what is your take on sythentic a priori judgments? Or propositions based upon them?

it can if there is a mirror :yum:

And what does that mean? What is the difference between saying an infant is dependent on the mother and an infant is existentially dependent on the mother? What is the difference between being dependent and existentially dependent? It just seems superfluous.

Can you rephrase this for me? I have no idea what this means.

My question is what is the physical world other than consciousness?
@Damir Ibrisimovic

I don't trust in Good or Evil at all. All there is is what is desirable or undesirable for HUMANS.

God is at base a transpersonal creation so to provide a condition for the things people wish to be not governed by the 'relativistic' human. People want to be subjugated to absolutes so they do not have to think deeper.

If the ontological argument is still in some fashion legitimate, how?

hmmm.

Too much presupposition for me in religion.

What of the proposition "This proposition is not a true proposition"?

What is the difference between dependent and existentially dependent?

and this propositional truth you speak of is purely analytic?

Good in the sense of 'benefit' is not the same as 'good' in the moral sense, which is opposed to 'evil.'

But this is an interesting question.

I would not say that philosophy does anything for itself. I would, furthermore, say that philosophy is not in itself an entity that is apprehendable. Philosophy is in the act of philosophy. That is what I would say. But obviously you can object and perhaps I am wrong!

If, on the other hand you say, well, if philosophy is at base not for its own good wouldn't it be for your own good? And so since you are, in a sense, the condition of the philosophy, the basing of a philosophy, supposedly, beyond good and evil, would be inevitably basing yourself beyond good and evil... How would this be the case if philosophy is for one's own good?
If we concede that 'good' means the same thing as the 'good' opposed to evil, we seem to be at an end here, right?
But no! Whose good is philosophy for? What is this basing of yourself? What is for your own good? What constitutes this? These questions constitute philosophy, and therefore the whole question of this is beyond good and evil.
Ergo philosophy is beyond good and evil.

Why?

Isn't it pretty coherent?

I am? Okay yeah, I know I am rather than I am not... But what does it mean to be? I know that I am but I do not not know what the meaning of being is.

That is the formulation... Don't make it harder than it is lol. That is easy to do... But maybe breaking it down might get you somewhere... Maybe...

I wish it was that simple, but it isn't.

His idea is from Plato.

I can't personally read the Greek, but here is the translation

"For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression 'being'. We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed."

Is it not in a very serious sense the goal of philosophy to base itself beyond good and evil? For instance, in psychology, psychopaths who commit heinous acts--these acts are not seen as evil and these people are not seen to be evil... Only in clarifying them as not evil, which is usually characterized as unjustifiable, radically unknowable, absolutely chaotic, etc.; can a knowledge of 'why' come about.

Saying that God does not exist is to say not that he lacks the quality of existence but that the being which would be the foundation of God should be easily apprehendable in the world, as is everything else characterized to be. Something that is is not said to be and predicated with existence: it is because it can be easily ascertained to be. The more abstract the truth, the more you have to seduce your senses to it (Nietzsche).

In any sense, "the path to redemption" seems to be bracketed within what designates the being of what would be it, namely the opposite of redemption, as if there is sin in the first place. All of this seems to be presupposition.

Maybe you can clarify this for me?

Anyway, I was simply remarking upon previous philosophical concepts that are similar.

You are also referring to the ontological argument, the idea that because the idea of perfection exists, the ideal or form of perfection must exist, and since humans are imperfect, God would be perfection and so God exists.

This has been refuted a few times by different people.

My favorite refutation is Kant's.

His idea is that the ontological argument is based in the idea of existence never as a predicate. His idea is that the condition of a statement such as "God Exists," by whatever means, does not mean that by virtue of the fact that we can address the idea of a God, one must exist. In fact, this is not the case. Kant says that being is something rather displayed in the world, and as such, the being of something must be verifiable in the world. Otherwise, saying "God does not exist" would be both affirming and denying his existence at the same time.

This is based on Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

perfectly intelligible notions - such as "existence" - virtually meaningless. — creativesoul

...

