It doesn’t matter what your opinion is here.

Compassion is classed as a feminine trait. You cannot simply change how language is used to suit our needs and beliefs and expect everyone else to get on board … which is kind of what some here are arguing against when saying female and woman are the same thing. Colloquially I agree that gender and sex and used synonymously and we’ve yet to fully adjust to technical terminology.

If rules contradict each other are they rules?

A big problem I have with Schopenhauer framing life viewed in reference to ‘suffering’ is that he states that all ‘fighting’ and ‘struggling’ involves suffering. Also, the idea of ‘disssatifcation’ only holds if the world is viewed as black and white, where people are either satisfied or not with no apparent room for partial dis/satisfaction.

If we ‘suffer’ in the form of ‘dissatisfaction’ (weak form of suffering in my mind) then is this not balanced by places where we are satisfied in the very same moment?

As a simple example of human life I take satisfaction in drawing and I am sometimes dissatisfied with what I produce somewhere along the way too. The ‘suffering’ of dissatisfaction here is merely seen as a way to reflect on my situation and what I am attempting/producing.

If this is then taken into the realm of moral theory then I am assuming you and Schopenhauer are/were striving (‘suffering’) to produce a better moral theory. It kind if follows that we should not strive for a better moral theory because such is suffering and suffering is necessarily worse than not suffering (as you have stated elsewhere).

Maybe you can comment on this a bit?

Thanks

Is ‘striving’ the same as ‘challenging yourself’ in your mind?

Is ‘striving’ necessarily something negative, as it appears you are implying it is?

Are all hobbies, loves, likes and passions merely purposeful ‘distractions’ from the reality of inevitable existential angst?

Also, I have always been puzzled by the idea that asceticism is somehow viewed as ‘abstaining’ when it is actually just a means to achieve the best situation. It cannot be a selfless act if it made as if it is thought to be ‘better’ than what others are doing.

It is the idea of ‘doctrine’ itself I have issue with in any religious format.

I addressed this all on other page by agreeing with Praxis. I was just checking for clarification of how they meant ‘feminine’.

It was cleared up. End of story … you probably missed it.

The KEY point was that a ‘feminine’ trait is not a ‘female’ trait. The example I gave was ‘compassion’ … clearly men and women both possess ‘compassion’.

If we are talking about personality traits and differences between the sexes; there is not a massive difference at all. In fact, taking any random woman or man from the street and having them take a personality test then showing said test to a qualified psychologist and asking them ‘which is a man and which is woman’ would get you the answer ‘I have no clue whatsoever’.

The differences are averages across huge samples. Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. Psychologically the differences are all that pronounced at all.

Therefore ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits are, at best vaguely associated with one sex or the other, but it is nothing like a hard fast rule of thumb. Due to basic distribution the differences do stick out more often than not at the extremes.

And please note that ‘pink’ is generally considered a ‘feminine’ colour today around the globe. This is a modern cultural shift away from Catholicism - blue for virgin Mary was associated with girls and pink boys.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding here. If not so be it.

So compassion is a feminine characteristic and you know of no men who are compassionate? Maybe noting that will help you understand that mere categories set up for convenience are not actual reflections of reality. As I said, ‘race’ is meaningless in its scientific technical sense when people talk about being this or that ‘race’.

You have never studied and Spanish, French or German? There are plenty of example where mundane objects are given masculine or feminine labels.

Then there is pink. Is pink ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’? Did you know that only a few generations ago newborn boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue.

Trends change. Biology doesn’t - at least not so fast.

Colours, tables, houses … the list goes on.

But the point was that it is an old term (like ‘race’) that has morphed into some other meaning depending on context.

I would recommend looking for some discord channels that suit. There was a guy here who invited people to join book chat thing. Good entry level stuff I think.

Here it is a mixed bag. Sometimes it get ‘philosophical’ sometimes it is like a school playground :D

Okay. All good. Just fishing for clarity :)

It is a VERY good point that shows the problem some people have with distinguishing ‘gender’ from ‘sex’.

Thanks

Feminine does not mean female any more than masculine means male. It is unfortunate that those are the terms used now just like ‘race’ is used to describe cultural groups rather than actual different ‘races’.

A terminology overhaul is quite a difficult thing to do and takes time.

Where all of this started, for me, was with the conviction that ideas (not information) are real in their own right, and not because they're derived from or supersede on (neuro)physical matter. — Wayfarer

Can you expand this a bit? ‘Ideas’ ?

As Stephen Fry put it “bone cancer in children?”

Thanks for the cryptic bullshit your highness

Sorry, brain fart! I meant phase space.

something he wrote 25 yrs ago for popular science books? Be serious!

What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist.

Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible.

I have the feeling the Peterson had not even bothered to read anything Penrose had written or done?

The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him.

Penrose’s time would have been better spent if Peterson had actually done some research. Some of the questions were silly. Just goes to show how pretentious Peterson can be sometimes by suggesting x or y from outside his field of expertise can possibly back up any idea he has that springs to mind.

At least when he gets to talk to Dawkins it could be interesting. I have felt for a long time that Dawkins goes overboard a little and that Peterson has a pretty damn good point to make with the connection between memes and Jungian archetypes … I hope he stays on topic because it would do Dawkins a lot of good to look more carefully at this.

Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. He is someone who probably won’t be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo!

Fuck off … please?

It is basic physics - but hard to get your head around too so ‘basic’ does not mean it isn’t mind blowing!

Everything with mass ‘feels’ time/change. Things without out mass do not - time does not exist for them.

What is called ‘logical’ in common parse has only a small connection to logic.

Time is only a thing for mass.

Possibly. The general view as the concept of god growing from a ‘loss of parental guidance’ thingy theory is kind of along those lines too. I don’t buy that completely, but it likely plays a part in human psychology.

Cause and effect is quite distinct from logical necessity. One deals with physical reality (space-time), whilst the other cares not a jot for it.

Anyway, thanks for making your points. I think I am getting some idea what this thread is about now.

There seems to be a conflation of physics and mathematics mixed in with conscious experience. Messy, as it appears the OP is driving at a mixed question - conflating mathematics and physical reality - and trying to tackle it philosophically.

I might be wrong. If I am right it is going nowhere fast.

That doesn’t exist. It is an abstraction.

Time is not a thing anyway. It is just our poor human way of measuring something we don’t understand much about (something called entropy).

I still don’t get what is going on here?

Logical Necessity is not Physical Necessity. One deals in the abstract (where causality is of no consequence) and the other deals with, well, physical stuff (ie. Physics). In physics it is quite plain to see that causation plays a part … I am clearly missing something.

I will just read instead

The origin is probably little more than a physical craving for something and some belief that it can be obtained. Hunger/Thirst is likely the ‘first’ prayer to arise in a conscious being that had a reasonable enough appreciation of its place in an environment.

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.