how do we know about any illusions at all?

Well, regardless of the question "how", it's not controversial to state that we DO experience illusions, and somehow we have ways of figuring out they're illusions. That's not controversial at all. It sounds like a failure of your intellectual creativity if you can't figure out ways to determine if any of our experiences are illusory. — flannel jesus

I don't deny that we do experience illusions, but then to know that you are experiencing an illusion means that you have some sense of how the world is.

Besides, illusions are misinterpretations of sensory data. Our senses never lie, but we can misinterpret what they are telling us, just as you can misinterpret what someone is saying even though they are being truthful.

For instance, mirages and "bent" straws in water, are only illusions if you do not understand the nature of light. When you do not take into account that your eyes see light, not objects, then your direct-realist self is going to assume that you see objects as they are and then get confused with these illusions. But if you understand the nature of light, and that you see light, not objects, then mirages and bent straws is exactly what you would expect to experience. Your experiences become predictable.

Metaphysical theories like this are hopeless, no evidence can be presented to cure this mental disease, and only demands some sort of persuasion to cure it. I find a good dose of humor can do the trick to expose the absurdity of such a position.

“As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.” — Richard B

To keep yourself from sliding down the slope into solipsism, you need to come up with an explanation as to how we can know about the world even though "we don't see the world as it is".

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them? — Harry Hindu

, ,

A meaningful question to ask is why we have such separations.

For sports it's to give biological women a competitive chance, and that may be a reason to exclude trans women from women's sports. But then what about trans men? They're biological women, so ought they compete in women's sports? Or do we say that trans men who have taken hormones to transition into a man must compete in men's sports?

For bathrooms it may be something to do with "decency" or safety, but that may be a reason to allow trans women (esp. post-surgery) to use women's bathrooms and trans men (esp. post-surgery) to use men's bathrooms, and so bathrooms ought not be separated by biology but by something else (e.g. outward appearance, even if "artificial"). Of course, the difficulty then comes in how such things can be policed. Ought everyone be subject to genital inspection before and/or after using a public bathroom? — Michael

Your post just re-iterates my point - that there is no meaningful distinction between gender and sex. If one "affirms" their gender by taking hormones and having surgery, then gender is biological, not social. This would be like "affirming" an anorexic's distorted view of their body by prescribing them diet pills and performing bariatric surgery on them. The problem is not "men" using women's bathroom. The problem is affirming another's delusions for the purpose of using them as political pawns.

"Men" and "women" are terms we use to distinguish not just sexes but species as well. Men and women are similar to "buck" and "doe", "drone" and "queen", etc. in that they distinguish the males and females of different species.

If you read the rest of my post, you would see that I had said that we can have body scanners at public bathroom entrances to scan for biological features, not gendered ones - whatever that is if it is not a synonym for "sex".

In a society where it is against the law for people to walk around naked, we have adopted rules for the purpose of finding mates in a society where our bodies are covered. Trans people are uprooting these agreed upon rules for how females and males present themselves in society for the purpose of distinguishing between men and women so that heterosexuals and homosexuals (which are sexual orientations, not gender orientations) can find proper mates. Is a homosexual man still a homosexual if they are attracted to female dressed as a man? Is it right for a trans person to fool a homosexual into having intimate relations with them?

What would trans-gender mean in a society with no clothes - where we all walk around naked?

So. . . your solution as to why male assaults is so prevalent and how to solve this epidemic is to just put cameras or xray machines facing bathroom entrances.

So is the only way to solve the male asymmetry in assaults' is to use women as bait and wait for these offenders to jail themselves after they have or just nearly did assault someone? Brilliant strategy there. — substantivalism

I don't see how your response follows from my proposed solution. Are you saying everyone on an airplane is being used as bait for a terrorist hijacking? This is what you are saying, not me. If you want to insist on affirming delusions so men can get close to women in their safe-spaces, that is your position, not mine. I don't carry guns onto airplanes and have no intent on hijacking one, yet I am still subject to a search before boarding an airplane.

What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.

I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.

No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.
— Harry Hindu

You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;) — I like sushi

My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them?

Neither is every person who comes through the border from another a country a saint. . . so does that imply something legally we are supposed to do when there IS NO MORAL/LEGAL OFFENCE COMMITTED? — substantivalism

Yet we use xray machines to determine who has a weapon before entering a building or airplane. Similar devices can be added to the entrances of bathrooms where it detects if one is a male or female. There doesn't even need to be a human being to monitor it, so we don't need humans looking in anyone's pants before entering a public restroom.

