Whatever isn't too stimulating for the admins and sexually or, seemingly, politically repressed people on this board

Yeah I agree. Validity is just falling from axioms to a derivation but it's all we can meaningfully check anyways.

These are very normal questions in normative philosophy of sex and was just a few examples to get people in grasp with it. It may have been a little too energizing for some people but the idea was to start a conversation on the topic.

In any case, you would be arguing then that "free" sex of the 60s is "authoritarian" and a "violation of human rights"? Seems a little over-dramatic.

Normative philosophy of sexuality inquires about the value of sexual activity and sexual pleasure and of the various forms they take. Thus the philosophy of sexuality is concerned with the perennial questions of sexual morality and constitutes a large branch of applied ethics. Normative philosophy of sexuality investigates what contribution is made to the good or virtuous life by sexuality, and tries to determine what moral obligations we have to refrain from performing certain sexual acts and what moral permissions we have to engage in others.
Some philosophers of sexuality carry out conceptual analysis and the study of sexual ethics separately. They believe that it is one thing to define a sexual phenomenon (such as rape or adultery) and quite another thing to evaluate it.

From the iep.

This is just meant to start a conversation and gather different manners to speak about philosophy of sex.

I mean sociology of sex falls out of philosophy of sex but, while using different sociological conceptions as case examples, we're using philosophical language in terms of value, structures, benefits, crossover into epistemology (with education) etc. It runs the full gambit. We don't need any sociological conception of sex to exist to examine it which seems to make it definitionally not sociology.

Anyways those were examples to be parsed through and maybe be suggestive of one's own philosophy of sex.

I also wanted to mention that the benefits of monarchical sex may seem less obvious to us now, especially given all the republican (anti monarchical) propaganda, but it's effective at controlling power.

The free sex movement, whether one believes it overshot or not, seems to give value to the populace in general so to negate it would require going into why people accept it and what value they get from it.

The puritan sex is interesting because their population growth is insane and makes them set to take over America in population in 200 years. Clearly value is developed/derived from it even if criticism may be there.

It's the first principles of reality which makes a structure.
You have a metaphysical structure, like foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism, monism, nihilism etc.
Then you have a means to traverse through that structure, or an ontological relationship narrative. In that you have emanationism, emergentism, successionism, Aristotle's logic etc.
Then you have ontological dimensions which is the narrative of what objects fundamentally are in number (so do you import light and darkness/wave vs particle light with dualism or just photons with monism). In that you have monism, dualism, trialism, quadrilism, etc, pluralism, nihilism etc.

From this structure one can derive their ontological framework and epistemological framework, their philosophy of history, sex, politics, writing, technology and anything else from their metaphysical structure.

We know force = mass * acc and it's valid necessarily and therefore never changes. Whether it's sufficient enough for everything that goes on is tangential because we can derive force from mass (through the mass formula, which imports volume from math) and acc. If a proper reduction is done then we get more than probabilities and in any case probabilities are a pretty low bar in any science. It's literally when the particles are too convoluted or it's just efficient but statistical mechanics similarly doesn't imply emergentism except in an epistemological sense and it doesn't preclude regular causation.

I mean nurture vs nature showed neither position was sufficient for description of human life.
If it was nature then society would never meaningfully develop while full nurture throws the baby out with the bathwater. You end up getting some boomer geographic historicism like what Jared Diamond had.
I think a better historicism accounts for them both.

I was under the assumption the big bang was but I read it was developed by a priest and roundly rejected because it seemed too theistic lol.
I personally don't mind abiogenesis.

How would you describe evolution then without cause?

Sure natural selection's a cause. The question is "what cause dictates biological object x to become biological object y". People can erroneously assume it's due to "randomness" but that's explanatory for nobody.
Some people assume it's ad hoc or the explanation is due to "what survives".
Those are bad understandings of evolution and on the face of it seems like what's not happening. That being said, what *is* happening and with that how does that bring us to convergent evolution, divergent etc? We have nothing which's meaning formalizes this observation. Environment doesn't do enough and neither do predators. These variables influence it certainly but they're not sufficient explanations.

