Our appreciation of change (‘time’) is a logical necessity for causal experience. That is a vague connection I guess?

For the empirical sciences ‘causality’ is a ‘logical necessity’. If not experimentation would be pointless.

What am I missing coming late to this discussion?

This seems to remind me of Penrose’s view that there are three main realms, mathematical, consciousness, and physical (physics). They all relate, but all have distinctive features.

Sexual preferences don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender dysphoria (or whatever you wish to label it). That said, it could be argued that societal demands play into this a little. Generally speaking many people have an ‘experimentational’ phase, usually when younger I believe? Children certainly mimic and role play as this is a great way to understand others and themselves.

All we can say with any certainty is that there is a significant minority that feel like they were born as the wrong sex and that this is just part of humanity and has been for as long as history has been written.

You will probably find this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxDDqi2tBg

This turned boring quickly. Use your own judgment I really don’t care what you think or if you have weird interactions with your friends where you don’t ever use pronouns.

And fuck off.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again? Trans women are NOT women. But to use pronouns that correspond to how someone appears is what we do everyday.

To refer to them ‘as a woman’ is to use she/her. That is all. Maybe I am one of the few people here who is not obsessed with identity politics and just sees a human being trying to fit in as best they can.

I recommend travelling to Manila. You will see plenty of transgender women every day in every day jobs with everyone just going on about their business. For some reason there are hang ups about this in western society.

I’m bored talking about this so ignore me if I sound a bit short. I can only say the same thing so many ways.

Pretty sure the OP didn’t stipulate ‘philosophy books’ in particular or I would have answered differently.

For ‘must reads’ I have a fairly limited span in philosophical works but I would say:

- Critique of Pure Reason, because it is a challenge to read and requires concentration and study to get to grips with, as well as being one of the most important philosophical work ever produced.

- The Republic, because it is a great insight in ancient Greece and the origins of western philosophy.

- Being and Time, because it is awful yet a completely different and evasive style of writing that offers some nice points but ultimately outlines the border between meaningless drivel and brilliance.

- Something by Nietzsche, but do not start with Thus Spake … as he, like Heidegger, introduces a different style of writing to the world of philosophy.

- Philosophical Investigations, because it tackles important issues about language and language use, as well as being an amalgam of of ideas/thoughts.

I think these five give a pretty nice map of philosophy in terms of approach and style.

I still think Critique of Pure Reason is an essential read for anyone serious about philosophy. Second in line would probably be Being and Time. Not that I am a fan of Heidegger exactly, I just think it is important to see how obtuse philosophical texts can get and where, more or less, things went a bit off the rails.

So you propose a whole new set of pronouns for trans women? You think it is somehow bizarre to refer to someone who clearly looks feminine as ‘she’/‘her’? That makes no sense, especially if your intent is merely to cause needless conflict over an issue that hardly ever arises.

Anyway, you don’t seem to have a sensible/reasonable thing to say so I’ll leave you to it.

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female nor would I say they are female. ‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’. In such a situation, for clarification, I would say that trans woman.

It is really not that complicated.

It's only when the trans person is your socioeconomic equal that the trans issue comes up. — baker

That is a weird lens you have on the world. People are people. What the hell has economic status got to do with how you treat people?

Duck that! In that kind if situation I would strongly oppose any ‘demand’. As a basic common courtesy I am happy to refer to people as they wish to be referred to as long as a song and dance is not made about it (that would make me suspicious).

I don’t see any ‘falsity’? Why is referring to someone who has the outward appearance of a woman ‘she’/‘her’ a ‘falsity’ in your eyes?

I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. At best it is not something we can talk about because it is beyond our comprehension and even pretending to talk about it here (like this) is contrary.

Anything might be possible. We don’t seem to know and work with the tiny window we have and that window is ‘existence’.

A percentage does not mean probability. He was just making clear that he is not all knowing just like they say bleach kills 99.9% of bacteria dead - because they cannot possibly test it on ALL bacteria but in reality it almost certainly does kill literally 100% of bacteria.

That is a disingenuous line of questioning. I never said anything about ‘sacrificing truth’ I simply stated I am happy to you a ‘cunt’ if you so wished or ‘king of the world’ … well probably neither of those in all honesty :D there are extremes I would stop at.

I don’t believe the delusion of being a king is comparable. I have not been anywhere in the world where there was a predominate minority of people believing they are kings. Correct me if I am wrong? Whilst when it comes to gender issues there is a very obvious minority stretching back through human history who ‘feel’ like the opposite sex of what their genitals say.

If you wish to offend people for nothing go ahead. I have no issue with it really. If said people are my friends I would though. Point being there are boundaries and a reasonable degree of friendliness is not writ in law but it will be judged by people nevertheless.

I don’t care for the ‘law’ tbh. I just use my own judgment because I think I’m old enough and experienced enough to dictate what I believe it right or wrong (reasonably well at least!).

If some radical politically charged trans woman came up to me and started ranting that I should always call her a woman I would tell her to get the fuck out of my face and stop disgracing herself by accosting me when I was out and about minding my own business. In the same light I hope you wouldn’t march up to someone you perceived as ‘a man in a dress’ and start lecturing them about how delusional they are and that they are bothering you by silently suggesting they are a woman when you know they are a man.

Is that a silly enough place you were hoping to get to in this discussion?

I the bigger picture I don’t think we create ‘equilibrium’ (let us call it) in order to ‘get comfy’.

I honestly see it that we do this simply to create a semblance of balance in order to measure from.

When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control.

At base it appears to all be about learning or, in mechanical terms, about collecting and regulating information in order to facilitate more of the same.

In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least.

This is not about you? Forget it. Maybe someone else has something to say even though it is off topic.

I think it was Schiller who said something like ‘if things work perfectly well humans will take them apart to see how it works/ give them something to do’.

Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state.

What mad man actually craves absolute liberation? Not me for sure! There is only so much one can carry on their back ;)

Animals that have evolved. Animals that are not exactly born ‘self-conscious’ as far as we know.

How the brain adapts to the environment in vitro and when exposed to the world may actually provide us with some insights into how we arrive at ‘boredom’ and whether it is viable to state that ‘boredom’ is the baseline for conscious beings.

Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that.

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him.

Politeness in this circumstance has nothing to do with some weird inner dictionary definition of ‘woman’. Undoubtedly, as mentioned, it is possible I am unsure about whether someone perceives/conveys themselves as x or y, in which case I would just probably ask if necessary and suffer the consequences of potentially offending them (they would be rare cases).

Maybe being exposed to trans women more often than many in the western world has coloured my view? I have no idea? It just seems pretty obvious to me how to behave in a reasonable manner to people who are different to me in terms of how they perceive their own identity. God knows we all have some kind of identity crisis at some stage in our lives, that is just the way things are.

I’m not crossing over into sexism here. The same basic rules apply.

That is why I mentioned youth and novelty before. I have read some of his stuff.

I’ll have to look into what neuroscience has to offer about boredom and the brain one day.

I am not convinced ‘boredom’ is our natural state. I think humans, and most life as far as I can see, are at base about exploration of a sort. I think boredom hits when we have been exposed to too many or to few options.

Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously!

I think we’re roughly on the same page.

Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more.

I think it goes without saying that work is required to live? I guess the transition from ‘animal nature’ (based on hand to mouth living) has always felt rewarding because ‘not dying’ is pretty good.

Projecting that into the modern world and humans I don’t quite understand your tone or what your reply means/says?

My point was just that a life of luxury and abundance seems hard to enjoy for anyone who does not believe they deserve it. Granted, many people exist that feel like they deserve everything for nothing … they usually grow up at some point though or turn to crime. Generally a price is paid no matter what.

I still view ‘boredom’ as psychological warning. Sometimes we react to it in the wrong manner. During lockdown a great many have felt the mental strain because they come to realise that they have been ‘working’ from day-to-day without thinking (maybe that is your ‘guilty’ group?), and having to face up to what they consider important underneath causes existential angst.

I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say?

I don’t want to show anything.

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. Plus, on the continent unisex is common enough already.

It mainly an issue for Americas, UK, Aussieland and NZ I expect.

Once CRISPR makes a little headway it will be possible to literally convert sexes. As for pregnancies … would need to do some wiggling around to produce eggs/sperm ‘artificially’ most likely. The whole procreation problem might not be so easy to overcome (at least for converting to female!).

We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness.

As a species it seems we cannot help but bifurcate everything we come across then clumsily categorise as this or that kind of antonym.

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances.

Nothing wrong with this, it is just what humans do and it has been damn effective - even with the problems it carries along.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. Many people will say they want to be happy, but they ignore everything but the idea of this false goal. To be happy is more for children, and it is a fleeting and pointless feeling compared to everything else that happens to us before and after some insignificant little ‘inner glow’ we get (or however else you care to define ‘being happy’).

Happy is not something you do, not something you feel, it is an after thought to glimpse of something that touches us in a way we cannot really articulate.

