W

What TA said i think explains the problem:

There exist two main classes in society in which good and bad are defined relative to each class and in which the inferior class is actually the desired one, since it facilitates true love. Such completeness through love transforms the couple into compassionate beings, which leads one to happiness.

The lover feels a sense of shame in acting shamefully and a sense of pride in acting well through love, in which that which is shameful and well is determined by the individual’s group. Our non-utopian social world does exist, and in any relationship, there exists a subject and a “predicate” (another). Every relation is relative but some relationships are absolute, determined by societal norms, such as women and men. Social class is also an absolute, with the low-lifes being defined as the other. Humanity is split into two categories of individuals with manifestly different clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests, and occupations; these differences are perhaps superficial; perhaps they are destined to disappear. What is certain is that for the moment they exist in a strikingly obvious way. As alterity is the fundamental unit of human thought, these categories or relationships exist in any class. As in any class though, the subject posits its superiority, as it takes great abnegation not to. Why society is divided is due to the desire to feel superior, a desire of dominion. Such feelings of superiority result from a fundamental hostility to any other consciousness, which is found in consciousness itself and benevolence to the “same.” We’re naturally the same but because we call ourselves something different, we actually distance ourselves, through pride, from many people but bring ourselves close to others as well through love. Furthermore, others are taught to be frivolous, infantile and irresponsible. A man is in his right by virtue of being man; it is the woman who is in the wrong. We should regard women’s nature is suffering from natural defectiveness, since man defines woman in relation to himself. However, hostility is to feel superior since the subject can console his or herself for not being a “dirty hoodlum.” However, the other derives satisfaction from the role of other and is satisfied with life. The pure, self-reliant man doesn’t have to define himself; he’s honest, because he is playing no prescribed “role.” However, in our non-utopian world, as long as the desire for superiority lingers, roles do exist in society, though, where shame and pride and invented within the prescribed role.

Although the other derives satisfaction in his role, however, such contentment is due to the fact that such a role is virtuous. Thus, to be the other is, in actuality, the ideal, virtuous state. One is not born, but rather “becomes” a woman. This role is the one for women, defined by man, and women should be happy in submitting to this foreign point of view. Woman makes no claim for herself as subject because she lacks the concrete means and because she senses the necessary link connecting her to man without positing its reciprocity. This submission is due to the fact the master and slave are also linked by a reciprocal economic need that does not free the slave. Women are taught to value material things, which is not bad in and of itself. However, the role is defined as what not to do. The role is defined for women by society’s standards; women are just pretending that such norms of behavior are their own. Because others are taught to be frivolous, infantile and irresponsible, such childlike satisfaction is typical for happiness. Women are socialized to embody such characteristics; they are conditioned to believe that denying their true selves, to desire external things, to “turn themselves inside-out” is the only way they can get masculine consideration and respect and thus the only way to achieve happiness and gain acceptance. It is, therefore, more correct to look at women’s role in terms of Kantian freedom, not happiness. It is easy to adapt to the role of the other, but the role, since it is defined for them, makes them dishonest and enslaved in terms of shunning their true selves. However, as such a role is devoid of superiority and consequently of pride or shame, it is desired.

However, although material pleasures and thus the woman’s role are not bad in and of themselves, we must enjoy them without slipping into debauchery. As a strictly defined role by what not to do, it is much easier to feel shame and thus pride as a defense mechanism; if the role was so facile to attain happiness in; it wouldn’t be the correct one! The danger of society’s renunciation is that if we cannot meet these standards, we need society’s love (so to speak) and respect and thus treat them as divine, based on the emotional need to garner society’s acceptance in some other manner. People of society give us shame, and such a feeling, if uncontrolled, is discomforting – so we try to gain their affection to get rid of their scornful attitude towards us by pride. In women’s defined role, shame is “not-behaving-beautifully.” Henceforth, renounced individuals “behave beautifully” to actually prove that it is not the case that they have a lack of qualities. Therefore, such behavior is the result of feeling inferior internally. It is really to feel superior. We cannot admit this fact, though, and therefore change our beliefs through reason, giving ourselves an ethical rationale for helping another individual. The other, however, makes the subject feel better and causes emotional bouts in them. The subject is, in reality, using love to boost his or her own self-esteem, not that of others! (in a sense, behaving beautifully is acting like an insecure man, who makes women “separate but equal” by treating them respectfully). The futility of beautiful behavior is that individuals who behave in this manner are actually insecure with their identity, as vacillating, inconsistent beings. “Women” must accept and enjoy their constant role as such and treat it as if it did not belong to them, by controlling shame and pride from within. Otherwise, their fates will be just as unfortunate (and even worse) than those of men.

The true purpose of the woman’s role, of happiness, of avoiding vulgarity for virtue, of seeking constancy, is to be able to facilitate humanistic desire for completeness, in which the individual approaches the natural world, where gender roles are irrelevant. Human nature is constant, and, henceforth, men and women have an emotional congruence. Men may say more, swear more – but indeed our shows are more than will, for still we prove much in our vows but little in our love. The only difference is external, in their role. Women, today, show that they can easily perform against the mettles of their sex. True lovers, the mode in which humans complete themselves, are unstaid and skittish in all other forms expect for the constant image of the beloved. True love is constant, while from other types of supposed love one gets ecstasy or a thrill. Such love is no good as it is inconstant; the individual will soon return to his or her constant state; henceforth, it is not true love. True love controls, from within, pride. However, as other, women are no different from men emotionally, which is where happiness derives itself. Such thrilling or vulgar love is based on pride, in which the lover still posits superiority. Therefore, it is unequal and unnatural, which causes inconstancy. This type of love is based on reason. However, as the love that caused such a change is behavior is based on society’s idea of moral beauty, the individual will never be constant, as his or her beliefs are at society’s whim. Individuals cannot fall in love because they are insecure due to their fear of the truth. Too much self-love (or Kantian self-conceit), or of anything, is unnatural, and thus is bad regardless. Individuals desire true love because of the security it brings; thus it is important to filter out the contaminated, vulgar strains of love from within by controlling what we believe that we are entitled to. True love is not founded on pride, which is essentially the feeling that things that are not ours belong to us. Only through true love does one achieve wholeness.

Love moves us from mildness and removes us from wildness; it’s the best guide to steer us away from desire. If you strive to become complete yourself, you must better others. To control the effects of love from within (if reason is evil), the individual should flush out intemperate love by wit, by controlling the inflow to better others. Kantian freedom is impossible but the individual should strive for it, to overcome nature’s bias by controlling its effects from within, allowing no irrational or intemperate form of desire to shine through. In the real world, one thing is often its opposite. Therefore, one has to learn what each specific thing means, including men and women and their respective gender roles. What individuals may consider “bad” is actually good, and vice versa. Such bias is rather an ignorance of how to apply one’s preconceptions. School, which introduces us to our respective roles in society, implants an incorrect intuition in humans, and once we enter the real world, we must work to overcome this bias. Kantian freedom, is, thus, suppressing one’s lust and anxiety by controlling such anxiety (or emotion in general) from within through our will. You cannot be forced to desire something against your will. Wish for things that are under your authority and you cannot be obstructed. If you wish for something outside of your authority you’ll become upset. Such a state is one of slavery, in fact. Slavery is thus a mental illness (which externally cannot be perceived to others), and the way the individual frees him or herself from such illness is to control this irrational (external) desire from within. We should thus be our own doctor and monitor our passions. Such irrational passion can hide between two things: reason (but this technique is to convince the self based on pride) and wit (which is for the welfare of others). The real consistent individual still plays a role; this truism is inevitable, since we are all defined by others. However, such a person pretends pride (he does not actually feel it, while individuals who do have it pretend it pretend the opposite), but for others’ well being, not for his or herself. The individual needs others to further them, to fall in true love, which is the only way to relinquish the desire for superiority. Such recognition by others moves us to benevolence, which brings us closer to our natural state. It makes us more god-like.

Mildness allows to be free and to see “Beauty.” We are all the “other,” the eternal slaves to love. In our lifetimes, we must transcend as much as possible, and although it may not be attained, we should still strive for it, to try to return to the natural world. Virtuosity leads to love and the goal of loving is to catch sight of Beauty and to strive for true virtue. Thus, there is a science to living well. Individuals just have to discover it, just as they would go about any scientific enquiry. Anyone who falls in love is ill, although we pity him or her, as this individual is constrained by love. Everything is love in fact, but we dishonestly dole out different words for different kinds of love (just as everyone is human, but society defines different individuals differently according to their external characteristics, such as men and women). Freedom, a word in disguise for love, is suppressing one’s lust and anxiety. The freeman is autonomous and has eliminated desire. When individuals fall in love, they become slaves to “it” (Love). However, the “victim” may be majestic in suffering, you see, and come through a better, more fortunate person. Thus, our role in life is rather to all be willing slaves. If we are hindered by love, we are NOT free, but we can mitigate these effects by controlling them from within through a sort of “woman’s wit.” Although such a feat may be impossible, try at least. There is no shame in making an honest effort. And what is dishonesty really? One shouldn’t do things because they’re easy – lions would never choose to be confined to their cage. In fact, the easier its life, the more slavish it is. Thus, the individual must be practiced and prepared to discriminate between what belongs to her or him naturally and what doesn’t. Such an arduous and effortful process takes day and night. However, this process gives meaning; with purposiveness, humans become to less slavish.

So consider this a ramble on love. Or if not, call it whatever and however you please to call it. Words are insignificant and can even be seen as a misleading evil, as in the case with “women” and “men.” The most potent remedy, as Socrates preaches, is to speak the truth, which knows neither shame nor pride; the words will come of their own accord, as evening follows day.

Therefore, chess doesn't exist :)