So if I had two groups, demarcated by race/gender/sex/religion/etc, should we enforce laws to separate them if there was the possibility of increased conflict from them? — substantivalism

For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. When it comes to determining what is best for the future of humanity, and a great many other things, no.

While what you say is true. Language is expressed in physical ways, so we perceive it the way we perceive everything else. Everything is party of the danger works.

Still, language is different from anything else in ways. The physical means of its expression are irrelevant to, and separate from, the meaning of what is being expressed. We can see an apple. It never means anything, and is always the physical object. We can see written words. They always mean something other than the physical marks we see.

Waves crashing on the beach cause vibrations in the air that we hear. But the sound doesn't mean anything. It doesn't even mean waves crashing on the beach. It's just an effect of the physical interaction of waves and beach. Air passing through vocal cords that are manipulated in certain ways cause vibrations in the air that we hear as words. Those words mean something beyond just the effect of the physical interaction of the air and vocal chords.

So no, not separate from the shared world we live in. But different from most things in that shared world. — Patterner

The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the “truth” of the computer — Hoffman, Donald D. (2019). The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (Function). Kindle Edition.

The Cartesian theater and Plato's cave are very dark places, but if the occupants still have their sanity and astuteness, they may notice light emanating from an entrance. So, when they boldly choose to exit, they will not find absolute certainty or those majestic eternal forms, but discover a chaotic, treacherous world that brave and ingenious people strive to cope and overcome by sharing their experiences, thoughts, and creations through the vehicle of language. — Richard B

and other people are part of the shadows one experiences. Other people's existence is questioned by questioning the idea that you see the world as it is. Once you start to question your experiences, you question everything's existence - including words and the people that use them. Solipsism logically follows from unfettered skepticism about the reality of an external world.

We know we don't experience reality "as it is" for same very basic reasons - our visual and auditory ranges are rather arbitrary. Why do you think your vision starts at red wavelengths and ends at violet? Other creatures colour wavelength sensitivity ends at different places, so they're experiencing something different from us - are they also experiencing reality "as it is"? How can we be experiencing drastically different experiences, and yet still be experiencing reality "as it is"?

And consider the colour wheel itself. We experience colours, not as a linear spectrum but as a loop. That's not "reality at it is", wavelengths don't loop. Your brain is fabricating that experience for you, it's not out there in the real world. — flannel jesus

How can any of this be said if we do not see reality as it is? In one breath you make all these claims about how reality is, and in the next breath claim we do not see reality as it is.

How do you know we are experiencing reality differently if you do not see reality as it is? How can you say that your brain is fabricating the experience if you don't see reality as it is?

Do you experience your mind as it really is? If so, does that not lend one to believe that the world is like one's mind being that the mind is part of the world? If so, does this not mean that you experience (at least part of) the world as it is? And finally, does it matter that we don't see the world "as it is", but know the world as it is? If we can know the world well enough to land rovers on Mars, then we know the world as it is.

So keep them separate as long as the issues persist. . . you are going to now give a solution to those issues so we can move on from this right? That is why you are bringing it up. You don't want to do such and such because it would increase rate of women being raped by men. . . you are going to give a solution to that and not a mere spatial bandage, right? — substantivalism

Uh... yes. Keep the violent people away from non-violent people. What did you not understand about that? If trans are being placed among a violent prison population, it is because they committed acts of violence themselves. You seem to think that all trans people are saints and only cis-people can be mean and disrespectful.

To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference. — I like sushi

It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise.

Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that). — I like sushi

Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.

These philosophers all propose various forms of 'the argument from reason', which says that, were reason to be understandable purely in naturalistic terms, as an adaptation to the environment, then how could we have confidence in reason? Of course, that is a very deep question - rather too deep to be addressed in terms of cognitive science, I would have thought. — Wayfarer

It would seem to me that survival within your environment is a selective pressure that promotes accurate perceptions over inaccurate ones.

We talk like we know what we refer to when Nagel talks about “what it is like to be a bat” or when Hoffman talks about “the taste of mint”, but it could be nothing, something, or somethings, all of which are irrelevant to the meaning of our expressions. — Richard B

But what about Hoffman and Nagel's speech and written words? Are they something, nothing, or somethings?

Why do philosophers on this forum tend to put language up on this pedestal as if it is somehow separate from the shared world we live in - as if we access language differently than we do the rest of the world. We don't. Any skepticism of how we experience the world would be logically applied to the way we hear and see words because we access words the same way we access everything else - via our senses. If we question what words mean, we question what words are, or even if they exist the same way apples on tables do.

