Go well.

That is not what this discussion is about. — Philosophim

I generally think practice or doing is more important than theory, but I hear you. A useful definition I have gone by is a transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's a standard definition.

I've probably said all that matters to me on this subject. I'm old enough to remember when we rooted out 'fags' on the football field because 1) 'they played like girls' and 2) 'they'd be staring at your dick in the locker room and upsetting team morale'. Yes, a different issue, with alternative nuances, but it is instructive around how we formulate responses about identity and how apple carts are predictably upset.

Issues around bathroom use, sport access, prison allocations are all matters of etiquette and practice we can work out over time. Will there be mistakes? Sure. Will there be good news stories? Them too. Happy for you to explore these with others interested, although bear in mind the bigots often use specific and infrequent examples of sport or prisons to justify trans hatred in what I suspect is a hasty generalisation fallacy.

.

I left mine in my other pants pocket.

When I see the word "transgender" in popular culture it is currently unclear and confusing. — Philosophim

Sure. I'm happy for others to worry about definitions. It's never been confusing in practice for me or the people around me, but I understand it preoccupies a lot of people's time. Bear in mind definitions are tricky - we can't really define religion as Karen Armstrong and our own @Wayfarer point out. Atheism has a range of definitions. I take it to mean I have heard no good reasons to believe in gods, others take it to mean that there are no gods. And on it goes. :wink:

Is this in the sense of gender, or sex though? — Philosophim

My understanding is it's gender, which is separate to biological sex. But I'm not one for debating this minefield of a subject, I'm no expert and people understand it in different ways. I'm happy to support trans-people and I've never experienced any problems associated with the issue in the years I have known and/or worked with trans or gender diverse people.

I work with several trans people and I have known quite a few trans people over 30 years. I refer to them by their chosen gender and there have never been any issues, whether trans male or trans female. A friend of mine is trans and says they never felt male and always felt female. It helps them to look that way so that they are recognized as their preferred gender. I sometimes use a male pronoun by accident on account of years of habit. I have friends with children who are trans. They don't think their body matches their sense of self. That's how they describe it.

It's complicated and people are different, even trans folk. I am not an expert on the subject.

And this sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing the institution of government is good that you get angry at even the suggestion that this might not be the case. — AntonioP

Perhaps you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into thinking anything not anti-government is bad that you imagine I must be aggrieved. It was just an observation. 'Indoctrinated'? 'Angry'? Sounds more like you're doing the ad hominem's around here. Which is alright by me, I'm not the gatekeeper of tone.

At least it will be quick...

Tell that to the 'tax is theft' mob. :wink:

Thanks. If someone says they were born in the 'wrong body' and identify as male (born sex as female) do you have some reflections regarding an approach we might take?

the idea that gender is strictly socially constructed is ludicrous. — Joshs

Can you say some more?

Sounds like a standard libertarian, anti-governmental screed. Rose is a high profile anti-tax protester. Personally I think we should abolish human beings. Have you read about the harm these creatures have done - even before the birth of government - the tyranny, the unprovoked aggression and countless evils....

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me. — 180 Proof

Got ya.

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

:up:

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin: — 180 Proof

I think this is a useful frame to remind people of whenever they struggle to identify reasons for having moral behaviour.

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? Some people argue that such ideas are too vague or subjective to be useful frames for focused moral discussions.

Thanks for your explanation.

It's not a project of reforming society, it's a mental model that could reform if it was ever popularized as a norm of complex thinking. — Christoffer

I'm not sure you are following my words either. As I keep saying the chances of this happening are close to nil. But I'm glad you're thinking about these sorts of ideas. More people should. Take care.

What principles underly our intuitive moral judgments and cultural moral norms?
• Behaviors that solve cooperation problems are moral
• Behaviors that create cooperation problems are immoral

These principles define the morality of behaviors and, therefore, moral ‘means’.

