Comments

  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Some interesting (to me) discussion of the inexplicable (to me) convergence of the right and the evangelicals here in the first 25mins of this.

  • Camus misunderstood by prof John Deigh?
    As editor of the Parisian daily Combat, the successor of a Resistance newssheet run largely by Camus, he held an independent left-wing position based on the ideals of justice and truth and the belief that all political action must have a solid moral basis. Later, the old-style expediency of both Left and Right brought increasing disillusion, and in 1947 he severed his connection with Combat.

    [snip]

    As novelist and playwright, moralist and political theorist, Albert Camus after World War II became the spokesman of his own generation and the mentor of the next, not only in France but also in Europe and eventually the world. His writings, which addressed themselves mainly to the isolation of man in an alien universe, the estrangement of the individual from himself, the problem of evil, and the pressing finality of death, accurately reflected the alienation and disillusionment of the postwar intellectual. He is remembered, with Sartre, as a leading practitioner of the existential novel. Though he understood the nihilism of many of his contemporaries, Camus also argued the necessity of defending such values as truth, moderation, and justice. In his last works he sketched the outlines of a liberal humanism that rejected the dogmatic aspects of both Christianity and Marxism.
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Camus

    Not a moral nihilist at all, but a deeply moral thinker. Perhaps it is not so much John Deigh who misunderstands Camus, as the contributors to this thread.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    I almost never make arguments; I prefer analysis, explanation, analogy, illustration, even pontification.
  • “That’s not an argument”
    Yeah, but that's not an argument.
  • Wondering about inverted qualia
    First of all, does it make sense to speak of shared sensations? — sime

    In a word — no. The word "red" and the meaning "stop" are reliably connected with the top light of the traffic signal. This is what we need to agree on and can agree on even if some of us are colour-blind.

    But philosophers talk of sensations, formerly of impressions, currently of qualia, as internal subjective and radically private. Cue Wittgenstein's private language argument.

    The only way to describe the sensation of the top traffic light that we have agreed to call "red" is to associate it analogically with other sensations - loud, angry, hot, that sort of thing. And this too becomes an agreed set of associations such that one cannot oneself know if they are personal to one's actual sensation or learned socially.

    In the end, if we propose a possible sensation that is radically private (and all sensations are such), we cannot say anything about them at all. Certainly one can propose that my sensation of the top light is "the same" as your sensation of the bottom light, and vice versa, but this inversion can never be detected, by definition of the term 'sensation', and so such talk is meaningless.
  • Being In the Middle
    To me that leans too far. You can so lean, as the lines are extremely blurry. But I can’t unsee the lines. I still see enough to call being in the middle something happening. — Fire Ologist

    To who? I talk about identity as if i have none and for sure that leans too far. But perhaps "we" can find the balance together? Something and nothing — someone and no one.. When philosophy fails, maybe try poetry.
  • Rings & Books
    I would hate to think that it undermines all attempts to articulate ideas rationally - though I agree that many people have taken it that way. — Ludwig V

    I wouldn't take it that way, but I would take it as undermining any attempt to claim that the male of the species is more rational than the female, and any position that relies on that thesis.
  • Being In the Middle
    All, for human beings, is in the middle. — Fire Ologist

    Indeed, one is always in a mid-life crisis whenever one philosophises - in the middle of a muddle.

    Life is only completed by death. and identity is merely what one writes on another's tombstone. Everything is becoming except oneself, and that remains forever empty, though the world pours in at every sense.

    Being just is, and only nothing happens.
  • Rings & Books
    It's a puzzle. That's all I'm saying. — Ludwig V

    It is a puzzle because for a few centuries one experience has been taught as if it were the only experience that had meaning. to hear that there is another experience seems shocking, and to notice that it has been the experience of half of humanity all this time and has been studiously ignored and denigrated as 'illogical', is such wilful blindness and illogicality that it undermines the rationalist position from start to finish.
    That's how I put the pieces together, anyway.
  • Rings & Books
    If it is an intuition, would it be shared by a pregnant women? — Banno

    Dilato ergo summus.

    I'm unmarried and so don't have a real insight into what she's saying. — Moliere
    No objection from me. We all have mothers after all.
  • How could someone discover that they are bad at reasoning?
    A whole philosophical tradition discovered it was unreasonable in declaring that "all swans are white".

    The phrase "black swan" derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is from the 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal's characterization in his Satire VI of something being "rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno" ("a bird as rare upon the earth as a black swan").[4]: 165 [5][6] When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed by Romans not to exist.[1] The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.
    Juvenal's phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility.[7] The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[8] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant_and_the_Platypus
    (The platypus is an anomolous creature that transcended the category mammal when discovered by both suckling its young and laying eggs rather than live young, thereby irritating many tidy minds.)

    One discovers, when reality bites, rather than when the king of the internet argues.
  • Externalised and Non-Externalised Expression
    In the realm of expressing thoughts and opinions, I have identified two forms: — Judaka

    What you are talking about is subjectivism and objectivity. It's covered in Philosophy 101. — alan1000

    Explicitly, from the beginning, the op declares that the division he is expressing is "Non-externalised", which I take it that @alan1000 is identifying as "subjectivism".

    However, I also take it from the reference to "Philosophy 101" that @alan 1000 takes his distinction to be externalised/objective.

    And that curious circumstance leads me to suggest that the distinction cannot be made absolutely clear. Rather, distinctions are always made by subjects, but since language is shared, their expression always depends upon a shared object world.
  • Rings & Books
    It is about growing up, and being human, and the inherent limits of great men. — Banno

    And that explains entirely its unpopularity both here/now, and at the time. From the isolated SUM comes not so much science, which is irrevocably polyphonic and communal, as capitalism, and fascism.

    But of course I would say that!
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    A discussion of various things, that might be of interest.

  • On delusions and the intuitional gap
    Well, there's the solipsistic outtake - we should stop talking about this because we can't know anything. — Malcolm Lett

    Well this is the fundamental difficulty of such arguments: "How come you know so much about how deluded we all are?" If the world we see is not the world, how can you talk about the world? It looks like some esoteric wisdom you have to claim there.

    Now me, I claim that I am real and the world is real, and I don't know everything, but I know how many beans make five and that shit smells.
  • To what Jazz and Classical Music are you listening?
    Toccata and fugue, on a friggin'harp? Oh yeah, and for the first time, it makes sense!

  • Education and why we have the modern system
    Most adults I know agree that they have forgotten the majority of what they learnt in school — pursuitofknowlege

    This because they have mostly forgotten what it was they did and didn't learn in school. But if you go into it, they may admit to having learned to read and write, to behave in a group appropriately, to deal with money and weights and measures, and make simple calculations, the rules and some technique of various sports and games, the fundamentals of law and how to treat others, and no doubt a host of other stuff that I myself have forgotten I learned there, but still use all the time.
  • What is 'Mind' and to What Extent is this a Question of Psychology or Philosophy?
    Try an analogy.

    What is radio broadcast? "Radio broadcast is what radio receivers do."

    Common sense - you never hear the radio except when there is a radio receiver, and it has to be turned on, like a functioning brain.

    Except it's obviously false; the broadcasts come from elsewhere, and permeate space, and the radio receivers make it locally manifest when they are tuned to the appropriate frequency. At least, that is the faith I have been brought up with - I have never actually seen a "broadcast".
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪Punshhh
    Indeed. It is harder I think for the young - my daughters do not seem to want children. When I was procreating, there was still hope. But there is room until the very last gasp for kindness and affection, and to make what adaptations one can...

    https://community.deepadaptation.info
  • Violence & Art
    ↪gadzooks


    You would do well to distinguish between the art that portrays violence, and the art that contrives violence.

    For example, Nero contrived a violent spectacle that was later portrayed thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero%27s_Torches

    Painting and burning people alive have very different aesthetics. Which is your main interest?
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Be not too hard, for life is short,
    And nothing is given to man;
    Be not too hard when he is sold and bought,
    And he must manage as best he can;
    Be not too hard when he blindly dies
    Fighting for things he does not own;
    And be not too hard when he tells lies,
    Or his heart is sometimes like a stone;
    Be not too hard, for soon he'll die,
    Often no wiser than he began;
    Be not too hard, for life is short,
    And nothing is given to man.     — Christopher Logue
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Maybe you feel it’s already over. In that case, fine — Mikie

    Not at all. My feeling is that ..."It's only just begun." Which has been my tag line in this thread several times.

    And fine it is not going to be — stormy, rather. But I have given up hoping that sense and decency will prevail in the near future; rather, starvation, war, and greedy stupidity will do the job instead.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    A weird response, — Mikie

    Don't take it personal, but I do get a bit fed up with being told my language and/or attitude is the problem. The solution we are going for at the moment is 'most people die', along with a mass extinction.

    Language matter, especially in media headlines for the part of the masses who are stupid enough to only read the headlines; but who carry enough democratic power to vote people into power who actively act against mitigation strategies. — Christoffer

    Obviously those people are not reading climate scientists or philosophy forums, so there is no problem. Oh, but wait - there is a problem, and it's not careless talk that is costing lives, but closed ears.


    Here's some people taking it seriously. Because when things get tough, the tough get going. I'm just leaving this link here for my own reminder really, but if anyone wants to look at the security implications, here are some folk already doing that.
    https://climateandsecurity.org
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    it’s important to acknowledge the level of threat we face. But doomism and defeatism isn’t the answer. — Mikie

    Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.

    The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    Who cares if I'm silent? — baker

    Who cares if you're not?
  • Is there a need to have a unified language in philosophy?
    A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

    But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms. It is as if you were to demand that all paintings be done in oils, and never watercolour. You would be ignored, but more seriously, you would miss some great art.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    We can't just give in to silence and let the others rule as they please. — baker

    Silence has power. Others can only rule because we take their nonsense seriously out of habit. We have a huge advantage if we can communicate and they can only bullshit.
  • How to do nothing with Words.
    ↪unenlightened So you're just going to let them win, without a fight, 3:0? — baker

    No. I am not going to waste my time trying to communicate with those who do not wish to communicate. When there is no honesty, language is meaningless. Have you not noticed?
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    CBT, [...] is based in large part of Stoicism. — Ciceronianus

    Was not aware of that; I thought it was based on behaviourism.
  • Death from a stoic perspective
    And how should we "address trauma"? — Ciceronianus

    Post Restante, somewhere obscure. And put enough stamps on that it won't be returned to sender.

    If only...!

    One who has been traumatised is brought face to face with their trauma in every relationship, the fear, the abandonment, the shame, or whatever, is reawakened by random normal relationships with others and with the environment. We can address it if we can recognise it in each other and make room for it without being 'triggered' ourselves. If it is recognised for what it is, an upwelling of old emotion, there is an opportunity to welcome the feeling into the present that has not produced it, and in experiencing it to experience a catharsis that liberates one from it, one reclaims the hurt in safety, and can then let it recede into history.

    That's easy for me to say...
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    There was a system of enslavement of junior boys by senior boys as part of the traditional system of boys schools in Britain of the Empire, institutionalised to teach the future administrators of said Empire how to rule. The juniors would be assigned to a senior and required to "fag" for him, which amounted to being his personal servant. "Fagging" was usual until after WW2 and gradually fell out of favour thereafter as the Empire was dissolved. Temporary homosexuality was also rife, of course as it is in prisons, but whether that connection comes from that usage or not I do not know.

    Otherwise, a faggot of wood is a measure of small firewood sticks; or in another possibly connected usage, a meatball made with various kinds of offal, perhaps a better candidate for an insulting reuse. Available at your grocers:

    https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282049626
  • Bannings
    ↪Changeling
    This is not me; it is merely a frog that resembles me somewhat.

    Farewell, @Vaskane, alas all too neuro-typical in some rather reactive ways.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people. — Philosophim

    You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex. — Philosophim

    This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual.

    The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    Is your position that sex, per se, is not a binary, or that it varies independently of biology? Not a loaded question, I just can't understand where you place yourself... some of waht you're saying seems to support a position as above, and some appears to be pushing toward a clear-cut notion of sex as definite, but somewhat unimportant. — AmadeusD

    My position is that there is not a thing "sex" that is or isn't binary, nor do I want there to be. We talk about men and women and it is uncontroversial for me (or you) to say "I am a man" and there is no need to enquire as to my hormones my genitalia or my genes. I also talk about "my wife", but if pressed, I cannot produce a marriage certificate, yet I think everyone understands well enough. (We held hands and jumped over a broom.)
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty. — Philosophim

    It's always refreshing to be asked what one thinks instead of being told. I resist clear definitions because they over-simplify life.

    Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype.

    But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid.

    I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about.

    "...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways.

    Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said?
    — unenlightened

    By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live.     — Philosophim

    You do love your definitions don't you.
    . Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

    I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute.

    " Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. A bit premature to decide in advance of looking. Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. Just cool your ardour and have a little respect.

    Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment. — Philosophim

    Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. Transport overcomes the limits of legs, refrigeration the limits of the seasons, and so on.

    Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. But this does not define the man who has had the snip, but can still satisfy his lover in all matters bar impregnation.

    These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that. — Philosophim

    How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? I haven't remotely implied anything like that. I described how attitudes to sex and gender have changed in my lifetime, and asked you why you think it so important to redefine sex, and what that will mean for people. And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt?

    See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. Except for certain types who like to pretend they 'cannot see race'. Clearly the genetics of race are more complicated than those of sex.

    I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity).

    And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" — Philosophim

    My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation. What works for this sport may not work for another sport and neither may be appropriate for prison segregation.
  • Gender is mutable, sex is immutable, we need words that separate these concepts
    Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
    Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks.     — Philosophim

    You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again.
Home » unenlightened