I don't think we "see reality as it is". I don't think "reality as it is" is a visual experience. But I still think there is a reality. — flannel jesus

So we can accomplish all these tasks that we set out to do through the day, but we don't see reality as it is? We can build computers, program them, build rockets to the Moon, get to and from work every day, type a response to a philosophical post we read, etc. - many tasks that do not directly involve survival at all, yet we accomplish our goals.

Are the words on this page experienced as they are?

Is your mind experienced as it is? Do we experience the UI as it is?

Trump is not all wrong, but neither is he all right — Athena

Sure. This can be said of most Reps and Dems. The problems is that Reps and Dems are not allowed to disagree with their own party and tell them when they are wrong, and find the good in the other side to reach a compromise.

Is eliminating government waste a good thing? Instead of just working against anything Trump does, even though they have done it themselves in the past, why not try to work with the other side to have some input in what is being cut. The Dems have cried wolf so many times when it comes to Trump that no one cares any more about the fear-mongering they propagate, even when he actually does something wrong - like when he recently spoke about ignoring the separation of church and state. The Dems are just as much at fault that Trump is president as Trump is.

Call me delusion. but I think the following things are pretty darn good for people that I have never met:

- having access to quality health care
- knowing that you will always have a roof over your head no matter how poor you are
- knowing that you will never go hungry,
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having the wrong religious or political beliefs
- knowing that you will not be sent to prison for having a tattoo
- etc

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people. — EricH

The last two are Libertarian positions. The first three, how can government guarantee any of those things? If there were a natural disaster would you wait for government assistance, or try to find food and shelter yourself, and would it be government or the kindness of other people you have established relations with that help you?

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions. — Christoffer

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people.

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state. — Christoffer

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault?

Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; — Christoffer

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot?

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal — Christoffer

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man?

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view. — Samlw

They are only separate things in an authoritarian society - where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said.

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service. — Samlw

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.

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred. — Samlw

But it is not a certainty when you are not informed of other views that contradicts what is being said. Essentially what is happening is the suppression of free thought, which is the basis of free speech.

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said?

If children are informed what grooming is, will they not know what to look for when someone is attempting to groom them? One of my children was separated from us while at Disney when they were young. Before this, I explained what they should do if they ever get lost in a large area with a lot of people. They should go inside one of the stores, look for a female employee, not some random stranger, and tell them they lost their parents. This is exactly what my daughter did, and she was 6 or 7 at the time, and we were reunited within an hour. By being informed she made the right decisions and limited her risk of some random malevolent stranger kidnapping her.

So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female? — Michael

I provided five traits that almost always occur together in females and males.
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

They would be whatever they have a majority (three or more) of the traits.

Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female. — Michael

There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes, with particular combinations being responsible for particular phenotypes (e.g. XX typically responsible for the development of breasts and a vagina, and XY typically responsible for the development of a penis), but this relationship is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop breasts and a vagina), and there are more combinations than just XX and XY. — Michael

Male and female are not syndromes or disorders.

You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition. — Michael

Sure, it's a biological condition, but is it a sex condition, or a vestigial trait, like the tail?

A hermaphrodite is either an abnormality or a natural condition, depending on the species. We are discussing humans.

It may be that placing transgender women in men’s prisons and transgender men in women’s prisons results in more victims of sexual assault than placing transgender women in women’s prisons and transgender men in men’s prisons. — Michael

Or it may be that any person perceived as weak, regardless of their sex/gender, will be the target of assaults. This is prison we are talking about and violent criminals are typically housed with other violent criminals. If a trans person committed a violent act, I couldn't care less where they are housed (karma), just as long as they are segregated from the rest of us.

As for sports and bathrooms, I think we've gotten along perfectly fine with the way things are. If you are so concerned about the weak being injured or raped, then why create circumstances where women are injured by men in sports and raped by men in bathrooms?

That’s part of why the answer to these questions isn’t so simple. If a transgender man is outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender man and a transgender woman outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender woman then how is something like bathroom usage to be legislated and policed? — Michael

How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there, or if you've misunderstood my argument here.

I accept that "99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes — male and female" as you say, but also that 0.1% of people fall outside these classes, and so are classified as neither male nor female but as intersex.

Malcolm Perry seems to be arguing that there's no such thing as being intersex; that every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. Human biology is complex, and the English nouns "male" and "female" do not fully capture this complexity. — Michael

Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in the process of sex - of merging TWO different sets of genes together and would qualify as a mutation, but one that does not promote the survival of the species?

If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies?

Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not? — Harry Hindu

If so, then how do you reconcile that with the notion that free speech is also :

You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions — Samlw

Wouldn't disagreeing, questioning, and criticizing what was said qualify as repercussions?

All the examples you and others have given are basically begging the question that free speech entails "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", while forgetting free speech is the capacity to question authority and disagree with what is said.

I agree with this legal ruling and its implications as it's consistent with my own stated position here — 180 Proof

Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?

It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1

There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for. — Michael

Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369

Still hiding behind straw-men. Answer the question you keep ignoring.

Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder? — Michael

Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?

Even if we were to suspend reality for the sake of your example, you still need to explain how the idea of free speech defined as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions" is reconciled with the idea that everyone has the right to free speech, which includes questioning authority and criticizing what others say because your examples are all of those in some authoritative position dictating to others, or manipulating others (in your new example) that lack the correct information. The solution to all of your examples it to have a more informed population - where all views are free to be expressed and criticized, not less free speech.

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"? — Samlw

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.

If you have another example then give it. It seems that this is all you have - some nebulous example that can be construed as both action and speech, or speech over weeks, and I'm sure grooming involves more than just saying words.

I'm waiting on an example that shows a clear distinction between action and speaking where the speaking is clearly the cause of the violent act of another. There isn't one.

So, you can ignore my main point all you want, but that is a response all in itself.

Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General. — Michael

I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.

Besides, this misses the point that what you are describing actually a lack of free speech, where a dictator tells people what to do and no one is allowed to question the orders.

I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him. — Michael

Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives. — Samlw

You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?

It seems to me that throwing people in jail for saying things ruins peoples lives.

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't? — Samlw

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said.

It is illogical to define free speech as "You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions", as free speech includes the rights of others to say what they want, which could be disagreeing with and criticizing what another says, which are repercussions to what one has said. So in a free society that values free speech - EVERYONE has the right, not just a select few (as that is the antithesis of free speech), to speak their mind, which includes questioning authority and criticizing and questioning what others have said.

If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction? — Michael

Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.

Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money. — Michael

You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance?

It seems you are confusing actions with speech.

Let me ask you this: Is it always the case that when violence occurs and the suspect points to another person and says, "But he told me to do it!", that the person they are pointing is guilty of some crime? If not, explain to me the process you would determine the other's guilt at the expense of the one that actually committed violent acts.

Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful. — Michael

It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.

I mostly call myself a socialist, but I do support policies that improve people's lives and reduce injustice. — Vera Mont

How do you determine what is best for other people that you have never met? Who gets to determine what is best for everyone?

Progress is temporary; everything we build with long, laborious effort is regularly torn down by regressives. Wrecking is faster and easier than building. All the same battles have to fought again, generation by generation, just to be a little better than than previous century. — Vera Mont

Really? So when in history did humans solve the problem of going to the Moon before solving it in 1969, or cure polio and the measles, etc.? Those were not problems that were solved and now solved again. Science is what makes society progress, and it wasn't until only a few hundred years ago that Science was free to challenge the claims of the Church, to allow what we have now - the freedom to ask question and get answers, and then challenge the current answers when better ones come along.

I wonder what percent of us actually understand more about the universe and ourselves and whaty percent has given up the supernatural answers. The regressives are even now dismantling the edifices of science and learning. — Vera Mont

Where? I know they are trying, but they are not succeeding. There is no forced prayer in public schools, and public schools do not teach intelligent design, but evolution. And it's not just either or, many have tried to integrate evolution and the Big Bang with intelligent design. They fail because they do not realize the logic and observation simply doesn't support it.

I said children need laws to protect them from bad parents and other kinds of harm — Vera Mont

And this is exactly what I've been saying. Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians believe in limited government. Most (I would say a vast majority of) mothers do not need a law telling them to care for their baby. As such, the laws to not kill your baby is only for a small minority of people. When you only need laws to protect yourself from a small fraction of the populaton, you don't need a big, bloated government to do that - just a limited one.

I do not know what you mean by TOS and TNG. — Athena

TOS = The Original Series
TNG = The Next Generation

Yes, I have watched them - hence my comparison of the various cultures and their political structures in my prior post.

On the other hand, I am wondering what in hell is Trump doing making economic decisions instead of leaving them up to the business people. — Athena

Trump is a business person.

He came to power through the church and ministers, telling us his strength proves he stands with God. — Athena

He came to power like every other Republican and Democrat - through deception and manipulation of the fears of citizens.