The principles are almost silent about moral ends, but not entirely. Moral ends (goals) achieved by creating cooperation problems (as the Nazi’s did by exploiting outgroups) are innately immoral by Morality as Cooperation Strategies underlying principles. Ends achieved by exploitation are innately immoral because they contradict the function of morality – solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma.

Therefore, the fact that people can and do cooperate to do evil, as the Nazis did, does not reduce the cultural usefulness and philosophical relevance of the empirical observations that underly Morality as Cooperation Strategies. Instead, Morality as Cooperation Strategies explains why the Nazis' evil goals based on exploitation were innately evil - they created cooperation/exploitation dilemma problems rather than solving them. — Mark S

To my taste this section would benefit from clearer wording and exposition. Perhaps also some examples.

Are you saying that any behavior which creates cooperation problems is immoral? Can you define cooperation problem?

Would not cooperation problems also stem from groups in society who hold different values? How does this method manage pluralism? For instance - how do we manage the competing groups who hold to religious views and consider things like sex before marriage and homosexuality immoral? Remember these are determined by 'God', not by cooperation.

How does your model address such dilemmas - is it sufficiently flexible to incorporate such religious differences, or does it rely on society to embrace secularism, or call on religions to change their values?

I brought up the subject of esotericism in relationship to 'the transcendent'. The transcendent usually refers to a state or aspect of reality that surpasses the limits of ordinary physical existence, such as a dimension of reality that exists beyond the sensory world. In religious or philosophical contexts, the term 'transcendent' is used in relation to the deity or (in Buddhism) the state of being of a Buddha. — Wayfarer

This and the following three paragraphs are very nice. Thanks.

Why would people not be able to change? Have we not changed behaviors and ways of life, culturally, over decades and centuries based primarily in what people find the best way of life at the time? — Christoffer

Not relevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether people change or not. We're talking about a theoretical, programatic intervention to deliberately build change in thinking, with a specific philosophical approach. We disagree on the feasibility of this project. That's all. Let's move on.

The question we used to ask ourselves in this space is how do you tell the difference between the genuine esoteric (which is truthful) and that which leads to Rolls Royces and the underaged? Answer - there's no reliable way. It is instructive to see the extent to which materialism (the riches of consumer capitalism) seem to be valued by gurus and sages.

I knew folk involved in Siddha Yoga who used to have mystical experiences when Gurumayi came to town. Such visits were also breathless, orgiastic festivals of, 'She looked at me, she looked at me!' more in keeping with Beatlemania, including the requisite merchandising - books, videos, posters, t-shirts, etc. I found the entire thing decidedly shonky and the adherents ended up no happier, no less materialistic than before they decided they had penetrated the esoteric. But I guess this does not mean the is no esoteric to 'know'.

Interesting. Yes, the word esotericism was used in Theosophical groups I knew many years ago. People went off it, I suspect, because it became a synonym for the eccentric and off beat. I personally think that subjects like Gnosticism, neoplatonism, Sufi mysticism are less esoteric now than they were considered to be 30-40 years ago. But we also lost the counterculture and split off into a myriad of sub-cultures.

There's that quote from Baba Ram Dass, with which you may agree:

In mystical traditions, it is one's own readiness that makes experiences exoteric or esoteric. The secret isn't that you're not being told. The secret is that you're not able to hear.
- Baba Ram Dass

I think this quote (its sentiment being critical in the conversations we used to hold) crystallises how many might consider what is essentially the ineffable demarcation in this subject, between finding meaning and loosing yourself in meaninglessness. Or something like this.

No, it's not at your expense. It's just a playful juxtaposition. :pray:

But, these mental tools are effective when the entire group uses them. This is why I'm advocating for it being part of a cultural practice, something that is common practice, or at least common practice in situations that benefit from it. — Christoffer

I get that and while I don't disagree with the principles you outline - there is also the big problem that what you suggest is not going to happen and is effectively like suggesting if we all behaved like Gandhi (or insert idealised human being of your preference), there'd be world peace and love all about us. Which may well be true. But 'if' is a monumental hurdle. Anyway - no point going on about it as it's off topic. :wink:

Does it even make sense to quantify knowledge?
— Moliere
No less sense than it makes to quantify ignorance. — 180 Proof

:lol: :ok:

Don't know. If I am a realist and a pragmatist, I am so in the non-philosophical sense. I think life is a messy business and we mostly do the best we can. I think human thought and values are expressions of our creative imagination; some useful some not. I am more interested in the arts than the sciences.

