Wrong. You continue to purposely misunderstand what I have written. If legal or public policy is not based in reality, then what use is it? Do you make this same case for all scientific conclusions, like on the environment? Do you not use scientific data to support the idea that the environment is changing? Hypocrisy is your brain on politics.Here you seem to misunderstand that you can have a coarse biological classification scheme and yet still not use that for legal or public policy. — substantivalism
When did I ever imply such a thing. Notice you had to quote this yourself and did not quote me as saying this. Straw-man.Most of your replies felt like a critique of any form of anti-realism. "If it's socially constructed then it can be undone, anything can go, and it makes following it pointless because there is no grounding. How can you say what you say because according to you I can invent whatever I want in a contrary fashion." — substantivalism
Well, I have been asking what a transgender person means when they say they are a "man" or "woman". I am trying to clarify what they mean by asking questions about what they actually mean - something you have been averse to yet is required to solve your problem. I have already laid out the inconsistencies of their definitions of gender as a social construct, feelings, sexist tropes, etc., I have been waiting on you to clarify since you claim to understand them but you'd rather make arguments without any clear definitions of what it is you are actually talking about.You appear to be equivocating.
Here are two plausible interpretations of your claim:
1. They believe they are biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
2. They believe they are non-biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
If you mean (1) then your claim is false because they do not believe that they are biologically male.
If you mean (2) then your conclusion is a non sequitur. — Michael
It is if that is your only argument and the argument does not address all the other issues I showed with it that you did not reply to (more cherry-picking).It's not a logical fallacy to defer to what mathematicians say about mathematics, to what physicists say about physics, or to what psychiatrists say about psychiatry.
Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion. — Michael
Exactly. We need non-contradictory definitions for once - the lack of which is evidence that those that accept what trans-people are claiming simply don't understand what they are claiming. We also need to understand that being a man or woman also being a human and we need to distinguish between what are actual male and female traits and which are just part of the wide range of human behaviors and actually have nothing to do with one's sex. This is what it means to be sexist - to confuse human attributes with sexual attributes - as if wearing a dress (both men and women can wear dresses - there is nothing about them physically that would prevent both from wearing a dress) is what defines you as being a woman as opposed to having a vagina.It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first. — Fire Ologist
Yet we can talk about particular ideas. It always seems to me that the best answers lie somewhere in the middle of two extremes - realism and nominalism, rationalism and empiricism, direct and indirect realism, political left and right, etc.Ideas are often considered abstract objects. — NOS4A2
They believe they are man when they are a woman. That is the delusion.It's not clear to me what delusion you believe they have. We've already established that trans men don't believe that they were born with a penis or XY chromosomes, so it can't be that.
And neither the DSM nor the ICD classify gender dysphoria/incongruence as a type of psychosis, and unless you're a qualified psychiatrist you're in no position to question the professionals – or at the very least I have no good reason to believe you over them. — Michael
I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that if men started advocating for shared public bathrooms 30-40 years ago, before all this trans-gender ideology started, the left would be screaming and yelling about protecting women's rights and safe spaces.Never understood where the leap came for gender to describe societal differences between the sexes to people wanting society to validate their right to pick a gender. Very dismissive of women and their status in society. Women fought long and hard to get the rights and respect they now have. — Malcolm Parry
You don't know shit about what I think because you don't actually read my posts. I already told you that I have talked about long-term solutions for society in other recent political threads on this forum and then provided an immediate solution, which you ignored, so stop trying to link my name to shit I haven't said or implied.Harry Hindu celebrates this. . . and then he adds nothing to replace it or advocate for an improvement of it's material. Perhaps I'm wrong but he hasn't been rather vocal on this topic matter and seems to just burn all bridges thinking its better we just swim. — substantivalism
Masculinity and femininity are different across different cultures, so not necessarily based in the biology of the sexes. If gender is a social construct, then gender would be different in each culture. If a trans-person travel internationally, does their gender change?The first update is that someone long ago pointed out that there can be orientations and bearings ("gender" in the psychological sense, as in the OP) regarding sex and gender (in the sociological sense) separately, so there's not just sex (biological), gender (sociological), orientation and bearing (both psychological), there's sex, sexual orientation, sexual bearing, gender, gender orientation, and gender bearing -- six different things that may correlate but can come apart from each other, for each of which you can have a position on a two-dimensional spectrum of masculinity X femininity. — Pfhorrest
You are focused on affirming the delusions of delusional people. I never said trans-people don't exist. I said that their beliefs are delusions, just as anorexic people exist but they have a distorted view of their body. You are the one denying that delusional disorders and mass delusions existI’m focused on actual people trying to live their actual lives. Trans people aren’t just some philosophical hypothetical. They exist and they often need to use public bathrooms. The studies show that it is safer to let trans men use men’s bathrooms and trans women use women’s bathrooms, so any law that tries to prevent this ought not be passed.
