But I have read enough text to question Gerson's assertions and look forward to challenging anyone who would champion his position as a scholar. — Paine

That's very interesting. What do you think his project is, then? Is he a tendentious advocate of Platonism at the expense of fidelity to Plato? His name comes up a lot amongst enthusiasts of Platonism.

The counter to that is that when you see causal relationships between ideas, that this is distinct from the mindless processes typically invoked by physicalism. You're seeing the connection between ideas. That is a different process to that of physical causation. — Wayfarer

So you think this process undermines or disproves naturalism?

Furthermore, if I write something that perturbs or upsets you, that will have physical consequences - blood pressure, adrenal reaction, heart rate, etc. — Wayfarer

I need a bit more than this to take a view that naturalism isn't a plausible account.

As I said, we need real expertise to determine how thought or 'mind' comes from bodies or brains. I don't think anyone has resolved this and some subscribe to mysterianism.

Either you see a reason or you don't. What I'm asking you is that if I persuade you to accept something - not even the argument at hand, but anything - has anything physical passed between us? — Wayfarer

What 'I see' is not really relevant. I see words on a computer screen typed by a person (I assume) who has beliefs/thoughts. I see nothing so far that is not physical. Are thoughts physical? Can we demonstrate that thoughts do not originate from physical brains? Isn't this where the expertise comes in?

They are only "tricky" for idealists like Wayfarer who prefer to torch strawmen – mischaracterizing a speculative paradigm such as naturalism as an explanatory theory – which is far easier to do than to demonstrate that idealism is a less ad hoc, less incoherent, less subjective paradigm than naturalism, etc. Naturalism does not explain "consciousness", yet idealism – which rationalizes folk psychological concepts (often ad absurdum) – conspicuously explains "consciousness" even less so. — 180 Proof

Yes, it's hard for me not to agree with this.

The crux of this whole thread was an un-answered question:

I can see you have not been persuaded by the argument thus far and probably won’t be, until you can see a reason why you should accept. At that point, you might typically say 'I see'. So - what is it that you see? (Or in the other case, what is it you’re not seeing?) Whatever it is (or isn’t) it won’t be seen as a consequence of anything physical that has passed between us.

What do you make of that? — Wayfarer

Yes, I read that earlier. I have no expertise in this subject. The best I can say is that intelligent, well informed people are 1) persuaded and 2) are not persuaded.

While I don't think we can demonstrate that reason can't be arrived at through natural processes, I'd be interested to learn where this is heading.

Let's say that reason can not be explained by naturalism.

What follows from this, for you?

(I know this argument is a central platform in presuppositional Islamic and Christian apologetics - that the very possibility of intelligibility can't be explained by materialism and therefore materialism disproves itself.)

For you, I imagine this reasoning is foundational to idealism, right?

These arguments seem to get messy - if idealism is true than presumably it belongs to naturalism. The natural then being an ontology of consciousness? Discerning precisely what is meant by materialism, physicalism or naturalism can seem tricky.

:up: Yes, I was thinking about that one too.

Yes. I don't generally think of writing as competitive. Maybe that's because I have confidence in my ideas and my ability to express them and I'm not afraid of being wrong or changing my mind. — T Clark

In my experience the writer's world is often very competitive - who gets to be interviewed and on what media, sales figures, invitations to speak, prizes. Several of my friends are successful writers and journalists. They describe a hive of competition, bitter rivalries, irrational hatreds and enmities. If it's your profession, the solitary act of writing is often subsumed by the social world of writers.

Reminds me of the poem The Book of My Enemy has Been Remaindered.

By Clive James

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am pleased.
In vast quantities it has been remaindered
Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized
And sits in piles in a police warehouse,
My enemy’s much-prized effort sits in piles
In the kind of bookshop where remaindering occurs.
Great, square stacks of rejected books and, between them, aisles
One passes down reflecting on life’s vanities,
Pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviews
Lavished to no avail upon one’s enemy’s book–
For behold, here is that book
Among these ranks and banks of duds,
These ponderous and seemingly irreducible cairns
Of complete stiffs.

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I rejoice.
It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion
Beneath the yoke.
What avail him now his awards and prizes,
The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,
His individual new voice?
Knocked into the middle of next week
His brainchild now consorts with the bad buys
The sinker, clinkers, dogs and dregs,
The Edsels of the world of moveable type,
The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,
The unbudgeable turkeys.