How do you determine what perfection is?

Beyond that, I don't think the activities shown are a good measure of interest. — T Clark

Pretty much my thoughts.

That's a nice summary. I reflect on matters like what products to buy, or where to go on a holiday. I don't really reflect greatly on life decisions - as these come intuitively and emerge from my 'whole self' - not just the rational domain in my process. Decision making is a multifactorial equation. And I also have a personality that likes to wing things.

While a tragedy, what should we expect among millions of people? The angry person supposedly provides evidence that such people have a negative impact on society, yet just points at one case pertaining to one individual here. — jorndoe

Yes, it's done all the time. It's a hasty generalization fallacy, where an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn. E.g., 'I met a couple of beggars who were frauds - therefore all beggars are fraudulent and we need to arrest them all.'

Would you agree that these glib answers and simplified polarization out of fear can arise out of the lack of philosophical approaches? Aren't they the emerging traits of ignoring such a mental tool? And wouldn't such tools be a way out of these? — Christoffer

Maybe, but I think it's unclear. I wouldn't say these answers are glib, so much as deep and instinctive. I have no idea what, if any solutions might work, but I have a strong intuition that you are unlikely to get very far trying to use reason to talk people out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason.

In my personal experience, this is how I approach daily life. I do not jump onto ideas and opinions lightly, I don't decide on anything before I have a somewhat objective reasoning surrounding it. — Christoffer

You advocate your particular approach of reasoning because this is a fundamental value through which you already view life. Good for you and good luck trying to get others to agree. But are you essentially saying here: 'If everyone thought they way I do, the world would be better?' Don't most people think that, even the prodigiously irrational ones?

Trying to reeducate society along appropriate philosophical principles sounds totalitarian (I know that's not how you intended it) and is not going to happen, it's entering a speculative realm where I have little to contribute. :wink:

I can't say I have ever met or known too many people in Australia who are not interested in these subjects, but they might articulate this interest differently. Do they read books on the matter or attend classes on the subject? No. Do they attend meetings or volunteer for political causes. No. Are they concerned about where their country is heading and who is in charge? Yes.

The average person does not have an interest in governance, politics, and nationwide ideals. — L'éléphant

I'm not saying you are wrong, but how do you know this is true? Does this hinge upon what 'have an interest' means?

As I said, we haven't had the equivalent of a Trump factor. Yet.

Question - I get the impression that things in Australia are much less contentious than they are here in the US. Is that not true? — T Clark

I think so. My take: We're a fairly small population and have a different history - negligible military power, virtually no guns, far less religion and a social welfare safety net, including free or low cost medical care. But we have become more 'American' in recent times, partly owing to the changing nature of right wing populism and also the influence of News Limited and social media.

And we also have a culture war around race and politics (a low calorie version compared to yours). Ours hasn't been fueled by a Trump equivalent.

No, I don't, but I think changing our attitudes toward each other would be easier than somehow creating a nation of so-called critical thinkers. — T Clark

I think you're correct in your intuition that humans having a shared purpose is more important than critical thinking combined with internecine goals. One of the big issues we face these days seems to be the atomized nature of culture and the lack of solidarity. How do we get important projects initiated and completed without broad cooperation?

In so far as the hard-problem is considered to be a metaphysical problem that is an artifact of representationalism, idealism can be considered to be a metaphysical strategy for dissolving the hard-problem, even if such a strategy is regarded to be epistemically impractical for the inter-subjective purposes of science , as the positivists discovered. — sime

I'm assuming ontological monism is foundational to most conceptions of idealism? Any thoughts on how apparent separate instantiations of consciousness arise out of 'the one'?

