whether there are modes of being other than individual, particular actuality. — aletheist

Where would these modes of being exist without an individual or "particular actuality" to observe them?

P.S. thanks for taking the time to help me here

As I understand it, the issue is whether universals are nevertheless real - i.e., whether there are modes of being other than individual, particular actuality. Setting aside the notion of "perfect," the idea is that a triangle is a universal - there is an infinite continuum of potential triangles, with different combinations of angles and side lengths. They are all real because they possess certain characteristic properties, regardless of whether anyone thinks that they do. — aletheist

If something is real, does it not need to have existant properties in some way? How can something be real and not exist? Universals seemed to be concepts much in the same way that I think of a pink fluffy cloud made out of uranium. The cloud doesn't exist but couldn't I say the cloud is real nonetheless? That sounds like what you are doing, what does real even mean in this context?

I tried looking at those threads but I just can't seem to read further without getting frustrated by not understanding this very basic issue I can't seem to get my head around.

Of course I can argue against fact. With the election of Donald Trump, we have moved into the post factual era and truthiness is now old hat. A has been. A tired old hag. Get with the program, Intrapersona, reality is a crock. There are no facts, just opinions. And some opinions are more valuable than others, like yours, for instance. ;) — Bitter Crank

touche

"objectivity" requires consensus.
Subjective describes one's inner experience, objective describes a shared experience - things a group of people all experience and agree on.
While it is true that our interpretation of all external events is subjectively experienced, when others also report the same experience it becomes objective.
If I were to experience something (voices or images) that referred to external events, but others that should have also experienced the same event did not - then I would assume it was just subjective (a hallucination or delusion), even though it may have seemed objective.
So "objectivity"requires consensus.
That does not mean objectivity by defnition reflects ultimately reality - but it is a good starting point for progress through emperical, scentific/critical thinking. — Seattlite

This is not true unfortunately. Have you heard of the hard problem? It says that if everyone on earth except you were actually zombies but displayed all the signs of being thinking beings no different from how you perceive them now then you can't tell the difference. Likewise, whatever OTHER people say to you is true about states in the world (IE that table is brown) then it is still only the subjective perception of someone elses voice telling you that the table is brown. How can you know for certain that another person exists in order to prove objectivity? You can't.

This is the sum of your argument. You are trying to posit that because other people exist in the world, that they must be objective also and therefore consensus of them validates an objective world. That is circular reasoning as you are trying to prove something by something that isn't proved yet (namely whether other people even exists or whether they are just a sensory impression and nothing more).

because if it were all-powerful in addition to not being all-powerful — maplestreet

that doesn't make sense. as m-theory said "If you are without power, then by definition, you cannot also have all the powers."

As long as both are not true at the same time, you can not be both. Just like you can't be male and female, or for the room to be completely dark when it is lit up with light..

Perhaps a more clear way of saying what I said earlier is something like this:
Prior to these experiences, I thought that it was accurate to say something does not exist (is not to be found in the world) if it is self-contradictory. I no longer believe that being self-contradictory excludes something from being found in the world. — maplestreet

Ok that makes more sense now. Although don't paradoxes in mathematics and physics point that out quite clearly?

I agree with maplestreet here. It is about past tense and the first paragraph assumes that it needs a person to survive after death in order for a wish to be fulfilled: "there will be no me to have his wish fulfilled so it must be impossible for me ever to get what I want"

If you get stuck like this again, try and use a very simple analogy. Say a girl wants to have sex with this guy she likes but in the nightclub she drinks too much and as they go home together, she passes out just before the penile penetration begins. She wakes up after in a wet bed with a satisfied man on top of her breathing heavily. Now, did she get what she wanted? Not quite, because she was after the experience of sex and not just the knowing that it happened without a memory of it. But if she woke up in the middle of the sex and said she didn't want it and then she passed out again. Did she get what she wanted by the sex stopping only because of her inability to experience it? Obviously she wasn't aware of it happening and therefore was in agreement with her not 'wanting to experience it'. So as soon as she passes out, her wish is fulfilled (even though her desire was for it not to happen PERIOD and not just her experience of it). So in the same, if you will to die... it necessarily entails that you will yourself to die up till the point your experience is over (assuming it is over in death). There doesn't need someone on the other side to say "oh hey, i'm glad i did that, i got what i wanted".