Yea, his slim volume with its understated wrapper
Bathes in the blare of the brightly jacketed Hitler’s War Machine,
His unmistakably individual new voice
Shares the same scrapyart with a forlorn skyscraper
Of The Kung-Fu Cookbook,
His honesty, proclaimed by himself and believed by others,
His renowned abhorrence of all posturing and pretense,
Is there with Pertwee’s Promenades and Pierrots–
One Hundred Years of Seaside Entertainment,
And (oh, this above all) his sensibility,
His sensibility and its hair-like filaments,
His delicate, quivering sensibility is now as one
With Barbara Windsor’s Book of Boobs,
A volume graced by the descriptive rubric
“My boobs will give everyone hours of fun”.

Soon now a book of mine could be remaindered also,
Though not to the monumental extent
In which the chastisement of remaindering has been meted out
To the book of my enemy,
Since in the case of my own book it will be due
To a miscalculated print run, a marketing error–
Nothing to do with merit.
But just supposing that such an event should hold
Some slight element of sadness, it will be offset
By the memory of this sweet moment.
Chill the champagne and polish the crystal goblets!
The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am glad.

I lean towards leaving things there kind of open ended, but to help spark discussion I'll end with the question, "Are you a simplisticator or a complicator?"* — wonderer1

Interesting. I have no technical expertise in any area, nor do I have much interest in math or science. Does this 'force' me into the simplisticator corner? How much of this is almost a necessary function of one's education, employment or even neurodiversity?

Is there a third option? On complex matters, I often prefer a suspension of judgement. I'm pretty keen on the answer, 'I don't know' and would prefer it if more people pursued this and just got on with their lives. On matters like QM speculation, the nature of consciousness, etc, the notion of uncertainty is more significant to me (as a skeptic) than trying to force answers. Many of us seem to hold highly complex explanations about matters we are not really qualified to understand. Perhaps this view is just a passive form of simplistication?

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. — Gnomon

I think that's mostly a problem for you and may explain things. Also 'unwillingness' is not a good word, it implies an ought - I 'ought' to be able to, right? I would say 'inability' would be more appropriate. I hold tentative positions on some matters, and was just writing elsewhere above -

I spend a lot of time in 'provisional credence' country. I hear alarm bells when people say they know something to be certain. — Tom Storm

If the world is all a "blooming buzzing confusion"*1, why bother to post on a philosophy forum? — Gnomon

What an odd question. It is precisely because things are far from clear that I am interested to see what other people make of things. One shouldn't come to a position and then say - 'That's it, I have arrived!' That's the thinking of fundamentalism or monomania.

Humans have cognitive limitations and individuals have intellectual/psychological limitations - to argue that we have equal access to an understanding of reality (whatever that might be) would be absurd. Many of the questions we ask are doubtless unanswerable or have incomprehensible answers for many of us. I am primarily interested in improving the questions.

Doesn't a forum like this presuppose that we can eventually make sense of the complex patterns of Nature, and the even more confusing patterns of Culture? — Gnomon

Christ no. A forum like this showcases opinions, values and beliefs (theorised and untheorised), which come from any number of sources and intellectual processes, some of which seem more credible than others.

For me the task here is mostly to ask what do you believe and why? And then pose the odd question to clarify or identify potential challenges to the belief. We are all here testing beliefs in the marketplace. Although it's clear some people hold dogmatic positions which sometimes seem rather fragile.

In this process skepticism for me isn't denialism or cynicism. It is simply the recognition of uncertainty in our experience and practice. Where possible things should be questioned and justified before they can pass for tentative knowledge. In this process there is also scope for us to change our views.

He may be the go to guy for Platonism, but for that reason not the go to guy for Plato or Aristotle. Of course he and other Platonists would not agree. — Fooloso4

Yes, I meant Platonism.

Aristotle regards living beings as self-sustaining functioning wholes. The four causes are inherent in a being being the kind of being it is, not something imposed on or interfering with it from the outside. Human beings are by their nature thinking beings. This is not an explanation, but a given. It has nothing to do with Gerson's "form 'thought'". Nothing to do with a transcendent realm accessible to the wise.

Rather than an argument from reason, Wayfarer, Plato and Aristotle use reason to demonstrate the limits of reason. — Fooloso4

Thanks and very interesting.

Nicely written.

Remember, whether valid or invalid, reasoning is only as sound as its grounding premises, which are often based on unacknowledged prejudices, and not derived from reasoning at all. — Janus

Yep. Presuppositions sink ships.

