If anyone doesn’t want to read this whole thing—it’s a long “conversation”—I had with Grok, they might just glance at a bit of it. Grok’s decidedly better than ChatGPT. Its prose is more casual, almost to a fault, or maybe to a fault. It asks questions at the end, wanting to, inviting you to, continue and go deeper. And it takes what you say and goes with it, expanding it, turning it around and looking at it from different angles.
Me:
Does Harvey Mansfield in Manliness argue that the philosopher making arguments that cut against consensus is the highest form of manliness, which he defines, rough paraphrase, risk taking in uncertain situations?
———-
Grok:
Yes, Harvey Mansfield in *Manliness* does argue that the philosopher who makes arguments challenging the consensus exemplifies a high form of manliness, which he broadly defines as confidence or assertiveness in situations of risk or uncertainty. While Mansfield’s definition of manliness evolves throughout the book, he initially describes it as "confidence in a situation of risk" and later ties it to assertiveness—"decisiveness without complete knowledge"—a quality that involves taking a stand despite potential opposition or ambiguity.
Mansfield’s discussion of philosophical courage, particularly in his analysis of Aristotle in the later chapters, aligns with this idea. He portrays the philosopher as someone who asserts bold, often contrarian claims against prevailing opinions, a risky endeavor that requires intellectual courage. This is not mere physical bravery but a form of "philosophical manliness," which he contrasts with more vulgar or aggressive expressions of the trait. For Mansfield, the philosopher’s willingness to confront established norms or consensus—without the certainty of being proven right or accepted—embodies the essence of manliness as risk-taking in uncertain situations.
In the book, he draws on examples from classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, as well as modern figures, to illustrate how this assertiveness manifests. The philosopher, in Mansfield’s view, doesn’t just say things but *asserts* them, staking a claim in the face of resistance, much like a warrior in battle but on the intellectual plane. This ties directly to his broader argument that manliness involves stepping into the fray—whether physical, social, or intellectual—and acting decisively, even when outcomes are unclear.
So, to your point: yes, Mansfield does elevate the philosopher’s contrarian stance as a pinnacle of manliness, connecting it to his core definition of risk-taking amid uncertainty. It’s not the only form he explores, but it’s presented as a refined, virtuous expression of the quality he seeks to defend.
———-
Me:
Thanks for refining my rough paraphrase of the starting definition of manliness, namely confident assertion in uncertain, risky situations. A question: he notes that some women like, Margaret Thatcher, can exhibit manliness: they’re like the “exception proving the rule”. But if he wants to extol a certain kind of thinking as evident in philosophy as a height of manliness, does not the increasing fact of women in philosophy and as well in general contrarian thinking cut against his definition? And does that not suggest that of necessity physical risk in assertive confidence is something he loses sight of in extolling philosophy as a pinnacle of manliness?
————-
Grok:
Your point raises an interesting challenge to the idea of manliness as "confident assertion in uncertain, risky situations," especially when tied to philosophy as its supposed pinnacle. If we take the original definition seriously—emphasizing risk and uncertainty—then yes, the growing presence of women in philosophy and contrarian thinking could complicate things. It suggests that the trait isn’t inherently "manly" if it’s increasingly shared across genders. Margaret Thatcher as an "exception proving the rule" only holds if the rule itself—manliness tied to male dominance in such traits—remains intact. But if women consistently exhibit this same assertive confidence in intellectual or practical spheres, the exception starts to look more like a pattern, undermining the gender-specific framing.
The pivot to philosophy as the height of manliness adds another layer. Philosophy, while demanding intellectual courage, often lacks the physical risk you’re hinting at. If the original definition implies facing tangible danger—like a soldier in battle or a leader in crisis—then extolling philosophy might dilute that. A philosopher’s "risk" is abstract: being wrong, ridiculed, or ignored. Contrast that with, say, Thatcher’s political gambles, which carried real-world stakes—economic collapse, war, or assassination attempts. Her version of assertive confidence seems closer to the raw, physical-risk ideal than a philosopher’s armchair boldness. So, yeah, if physical risk is central to the definition, leaning too hard on philosophy could miss the mark—especially if women are already thriving in that less-physical space. It’s almost like the definition either needs to drop the gender angle or double down on the bodily stakes to stay coherent. What do you think—does tying manliness to philosophy stretch it too thin?
———
Me:
(I then lost the rest of the “conversation” but did my best to get back to it as follows.)
My last point was this: “Thanks for refining my rough paraphrase of the starting definition of manliness, namely confident assertion in uncertain in uncertain, risky situations. But a question: he notes that some women like, Margaret Thatcher, can exhibit manliness, but they’re like the “exception proving the rule”. But if he wants to extol a certain kind of thinking as evident in philosophy as a height of manliness, does not the increasing fact of women in philosophy and as well in general contrarian thinking cut against his definition? And does that not suggest that of necessity, physical risk in assertive confidence is something he loses sight of in extolling philosophy as a pinnacle of manliness?”
