: the phenomenon of self-objectification.
Nonsense. At least in the west women have a choice as to objectify themselves or try to do something substantial with their lives. Being a sex slave is not a substantial way for intelligent, capable women to lead their lives.

How would you feel about being a sex slave to dominant men, being passed around between them without regard to what you want or even a recognition that you have an independent mind?
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by heracleitos »

Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am At least in the west women have a choice as to objectify themselves
Muslim women can do that too. They can also open an OnlyFans account and sell nudes of themselves to the highest bidder. It is just that they could more easily run into trouble with their relatives, if these relatives happen to find out about such commercial sex activities.
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am Being a sex slave is not a substantial way for intelligent, capable women to lead their lives.
Formal slavery does not really exist anywhere at this point.

Furthermore, Muslims have never enslaved other Muslims; even in previous times this was not the case.

These sex slaves were always foreign, the vast majority of which had been sold by their own family. The idea of being auctioned off to a wealthy man, seems to appeal to some women, even today. Furthermore, that is how the Sultan's mother and the Sultan's wives got their jobs. The entire Ottoman ruling elite descended from these slave girls.
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am How would you feel about being a sex slave to dominant men ... ?
It is usually "dominated by one, particular man". Sex with more than one man, sounds a bit like prostitution, a practice which is banned in all Abrahamic religions.

Furthermore, in my impression, women may also complain when their man is not dominant enough. "Having sex with a dominant man" may sound appealing to women, while "having sex with a submissive woman" sounds more appealing to men. In many ways, men and women are sexually each other's opposite.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Belindi »

Heracleitos wrote; regarding women wearing scanty frocks and make-up:
-------the real problem is: the phenomenon of self-objectification.
A sociological evaluation of female fashions should include valuation of uniformity generally.

Among all the sexes and genders those who do not present themselves as they wish to be interpreted to themselves and others are people whose energies are entirely taken up by solitary work or enslavement.
Soldiers, monks and nuns, office workers, kings, knights, social castes, domestic servants, hippies, religionists, and various professions all more or less dress uniformly specifically to what they wish to be seen as, what they think they are, or what they wish others to think of them, or what they are required to be seen as.

One case in point is that of nurses' uniforms. These were originally adapted from the costumes of middle class women who happened to be doing some domestic work such as cooking, or nursing their relation. Until about the 1970s nurses' dressed uniformly and not entirely practically. There was a sound practical reason for the impractical uniforms. This was so that the patients could feel , together with special hospital decor, that they were entering a place where they could safely place themselves in humble positions physically and psychologically. Mystique is also used by military on parade, authorities who work in offices, and royalty, so that the authorities may be trusted. Only in recent years have special decors and dress become more casual and more democratic. While democracy is the best political regime it's not the best method of helping individuals who actively seek help from others.


"Self-objectification" is not the problem: the causes of self -objectification may be a problem. If we are to claim female fashions are a problem of self-objectification then we must also regard self -objectification as a problem. Self-objectification is necessary to some degree for a civilised society to work; we need to be able to recognize others for what they profess to be. NB it's a crime to dress up and otherwise behave as a Nazi, or as a policeman. It ought not to be offensive for a woman or a man to dress up as a sex or gender object if that is what they choose to be.

However if the claim is that sexual activity is sacrosanct to the individual then if self-objectification is sexual it's a sign and a signal that sexual activity is superficially social. The burqa is a form of sex or gender flaunting. If we are to condemn scanty clothing and make-up then by the same reasoning we must also condemn all uniform clothing.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by LuckyR »

Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am
heracleitos wrote: May 29th, 2022, 8:50 pm
Sy Borg wrote: May 29th, 2022, 4:15 pm In other words, Islamic men have rules for how to pass woman-objects around between each other.
I wonder why so many women complain about being objectified when they incessantly do it themselves? What else is public nudity and makeup supposed to achieve besides drawing male attention to "the product"?

If women think of themselves as more than just an attractive body to have sex with, why do they post all these immodest images of themselves on Instagram or Facebook? They even turn it into a complete business model on OnlyFans.

In my opinion, the real problem is: the phenomenon of self-objectification.
Nonsense. At least in the west women have a choice as to objectify themselves or try to do something substantial with their lives. Being a sex slave is not a substantial way for intelligent, capable women to lead their lives.

How would you feel about being a sex slave to dominant men, being passed around between them without regard to what you want or even a recognition that you have an independent mind?
Don't waste your breath trying to get the undeservedly favored to understand the plight of the undeservedly exploited. They will create any excuse to try to hold on, since they can't compete on an even playing field. And they know it.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Sy Borg »

heracleitos wrote: May 30th, 2022, 4:11 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am At least in the west women have a choice as to objectify themselves
Muslim women can ... open an OnlyFans account and sell nudes of themselves to the highest bidder ... trouble with their relatives.
A euphemism for honour killings.

heracleitos wrote: May 30th, 2022, 4:11 am
Sy Borg wrote: May 30th, 2022, 3:00 am Being a sex slave is not a substantial way for intelligent, capable women to lead their lives.
Formal slavery does not really exist anywhere at this point.

Furthermore, Muslims have never enslaved other Muslims; even in previous times this was not the case.

These sex slaves were always foreign, the vast majority of which had been sold by their own family. The idea of being auctioned off to a wealthy man, seems to appeal to some women, even today. Furthermore, that is how the Sultan's mother and the Sultan's wives got their jobs. The entire Ottoman ruling elite descended from these slave girls.
Muslim women are slaves too, just that their terms of enslavement are different to those of foreign women.

You display agility in justifying all manner of psychopathic abuse. Goebbels would be proud.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: No man is free who is not a master of himself

Post by Tegularius »

A useless sentiment which means nothing!
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Post Reply

Return to “The Maestro Monologue: Discover your Genius, Defeat your intruder, Design your destiny by Rob White”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021