So, in short it just doesn't look possible that reason could be sovereign, but that it must be content to work slowly and piecemeal to become aware of, and then, as needed in order to live with greater serenity, change my desires, aversions, prejudices and biases, without the remotest possibility of becoming completely free of them but, at best, being able to gradually obtain a more livable suite, a suite of convictions which brings more peace and yet does not contradict the most convincing evidence, for if it does I will have more work to do, and will not be as much at peace as I could be. — Janus

Very interesting. This resonates with me.

pragmatism dictates that I should give provisional credence to what the evidence indicates seems to be the case, while at the same time not imputing that seeming to some imagined ultimate reality. The latter can only cause dissatisfaction, unless I abandon reason altogether and put my faith just in "what rings true". — Janus

I spend a lot of time in 'provisional credence' country. I hear alarm bells when people say they know something to be certain.

So the opening question: What is a man?

Not sure.

And the titular question: What is masculinity? — Moliere

I know the clichés and I dislike most of them. As a male I have no particular insight into my own gender and rarely think about masculinity. One of my colleagues is a trans-male and seems more overtly masculine than I am - even if I am a foot taller. :wink:

Anyway, after that longer than intended digression, I was curious as to whether you found the following excerpt from that link to be emotional? — wonderer1

If boredom is an emotional reaction, then yes. :wink: Sorry - I find any kind of technical writing (or descriptions of methodologies, etc) almost unreadable. I don't have the attention span. It's on me, I know...

"Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth... Interpersonal microaggressions, made a unique, statistically significant contribution to lifetime suicide attempts and emotional neglect by family approached significance. School belonging, emotional neglect by family, and internalized self-stigma made a unique, statistically significant contribution to past 6-month suicidality." — frank

Important to note this. One of the narratives going is that being trans is just a fashion or a lifestyle choice which is being peddled by the liberal-elite-woke-brigade. This reminds us of what's at stake.

On this forum, few of us claim to speak from absolute authority. We just share personal opinions/models, and that's how we expand & refine our "little patch" of reliable knowledge. — Gnomon

Kant was skeptical about our ability to know what's what, but despite that handicap, he wrote thousands of words to instruct us about the positive & negative aspects of Epistemology. — Gnomon

I connect these two quotes because no one here is Kant or seems to have his prodigious capacities.

I am not being evasive, simply mildly incredulous at the claims we sometimes make about 'reality'. This is a legitimate view some philosophers arrive at. And yes, I am a skeptic.

There is no God’s Eye point of view that we can know or usefully imagine; there are
only the various points of view of actual persons reflecting various interests and
purposes that their descriptions and theories subserve.

- Hilary Putnam, Reason, Truth and History,

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. — Gnomon

No, I was talking about how things seem to us as opposed to how they might really be. When we talk about order, it is based on our models of what order appears to be to us.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? — Gnomon

My point is simple. How would we know? We seem to have discovered some regularities in our little patch. We can claim no such knowledge about the whole universe. I'm not even certain physics works the same across the universe - what's to say it isn't largely a function/invention of human cognition?

Yep - sad but true. :broken:

Edit: I forgot to answer your last question. I don't have a clear idea of what you are asking with your question, but what I see it as adding to the discussion, is further consideration and clarification of the paradigm I'm presenting. — wonderer1

No worries. I guess where I was heading is that if animals have rudimentary intentionality, what does this say about a more evolved human version? Is intentionality just a hallmark of complexity (an idea mocked by many). @Wayfarer argues that human rationality and intentionality is special. He's not the only one. Can we infer anything additional about this matter from understanding animal behaviour?

Sorry, I rarely get what Nietzsche says. I like him best when he sounds like a truculent Oscar Wilde. The question I always have when I read this kind of hyperbolic provocation is, why?

Sorry @Wayfarer I might start a thread on postmodernism and reason.

I love the idea but I can’t find a way to fit it in.

Ever see Orson Wells’ film ‘F for Fake’? — Joshs

One of my favorite films. An extraordinary cinematic essay. I understand his argument to be slightly different - a talented forger can fake things and they may pass as real, especially amongst the rich who want them to be real and the 'experts' who pass them off and take a cut. Wells also argues (elsewhere) that Shakespeare is objectively great and that Welles films are original even if flawed. I'm not sure he's our guy for this but I get your point, he loves to evoke and explore the notion of fakery

But forgery and fakery are only possible if there is an original - so how does this all work?

Do animals have intentionality? They seem to from my perspective. What does this add to the discussion?

