– Have your married out of love?
– Of course! What a silly question!
Is it silly?
While in our society and in any other “progressive” society the marriage out of love is the norm, there are still some societies (like India, S. Arabia etc.) where many marriages are arranged. The question is whether these arranged marriages are unacceptable and whether they are more successful or less successful than marriages based on love. Emotional cries of the type “We are not in the Middle Ages” do not fit into this debate. Anyone who has even the least contact with countries where arranged marriages exist, is able to certify that such marriages can be successful. Let alone the fact that few of us can say with certainty that his grandparents or his great-grandparents were not married via an arranged marriage.
A related conversation at Quora can be seen here. There exists a reference to a survey that states that while many love marriages gradually fail, love in arranged marriages is being built and growing over time. I have no opinion on whether the research is valid, I just mention this as a food for thought. And certainly when one takes into account the growing divorce trends in love marriages, the question seems even more timely and difficult than we would like to admit.
The religious question now comes to Christianity: What will a religious person choose? If one wishes to be objective, he must recognize that Christianity would theoretically prefer marriage from true love. (although we must note that arranged marriages have been the norm for thousands of years also in the Christian societies!) Christianity favors love, unconditional love and is against any attempt to rationalize the affection between two people. On the other hand, the most correct rational view is the one that wants the choice of couples after the logical analysis of all the parameters in order to find the optimal “match” – that is, the arranged marriage.
Difficult problems with difficult solutions – if there are any.
Because as in all human problems, there is no easy answer here…
Western society is bent on turning men into neuters. All mysticism has been stripped from gender, which is now reduced to simple anatomical differences, and even these are no longer definitive. No roles are more suited to men than to women, as no roles are more suited to women than to men — at least that’s the party line. Anciently (i.e. before the late 1960s), all gender had a mystical aspect. Men had a life and secrets of their own that they would not share with the women, and women had lives and secrets not for sharing with the men. Certain mystical (and therefore culturally arbitrary) rituals ruled interactions between the genders: a man, for example, would hold a door open for a woman, and would remove his hat in her presence, or stand up when she approached (as he would remove his hat and rise for his sovereign). Any man worth his masculine salt would instantly come to the aid of any woman in distress, even at the possible cost of his own life. It was not a matter of bravery, but of simple masculinity. That’s what it meant to be a man.
Such mystical behaviour can become very practical, as it did one day in 1912. At 11.40 p.m. on April 14 that year, the good ship Titanic struck an iceberg in the north Atlantic, and was fully submerged just over two and a half hours later, with tremendous loss of life. The facts are too well known to need repeating. What is perhaps less known was the insistence of those on board ship upon filling the insufficient number of lifeboats with women and their children and of not giving a seat in any lifeboat to any man where a woman could be found to take the seat instead. In one of the later inquiries, one survivor related, “The men all refrained from asserting their strength and from crowding back the women and children. They could not have stood quieter if they had been in church”. Before each boat was cut away into the water, the cry went up, “Any more women?” These men were not especially heroic. They were simply acting as their society had told them men must act. Real mysticism has always been practical. (1)
It may sound racist or conservative, but not everyone is born equal. We are all unequal in every possible way. And only when we embrace that, can we really live up to what we truly are. I am not clever like Einstein, I do not live like Jesus, I do not dance like… whoever dances well. And yet I am who I am and many people would prefer me against Einstein, Jesus or… well, the guy who dances well.
We used to be proud of who we were. Now we are just too afraid to show it.
You may have heard that the Turing Test, that old test of machine intelligence proposed by pioneering mathematician Alan Turing in 1950, has been passed (or at least claimed to have been passed) by computer bots emulating human responses to questions.
What you may not have heard, though, is how profoundly bizarre Alan Turing’s original proposed test was. Much like the Uncanny Valley, the Turing Test is a seed of an idea that’s been warped and reinterpreted into scientific canon. The University of Reading deserves to be ridiculed for claiming that its zany publicity stunt is a groundbreaking milestone in AI research. But the test it’s desecrating deserves some scrutiny, too.
“Turing never proposed a test in which a computer pretends to be human”, says Karl MacDorman, an associate professor of human-computer interaction at Indiana University. “Turing proposed an imitation game in which a man and a computer compete in pretending to be a woman”.
It’s right there in the second paragraph of Turing’s landmark 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, published in 1950 in the journal Mind. He begins by describing a scenario where a man and a woman would both try to convince the remote, unseen interrogator that they are female, using type-written responses or by speaking through an intermediary. The real action, however, comes when the man in replaced by a machine. “Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?” asks Turing. (1)
Thinking like a computer is easy.
Most humans do it.
Thinking like a human is difficult.
Few humans achieve it.
Understanding how women think is truly impossible.
A handful of men understand them and I sure even God would have problems in that.
Truly free is only the thought that is illogical.
Because the whole world is illogical.
Only the paradox is inspiring.
And what could be more paradoxical than a woman?
Logic is based on axioms which are based on… nothing?
Women used to be the godesses to which we believed.
We have stopped worshiping the illogical.
And our logic has drowned us.
We need to breath again.
Turing tried to show the way.
But we killed him anyway.