He has a whole section called 'The ontico-ontological priority of the question of being.'

He thought being was uninintelligible. That is the whole premise of his work.

One of the most irritating forms of bigotry, in my opinion, is that which is the impetus (latent or manifest) in fatalistic, either nihilistic or faithful, scientism.

Aka. Ben Shapiro

no no no I would never consider myself to be intellectually superior! That is certainly not my intention. That is rather abject actually...

Some people may need a firm kick... Maybe... Like some philosophers did to me when I was dogmatic and certain.

But I agree, perhaps I was out of line. Actually, I know I was. But I am very sensitive when it comes to ideas about LGBT

Lol Sapientia hates me, even though I really am not pro the death penalty! Hehehehe

I was merely taking that position!

mhmmm

and people get to baselessly claim others are delusional for being transgendered? And this is justified? Wouldn't this be akin to religious fundamentalism?

Random quotes? Oh really? Jabbing a finger? Oh now I am the bad guy? Not the Virgin who makes a contention that transgendered people are fundamentally inauthentic and at base are delusional. Oh yes, the opposition to this is going to be very kind, caring and concerned of the other, and is going to be absolutely respectful!
And what is philosophy if it is without polemic?

I'm sorry I can't talk to you any more. I once promised never again to engage in conversation with people like you, and I am not going to, because at the end of the day, and it doesn't matter the means by which you do this; you will inevitably see me, my meaning, my love, my joy, my life, and my feelings, thoughts and own personal beliefs about existence as wrong. And you could say the same about me, but at least all of these things for me are the result of my own creation, from within me and not a simple adoption or assimilation. I wish I could understand you. I wish we could agree. I think at base we want the same things, but we are fundamentally incapable of having a common exchange. Sorry I engaged you.

Why should I ask for forgiveness for something that is of utmost meaning to me, and is beautiful?

There is nothing to discuss about Christianity.

I personally have absolutely no idea how people can still adhere to it today with so much philosophy. A Christian in the strict sense, copying and pasting his/her life in terms of the Bible's text, is the product of an impoverished education.

Regardless of what you believe you will still die.

The soul hypothesis has been refuted time after time.

It is a disgrace to human intelligence to look at the pleasures and joys of people through a lens of corruption.

"The soul of sweet delight can never be defiled." William Blake

Notice that this is poetry.

Because it is absolutely disgusting to say that I am an abomination for being gay... Duh?

It is wrong because human freedom is extremely important. Humans can save themselves. Just because we die does not mean that all is lost. Life is what matters, and we do not need to be saved and live a life in relation to the unknown, and make an appeal to some sort of absolute truth, which is if I may say at base wish fulfillment and based upon absolutely nothing substantial. Humans can provide for other humans. Not all do but that does not mean they can't. The point is to empower people through this with education and empathy, bringing people together as opposed to separating them further, which is at base all religion does.

The point is that we are not impotent. We have a will and should implement this instead of giving up, again, rejecting what we have at our disposal based upon nothing!

All you have is faith. Faith is meaningless if it renders the human having the faith, willing the faith completely impotent and without the ability to provide for others and himself, and live a fulfilling life without some sort of contingency enslaving him to a have-to, fear based morality.

And no, the Bible disgusts me.

Relativism? Lawlessness?
Have you ever heard of secularism?

Wow

Sorry if you had to read the above... I have a particular nerve for those who oppose LGBT.

Anyway.

Hmmm. It is not that I

deny

the existence of a 'permanent' subject of consciousness. It is that it seems only a presupposition.

Yes, consciousness is a sort of vector, but it is not linear. It is the pure apprehension of possibility.

If you have never had sex... What gives you any right to say ANYTHING about intimate relationships, identity and gender in relation to complementarity and emotional relationality? Furthermore, what makes you think that you are justified in making ANY assertion about the authenticity of others' lives?

Oh... Because you are a religious dogmatist yourself.
Oh... Well at least that elephant in the room is no longer a hallucination, although the noematic content of a hallucination is indistinguishable from that of a 'real' perception...