If you don’t understand trans people then fine. You don’t need to. Them going to the toilet has nothing to do with you - or anyone else. — Michael
Try applying this logic to other questions. Does Iraq really have or not have WMD, or does it depend on what is useful to us? Are there truly substances, things, or does the existence of any thing at all (even the human person) merely depend on our goals? How can we have goals if our existence is itself a question of usefulness? — Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem though, is that the old issue of the One and the Many rears its head here. If everything is a process, in virtue of what is anything also a discrete thing? How is anything any thing at all? Process metaphysics tends towards a singular universal monoprocess. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What I'm saying is that just because we might find some knowledge useful for certain things does not necessarily mean that knowledge contradicts or does not complement other knowledge about other parts of reality. Does genetics contradict biology? Does atomic theory contradict astrophysics? No. They are just descriptions of different levels of reality depending on what it is we are focused on at the moment. Our minds do not have an infinite amount of memory and our senses can only access certain levels of reality (there is a level or reality where lightwaves are to big compared to the objects at the atomic level so the waves never reflect off the objects for us to see them so we use devices like electron microscopes to view the atomic level of reality.)Here is the problem with trying to ground epistemology in "usefulness:" either there are facts about what is useful or there aren't. If nothing is "truly useful," but instead is "useful because we feel it is so," then we have relativism. For the fundamentalist, it is useful to deny evolution for instance. In 1984, it is useful for both citizens and the Party to live by "whatever Big Brother says is true is true." — Count Timothy von Icarus
It appears that it is a common way of thinking of "substance" as being something fundamental. According to the above descriptions, substance would not be fundamental but would simply be what we call a thing that consists of only type of atom or molecule, and atoms are not stuff but are excitations in fields. We abandoned this view of atoms being little billiard balls bouncing around in favor of quantum mechanics that talks about wave functions and superposition. So it appears that science at least has abandoned the idea that substance is something fundamental, in favor of a view that process appears to be fundamental and substances are just a type of process, or relation between certain types of atoms.In the scientific context, the term substance refers to pure matter alone, consisting of only one type of atom or one type of molecule.
— Harry Hindu
That's the point of the OP - that using the term 'substance' mistakenly equates 'being' with 'stuff'. And in the current scientific context, there is no real material ultimate in the sense of a material atom. Atoms are nowadays understood as excitations in fields, the primitive idea of the atom as 'indivisible particle' (that's what the word means, 'not divisible') is long dead, in the age of wave-particle duality.
— Wayfarer
Where in the scientific explanation was the word, "stuff" used, or what makes you believe that "stuff" was implied when "substance" is used? It seems you are projecting a strawman into the description that isn't there.
You solve your own problem by incorporating other scientific knowledge that there is no real material ultimate in the sense of the material atom. If science also says that atoms are excitations in fields then it is not saying that substance is stuff. So your explanation only works if you compartmentalize scientific knowledge, like you just did. But as I said before, the conclusion in one domain of knowledge (or one field of science) should not contradict the conclusions reached in another. All knowledge must be integrated. — Harry Hindu
I addressed the relevant issue. Trans people are at a greater risk when they use the bathroom according to their biological sex and cis women are not at a greater risk when trans women are allowed to use the women’s bathroom.
