Is it true that male humans are, on average, physically stronger than females? — John

AMAB bodies (mature) are stronger on average than AFAB bodies (mature).

But that's not the question that was asked. An average only speaks about a trend across a large group of people. I asked you whether it was true that a person with a AMAB was stronger than someone with a AFMB body. Giving an average doesn't answer that question.

I seem to remember that they disagreed about Foucault's treatment of Cartesian doubt in his History of Madness. But can you think of any significant differences when it comes to the 'big' questions.? — John

What exactly is a "big question?"

OK, but isn't their rejection of "grounding myths" a significant defining characteristic of PM? — John

Yes... but that doesn't tell us anything about what they think and the worth of their arguments. Well, unless you are only interested in cheerleading for "grounding myths," which seems to be the case here.

I'll just repost the commentary about the question of the universal, since the other stuff was referring to a comment made about a text discussed in the other thread.

If nothing universal or even true (apart from empirical facts) can be determined about humans, then what's the point of any discursive enquiry? — John

To understand what is not universal: each state of the world, in its distinction, regardless of it similarity.

Consider various "nature" arguments which make a generalisation about human ability of behaviour. Is it true someone with an AMAB (assigned male at birth) body is stronger than someone with a AFAB (assigned female at birth) body? The old universal assumptions say: "Yes." We are to know, from merely the presence of a categorised body (rather than, you know, someone's actual strength), that someone will be stronger than another. It's a rule which applies regardless of time, environment or the individual.

The post-modern approach disbands this inaccurate (and contrary to the empirical) form of argument. It turns the argument into a question of individual expression, rather than determining constraint. We understand the generalisation about strength to be false. There is no such universality. AMAB bodies are frequently stronger, but they are so on the basis of that individual's strength, not because of a body with a particular sex categorisation.

Instead of relying on ad hoc assertions of necessity, nature, reason and desires, we have to actually to the work to describe people honestly.

We even get around the "distinction is universal" objection, for it is not "universal." We are all part of a shared world. We share an environment. A child shares their mothers body. An artist shares ideas with an audience. And so and so on. We might always be distinct, but we are also always together too. Distinction is not universal.

I am thinking primarily of Deleuze, Derrida and Foucault here, and I think there are broadly characteristic attitudes shared by these three thinkers to questions about truth, meaning, universality, transcendence and metaphysics. Now I am not saying they all present exactly the same thoughts about these matters, but that the thoughts presented in their various works are generally confined within certain characteristic shared boundaries. — John

I agree there are shared characteristics, insofar as they all disregard "universal" narratives, but that doesn't tell us much. All it says is they reject a "grounding myth." Sure, it's upsetting to many others interested in investigating the world (they love their myths which account for all there is), but it's only an assertion is that people can't reduce the world to their particular myth.

There are many differences between them. I mean Derrida and Foucault were famously at each others throats.

The thoughts of the Postmoderns share another characteristic; they are not easy to pin down due to the fact that they generally eschew argument, so they are able to avail themselves of a certain slipperiness. — John

This is certainly the statement of someone who has not seriously read them. Postmodern philosophers make arguments all the time. Sometimes they are needlessly obscure and convoluted, but they definitely hold positions. No doubt they are "slippery" in that they don't assert a simple myth (i.e. "the universal ground" ) which is supposed to account for everything, but that says more about what certain readers think they need out of them, rather than the worth or accuracy of what they are saying.

Then other people don't find reflective of their experiences of the internal dialogue. I certainly don't at times. Sometimes my internal voice is just regurgitating dry dogma or an expected rule. We have nothing more to say. Taking the universal assumption that everyone must experience such an inner voice cannot be made. It also says nothing about people. Such an assumption is just what someone imagines another person to be like, not a description of who they are.

If nothing universal or even true (apart from empirical facts) can be determined about humans, then what's the point of any discursive enquiry? — John

To understand what is not universal: each state of the world, in its distinction, regardless of it similarity.

Consider various "nature" arguments which make a generalisation about human ability of behaviour. Is it true someone with an AMAB (assigned male at birth) body is stronger than someone with a AFAB (assigned female at birth) body? The old universal assumptions say: "Yes." We are to know, from merely the presence of a categorised body (rather than, you know, someone's actual strength), that someone will be stronger than another. It's a rule which applies regardless of time, environment or the individual.

The post-modern approach disbands this inaccurate (and contrary to the empirical) form of argument. It turns the argument into a question of individual expression, rather than determining constraint. We understand the generalisation about strength to be false. There is no such universality. AMAB bodies are frequently stronger, but they are so on the basis of that individual's strength, not because of a body with a particular sex categorisation.

Instead of relying on ad hoc assertions of necessity, nature, reason and desires, we have to actually to the work to describe people honestly.

We even get around the "distinction is universal" objection, for it is not "universal." We are all part of a shared world. We share an environment. A child shares their mothers body. An artist shares ideas with an audience. And so and so on. We might always be distinct, but we are also always together too. Distinction is not universal.

Maybe... but is it consistent with the rest of his arguments?

What of the unity of things other than our experience? Are we not made of atoms, fingernails, toes and teeth? If our mind (self-awarness & awareness) is our only monad, we do not have bodies.

My point here is the distinction Leibniz is trying to get is frequently misunderstood. People jump on it for not being a causal connection of the mind and body, even though Leibniz is trying to point out it doesn't make sense to posit such a relationship.

The material body, sure (i.e. the existing body). I wasn't talking about that. My point was about the "soul" of the body. The logical meaning of my body. That's a monad.

Anything can be said to be a composite. Experiences? I can divide those in to parts. The mind? I can divide that in to parts. The only thing that can't be divided into parts is unity. No matter how much division I do, every part of the would has a unity. A book is still a book no matter how much I divide it into pages. A page is still a page, no matter who many words I split it into. The world is still the world, no matter how many objects, beings, monads or substances we say belong to it.

An existing "body(i.e. present existing state)" might not be a monad, but those are not what Leibniz is talking about in positing a monad.

They are "like atoms" in the sense monads are substances distinct from each other. The monad of my body is not the same as the monad of my mind. Combination isn't a question of causality, but of being or presence.

With me, there is the monad of my body, my experiences, each atom which makes me up, and so on and so on. Every object we might think of has it's own monad. They are immaterial (i.e. not involved in casualty) but present in any instance of an object. An expression running parallel to material objects of causality.

No matter how many times we divide my body into its constitutes, it remains my body. A unity which cannot be broken. Even destroying my body cannot touch it, for the moment my body ceases to exist, it's no longer there to break a part. Anything remains whole in logic, for eternity.

Leibniz is (alas)reversing Spinoza insight. His monads pretty much correspond to Spinoza's mode of thought. They infinite logical meanings expressed everywhere which the emergence and destruction of the finite world cannot touch.

Spinoza (correctly) identifies these meanings in having no role in forming the world. The mode of thought might be expressed in every states of the world, but it's not the mode of thought on which states of the world (the mode of extension) dependent. Existing states come and go one their own terms. Their presence or absence is not governed by modes of thought.

Leibniz is arguing the opposite: states of existence are derived from eternal monads. Logical truth is argued to necessitate what exists in the world (i.e. PSR).

"If the world is not a fiery pit, we'll make it one. Then they'll understand the horror they've turned the world into."

The only trouble is, you know, it was you that made that fiery pit people finally couldn't stand. Not "progressivism" responsibility, but your own.

So he's meant to run the country from jail is he?

Furthermore, the evidence is against progressivism causing people like him. Even a quick look at history shows the rich and powerful doing exactly the actions like him all over the place.

Perhaps worse, one arm of "progressivism" (feminism) is one of the few social movements to sexual harassment and assault seriously, which has had a significant impact on the issue within last few decades. In terms of sexual harassment and assualt, your politcal answers would actually take us backwards.

Judged how? You are giving him a free pass. You don't specify any sanction against, either lawful or social. Indeed, you activatly say it doesn't really matter, that's "it's just the system" and place responsibility for the action on the woman looking for a job.

A more concise expression of your faults I have not seen. What matters is, you know, not avoiding immoral actions in the first place, but rather just that those who perform them are punished (by becoming president???).