Christianity is absolutely wrong and I can give you countless reasons.

1. The assertion that I am an abomination my blood shall be on my hands for loving a man.

2. Christianity looks at humans as fundamentally corrupt needing a savior as if they cannot save themselves. This renders humans as impotent.

3. Christianity hates life and desires. It says that this life is to be disregarded, in that one should not create their own meaning and create their own firm ethics, but merely adopt one based on an appeal to divinity, which renders man as meaningless and at base worthless in relation to God.

4. Christianity speaks of absolute truth and does not give any ideas about ethical dilemmas in which killing or stealing would be justified... In the case of having a gun and watching someone about to murder your family, true Christianity says to sit back and let God take care of it and not commit sin.

What a wonderful ideology. It is all about judgment and dressing the human up to be what he is not, namely HUMAN!

In terms of evolution, Darwin said that humans shouldn't live by survival of the fittest. I wonder why? Huh...

If there is an anthropomorphic deity, it is absolutely psychopathic and malevolent.

What I think defines me?

It's like trying to argue that an apple is a pineapple when everyone think otherwise and they have proof that it is not in fact a pineapple. Being rebel is good sometimes but it doesn't paint a good image of you when you are denying reality, we aren't transcending reality with some psychic powers yet I believe,
The fact is, your personality doesn't rely on basic biological truths unlike gender and sex. You yourself admitted that gender relies on sex. — Terran Imperium

Yes, what you think, you become (Buddha)

Consciousness is not a thing like a pineapple is. This is a false comparison and anything derived from it is fundamentally baseless and at best an impoverished metaphor.

The psyche is the origin of gender! In terms of Jung, if the anima and animus archetypes of the unconscious remain undifferentiated, or if they become differentiated in a way that is unconventional or unique, then a person may be a homosexual or, perhaps, transgendered. It all has to do with identifications made at a very young age in relation to not only the parents, which are extraordinarily significant with regard to the emotional, psychological development of the child; but also in relation to oneself and what one sees of themself in the mirror, to reference Jacques Lacan's Mirror Phase, the point in which the child will recognize themself in the mirror and realize that they are an objective totality, limited and are not completely defined by what they themselves operate and feel within--and the mirror is the mother in a sense, for the child realizes that they themselves are something separate, yet still very attached to the mother not in a physiological way but in a psychological way, which is just as significant. The child did not always realize he was something to be defined. The child was not always this. And although people conclude that the child's perspective is flawed and absent of rationality, it substantiates the idea that one is not born to be and experience that of being a certain gender and thus immediately comply with a gender a priori. This is absolutely ridiculous. One becomes a gender based on their identifications, true or false a posteriori.

We are attempting to help the patient instead of hurting them more by reinforcing their delusion to the point where the pay a doctor handsomely to cut them up. — Harry Hindu

That's why you get a good doctor and follow the healthy, designated path of transition.

it only showcases that these people went through something that caused them to develop such a delusion as to think, they are 'beyond' reality. Either through mob mentality or just some life experiences, its very much a delusion. — Terran Imperium

ROFL, you really think you are onto something don't you?
You are absolutely wrong. Why don't you go out and ask a trans person?
TRANSPHOBIA!
You are assuming these people are idiots who were coerced into believing that they were not a man or not a woman? You honestly think something could make someone believe that other than that person themselves introspecting and identifying their own psychical disposition, in terms of their possibilities and what they want to become and be a part of, and what forms of intimacy they feel would be most fulfilling? You honestly think a transgender EXPRESSING themselves is really them hypnotized by some prior experience or upbringing? WAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. All you have are assumptions and abject idle talk. This is getting to be VERY revealing of your own personality. God knows what your sex life consists of!

