If that's what sushi meant, I'd to hear more about the conceptual distinction. To what does it correspond? — J

Are you going to ask for the conceptual distinction between Hesperus and Phosphorus too. I am not being facetious here, maybe there is value in this? I have been interested in phenomenology for a long time now.

This from the link:

What does it mean to believe? The traditional philosophical view of belief is that it's a rational cognitive affair, evidence based and directed toward truth. According to this account, things like delusion and religious belief are "edge cases", exceptions that prove the rule. But this week we're considering not only that belief may be closely tied to emotion, but that it may actually be a form of emotion itself.

Is gibberish. No neuroscientist would pay any real attention to what is being said here because it is so wide of the mark.

The hidden premise is that rational thought and emotional thought are separate entities. This is, as I said initially, equivalent to people believing the left hemisphere is rational and the right is emotional.

So you are asking about what consciousness is then? I have no answer for that.

Everything that is consciousness is directedness. Ergo, there is always emotional content. What we feel is driven and what is driven is felt.

what part of belief is cognitive, what is connotative, and how do they relate? — Banno

You believe this is a valid question. I do not believe it is a valid question. I may be taking the 'part' as a literally distinction. Do you you believe the left hemisphere of your brain is logical and your right hemisphere is emotional? Some people still believe this. It is massive misrepresentation of brain function.

If I attempt to read into what you are asking as meaning "what is it that moves us more towards logical analysis than to listen to our intuition" I would probably say the novelty of the experience and the time we have to think about it play a major role in this. Low resolution heuristics that work on multiple fronts are a good stop gap. With more time to mull over and get to the bottom of something undoubtedly we apply more rigour if the set of circumstances allow.

Maybe you are referring to unconscious brain activity? Even there I would be sceptical, but a little more open maybe (not a lot).

If I am way off the mark of what you are asking questions about let me know. Good chance I am :)

I guess it does help for open discussions. Would've helped though. What may end up happening now is a back and forth simply to understand why this person arrived at this point and how such and such a point is related to the topic.

Reading lists are helpful BUT when claims are made in-texts citations should be used.

Rather I’m interested in the idea of a blended state, where a belief is seen as consisting of both cognition and feelings. — Banno

This is a fact rather than an idea. Reason and emotion are not discrete entities. This is a hurdle it will probably take several more decades for people to get over in all academic fields and likely a century more before in bleeds into common public knowledge.

In philosophical parlance it might be better to frame this all as 'intentionality'? Or maybe not.

All reflect Nozick’s suspicion of planned outcomes and preference for spontaneous association. — Moliere

Is this a vague finger pointing at 'hidden-hand'?

Reading list:
Isaiah Berlin – Two Concepts of Liberty
Hegel – Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Hannah Arendt – The Human Condition and In Between Past and Future
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Judith Butler – Precarious Life; The Psychic Life of Power
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1
Karl Marx – Capital Vol. 1
Robert Nozick – Anarchy, State and Utopia — Moliere

Would have been nice to see in-text citations to back up the claims made. I find the interpretation of Nozick to be taken at a stretch to say the least.

I felt reading this that there was an attempt to frame Nozick as stating his thoughts on these matters are to be applied to the real world. He quite explicitly give hypothetical scenarios to explore the workings of how justice is distributed through cooperative agreement and disagreement. It is necessarily simplistic as most hypotheticals are because they are exploratory tools not rules to live by.

It should also be noted that Nozick ends this book by on a very liberal individualistic note in saying no one should be forced to act against their own will, and that people can cooperate on likeminded schemes (nothing radical about this?).

The thrust of the argument seems to be more or less how the author of this piece equates what Nozick wrote to what certain individuals do in the real world today. This is missing the point of Nozick. Maybe this is the only claim here? That Nozick's exploration in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' has been taken on in too literal a sense by some.

I personal found this a little perverse in the sense that it is a work of rhetoric that seems to steer away from the substance of Nozick's and looks to sully them with people as antagonistic to their own position.

Example of a problem I had when reading this:

Nozick assumes property, contracts and social status can be justified without examining how they arose. But our capacities and entitlements depend on historical contexts that shape access and recognition. — Moliere

No he does not. He outlines a hypothetical scenario in order to explore how concepts of ownership can arise. An equal critique could be leveled at Rawl's when he talks about the 'veil of ignorance'. We all know this is not actually plausible, but we understand the general idea behind it. It is a means of exploring morality on a societal level not a rule to dictate how we live.