In practice, you are only interested in punishment. The question of one's moral responsibility to other individuals is irrelevant. Trump's responsibility to not sexuality hassass and assault women doesn't matter to you, not when there is punishment to be had.

Even punishing someone for being in a situation where they become a victim of immortality is more important to you. A woman meets a hassasser on the chance there might be a job, and the wrongness of that action, and it's punishment (i.e. "Well, what did you expect. You deserved it), is more significant than Trump's moral responsibility to others.

"It's his fault, but it's only the system so he has no responsibility to prevent it."

Yeah... this is contradictory bullshit, Agustino.

He assumes that women don't have any expression in the context. To say that "women let him" is not a statement of truth (as the women coming forward about his harassment show), but his own ignorance and abuse of the women around him. It's an assumption that any women he desires will want his attention because of his money or social position. He's not saying women "let him." He's saying women are there for him, so it's impossible they could object to his attentions. What's he's offering is not a truth of behaviour, but an assertion that women "by their nature" are their for his (and male) sexual conquest.

But your comment on the "transcendent camp", is incorrect. I know this, because I have personally affirmed "That's enough. I've obtained all I need. it's okay for me end". Many people who have embraced and embodied the transcendent have made this affirmation in their own way. One is made whole, repleat and is in the right frame of mind to act constructively in the progress of the humanity and the biosphere. — Punshhh

I'd go a step further than that. Plenty who consider the transcendent means "going forever," and are attracted to the idea because of its endless resources, end-up saying they've got enough. Our actions are different to our myths. If humanity has shown us anything, it's that greed occurs whether one's philosophy says life is about constantly possessing more or not. Some people who disavowal transcendent beliefs (whether they be pre-modern or modern) end-up having a life driven by possessing more and more, often under the guise of "just being themselves."

My point about the "transcendent camps" (whether pre-modern religions and traditions or modern consumerism) is to do with the motivations and understanding of the word. What I'm talking about here here is not a "magic pill" of myth or philosophy which will save our world from resource depletion (that requires actions, no matter one's myth, traditions or view of meaning), but a reflective inquiry into what the "transcendent" says about the world and its people.

In either the pre-modern or modern sense, transcendent philosophy is defined by an inherent meaningless to the world and humanity. We need to believe, else we are meaningless heathens or irresponsible hippies. It's is to scoff at everyone else. An understanding that only believers are the only ones with appropriate meaning, with a superior life, with a special insight which makes them so much more wonderful than everyone else.

Believe--follow this tradition, buy this latest watch, then your life will be better than anyone else's. You'll be worth more and a more meaningful life than any of those who are content in themselves. The transcendent is defined by saying other people (nonbelievers) are worthless. It's a move of hierarchy, performed to initiate and win an immediate conflict, a way of getting more people follow your tradition rather than any other. An act to, for example, make some people Christian (rather than say atheist, Muslim, Jedi, etc., etc.) or to buy a your car, rather them be content without the car or have them purchasing a competitor's product.

This is merely the response in our being of being confined within the rigid parameters of the material world we find ourselves in. A condition which is accentuated by the restlessness of human behaviour. If we found ourselves in a less rigid and more fluid, or ethereal world things would be quite different. — Punshhh

It's more than that. Far more. It's a dissatisfaction with the limits of our material nature. Within the context of knowledge and myth, it means we want more then we ever are. So worthless is our material existence, that we must go to the transcendent to approximate something worthwhile, else suffer the ignominy of meaninglessness.

No doubt it's a response to the burden of rigid parameters of the world. In the transcendent there is the promise of a world free of the worldly restrictions which, but the idea entails "wanting more and more." In such an idea a person is not content with what they have. The motivation is to avoid having a limit in the material world.

In this way, any instance of transcendent philosophy is about wanting more and more. It's motivation is to "superior" to whatever exists at any point in time. Many with transcendent beliefs are content in their lives, but the philosophy itself never is. It's always saying we need more than the world. Even the pluralistic mysticism is defined by thinking how much better and more meaningful their life is for having transcendent beliefs. Such a mystic is considered to have insight which makes their point of view more meaningful than anyone else's. The joy and awe of the transcendent is great enough to qualify for meaning, unlike the joy and awe of that shallow (and material) artwork, sports game or rock concert which isn't really meaning at all.

The thing about "transcendent experiences" is they're worldly. Moments of awe, joy and meaning we experience. They are instances where meaning is extended beyond the mere question of information of an object. It's us all along. We aren't delivered from the limitation of the material world. Our ideas, meanings and fictions just mean there something more than a mortal body in space.

"Transcendent" generated out of the notion of impossible meaning. Whether we are talking afterlives, resolution of sin, having meaningful lives, tripping or creating a Trumpless world, we describe experiences as "transcendent" because in our everyday lives, we think the meaning is impossible. It's "mysterious" because we think, in expressed meaning of our experience, there's meaning which the world just can't do--i.e. "Oh wow... look out at there at creation.... there's simply no way the world could do something that meaningful. For the world to express that on it's own is just inconceivable. God must have done it. It couldn't just an expression of the fluctuations of the finite world itself."

Within the post-modern culture, this "mystery" collapses. People have learnt meaning is an expression of the world. Myths and narratives are generated out of us. There is no "constraint" on meaning. We understand the world may express any meaning, no matter how contradictory or seemingly absurd. Any combination of idea, thought, meaning and sensation makes sense.

Someone who comes out of a drug trip saying everyone else is them and they have seen how they are immortal has an experience that makes sense. What they are saying might be wrong and incoherent, but it is something the world can express. In their experience, they haven't gone beyond the expression of world and logic.

The hierarchal nature of the "transcendent" is laid bare. "Meaningless" is recognised as a local power play, a way of saying that other way of thinking and feeling aren't even possible. It's a means of making an idea dominate though denying the world can express any other meaning. The concern is not honesty about meaning, but ensuring people stick to a particular transcendent tradition-- you will follow God, else be a meaningless wretch.

With respect to "making the world better" this sort of argument has a powerful hold. Ethical improvement and meaning well becomes necessarily attached to a transcendental condition. We even see it in your argument here, despite your more pluralistic outlook. Supposedly, the world needs a transcendental outlook to avoid an abundance of Trumps. Unless we believe the transcendent, we are doomed.

This is not true. What matters is our actions and our ethics. We could put forward and enact a policy regarding a more harmonious use of resources without mentioning the transcendent at all. If we are to avoid calamity, it is the world which will do it, whether we have transcendent beliefs or not. What matters is our actions, the way we use resources and how much damage this causes to the wider world.

This is what brings me into conflict with Wayfarer all the time, despite our occasional agreements and shared interest in the importance on meaning. He thinks meaning must be granted by the transcendent. I say there is no meaninglessness, so there is no work for the transcendent to do. There are those who are depressed, anxious or despairing, but those are instances of meaningful lives, who find themselves in some unethical situation. A worldly change is what they need (it could even be a belief the transcendent), so they realise their meaning/end the horrible state that's haunting them.

Apo is ignoring what the "Romantic reaction" entails. It's actually description of the individual within a social context or environment. The individual who is hurt, in pain or treated worse than another. What he describes as the "Enlightenment" tradition is profoundly dishonest about the world. It tells us people (or animals) don't "really hurt" or aren't treated lesser, so long as "nature" is respected.

He's also confusing the "Romantic reaction" with anti-natalism. Just because there is a wide range of unavoidable suffering, paper cuts and Hitlers, which is terrible for respective individuals, it doesn't amount to an argument the suffering makes existence not worth living. Many people have the "Romantic reaction" which is aware of the suffering of the individual, yet argue life is worth continuing.

I would rather believe that the mythos of transcendent freedom and immortality, actually represents a culmination of the evoluionary process - that (like the view of 'evolutionary enlightenment') we are evolving towards a higher state, one which doesn't solely define itself in economic or biological terms. — Wayfarer

The issue it can only ever define itself in biological and economic terms. In the mythos of transcendent freedom and immortality, the culmination is a seeking of biology and economics; if only we had the resources, the biology, to exist forever and ever and ever.