@Harry Hindu

@Harry Hindu

People are their sex or gender based on their physical and behavioral features. — Harry Hindu

This is simply wrong. The foundation of gender relates to the identification of what it means to have a penis and what it means to have a vagina... THE IDENTIFICATION of it NOT the fact of it as if the body has a mind of its own and enslaves you to its own mechanism giving you the absolute illusion that you are controlling anything. Please tell me how you would explain the body controlling the situation of a person randomly committing suicide? Please tell me how the body, chemically could determine whether or not a person will commit suicide. This is absolutely impossible. Emotions are not neurons. If you think so, then you clearly have no emotions.

People who we label as transgender don't just want to act like the opposite sex, they want to BE the opposite sex, which is why they go through sexual reassignment surgery. I — Harry Hindu

Wrong.

People who ARE transgender do not want to be the opposite sex. They are not what they have been led to by their facticity to believe that they are, and they have realized by whatever means that their personality, and their identification of what it means to have a penis or a vagina does not conform with what they want for themselves, namely in the manifestation of the libido in the sexual organs. They realize that what they want in life and what they want to be a part of, in terms of a sexual relationship, does not involve the sexual organs they did not choose to have in the first place.

just an fake version of the opposite sex? — Harry Hindu

Another absolute mutation based on absolutely no a posteriori methodology or epistemological basis. And question this so I can tell you, please.

(as a result of how they were raised and the norms that were established for them at an early age - like their parents treating them as the opposite sex) — Harry Hindu

Really? You think someone would just randomly choose to be transgender, and to have to live in a world with people like you?

Wanting to act like the opposite sex just reinforces the gender dichotomy - as you aren't really trying to break down the barriers between sexes - you want to BE the opposite sex. — Harry Hindu

There is no gender dichotomy. Have you even ever had passionate sex? Or did you just use the woman as a passive object for your own pleasure?
It isn't about wanting to be another sex. You are misguided. It is that one is absolutely against being what they are imprisoned within, and thus they are the Other... Simone De Beauvoir's other.

delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (like believing that your body is the wrong sex)

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force, even when evidence suggests the contradictory.

That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. They will not accept any other opinions.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in light of the delusional beliefs.

Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.


Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.

It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.

The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged. — Harry Hindu

1. There is no evidence that their personality is not what they say they are. "A fantasy is a fact: it is so much a fact that because of one man's fantasy another man may lose his life. It is again not a tangible object, but it is a fact." Carl Jung
Because some sort of correlation can be made between biology, reproduction and the function of the sex organs does not mean that how people identify within themselves regarding who they are by understanding who they are not and what they are not is in any way degraded. Just as the function of the sex organs does not define sexuality, the biological disposition of sex organs does not determine gender. Gender is something that a person becomes. "One is not born but becomes woman." Simone De Beauvoir.

2. With regard to this. I can say anything is a delusion. The fact that I am happy. If I say "I am happy." And then someone comes along and says, no you are not, you look sad. And let's say that I am crying tears of joy, another person may ask, "What is wrong?"
One cannot say what is a delusion for another person unless it meets certain psychiatric criteria, namely believing that people are out to kill you, that everyone is lying to you, that the world is fake, that the cameras are watching you, that the medicine you are given is controlling your mind, that you have some type of electronic device in your head. Comparing a trans person to a paranoid schizophrenic... You are the one who needs to be labotomized. I know trans people and they are not delusional people. They are simply different, atop different psychological premises, in a different paradigm of identification.

3. All of these displays of delusion absolutely do not apply to trans people. You are an idiot if you think they do, and this clearly represents your lack of insight into the subject altogether, which honestly makes me question your state of mind... You are the delusional one.
Now how do you feel? How would you feel if someone constantly called you delusional and then brought up all these reasons as to why you are delusional? They did the same thing to gay people. I have had the same thing done to me. And what? All of it was complete dogsh+t.

Humanism

an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. (Google definition)

The first objection to a Humanism is that it is blindly supportive of absolute freedom and autonomy and it disregards the unintegrated or conditioned aspects of human existence.
Ergo we have where I stand. I stand in support of Humanism as opposed to fatalism, which is what these two @Terran Imperium@Harry Hindu espouse ever so eloquently... with subtle subterfuge...