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail :D

Toilets are irrelevant. Plenty of countries have unisex toilets so I see no issue with anyone using any toilet.

Currently men and women cannot be physically changed to match the physicality of those sexes. Perhaps in the future CRISPR will allow people to change completely. As scientific knowhow stands, the physical differences (in terms of strength) cannot be levelled.

If I could literally change into a female overnight I would definitely give it a try (as long as I could revert back to being male). Who wouldn’t out of sheer curiosity?

We created the white and black balls. The human experiences and feeling are only partially, and imperfectly, captured in mere worded terms.

To be ‘happy’ is probably the most mundane and shitty term I have come to realise as utter nonsense over time. No one is ‘happy’ because ‘happy’ is nothing. It is a weird ‘after the matter of fact’ judgement imposed on us. Yet it is nebulous enough to carry the core of the experience/feeling that makes us feel like we can say ‘we are happy’. It is drivel though :D

Overall I don’t really see how a ‘better sense of humour’ would massively impact on sexual selection and general success.

If you are a caring individual that goes a long way. On top of that, if you are skilled/smart then you will go further still. A sense of humour seems more or less to be a little extra.

When it comes to social environments women tend to select men who earn more (can provide), show forms of protection (financially/physically) and/or are capable of developing friendships within the social structure. Humour could act as a detriment as it could act as a benefit.

I have a pretty good sense of humour but it veers from silly to dark, which can rub people up the wrong way. I am not exactly a very sociable person though, but I have made groups of stranger laugh out loud on public transport on a few occasions when in a high mood.

Have you ever been tempted to try stand up comedy? It is something I think about from time to time.

I don’t think either are ‘choices’. They are necessary life experiences. Without them life would be … null/grey/meaningless/void.

The pessimist exists merely because of optimism not in spire of it.

I genuinely believe life is fine. The burdens are the meat of life. Without burdens we have nothing. The time to reflect between basic sustenance can be viewed with pessimism or optimism. At some point in everyone’s life they will feel both, but some will feel one side more strongly than the other.

Work hard and play hard seems like a simple and effective life rule. Life feels good when at the end of the day I can lay back and know I have achieved something.

Boredom is certainly a window into the existential crisis. Boredom is just something inside telling you to reassess your life in some way. Avoiding problems is also something people do a lot. Bad combination! The key is to embrace the so-called ‘suffering’ and surprise surprise, it practically always turns out for the overall betterment.

To strive and to overcome. Little holds more ‘joy’ in life.

You marked yourself as an ‘anti-theist’ here. The point being an anti-theist can be critical about certain aspects a theist holds.

You did not originally state ‘I am critical of and reject theism’ you merely outlined you were anti-theist.

Again though, my interest here is in how we take the term ‘anti-‘ in different contexts. We would call someone who is ‘anti-women’s rights’ something more or less like a bigot, yet when it comes to ‘anti-nazism’ we would not call them bigots because we perceive their stance and highly irrational and actively damaging.

The question is then where anti-theism can fall? I can see that some would look superficially at religious beliefs as ‘childish’ and therefore deem their stance to be opposing, as I put it, ‘irrational and actively damaging’. That is a reasonable argument in some cases, but it would partially involve actively opposing anyone who participates in and encourages such ‘irrational and actively damaging’ traditions, right?

I am certainly not stating there is a clear answer to this. I am just trying to look for a way around the clear statement that hostility towards nazis is not considered bigotry. I think my issue here is in dealing with the idea as if separate from the individual. If a human lives by certain ideals we find abhorrent then we find them abhorrent because they hold such ideals, rather than saying they are not abhorrent they just hold to certain ideals I find abhorrent.

It is precisely in this confusion that a great deal of needless hostility and patronising tones come to the fore when religious beliefs are being discussed.

A quick grab from wiki is enough to show the diversity of the term:

- “Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. C. Hitchens (2001) writes

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."”

I would say that Hitchen’s is kind of bigoted here. He is clearly stating active opposition and hostility to religions. The details of how far he takes this are something else. As for someone like Dawkins, he is happy for people to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t adversely effect others.

Then there is the bottomless argument of anyone who exists necessarily having a negative effect on someone else somewhere some how. The ‘intent’ alone seems unimportant if pure ignorance causes untold harm and damage to many people.

My view in regards to bigotry is that if someone cannot find a single positive reason for an argument they are veering into bigotry or already bigoted. The manner in which Hitchens conveys his view suggests that his judgement is made on the net effect (“- positively harmful.”).

