One could also argue that whoever owns the toilet should decide. If it's a public toilet, it belongs to the tax payers, so let them vote and decide how it should be used.

If you decide not to do it that way, the question would be: why not? On what basis do we reject the public will? Is it because the public is danger of violating someone's rights?

You'd need to spend some time contemplating the actual reading if you're going to criticize an interpretation of it. — Jamal

What we were discussing is basic Hegel.

You'd need to spend some time contemplating Hegel. Do thought experiments where you delete (from existence) one pole of an opposition. Notice what happens to the meaning of the pole that's left. Think of the yin-yang symbol.

Being and nothing are only made to be two sides of the same coin, by doing violence to the concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is incorrect, but I'm not interested in debating it.

I figure what he is saying is that the concept ("Being" in the example) must be abused (defined in a way which is inconsistent with what it really means to us) in order to produce the identity relationship required by the thesis/antithesis opposition. In other words, the proposed antithesis is the antithesis of an artificially manipulated concept, designed for that antithesis. Then it turns out that all that the synthesis is, is an attempt to rectify the damage caused by that abuse. And, depending on the skill of the dialectician, this may just as likely be a step backward for the concept, as it is likely to be a step forward. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. This is just dialectics. Being and Nothing are two sides of the same coin, which Hegel identifies as Becoming. Being and Nothing seem to disappear into Becoming. That's the violence he's talking about.

Hegel's teleology has deep roots in Indo-european culture. Christianity has threads of it running through its whole history. Unrevised Marxism is basically these same psychological forces shed of Christian paraphernalia. Adorno witnessed firsthand the powerful effects of these forces, but somehow remained immune to them. This allowed him to become a bridge out of the lunacy.

The Grand Canyon is cool. Very touristy though.

You do put an awful lot of people behind bars — Malcolm Parry

We're crazy as fuck.

Huh. We're more woke than you guys, and I'm in a red state. Although, I have a feeling our medium and max security prisons are more violent than yours.

Im not concerned in the slightest. — Malcolm Parry

I'm not either. I'm glad they have an interdisciplinary team to make the decisions instead of the local mob.

Why not? They are at risk — Malcolm Parry

You can contact your state legislature if you're concerned.

Ok :up:

All child abusers are less likely to be killed in a women’s prison. Do you put them all there? — Malcolm Parry

No.

Why? — fdrake

Because in Godzilla vs. Tokyo, Godzilla doesn't have a scratch on him when the coercive control, rape, and severe physical abuse started.

In my state each trans criminal is evaluated by an interdisciplinary team which decides housing based on safety and "other concerns." A trans-woman child abuser is likely to be murdered in a men's medium security prison. That's less likely in a women's prison. I think the community at large would be fairly ambivalent about where that person is sent.

IE that IPV is usually reciprocal. Having experienced it does not mean "he starts it", nor does it mean whenever "she does it", that it's defense. — fdrake

True. But men are more likely to engage in coercive control and stalking. Men are more likely to engage in sexual violence. Women sustain more injuries and more severe injuries than men. These facts are not consistent with a narrative where it's unclear who "started it."

It's really not a good metric. If the majority of relationships that have IPV have two way IPV, "defensive violence" as a concept comes down to "who started it". — fdrake

True. The evidence in the article I cited shows that men usually start it.

Yes. The idea of defensive domestic abuse. — fdrake

In my community, it can't be both. Defensive violence is not abuse.

women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partner — here

You're saying he was an ontological anti-realist. Did he see understanding as a continuously evolving thing that swings between oppositions?

Yes. My point was that rare cases of ambiguity don't render the whole topic of biological sex ambiguous. It usually isn't difficult to determine.

Have you ever seen a newborn where the legs are fused and there's no genitalia (and only a bit of kidney)? I guess we'd have to do genetic tests to determine sex in those kinds of cases.

The middle work reveals problems with this form of idealism, such as what we know as "the interaction problem — Metaphysician Undercover

Adorno was preoccupied with the 'thing-in-itself' problem via Kant. I think that's similar to the interaction problem?