Edit: many different species live in a similar environment or have the same predators and can be vastly different. Genes looks like a good place to look but we currently have issues in science with "noise" (e.g. replicability issue) and now we're going to get more noise if web 3.0 gets big but it doesn't look popular because it's goofy. Probably a corporate-sponsored phase in technology to get more of our data.

I think a biological historicism or directive would be insufficient to dictate the phases in our life.

I'm not sure what science's lack of use of cause has to do with the situation. Evolution is still a theory as it has no causation narrative that is sufficient to explain what's happening.
In any case, what issue would you find with causation?

It wouldn't make sense with christianity as the early covenants instantiated our right to be protected, over animals etc, was being made in the image of God. Later it was about being a slave/abed to YHWH and then that further developed into accepting christ, or a fundamental ethical event, to be granted more ethical justification (or to be closer to God).

Yeah I'm not sure what causes or how to account for kinetic energy to be honest. I gave a quick once-through about what the traits in quantum mechanics were. If I remember correctly, the difference between bosons and fermions was a De Morgan's law in dirac notation (which would intuit a logical reduction of physics) but irdr, it was over a year or two ago.

I think contemporary physics assumes energy and matter are what fundamentally cause things. In biology they assume some conception of life.

I think currently in physics they haven't put up a narrative as to what's a necessary component of cause and what's sufficient (such as quantum spin etc). It seems they're still trying to find more particles and trying to order them. I know string theory fell out of favor but quantum field theory has an argument for accounting for cause in quantum mechanics and general relativity (which both supplanted classical mechanics in manners of their own). In classical mechanics I believe kinetic energy was what caused things.

Whatever you said, context and tone matters and you've been nothing but abrasive and throwing in that accusation is not charitable and looks bigotous.

Have a good one.

I did not lie about anything as there was nothing to lie about. I'm not an apologist for Islam but it doesn't matter if I am. If you could stop your bigotry and harassment and stop replying to me I would appreciate it.

I've heard people try to say "if my arm was an inch away it would be possible" and it seems trivial but that entails different physical principles which entails different math then logic, ontology all the way back to the most fundamental law that we can perceive which is a change of "is" but I'm not sure that's coherent because all we can perceive is "is" so even if it changes it's an epistemic limit.

I think there would have to be proof that separates some fundamental laws from their derivatives for contingentarianism to work. We can only meaningfully speak about things in existence so I think that dictates everything.

I'll have nobody uninteresting to converse with in 2/3 months hopefully.

I've never heard anyone reduce God down to art or science and I could pick up the psychological vibes. Whatever your experiences are with religion, you communicated in a psychological manner at best. Why would any theist be fine with saying they worship art or physics equations? It seems you already questioned it.

Yes if atheism is to be correct then theism has to be wrong, ridiculous or at least extraordinarily reductive towards some particular otherwise atheism looks foolish and crass. No secular a priori justification provided a strong enough foundation for ending slavery especially after secular capitalism turbo-charged it. So I sorta wish it was "art" or "science" because it would make human psychology look circular, slavish and foolish, as it can only.

No, religion isn't art nor is it science by anyone's account that I'm aware of. There've been a few threads recently that asked the same question and they had some good answers. It doesn't seem like you have any experience with theism. I don't think it's possible to be atheists but the way you treat both is as whims of people's imaginations which would be so amazing if it was that simple and perfectly explained by the dogma of the 20th century.

I'm not interested in conversing with you.

I agree with that too. I'm a christian

To be honest I engaged pretty fruitfully and you haven't really given any concern to anything besides throwing rebuttals everywhere without addressing my points. That and you called me a Muslim apologist for no reason and your accusations aren't biblical except in a cursory reading of verses with a modern bias. Clearly nobody will be up to the task of explaining the bible or history so I'm not sure why you replied here. I mean it's extremely off-topic anyways.