I think that these are the result of either not listening to philosophers, misinterpreting them, or outright ignoring them in combination with enforcing the very problems that philosophy is a tool against. I.e these things emerges out of the chaos of non-philosophical approaches to questions that arrises in history. — Christoffer

The forest of confusion is what leads to genocide, meaning, failure at philosophy leads to genocide. We can invent anything, but only philosophy as a tool can keep our biases and destructive emotions at bay and make us more morally capable of understanding the practical use of technology without it leading to genocide. — Christoffer

Interesting comments. I'm not going to argue that you are wrong, but my take is that fear and our tendency towards dualistic thinking may lie behind most problems like this. People are frightened and are easily galvanized by scapegoating, quick fixes, sloganeering and appeals to tribal identity (white nationalism, etc). The notion that you are either for us or against us becomes a kind of touch stone for social discourse.

I should think that in times of uncertainty, where fear is brewing and readily activated as a motivating energy (largely thanks to Murdoch in the West) we see people embracing glib answers which promise deliverance and perverse forms of solidarity.

I'm not sure that philosophy as such plays a key role here, but certainly ideas do.

Father, Alpha male that he is, has time to play with the dog but mother doesn't have time to sit and pet puff. Dick, helmet on and balls in hand, is playing too. Little Sally is being trained to be a household drudge just like her mother.

Where is Jane? Mothers for Liberty might well ask where Jane is--certainly not being supervised by here mother and father. She's probably out on the street being tricked into prostitution. She'll be seeing a lot of dick. — BC

Don't know how I missed this. Nicely done. :wink:

Nice.

As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking." — T Clark

That's an interesting comment and seems right.

We do live in a time where many seem to share the same mantra - society and individual standards are collapsing and a golden era has passed. I've been hearing this for decades. My grandmother told me people were saying the same thing during the roaring '20's, before Hitler and the later catastrophies of the 20th century. No doubt friends of Socrates felt the same way.

What if I described the function of human morality as solving a cooperation/exploitation dilemma that is innate to our universe? Would this help clarify that exploitation is opposite the function of human morality and therefore objectively immoral if we choose the function of human morality as a moral reference? — Mark S

As a layperson, I wonder if there is a clearer way to set this out? I'm beginning to see more plainly what your point is - that good morality may come through getting the fidelity of the model (cooperation strategies) right. Everything flows from this premise.

“In our universe, cooperation can produce many more benefits than individual effort. But cooperation exposes one to exploitation. Unfortunately, exploitation is almost always a winning short-term strategy, and sometimes is in the long term. This is bad news because exploitation discourages future cooperation, destroys those potential benefits, and eventually, everybody loses.
All life forms in the universe, from the beginning to the end of time, face this universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma. This includes our ancestors.”

Which is the more revealing description of the function of human morality?

• “Human morality solves cooperation problems” (what I have been typically using) or
• “Human morality solves the cooperation/exploitation dilemma” — Mark S

I'm not sure this is written as clearly as it needs to be for someone like myself.

If I read this you seem to be saying cooperation can be taken in bad directions and is therefore fraught and may not be helpful?

In relation to your two choices - my problem with these sentences is that they fail to sufficiently explain themselves. Perhaps you need to provide something more.

I'm not keen on the word 'solves' or 'dilemma' in the second choice.

Are you saying: The function of human morality is to facilitate cooperation in the mutual interests of all?

Choosing as a moral reference the function of human morality - moral 'means' as cooperation strategies that solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma - gives us two constraints on moral behavior:

Acting morally requires acting consistently with cooperation strategies
The goals of morality cannot be achieved by exploitation — Mark S

Ok - I see this. Focusing on the strategies rather than the ends (which have long been unclear). So essentially, in getting the 'how' right, you believe you can ensure a consistent and progressive morality.