He thought the problem originated in various abstractions taking root in the human psyche.

Throughout, Plato's belief in idealism is strengthened, but the prevailing idealism is rejected by what we can call his "negative dialectics". This is his critical analysis of the conventional idealism. It does not refute idealism, but exposes problems, and produces the need to revamp outdated principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what was Plato's ontology then? Could you explain?

What we commonly know as Platonism is better named as "Pythagorean idealism". — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't realize that. Thanks.

Because of this, I view "Platonism" as a misnomer, because Plato was actually not Platonist. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. :up:

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here. — LuckyR

:up:

That sounds reasonable.

Idealism itself only becomes problematic when ideas are objectified, reified, as I explained is the case with common Platonism. — Metaphysician Undercover

But we know Plato grooved on the dialectics, so would he have really gotten mired in what Adorno calls idealism?

Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably) — AmadeusD

True. What's your opinion on pronouns? Do you know anyone who goes by "they"?

Because it leads to ambiguity, and some people find ambiguity intolerable. Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps? — unenlightened

I know you're tri-sexual. You'll try anything. :grin:

using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers. — AmadeusD

Why is it bonkers?

What do you think happens at delivery? — LuckyR

I work in an emergency department, so I'm present at deliveries. :grin:

Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia. — LuckyR

Do they? :lol:

. I believe that a proper understanding of concepts reveals that there is no necessity of a corresponding object, and this lack of object is not a fault of the concept, but a feature of its utility, versatility, and infinite applicability. This is what we see in mathematics for example, conceptions produced without corresponding objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

Adorno agreed with Lukacs that the perspective you're describing is embedded in human consciousness, and its origin is in the concept of exchange value (basically the abstraction we call money). So he would totally understand what you're saying, but would warn that it leads to the conundrum of indirect realism.

By the way, this alienation of subject to object (or concept to content) is what Adorno is calling idealism.

One YouTube summation said that Family Guy and South Park have both expressed their condemnation of Disney's pandering. If The Simpsons does as well, it will be the final satirical dump. Disney will have lost credibility because of the standing of the Simpsons.

In the meantime, it appears Disney has lost somewhere around $800 million. The high figure is partly due to Disney's decision to animate the dwarves instead of using real dwarves. The loss is due to a global rejection of the movie. It's apparently boring and twisted.

Then we agree at the least that faith is to be restrained, and keep it's place amongst the other virtues. — Banno

There's no way to control that.

I can live with that. — unenlightened

'Every wind in the river sure makes its own way down to the sea.'

concepts ...

... are no longer measured against their contents, — Jamal

I think when he says "contents" he's talking about real events that stand as examples of concepts. Like with music, the score is the concept (or form), and a performance is the content. He said it's a mistake to fail to see the way the performance is its own entity, each moment arising out of the history of the performance, and propelled onward from there. The score is literally nothing in the absence of the performance (and vice versa).

That would relate to the mind as when people think of mind as a domain or vault of some kind. They're separating mind from the living flow of events that are the content of the concept of mind.

The nature of the complaint is also ambiguous. :grimace:

Basically in your personal lexicon "biological sex" is identical to karyotypic sex. That's not uncommon and perfectly fine, yet is not universal, far from it. — LuckyR

Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is.

I think we're fond of doing that with individuality, noting in various ways how the very idea of an individual arises against the backdrop of society.

With consciousness it seems like we're bumping against the limits of language. I don't have a vantage point on consciousness.

Dialectics seems to leave everything in a shadowy state. Every property seems to contain it's opposite. We could interpret Hegel as suggesting that we reach the truth by way of synthesis. A higher truth, anyway. So we imagine a pending resolution is a gate to something substantial. But if we take synthesis that way, we've forgotten the point of dialectics, haven't we? Our synthesis is really just another thesis, containing its own negation.

It's in that state of associating satisfaction with synthesis that the act of reification dwells.