I personally would re-apply the criticism of "lacktheism" in "rocks being atheist" to any negation definition and say atheism isn't an actual position but the negation of one (same criticism I have for veganism, but not for vegetarianism, which is defined as no animal products where the latter is defined by vegetables/plants-eating).

I agree, I think theism should have a more robust definition.

Yeah it does look interesting. I would say a history of quakers in general and in America would show a lot more abolitionism. The abolitionist position lost ground once the 18th century started and the markets had the economics for slavery be promoted. I would say the strongest justification for anything is in such a foundation like God. In any case, the primary agitant seems to be secularism, particularly liberal capitalism. The christian perspective came a century and a half later after it was a huge institution and many denominations in the south decided it was bad but so was losing souls. The christian development and intensification was politically drawn afaik.

I really don't want to divert from this thread's topic.

They can be reconciled by accepting them in an asymmetric relationship fundamentally or disjoint where they may be particularly

Christians sin, that's biblical but nobody else had a means to ground an end to slavery. Individualism exacerbated the issue. We actually see states banning slavery through christianity until the beginnings of the 18th century when the market promoted them a lot. There was a lot of secular pushback as christians became more aware of the horrors of what was going on and became more indignant.

I speak about it in this thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12710/christian-abolitionism/p1

We're so bad that we started the abolitionist movement in the west which ended with the abolition of slaves. Nobody else did.

I feel like you've completely ignored what I wrote because I already mentioned Leviticus 21 and you haven't seemed to respond to anything I said just line up more accusations.

Who cares if I am an Islam apologist?

It was not common at all, it may have never happened, the phenomenon of selling yourself into slavery if you're poor in the American south. Chattel slavery seems to make it impossible.

It was also not a trait of slavery in America to free slaves if you hurt them.

I asked a Muslim how talion was applied to them and he said that there's a general funny joke or idea that explains it, "If you unjustly slap your slave then he has a right to slap you back." So they apply talion more literally.

Edit: Now what did happen in America was selling yourself into indentured servitude to either get a ride on a boat there and to get land after x amount of years worked. That's not what we're talking about with chattel slavery and indentured servitude is more in line with abed.

It's enjoyable for me as well.

I think logical validity requires truth preservation but soundness is whether the object exists in reality to give truth preservation. In any case, math is considered to be more sound than any experiment can yield. Physics actually imports math because of its universalness (strong explanatory power) and rigorous validity which, before galileo, was lacking in physics despite the experiments.

I would agree with your last sentiment. An assertion is evidence but evidence with really low explanatory power and so shouldn't be used.

I would say empiricism is just a type of epistemology that requires use of one's senses. Rationalism is used even in the scientific method with hypotheses and conclusions (usually inductive arguments). We use rationalism in logic, math, linguistic propositions and metaphysics, ontology etc.

I would also say there are different standards within epistemologies (sub-epistemology, like within empiricism) like verificationism, falsificationism etc.

It wasn't really an appeal to authority any more than me citing SEP was. He's an expert in the field if it wasn't obvious from the content of the article. He actually mentions the distinction between anti-theism and atheism (at the end of the first section iirc). If you know him then you'll know his positions on anti-theism and atheism so you can read it with that in mind.

In any case, if one asks for proof then the person receiving that request is allowed to ask for the standard of the proof. If, for example, the standard required is empirical and the conception of God has no empirically knowable points, then the standard of evidence is allowed to be criticized. That would make even in the best of cases an atheist an active engager in the dialogue with a "positive" statement.

I think it's a pretty standard basis that any rejection of a major position in a field requires a standard in which it can be rejected. Classical mechanics was supplanted by general relativity for a reason. Einstein didn't just yell at the other scientists that they just don't have proof. In itself it facilitates a very low, generally unsuitable to any field, standard of discussion.

Edit: also I believe that's Draper who edited that.
Edit: changed qm to gr

I wanted to add to the car key point, that implication logic only holds based on what the succeedent's truth value is.
A > B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F T F

So it still requires input from the user to say whether A implies God's existence. If you reject it outright then there's a justifiable reason to ask why and saying "not enough evidence" becomes a non-starter in any philosophical discussion.