A while ago I took some anticholinergics. — maplestreet

Btw, that shit isn't good for you. Antagonizing choline receptors leads to memory dis-function among other things. Healthy Acetylcholine levels are crucial for concentration, memory and muscle engagement. If you want to explore with altered states, at least be sensible in the pharmacology of it. It is widely known that 5ht2a receptor agonists are the least toxic and least neurologically harmful of psychedelic drugs (and relatively most euphoric), especially natural varieties. Be safe pal and take care of ur brain!

Logical conclusions do not correspond to what obtains in the world. So neither do I feel any compelling force from solipsism. — maplestreet

I think this is just like saying "Logical conclusions don't represent the truth about the world therefore there is no reason for me to believe in solipsism anymore".

Is totally valid, but kind of skips the point of beliefs in the first place. Beliefs are held BECAUSE of an incomplete picture of reality/existence. If you suspend judgement then you are agnostic and IMO is the only rational position to hold, IMO, IMO, IMO.

I now interpret contradictory things to have no absolute reference to the way the world functions, but as merely a formal concept that is at best an approximate model of the workings of a very small segment of the world. — maplestreet

What contradictory things gave reference to the functions of the world BEFORE you stopped interperating as so?

but also uncertain about uncertainty itself — maplestreet

My friend always said to me this is a logical error. Because in a manner of speaking you are using one system to refute itself, much like trying to burn away a flame or cut water with water.

Other people beg to differ, and I feel the same in some ways: https://www.quora.com/Can-we-doubt-doubt-itself

In simpler terms, if I was all powerful... could I make myself powerless? By definition, yes. By logic, no. Because once you became powerless you could not become all powerful again. How can a powerless entity become omnipotent? The only way I can see that being so is if all powerless entities were actually omnipotent in hiding, a dormant omnipotence that is unknown, yet to be realized.

Academics tend to be in complete denial that there is more in heaven and earth than dreamt of in their philosophies and, like ants climbing the Empire State building, they refuse to accept the possibility that they can never grasp the reality of their situation by merely climbing higher. Yet, the worst possible tragedy is to become afraid of the light, the worst possible tyranny is denying the evidence of our own senses and sensibilities, and the worst possible failure is losing faith in our own journey. To be aware we must first embrace our own ignorance, to have a friend we must embrace being a friend, to appreciate more of the humor and beauty in life we must first embrace them in ourselves, to actualize our full potential we must be willing to embrace our own flaws, and to truly live we must first embrace life more fully. For no man is an island nor can he be the measure of all things lest he embrace virtue as its own reward and wonder as the beginning of wisdom knowing that the only thing he can know is that he knows nothing. — wuliheron

Beautiful post wuliheron! I like how you adjudicate the value of acceptance first as a means to overcoming any instance of disparity.

So you do think that arguments are determined by word count then? The more words it has, the more of an argument it is? — Terrapin Station

In most circumstances yes, the more words the more discriptive it is and the more descriptive it is the more ideas can be acted out in favor or against an argument.

If i just say to you "I like this" and don't provide reasons why... then obviously it has less value than the latter. What are you in primary school? How can you not realize that?

Obviously occam's razor does not apply here as we are merely talking about descriptions OVER one line sentences that state just a mere opinion.

Anyway, I don't want to keep having these rubbish conversations with you. You are bait and bait and never even provide. You are like the worst co-worker or friend I can imagine. Full of opinion, with no substance, nor any effort to expound on ideas.

We already know about your self-assessed superiority, don't we? — Terrapin Station

That is why you joined philosophy forums didn't you? So you can post endless one sentence garbage posts that are merely opinion and aren't backed with any descriptions of any kind.

There is a word called "elaboration", you don't have it.

Just look at wuliherons post and then look at yours. It doesn't take a genius to see where the value lies there.

I don't know--mental degradation maybe? I don't know why so many people are seduced into believing solipsism more or less. — Terrapin Station

Just because you can't see beyond the confines of an ordinary mind! I bet you believe in atheism and naive realism too right? close-minded, stuffy people usually do. As Whiliheron said " they refuse to accept the possibility that they can never grasp the reality of their situation by merely climbing higher"

— Emptyheady

Yep, that meme pictures works because you know how utterly bizarre all of this is and an actually viable conclusion could be something of that nature! lol!

