• 0 Posts
  • 66 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • I agree. the only thing that we can say scientifically is that someone has a specific amount of traits we have associated with the social label ‘woman’. These traits are biologically speaking primarily related to reproduction and which role one would be able to fulfill the most effectively. Which does leave room for being able to fulfill both reproductive roles in some way or another.

    Our social needs to mark ourselves and others as one of the two is deeply ingrained, but as it’s such a grey area under the hood it would make sense to have a more fluid relationship with the topic.





  • Yes, in the same way a field of corn on a farm can be seen as art. We do not have full control over how it actually looks in the end, but it’s an expression by natural phenomena (sometimes guided or initiated by humans).

    You could argue about the amount of free will required to create art. But in that case one could philosophically raise the question if humans even have free will, and if anything may be called art then at all.

    I think if something is observed as art, it is by definition art. And perhaps everything that exists and is created could fit that description. But personally one of the more interesting types of art to me are where living beings are involved in the creation, while they’re actually thinking of creating art; and I think most discussions are about that concrete level.










  • tweeks@feddit.nltoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldQuick overview
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well the problem would be that one could argue the “good” and “bad”. It would be better to have a trustworthy factual list of things they’ve done and base our judgements on that.

    But it’s pretty hard to create such a list unbiased, if even possible. But I think it would help.