But does she know what it's like to be unable to express emotions, things as simple as fear and pain, without the possibility of being outcast and labeled weak? Does she know what it's like to have pent up aggression with no way of relieving it, and to be ostracized as dangerous and problematic when that aggression shows? To fear being accused of rape, and labeled a monster even when found innocent? — Not Steve

To all of those questions, no. And yet feminism focusses on the position into which women have been forced by men. Masculinism (if I may call it that) is not a position that women, or any other minority, have forced upon men. Finally, the things you complain about are the crimes that men commit against women, and (like all other crimes) the innocent might be accused. If our courts work properly (???), the innocent will be released. If men have problems, they need to learn to live with them, to control them and themselves. As a human, you are required not to murder any/all other humans. As a man, you are required not to rape women. In both cases, you are required to practise restraint. Do you see a problem with this? I don't...

No, I'm not black. I'm very conventional: elderly white cis male, retired techie, from England.

No, that's not for me. — Pattern-chaser


True, but it is not true for those foolish enough to believe in the supernatural. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Hmm. And yet *I* am that foolish.... :wink:

↪Pattern-chaser
My mentor, Dfpolis - a contributor here, showed me this. Said he was the only one teaching from it on the internet. The book is out of print. Intentional Logic by Henry Veatch discusses the nature of logic from an Aristotelian perspective, contrasted with the analytic approach of Russell, Frege, Quine, and others. It argues that logical concepts are tools of knowledge that enable us to know the real world, independent of our consciousness … — Daniel Cox

Thanks. :up: And are you suggesting that this book tells us how to 'do' philosophy, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

That Feynman quote is my constant guide, here, in philosophy, and elsewhere too. A closed mind is a dead mind, I suspect. :wink:

We do not know. I do not know ... and you do not know. — Frank Apisa

IMO, all of us philosophers (and all of us scientists too) should repeat this to ourselves at least once a day. :up: :smile:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar. — Richard P. Feynman

#ThoughtForTheDay

It does not produce matter. Its all transitory. — Devans99

That's not how I read the QM explanation of the Big Bang. But maybe I misunderstood. That's complicated stuff. But how did the anti-matter mostly disappear, leaving the matter behind? That sounds a lot like matter from nothing and nowhere.

I adopt the axiom: can't get something from nothing. — Devans99

Quantum foam? :chin:

Assertion is not proof.

Time had a start. — Devans99

I have been trying to be more constructive than this, to illustrate my point, but now I am reduced to: Prove it!

Please don't respond to my threads anymore. — YuZhonglu

I'm afraid that will only make him worse. In the end, we have only this:

Don't feed the trolls!

Wow, yeah, I didn't realize we all had to bow to Imperial America and conform to American English. — NKBJ

Worse: there is no "American English", only the American language. English is the language spoken by the English, who live in England.

[No, I'm not taking your joke seriously, just adding a dash of cynicism and nationalism into the mix. :wink: ]

Your definition simply does not cover all that philosophy is. You're leaving out all the "conifers" because you want to limit it to only what is "deciduous." — NKBJ

Nicely put. :up: :smile:

I think the start [o]f time requires a first cause... — Devans99

...while I don't think that my understanding of time is sufficient to justify a cause for it. Or not.

A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. — YuZhonglu

Yes, just as I believe something that I also know. But that's just my opinion. :smile:

You will see that arguments B, C and E do not use cause and effect as an axiom. — Devans99

And yet you refer to a "first cause"? :chin:

We have a timeless, powerful, intelligent first cause — Devans99

Only if cause and effect applies in this scenario. You're speculating, then cherry-picking the bits of logically-derived stuff (and maybe some illogical stuff too?) that should accompany it. There's nothing wrong with speculation, or with logic for that matter, but if you start with an illogical and unjustified speculation, you shouldn't be surprised if your cogitations result in something ... inconsistent.

I say at the start of the OP that I'm assuming the first cause is God. — Devans99

Agreed, but saying so does not make it logical. You begin your speculations with an assumption. Very fitting. :wink:

Maybe ask first whether the non-material can exist. I'm of the opinion that it can — Devans99

Me too. :up: My concept of (say) justice is non-material, but it exists. It doesn't exist physically, of course, but you didn't mean that, did you?

Your suggestion of divine powers is not logically derived from anything. My suggestion of a non-material nature of God is logically derived. I suggest we can make progress by sticking to logic rather than speculation. — Devans99

Your suggestion of God (and Her existence) is not logically derived from anything.

"poor" people, aka people unwilling to work harder and longer. — Waya

Unwilling? Or unable?

Here is a recent interchange I had on Twitter:

Tweeter 1: The Tories said privatisation of the railways would give us "better, more efficient and cheaper trains". Today rail fares go up by 3.1% while punctuality is at a 12-year low. Meanwhile in Luxembourg they are making all public transport free from 2019.

Tweeter 2: Another leftie after free stuff.

Pattern-chaser: Free? We all pay. That's the point of socialism: from each according to their means, and to each (or all) according to their (our) needs. And we share the cost. It's not free, it's mutual care. Love thy neighbour?

This offers an alternative perspective to your own. I can't guarantee it's more accurate, although it seems so to me.

Does cause and effect apply to God, for example? — Pattern-chaser


God is timeless so he is beyond cause and effect. The only way out of the infinite regress of time stretching back forever is to have a timeless first cause. — Devans99

Although you have not - probably wisely - defined what God is, I see no reason to assume She is bound by the same constraints that apply to us humans. [And no reason to assume She is not so bound.] Perhaps She has divine powers that make things different for Her, or maybe our misunderstanding of (in this case) time leads us to misunderstand? And so on. Speculation often only leads to ... more speculation.

Once we introduce an unknown quantity, in this case God, it is unclear how our reasoning could or should progress.

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? — Pattern-chaser


Anything material is probably subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it becomes disorganised with time - ages and dies effectively. So there is an argument that a material God would be dead by now. So the argument of material Vs non-material God could be cast as dead Vs alive God. — Devans99

The "2nd law of thermodynamics" is not a law, in the sense that it does not bind us, the universe or God. It's a guideline we have discovered that appears to apply to most of the things we know of, most of the time. It might apply to a material, or non-material, God, but if it did, how would it apply?

I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all — Pattern-chaser


We can make some deductions. For example, how did material God get away from the Big Bang? It would [have] blown him to bits setting that off. Hence non-material God seems more likely. — Devans99

I think the Big Bang is a theory, n'est ce pas? :wink: And if it did happen, and it was God that caused it to happen, perhaps She had a way to avoid its consequences?

There are just too many variables in your speculation to reach conclusions. Every guess we might make could be invalidated by something we failed to define (i.e. assume). You speculate about God, but make assumptions as to which parts of our knowledge and understanding of life, the universe and everything might apply to Her. The usefulness, if any, of any answers we invent is wholly dependent on the accuracy of our groundless and unjustified assumptions concerning Her.

Note: I assert nothing here; there is insufficient information on which to base such assertions. I have no clue how to answer your questions, and I don't think any human can know enough about such matters to offer a useful response to your questions.

I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. — Devans99

No, you don't. I'm not sure I do either. But the scenario you present is speculative in its every aspect, to the point where it seems difficult to make any kind of definite statement about anything. Does cause and effect apply to God, for example?

What do you hope that this topic will (could) achieve? Surely it is possible that God is non-material, but if She is, what of it? What have we learned if we conclude She is? Do you have, or know of, any evidence to present? Lacking evidence, as we always do when we discuss such things as God, what can we usefully conclude? I suggest that, sans evidence, we are constrained by logic to refrain from reaching any conclusion at all. We have no justification for doing so...? :chin:

I consider it something discovered, not invented. — noAxioms

Can you "discover" something that is non-physical? Mathematics is not part of the scientific space-time universe, except trivially. How could you "discover" maths when there's nothing to come upon, and say "Oo look, that seems handy!" Maths is a collection of ideas; I think its emergence into our awareness has surely to be our invention.

As for pi, as soon as you invent numbers, and all the stuff that goes with them, you notice pi as soon as you start considering circles. Bearing in mind that circles - not just things that are roughly circular - occur rarely if at all in the real world....

Here's a link to an article I just found on Aeon magazine, entitled "Philosophical writing should read like a letter". It seemed relevant to this discussion, so here it is: link

Are you happy to know you will die? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No more than I am happy that the ground I'm standing on is made of stone. Neither is in my control; I simply accept them, as I must. What other option(s) do we have? To deny reality because we'd rather it was otherwise? No, that's not for me.

does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

I don't think that's clear, one way or the other. I think it's obscured by prisons, and the politics that drives their use. America - and many of the contributors here are American - imprisons more of its folk than most other countries. And it doesn't work, in the sense of rehabilitation. Imprisonment is often just exacting revenge. In America, I suggest that this is usually so. There are good reasons for imprisonment, but revenge isn't one of them.

As to gender superiority, I think that's probably a mistake too. It's a mistake even to ask the question, and further confusion comes as the question is given greater scrutiny. We could frame this topic as a racist subject, by just substituting black people for women. And the question still shouldn't be asked. There is no profit to asking it, and none from any/all answers proffered.

Some women are superior to some men. And vice versa.
Some black people are superior to some white people. And vice versa.
[Repeat for all -isms.]

Pointless questions that give rise to pointless and damaging answers.

All IMO, of course.

I think capitalism, especially in its American flavour, along with continuous-growth economics, has lead to our destruction of the world. Greed prevails. Nearly-exhausted resources are plundered even faster and deeper.... Billionaires strive to obtain even more wealth than they already have. The poor starve, as they always have. Plus sa change....

I think to use the term “theory” in an academic context give the content of the paper is both disingenuous and likely purposefully deceitful. — I like sushi

And I wonder if theorising, in this sense, is the same as art? I.e. if the artist says it's art, then it is. Our bit is to judge it (for ourselves!) to be good art or bad art. So what I'm saying is that a theory is a theory, if the person presenting it says it is. Our job is to judge the value of the theory. And so far, it looks like our judgements mainly coincide: this is not a good theory. :up:

What do you guys think? — simmerdown

I think bodily death is irreversible and unavoidable. I like to think it's possible for some (non-physical) part of me/us to continue afterward, but that's just speculation, just like saying that the world our senses show us is Objective Reality. We speculate, and cling to beliefs we feel close to.

But being stuck in our final moment eternally? I can't make it make sense. Can anyone else? :chin:

Isn't philosophising just musing, but a little more formal? :chin:

world exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it
our thoughts and claims are about that world — Pattern-chaser

Oops! Sorry. My poor formatting made @HarryHindu's words look like they were mine. :blush:

I reformatted the original post to correct this.

Could we look at gambling addiction, and honestly say it's any less damaging than (say) alcohol addiction?

I think addiction is the problem. :chin:

Drugs are just one thing we can become addicted to.

I have seen what addiction or habitual use of pot does to families and children and it is not a pleasant reality. [...] The moral is addictive substances can lead to a lot of avoidable human pain and suffering for generations and we need to stop denying that. — Athena

However, pot is likely one of the best medicines nature has given us and hemp has many good purposes. We need to be more rational about growing and using marijuana. — Athena

I can't relate these two snippets, even though one follows directly after the other. Are you for or against ... or some other position?

Drugs are harmful to oneself and its effects spread out from there like a wave into everything else. — TheMadFool

No. I use gabapentin and cannabis to mitigate the unpleasant effects of MS. The MS is harmful; the drugs help to moderate that harm. Isn't everything we partake of, a drug, in some sense? Maybe even water?

I don't think blanket statements help. :chin:

do away with the drugs. They're a dead end. — Wallows

The relief of MS-related unpleasantness that I get from cannabis is real and worthwhile. The additional relief I get from gabapentin is also real and worthwhile. Isn't everything we partake of, a 'drug', in some sense? Maybe even water?

I'm not especially good at telling stories. But I do know that humans learn (and retain) best of all from stories. I suppose that's why we like the story form so much.

Yes, consensus is sometimes mistaken for objectivity. I've never understood that. :confused:

can we investigate rigorously and reproducibly matters of the spirit? — Louco

I think we can all agree (?) that the answer is "no".

1. World exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it.
2. Our thoughts and claims are about that world. — Harry Hindu

[My reformatting.]

If you can prove (to the same objective standard that you reference) either of these things, you will change the face of science and philosophy. But you can't. So you fall back on the topic-breaking Subjective/objective debate? How about we just stick to the topic?