I enjoy agreement. It helps me feel like I am not alone in the struggle to save the democracy we inherited. I am struggling for words to raise consciousness of what the Military Industrial Complex has done to our culture. — Athena

The current state of the military industrial complex did not come about randomly, out of the blue. When our only options for representation in government are generals and lawyers, what do you expect to happen?

How can there be people with good moral judgment if none are educated for that? Education for good moral judgement is not reading the Bible. It may include reading the Bible and every other holy book and the classics, but this isn't just about learning what others have said. — Athena

The Bible and other holy books are not what we should be looking to for moral guidance. They would be more in the domain of historical fictional stories. Any similarities between the moral teachings of different religions is an outcome of human nature and natural selection, not some supernatural entity. Ever read "The Selfish Gene", which is ironically more about how altruism evolved as a means to compete against selfishness? Selfishness and altruism do not necessary have to be at odds. If we are not at least somewhat selfish, how can we as individuals be altruistic if we do not focus on maintaining our own health and sanity?

There is an important difference between education for independent thinking or education for "groupthink". If you can, watch and compare the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. That TV series marks the point in time when we had a cultural shift. Captain Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is the "groupthink" shift. — Athena

I don't see much of a cultural difference between TOS and TNG. I do see a huge cultural difference between the Federation (everyone is free to live and let live) and the Borg (group-think).

The Klingons and Cardassians would be like 24th century fascists, the Borg 24th century communists and the Federation 24th century Libertarians. Notice how there are no political parties in the Federation. :wink:

Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule? — Janus

I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?

Heresy is a religious term, not a political one — Vera Mont

Religion and politics have been intimately entwined since humans starting governing each other. I don't have the time or patience to give you a history lesson here. What is a religion vs a government? They are both types of Big Brother. An atheist-leftist simply swapped one Big Brother for another.

Because no societies are libertarian. Most societies provide some kind of support for one another and some protection for the children. Not all, but most. — Vera Mont

So you're saying that mothers need laws to protect their children? Are you saying that you need laws to behave and treat others with respect?

Can you cite a single year in human history when a society had perfect equality of rights and opportunity? Should is just wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

Ok, then your argument is to just support the status quo. And you call yourself "progressive"?

There is a reason human affairs are in pieces: humans break things. Of course I can't put them together again. Neither can you. — Vera Mont

Yet, somehow we've made progress in our exploration and understanding of the universe and of ourselves as outcomes of natural processes instead of supernatural ones - all of which only happened after the Enlightenment where the focus on individual rights as opposed to the power of the government was realized and humanity began to shake off the bindings religion and authoritarian regimes have placed on us.

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states: — Christoffer

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.

They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. — Christoffer

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. I guarantee that the idea of Fascism does not have solid logical ground to stand on when there is a level playing field governed by logic and reason.

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them? — Christoffer

Sigh. You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. Like Vera Mont, you fail to put all the pieces together, even when they are all right there in one post - either because you lack the awareness or are being intellectually dishonest.

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? If you're going to respond then make sure you are taking into account everything I have said, or you're wasting your time typing. You are exhibiting those traits you are ranting about - being manipulated by your those in power to diminish the free speech right of others with illogical arguments. You are participating in the very thing you claim you are advocating against.

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse.
Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking
about here. — Christoffer

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance. — Christoffer

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree using logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)".

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds. — Christoffer

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate).

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing. — Janus

Have you ever been incited? If not, then is that not evidence that saying words does not necessarily incite others? Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it?

In none of these groups are you expected - or able - to share the other members' views on any subject other than the purpose of the group. — Vera Mont

Which is what I've already said and further to the point that political parties are not like these groups in that they hold many views on many issues, and if you disagree on any of them then you are a heretic. Political parties today are like if you are playing on one football team and you decide to shake hands with the member of the other team and wish them good luck, you are "canceled", or banned, from your team.

Rights? Never mind infants' goals and rights - they haven't any, but may be protected by the governance, so that even if the mother's goal is to throw one into the sea, she is deprived of that right by society. — Vera Mont

Yet a vast majority of babies survive to adulthood regardless of which society you live in. How does that happen?

You keep talking about 'rights' as if that were something conferred upon individuals by a supernatural entity. — Vera Mont

Where did I ever imply such a thing? When you see the world through the prism of politics, it warps your view of reality.

Various political philosophies have varying views on what can or should be owned, by whom, under what conditions. Whichever political philosophy prevails (determined by majority of numbers or coercive power) makes the rules and sets up the mechanisms of enforcement. Government and law. Infrastructure. Agencies. — Vera Mont

Again, nothing that contradicts what I have said. You are just reiterating what I have said.

