I'd say that religious beliefs and similar irrational ideals were the core of most wars and conflicts. — Christoffer

We're talking about religion, not "similar irrational ideals." Here's a link to Wikipedia "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll"

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

It would be wrong to classify most of the wars listed as religious wars, even though they might have had religious components. In general, even most wars where religion was heavily involved were primarily to build empires.

I was so puzzled by how many children believed in Santa Claus, when I knew that there was no evidence for such a person. I knew that my parents gave presents to me and the chimneys were blocked. Personally, I find the idea of Santa Claus as one of the most unhelpful ideas, although I do see this as a basis for thinking about the fictionious, especially in the ideas presented to children. — Jack Cummins

I like the idea of Santa Claus. I think it, along with other things, teaches kids that the world cares for them. That they belong here. Santa certainly isn't necessary for that, but it's an important lesson children need. They need to build a world for themselves that they can trust and believe.

Not many major wars and conflicts have been done without any religious themes. — Christoffer

This is not true at all except in the most trivial sense.

So, with that in mind, what's wrong with asking if some ontological entity obtains as a fact, in resolving how it obtains as one of factual or some intersubjective sort? — Shawn

People know how to talk about Santa Claus and Pegasus the same way we know how to talk about Joe Biden and shoe horns; love and chickens; and coelacanths and electrons. After a certain age and with a certain level of education, we know what other people mean when they use these words. There isn't any confusion.

Serious question - Given all that, does it matter whether the existence or reality of something is a fact?

But if life is considered to be the greatest gift, then why are so many of us ignoring the looming erasure? Could it be that we do not actually truly believe that life is good?

If we truly feared death, then we would all be focused on figuring out how to stop it from happening. — darthbarracuda

I'm 69. I'm not ignoring my death as it get's inevitably closer, but I'm very likely to die within the next 20 years. I'm leading a pretty good life. I love my family and most of them love me. My children are people I like and respect and they like and respect me. I'm retired so I can pretty much do as I want as long as I'm not excessive, which my wife and I are not by nature. I can swim at the YMCA every day if I want.

As Woody Allen said, "I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." I don't want to live forever. 100,000,000,000 people have died since homo sapiens got started. That's 10,000 generations give or take. Grandparents, parents, children, grand children over and over 2,500 times. My great grandmother, who was still alive when I was a baby was a baby during the US Civil War. Dying is one of the most human things we can do.

I've always been interested in and good at science and math. When I was young - still in high school on into college, materialism and determinism seemed self-evident to me. After I dropped out of school, I didn't really think about it much for 20 or 30 years, even when I went back and got my engineering degree 15 years later.

When I started paying more attention to philosophy and the nature of reality, two things became clear to me. 1) the nature of reality is a metaphysical question - the various answers people have found are not true or false. They are useful or not useful in particular situations. 2) there are ways of seeing things that are more useful for me than a materialist perspective. The idea that there is an objective reality is one we can choose to follow or not without undermining the basis of science.

We can't all be mods, the mods keep this forum running, and it's a good forum. It can't simply be anything goes with no guidelines, it would devolve into chaos in a couple of nanoseconds. — Wayfarer

I agree, but the moderators still have the responsibility to provide fair, reasonable, and consistent decisions.

The rule in this forum is in the hands of an oligarchy. There may be nothing inherently wrong with that. My point is that this little group of all-powerful ppl only hears dissent AFTER it has acted...never, before. — Todd Martin

Yes. Baden et. al. are all-powerful rulers over a tiny, tiny kingdom.

Why don't we put this episode of "Bannings" out of it's misery.

I suggest that any moderator who is inclined to ban someone first publish his thoughts here, and invite the forum to weigh in on his opinion before he take action. — Todd Martin

Even I, who has taken strong exception to some of the moderator's recent bannings, think that is a terrible idea. I'm sure others will point out that the forum is not a democracy.

I'm not sure the constitutes a feature, but here goes:

There have been a few what I consider unnecessary bannings recently, in particular of fairly new members. Some of those were for people whose posts I found interesting. I am not here to relitigate those decisions, but I think the forum needs new voices. I think it is worth some effort to keep people here.

I think there should be an intermediate step before someone is banned, suspension. If someone runs afoul of the moderators, they can be suspended for two weeks or a month. That will give everyone a chance to cool off before things blow up and people get offended. In cases of particularly egregious behavior, the moderators can decide to go directly to banning. I know this has been suggested before. I've heard the arguments against it but never found them very convincing.

I’m in love with my own opinion, and I don’t want to be. I want a divorce. I want her to leave me alone. — James Riley

Thanks for the opportunity to pull out one of my favorite quotes:

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

When Emerson says "genius" he doesn't mean Einstein genius, he means our essence, self, who we are.

I couldn't see any feminist approach to Iris's comments and she didn't really make any arguments. She just kept saying that transgender people offended her sense of being a woman, — Jack Cummins

Her comments made sense to me. I can understand why a woman would be upset by the way the definition of the word "woman" being changed without a thought for the implications for women in general.

and she just kept writing repetitive posts, and not taking on board anyone else's point of view at all. — Jack Cummins

As @Bitter Crank noted, if repetitive posts were a good reason for banning, the tumbleweeds would be blowing through the empty streets of the Philosophy Forum. I also didn't see anyone else "taking on board" her point of view.

She'd been here for less than a day for goodness sakes.

He's just trying to provoke a response. The idea that Iris was banned because she's a feminist is one of the stupidest things I've heard claimed on this thread. — Baden

I don't think she was banned for being a feminist. I think she was banned for forcefully expressing a reasonable feminist position that wasn't in line with the forum's orthodoxy.

On the other hand, the claim that @Iris0 was banned for low quality posts is ridiculous.

Thank goodness. She was extremely determined in expressing her views. — Jack Cummins

I just went and looked through @Iris0's posts, such as they are. Generally they seemed on target and reasonable. It was certainly clear that she felt strongly about the transgender issue. She expressed herself harshly, but she made good points. I didn't see anything that stepped over the line.

I think this is just one more sign that strong feminists are not welcome here on the forum.

Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

I hope this doesn't seem off-topic to you. It's what came to mind when I read the above. This is from a post Wayfarer made last week.

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. — Wayfarer

Unfortunate overlap with the convo here but he insisted I was a liar and wouldn't cooperate until I admitted it. Probably, he really believed that and there wasn't much point in trying to convince him otherwise. — Baden

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Beyond that, this thread where we all say snotty things behind the backs of those who can no longer defend themselves sets a very poor example from the top. — Foghorn

This is something that has always bothered me. If it's important that the person be kicked out in order to maintain the quality of the forum, so be it. Gloating once it's done is stomach-turning. It's especially distressing when it comes from moderators.

If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, — Pinprick

It can also be defined as a lack of belief in the existence of gods. Many atheists are like that. They haven't seen any convincing evidence and haven't had any relevant personal experience. Many don't have any particular need or desire to take it any farther than that. Why put energy into something that doesn't seem relevant to your life?

The people you are talking about have a positive belief that there is no God or gods. With that belief, you have the usual problem with proving a negative. From what I've seen, most of such atheists argue from an anti-religion position. Arguments against god are used as part of an argument to de-legitimize specific religions or religion in general.

If climate change brings the hammer down on civilization, we might eventually return to Bronze Age culture, which was stagnant. But the average person would know of no alternative, so wouldn't attribute any suffering to it. — frank

Even without some sort of civilization-wide catastrophe, the Earth's population is predicted to stop growing in the next 50 to 100 years. That's when we'll find out whether a society and economy without growth can work. You and I won't be here to see. It will be interesting, but I worry for my children and their children.

That’s right. So what’s all this fuss about homosexuals demanding equal rights? People just aren’t ready for it. Oh, wait… — Joshs

How does this apply to what I wrote?

I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and delusional. — Michael

I think you and I agree at least on what the issues are and what the right questions are. Part of the reason these discussions rarely go anywhere is that people are arguing completely different issues, as you note.

Whether the initial evaluation for hormones is done by the hormone prescriber or by a mental health professional, criteria for starting hormones are the same: the presence of persistent GD, the ability to give informed consent, and relative mental health stability.

If I were certain that all these criteria were being applied effectively in the great majority of cases, a lot of my concerns would be addressed.

Of course, this came along a while ago , with works like Butler’s Gender Trouble more than 30 years ago. — Joshs

Women got the right to vote in the US 101 years ago. And that was not the beginning.

I do not only feel deeply offended by I do not understand what is there in this sort of --- strange discussions — Iris0

Seems like you are saying what I said, just more forcefully. As I said, I can understand your point. I think it's a good argument. I think I would be angry too.

no - they are at the very depth of who we are it is more than just an identity it is the entire being we are — Iris0

I agree, but I'm 69 years old. I don't know what comes next and my opinion will matter less and less the older I get. I won't be the one who has to deal with whatever changes are to come.

There is an obvious difference between a biological female and a transsexual, but you wish to call them both women because those differences are irrelevant to you day to day (but not if you were a gynecologist or surfing a dating app for example). — Hanover

Maybe this is the heart of the matter - are the differences between a biological female and a transsexual irrelevant. As you point out, there are certainly situations where they are not. Are we ready to say that, except in a limited area related to biological function and medical practice, men and women should be treated exactly the same? I'm not sure how I'd answer that.

You're welcome to live in the past if you want, but it seems strange to fight against the evolution of language. Why are you so opposed to us using the term "woman" to refer to people other than those with XX chromosomes and born with a womb, a vagina, ovaries, etc.? — Michael

I agree with most of what you've written, but I can understand the resistance to redefining the word "woman." I think many people, including many women, feel that changing the definition of "woman" is disrespectful and risky. It's taken decades, centuries to start changing the political and social status of women. Then this comes along and muddies the waters. An extreme example is the controversy about transgender women competing in women's athletics.

I especially worry that making sex redefinition too easy will hurt vulnerable people, e.g. children and the mentally ill. Medical intervention can have, will probably have, serious and irreversible effects. Adolescents and some adults are not mature and knowledgeable enough to make those kinds of decisions.

I would argue that this boom is a result primarily of liberalism. Leftism was left in the dust because it fosters stagnation. — frank

By "liberalism" do you mean a belief in progress? Seems to me that capitalism and industrialism are the primary drivers of progress. Maybe capitalism, industrialism, and liberalism in this sense are so closely intertwined that it's difficult to separate them.

I propose that in general, human societies that maximize individual satisfaction and empowerment will become stagnant. The mechanism is not so much a deadening of ambitions by satisfaction, but by a loss of a society's ability to marshall resources and labor toward a small number of goals.

On the other hand, a society that concentrates its wealth, rendering most of the population dependent for survival on a few, will naturally exhibit technological progress in proportion to that concentration — frank

You have not expressed any value judgement about the differences between a satisfied, stagnant society and a progressive society with wealth concentration. From my point of view, a society with satisfied people is the best outcome. Maybe you're asking whether continued, long-term satisfaction is possible without progress.

Good, well thought-out post.

When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions. — Harry Hindu

Words mean what people say they mean, what they act as if they mean. Calling the Earth flat doesn't change the meanings of the words "Earth" and "flat." A biological man who defines herself as a woman doesn't automatically lose her penis and testicles, but that probably isn't what she wants. She probably wants to be seen socially as a woman. Whether that's a good thing for society to allow that is open to debate, but it is something that can be accomplished by changing the dictionary.

Hold Back This Day - Ward Kendall — Gladiator of Truth

I hadn't heard of Hold Back This Day, so I looked it up. Most of the reviews I found are in white nationalist publications/websites. You won't find much sympathy for those views here on the forum. Most people who follow that path quit or are banned pretty quickly.

It is reality denying. It is unscientific. It prioritises peoples mental states over reality. We don't apply this "logic" in many areas of life. — Andrew4Handel

Be that as it may, that's the way things are. Bitch and moan. Gnash your teeth. Repeat after me "Hell in a hand basket," "Why, when I was a boy..." My prediction - this will all die down fairly quickly. It will not longer be fashionable to be transgender. Those who are left will be those with true gender dysphoria. Keep in mind that I'm almost always wrong when I make this kind of prediction.

