Transgender women are men. Caitlyn Jenner produced six children with "his" sperm and acknowledges being their father Anyone claiming to be living as the opposite sex is simply impersonating them. It is categorically impossible to change sex.

Being male or female is not a choice and womens spaces and sports were not intended for people's mental self perception but biological sex. — Andrew4Handel

I would strongly defend your right to express this view even though I basically disagree with it.

It would be incredibly cowardly of me to try to silence you, as if trans people need censorship in order to thrive.

think philosophy and social studies have played a substantial role in this by attacking the notion of truth.

They make ludicrous exaggerated claims about things that we can actually be very certain of to imply an unjustified level of skepticism that is inappropriately applied. Which has made ripe ground for denial of biological reality. — Andrew4Handel

I know a trans man who was trans for a good decade before all the hype. She's a prominent surgeon, and surgeons are huge money makers for hospitals, so she has the leeway to do what she likes. Everyone gave her space to be what she wanted to be. It wasn't a problem.

The drama about acceptance of trans and non-binary is partly an internet phenomenon I think.

meaning theysuffered from from extreme confirmation bias. — Hanover

An example was on the coronavirus thread where the bailey was "people don't need to take the vaccine" and the motte was "drug companies are making a profit off of it."

If you're strongly inclined to connect those dots, you'll be persuaded. Otherwise it makes no sense.

I'll posit that most of the time, we're all foundationalist. We only back off of it when it gets problematic for us.

But man must eventually learn right from wrong good from evil and hence morality. — invicta

Yes, but that happens at the end of the story. The meat of the story has to be about adversity and horrific shit for the reasons Schopenhauer explained.

You can't have a happy ending without fear, grief, rage, and pain.

So how is he going to demolish his opinions?

"My reason tells me that as well as withholding assent from propositions that are obviously false, I should also withhold it from ones that are not completely certain and indubitable. So all I need, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, is to find in each of them at least some reason for doubt. I can do this without going through them one by one, which would take forever: once the foundations of a building have been undermined, the rest collapses of its own accord; so I will go straight for the basic principles on which all my former beliefs rested."

The glaring principle here is foundationalism:

"Foundationalism is the view that if there is any knowledge or justified belief then that knowledge or justified belief rests on a “foundation” of knowledge and justified belief that does not depend on inference from anything else known or justifiably believed.". here.

However, I cannot help feeling he had a certain enduring angst about the church and it's power. And might have cautiously framed his views in a fashion pertinent to church agreeability, at compromise with absolute unadulterated free thought. — Benj96

He seemed to be optimistic that he could win them over and bring reforms to the Church.

I was never too interested in his proof of God until I read that B. Russell said his proof works.

Thanks for coming aboard to read it!

So in even the act of writing his thoughts, Descartes was asserting the usefulness of his insights to others. And thus assuming such. A lack of doubt. As doubt prevents one from communicating if they have intense doubt as to what they are imparting, — Benj96

Absolutely. Descartes wasn't a solipsist. Notice his reasons for starting this project:

Some years ago I was struck by how many false things I had believed, and by how doubtful was the structure of beliefs that I had based on them. I realized that if I wanted to establish anything in the sciences that was stable and likely to last, I needed – just once in my life – to demolish everything completely and start again from the foundations. — Descartes

He's saying he feels he's been bamboozled and wants to start fresh, not just for himself, but for science

He lived at a time when the Catholic Church made decisions about which math problems were proper to examine and which shouldn't be. When he says "the foundation" it appears he's talking about something anyone could discover, not just clergymen. Do you agree with that?

I particularly like the last line:

"I am here quite alone, and at last I will devote myself, sincerely and without holding back, to demolishing my opinions."

This piece is one of the first important works of philosophy not written in Latin. It was written in French. Bibles were starting to be written in vulgar languages so the common people could read it. In keeping with this, Descartes wanted everyone to be able to read his work.

"Descartes said that he wrote in French so that all who had good sense, including women, could read his work and learn to think for themselves.". -- britannica.com.

These are the opening words of the first section:

FIRST MEDITATION: On what can be called into doubt

"Some years ago I was struck by how many false things I had believed, and by how doubtful was the structure of beliefs that I had based on them. I realized that if I wanted to establish anything in the sciences that was stable and likely to last, I needed – just once in my life – to demolish everything completely and start again from the foundations. It looked like an enormous task, and I decided to wait until I was old enough to be sure that there was nothing to be gained from putting it off any longer. I have now delayed it for so long that I have no excuse for going on planning to do it rather than getting to work. So today I have set all my worries aside and arranged for myself a clear stretch of free time. I am here quite alone, and at last I will devote myself, sincerely and without holding back, to demolishing my opinions."

So when someone's vacillating, one of the determinants of their position will be the broader context their position comes from — fdrake

Exactly. Richard O'Brian, who is non-binary, says trans women aren't real women. I know what he means. He's not suggesting their rights should be violated. He's just saying that we can't really dispense with the "trans" part. I think we all know that.

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here
— frank

I don't see how I have tbh. Can you elaborate on exactly what I have mischaracterised. — Benj96

What if we did a reading of the Meditations? That way we could have Descartes resolve the question.

Would you be up for that?

What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal

Isn't it what we call "moving the goal posts"? I don't think the trans issue mentioned is actually a case of it, though.

Oh, someone already pointed that out. :up:

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes. — Benj96

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here. Whatever you may think of Descartes, there's no doubt (ha!) that the Meditations are one of the most important philosophical works ever written. Sooo much is built off of his thinking, not just philosophically, but in Western culture in general. It's pretty easy to read because Descartes wasn't trying to dazzle with bullshit. He was passionate about what he was saying, and about the revolution in thought that it could represent. He was essentially wresting the foundations of thought away from the Church and placing them squarely in the hands of the common man.

In short, read it!

but only observing that Ukraine cannot afford to just wait out the present situation if it is to have a chance of stopping the Russians. — Paine

That's pretty much what the NY Times is saying, that if this coming offensive doesn't work, Ukraine will be under a lot of pressure to end the conflict.

"WASHINGTON — Ukraine is preparing to launch a counteroffensive against Russian forces as early as next month, American officials say, in the face of immense risks: Without a decisive victory, Western support for Ukraine could weaken, and Kyiv could come under increasing pressure to enter serious negotiations to end or freeze the conflict.

"American and NATO allies have supplied Ukraine with extensive artillery and ammunition for the upcoming battle, and officials now say they are hopeful the supplies will last — a change from two months ago when weapons were only trickling in and U.S. officials were worried that the supplies might run out.

"At the same time, 12 Ukrainian combat brigades of about 4,000 soldiers each are expected to be ready at the end of April, according to leaked Pentagon documents that offer a hint of Kyiv’s timetable. The United States and NATO allies are training and supplying nine of those brigades, the documents said.

"Although Ukraine shares few details of its operational plan with American officials, the operation is likely to unfold in the country’s south, including along Ukraine’s coastline on the Sea of Azov, near the Russian-annexed Crimea.

“Everything hinges on this counteroffensive,” said Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and senior NATO official. “Everybody’s hopeful, maybe over-optimistic. But it will determine whether there is going to be a decent outcome for the Ukrainians, in terms of recovering territory on the battlefield and creating much more significant leverage to get some kind of negotiated settlement.”

"While Ukrainian officials have said their goal is to break through dug-in Russian defenses and create a widespread collapse in Russia’s army, American officials have assessed that it is unlikely the offensive will result in a dramatic shift in momentum in Ukraine’s favor.

"Ukraine’s military faces many challenges — one reason that a stalemate remains the most likely outcome. Fighting in Bakhmut in eastern Ukraine this winter has drained ammunition reserves and led to heavy casualties in some experienced units.

"And yet American military officials say it is possible that Ukraine’s army could once again surprise them. They are now armed with European tanks and American armored personnel carriers and have new units trained and equipped by Americans and NATO forces.

"“I’m optimistic that between this year and next year, I think Ukraine will continue to have the momentum with it,” Britain’s defense secretary, Ben Wallace, told reporters during a visit to Washington last week. “I also think we should be realistic. There is not going to be a single magic-wand moment when Russia collapses."

Heck even people belonging to the Hayek institute (I'm forgetting the name) say that his summary of Neoliberalism, in Globalists, is quite faithful to the original members. — Manuel

I think so. I was reading a biography of Hayek at the same time I read Globalists. I started on The Road to Serfdom when my interest fizzled.

Hayek believed the Nazis were the outcome of failed leftism. Wendy Brown says his social plan has given rise to a new wave of fascism. Apparently whether it's right or left that fails, the result is Nazis. :worry:

:up:

Per Slobodian:

"If we place too much emphasis on the category of market fundamentalism, we will fail to notice that the real focus of neoliberal proposals is not on the market per se but on redesigning states, laws, and other institutions to protect the market."

but when talking about neoliberalism, those markets cannot exist without a state. — Moliere

Sounds like a Ship of Theseus problem. If states slowly disappeared, maybe due to global warming, but the global coffee market survived so that Frank could enjoy a nice cuppa Joe while contemplating the demise of civilization, would it be the same market sans states?

Probably off topic?

And you can see how that requires a state? — Moliere

Of course. Neoliberalism is not opposed to the existence of states.

I want to restrict the domain of discorse for "market", with respect to neoliberalism, to capitalism. — Moliere

The government's main purpose according to Neoliberalism is to protect the freedom of the markets, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

Either way, government is not a necessary component to any space or system where goods and services are exchanged. — NOS4A2

Correct. Islam thrived in Central Asia partly because it served as merchant law. There were no significant governments to speak of.

I simply wouldn't talk of "markets" when it comes to the bronze age. Currency and trade aren't the same things as capitalism. — Moliere

Free markets first appeared during the Bronze Age. They appeared in the outskirts of state domains.

The notion that you can't have a market without state support is just wrong.

Like the grey or black market? They arise not because of state intervention, but in spite of it. Markets are considered spontaneous just as much as they are considered planned. — NOS4A2

Correct. Free markets first appeared toward the end of the Bronze Age, probably as a result of the declining power of states.

Europe's rise from the Dark Ages started with free markets that ministered to trade with the Middle East. Powerful European states came later.

But it happens a lot. 2009 was not unique. And it seems to be needed when those ideas are implemented. — Moliere

I guess I don't know what you're referring to then.

Neoliberalism came as an ideology which was later enforced by the government. — Moliere

Correct.

Yeah, though I want to clarify I mean historical events rather than from the nature of an entity so this is a perspective drawing from historical knowledge (or, at least, stuff I read) -- but that's definitely a theme of these historical events. If such and such fails then the net suffering is greater than if such and such does not fail is one form of market intervention I'd count. — Moliere

But in general, government assistance to private entities is not in line with neoliberal ideas. That happened in 2009, but there was absolutely no political theory in play wrt the bail outs. That was done to keep the economy from crashing due to a credit freeze.

The fact that the financial sector of NYC is so important to the US economy that they have to be bailed out is the result of Neoliberalism. The bail out itself was just survival mode.

am uncertain that neoliberalism is international in the same way that, say, capitalism is international: — Moliere

Neoliberalism is more global than national. That enhances the freedom of a capitalist from local concerns like taxation, unionization, etc.

This being relevant because I'm not sure if one should include the various interventions in Latin and South America on the part of the US as an example, or if that's just the nature of the beast at the international level and neoliberalism is something which can only take place within a capitalist economy. — Moliere

Chile was the first test case for the imposition of neoliberal ideas. Neoliberalism will tend to make an economy run hot, so when this happened to Chile, this was touted as success.

You should check out Harvey's book about it. I stayed outraged for about a week straight after I read it. Ahrrr!

really do look similar to many of what I'd term neoliberal interventions on behalf of the market. — Moliere

Are you talking about entities deemed to big to fail?

That's probably why I wanted to define it: I found myself using it a lot and it occurred to me that I might not know what I was saying. — Jamal

I think you had it right, except you can favor capitalism without being a neoliberal. You could favor embedded liberalism, for instance.

I think it's the 20th Century war against leftism that defines it.

I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me, because the word is used sometimes as a loose term of abuse—a mere “polemical tool”—everywhere as far as I can tell. — Jamal

Oh. I guess it does mean the same thing, then.

Cool, but it doesn’t show that there’s a difference between American and European uses, which is all that I objected about in your first post. — Jamal

Is it common for European academics to claim that the word is meaningless? If so, it's the same.

"At some point during Bryan Singer’s genre-redefining 1995 thriller, The Usual Suspects, the elusive villain Keyser Söze shares some of his wisdom with the audience: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.” Something similar might be said about neoliberalism even if attributing infernal implications to it might seem a little far-fetched.

"The term is as ambiguous as it is contested. While some consider it to be synonymous with the unleashed forces of turbo-capitalism (Bourdieu 1998; Chomsky 1999), others think of it as a moderate version of classical liberalism’s blunt imperative of laissez-faire. And while some note a decade-long march of victory of neoliberal policy regimes worldwide (see Harvey 2005), others disparage it as a figment of its critics’ fevered imagination that does not even exist—let alone rule the world—and the term ought to be sent into semantic retirement. The latter perspective contends that neoliberalism is not only vacuous but has also become so politically charged that it serves as little more than a polemical tool for theoretical and political smear campaigns waged with denunciatory intentions. And to be sure, this is correct insofar as there are hardly any self-proclaimed neoliberals to be found.

"Since it was (re)introduced to academic and political discourse in the early 1990s, only its critics have used the term (see Boas and Gans-Morse 2009). At present there is a growing reluctance even on their side to make use of it because it disqualifies any speaker as a potential ideologue with anticapitalist biases. If you call someone neoliberal, it suggests that you are unwilling to engage in reasoned argument and would rather resort to polemical name-calling. So even if neoliberalism ruled the world, it would be a neoliberalism without any neoliberals, and even its academic critics dare not speak its name—a truly devilish trick. I first show that neoliberalism is far more than a chimera made up by its critics. Neoliberal thought developed as a response to the crisis of liberalism in the 1930s, and there is a common denominator to this body of thought, albeit a thin one. It is not a common set of doctrines but what I call the neoliberal problematic, which concerns the preconditions of functioning markets. This problematic characterizes the work of a number of thinkers who can be referred to as neoliberals in the proper sense of the term, such as the German ordoliberals Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, and Alexander Rüstow, but also Friedrich August Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan.1 They provide me with the reservoir of ideas that I scrutinize in part 1, the central part of the book."

The Political Theory of Neoliberalism by Biebricher

I think it’s the same here. The difference is more likely between popular and academic uses. — Jamal

You're straight up not believing there's a difference. I don't know. That's just what the sources I read said. I'll see if I can dig one up if you want it.

Interesting post, but none of it goes against neoliberalism as understood in Europe, as you imply. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between US and non-US uses of the term. It has globalized itself successfully. — Jamal

Maybe the difference is in who uses the term? In the US, if it's used at all, it's usually by leftists. I thought the use was more mainstream in Europe.

When I talk about neoliberalism, sometimes I mean the ideology of contemporary capitalism, and sometimes I mean the economic form itself. I don’t think conflating the two is much of a problem. Neoliberalism is a development of capitalism and a justificatory intellectual movement in support of that development. In both senses, it is a partial revival of nineteenth-century free market liberalism, a reaction to the compromised capitalism of the middle decades of the twentieth century, when Keynesianism was popular. Neoliberals support globalization, deregulation and privatization, believing that the role of the private sector ought to be expanded beyond the limits traditionally adhered to in the decades following the Great Depression and the Second World War. — Jamal

This is cool, but the word is used differently in Europe vs the US. For Americans, the word is more controversial, sometimes declared meaningless, used in a derogatory fashion, or taken up as a badge of honor in spite of its negative connotations.

Reagan was a fan of Hayek and was impressed by the idea that collectivism is a path to slavery. This attitude was inextricable from his hostility to the USSR, which was viewed as an arch enemy seeking to destroy the Good. Hayek said that in principle, he believed that dictatorship was warranted in order to turn countries away from collectivism. This attitude of being willing to subvert democracy in order to save freedom is not just a typical development of capitalism. As you pointed out, it's a reaction to the far reaching progress made by leftists throughout the world as a result of the Great Depression.

The emphasis on globalization has been one of the most effective neoliberal strategies for undermining the power of labor. That gives a sense of ongoing internal conflict represented by the word (for Americans, anyway). The word might have a more benign meaning elsewhere.

One carrier would destroy the entire Royal Navy at the height of the empire. Anyways, it was besides the point. — NOS4A2

And if we had a wayback machine we could go back to 1915 and kick some ass. As it is, we're constrained by other well armed powers.

Here the leader of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen cannot even face a reporter’s questions without a cheat sheet and a public relations team. It’s all a scripted show. I prefer reality television. — NOS4A2

Most powerful the world has ever seen? Eh, that's more likely the British Empire.

I'd think you'd just be indifferent to all the various politicians out there. None of them really represent you, you know? None of them.

I think Putin enlarging the conflict would be illogical, thus unlikely. — ssu

He hasn't been overly logical to this point, though.

I've met quite a few Ukrainians who've moved to the US recently, but I've now met a Moldovan whose whole family is coming soon, he said. Would Putin invade there?

True

Why seek unification instead of being content with plurality? From a psychological perspective, it shouldn't matter much. — Manuel

I think it's because the two imply one another. Unity basically means: the opposite of plurality. And vice versa. It's an opposition that can't be pulled apart without a breakdown in meaning.

I guess that's one reason property dualism and neutral monism are attractive. They cover all the bases. :razz: