There are also people born with unique differences (ie. not being able to produce testosterone) that would effectively have them appear to be female.

Note: Exceptions are exceptions though. We do not go around stating that when a child is born with four arms, or no arms, that we should think of humans as having 0-4 arms. Such levels of stupidity exist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people stating just that.

It doe not matter what anyone thinks or believes. What you say and do has consequences.

Well, that is another related issue. I think it is perfectly fine for someone to be 'black' if they are actually 'white' ... it depends on the level you are talking about.

I am referring to an instance of someone raised in a black family with all the cultural background involved and worked for a charity serving black people. I believe they were then discovered to be 'white' and outrage ensued.

These things can be more complicated that it first seems. It is a bit like saying we are all human. Such definitions only serve a use within a certain domain.

I am assuming this is back on the forums due to the ruling in the UK? Or is it something else? The new ruling is perfectly fine btw. It is for legal reasons. It is absolutely not about discriminating against trans men and women. Some will always look for offence where there is none intended.

It is really quite simple.

Trans women are trans women.

Women are women.

The problem arises in basic human interactions. If someone wishes to be referred to and thought of by others as a woman or man it is out of there hands. Familiarity will change people's perspective more than vitriol.

Honestly I cannot recall a time when I called said 'Hey woman!' or 'Hey man!'. I cannot fathom why anyone has any real issue calling someone by he or she as a trans man or trans woman other than if they felt they were being ridiculed or duped for some reason.

Q1: Nothing/anything.
Q2: Irrelevant due to first answer.

My point being rationality does not really have all that much to say about how to act. We simply act as we act and believe what we believe. Rational justification for what cannot be factually measured is to abscond from ownership of our actions.

At best rational analysis can guide our hand but at the end of the day we move it. Those paralyzed into thinking they need rational justification for past, present or future actions are looking for a way to avoid responsibility.

Food would be the main issue. If farmers do not know when to harvest and plant due to the breaking of regular patterns in the seasons then it could cause problems.

Lack of food is an obvious worry. If agriculture can adapt to the current insecurities I do not see much reason to fret about climate change just yet.

Sorry there is nothing for you to moderate here ;)

Food is the priority.

It says June in title. Were there submissions for previous competition I could read OR has this just been delayed?

Will post brief discussion we had a while back soon ...

Perfectly well.

So what is your actual line of inquiry here? You are explicitly asking about the use of metaphysics or its reality? The latter seems like a contrary question.

We are certainly concerned with our position in the universe. If such a concern is wholly a 'religious' one then the question has to be what you mean by religion? I am not trying to corner you here as I think we might share a similar view here. The problem is using mere words to convey what is meant.

Is there something in the OP you wanted critique of specifically or is it just a whimsical view of the state of religion today for the sake of it?

I do find it interesting that suffering is sometimes equated as a kind of beatific edifice of religious faith. I think this can easily be seen as horrific too rather than a 'special gift' given to the few worthy.

I think it makes sense to believe that they evolved together. The question is then which came first and what is meant by each.

Personally I believe 'ethics' gave rise to 'religion'. I am using those terms rather broadly though.

No one is going to disagree with that.

Is there 'moral might' and does it win out over 'moral wrong'? If so how so? If not how not?

What moral facts?

@Bob Ross I am assuming you are not advocating for the idea of "might is right" but you can surely see that this is an issue.

In concise terms how would you address this criticism?

We attribute values to things. We then necessarily attribute value to our sense of self.

A "self" is needed to value.

This seems massively too easy a question to answer so tell me what you are getting at please.

Meaning: What point are you driving at, or what underlying question/s are you looking to address/reveal?

Just incase anyone is interested. I am looking to start writing philosophical papers for publication soon, so if anyone out there is affiliated with a university and wishes to collaborate on something do not hesitate to get in touch.

My interests are pretty broad, so anything that interests you will likely fall into my sphere of interest too.

Thanks

What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

What matters to you? If defining things matters to you why?

How well it can be enforced is neither here nor there for me. The principle is important. If people are not allowed to drink, vote or drive under a certain age then how are they allowed to go online and see anything they want.

I think as a means of guidance it is okay. At the end of the day the parents will do as they see fit. How will they track facebook and Tiktok and prosecute? Tricky, but the warning is now there so attention will be paid. Given the ease with which everyone's age is available (because of platforms like facebook) they should be able to tell the difference easily enough. They cannot be blamed for children using an adults account though - the point is NOT to make it so easy for kids to see the kind of things that can be seen on Tiktok I think. Of course, you could argue that there are already age restrictions too, but again, this is besides the point of how damaging such platforms can be where children are interacting with children and posting visual material about each other for literally everyone to see. Need I mention 'pig butchering' as one example of many where kids are preyed on.

I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than that. The is clear and powerful manipulation online that children should probably not be exposed to and that, more importantly, are not REAL visceral experiences. Not to mention the whole system can be a place to hide from reality made to encourage people to spend more time there.

I would argue that TV is not particularly good either. MTV culture was not exactly a shining example of humanity right?

Those who grow up with the technology in place and never learn what the technology "helps" you do, without it, tend not to question the technology. — LuckyR

Good point. I heard someone saying recently about how we are the same with cars. In the past many people who owned a car had a reasonable understanding of the inner-working of it. Today I think this is rarer, yet also due to the internet the ability to learn the basics are open to everyone.

In this respect I see AI as generally a good thing. Reminds me of basically what the internet was before it got inundated with nonsense. In the past a google search would pretty much do what AI does now. It seems like AI is essential now if you wish to find what you are looking for online.

I was chatting to someone the other day about Australia banning social media for under 16's. I said that this was a good thing and they saw it as 'woke' and asked how kids in cities can communicate and make friends if they are busy all day (especially true where I live btw!). I think this is missing the point though. Social media is clearly not a good idea for kids as a platform for making friends so why not think about how the physical space in a city can be made to accommodate for children meeting up and making friends.

What do you think about kids using social media. Personally I would ban smart phone use (outside of the home) for anyone under the age of 18. Cities do need to adapt to the needs of children though - green spaces to explore with freedom is so important I feel (beyond the watch of adult supervision).

Wow! Was five years ago!

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8190/collaborative-criticism

I do this fairly regularly anyway. I tried to get something like this going some years back where people would write and critique each other's essays.

Somewhere in Lounge I believe?

I would almost certainly take part, but I am assuming it would not be a rigorous essay? If so then I would actually prefer to send that to a journal.

I think it is simply a question of through what lens we are looking at any particular phenomenon. Phenomenologically there is no distinction, yet in empirical science there is.

Nor would there be a God. We would just be left saying things are as they are.

So, if I doubt a pen is in front of me, I have to doubt all that I previously knew of pens, the current pen I see, and the future pen that I have grown accustomed to seeing over time. I can't just say I question the pen's existence in the here and now and that be the radical and complete doubt Descartes is looking for. — Hanover

Yeah, probably. Tedious though. If we pull the rug out from under our feet things get weird; or we ignore the effects!

On the Kant intuition issue, I don't think Sartre was suggesting that we must doubt time if we want to be radical skeptics. I think he was saying we must doubt an object in all phases of time: past, present, and future. The pen never was, is not, and never will be. I don't think he's suggesting we doubt our Kantian intuitions. — Hanover

I believe my remark is more or less a reflection of Descartes. We can "doubt" therefore. If we cannot, there-not.

I believe Sartre's 'radical scepticism' is more or less constructed alongside 'radical freedom'. I would assume so? I have his book under a pile of other books and although I am tempted to move them I am resisting :) Anyway, my guess would be because we are self creating all that we are comes into question - hence 'radical scpeticism'. I have no idea if this is either a good or correct interpretation of his view, just an educated guess.

@Moliere care to chime in? Save me reading ;)

I don't think we rely upon the cogito, exactly. This isn't really a pragmatic question. — Moliere

Well, given that Sartre is talking about radical doubt as being given to us only through time reference (something like Kant's intuitions I feel) there is nothing other to hang experience off of is there?

'Rely' is probably the sticky word here. Sartre likes to make words less like words.

,,

Must the cogito rely upon a notion of the past and future in order for its doubt to make sense? — Moliere

To doubt is to doubt. It is somewhat contrary to suggest we 'rely on' doubt. What cannot be questioned cannot be appreciated. That is all there is too it.

I sit with well founded and researched information. I listen and read plenty of weird ideas too. They do sometimes possess an element of truth but I am not that easily taken in by grandiose flights of fancy because they happen to sound appealing or rebellious.

It sounds like that Dunbar Number is consistent with my guess about the role of religion in forming larger societies. I don't think I had heard of him before, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that other smart people thought of ideas before I did. — Brendan Golledge

Honestly, it has been a common assumption for a long long time. The difference with Dunbar is he actually provides some form of hard evidence to back this theory up. Like practically anything, there is often more than one valid reason.

I think the need for religion in the terms Dunbar relates it is no longer massively significant as we have reformed our sense of identity into other forms - patriotism being the most significant. There is also the effect of education and science on how people relate to each other too, which has undoubtedly led to people accepting different points of view more readily than before.

It is true that I look at things from the perspective of Abrahamic religions, but I don't think the main idea that religions can evolve is wrong if there are some religions that don't originate in the idea of sky father. — Brendan Golledge

Of course. The title of Dunbar's book should make it blatantly obvious that this is a common query in the field. Some dispute it and other do not. Nothing new there either. Opinions and theories are held to more rigorously than others. Dunbar's evidence is by no means case closing.

There is cognitive archaeology. Of course this is a rather loose field of study and extrapolating skull shapes to cognitive ability is a bit iffy to say the least (one reason I am a little dubious about some of the stretches Dunbar makes regarding language development).

Do they? Can you be sure that the objectives of military intervention are what is disclosed publicly?

So, since religion is common amongst humans, it must serve some beneficial purpose, or else people would either quit believing in it, or the believers would die out. — Brendan Golledge

It has propagated through time. There is nothing more to take away and certainly no indication that any evolutionary process (literally or as an analogy) is 'beneficial'.

That aside, there are numerous issues with how you are framing the term 'religious' as a purely Abrahamic monolith. There are plenty of instances of religions that are far far less concerned with deities and some not at all. It is too easy to start in one's own back garden and assume it maps onto everyone else's back garden so easily (if they possess one at all!).

One extremely common feature of religion is that they involve rituals and methods that actively induce altered states of consciousness. This is quite clearly prevalent and universal, with methodologies replicated all over the globe independently of each other.

I have recently started reading Robin Dunbar's How Religion Evolved: And Why it Endures, I think it would be right up your street.

One major feature of his ideas are attached to the Dunbar Number, which shows how prior to the occurrence of religious institutions populations of tribes would inevitably reach a maximum before dividing into smaller groups. His premise being that religions have allowed us to create a greater sense of community beyond our natural social capacities.

He does touch on other areas too. Anyway, I would suggest taking a look if you can :)

The Memory Code is by Lynne Kelly too btw if you did not realise that.

Funnily enough, if you are reading the Iliad you can probably see how it was originally a story passed down via oral tradition. If you get that presocratic book I mentioned you will also notice how many of the presocratics shifted form more oral traditions based on mythology to more modern conceptions of philosophical discourse (Thales), and others not mentioned in the book extensively such as Pherecydes, Xenophanes and Hermotimus.

I quick review of Memory Theatre a novella by Simon Critchley

Have you ever had a mystical experience?

Ask someone living on the fringes of modern society who have no schedules dictated by clocks if they fear death or judgment after death. Or look into anthropological studies of such things.

If you only have the people around you to pass such judgments widen your circle to include those who have no concern for the day-to-day living of modernity. I suggest you seek out those on the fringes of the human urban empires.

I do not own a phone.

Do that. Problem solved.

Everywhere I look I see zombies wondering around chained to their phones. It is scary! Sometimes I feel like I am the only normal person in a never ending freak show.

Future generations will either cope or not. I think a large swathe of the modern population has already been lost due to the misuse of mobile devices. They should be banned for anyone under 18 imo. The AI issue is secondary.