I have been suffering from this for the past year now. It started out really bad like multiple times a day and progressively has gotten better. The last one which was a few weeks ago now caused me to create this thread: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/689/what-is-this-experience#Item_1

They are classified as panic attacks and often they have an existential component to them so don't think panic attacks are exclusive to people with anxiety disorder or something. Sometimes when we realise that our minds have multiple inabilities to comprehend the world around us or actually conceptualise it, it can make us feel scared, or just flat out amazed.

People often don't do this, you know why? Because they stay well within the parameters of what their minds identify as normal. Joe blow who lives a normal life day in day out doesn't activate alternative pathways in his mind that are conducive to mind blowing, paradigm shattering feelings of the sort both you an I are going through.

Often this occurs with people who take large doses of psychedelics and this ultimately causes the same functions occur within the mind. It causes paradigm shifts because it changes the electrical firing pathways and patterns within the brain, physically causing you to see things differently. Of course, reading philosophy can do this too, just in a miniscule, softer or less dramatic and sudden way.

Sometimes after reading something bizarre I will ponder it over the day and it will give me that feeling and cause me some anxiety. We humans need to feel normalcy, we need it to survive. If there isn't any we feel confused and if we are confused we aren't open to experiencing the world with an open mind and less inclined to be happy.

If it gets too much for you to handle, try doing what Agustino suggested... get out and do physical activities, especially mundane or routine activities and even try new hobbies and force your mind out of rationalization.

So life is strange, but compared to what? What's it bizarre in relation to? There's no non-strange thing to compare your existence to. — dukkha

To your previous concepts of what normal reality felt like.

I feel there is a deep connection between philosophy and the mindset characterized by 'anxiety, depression/hopelessness, angst, apathy... etc.' — Question

Indeed, because philosophy often deals with what is real and often what is real is full of anxiety, depression/hopelessness, angst, apathy. People shy away from what is real to lull themselves into complacency.

That fact is, life isn't great. But it's full of wonder and mystery and complexity beyond belief. Finding that is the struggle but once you do it makes life worth it. The clearest pathways for me have been ones that directly alter my state of mind and allow me to see the world in a new fashion, it shows me how beautiful everything is in contrast to the familiarity of the every day world.

You can. however, explain it like photosynthesis can be explained, i.e. as a higher level phenomena arising from lower lever events. — jkop

If that were so then computers, telephone, internet heck even toilet plumbing systems might all have consciousness. Why would consciousness emerge only with the prerequisites of certain parameters like electrical firing rates etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

The distinction is nonsensical in my view, yes. Just like attempts high art/low art etc. distinctions. — Terrapin Station

Right, gotta love when people state their opinions without providing any reasoning or logic behind it, especially twice or three times in a row. lol.

So if complexity doesn't exist. The conjunctive word 'the' has the same level of complexity as the equation E=MC2 and there really is no difference between the most learned and advanced minds of our time and that of a down syndrome person who has half his brain missing?

Make no mistake, this isn't a strawman. I am just using your argument "complexity or deepness doesn't exist" to go further and show how complexity doesn't exist ANYWHERE in nature.

You are trying to assert that a rational classification is absurd. If you want to do that, why not just go ahead and say all rational classifications are absurd?

Great stuff! Very insightful descriptions of the many nuances of interpersonal communication. Several times while reading it i was nodding in agreement, having experienced similar situations. Thanks for taking the time to explore it, and hope that you can add even more. :)

(The only thing that slightly befuddled me was format of the two sections taking the complete opposite viewpoint. Which is fine, better to give both sides of the story than one. But it took me a while to figure it out, despite the line separating the two sections. It might need an introduction, stating exactly what you are doing. And a conclusion might help to wrap it up. Because it is not entirely clear which side you agree with, or neither. Or both, depending on the circumstances. Any of which is fine. But making it extra clear might prevent misunderstanding, imho. Most interesting thoughts however!) — 0 thru 9

Thanks for taking the time to read through it ;)

I wanted to give both sides of the argument because truths sometimes isn't absolute and can be bipolar. I think most philosophy programs in universities also aim to give an unbiased education of what we know, at least good ones :)

With that said, I am heavily in favor of the view that society places too much important on insignificant, superficial vanities that actually end up making peoples lives less valueable.