According to the evidence here presented, it's someone who can be discussed, argued-over, judged, categorized and decided-about in her presence, as if she were inanimate. — Vera Mont

Well it's philosophy, isn't it? Abstraction, argumentation and judgment is what we do here to everything... :razz:

but really got a lot from a lecture of which I also have the hard copy. I have this quotation in my scrapbook: — Wayfarer

Yes, that's one I found pretty interesting too. Gerson is the go to guy on this subject as I understand it.

Overturning Platonism, then, means denying the primacy of original over copy, of model over image; glorifying the reign of simulacra and reflections.” (Difference and Repetition) — Joshs

That's an interesting call to arms but I guess it's hard for most of us to apprehend how we can do this? Is it an act of will? Pardon my literalism but in glorifying the reign of simulacra, does my Picasso print become equal to the one hanging in the museum?

The argument from reason is very much a transcendental argument. — Wayfarer

Good to know.

Lloyd Gleeson — Wayfarer

Do you mean Lloyd Gerson? I've read some of his papers.

it delineates the specific questions and subject matter unique to philosophy as distinct from natural science. — Wayfarer

Yes, I am aware of this position. I am simply unable to determine whether any of this scholarship is meaningful or not. My job in philosophy to be aware of the key questions and positions. With no expertise in these areas of enquiry, my own commitments are intuitions and of no real importance.

Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program*1, or a random sequence of accidents that over eons has stumbled upon a formula to cause a few constellations of atoms to imagine that they exist, simply because they can think. What do you think? — Gnomon

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs.

But classifying reason along with other traits - tentacles, claws, physical speed or strength - undermines the sovereignty, thus the credibility, of reason. Surely if reason is to have meaning, it has to be able to stand on it's own feet, so to speak. — Wayfarer

I don't think I share this view but it interests me. I don't see how reason needs to have transcendent meaning. But I'm open to considering this further.

I think the nature of reason is tied up with the ability to abstract and to generalise, which is the basis of both language and logic. And I think the Greek philosophers realised this - you can see the origins of it in Parmenides and Plato and the discussions of forms and universals. That's a digression, but it's also part of the background of this argument. — Wayfarer

I get this but I am not sure where this leads us.

One could argue that the perspective of the subject (subject-hood, as distinct from subjectivity) is being re-introduced through phenomenology and embodied cognition (although It's still not considered in the kind of physicalism which this argument is addressing.) — Wayfarer

Yes, and this is a rich, fascinating (and largely incomprehensible area to me).

I am contemplating the idea that right from the very first life-forms, life *is* the earliest manifestation of intentionality. As the complexity of organisms evolves over the aeons, so too their intelligence, apparently arriving at h. sapiens, through which the whole process has become critically self-aware.

//we arrive at the ability to understand abstract truths and the like. They're not simply 'a product' of the human mind, although having such a mind, we can produce, e.g. imaginary number systems and the like. But I maintain the furniture of reason such as logical laws, are discovered not invented, and certainly are not the products of a biological process.// — Wayfarer

I guess your project is a form of Platonism, a story about reality which you are more or less convinced of. I just don't think we (and certainly not I) know enough to go there. But it's interesting material. I don't think we can rule out naturalism at this point.

Thanks

What are your thoughts on replacing "true" and "false" with "more accurate" and "less accurate"?

Throwing away the notions of true or false altogether seems a bit extreme to me. Wouldn't we, in effect, be throwing out logic as well? — wonderer1

Generally I hold to a view that some ideas are useful for certain purposes and some ideas are not. We never get to ultimate truth as such. Just things which work or don't. Does logic work everywhere?

Well, it's not altogether clear even that human thoughts "have intentionality" ... :chin: — 180 Proof

:fire: Next you'll be telling us qualia is nonsense...

You clearly believe that natural processes were able to lead human animals to the use of reason.

The argument here is essentially that naturalism isn't workable. But why wouldn't our ability to reason be advantageous for survival? I'm not arguing that evolution selects for truth, but that minds which can realistically understand the world around it (food that is safe to eat, predators to avoid, etc) are likely to survive better. A reasoning functionality in the brain would be advantageous - minds that survive, that act in accordance with truth, are more likely to survive the material world around them.

So the underlying issue here from @Wayfarer perspective is that naturalism presupposes intentionality; our capacity for thoughts to be about stuff. How can physical things give rise to such thought? But isn't intentionality essentially about memory - our ability to observe things and recall them?

We're back to the discussion about consciousness - how do we get to the mental?

The question we're faced with: is it impossible that conscious processes could evolve from natural causes? Surely we can't say no.

