It sounds like Dench is an interesting read, but like my reading of Gilder, it seems his is a system that has closed itself well before taking in a relevant breadth of human experience. What of ubiquitous data suggesting women on their own operate according to "rules" quite divorced from morality altogether? German philosopher Otto Weininger is badly prone to exaggeration himself in his book Sex and Character, but notwithstanding, he still makes a convincing case that women depend on men in knowing what morality, and moral behavior, is in the first place. Without men as a reference for them in this respect, they are completely lost to a primal, chaotic nature that favors amorality.
This is not to say that Weininger has it all right about men and women; just that he has considered a whole breadth of human phenomena that it appears Gilder and Dench aren't even aware of.
No I didn't miss it. But it is a sham king if the queen is the one who is really in charge.
But this doesn't really address my contention that there is a lot of evidence from human experience suggesting that men, not women, are the initiators of morality, not the responders.
The king is in charge. He makes his daughter uphold her promise to help the young man.
No human is the "initiator" of morality. The moral law is a given. But sex is the main motivator for men, and women - as the limiting factor in reproduction - set the terms of access.
Ultimately, men have to meet a female standard as a proxy for a standard ultimately set by CHILDREN.
Sex and civilisation itself is ultimately about children.
Thanks, appreciate the response and the original articles on this subject. For what it's worth I'm pretty much in accord with what you say in this last response.
I'll give it more thought. There's still much about Gilder (and Dench now I suppose, though I hadn't heard of him till reading your articles here) that just doesn't sit right to me, and perhaps I lack the grammar at this point to put it into words.
They are both superficial, ultimately, because they don't say men are by nature leaders.
"If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up."
And this, from Leo XIII's encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880:
"The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty".
Yes - the other thing they seem to overlook (at least Gilder) is the "phenomenon" of the male celibate (monk, philosopher, artist, etc.) whom the Church holds as living a higher state of life than a married man. The former are doing so while not being motivated by sex, contra Gilder.
I mentioned Weininger earlier. I think he for his part similarly overlooks consecrated virgins in the Church and their way of perfection that does not involve men, or involves them very little in comparison to married life.
Please would you list below the titles and names of the artists whose paintings you borrow. Not all of us know these artists.
It sounds like Dench is an interesting read, but like my reading of Gilder, it seems his is a system that has closed itself well before taking in a relevant breadth of human experience. What of ubiquitous data suggesting women on their own operate according to "rules" quite divorced from morality altogether? German philosopher Otto Weininger is badly prone to exaggeration himself in his book Sex and Character, but notwithstanding, he still makes a convincing case that women depend on men in knowing what morality, and moral behavior, is in the first place. Without men as a reference for them in this respect, they are completely lost to a primal, chaotic nature that favors amorality.
This is not to say that Weininger has it all right about men and women; just that he has considered a whole breadth of human phenomena that it appears Gilder and Dench aren't even aware of.
You must have missed the bit about the king being in charge and the kingdom falling into chaos if he abdicates authority.
No I didn't miss it. But it is a sham king if the queen is the one who is really in charge.
But this doesn't really address my contention that there is a lot of evidence from human experience suggesting that men, not women, are the initiators of morality, not the responders.
The king is in charge. He makes his daughter uphold her promise to help the young man.
No human is the "initiator" of morality. The moral law is a given. But sex is the main motivator for men, and women - as the limiting factor in reproduction - set the terms of access.
Ultimately, men have to meet a female standard as a proxy for a standard ultimately set by CHILDREN.
Sex and civilisation itself is ultimately about children.
Thanks, appreciate the response and the original articles on this subject. For what it's worth I'm pretty much in accord with what you say in this last response.
I'll give it more thought. There's still much about Gilder (and Dench now I suppose, though I hadn't heard of him till reading your articles here) that just doesn't sit right to me, and perhaps I lack the grammar at this point to put it into words.
They are both superficial, ultimately, because they don't say men are by nature leaders.
"If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm
And this, from Leo XIII's encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880:
"The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty".
Yes - the other thing they seem to overlook (at least Gilder) is the "phenomenon" of the male celibate (monk, philosopher, artist, etc.) whom the Church holds as living a higher state of life than a married man. The former are doing so while not being motivated by sex, contra Gilder.
I mentioned Weininger earlier. I think he for his part similarly overlooks consecrated virgins in the Church and their way of perfection that does not involve men, or involves them very little in comparison to married life.