So if your concern is people’s safety then trans men ought use men’s bathrooms and trans women ought use women’s bathrooms. — Michael
You can make it make more sense by not trying to avoid the relevant questions that you should be asking yourself. But you won't because it's politics/religion to you.Whether or not it "makes sense" to you is irrelevant. Your intuition – or whatever it is – is wrong. — Michael
It would seem to me that any change or motion would be a type of process. Is there any type of change or motion that would not count as a process?At times, theoretical work needs to take a more philosophical look at what is mean by change and motion, and so "process." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Doesn't it depend on what the current goal is? Is it useful to think of all living and non-living things as part of one group? If so, when is that the case? Is it useful to think of living things as separate from non-living things? If so, when is that the case?The soul is just the form by which living things are the sort of self-organizing, self-determining, self-generating proper wholes that they are. Some (philosophical) conceptions of science do away with any real distinction between living and non-living things (e.g. "everything is just collocations of atoms"), but most do not. "Soul" is broadly consistent with those that do not, and include some sort of principle of life. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, yeah. The mind is a process. Atoms are processes, organisms are processes, galaxies are processes. No "substance", which is an antiquated term no matter which flavor you choose.‘Soul’ was one term used to translate the Greek ‘psuche’ which lives on as ‘psyche’. ‘Spirit’ originally comes from ‘pneuma’, meaning ‘breath’, or ‘animating principle’. Those terms belong to an earlier world of discourse, but the realities they denote are still real enough. Again, the point of the original post is that through Descartes ‘res cogitans’, ‘mind’ comes to be represented as ‘thinking thing’ or ‘thinking substance’ which I say is an incoherent concept. — Wayfarer
Is it ok to affirm a delusional person's delusions? Is it ok to prescribe an anorexic person diet pills to affirm their distorted view of their body? Should we put boxes of cat litter in public restrooms in case someone identifies as a cat?How about trans-men? Is it OK for trans-men to use the men's bathroom or must they use the women's bathroom? — EricH
“However, research shows that transgender people are the ones who face harm from others in these spaces,
This is like saying that a delusional person ought not to suffer the knowledge that they are deluding themselves.So trans women ought to suffer using men's bathrooms, risking being abused, because cis men might pretend to be trans women to use women's bathrooms? That seems unfair. — Michael
presume that philosofical talk has not much to do with details, but everything with the big picture. — Jan
Do we have the same problem with the term, "process"?These terms definitely still get used in the philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, complexity studies, etc., but they are often used confusedly in different senses, with all the baggage they have accumulated — Count Timothy von Icarus
Where in the scientific explanation was the word, "stuff" used, or what makes you believe that "stuff" was implied when "substance" is used? It seems you are projecting a strawman into the description that isn't there.In the scientific context, the term substance refers to pure matter alone, consisting of only one type of atom or one type of molecule.
— Harry Hindu
That's the point of the OP - that using the term 'substance' mistakenly equates 'being' with 'stuff'. And in the current scientific context, there is no real material ultimate in the sense of a material atom. Atoms are nowadays understood as excitations in fields, the primitive idea of the atom as 'indivisible particle' (that's what the word means, 'not divisible') is long dead, in the age of wave-particle duality. — Wayfarer
But was the opposition really silencing them? If the citizens heard them both and the rhetoric from alternative views was not calling to silence anyone else, then the claims of the Nazis was not true and plain for everyone to see. Wasn't it more that the prior government was corrupt and the economic hardships from the depression that made them look for alternatives like the Nazis?Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us". — Christoffer
But why couldn't you just post the answer here as to why some people are incited by speech and others are not? That is the critical question and you seem to be avoiding it. If you wrote all this other stuff but ignored the key question then it seems you are trying to play the same game Hitler was.You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not. — Christoffer
It is your view that is simplistic if you cannot answer how some people are incited by speech and others are not. Popper's paradox is solved by using logic to determine which arguments each side is making are valid or not. Abolishing political parties (group-think and group-hate) and making critical thinking a required course in school would go a long way in preventing things like fascism and communism from taking hold again. Limiting free speech (as the capacity to question and criticize authority) is not the problem. It is the solution.What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences. — Christoffer
I can't when people like yourself do not ignore it and assume their claims are true and then start threads like this to have a debate about bathrooms when it isn't necessary if you would take your own advice and ignore them.Good. Ignore it then. — frank
But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric?As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression. — Christoffer
Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too.This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING. — Samlw
Absolute speech is not free speech. Absolute speech is what authoritarians practice. Free speech is the capacity to question authoritarians, thereby placing limits on their absolute speech. This has been the main point I have been making all along.this is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion, — Samlw
Perfect. Then we agree on my main point as stated above.Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech.
— Harry Hindu
Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this — Samlw
What I'm asking is how does either notion of substance compliment what we currently know scientifically and vice versa. The conclusions we reach in all domains of knowledge (philosophy and science) should not contradict each other. Is there a difference between the way we describe a substance philosophically and how we might describe it scientifically?Obviously, there are vast differences between ancient and modern, and we know an enormous amount more than did they, in a scientific sense. That is not at issue. The motivation for the original post, though, was a specific confusion arising from a misunderstanding of a key idea, which is still relevant despite all of that. That anyway is the argument spelled out in the OP. — Wayfarer
:roll: Are Christians trying to bring God back into public schools from a street corner?You mean like out on a street corner? — frank
I don't want it to be my business but they try to make my beliefs their business so that they can cancel or ban me if they do not align with their views. That is my point.Both Christians and atheists are protected by the first amendment. People can be as deluded as they want to be. It's none of your business. — frank
Like I said, we already have laws that made discrimination illegal. The reason why we still have the laws is because people still discriminate. That is what the laws are for. We don't need more of the same laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have. If there is discrimination happening, then point it out specifically, so that we may fight it together. But using these vague, nebulous accusations of discrimination isn't helping anyone.Those laws protect trans people from discrimination based on their trans status. It's illegal to refuse employment or housing to trans people. Does that cause your head to explode? — frank
Straw man. I'm not talking about the people that are deluded and keeping their delusion to themselves. If I identified as the reincarnated spirit of Elvis Presley and petitioned government to force people to refer to me as, "The King", to upgrade bathrooms toilets to thrones for the King, or that children must pray to the spirit of the King in school, would I be keeping my delusion to myself?Both Christians and atheists are protected by the first amendment. People can be as deluded as they want to be. It's none of your business. — frank
No, I haven't. Although, I have worked for myself for a significant portion of my life. Companies are abandoning DEI initiatives. To even implement them in the first place is implying that you weren't treating people fair and equal before your company implemented them. Again, they are assuming the premise that systemic racism exists. We already have laws in the books for discrimination and treating people equally. DEI was a push to give special treatment to certain groups.For the most part, the support the LGBTQ community is getting is about capitalism. Companies want to virtue signal. And there's nothing anybody can do to stop them. Have you not received diversity education from your employer? — frank
I never said there isn't room on the planet for anyone, nor am I trying to squash anyone. My whole point when it comes to politics - if you've read any posts of mine recently in political discussions - is live and let live. The problem is that the trans-movement is not letting others live by petitioning the government to affirm their delusions. Have you been consistent in informing atheists that there is room on the planet for Christians and the atheists should not squash the Christians? I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. The difference is that I'm consistent in my rejection of all delusions and those that want government to affirm their delusions.Ok. I think you're going a little too far, though. There's room on the planet for people who become trans. There's no reason to squash them. Just let them be. The woke bullshit will stabilize itself over time. — frank
Is there a difference between process in the philosophical sense and process in the everyday sense?There’s an important distinction that often gets glossed over in discussions of philosophy, especially when dealing with early modern or classical sources. That is, the difference between substance in the philosophical sense, and substance in everyday usage. — Wayfarer
Sounds to me like our understanding has evolved since the Greeks, and some terms are no longer relevant. Does either 'ousia' or 'substantia' map easily against reality as we now understand it (with relativity, QM, etc.), as opposed to how the Greeks understood reality?In the long run, 'substantia' became the English 'substance', but again, has a different meaning to 'a material with uniform properties'.