Under a completely objective view, any professor will tell you that transgenderism is a mental illness — Terran Imperium

This is the first absolutely baseless claim we have. As I have a piece of paper in the other room from a mental health facility that has the option of 'transgender' marked under gender... This assertion of yours is absolutely false.
Contrary to what you believe, according to whatever conscious or unconscious ideology you yourself have been conditioned or, more likely, coerced into adopting; being transgender is a legitimate gender identity.
This is furthermore supported by hundreds of colleges and just about every mental health hospital or out-patient clinic you can visit in the whole United States. The reason I know this is because I have personally seen this in about 15 different states.

Science can adequately explain how emotions work and which area of the brain, which chemical cause sadness, depression or happiness. We are taking steps forward in understanding how the human body works. You are assuming that science has no relation what so ever to the subject at hand, that is not the case. — Terran Imperium

Another completely baseless claim...
Science cannot adequately explain how emotions work. You honestly think an anti-depressant fixes the emotions associated with depression? Do you honestly think that science has the upper hand over emotions and consciousness? Are you kidding me? We have absolutely no idea how consciousness works. All we have are correlations about different neurological mechanisms. What is DMT? Explain to me what DMT does to a person's experience in terms of the chemical itself? It is merely a pseudoneurotransmitter altering perception? It is endogenous! Are you going to tell me that neurotransmitters can explain conscious experience? This is a fantasy! Throw someone in a dark room and give them opium and record their thoughts. Dopamine may be associated with pleasure but it is not itself pleasure. Have you ever heard of what it takes to have an orgasm? That is, the psychological investigation of it, neuropsychology states that a very important piece of having a fulfilling orgasm relates to the CONSCIOUS FIXATION and interest in that sexual state of affairs. There is a reason one cannot just take heroin and feel good. There is a reason one cannot just rub their penis and ejaculate. There is a reason a mother loves her children. And it is not because of some chemical! This is, again, fatalism at its finest; the conception that humans are fundamentally unfree and abject machines incapable of making any decisions outside of that which amounts to some sort of pleasure. Consciousness is not some hedonistic object that becomes affected and then is oriented toward these chemicals that cause pleasure. Ever heard of human sacrifice? Ever heard of someone dying for another? And what of art? What of these experiences and expressions of existence that are incoherently complex and absolutely incapable of being understood in terms of brain chemistry?
The conclusion is that neurology is not the edifice of truth and human existence and personality is not this survival of the fittest. Darwin himself said humans should never live according to survival of the fittest, and that it is essentially abject and nihilistic.

Both of these people have arguments that support, inevitably, nihilism.

One of the psychiatrists doesn't make him or her represent all of the psychiatrists, being someone important doesn't automatically mean that his or her work is a 'truth' that we should adhere to, especially if I don't have any proof that this psychiatrist's words that you mentioned are widely accepted or not — Terran Imperium

Ummm. And you want to be a doctor? Freud was a NEUROLOGIST. Jung was a psychiatrist and founded analytical psychology! He was one of the most important psychiatrists to ever live and if it was not for his and Freud's research then psychiatry would be impoverished today, if not non-existent!

You are the one that is insulting, by the way.

And though it will take me some time to completely destroy your argument. I will do it to you and Harry for the sake of humanism.

As well, you have absolutely mutated my words into an abject interpretation, devoid of all the original epistemic foundations.

This is the worst fallacy in a debate.

Lol, and it is VERY WISE of you to judge my actual thoughts and feelings and emotions and desires.
This is a thread.
And I was, TBH, just positing an idea of what might be justified.

I don't speak in absolutes, contrary to you

Yes, in fact I do realize that humans have seriously screwed up and gotten themselves into holes they may never get out of.

Vile thoughts and desires? That person deserves to be brutally punished! What are you some Godly ascetic who has given up all desires and relations to the world in which you are manifest?!
Yes, I accept my brutal desires! They are justified!
"Wisdom"!

...