I don't mean this in the crass sense of our bodies or earthly possessions, but rather in the sense of our presence. If only we existed in a way that gave us more and more all the time into perpetuity. Endless resources such that our existence would extend into perpetuity without cost or hitting limits.

The modern world's endless quest for economic growth is, quite literally, the mythos of freedom and immortality transplanted into the world. Like it pre-modern counterparts, it views the goal of existence to endless get more, to live forever, to be free of any Malthusian limits. In neither transcendent camp does anyone have the respect or self-awareness to say: "That's enough. I've obtained all I need. It's okay for me end."

Correct. "More meaningful/less meaningful, all the same" is definitely not my schtick.

Some people know more and have greater insights into the meaning of texts, events, behaviors, music, art, and so on than others do. I think there is a contest of meaning. Some people win it, and some people lose it--ignominiously. — Bitter Crank

That's a truth of knowledge, insight, ethics and experience. Some people are better at things than other people. Some states are more ethical than others. This doesn't render the worse states without meaning. It just means they are not ethical or useful in a particular context. Meaning is not the battlefield, ethics are.

A pile of shit is shit art due to its failure: it does not live up to what it ought to be. It certainly has meaning, no more or less than a masterpiece, but it is wrong. A waste of space and effort; disgusting, something that no-one gets any insight or benefit from. We ought not concern ourselves with it because its meaning (just a pile of shit) is one of failure.

Post-modernism is laying these ethics bare. It refuses to accept the "just so story" that worse things are an empty set, such that they don't even qualify as a meaning. People don't just "win" by default. It's an action of ourselves and the text. We are committing violence towards one idea or another-- not "meaning vs no meaning" but "ethical meaning over unethical meaning."

The pile of shit is shit art by its meaning, by the expression of the object and its interaction with us. The contest is between ethical discourses. (e.g. "the pile of shit is wrong; it deserves no praise as art" vs "the pile of shit is a worthwhile commentary on the state of the politics in America; we should praise the telling as art").

Despite it being shit art, the meaning of the pile of shit remains. For those who love it, it remains an entertaining snipe at the state of politics, an expression of an artform. It might be crass, shallow or even immoral, but it still means what it does.

I don't mean it in that sense. People who believe in the transcendent experience synthesis all the time, some more than some who reject the transcendent. In this sense, my approach is not uncommon to religious folks, but frequent. As it is to just about everyone, at least some of the time. All it takes is an instance of understanding the moment. Question of "transcendental need" are another subject entirely. That's a particularly sort of commentary on meaning, not a feature of synthesis itself.

What I mean is those with transcendent belief cannot stand the idea that knowledge is a question of existence. For knowledge to be a thing that emerges and is lost in the dance of the finite world is heretical. What they lack is not synthesis, but an understanding that knowledge involves synthesis. They still think knowledge is destined by logic, a tradition which will always obtain in the world.

You misunderstand my approach too. Synthesis occurs with every instance of knowledge, even in long term planning. Experience is always an existing moment. If I'm planning, I'm focused on the future in that moment, so it is a moment of synthesis rather than abstraction. I know all sides in the present: my analysing, that I'm avoiding ignorance of the relevant subject, my present state which is focused on analysing.

What you are talking about there is elimination of distractions. To avoid worries, so they don't take away from a focus on an important task. You are talking about leaving out thoughts which you don't need at the moment, not whether an instance of knowledge amounts to synthesis or not.

I was speaking metaphorically, not empirically. Wisdom and ethics are not magnetism.

Though it's worth discussing empirical forces because they are really an expression of objects, rather than a constraint.

We say "a force acts on the needle," but where exactly is the object pushing it? It's the needle that moves with an environment of surrounding objects. We might say, at that moment, the needle points.

The existence of the pointing needle is responsible for that state, not some pre-determining force.

There is no force setting the compass. It just points. When we know something, we are already what we are. I don't understand the foolishness of scientism until I'm wise to it.

We might say wisdom emerges out of the world of fools. Someone has a moment of inspiration, having a though of a better way of thinking or living (pointing of the compass). They pass it on through teaching (pointing of the compass). No force exists which necessitates wisdom. We have to do that work. We must have the ideas and the actions. It cannot be transcendent.

If we are to be wise like God, we must have God's wisdom. We must have the relevant thoughts and actions.

That's why philosophy. It takes us to do the pointing. Not so the we can hide from the failings of the world ( "be saved" ), but to understand the failing world still matters (even Hitler had a meaningful life) and act with ethics, wisdom and compassion.

I mean you get along fine without it. Your life doesn't suddenly lack meaning because you don't understand post-modernism and meaning like I do. No-ones doe's. My narrative is not needed for a meaningful life. There are countless other ones which work just as well in that regard.

In terms of certain knowledge, yes. I know more about post-modernism and understand a relationship between discourse and meaning.

Is it more meaningful? No. My knowledge is relevant to making particular certain points of knowledge and ethics, but that it. No-one needs to be "saved" by this knowledge. I speak to teach about a subject of knowledge and ethics, not be the snake-oil salesman who creates a problem ( "you are meaningless" ) just to drive them to my particular way of thinking.

People will get along fine without this knowledge. Their lives matter and the live well. They don't need to think or feel like me to have a meaningful life.

How could there even be a single narrative (from which we all spring)? — Bitter Crank

7. Read the following text and find the meaning within the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text. No outside world may be consulted. Your opinion of what meaning is within the text may not be offered as a meaning. (15 points) — Bitter Crank

This is an example of the single narrative from which we are supposed to spring. To understand the passage, I supposedly have no access to the passage through myself. I must pay attention to the text which is outside of me, else I cannot know what he text means.

The problem is that this is a myth. In every instance of "consulting the outside world," I'm using my discourse. In understanding the text, the meaning of the text is given in me. "Nothing but the text" includes my observations and thoughts of the world around me. In consulting the "outside world," one has understanding of the text. In every case, one never gets outside the discourse or text they are talking about.

8. Explain why your discourse in answer to Question 7 is less meaningful than another. (10 points)

9. If you successfully explained in question 8 why your discourse in question 7 was less meaningful than another, please explain why you didn't submit a more meaningful narrative. Do you think we're running a degree mill here? (10 points.) — Bitter Crank

The postmodernist's point is there is no contest of meaning. With respect to the text you have written out, there are innumerable meanings, interpretations and intentions, some of which are the authors, others which are not. All are just as meaningful as the other (though, not necessarily coherent, truthful or ethical). Any answer I give to question 7 is no less (or more meaningful) than another. There is no degree mill.

You are the one who thinks we are running a degree mill. If an answer doesn't fit the "superior" or "more meaningful" narrative, then the discourse supposedly has no meaning. Any discourse must reflect this single narrative or else be irrelevant.

Whether discourses are more meaningful, or less meaningful, than others is a horse a-piece. It's a distinction without a difference. — Bitter Crank

Clearly not, under your argument. You are the one who thinks my answer must be more meaningful than any other. The distinction has enough difference for you to think I need to make the "more meaningful" argument to be saying anything worth listening to.

Or it means you don't realise that someone else's text is intelligible. Texts don't need "correspond" to a referent to be intelligible or be meaningful. Meaning is within the text or discourse itself, rather than being granted by the world outside of it. Thorongil is just unwilling to examine the text itself for meaning.

Post-modernism is not really "relativism." Their are countless truths post-modernists argue, both of ethics and description. The argument is not "no discourse is better than another." It is that no discourse is less meaningful than another. If we are to object to a discourse, we can only do so with our own discourse. The world, nature, logic or God cannot render a discourse without meaning, even a nonsense one.

What post-modernism eschews is the narrative of logical necessity to the world. Our meaning and myths are just that: ours. They aren't made a destiny of tradition or the "nature" of the outside world. It's this which Thorongil hates. He's not objecting to post-modernism because of it's frequently opaque jargon or sometimes convoluted obsession with identities. The point of contention is entirely to do with the way post-modernism eliminates the single narrative from which we all spring.

I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent.

Philosophy with a transcendent saviour hits the same notes as philosophical rationalism-- "discover" transcendent force and you will become wise and meaningful. Understand the argument "You are given be God" and you'll finally matter and be wise.

If I dare to say that people matter without the transcendent, if knowledge of themselves and their worth is just given to them, without any sort of "logical discovery" (here I mean it in the sense of understanding and wisdom, so it applies to the transcendent as much a philosophical rationalism), I'm treated like a nihilistic heretic who's only trying to fool people into living meaningless lives.

What you call philosophical rationalism's understanding of knowledge is more or less the advocate of the transcendent's transplanted. By this transcendent force (God, PSR, logic), we derive that we are necessary better (than everyone else) and saved from the ignominy of our existence (e.g. meaningless, lack of a particular instance of knowledge, etc.,etc. ).

For both philosophical rationalism and the transcendent philosophy, knowledge of the self is the enemy. To merely be oneself, to be worthy (a meaningful life) and/or unworthy (a sinner who's terrible actions have no resolution), is the enemy. Both are running from themselves to a fantasy of perfection where there is a genocide of any failing.

They are the ones who think "logically," who avoid the ignominy of being ignorant, whether that be in recognising the absence of God or realising meaning is dependent on God. They are the ones who don't have to respect their failings, whether it be because the actions were in the service of logic or science or because their sins are resolved by God. By thinking "logically," they believe themselves to have become an image of perfection and so are necessarily better and wiser than anyone else. An entirely selfish ignorance of the self.

In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true.

For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it.

Marx makes the same sort of mistake. He acts as if the ideas of economic systems will function as material change. Sure, he is aware of the need for change in material conditions, but they aren't specified in detail (i.e. social organisation, economic policies), so we are left with nothing more than imagined gesture towards a new economic system. We are left with the destiny of Marx's social analysis. At some point, somewhere, when the right condition occurs, we will get a communist society, but there is no effective description of when such a associated occurs. All we can do is point out our present society doesn't meet standard and proclaim we are destined to overcome this at some point. The change of society is only in our imagination at such a point.

The evolution of consciousness is material. Inspiration from people within an environment and ideas handed down through the generation. Hegel is actually talking about this history of ideas in culture and society. The call and response of ideas in the material.

How in knowledge (that is, what is know to people) we (often) begins with "X", then someone of the time reacts with "not X," till finally we get to a point of holding both "X" and "not-X" at once.

Hegel is essentially giving a description of the evolution of knowledge when we look back on what came before us.

Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery."

For sure, but my point wasn't that you were saying the world needs to suffer. It was that you were putting more loss and suffering in the world, without any outside gain.

The issue is that "deserving suffering" is not justice. My point here is that he does not deserve to suffer. The world doesn't need it and nothing is gained from it.

Because if you are talking about policy, then it's those you trust. The "conservative" label does nothing to make a point. It's just an excuse to be lazy in thinking about society. Instead of talking about what matters, you will just say "trust the conservatives." Politics is turned into a contest about names rather than an understanding of policy and value.

Clearly false... the person who (supposedly) deserves suffering is part of the world. Not to mention they have their own social connections, friends, family, etc.,etc.

Others will be hurt by their suffering too.

Yes... I talked about it in a previous post. It's just heaps more damage and loss on the world. That is what "deserves suffering" means. For nothing more than a fantasy of control for those who have lost. Precisely the irrational response that makes some victims poor judges of punishment.

No, it doesn't-- it stems from you definition of justice that suffering is deserved. The point is this is not true. Wrong doers may deserve something (and some suffering ay be a by product), but they don't specifically deserve to suffer. That's just an irrational desire for vengeance.

Missing the point, Agustino. The point is doing politics through the "liberal" or "conservative" label is lazy. It's trying to use a (frequently inaccurate) shorthand to specify who ought to be trusted by name, rather than on the basis of policy and values.

If we bother to check values and policy (as we should), there is no general framework. We know the candidates, we know the values, we know the policies in each case. The "general" is not needed becasue we know who we are talking about and what they stand for.

I don't think the terms have much relevance beyond political cheerleading. As terms I don't think they say much at all. Policies and values are where substance lies, not whether one is called "liberal" or "conservative." The whole notion of: "X is the most liberal" or "X is the most conservative" is politics by ignorance. It tries to do it by speaking a label which people can trust rather than talking about polices and values.

This is an ethical point. The desire to suffering only heaps more pain and lack of well-being on the world. It clouds judgement. One who seeks to inflict pain and suffering on others is only concerned with their personal vengeance. They put "payment" above all concerns and cannot see how they are damaging the world.

The idea that vengeance is the Lord's becasue of their superior judgement is one of the greatest cases of irony. No-one's mind is more clouded by jealously than the God who thinks transgressors ought to be wiped out of suffer for all eternity.

The fact that they need to pay for their sins isn't to say they don't deserve any sort of existence or happiness - that, at least in most cases, is too extreme of a punishment considering the offence. — Agustino

Oh but it does, for the duration of their suffering, for they are meant to suffer. In this moment, they are meant to lack existence or happiness so we can feel like we have control over what's been lost (despite that being eternal and so their is no control over it). Which is frequently a long time.Or involves sufferings which have a lasting impact-- the inability to grow a new leg of an intimate relationship for example.

No. No-one deserves it, not even Hitler.

Punishments for the protection of the community and improving the lives of victims in certain ways are deserved, but not suffering specifically.

We don't deal out justice to make people suffer. Sometimes it is an unavoidable consequences of protecting the community, so there is suffering within the context of punishment, but it's not why punishment is applied.

To think otherwise is just our jealousy over what's been lost. It's idea that because you didn't get what you desired, the person who prevented it or took it away from you doesn't deserve any sort of existence or happiness. A tantrum at not getting what you want and being unable to to control others to your wishes. Your God is honest when describing themselves as jealous.

God is ultimate example of being unable to live in a world which does not meet what someone thinks they deserve. Someone not acting in the way you desire? Burn them for entirety. They must have nothing but pain in their lives.

If you'd said justice in the sense of preventing future harm, you'd be right. You didn't. "Paying back with suffering and pain" is always vengeance. It's jealously over the favoured world which someone took away from us. A fantasy we have power over others, which can return the lost world we desire so much-- "Burn them for eternity and the loss will be resolved."

It won't be. What is lost cannot be undone.

Exactly. In denying gay people marriage, you exclude them and their relationships from public approval. They understood to be of lesser value, to not be an appropriate part of our society. It's prejudice and discrimination.

The issue of heteronormative tradition doesn't have much to do with any of that. It's defined by disrespect for other identities and relationships, not the absence of heterosexual ones.

Unless you go into conspiracy territory that valuing other relationships is going to wipe out heterosexuals through cultural influence, heterosexuality and its children aren't touched by erosion of heteronormativity.

You aren't thinking beyond whether other people are saying your position is wrong. Here is is you that define the prejudice. It's your position (whether rightly or wrongly) that discriminates against gay people. I'm saying you are unwilling to admit your exclusion of gay people here.

Any opposition is prejudice because the point of it is to exclude gay people. If gay people cannot married (as heterosexual people do), then things are they are meant to be. The traditional order is preserved and no deviant gays are admitted to the hallowed hall of marriage.

This exclusion is what you are advocating for. It's not newfound gay rights activist rhetoric. You want to discriminate against gay people by excluding them from marriage.

To say you are not prejudiced is to contradict your own position. On the one hand you say that gay people should be excluded and that is great (i.e. marriage for those who can procreate with their bodies), yet on the other you insist aren't denying gay people a value and right (marriage).

From what you've said so far, no. Legal sanctions ought to be reserved for stuff like hate crimes.

But the point is you don't seem recognise you own prejudice (whether it is just or not). You are acting like what you are saying isn't discriminatory towards gay people, as if that idea was merely rhetoric cooked-up by gay rights activists. How can you say this when the nature of marriage you are talking about proudly announces that gay people don't have a place within it? It's success is measured by gay people being denied marriage and the associated value which comes with that-- the entire point is a discrimination against gay people, to maintain the heteronormative tradition (at least insofar as marriage).

Even if you are right, it's still discriminatory towards gay people.