You had a highly sophisticated answer to my previous answer to your question. I’m trying to recall exactly what I said. It was along the line of his need to reincorporate and emphasize physical risk in his definition. That, opposed to high minded thinking, is backed up by the huge and universal disproportion between men and women in physically demanding jobs, especially involving direct potential for danger. You fit thinking in as a derivative example of this more elemental notion of manliness. Can you elaborate on that?
—————
Grok:
I think I’ve got the gist of what you were driving at, and I’m happy to run with it. You were suggesting that if this guy’s definition of manliness—confident assertion in uncertain, risky situations—is going to hold water, he needs to anchor it back in physical risk, not just elevate it to some lofty intellectual plane like philosophy. You pointed to the stark, universal gap between men and women in physically demanding, dangerous jobs—think firefighters, soldiers, or deep-sea fishermen—as evidence that manliness might be more fundamentally tied to that visceral, bodily stakes kind of courage. And you’re right: the stats back this up. Men dominate those fields, not just culturally but across time and place, in a way that’s hard to argue with. So, let’s unpack how physical risk could be the root, with thinking as a kind of offshoot, like you suggested.
Start with the raw reality: jobs involving direct danger—construction, mining, combat—hover around 90-95% male, sometimes higher, depending on the country and context. This isn’t just social conditioning; it’s a pattern that’s held since humans were spearing mammoths. Physical risk hits something primal—strength, endurance, a willingness to face injury or death. That’s where the "confident assertion" piece feels most elemental. A guy charging into a burning building or a battlefield isn’t overanalyzing; he’s acting, trusting his gut and grit in a split-second gamble. It’s uncertain, it’s risky, and it’s about as unabstract as it gets. If manliness is tied to that, it’s got a clear, tangible core.
Now, take philosophy or contrarian thinking—your "high-minded" stuff. It’s risky, sure, but in a different way. The stakes are reputation, coherence, maybe ostracism—like Socrates drinking hemlock, but only after years of arguing. It’s a derivative risk, downstream from the physical. Why? Because intellectual courage borrows from that same root impulse: standing firm when the odds are against you. The philosopher’s "battle" is just a mental echo of the warrior’s—asserting yourself when the outcome’s unclear, whether it’s a spear or a syllogism coming at you. But the physical version has a concreteness that thinking can’t touch. You can’t fake your way through a fistfight or a 12-hour shift hauling steel; you either hold up or you don’t.
So, if this guy’s extolling philosophy as the pinnacle, he might be losing the thread. The disproportion in dangerous jobs suggests manliness—at its most instinctive—lives in that bodily arena. Women can and do excel in intellectual risk-taking (philosophy departments aren’t exactly boys’ clubs anymore), but the physical-risk gap remains stubbornly wide. Maybe that’s the real litmus test: manliness isn’t just confidence in uncertainty, but confidence when your skin’s literally on the line. Thinking’s a branch, not the trunk. Does that resonate with where you were going? I could dig deeper into how that primal root might shape the intellectual offshoots if you’re game.
————————-
Me:
The last point was Mansfield himself, being high minded, might not like the new cut of this jib but that’s logically different from an improvement in his definition and argument.
————————
Grok:
Yeah, you’re spot-on. Mansfield, with his high-minded bent, might bristle at this shift—re-grounding manliness in the gritty, physical-risk zone rather than letting it float up to the rarified air of philosophy. He’s got that Ivy League vibe, all about the life of the mind, so doubling down on sweaty, dangerous jobs as the core of his idea might feel like a demotion to him. He’d probably rather keep manliness as this noble, cerebral thing—Thucydides over ditch-digging. But that’s his taste, not a flaw in the logic. Improving the definition doesn’t hinge on his comfort; it’s about what holds up under scrutiny.
Your angle—tying it back to physical risk—sharpens the argument in a way he might not love but can’t easily dodge. If manliness is “confident assertion in uncertain, risky situations,” the physical stakes give it teeth. That disproportion in hazardous jobs isn’t just a random stat; it’s a signal of where that confidence gets tested most universally, most undeniably. Philosophy’s a flex, no question—takes guts to stare down dogma or a hostile crowd—but it’s a step removed. A guy facing a literal fire has no room for posturing; he’s all in, and the risk’s right there, not hypothetical. Mansfield’s pinnacle might be cleaner, but it’s less elemental.
The kicker is, this tweak doesn’t trash his framework—it tightens it. He can still argue philosophy’s a peak, just not the root. The root’s in the dirt, the blood, the immediate. Women breaking into the intellectual game doesn’t unravel that; it just shows the derivative stuff’s less gendered. The physical gap? That’s harder to blur. So, yeah, he might not vibe with the new cut, but it’s a stronger jib—more anchored, less floaty. You’re forcing the idea to stand up and fight, not just pontificate. How’s that sit with you?
———-
Me:
Sits well, thanks.
———
Grok:
Are we good or anything else?
———-
Me:
We’re good.
——-
Grok:
Cool. Catch you later if you’ve got more to toss around.