Instead of teaching people to wonder and marvel at the world and promote virtues, we end up foaming at the mouth trying to prove to one another how normal and special we are by just regurgitating the same filth that is promoted via social media/reality tv etc.

Like it or not, some people are a bit neurotic. You may have encountered neurotic people at some point in your life. — Bitter Crank

eeerrr yeah... like 80% of the population! (especially women)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAVPK-UNBzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGExHJo5ag8

You'll need to live with them all the same and after you telling them to fuck them(selves) that will be harder. If you don't like how people think or about what they think, instead of dismissing them you could try engaging them in a way that will get them interested. Seems more productive to me."— Benkei

You are right boss. It is a negative tendency that I have to disparage unintellectual people, which I should keep more in check. It just angers me, their self-righteousness, and the fact that they don't respect intelligence.

As in if you really are superior, what's the need to show it and rub it in their faces? Certainly you only do that if somewhere deep inside you think that you should be superior and yet perceive yourself as inferior. — Agustino

It just angers me too, they think their self-righteousness is actually a doorway past intelligence, that they don't need it. In fact what ends up happening is that they become less virtuous and end up promoting vices as often with the growth of intelligence comes the growth of virtues.

But even intelligent people have ego and everyone struggles not feel superior to people in majority of circumstances. I have often taken agustinos point and tried to play a game with them with my intelligence, ask them questions like an interrogator would in the courtroom and see if you can get them to either A) Directly express how much of a fool they are in their own words B) Show you something they know that you don't.

When it stops becoming a game of one upmanship, there is potential for growth on both sides... curse natures design flaw of the ego.

I don't want to get too personal, but maybe this reflects more about you than the alleged excessively social people you have encountered. We who are socially dull witted may find that the socially adept run circles around us, which is likely to seem like negative behavior. And, of course, your observations are going to be true, at least some of the time--because some people are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels, whether they are socially skilled or not. — Bitter Crank

Well it was coupled with the psychological evidence provided. You can't argue against facts bitter crank.

There have been friendly people with humble personalities, no doubt. But for the most part I see their short comings in being a graceful person with a high regard for virtues. It is as if they are pretending to be someone and they put on a facade that includes an excess of compliments and pleasantries without actually ever being honest when it is needed. They remind me of psychopaths, faking emotions just so that they can boost their social esteem and ranking, and indeed there are scientific correlations to support my assumption there as provided.

I don't find myself to be socially dull witted, I always make an effort to be friendly, reply with novel comments and try to find some rapport... but I watch very closely what the other person does and can see correlations within the traits of the overly social characters.

I know what you are talking about though and is akin to how intelligent people can run circles around the stupid and seem like negative behaviour. As social intelligence is a form of intelligence. However I just don't think I am applying to that category as I have learnt how to be social and have a clear understanding of the signals to be correlated.

Subjects aren't inherently deep but are considered as such by those participating in the conversation. If we look at society, philosophical ideas are considered less deep and of less import than Justin Bieber's latest tattoo. Claiming his tattoo is small talk is short hand for saying you disagree with society's purported priorities and attribution of values.

To which the masses will say: who are you? What do we care? Whatever!

Hence, this too is small talk. — Benkei

Granted subjects aren't inherently deep but how can you even know that since you are bound to subjectivity?

You can't say "philosophical ideas are considered less deep and of less import than Justin Bieber's latest tattoo". Yes they considered by most to be less important but by definition they are less deep. It's like Terrapin above trying to claim it doesn't exist either.

When a topic or concept reaches a sufficient level of complexity or technicality then it is considered deep.

To argue that justin bieber's tattoo is not any more deep than quantum uncertainty is just ludicrous. All we have is subjectivity and our subjective definitions of deep/small talk is a definition. Saying it doesn't exist is like trying to say that the definition of hard work doesn't exist. Everyone knows it does!

That should read, "who has a tendency to make a distinction between 'deep thought' and 'shallow thought' (and especially who sees 'deep thought' as normative and who believes that they engage in 'deep thought')."

Or in other words, it's instructive that you're automatically assuming that the distinction isn't nonsensical.