The use of 'process' as in 'process philosophy' is a much later arrival, associated with the philosopher Whitehead, in the early 20th century. However, 'process' doesn't really map easily against either 'ousia' or 'substantia'. — Wayfarer
And my point is why use the term, "substance" when there is a better term to use - "process"? If what you really mean is "process" when using the term, "substance" then just use "process".If you read the OP, the point is that the meaning of substance in philosophy is not 'an unchanging material', but that is how it has come to be (mis)interpreted. — Wayfarer
What I'm doing about it is exposing the hypocrisy and motivations of the extreme left for open minds to see. It was only a few years ago that even questioning trans-genderism would get you banned or canceled. I was one of the few going against the grain here on this forum. Now you have many Democrats calling out the trans-movement as hurting the party. The needle is moving.Maybe, but there's nothing you can do about it. — frank
The only permanent thing is change. There is no substance - only process or relations. Things only appear to persist in time because of our limited perception of time. We cannot perceive change happening over millions or billions of years but it is happening. The universe is expanding last time I checked. What is it that is expanding? Is space a substance?…. substance is the permanence of the real in time…. — Mww
That wasn't the question. And you didn't keep your bullshit to yourself until I exposed your hypocrisy. Now you, and everyone else that drank the trans-Kool-Aid, is silent. Will you all bring the same tiring arguments back up the next time a Trans thread appears on the forum? Of course you will because it's not about what the truth is to you. It's about acquiring political power in the form of using people with mental disorders as political clubs against your political opponents.I usually keep my bullshit to myself. — frank
Confusing, I know. But Frank seems to think that everyone should know what a trans-woman is and what it means for a man to live as a woman, but when pressed on what that means... silence.Jumping in very late, here. I do not know what trans means, or what a trans person is. But it does seem plain easy to prove that no trans-man is or can be a man, nor any trans-woman a woman, for the extremely simple reason that a trans-man, If a man, is already a man, and a trans-woman, if a woman, is already a woman. That leaves the alternatives of a trans-man being a woman or neither a man nor a woman, and a trans-woman being a man or neither man nor woman. — tim wood
Where would this duplicate world be relative to the original? It appears to me that the duplicate would be part of the greater reality that includes the original and duplicate, just as heaven and hell, along with the universe is all part of one reality as the events in one can affect the events in others.When someone uses such a phase, I think the onus should be on the asserter as what would the world look like “as is” vs “not as is”. They need to set up the contrast. Descartes demon may be able to perfectly duplicate a world, but runs into the problem of distinguishing between the two. Better yet why not say that we have more of the same world in that case. — Richard B
What does that even mean? What is a trans-woman and how does it differ from a man or woman? Man and woman are biological entities so to be a trans-woman appears to mean that you are intersex but have more female parts than male parts.A man can transition to being a trans woman. — frank
It's not even that because the trans-movement claims that one is a woman simply by claiming it. A man is no longer a man once they enter a woman's bathroom, so the discussion about men entering women's bathroom is irrelevant and we should instead focus on the trans claim that someone is a woman or man by simply claiming it, or by wearing a dress or entering a women's bathroom.It's not a matter of rights. If the public owns the toilet. Access to it is up to the public. — frank
Propagating a delusion as if it were real, creating mass delusion, is what makes everyone less safe.So you're abandoning your whole "everybody has a right to be safe" thing? You're leaving me to pee in front of dwarves even though I don't feel safe? — frank
I'm not sure as men have mostly been kept out of women's bathrooms so it would logically follow that most assaults on women occurred outside of the bathroom. By allowing men into women's safe spaces, the assaults in bathrooms undoubtedly will go up.There are probably more men assaulting women. What are the statistics on men assaulting women in bathrooms? — frank