I am confused as to what is meant by 'Radical Individualism' especially in relation to Nozick?

I was expecting to see some mention of 'the hidden-hand'. Did I miss that?

This is very much a focus on university level undergraduate philosophy papers and how they should be written.

What has to be kept in mind is that this is a means of examiners seeing a student has read the material and understood it with an analytical eye and nothing more.

I have not read this fully yet but a quick skim brings up some trouble I have found recently when reading philosophy from a broad spectra of authors.

I have had something of a strange experience reading Byung-Chul Han year past year or so and it resonates with a lot of what is being said here.

Although I found a lot of his views intriguing there were also that seemed to be nothing more than baseless assumptions. The somewhat poetical style I am not too fussed about as long as they are then firmly translated into a formal description. As an example, Kant did use an analogy or two but very sparingly. I have seen quite a number of of philosophical pieces written over the past few decades that tend to lean far too heavily on metaphor and analogy. — I like sushi

In reply to myself ... now I have read further I see this has little to do with what this piece of writing is saying. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear the author's views on philosophical writing in general.

I would have to disagree with this though for a very particular reason:

Opinion and belief are the catalyst to philosophical enquiry, but without clear justification based on logical reason and solid evidence, philosophy will degenerate into multiple factions forever at odds with each other. — Moliere

I think there is certainly danger in getting sidetracked, but I am of the opinion that many of the greatest achievements of humanity are accidental. By going off-piste we can stumble upon fertile ground in which to plant new ideas. Sometimes nothing grows, and sometimes something does.

All that said, an underlying foundation is obviously a useful means of orientation if nothing else. I did not like reading some of Byung-Chul Han's points because they seems free-floating and in some cases flying in the face of certain pieces of evidence I happen to know of that he may not? Without substantiating his points more thoroughly it did undermine his position elsewhere as it left me doubtful about the depth and breadth of his knowledge in certain areas of science.

Many people can have differing opinions about what kind of cheese the Moon is made of, but such opinions should be put to bed once there is hard evidence showing the Moon is not made of cheese at all. A great many lines of thought in philosophy are hampered by simple ignorance of the empirical evidence available - too often to my liking!

I have not read this fully yet but a quick skim brings up some trouble I have found recently when reading philosophy from a broad spectra of authors.

I have had something of a strange experience reading Byung-Chul Han year past year or so and it resonates with a lot of what is being said here.

Although I found a lot of his views intriguing there were also that seemed to be nothing more than baseless assumptions. The somewhat poetical style I am not too fussed about as long as they are then firmly translated into a formal description. As an example, Kant did use an analogy or two but very sparingly. I have seen quite a number of of philosophical pieces written over the past few decades that tend to lean far too heavily on metaphor and analogy.

This reflects the classic liberal view of negative liberty, as defined by Isaiah Berlin: freedom from external constraint or coercion. The ideal subject is left alone to pursue personal goals. But this idea, though rhetorically powerful, proves conceptually and practically inadequate. — Moliere

Berlin's point was that Negative Liberty is better than Positive Liberty. He was warning against authoritarianism dressed up as the pursuit of liberty.

On another note, I would really have liked to have seen some comparisons with Popper's views. I would be really interest see the author's thoughts on what Popper had to say in regards to 'Open Society And It's Enemies'. There seems to be a direct parallel to what is being discussed in this essay.

I am 100% riffing here. Just want to see what ideas people can come up with.

Modesty rules pre-existed Victorian times obviously, going all the way back to the time when Adam draped his junk with a fig leaf. — Hanover

Abrahamic hang ups then. We all know about the Olympics. I just do not see this as a front runner. Important in modern society? Yes! I am looking under the hood though as I think there could possibly be more to this than meets the eye.

I recall reading about how samurai shat whenever they pleased and then people carefully gathered it up like some profound offering to give to their fields. Without a doubt Christian values have led to more prudish behavior.

How about this. I am wondering that today maybe with think of the act of defecating and bathing as a habit where it was once imbued with far more ritual and meaning than in the past. For women 'toilette' seems to hold a social significance compared to men. If we go back far enough was it held in higher regard and of higher importance for all? We are animals so territory marking may be something worth considering here?

You seem somewhat bothered by something. Not sure what it is.

Anyway, you can have the last word. Bye have fun

Everything else it is societal factors that need considering. If all women were happy to accomodate males in their exclusive places then all is well. — Malcolm Parry

Yes. Trans women are a special case of males though. The reason trans women are trans women is because they are trans women. They are not women. They are not men. They are viewed as being biological men but they are not men in the social sense.

It is uncivil to treat someone who wishes to be treated one way another way simply because it displeases you. If it is about fairness - say in sports - fair enough. If it is about treating someone with respect and dignity I see no real issue. We are not talking about delusional people, we are talking about people who feel a certain way and only want a modicum of social acceptance ... of course there are always agitators though.

If I was transgendered I am not sure how I would feel about all the attention right now. I guess it is good in one way and bad in another. The issue used as a political weapon does at least mean it has crested the hill of general acceptance.

I was honestly expecting the next big -ism in social debate to be ageism.

I wrote in plain English. It shouldn't be too hard to see how you sidestepped the main thrust of the logic.

For the sake of clarity, if there is no discernable difference, then what is the harm of trans women entering a competition for women if that is where they feel they belong? To repeat. I am talking about situations where there are mixed, female only and male only competitions.

Perhaps the reasoning is not as obvious to others as I first thought. If the choice is effectively arbitrary then it does not matter where people compete. In fact, it makes little sense to have male or female only competitions other than to follow a cultural tradition. Given that trans women classify themselves as a types of women (if not biologically female) and wish to be treated as trans women - not men in dressed - then the only reason I can see to bar them is pure prejudice.

Of course, you could argue that a man could join the women's competition too. Why not? It would make a whole lot more sense if there were no such categorical distinction if the differences in ability between the sexes was non-existent. The one situation where most of the push back comes from is that feminist movements to bring women into sports after centuries of suppression could suffer from a few trans women competing and winning. Such could be viewed as males actively suppressing women in sports. This is understandable to some degree (as financial rewards may be given to trans women instead of women). I do wonder if trans women would be willing to compete for the sake of competing without taking any monetary reward - it would be a nice gesture maybe. What also needs to be understood is that suppression of a smaller minority can be seen as just as needless. Nuances are nuances. My interest in more analytic than anything else. I am neither a woman nor a a trans woman. I have travelled enough around the world to see different attitudes to the phenomenon of transgenderism. One of the most striking things I have experienced was in Manila. There it is VERY unusual if you do not come across several trans women everyday. Why is it so common there? I have no idea. it seems strange that in a Catholic country where there is suppression of homosexuality in the power high up, that at the day-to-day experience it is more common than anywhere else I have ever visited.

Now, in comparison, if we are talking about domestic abuse where some women feel actively threatened by trans women it does make sense to also use some basic level of respect and tolerate the threat they feel if they have literally suffered severe abuse and it makes them mentally unstable and insecure.

I am NOT talking about any of this as a one way street. Plenty of trans women do not think of themselves as female and actual women, they are quite happy to state they merely wish to be treated as women, within certain limitations, and respect as a human being.

Trans women who say they are literally women do not really have my support.
Trans women who say they wish merely to be treated as if they are women have my support.
Understandably there are many grey areas and I would be against either of the above statements depending on the circumstances.

Circumstances and case by case analysis matter.

Honestly, I do not think I have a lot more to say about this. It is one curiosity of many for me not an obsession.

And "ablutions" may not be the right word. — Moliere

It is the right word. It is not the only word though. I am interested in the subconscious aspects here in relation to secular and non-secular rituals.

Yes. Not now though. That was probably a matter of convenience though as it was the only place to get hot water.

I think we are getting off track though. I am exploring the social habits of humans in general, not just in this specific period of time. I am curious as to how our attitudes have changed and why - on a psychological level rather than just one of mere convenience.

The Romans had adequate plumbing and kept bathing a defecation apart. That is one instance. This is not to say convenience does not play any roll. Even if you believe it is the main role I am interested in other factors.

I was initially thinking about such habits as becoming ritualised and how and why they became so. I wonder if there is some underlying trait that views purification as something other than physical (hygiene) and is more about mental purification - by way of isolation.

Bathrooms are private places, which explains putting toilets next to showers. — Hanover

Now. Not always.

I am not sure what nudity has to do with this. I think that is more or less Victorian era hang up.

btw I only get naked when I go to the toilet because this country is VERY hot.

I am looking at this over the span of human history.

From some brief investigations it does appear that washing and toilet facilities were kept separate (eg. Roman times). What I find particularly strange is that in purification rituals (common across all beliefs) it makes no sense to mix toilets and cleaning areas.

In the modern day plumbing technologies, and social habits, have changed this but perhaps there are certain hang ups about this?

In another area, it is undoubtedly true that feces were collected for agricultural use and this must have shaped how toilets were designed and operated. I do not buy into the idea that it is simply due to plumbing convenience as we do not find toilets, baths or showers in kitchen areas. Adjacent, yes. Combined, no.

It wasn't that long ago, you had to wash yourself in a river. — Outlander

It was a fairly long time ago ... nearly 15 years now. How did you know? Were you spying on me when I shat on the jungle floor too?

Interesting thoughts.

What strikes me is the integration of 'bathing' and 'waste disposal'. It seems like an unlikely combo, where one is refined and even sophisticated (roman bath houses or 'powder rooms') and the other is ... well, a less romantic scene!

What do you think about this strange partnership? Why on earth does anyone have a toilet located anywhere near where they clean themselves? Obviously it is practical in one sense, yet in order it seems absurd to the point of being obscene.

It is almost as if you are answering without reading. Nvrmind.

A trans woman will have the same advantages that a man has had when growing up. Why should a male be allowed to compete because they identify as a woman? — Malcolm Parry

If the playing field is level. That was my point. If there are women's, men's and unisex categories, then I think it is worth arguing that women's only events are open to trans women too. Otherwise the reasoning you use about "cultural issues" seems to apply for women but not for trans women.

When it comes to physical sports I am generally against trans women competing as trans women in women's sports. For cases where there is no discernable difference (non-physical to low end physical sports), and there are currently men competing against women in tournaments, I see no reason to bar trans women from women's events. Realistically we would be talking about one or two very passionate people interested in competing with other women as if they are a woman. What harm could this possibly cause?

No it's not. They are protected from this in Law in almost every country that it matters. — AmadeusD

I think you missed my point. How well are these laws enforced? It is a little more important than being able to use a toilet I feel.

No there isn't. Male/female. That's the line. It is the only fair, and universal one. Women in women sports know what they're signing up for competing against women. Don't violate that, and you're good. — AmadeusD

So you would take the line that it is a choice of career over personal identity? I would agree for sports such as tennis. For other sports I do not know enough about the differences between the sexes. I would imagine so-called cognitive sports like chess or poker are far more open to accepting anyone. In some areas there is no harm at all.

I imagine your only argument here would be to say that poker or chess are not 'sports'? Or are you in favour of men only poker and women only poker? Then there is snooker, which is classed as a sport. It may well be the case that men have some advantages over women in this sport too, yet it is far from obvious how - unlike tennis or football.

In some categories of sport there are mixed sex tournaments as well as individual sex tournaments. If there is no advantage in a sport is it okay for a trans woman to enter a women's tournament? Lets say in chess. If you think it is wrong I just want to know. You can have that opinion.

I think the world is unfair, and that if a trans woman wishes to compete in any hard physical sport at a professional level they should only against other trans women or be a man and compete.

Why not hope that people who have a mental state incongruent with reality are supported in reassessing that mental state to align with reality and thus ameliorate the suffering? — AmadeusD

I have hope for many people on this forum - including myself and you. We are all pretty much resistant to uncomfortable realities as we wish to survive relatively intact rather than fractured.

I recall a documentary where someone had his leg amputated because the leg felt like it wasn't his. It clearly caused him a lot of distress and he knew the reality of the situation. Nevertheless, he had the leg removed and was happy about this.

If you support antinatalist ideas based on 'harm' I find your stance here rather confusing in this light. If the only way to ameliorate suffering is to allow people to live in a certain space in the world - within certain limitations - then what is the problem? The question seems to be more about the extent of the limitations (of which we all necessarily have to live by to lesser or greater degrees).

Understandable never entails right, yeah. — fdrake

Well, I think it would be right not me make someone in a fragile state feel unnecessarily vulnerable as it would exacerbate their suffering and lengthen their period of recovery.

So, sometimes it is necessary to take into account people's feelings in regards to their personal experiences. We are talking about more extreme cases here I imagine? I am no expert on the kind of domestic violence and rape cases women suffer, but I would not be surprised to find numerous cases where 'understandable' does equate with 'right' (legal).

Maybe I am wrong though? Often enough the treatment can be more exposure to the cause of the pains?

The tennis thing is low hanging fruit. Leave it alone.

Anyone with any kind of sense understands that there are clear physiological advantages for trans women over women. The heart of that kind of debate - and what was being alluded to by fdrake - is that there is clearly a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line.

Personally I think it is more or less a case in sports where there is some contention that the person in question needs to ask themselves what is more important, their sporting career or their gender identity. This is not fair, but life offers up some more severe disadvantages to us than others. Perhaps in the relatively near future genetic engineering will put all this to bed and people can just get on being who they are without restrictions. Until then we just have to discuss and hope we can come to some better understanding.

I think it is reasonable to understand that women who have suffer severe domestic abuse from men may feel somewhat uneasy about being around trans women. This may not be completely rational, just as fearing all men would be, but given the psychological damage suffered it is perfectly understandable. In counter to this, I would not suggest that excluding ALL trans women from domestic abuse support groups ALWAYS is anything like a good idea either.

I think the major problem with all of this is we are dealing with a fringe minority and so case by case instances being far fewer leads to greater misconceptions. I imagine the interpretation of statistical facts is where Amadeus would make a counter argument.

When it comes to imprisonment my initial reaction would be that violent and sexual crimes means you have effectively crossed a line. If a trans woman goes to prison for any other crime I do not really see any problem with them being placed in a prison with women. However, this should be on a case by case basis not a one rule fits all (as with most criminal convictions).

Probably the most pressing matter - strangely not discussed - is that of employment and persons being passed over simply because they are trans. This is a tricky double-edged sword just as it is with issues of race. Some will try to abuse the system to get what they believe they deserve. Some are taken in by a sense of victimhood.

Overall, it seems this is just a phase people tend to go through (usually in young adulthood). What can actually be done about this? I am at a loss. I guess we just have to keep on discussing, try to listen more effectively, and not get bogged down in semi-redundant specifics too much. Meaning, avoid applying very particular cases to broader representations of societal (dys)function.

Women do that for us to save us the bother thankfully! :D

I was asking a question. You didn't answer. No problem.

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise. — Harry Hindu

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions. — Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;)

You do accept that the difference is as good as universal though? There is far less than 1% difference (to the point where it would be described as statistically universal). Not sure why you are picking hairs here tbh.

It is 6 years and I only said anything here as it seemed to be revived due to definition of 'Woman' in UK.

Haven't you noticed the ambiguity? — unenlightened

Point them out. If there are 'ambiguities' then clearly (or not) some may not. Exactly what do you have a problem with?

There are differences between sexes that matter and need to be taken into consideration when it comes to how we interact with each other.

Sex is actually an important part of the human species as well as human social life. Haven't you noticed this?

If you are interested I wrote some gibberish here: https://matthewroffey.substack.com/p/the-state-of-beauty-part-i?r=48ctos

He viewed On the Aesthetic Education of Man as his best work. It really does explore more than mere 'Aesthetics' and looks to approach a means of uniting two distinct parts of human society.

Far from universal meaning what? In less than 1% of cases? I guess you could try and argue that far less than 1% is "far from universal," but you would then have to state that babies born with two arms is "far from universal" as well.

Why?

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom? — Harry Hindu

To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference.

Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that).

I think looking at specific cases is kind of trivial. Some people are idiots and some are not. Some people are violent and others are not. Some wish to cause harm and other do not.

We do certainly have to appreciate that certain behaviors have no physiological evidence. For example, being homosexual is not discernable by looking at someone's DNA anymore than being psychopathic is (although I am aware of the former being partially possible).

One thing is for sure. I should not be committing an illegal act for pointing out that someone is a man, fat, black or any other number of things.

I was once verbally 'attacked' for apparently calling someone 'fat,' when in fact the situation was that a girl with literally two chins (clearly obese) stated to everyone around the table that she was NOT fat. I simply said, without hesitation, "Yes, you are. I am not bothered by it. If you are it is your problem." or something along those lines. the fact that the vast majority of people around the table had a go at me, and others remained silent, is why these things come into the public eye.

People shouldn't be gagged if they disagree, but inevitably they will be from time to time. The very fact that these topics are contested is a good sign, even if the manner in which we repeatedly fuck up as a species is annoying. Apathy is probably worse - even if this derails the antagonists!