51–60 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marcus Aurelius wrote something like "Waste no time worrying about what it means to be a good man. Be one."
Doesn't seem like he took his own advice, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't seem like he took his own advice, though.
Yea Marcus Aurelius, what a loser Emperor. I assume you’re talking about Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
One of your other comments in "Writing down unfiltered thoughts enhances self-knowledge": > I started doing this like 3 years ago. Actually have like 30+ 100page sketchbooks filled so far. Keep meaning to catalogue it all, but I keep adding to it instead. I think maybe you should actually speak with someone (actual professional therapist), you look like you're on a path to become toxic yourself. I'm not telling you t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea Marcus Aurelius, what a loser Emperor. I assume you’re talking about Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.
I am yes. "Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life" -Herodian about Marcus Aurelius.
My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well. I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend grou…
It’s good to appreciate that people can be really different. For me your suggestion is a catch-22. For me to have a _close_ friendship with someone I need to like them a lot. But knowing myself, if I like someone a lot I _will_ fall in love. As in, this has happened and not once. My wife on the other hand is a direct opposite of that. From having discussed past relationships, I don’t think she even knows what falling…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something being more or less generalised doesnt necessarily mean more or less easy to answer. In this instance, its much easier to give axioms to being a good person than it is to being a good man. Especially in this day and age where the very notion of being a man (or woman) is being brought into question.
> Especially in this day and age where the very notion of being a man (or woman) is being brought into question. Some problems are specific to men or women exactly because our society has different expectations for men and women, so general advice good for one gender is not always good for the other. Example: Q: How to be more appealing to the other sex? A: Wear some light makeup and a nice dress.
My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well. I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend grou…
I don’t think any close female friend would do lots of people both men and women are extremely not self aware
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know how to fix it though Here's a start: don't simultaneously pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them while simultaneously desensitizing them to violence
I grew up in a small, Midwestern town. Distinctly conservative. These same problems existed despite there being a more direct, simple conception of masculinity (and violence was, if anything, more normalized). Your position is a contemporary cultural lightning rod, but I’m not immediately convinced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't seem like he took his own advice, though.
Yea Marcus Aurelius, what a loser Emperor. I assume you’re talking about Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a native speaker and interpret “man” in this context as definitely male, and I’d be very surprised if any other native speakers disagreed with that. I think it’s because “a good man” is quantified by the indefinite article “a”. Whereas “man” in a sentence without that qualification, e.g. “one small step for man” I would not interpret the same way. So, “a man” = a male human, “man” = maybe a male human, maybe any…
I definitely disagree given that Marcus Aurelius was writing in an era where "man" in the written word was synonymous with "human", in any context. If you or I said "man" in this time period, certainly we would attribute it as you say.