I'm not criticizing "deep thinkers." I'm criticizing the distinction as well as the people who make it and who believe that they are "deep thinkers" and that that makes them superior. — Terrapin Station

So you are saying deep thought doesn't exist and there is essentially no difference in content between a childrens tv show and a university lecture... :O

I see the distinction as an expression of snobbism oriented towards one's personal interests, which is the normative "deep" stuff to the snob in question. It's just like bs "high"/"low" art, culture etc. distinctions. — Terrapin Station

So every person who has a tendency towards deep thought is a snob trying to promote the snobbery of their personal interests? That doesn't seem very accurate tbh. What was said clearly outlined in gargantuan proportions a clear indication of the types of people in question but you seem to regard all deep thinkers as snobs... does it do yourself justice Terrapin? I know you want to show everyone how much of a snob you are... but please do it someplace else would you? :P

Transgenders have what is called a somatic delusion - where one believes that there is something wrong with their body.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusions.html

Why is it that we seem to allow some people to continue to hold their delusions, or even promote their delusional state, while others we try to "help" them overcome their delusions and see things as they truly are (that they are actually the gender they were born as). It comes down to "Is it moral to allow someone to continue believing in a lie, or to make them face the facts?" Would it be immoral to help reinforce their lie to themselves?

I would like to know how consistent people are in this. Why do we find it okay to tell the religious that they believe in a delusion, but not okay to tell this to a transgender?

Why do we find it okay to allow doctors to make money off mentally ill people to perform a sex change when that essentially counts as mutilating their body as a result of their delusion? — Harry Hindu

Wow, I didn't expect to hear a very concise and accurate description of this considering your post in my other thread:

"Your pathetic attempts at insulting me just show me that I'm wasting my time with a loser. The list of reasonable people on these forums is shrinking. Yep, Im wasting my time"

Jesus man, dealing with you is like going from the north pole to the equator in 2 seconds.

And beyond that? Or, (if one thinks of going deeper) "below" that? Is there anything below/beyond that in terms of the foundation of our identity? Perhaps. And thankfully, it may not be all that uncommon. To go deeper than one's human identity is to identity with other mammals, and with all living beings. I dare say that someone who has deeply bonded with a pet has possibly transcended a strictly human identity. And this is disregarding the strange, otherworldly hypnotic powers of pet cats. — 0 thru 9

Yes, I agree but there is a difference between identifying your place in nature and outright claiming you are lord zapikof from planet ubiquitos or that you are a female when you are a male. It is lying and/or delusional thinking. Although, I am not saying it is anyone's "fault" just like schizophrenia or cancer isn't anyone's fault.

Genetically speaking, the ability for variation to occur is a necessity for evolution to occur. What some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation. Having a high variance in sex and gender identity inherent in a gene pool may be a reflection of a healthy ability for individuals and groups to adapt to the pressures of changing cultures and environments. See the following paragraph for examples.

For someone who cannot otherwise be "happy" (in the long run for static psychological reasons, not a child's whim as some parents seem to think is the same thing), that's the only purpose that it needs to serve. If by being happy they can become a more productive member of society, then it will have been worth it to let them live out life as the gender of their choosing, presuming that we have moral or ethical purchase on their personal decisions in the first place.

Beyond that though, there are all kinds of social situations where "gender bending" fits right in; stress relief. When groups of men are on their own for extended periods of time, such as in prison, while on long hunting trips, and during extended war, transsexuals or individuals who can easily transition into a typically feminine role, would eventually become quite popular indeed... In our tree-dwelling evolutionary history we were most likely some kind of pan-sexual gender bending nymphomaniacs at some point who took every opportunity possible to have sex just for the stress relief that it can provide. Bonobos (a great ape) notably are up to this behavior all day long and in the reality of their social structures it serves a useful purpose.

Whether instances of transgenderism are just accidental but necessary evolutionary spandrels which appear as anomalies in population groups (due to how gender and genetics (or the psychology of gender) works), or is an actually load bearing part of our evolutionary history of genetic adaptation and resulting adaptability, I cannot say, but what I can say is that since nobody has a moral obligation to birth or sire 2.6 children and a dog, it doesn't really matter what gender people choose live as. If that's required for their happiness, then I would argue we're morally obligated not to interfere with them unless they are causing some kind of actual harm. — VagabondSpectre

I did read that and found now evidence to conclude that transgenderism is somehow beneficial in terms of genetic variation.

Do you have any examples of how what some call aberration can eventually turn out to be indispensable innovation in the past in humans or other animals?

Also, I would like to say I agree with you that when a transgender has already made their decision then it would cause them suffering to force them not to live their life out as a transgender but... that is because the issue should be resolved before it starts. Prevention is better than cure. It is like a fungal growth of which the treatment is painful, to let it grow isn't the solution.

For real though: the baby train is not under threat; we will not all be transgender one day; developmental variance is a function of the way evolution allows us to adapt as individuals and as groups over the long run; living in confusion or depression is less mentally healthy than being happy and transgender. — VagabondSpectre

The concern wasn't so much that our survival is under thread as it was the societal acceptance over disordered thinking.

Strictly speaking it doesn't really matter how many MTF trannies there are because a couple virile men could pitch in and shoulder their share of the reproductive burden; only FTM transsexuals would actually be a throttling or limiting factor on the maximum number of babies that we ought to churn out — VagabondSpectre

Yes but it says nothing about the principle that is occurring here. It is delusional thinking to claim you are something you are not and we all saw what christianity amounted to over the last couple thousand years.

Actually there are all sorts of ways in which transgender people can benefit the species. First of all, it's important to consider that human beings don't need to be baby machines in order to contribute to society which is itself a fundamental bedrock of modern child-rearing. Individuals whose normal sexual functioning is compromised for whatever reason, be it atypical psychology or a physically damaged/incomplete set of reproductive organs, are not actually hindering the human race or it's future by failing to pass on their genes. In fact, it would be best if the very healthiest among us were the only ones to reproduce to ensure that the next generation has as healthy a gene pool as possible. — VagabondSpectre

Ok, that is a good point I have to concede that reproduction is not the be all and end all in our CURRENT society. But I also belief we should all be multiplying at the faster rate possible so that we can create more geniuses per 100,000 stupid people. Geniuses advanced our society and make life better. Thanks edison, einstein etc.

I bet a lot of people initially feel it's somehow icky to for example physically interact with a clearly transgendered person (or at least in certain combinations), but that doesn't mean they secretly think there's something unacceptable about that person or their choices — zookeeper

Really? I think by definition if someone feels icky to physically interact with a clearly transgendered person then it means they think there is something unacceptable about that person or their choices. Otherwise they wouldn't feel icky.

As Bitter Crank pointed out, it isn't really an important matter. Never lose the perspective, this surely isn't an issue of human survival.

All of these issues are far more used as examples how wrong the World has gone, how much that SJW mentality dominates us, how far too permissive the society has become, and because of this, it's going down the drain. Part of it is the age old idea of that our society has become decadent and loosing it's steam, has seen already it's best days, the Untergang des Abendlandes attitude. — ssu

Thanks for being earnest and agreeing with me, you call it as it is. I had a debate about political correctness on here which discussed this in much detail but as you say most people can't see the error in their own self-assured tactics of pumping up their own ego through promoting irrational system of common sense PC thought: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/page/p1#OP

I didn't know that an SJW is defined as:

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

That's "naturalistic fallacy". But there is an axiom, "evolution is always smarter than us". There may be valid reasons for a species to not be exclusively preoccupied with reproduction. — swstephe

I can see why you would say that, but I am just talking about practicality here. I am not saying what is natural is best but what is most practical is best. It just so happens that what is our fundamental biological nature (reproduction) IS most practical and therefor to say it is the opposite is false.

There are theories that we all do exactly that anyway. Like Simone de Beauvoir says, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". In that sense, the social definition of "woman" is not biological, but how closely someone conforms to social expectations. But it is good that what you say means that "maturity" is rejecting pretension and choosing another role. — swstephe

By definition, a female baby is always born as a female. A woman is a mature female and therefor de beauvoir is right in that you grow in to one. BUT to be a woman necessitates you be a female in the first place, by definition that is. To say you are a woman when you are a man is frankly absurd, I might as well say I am a peanut and not a human.

Because a society which decides what is acceptable, (if it doesn't bother anyone else), is oppressive and nobody wants to live in an oppressive society? Does it have any benefit on society whatsoever to enforce arbitrary rules? If so, why not enforce even more arbitrary rules? — swstephe

Then our society must be oppressive, because viewpoints are being imprinted on people whether they like it or not. Most of the just gobble it up without second-guessing or analysing at all.

Evolution has probably already found a balance for humanity, and strict binary gender roles apparently hasn't worked yet — swstephe

It hasn't worked? Like it hasn't worked in making 7 billion people over the last 50,000 years?

As above, I don't think we should be ruled by "rowdy disorder" or "social codes". I don't think it is moral relativism, but more apply the current standards of individual rights and responsibility. Once society takes on the role of decided what individuals are required to do, then it robs individuals of their rights and responsibility. We are no longer rational agents, but just extensions of some arbitrary social conventions.

In a way, maybe your reaction, (that a transgendered position), being so offensive is exactly the point. It is evolutionary pressure pushing back on being too restrictive, preventing us to adapt to novel conditions and experiences. If nobody ever dares behave in any way that might offend you, we might very well be headed for extinction for failure to adapt. — swstephe

In one sense you are agreeing with me and in another disagreeing.

You agree that society takes on the role of deciding what individuals are required to believe is ethical and that social conventions currently force people to accept gays, transgender etc. and that such a thing is oppression.

You disagree with me in that transgender is a disorder. You seem to view it as "an adaption towards novel conditions". But what is novel about pretending to be a peanut? Or saying that you are God? It is all deranged thinking and is in no way any more practical, reasonable are novel in any way shape or form.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you? — Benkei

Who you are means what you physically are. If you are a human you can't say you are an octopus without pretending to be one. If you are a female, you can't say you are a male without pretending to be one. Just like an apple is not a banana not matter how much you say it is.

For everything else, like fashion, social position etc... then yes, you do. If you want to be a gangster you have to pretend to be one until you do it for long enough that it is natural for you to be it and can't be anything else.

:D

Well... just a teensy bit harsh, perhaps. If everyone were gay or transgendered, we would be in deep doo doo. Fortunately for the species' future the rate is quite low. Out of a population of 320 million, there are perhaps 3 to 5 million gay men and maybe a million transexuals in the US. That's a low rate. It's a lower rate than than the rate of heterosexuals who are not reproducing themselves. If you are worried about the future of the species, get on all those heterosexuals who aren't breeding.

These days we tend to not find ways in which we are all alike. We tend to find ways in which some of us are very different, and then we make a big deal out of the difference and the lack of acceptance. Like the enormous suffering of transgendered Somali community (all 3 of them in this town).

I think we would be better off understanding that gay people, celibate people, transgender people, and so on think, act, and function pretty much like everybody else in all sorts of consequential ways. Of course there are differences in sexual behavior between gay men and straight men, but compared to the similarities in occupational, intellectual, or recreational performance, sexual object choice is kind of minor. — Bitter Crank

Well, I by no means want to cause offense, I just want to investigate how I might be wrong in my thinking here.

What do you think about what I said about gays having a disorder of the mind? Isn't it counter-evolution and therefor going AGAINST your own fundamental nature? IE the square cube does NOT, i repeat, DOES NOT fit in to the circular hole... so why are you trying to make it?

Homosexuality is like spending decades preparing for a nice meal (child growth), only to throw it all on the floor and gargle acid down instead (something that is not nutritional and goes against what our biology is there for, namely, to eat food in this sense).

Evolutionary speaking your counterfactual example is absurd. You don't all of a sudden become a transgender so an entire society won't either. It's a deviation from the norm but that doesn't make it wrong. Down syndrome is a deviation too as is my red hair. Neither are reasons to condemn gingers or mentally retarded people as doing something wrong.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you? — Benkei

This is the politically correct opinion, which I don't agree with.

How can you say down syndrome is only a "deviation from the norm"? It is a downright disease of the human condition and it as preposterous that we accept it, it is like cancer, it should be eradicated because it serves no purpose other than wasting our resources like time, money, food and much more.

Effectively what you are advocating is like advocating that we accept new humans in to this world with no arms or legs, as if that is acceptable. Down Syndrome are akin to people with out arms or legs in the sense that they have not full capacity of the human organism, they are disabled. Likewise, those with terminal cancer are disabled from full health capacity of the human organism and yet we look at it as if it is abhorrent and should be eradicated. Likewise disorders of the mind should be abhorrent and be eradicated just like cancer or any other disease and not looked on as something that is welcomed in society.

Why would you welcome and accept any disorder that cripples humans and wastes their resources? This is a-like narrow-minded politicians who make suicide illegal so that people in pain with terminal illness have to wait out months in agony just because bigoted conservative assholes won't let them be at peace. To hell with your bigoted, conservative political correctness.