I have said numerous times now that there should be a level playing field of competing ideas where logic is the only referee, and let the best idea win. My money would be on Libertarianism - with one bit of evidence being that you have yet to provide a logical, coherent argument against anything I have said or proposed, relying on straw-men and moving goal posts.

Political parties are just groups that people join by choice to express their preference for the style of governance they want for their country. The members don't need to think similarly on any other subject but the issues of their platform. If most people were Libertarian, why did the party finish just below the Greens in popular vote. — Vera Mont

Because

Gullibility is a major human trait. — Vera Mont

. You seem incapable of putting the pieces together.

Another reason they lost is because there isn't a level playing field where logic is the referee.

And how does any of this contradict what I've said about people being able to freely choose which group they are a member of and that there are many people that are gullible to be conned into joining a group that misrepresents their positions on issues? For instance, Dems claim to be pro-choice only when it comes to abortion, but do not want you to have choice in pronouns to use. Reps claim to support economic freedom while at the same time supporting monopolies which leads to less competition, which leads to less choice, which leads to less freedom.

And yet, people are ignorant, opinionated, kind, selfish, forgetful, ambitious, clever, mean, greedy, violent, co-operative, compliant, manipulative, generous, reckless... People do lie. And cheat. And steal. And fight. And kill one another. Nobody has a "right to live" - only the protection of a lawful society. — Vera Mont

The issue is defining what a lawful society looks like. Does a lawful society include authoritarianism?

Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Harry Hindu

You do not believe that there are people that have joined groups for the wrong reasons, or were duped into joining a group because of the way the group falsely portrayed themselves?

Besides, I'm telling people what they think. I'm asking them to think differently about their political parties they are a member of.

If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks.
— Harry Hindu
BS — Vera Mont

Then why join a group?

You're born into a group whether you like it or not. Could nos survive without the group until you reach at least puberty - by when you belong to several groups, either by choice or circumstance. All this individualist nonsense is wishful at best, disingenuous at worst. — Vera Mont

You still don't understand. Libertarians are fine with joining groups that promote their individual freedom - like their right to live. You might ask who is using who here? Is the baby using its mother to promote it's own survival, or is the mother protecting its baby to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation? If both are achieving their goals without their goals infringing upon the other's rights, then what is the problem? The goals of the two might be different, but they are not necessarily opposing goals. They are different goals that promote the goals of the other rather than inhibit them.

And yes, individuals should belong to certain groups by choice - not by being lied to and conned into joining.

As I see it, the only way to perceive The Forms, is through mathematics. Thus, if one were to try and describe in mathematics, what Plato alluded to The Forms, then, would it be tantamount to the very mathematical identities which one encounters in the study of mathematics?

Would the irrational number, π, also constitute some understanding of The Forms? — Shawn

How does one perceive mathematics? When did homo sapiens sapiens perceive mathematics? What is a mathematical entity? When dividing 10 by 3, what is the form of the infinite number of 3s that is part of the quotient?


I think of Plato's forms as informational templates - mental categories that take the visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, etc. forms our senses provide. While all things are unique, they may share many properties with other things or not share many things. Think of a document template like a resume. All resumes are unique but follow a template. There are certain properties that make a document a resume and some properties that play no role in whether or not it is defined as a resume (like the language or the font used) but play a role as the variety in resumes.

Since everything is unique, I would say that forms are secondary to particulars. Minds conceive of forms only after observing multiple particulars.

Those things that are more similar than dissimilar are grouped together for the purpose of communicating them to others. Which forms we communicate is dependent upon our current goal. When telling you about an animal I had seen, I will refer to the template and not the particular when the distinctions between the particulars are irrelevant to the current goal - what it is I'm trying to communicate.

That is a culture change following the change in education. We changed how we teach young minds to work. They are no longer prepared for good reasoning.

This is a cultural problem. — Athena

Totally agree. Education needs a major overhaul with mandatory classes in critical thinking and administration.

Most people are tribal to some degree. — Vera Mont

Sure - the people that are weak-minded and look to others to confirm their own beliefs, and if they don't then they need to force them confirm their beliefs.

The two-party system is American. Most other nations have several parties represented in their legislatures, so that minority voices are also heard - indeed, if one of the largest parties does not get a clear majority, their administration depends on support from the minor ones.
(Please don't tell other people what they know or think!) — Vera Mont

I'm not. Only socialists and theocrats tell others what to think.

The smallest minority is the individual. If you are part of a group then you think what the group thinks. Now that may be your choice to join a group that shares your ideas, but what about when others join the group that do not necessarily share all of your ideas? The same problem that you raise regarding Libertarians and interacting with others applies to all groups.

In joining a group, you always run the risk of the group not sharing all of your ideas. You, and only you, can only accurately represent yourself.

The operative word there is bold. They might beable to, sometimes, if a competent leader is acknowledged by all participants and they are all equally willing to do their part. But in order for that that to happen with any reliable frequency, the people involved would have to be very much in agreement about all kinds of fundamental things. What you have in your little coloured chart is aparty platform, not a formula for most people's actual lives. Once a political party gains power, it's not eager to cede to any other organizing entity. — Vera Mont

Sure. In this thread we are talking about politics which is a very broad range of ideas. Individuals can join other types of groups, like a company, or a team, that have much more specific goals in mind - where other differences do not come into play and are completely irrelevant to the purpose of the group. The same cannot be said of political groups.

My point is, it took me a while to understand I was not one of them! — Athena

Exactly. This is what I've been telling Vera Mont. These political groups manipulate individuals into joining their group, using all the Libertarian buzz-words of "liberal", "choice", "freedom", etc. to get others to join only for these people to realize that are only for freedom and choice for themselves and not others.

Frankly, this lift-right thing baffles me. I so much wish people would give up their imagined left-right thinking. — Athena

I don't expect communists and fascists to give up their left-right thinking. I do expect intellectually honest and open-minded people that are part of a political party to wake up and realize they've been conned into supporting left and right authoritarian policies for fear of the other side taking away their freedoms.

That would be the idea, which obviously US Presidents and especially Donald Trump doesn't understand with his "executive orders". — ssu

..a precedence that has been established since the country's founding and expanded upon by both parties.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Even in a multiparty system this happens. Imagine a Parliament that would some day just declare: "Got it! All laws that we need have been done. We'll go home now, call us if we are needed." :wink: — ssu

I'm not talking about multiparty either. I'm talking about NO parties.

"However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-George Washington (the only U.S. President to not be a member of a political party)

Not many laws are needed in a limited government - just an independently monitored police and defense force and a judiciary with term limits to interpret the laws, and a "head of state" for international representation.

I'm not sure if libertarians themselves see it like that. — ssu

I would have to question whether they are actually Libertarian or not. The more they agree with what is outside of the Libertarian box, the less Libertarian they are, and more authoritarian they are, by definition. If we don't have clear definitions then we risk talking past each other.

There wouldn't be. The problem emerges when you discover that not all people are Libertarian. — Vera Mont

I think that most people are Libertarians. They just don't know it because they've been conned by the two-party system into believing that the other side is trying to take your freedoms away. This is the fear-mongering that both sides propagate. They don't scare people into voting for them because the other side wants you to be more free. They are scaring you into believing that the other side wants to take away your freedoms. not the other way around, which is evidence that most people are Libertarian-minded.

That statement is bogus. All those people did not share those opinions. They chose the agenda that they thought more closely aligned with their own interests. Many were wrong in their assessment; many are now regretting their choice. I fully agree that those two options were insufficient to cover all the issues and concerns of the population, and that the system needs a serious reformation. I do not believe that yours could cope with the the reality of where the US is at this moment in history. — Vera Mont

I have a feeling that many would regret their choice no matter who ended up being president, given our (only two) choices. Mine is not a coping mechanism for reality as it is. It is the idea that we need to change reality as it is by abolishing political parties. Being that the two-party system is the status-quo, and continued support would be considered "conservative" in nature rather than "progressive".

They invariably and inevitably do. Not to mention the logistical difficulty arising from hundreds or thousands attempting to build roads and bridges all their own, any place they liked. All those unfinished projects would waste a lot of resources and clutter up the landscape. — Vera Mont

"Live and let live" does not necessarily mean Libertarians do not work together to better the lives for themselves. This is a typical straw-man argument against Libertarianism.

Looks like there was something to see here after all... — DifferentiatingEgg

Yeah, look at all the scribbled forms on this web page form.

Whatever happened to open and honest debate on a level playing field? The major media outlets claim that they are unbiased and have representatives of other views but they are often outnumbered and interrupted when speaking.

Whatever happened to interactions like this:

(sorry for the video quality. it's old)

It's funny watching the Rep and Dem trying to interrupt Stewart to get their talking points in. They aren't interested in discussion. They are only interested in being "part of their [party's] strategies", as Stewart put it. The part that is "hurting America" as Stewart put it is the inability to see the person on the other side as a person and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they believe what they do. Only then will you be able to find common ground and compromise.