I'd submit that gender dysphoria is exactly the opposite of the way you characterize it here. The person believes their appearance is not who they are and they try to alter their appearance to match their internal view of who they are. — Hanover

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm saying that the act of transformation is critical in people being who they need to be. At least that's what trans people have told me over the years. My point is that to call this a choice is not useful, it minimizes trans identity.

If you want to say the act is the transsexualism, then we can wipe out a good amount of transsexualism with some makeup remover. — Hanover

The identity completes the process of becoming who you are.

What I said was:

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement.
— Hanover — Hanover

Ok. I fail to see how this is a helpful idea. For many transgender people their appear is who they are. It is a requirement. It's almost impossible to go from David to Daphne without changing appearance. I think your line of thinking can lead us to - 'Be who you are, just choose not to appear that way.' Anyway... I'm not accusing you of bigotry. Go well.

I then offered an explanation for that, describing how my heterosexuality, for instance, was not a matter of choice, but my decision who to have sex with, if anyone, was a matter of choice. That logic applies to homosexuals as well in terms of who they choose to have sex with and transsexuals in terms of how they wish to present themselves to the general public.

What we each prefer is not a matter of choice. What we each do is a matter of choice. — Hanover

A transgender female will likely dress as a woman because that helps to make the transition psychologically effective for her. Should she 'choose' to dress as a male instead? It seems we're back to the word choice being used here in a slightly shady way.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is.

You're reading things in my posts that aren't there and then telling me you disagree with what I didn't say. — Hanover

That's good to hear. If I misrepresented you, I apologise.

I've not suggested one can choose not to be gay, straight, CIS, or trans. I said one can choose one's behavior, which is true. — Hanover

I'm not sure why this point was made then. What behaviour are you referring to in relation to trans?

I've not suggested one can choose not to be gay, straight, CIS, or trans. I said one can choose one's behavior, which is true.

I can choose to not have sex with women despite being straight. Such is a prerequisite for consent, without which one can't legally have any sex. — Hanover

Sounds like a pretty weak argument - the church used to say to gay people (and still does), 'It's ok to be gay, just choose not to love another man or have sex with one."

If someone is trans, I don't think we have the mandate to say - 'Be trans, just don't behave trans.' This is why I said choice hides a multitude of sins.

Most of the trans people I know have been beaten and spat on regularly. Quite often by people referencing the Bible, and in a couple of instances, the Koran. The advice they have been given by police is often, 'Sure, you're a trans woman, just don't dress like that around here.' Sounds like bigoted bullshit to me.

If you bark twice you get a dog treat.

That's a really nicely presented OP.

I suspect Richard Rorty would argue that what looks like reason and rationality to humans is pretty much just a trick of language and contingency.

Isn't it the case that in nature animals survive and thrive if they make certain choices and not others? Couldn't it be argued that reason is just the choices that allow us to have more efficacious outcomes? In more vulgar Darwinian terms, natural selection privileges rational behavior as it enhances our chances of survival, and humans as pattern seeking creatures, adopt reason as the pattern which enhances the capacity to flourish. And of course reason has been painstakingly constructed over time and isn't all that popular in most areas of human life.

I don't see it that way, but you put your position well. :wink:

I raised that very issue in my post above. — BC

You did. :up:

Whether to present as a man or woman is a choice to the person doing it. Do you suggest otherwise? — Hanover

I'm no expert on this issue and certainly no spokesperson for the trans community. Nevertheless I suggest this might trivialize the matter - like it's a simple case of merely ticking a box. The word 'choice' can hide a multitude of sins. My trans colleagues would say it isn't a choice, it's who they are.

One of the criticisms we can make of the Cis understanding of the issue is that we often seem to think trans, or being gay for that matter, is a lifestyle choice and people can stop 'doing it' just like they should say 'no' to drugs, etc, etc.

This question is usually a surrogate for: 'Is transgender identity legitimate?'
— Tom Storm

That's not what this thread is about. I made that clear. — Hanover

And I thought I made it clear that this is the unavoidable outcome of your question. It's how it looks the moment you explore it.

Either that, or I didn't think it mattered, so I chose MtF.

Do we want to create a separate category of female that forces all trans people to out themselves as trans?
— Tom Storm — Hanover

Sure, but I think this is instructive regarding how almost all aspects of this conversation are framed in general.

The correlation between appearance and gender identity is a choice, not a requirement. — Hanover

Hmmm. A choice for whom?

Carry on. :smile: