I interpret this differently than you.
— NKBJ

Of course, as is everything in history that folks do when black folks have a different perspective... — Anaxagoras

If that's going to be your attitude, then there's no reason to continue this discussion.

. I think it is a matter of faith that they 'must be'. — unenlightened

How do you figure that? Lottery numbers are generated by computers and those have algorithms. Definitely caused and determined.

Can I suggest that reasons are not necessarily causes? — unenlightened

If a reason causes you to do something, then it is a cause.

Well I can imagine never having had ice cream before, and having no idea what favourite would be. So I choose on a whim. Still my choice, still free, no? — unenlightened

Your whim is still going to be influenced by the tastes of foods you know you like.

But besides that, would you really want people going around making uncaused choices all the time?

I choose chocolate ice cream freely because I am only influenced by my liking for chocolate ice cream. If you have a gun to my head and promise to shoot me unless i choose vomit tutti frutti flavour, then my choice is not free, and I may well choose against my will and according to your will. — unenlightened

Right.
And to choose a flavor absent any influences whatsoever would just be random. It wouldn't even be your "choice."

I really suggest you at least read the first article I posted. It will answer a lot of your concerns.

We can never do it, but if you could put a person in exactly the same situation and state say 1000 times then I would guess them to make the same decision 1000 times out of a 1000 (even for something as arbitrary as 'will it be heads or tails?'). — Devans99

That's the thing: we can't think of free will as arbitrary. That wouldn't be any kind of freedom or will at all.

So therefore there is no free will. We respond to input data in a deterministic manner. No choice is involved. — Devans99

It's both. We use reason to make choices based on determined data.

Making a 'decision' is just like running a computer program IMO: same data, same program, always same results — Devans99

That's because it's reasonable to choose the same thing given the same data.

The choices we make are determined by emotions (glands, hormones), logic, memory and senses. All of these things operate in a deterministic manner. I'm with Einstein on this one: free will is an illusion. — Devans99

It's contradictory to speak of choices and then claim free will is an illusion.

You have a simplistic and outdated understanding of free will.

I'm with Einstein on this one: free will is an illusion. — Devans99

It's like you didn't bother reading my post.

I think we have to rethink the standard understanding of the term "free will."

Totally uncaused "free will" would just be chaos. Imagine if you made choices without being caused to make those choices by rationality, life lessons, experience, values, etc.? It would just be random firings of the brain. Where is the freedom in that?

So, in a sense, determinism is what makes having choices possible.

Tom Clark is good for understanding how we should come to think of free will within a determined universe:
http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/fully-caused-coming-to-terms-with-determinism

and :
http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/dont-forget-about-me

Also some helpful articles collected here:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm

That remains to be seen. — Anaxagoras

:roll: By whom? You? I'll alert all feminists to report to you for ideological inspection promptly. s/

The problem, and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” Steinem told the crowd, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women.” — Anaxagoras

I interpret this differently than you. This, to me, means that SOME feminists have not been speaking for or about all women. But women of all colors and backgrounds are (to varying degrees perhaps) drawn to feminism because its core values are humanist no matter how some misguided people have enacted it.

Furthermore, the movement is clearly actively working against that very issue. So you're a bit late to the party to be calling feminists out for this.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but most issues that feminists stand for are human issues that affect women of all colors: abortion rights, equal pay, being able to speak out in cases of assault, protection from domestic violence, and so on. Or do you contend that women of color aren't interested in those things?

feminism although was a bedrock for women highlighting social equality, has transformed into a hot bed of fanatical women who for the most part want to take issue of every facet of society. Although their numbers are small, they are extremists and are the most outspoken. — Anaxagoras

That's like saying all Republicans are foaming at the mouth fascists, or that all Jews want to knife Palestinians, or that all men are rapists. Some women have used the platform of feminism to voice their sexist hatred of men. The vast majority of feminists are humanists. And most of them, including me, are frankly tired of people trying to strawperson the movement by saying it's about hating men.

I do think that the knee-jerk impulse to vilify feminists comes from a fear of men's privilege being uprooted.

It's very much like people trying to demonize any black rights movement by pointing to the outlier black racists who talk about killing cops and wreck stores and set fire to cars in protests.

One sexist feminist/racist black does not discredit the entire movement.

Like modern feminism, its a bunch of disgruntled folks who are/were privileged and who wants t continue that privilege. — Anaxagoras

White women and black men both have some privileges and some disadvantages, just of different kinds.

If feminism were equally inclusive of both genders, it would no longer be feminism, it would be egalitarianism. I definitely don't think that the modern feminist movement is equally driven by men and women, even if many feminist are concerned about men's issues. IMO, having seperate movements would be far easier than trying to equally represent the two perspectives within one movement, but I'm open to debate on that point. — Not Steve

I'm open to changing the term to "egalitarianism," even if that is a mouthful. I think people employ the term "feminism" because it did originate from a women's rights movement, and much of the theory is grounded in analysis of women's roles in society.

I also think "feminism" as a term is supposed to be in defiance of "patriarchy," which although it causes a lot of harm to men, on the face of it is supposed to keep men in charge and benefit them.

Personally, I think there should be one movement, or else we have men fighting for men's rights and women fighting for women's rights and nobody is just fighting for HUMAN rights. Men and women are equally needed on both fronts. Mothers are needed who encourage boys to be sensitive and caring, fathers who show girls how to take charge and assert themselves, and vice versa.

Also... just disregard the two people above who aren't adding anything to the discussion. They're definitely not on the same page, and I'm getting a moderator for one of them. — Not Steve

:smile:

Feminism is perpetuated by women who make their negative experiences known — Not Steve

It is? Modern feminism seems to be much more gender-neutral and global in scope than you assume:
"They are also rendering philosophical previously un-problematized topics, such as the body, class and work, disability, the family, reproduction, the self, sex work, human trafficking, and sexuality. And they are bringing a particularly feminist lens to issues of science, globalization, human rights, popular culture, and race and racism."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy/#FemiBeliFemiMove

Ask a women around you that has family and kids and a normal life, ask them of what they want? — RBS

Oh, look, I found a mansplainer! How awesome that we have you to enlighten us on what ALL women want and feel. s/

FWIW, the way I understand and enact feminism is liberating and empowering for men as well. I know some people get all hung up on the term, but that's besides the point.

I don't agree with your identity politics or standpoint theory here: I think men and women are very much capable (in theory) of understanding each other's struggles. We need to be able to do so, so we can support each other and enact meaningful change. Also, some of your claims about women just don't apply to all women. Women are told to smile and not show frustration or anger, though we are allowed to show sadness. 10% of women experience fertility issues and DO have to watch others than themselves get pregnant. And although women may not fear being accused of rape, they have to fear BEING raped and not believed.

The problem I see with a "men's rights" movement is that it brings out people like Proctor here. Married men are "chained to ageing women" and "fertilizing vast swaths of women people"? It's beyond disgusting. (I certainly hope you're not trying to appeal to such people.)

I also have a cynical view towards organized religion, so it's not like I'm favoring one over the other.

Islam is under attack world wide? By who, other than themselves? Everyone is under attack by somebody, presumably you are saying Islam is under attack “worldwide” more than all other religions? — DingoJones

I'm not going to derail the conversation by getting into whether they are or not.
For the sake of my argument it suffices to say that they think they are. ( I happen to agree, but that's besides the point.)

Also, it's fickle to cry "troll" whenever you don't agree with or understand something. — whollyrolling

It's a sign of bias to constantly tell other people they don't understand things when they simply don't like your attitude.

I stand by my conviction that you're just biased and not worth talking to--possibly just trolling this forum.

Wow. Well, if you have such a nasty opinion of philosophy and philosophers, I have no clue what you're doing here.

I do know that it means you are biased in such a way as to make it unsavory for me to further converse with you.

Assuming you're right about the decline of Christianity and rise of Islam, I could venture a few theories:

In the west (predominantly Christian) culture is moving much more toward individualism and relativism. Both of those things are somewhat antithetical to the whole point of religion. So you get a whole lot of people who are "spiritual but not religious" cause they want all the coziness of a creator without the hassle of being told what to do or what is right and wrong.

Islam and Muslims, on the other hand, are literally and figuratively under attack world wide. That kind of adversity tends to unite people and they tend to cling to the aspect of their identities that is under attack so much more. Thus, people even tangentially related to Islam are drawn into it as an act of solidarity.

real intellectuals, — whollyrolling

You don't think philosophers are "real intellectuals"?

"In short, Metaphysics of Science is that part of metaphysics that enquires into the existence, nature, and interrelations of general kinds of phenomena that figure most prominently in science. Also, Metaphysics of Science grants the sciences authority in their categorization of the world and in their empirical findings."
https://www.iep.utm.edu/met-scie/ (emphasis mine).

That's just the more wordy version of the Wikipedia entry.

The branch of philosophy called metaphysics deals primarily with two questions:
1. What is there?
2. What is it like?

"The earth is round" answers those:
1. There is an earth.
2. It is round.

I've sat in many a philosophy class where the roundness of the earth was discussed at length.

But that is no reason to say that "the earth is round" is a philosophical theory. — PossibleAaran

Except that is a metaphysical claim.

:smile:

I found some discussions among scientists and philosophers here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_science_a_part_of_or_separate_from_philosophy
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection
and here:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory

Some of whom almost agree with you, some of whom agree with me, some of whom are somewhere in the middle. THESE scientists, at least, are not annoyed but rather intrigued by the (philosophical) question of whether science is a form of philosophy. Most agree that philosophy is part of the job of a good scientist.

I don't understand where the controversy is. And, again, what use does including science under the name "philosophy" have, save for annoying people who call themselves scientists? — PossibleAaran

Those would be a group of pretty whiny/thin-skinned scientists. "Whaaaaa, people call me something absolutely benign that I kind of maybe possibly don't necessarily want to be called, whaaaaa. My life is RUINED. RUINED I tell you!!!!"

Thank you :smile:

I don't think your analogy here is really apt. If I left out conifers in defining "tree" I would be leaving out things which it is very useful to include under the general term, "tree". — PossibleAaran

Reducing philosophy to just academia is pretty useless. IMHO

Like reducing chemistry to just academia would be just as useless.

It isn't like there is some shiny platonic form of philosophy and you only correctly define philosophy when you correctly describe the form. "Philosophy" is just a word and we choose to define it however we wish. — PossibleAaran

And there are better and worse ways to define things. If I define "philosophy" as "tree" that's a really bad definition. If I leave out from the definition of "tree" all conifers, that's a really bad definition. Your definition simply does not cover all that philosophy is. You're leaving out all the "conifers" because you want to limit it to only what is "deciduous."

Wow, yeah, I didn't realize we all had to bow to Imperial America and conform to American English.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/53/ad/2353addb8189b7dc60ad19b6461b7e25.jpg

Because when I use that word, I merely refer to the academic discipline that has that label, but obviously you mean something different. — PossibleAaran

You can have that definition if you want, but it's simply not a complete one. It would be like someone insisting that "cat" only ever refers to "house cat."

Real solid rebuttal. — whollyrolling

The irony... :roll:

Everything is premature.... — arreno

It's a bit premature to assert that.

Parental nurturing instincts are a good thing... today. But people may not think so in the future. Desirability is the product of biology and biology can be changed. — YuZhonglu

I don't think we should base what we currently view as desirable on what people might in some unlikely case view as undesirable in some distant scifi future.

That "all sane parents" and "some non-parents" are privy to certain pieces of knowledge solely by virtue of parentage not only contradicts what you said earlier about instinct, as opposed to knowledge, but is also just baseless opinion. — whollyrolling

It doesn't and it isn't. But keep blabbing about stuff you don't know anything about. I'm satisfied that you haven't got anything of substance to add here.