I often cringe when I hear “real man” get used in conversation. Very often it’s a specimen of my own gender, expressing some macho characteristics that he identifies as “manly.”

Other times I hear women expressing what they think they want in a man, whether they actually want it or not.

It’s cringe because in reality, every person defines where their value comes from for themselves. And that’s good, because that value cannot be reduced to a few abstract traits. We have both intrinsic and expressed value and they come from many of our behaviors and character traits.

Executing my (self defined) duty to provide for and protect my wife makes me feel manly.

Chopping down a tree makes some men feel manly.

Changing a diaper makes some men feel manly.

Helping the elderly carry their groceries makes some men feel manly.

It will be a combination of many things like this. Invert the gender, and the same holds true.

Maybe instead of focusing on what makes a Real Man or a Real Woman, we should focus on being Good Men and Good Women. Perhaps having a heart that desires good for others, and the will to carry it out, is the Realest thing there is.

#NoIDidntRealizeItShouldBeABlogPostUntilAfterIWasAlmostDone

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Yes very cringe. Instant mute for me.

What your ideal man looks like is none of my business.

🤣😂🤣😂

I absolutely love that way of putting it. It really isn’t anyone else’s business!

Also good animals

What's even more cringe is pedophilia. This you by chance? https://www.offenderradar.com/offender-details/nathan-davies-of-tennessee-363611

It’s not a good blog post, it’s a great one 🫡

“[I]n reality, every person defines where their value comes from for themselves”

This is not reality. In reality, value and meaning are inherent to beings and actions. For example, every human being has value by the very nature of being human, not because people decide if their life is valuable. At that point there’s no argument against suicide which we all inherently know is bad (because meaning and value cannot be disassociated/overwritten). People can also be wrong about what they value.

This modern nihilism is very pernicious.

It seems to me that there are two different things here. one of them concerns action: when someone acts, the principles that govern life are already available, but the actions need to be defined and created by the individual who is relating to something or someone. a value can be the basis for many different actions.

The principles, or values, are universal, but it is not through conceptual elaboration that we will come into contact with them. beauty may be a value, but we can not say what beauty is unless the act of saying becomes beauty itself. conceptualizing an universal principle puts us in the same place as those who believe they define their own principles.

Beauty is inherent to a subject or object. There cannot be a disassociation between the material and its beauty just as color is an accident of a substance. Just because people may have different tastes regarding beauty, doesn’t mean there isn’t beauty or that there’s no space for reason in discerning beauty. Quite the contrary. We can know what is ugly, through our functioning faculties of reason, and correct someone that thinks it’s beautiful by concluding that their faculties of reason (I’m including intellect here) are impaired, sense perception is impaired, and/or they have a disordered will.

are you saying that beauty is present in some subjects or objects and not in others?

The opposite! A subject/object’s beauty is an inherent trait by the fact that it exists.

For example we can think of a “good” apple (goodness being convertible with beauty) that is round, symmetrical, and seems ready for consumption. Whereas a “bad” (ugly) apple would be one that is deformed, rotting, pestilent, etc.

but is there beauty in the ugly apple? that's what I'm not getting

Oh I see what you’re saying. When I say beauty I meant it as the spectrum of “how beautiful”. So for example an ugly apple would have very very little beauty because it is created and creation is good. Just like how an evil human being is still a human being that deserves dignity by the very nature of being a human despite being evil.

that makes sense to me, but if you're not too tired to talk about it, I'll come with more thoughts.

it seems to me that you're talking about two different things. one of them is the value of beauty, that is present in every single thing and can't be less or more, it's just there unconditionally. and the other thing is related to how it looks individually and you can measure accordingly to some definitions made previously. is that so?

Hm, I’m not sure that I would say they’re “two different things” but I think I understand what you’re getting at. It seems like you’re leading into Plato’s Theory of forms?