If you don’t care about this fair enough. NP

It is something that I find intriguing and problematic.

An existential crisis is an existential crisis.

This seems to arise with age more readily. In youth everything is fresh and new, the horizons seem limitless and our potential to develop and learn in growing exponentially. It is no wonder that an ‘existential crisis’ hits at some point because we ‘slow down’ - or rather seem to.

The key is to recapture our inner child and see how fascinating the world IS (not can be!).

As children we did not really ask why we were asking why. I think it is at that threshold when the ‘existential crisis’ rears its head. The ‘why’ is approachable, but the ‘why of the why’ leaves us feeling adrift rather fascinated.

From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’.

Is this an ‘illusion’ to feel that I have ‘achieved’ something that warrants me time to pursue more apparently frivolous activities? I am not convinced it is an illusion because if it is then what is not an illusion? Does ‘illusion’ mean anything if everything we experience is called an ‘illusion’? If ‘illusion’ is all we know then said ‘illusion’ is nothing more than our lived reality.

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification.

I can only assume you don’t take part in physical sports? There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if trans women competed in physical sports. They would break all the women’s records and rank high. This is simply a fact.

Women’s sport dominated by trans women is not women’s sport. There is a reason men and women do not compete together in nearly every sport. The men are FAR stronger and have better stamina too.

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

The ‘supernatural’ cannot be proven as it falls outside of natural sciences.

Atheist is a term coined by religious folk. Atheist movements have happened to better education and healthcare.

But the term ANTI- does. Not always, but it certainly can imply hostility..

Why are you acting like I have not made that clear as day you stubborn fool.

Kant if you are serious ;)

Crime and Punishment is certainly one I’d highly recommend to most people (and have done). 1984 was one that really cut through the nonsense and conveyed a message everyone needs to take seriously though.

1) Not really. It has been tried with children but simply doesn’t work. If it was to be made mandatory then most people can perform basic logical problems if they are set in a real world context.

If you pose the same logical problem to people where one is in an abstract form and the other is in a life context then way more people get the correct answer for the ‘life context’ version.

Today most students do learn logic via computer programming. It is already a part of most curriculums.

2) School funding is not really an issue when it comes to education. What makes ANY school better is the quality/passion of the teachers. Other than that the success of schools is partially (a large part) based on cultural attitudes toward the occupation of ‘teacher’.

In many western societies ‘teachers’ are not exactly respected, whereas in other countries they are very much respected.

If you wish to learn more about this I would recommend a quick search on youtube/google regarding how Finland transformed their education system.

I cannot help it if you act dickish.

If you are anti-nazism you are utterly opposed to a nazi, right? Surely that follows?

Whilst if you are anti-racism you are not necessarily opposed to ‘racists’ only those that ‘act out’ (so to speak). Generally if someone is opposed to racism they are opposed to racists, right? Of course, the devil is in the detail of what constitutes a ‘racist act’ that impairs the rights of other fellow humans.

Then splice in anti-theism and theist. ALSO note that I admitted that these are not the same thing, but it is certainly the case that anti-theism can - but does not always - mean opposed to theists.

What EXACTLY is not philosophical here? I thought I was exploring the distinctions between where bigotry begins and ends whilst you just seem, being honest, a bit petulant because I originally implied that being ‘anti-theism’ meant such was ‘bigotry’. I have REPEATEDLY, and almost immediately, altered that initial, and blithe, comment.

Just to be clear, ‘bigotry’ is open prejudice (unreasonable opposition) against persons/peoples attached to or part of certain groups.

Of course you can argue that opposition to ‘religious beliefs’ (theistic in particular) is a reasonable argument. My argument against this would be in the intricacies of what constitutes ‘theist’ (meaning what is meant by ‘god’/‘deity’). As an idea of some overarching, conscious supernatural beardy guy/gal … I’m opposed to that too. I think it is a stretch to state that that is what all theists mean when they say ‘god’/‘deity’ - judged on the hundreds I’ve personally spoken to.

Philosophy can even be considered ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid, in its efforts to assign to quantums and neurons and structures and molecules the task of building a good relationship of man with himself. — Angelo Cannata

I do not think philosophers do this tbh?

As for the ‘consciousness’ issue I tend not to bother listening to most people who have poor knowledge of the cognitive neurosciences.

Some questions are scientific and some are philosophical. As Feynmann once said, it is stupid to answer philosophical questions scientifically just as it is to answer scientific questions philosophically. The issue is knowing/understanding exactly what kind of question is being posed before jumping in to answer it.

emojis are now philosophical points? :D