I hate labeling! Politics needs to be about issues, not imagined divisions. — Athena

I knew I wouldn't have to go far (your post right above your reply to me) to find you contradicting yourself:

MAGA is equal to Hitler's propaganda used to manipulate the masses who have been prepared to follow — Athena

:roll:

Labels is what the left is all about with their focus on racial and gender identities. The right is focused on religious identities. Libertarians could care less about labels and identities - other than authoritarian and liberal - the main gist of what I've been saying recently is that the term "liberal" is being misused, and to correct that.

Democracy is based on the notion that we can learn and we can do better when all learn and share responsibility for self-government. This mentality is not about choosing sides and being winners or losers as though politics were a form of football. — Athena

No it's not. Democracy is based on the idea of majority rule and the minority has to suck it up. A democracy only works when the citizens are educated and informed, which most of the U.S. citizenry is not. Most Americans live in political bubbles formed by listening sources that only affirm what they think and don't bother exposing themselves to new ideas (because that would be heresy).

Please, can we drop labels and talk issues? — Athena

You first.

Interaction, no problem; merging, huge problem. That's what happened to tribal cultures when they became - or were subsumed by - nations. — Vera Mont

You're straw-manning. As I was saying - the two groups were made up of Libertarians, so why would there be a problem in two groups of 100 Libertarians each merging together? If they all share the same mindset of "live and let live", then what is the problem? There is none. The problem arises when others in the group abandon Libertarianism in favor of living how they want but imposing their standards on others. In a society of "Live and Let Live" no one's rights will ever be infringed upon.

The issues you speak of are the problems if an authoritarian society (either communist, fascist or theocracy) where you attempt to force everyone to think the same way. Libertarianism is far less dependent on people thinking the same as everyone can have different means and methods of obtaining happiness - only as long as those means and methods do not infringe on anyone else's goals. In this type of society everyone gets more of what they want, even if it differs, without fear of oppression.

It absolutely does. You can know 99 other people, at least to speak to or work with; you cannot know millions. 100 people can form consensus on what's in their individual and collective interest, since these overlap to a great degree and the welfare of each is the welfare of all, so it's good for you to help your neighbour and be trusted by him. 1,000,000 people share very little of common interest; each depends on only a few others; they cannot know whom to trust nor have the same regard for all the others. The larger the group, the harder it is to communicate and keep track of what others are doing, harder to care what happens to each stranger. But much easier to lie, cheat and exploit. — Vera Mont

If I can't know millions then that means I never interact with millions, only the 100 I am a part of.
Over 70 million shared a common interest that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump should be president of the U.S., millions of people are part of political parties that share common interests, so you claim that 1 million people share very little is bogus. In a democracy, it seems to me all that matters is what the majority wants. If what you said were true then all elections could never be decided because too many people think differently - there would never be a majority vote for one candidate. What you're saying just does not fit with reality.

No, it's not. What I decide doesn't influence people who want something different - like pillage the environment in which I live, limit my freedom of movement, foist their religious beliefs on me, or use my labour to enrich themselves. If they're stronger then me or have more friends, my decisions matter not at all. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's your delivery. I have been able to get others to change their mind, or at least to consider other opinions and options as valid. It certainly helps that the other person is open-minded and intellectually honest. For those that aren't that is what your voice and vote are for - to reach other open-minded and intellectually honest people in an effort to help them see the ever-growing danger of a two-party political system ruled by elites that keep expanding their power while manipulating their constituents to demonize any opposition in an effort to close their minds to listening to and considering anything other than what the Party says.

Ok, with "the government" I'm more talking about the executive branch. Naturally the right wants there to be the legislature and the judiciary too. This complex relation is shown when especially the right wants to act legislation to protect the freedom's and the rights of the citizen from the government.

Left-libertarianism might sound as an oxymoron, but it isn't at all, especially outside the United States. In the US it is right-wing libertarianism that dominates libertarianism, but I guess both have strong roots in classic liberalism. — ssu

Yet the executive branch can only enforce the laws made by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

Both the executive and legislature have expanded the powers of their branches, establishing precedence for when the other party takes power, essentially both parties working together to expand the powers of government influence in our lives.

Left-Libertarianism = moderate Democrats
Right-Libertarianism = moderate Republicans
Communists = extreme Democrats
Fascists = extreme Republicans

Left or right Libertarians can only be those that are abandoning Libertarian views in favor of more authoritarian ones, as in looking to gov. to solve their problems, when their problem is the need to tell others how to live and what "choices" they can make.