Does anybody know how philosophers try to explain the CD phenomenom?
Does anybody know how philosophers try to explain the CD phenomenom?
I am more of a CROSSDREAMER than anything else.
Most likely it was, "Something is surely wrong with that boy's head".Originally Posted by pinto
Ain't we philosophers?
Probably very similar to the way psychologists do in their books...only the philosophy books would be twice as many pages.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If they, or you, are looking for ONE reason, you're out of luck. And wrong. Sorry. For those in search of why you do it, it may take a long time of introspection to figure it out. Occam's razor not withstanding, it's not always the simplest reason you find.
Some causes of crossdressing you've probably never even considered: My TG biography at:http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...=1#post1490560
There's an addendum at post # 82 on that thread, too. It's about a ten minute read.
Why don't we understand our desire to dress, behave and feel like a girl? Because from childhood, boys are told that the worst possible thing we can be, is a sissy. This feeling is so ingrained into our psyche, that we will suppress any thoughts that connect us to being or wanting to be feminine, even to the point of creating separate personalities to assign those female feelings into.
The short answer: they do not.
I am not really sure what you are asking. My bachelor's degree was in philosophy. I took courses in ethics, theory of knowledge, aesthetics, symbolic logic, semantics, history of philosophy, surveys of schools of thought, even a course dealing with philosophies of religion. Philosophy would not try to "explain" crossdressing any more than it would try to explain football, or the latest clothing styles, or why stainless steel appliances are in vogue. Philosophy is not psychology, nor is it a branch of biology.
The closest that philosophy may come to what your are asking, I think, is to ask about the relationship of crossdressing to various systems of ethics. Yet even in that question, philosophy does not pass judgement on whether something like crossdressing is good or evil. Rather, philosophy would ask, what are the rules for ethical behavior? What is the logical foundation for those rules, and what is the consequence of a society structured on those rules? It is much less interesting to a philosopher to ask how those rules apply to a specific human behavior.
Maybe a couple of examples would help. An important school of thought from the 19th century was Utilitarianism. Its set of rules held that when faced with a set of choices, the "best" one was the choice that created the most amount of happiness for everyone involved. Of course, many uptight Victorians attacked this as being pure hedonism. This didn't really bother the founder of the school, who was just looking for a logical set of rules, and was famous for saying "pushpin (an old form of bowling) is as good as poetry." If crossdressing creates more happiness than unhappiness, then it is a useful activity. On the other hand, lots of debate during that century was centered on the "social compact." We tacitly agree to the rules of order in a society so that we can enjoy the benefits of that society. We don't rob banks because society has a rule that says no robbing banks. In return, we get to enjoy banking services that would not exist if robbing banks was acceptable behavior. Whether crossdressing is acceptable or not is a function of the details of the social compact.
What this means is that a philosopher cannot answer your question, since it does not have an unambiguous answer. He or she would respond by asking you what set of rules you are using to evaluate ethical behavior. When pressed, he or she might even discuss his or her own personal ethical beliefs. You would be hard pressed, though, to find a philosopher who would go on to say, "and therefore crossdressing is good, or bad." About all they would say is that under some sets of assumptions, it is acceptable behavior, and under other assumptions, it is not.
I hope this is helpful, and at least somewhat related to what you are asking.
Liz
Last edited by Elizabeth Ann; 10-24-2011 at 02:11 AM.
Elizabeth Ann...
That was a great reply…and explanation of the difference that excludes "philosophy" from addressing the “question”.
Thanks, I have a pretty solid background/grasp of psychology issues, but when it comes to philosophy, the water gets deep quickly, lol. The field is fascinating to me, but my physical metabolism limits my attention span capabilities…I have a hard time sitting still long enough to watch a movie in a theater…lol…my loss…I think…
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
They think, therefore they do?
Depends I guess. S**thouse philosophers are a dime a dozen these days it seems.
Second star to the right and straight on till morning
Thank-you for this reflection Elizabeth Ann
Elizabeth Ann...
That was a great reply…and explanation of the difference that excludes "philosophy" from addressing the “question”.
Thanks, I have a pretty solid background/grasp of psychology issues, but when it comes to philosophy, the water gets deep quickly, lol. The field is fascinating to me, but my physical metabolism limits my attention span capabilities…I have a hard time sitting still long enough to watch a movie in a theater…lol…my loss…I think…Thank you to both of you. I can't help wondering, Eluuzion, what you do in that theater when you can't sit still long enough for a movie. I guess you probably bring your knitting or something.
Liz
I wonder what Edmund Husserl would say, the great phenomenologist. His work was in understanding the meaning of every day existence and would look at a variety of approaches to the idea of gender and our reactions to it.
Maybe that it's just an activity we enjoy that's been arbitrarily declared wrong? Face it, if it wasn't taboo then people wouldn't be looking for explanations. Why do you like the music you like? Why do you like the movies you like? You can't explain that. *billoreilly.jpg*
[SIZE=3]I think the phrase would be...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]" I dress therefore I am"[/SIZE]
I don't wear women's clothes, I wear MY clothes !
YES, they say cd's are smarter and have it together moreso than all the rest!!
Funny but i think you completely right!Probably very similar to the way psychologists do in their books...only the philosophy books would be twice as many pages.
I am more of a CROSSDREAMER than anything else.
Thanks girls this helps me at least a little bit. I also have learned the question you ask a philosopher needs to be phrased very carefully and philosophically
I am more of a CROSSDREAMER than anything else.
No!.... It's "To be is to do"---Plato: "To do is to be"---- Socrates: "Do be do be doo"...Sinatra
The crossdressing philosopher reflected on his choice to wear the simple black dress with a single strand of pearls and changed his mind. Then he tried a navy suit with a white blouse and believing he understood the nature of free will changed once again to a red dress, red heels and jewelry. He's still working on the philsophical foundation for his choice of gender presentation, but has a great look for every occasion.
Sarah
Being transgender isn't a lifestyle choice. How you deal with it is.
This reminds me on the scene when my wife asks me: "do you think i have gained too much weight?" Don't ever answer.
I am more of a CROSSDREAMER than anything else.
Posting Permissions