I'll be satisfied as long as children are protected from making decisions that have serious consequences and are hard to reverse.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be. That battle is being fought vigorously on the political, legal, and social front right now.

There is a recognized psychological diagnosis - gender dysphoria - in which a person born with one biological sex feels as though they are the other. It's certainly debatable, but recognizing them as such is not necessarily unreasonable.

It certainly hasn't gone that far yet, but the legal and social differences between women and men have become less prominent, less important during my lifetime. On the other hand, there are still times when the distinction is very important, e.g. women and men often have to be treated differently medically. Even so, It's not as big a deal what people call themselves as it once was. Some people, maybe even I, might say "Who cares." Others, maybe even you, might say "I care a lot."

Exactly the kind of response you expect on this issue. — Andrew4Handel

I suspect it was exactly the kind of response you were hoping for.

Without The Philosophy Forum, and publications like the NYT, NPR, PBS, et al to contain this bubbling cauldron of controversy, bloodbaths would be a daily event. That might be a good thing were there adequate ideological oversight and guidance by the Central Committee, but alas there is not. — Bitter Crank

Come on. You know the Philosophy Forum has a bimodal membership structure. One group, including you and me, are old coots who wonder what's going on with kids these days, because when we were young things were much better and now it's going to hell in a hand basket. This group rarely if ever leaves their houses, apartments, or old folks homes. The other group is depressive, reclusive younger people who live too much in their own heads. This group rarely leaves their apartments or parent's basements.

Whatever happens, the Republic is safe, at least from us.

As I was sitting in my chair,
I knew the bottom wasn't there,
Nor legs nor back, but I just sat,
Ignoring little things like that. — baker

Definitely philosophical. I guess it's Platonic idealism. He sat in the ideal form of the chair, not the chair itself.

What has always troubled me is what would be conceived to happen if the star ship was travelling at the speed of light. — RolandTyme

According to the equations of special relativity, if a massive object such as a spaceship were to travel at the speed of light, time on the ship would stop from the point of view of observers at relative rest. The mass of the spaceship would also increase infinitely.

You need a wife old man. — Mystic

If you highlight text and then push the "quote" button that shows up, it will show up in your post with a location tag. Then we can tell to which specific post and text you are responding to.

Alternatively, if you push the arrow "reply" button on the bottom of the post you want to respond to, it will put a tag in your response showing which post it comes from.

Either one of those will make it easier to keep track of the conversation.

Good call. — Banno

Do you guys read the posts on this forum? There's a lot of mezza-mezza stuff and a reasonable amount that is interesting and worth responding to. Then there's maybe 5 or 10 percent that are really great and 30% that's pure crap. Not talking about you Banno. It's the other guys - yes, I'm referring to you. And about 15% of the members contribute that 30% crap. And that's a pretty good ratio. There's plenty to read and respond to. It's fun and interesting.

If you want to play gurus, there is a whole web-net of places to go, just not here so much. — unenlightened

Eastern philosophy is still philosophy. I consider myself as the true guru of the Philosophy Forum.

To the moderators, and everyone — Jack Cummins

It was not clear from the title that this discussion is about bannings. The moderators may not have looked at it. Hey @Baden, @StreetlightX - what's up?

I didn't like this when I started it, but the rhythm works really well. It made me pay more attention. I thought the "but and if" format was strained and pretentious, but I got into it more and more as the poem went on. It feels like a gentle poem. Dealing with contradictions without jamming our faces into them. Without saying "What about this? What about this?"

And how exactly does the fallacy of division apply to Matt's argument? — Need Logic Help

I think I've laid out my argument pretty clearly. I'll leave it at that.

What if you say that you like ALL fruit, I mean, and not tomatoes, and then find out that tomatoes are fruit. — Need Logic Help

You're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Logic is supposed to be a tool to help find the truth, not a game to find the most obscure, trivial, and convoluted examples possible.

This is from Wikipedia:

A fallacy of division is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

An example:

• The second grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
• Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson elementary
• Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream