It's obvious that almost everyone wants to vindicate "belief", but you've got to let that go to participate -- otherwise that intention (vindication) is itself a bias. — Millard J Melnyk

I don't think I'm trying to vindicate 'belief', just note that there are several different types and/or degrees of belief.

At first I disagreed that that the shell involved or represented bias, but now I think you're onto something. The bias results from forming an attachment to the kernel (which is not the belief -- the whole nut is the belief) beyond what our confidence in it being true can support, so we feel the need for extra "protection". — Millard J Melnyk

And you may be right that 'bias' isn't a great word to describe the insistent attachment you're describing. Maybe a 'limiting' belief? 'Prejudiced' belief? 'Insistent' belief? The point is the type of belief you seem to be describing is one that a person doesn't want to let go of. The belief becomes more valuable to the individual then what a belief is supposed to be, which is a guessed assertion of what is.

Give me a couple of examples of non-biased beliefs -- which if the shell signifies bias, would need to be unshelled, then, which then would mean it's not a whole nut, wouldn't it? — Millard J Melnyk

So if you are defining a belief as a nut, and a belief requires 'bias', then that's how you've defined it. If you are insistent that you will accept no other definition, then there's nothing to debate. If however you're interested in another possible definition for a belief by exploring other options, then we could consider that a belief does not need a 'shell'.

A few examples of 'unbiased' beliefs. I'm about to open the door to my garage and believe the light is off. I open the door and I find its on. I don't get angry, insist that the light must be on, or even elicit surprise. "Eh, I guess they were off then." Its a belief that has no need of protection once its found to be wrong.

Lets see a few others. I already mentioned, "I believe it will rain today, but it didn't. I believe 2+2=5. "Oh, it doesn't? Oh, its four, and that's why, cool." Really I think many of us go through our day believing the state of reality is X, we find out its Y, and we don't give it a second thought. No need to protect the belief from reality, we accept reality will violate many of our beliefs.

The shell is what protects the precious kernel. The preciousness of the kernel consists of its truth and (usually) other more subjective values that mean something to us beyond merely knowing the truth. — Millard J Melnyk

Perhaps it would be better if we said "Type of belief".

There are a few words that are generic, or cover a wide variety of contexts. "Tree" is one. When I say 'Tree" what do you envision? Generic terms are great for generic and flexible contexts, but they are terrible for specific substantive discussions. "All trees" start to break down when you realize the variety in what can be a tree.

"Belief" is a generic term. "I believe its going to rain today." I go outside and it doesn't rain. "Oh well" I say. Contrast this with a person who's belief is so strong that the fact that it doesn't rain makes them question everything they ever thought about reality.

The 'shell' seems to imply a biased belief. I think most of our beliefs are assumptions that we have no problem being wrong about. A biased belief is something that we want to be true more then the reality of its truth. Its not the belief per say, its the bias that creates that shell around the belief.

Any belief which does not contain bias, is largely not protected. If there is nothing that internally makes you want to deny the truth for a biased outlook, you go "Oh, ok" when you learn a truth that counters your belief. Does this describe what you were thinking of?

I judge this not mutually exclusive. Probably both - but to what extent and where? "I leave you to judge with," sounds like rhetoric interested to set up two teams for I game I don't want to play. — Dawnstorm

Fair enough. I don't know enough to go either way on this one. Not mutually exclusive, but which one weighs more heavily? I don't know.

I also believe you could still be wrong, and this is not personal, I as constantly second-guess even myself like that. — Dawnstorm

More than fair. I think the more important part is to consider what I've said in a polite conversation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor should they. If I know I've not always been correct in life, how arrogant would I have to be to think someone else would think I should be. :)

Not that it exists. That's hardly a surprise. But most? It doesn't fit the image I got from people I talk to online at all. It feels like an overgeneralisation, and this is where I wouldn't take your word (or Illy's, if that's what they're saying). But I also don't feel confident in my ability to research this from a chair in front of a screen. I certainly don't have the facts. — Dawnstorm

Certainly. Two independent studies that I've read have around 70-80% of straight men who desire to transition hold an erotic view of embodying womanhood. And I again I want to emphasize: I have nothing against this. Many people do, which is why I have to state this explicitly more than once. /askAGP reddit is a good source, Debbie Haton, and Phil Illy cites his sources. All easy things to look up online if you're interested. To be clear, gay men who want to transition do not have an erotic focus on womanhood. They tend to transition for different reasons, usually an extreme uncomfortableness with being gay. They also want to transition early as they exhibit 'girlish behavior' as a child. Further research shows that around 80% of kids with gender dysphoria who do not transition by age 18, end up being gay. Generally straight men who transition do not exhibit girlish behavior prior to puberty, only gain interest in it after puberty, and are the primary orientation of transitioners later in life like 40+.

I encourage you to do your own research of course. I could troll the internet for this, but its a bit of time and I feel not in the spirit of this thread anyway.

This is a case of policy not having the intended effect, but the ensuing social visibility helping to spread a "most trans people are driven by eroticism" stereotype. — Dawnstorm

To be clear, I am not saying this as a stereotype. This is what I concluded after researching the issue in depth over the past few years. I have no skin in the game. If I'm wrong and it could be demonstrated, I would recant this without issue. It is simply a fact to me, nothing more.

So should I speak of the topic at all? — Dawnstorm

Yes. I think we enrich each other by hearing each other viewpoints on the subject, even if they're 'wrong'. Genuine conversation, even if it doesn't come to a conclusion, allows a place to process and hear things that one would not consider in their own head. So thank you for your viewpoint!

I'll declare my bias as this: I overwhelmingly think trans people should have the abstract right to excrete in public places without much trouble, just like cis people have by default. I do not know how to accomplish this pragmatically. — Dawnstorm

I mean, I agree. To me the issue is clear. Gender is a social construct. Bathrooms are divided by sex, not social constructs. Use the bathroom of your sex. I see no rational argument to show any other conclusion. If it bothers a trans gendered person, get over it. This isn't to be cruel, I would say this in any similar abstract situation. If a white person really wanted to be black, and asked to have black scholarships and be let into black clubs and be recognized as black, get over it. There are certain realities and limitations in life that we have no right to, and getting upset because you don't have the right to is not a reason to suddenly give you that right.

Trust me, I've tried multiple times in my head to justify it, and I just can't. Part of posting here was hoping to get a conversation going and perhaps see another viewpoint that I missed. Unfortunately the limitation of speech on trans gender issues years ago has dulled the brains of many, and they are unable to open their mind to actually think about the issue. Thus the overly emotional drama on both sides. My hope is by talking about it normally and everyone realizing, "Oh, its ok to just talk about it," we can get people to calm down a little and have some normal conversations. This conversation with you was a normal conversation. :) Much appreciated.

This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. — Dawnstorm

Correct. Transition is a coping strategy to deal with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not mere discomfort, it is life destroying discomfort. This in the past was diagnosed for people who could not hold jobs or had severe mental problems and social issues due to it. It has been loosened for some to 'mild discomfort', much like autism has become 'an autism spectrum'. On one hand some will say this serves people with minor difficulties for better quality of life. Others may say this expands the number of patients a doctor and psychologist can make money off of. I leave you to judge which.

A 'trans' individual is someone who delights in taking on aspects of the opposite sex and is driven to it by excitement, lust, or the thrill of it. They desire to embody this so much that they are driven to take hormones and surgery to fulfil this desire. However, the only way you can get insurance to fund your transition is if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Trans activists want to loosen these medical rules and allow those who desire to transition to have it paid for by the medical services of that country.

Imagine a burn victim with badly damaged skin on their hand getting a transplant and stroking that part of their hand again and again again, because they can't believe it's really them. Something that bothered them is suddenly gone. I have no problem believing people when they say it's not sexual. — Dawnstorm

What you'll have to take here is whether I am a trustworthy and honest person. I can tell you that I am, and I would never dare accuse someone of being sexually explicit without due cause. I'm also not averse to healthy sexual displays in public by either sex. I am not a prude. If someone merely got a minor thrill out of wearing a dress, I wouldn't even mention it.

This was explicit, a moment that should be kept in the bedroom that no one ever should have seen. You should check out the 'transbien' movement. These are men who sexually cannot see themselves with another woman unless they view themselves as a woman first. I know one who had a lesbian porn addiction for years until they confessed they could no longer envision themselves as a man with another woman, but had to be a woman themselves.

Read Phil Illy's book online "Autoheterosexual". Most straight men who transition have a 'gender euphoric' drive which is sexual at its core for wanting to transition. I actually have nothing against this, but I do have everything against lying about it. It doesn't excuse inappropriate public behavior like wanting to be in women's locker rooms as they dress naked in front of you. We need to be aware most straight trans individuals are driven to it by eroticism, which may very well be an innate form of sexuality like being gay. But this needs to be recognized and understood that it does not make you an actual woman, or a right to access women's personal spaces.

I'll probably regret making this post eventually. — Dawnstorm

Please don't. Its important that we talk about things like this. Talking about experiences and ideas isn't evil. Its how we think, learn, and grow. The restriction of ideas and the limiting of our ability think and grow is what we should regret.

A bigot is obstinate. They have not entered into the conversation in order to engage in earnest dialogue. They are not going to change their mind as a result of a rational discussion. — Banno

Right. Prejudice is a 'pre judgement' about a situation. When exposed to things which demonstrate that the initial prejudice was wrong, but a person insists on the prejudice being correct, that's bigotry. I confess to not reading the entire thread, but I have hours of conversations with Bob about multiple topics. I have seen Bob ask deep questions, and deeply defend their side. But when a point has clearly been proven, Bob is one of the few people with the humbleness to say, "I've changed my mind." Bob has also pointed out many things to me that have made me think deeply about my own presuppositions, and made me readjust my thoughts and approaches and changed my mind. That's a rare and amazing human being.

So I find the accusations of bigotry incredulous. Have you clearly demonstrated why Bob's position is factually incorrect? Have you engaged honestly with him on his viewpoints, definitions, and as a thinker? Forgive me Banno, but your first impressions in this thread seemed more confrontational than intellectual. If you confront someone you put their guard up and good conversation rarely happens.

There is a point at which further engaging with bigotry is doing no more than providing them with a platform, or the walls to their echo chamber. — Banno

And I agree. A person who is obstinate in holding a position that rationally can be proven to be incorrect, and they provide no counter argument, is not worth listening to. Has this happened here?

That same hateful attitude can be seen in this thread, from the petty disparaging of the tom boy to the outright perdition of the homosexual. The anecdotal accounts of compromised transgender folk are pathetic, given the profuse accounts of transgender folk being ostracised by their community. — Banno

Ok, have you demonstrated that to Bob? Not just merely insulted him, but actually examined his definitions, his arguments, and then attempted to explain another viewpoint that is more rational? The black man did not go into the group of white men with a "How dare you" attitude. But we can imagine that many of the white men had that attitude towards the black man. We should not easily compare ourselves to the black man in the story, but the group of white men. Group hostility with a culturally agreed upon 'moral' view against a lone individual trying to talk with us is the danger we should all be aware of.

Lets rephrase this.

Would you personally be willing to pay money out of your pocket for someone else to study while you work? You can do that today. Plenty of people trying to go to college who need money. You can find them online fairly easily. So the question is not one of theory, but of practice. You do it, or you don't.

Or do you mean, "Other people should pay for my life so I can study." No. I believe we all have an obligation to care of our basic needs for ourselves and that is not the responsibility of other people if we are physically and mentally able to.

Or do you mean, "We have a pool of tax money. I believe the tax money should fund less of X, and instead be used to fund some people to simply study." In which case, we have a discussion of what as a nation we feel people should actively study and what we expect to get in return for our investment. in that studying instead of other services like feeding the poor, lowering our tax burden, or funding the military.

I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance. — Ciceronianus

Whether you view them as significant or not, you know what they are, you know what trans people are asking, so you can analyze these rights requests and agree or disagree whether they are human rights as defined. You dismissing human rights as real pretty much dismisses their entire argument. "Trans rights aren't human rights because they don't exist" is the same as "No". I don't think you want to do that, so what would you tell a trans person about their requests for rights as listed in the OP?

That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others. — Ciceronianus

I believe natural law is universal and a close enough replacement for 'human rights' under the thread.

it provides that we have obligations towards one another. — Ciceronianus

A trans person would agree that their requested rights are an obligation people have towards them, and they would also agree that a large point in saying they are human rights, is that their rights request is a universal obligation. Would it be sufficient to replace 'Human rights" with "Natural law"? If that is the case, do you believe all of their requests fit natural law, or would you tell them to drop the idea of rights completely?

If you were right and everyone who says, "Black people are less intelligent on average than white people," is inherently a bigot, then it makes no sense that Davis convinced some and failed to convince others. The fact of the matter is that some of those whom Davis encountered held that belief in a mode that involves bigotry, and some did not. — Leontiskos

Incredibly well said. Everyone looks at that story and says, "I'm the black person." But often times we are just as likely to be the white people in the group. Its why dialogue is so important.

On the other side are those who believe that the sciences function independently of philosophy, and that the role of philosophy is merely to clarify and organize the discoveries of scientists. The first group ( Heidegger, Deleuze, Wittgenstein, Husserl, etc) has written much about the naively held philosophical presuppositions of particular sciences. The second group believes it is the job of the sciences to lead the way toward new knowledge, and the job of philosophy to try and keep up. You are apparently unfamiliarity with the arguments of the first group, but my guess is you would probably find that they don’t deserve any more credence than mine, which may factor into your negative experience in academic philosophy. — Joshs

True. I also don't agree with the second point. Modern day issues are not only about science, nor does philosophy have to merely follow in sciences footsteps. But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. At least I can now understand your viewpoint. Hopefully you understand mine.

I read your reply, just not going to dive into it to distract from the topic. :)

That’s why when you complain about the philosophical community being fixated on the ideas of writers from earlier times I must counter that this is as it should be be as long as the implications of those ideas have yet to be fully appreciated. — Joshs

I said we should be applying those philosophers to modern day problems and trying to solve them. Not that we should be abandoning them. I'm not sure you understood my point.

But Heidegger’s point stands (“ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises. — Joshs

His quote exists, it does not 'stand'. An opinion of the state of philosophy a century ago in no way necessitates that it was true then or today.

And buttressing philosophical ideas with the results of the latest sciences is not going to accomplish the ‘modernization’ of philosophy when those very sciences unknowingly ground themselves in philosophical presuppositions dating back a century or more. — Joshs

You never answered my request to provide what these presuppositions are. "Presupposition" is a pretty bold claim when we have modern day physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics with cell phone technology. Are you really claiming that the problems of today can only be answered 100 years from now when every other field is answering them much sooner? Wouldn't that indicate that philosophy needs greater emphasis on modern day problem solving and that perhaps many of its current methods are archaic and not very valuable?

I confess, I'm lending more credence to your point than I think it deserves. If you're excusing philosophy not being able to tackle modern day because its literally two generations behind modern day, that's not a counter to my point, that's an affirmation. But continue because maybe I'm missing something.

↪Philosophim There are some opinions that will get you banned, and for good reason. We don't tolerate Holocaust denialism, for example. This whole thread is an embarrassing display of homo and transphobia. — RogueAI

I agree that active hatred or statements that are not open to debate and discussion are preachy and don't belong. Your specific example within the context of this discussion did not seem to fit that. Bob is making claims according to a Neo-Aristotelian perspective. If he's wrong, it should be easy to point out. Bigotry rarely has anything behind it than its own bias, so it should be simple to demonstrate that either Bob is flawed in his assessment of his Neo-Aristotelian approach, or that it is simple bias.

Bob is a reasonable person. He's already gone back to his OP and made adjustments. That means this is a person thinking about what's being said and working through ideas. Talk with him, not at him. Stick to the OP and ask if this is a proper use of a Neo-Aristotelian viewpoint necessarily leads to these conclusions. If you're not interested in that, just avoid the discussion.

Modern day problems are generated by modern day people. And if most modern day people are moving in a world of ideas produced by cutting edge philosophy of 200 years ago, then it is that older philosophy which defines the very meaning of the modern world, and dealing with those problems requires meeting people where they are at in terms of their worldview. That means beginning from the philosophers they already relate to and moving the needle forward at a pace they can manage. It doesnt mean trying to shove down their throats ideas so far removed from their worldview that they are prompted to respond with a mix of incomprehension and hostility. That is a recipe for political disaster, and in fact it is a large part of the reason MAGA emerged. — Joshs

Joshs I think you have an idea in you're head that you're not quite communicating clearly. And it may be that I lack context to understand what you're trying to say here. Can you attempt to clarify a bit with some examples?

If most people are moving in a world of ideas that are 200 years old, then aren't modern day problems really the problems of 200 years ago? And if the world is 100 years behind modern philosophy, doesn't that mean philosophy is 100 years behind where we expect it to be? That would seem to lend credence to my point. Also where did you get the idea of shoving ideas far removed from people's world view when the point is about philosophy being behind and not addressing the current world view? Finally, where did MAGA come from?

My point is that all scientific theories are expressions of underlying philosophical worldviews, and the cutting edge of today’s physics and chemistry is based on philosophical presuppositions harking back more than 150-250 years. — Joshs

Which philosophical presuppositions, and why are they presuppositions?

So the best way to move the needle forward on our ‘modern’ chemistry and physics is to introduce those chemists and physicists to the next era of philosophy they are ready to absorb relative to the philosophy they already understand. — Joshs

So taking philosophy and applying it to modern day? I'm not sure if you're responding to my point anymore or you're taking this somewhere else. My original point is that philosophy as an academic study is too focused on its past philosophies without regard to coming up with solutions to modern day problems. This was based on my personal experience as a graduate student, so it is a personal anecdote. Do you have examples of philosophy as an academic institute pushing its students to solve cutting edge problems. Is philosophy at the forefront of science, psychology, ethics, and religion, being read daily by masters of the field and laymen who follow them?

A tomboy girl is a masculine girl, which is bad even if they have done nothing immoral.
— Bob Ross

Jamal is being charitable. I would have banned you by now. — RogueAI

Because Bob has an opinion that's relevant to the context of the discussion? I want to be clear, I don't hold Bob's opinion. But I don't hold many people's opinions. If I disagree with their outlook in a discussion, I'll present to them reasons why I think they're wrong. You don't ban people because you dislike what they're saying. You ban people for unnecessary language, calls to violence, and behavior that isn't about the discussion. Bob has plenty to say and will gladly read and respond to your point politely if you are polite to him first. Bob is using a Neo-Aristotelian perspective. If you disagree that this leads to a 'masculine girl' not being good, then demonstrate why. Comments like yours which contribute nothing to the discussion but threats and intent of dislike, are what we all should be avoiding.

What I meant was that the full implications of the ideas of thinkers like Kierkegaard, Dilthey, Gadamer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Husserl, Foucault, Deleuze and the later Wittgenstein have yet to be absorbed by many doing philosophy today. The idea of most people today of what it means to be philosophicallly ‘up to date’ is regressive with respect to the above thinkers. — Joshs

You critique my specific point with a vague generalization then suggest I'm being anti-intellectual? Since you didn't clarify that part after my response, I'm going to assume you're not holding that view of me anymore.

1. I never said not to study philosophy.
2. If you're implying "most" then you're implying "most professors". Which backs exactly what I said. Most are stuck discussing issues of the 19th century without respect to the needs and problems of modern day.

So before we can talk about the need for creative innovations in philosophy we have to make sure we aren’t reinventing the wheel. — Joshs

This should be taken as a matter of course. My point is that philosophy isn't reinventing the wheel, its spinning it in place. Did you see anywhere in my post that implied I was trying to reinvent the wheel? A bit of a passive aggressive straw man on your part.

Do you think many either praising or doom-mongering about current A.I. realize that the philosophical underpinning of today’s cutting-edge computer technology can be traced back to the era of Leibnitz? — Joshs

And if philosophy departments were doing that, then that would be attempting to solve modern day problems with older philosophy. I took an entire graduate semester course on Liebniz from a professor who's sole scholarship was centered around Leibniz. You know what we studied? Liebniz' monad theory. That's right, a dead, outdated, and worthless philosophy. You know why? Because you can't spend a semester on the principle of sufficient reason or best of all possible worlds. They aren't that complicated to begin with, and you don't need to dive too deeply to understand them.

You know what else Liebniz did? Invented calculus. The man was the definition of cutting edge, introducing ideas and moving the needle forward for human success in his day. Liebniz would laugh at a professor wasting time on his old monad theory if he he had the understanding of modern day chemistry and physics we do.

Do you have an actual point of substance to what I initially wrote, or are you just another person bothered that someone is critiquing their experience in academic philosophy? Because it seems like your posts are a weak attempt at trying to invalidate my intelligence instead of my actual points.

Did I detect a hint of anti-intelllectualism? — Joshs

I don't see how. Critiques against inflexible thinking that discourages modern day problem solving is not a critique against intellectuals. Intellectuals are curious not only about history, but about furthering the field to the problems of today. Feel free to explain why you think my words are anti-intellectual.

Before the field can make creative, relevant progress , those who fashion themselves as philosophical thinkers need to make sure they are caught up in its acheivements-to-date.
It has been my observation that the vast majority of those writing philosophy today are recycling philosophical ideas from 150-200 years ago. — Joshs

So then you agree with me that philosophy as a whole is woefully out of date and not with the current times? That was pretty much what I covered above.

Why indeed. I should frame my questioning to reflect just how hard it is to challenge orthodoxy. Personally, I was cancelled for questioning woke dogma, and I was super naive to have failed to recognize my precarity. That was in high school, so the pressure in a university faculty, where the divide between workers with 'institutional power' (tenure, visible woke status) and those just embarking on their careers is much worse. — Jeremy Murray

Yes. And thank you for questioning in high school. I taught high school math for five years before the attempt to puberty block and transition kids. I never bought the, "We have to let them do this or they'll kill themselves" line, and after doing research on the subject, it truly is tragic. I never would have gone along with it either. Adults can do what they want, but I will never stand by and let a kid be harmed.

What is the history of your calling woke a 'secular religion'? I started hearing it referred to that way maybe 3-5 years ago, and the idea has spread - because it is compelling. I certainly agree, after having thought it a superficial take when I first heard it. "Woke Racism" by John McWhorter is the best articulation of this I've found. I've used his term 'the elect' to describe the priestly class since reading him. — Jeremy Murray

I called it a religion before I ever heard the term? Why? I was raised in the Christian religion. I believed that God could talk to me as much as a trans gender person thinks they're the opposite sex. I know exactly what its like to believe in a 'higher power', the emotional trappings that keep you in it, the language that prevents you from seeing the truth of the matter, and the techniques religion uses to keep you there. 100% used by the trans gender activists. I wouldn't say I'm against "woke" per say, and I'm actually not against trans sexual adults making their own life choices. Its the insistence of tying my speech and the denial of sex supremecy over gender that trigger every red flag and emotion I had against religion. It is not only wrong to question if a trans woman "is a woman", it is immoral and blasphemous. Thankfully the trans inquisition has passed but there are still people suffering from the after effects of it today.

The bait-and-switch that allowed the trans movement to claim the same moral status as MLK and early gay rights activists and others seems tactically brilliant, but maybe reflects no 'tactic' at all, rather a natural evolution of thinking in a belief system shared across wealthy campuses and woke institutions globally. McWhorter talks at length about firm wokists that he is friends with, or admires - many people operating in this sphere are true believers, or (more often) moral relativists happy to defer to standpoint epistemology. Their intentions are generally good (if naive, or self-serving, or willfully blind). — Jeremy Murray

Religion is powerful because of its emphasis on morality. Many people view morality as a part of their person and character; a fundamental to their being. If you can convince a person that something immoral, is moral, you bind them tightly to your web. The pursuit of moral virtue in the face of social pressure is also a good means of control over other people. If a person views themselves as sophisticated and moral, why would they dare question the orthodoxy being espoused by their equally intelligent and moral neighbors?

Me too. The divide between disciplines strikes me as another part of the problem though. In our complex world, 'expertise' is in the hands of the specialist, rather than the polymath. I see so many fertile fields left untended. I would love to read philosophical takes on morality, or gender, or liberty that are grounded in anthropology and evolutionary biology, for example. — Jeremy Murray

We may be kindred spirits then. :) I pursued the field early on in hopes of solving the problems of the world. Instead of a creative field I found a very traditional field that was desperately trying to justify its existence by publishing whatever was trendy in its own closed field. Philosophy in its increasing irrelevance did not try to expand to become relevant, but retreated to the comfortable re-examination of its old and failed philosophies. I looked around at my professors while I pursued my master's and realized every single one of them was desperately trying to justify their job.

I left the dust bins of history to actually make a positive difference in the world, and have pursued philosophical writings here and there for my own and maybe someone else's use. But why would I ever join the field as more than a hobby when it shuns people like you and I? I make fantastic money programming now, the respect of my peers for my creative solutions to difficult problems, and a wonderful life of fulfillment. The field will die on its insistence on tradition and fear of creative, relevant progress. Perhaps here at least I can reach normal people and help them solve some of the traditional problems of philosophy that often plague them. Perhaps that's a pipe dream too, but as a hobby it is fulfilling.

Absolutely part of the problem, but this doesn't explain why, say, community-based 'safe consumption sites' for addicts still operate with outdated models based on different drugs? — Jeremy Murray

I'm not sure here myself. My mother is a nurse, and she understands the 'for-profit' aspect of medicine well. Sometimes you get good people, but there are plenty who go into it purely for the money and prestige. And as we noted earlier, if an institution begins handing down orthodoxy tied to your paycheck, many will assume it is the correct thing to do.

ah: if that's what you're going for, you might want to read about this particular school of philosophy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Megarian-school — ProtagoranSocratist

A nice read, thanks! :)

You keep bringing up being "objective", but that's more in line with the realm of research science and mathematics. — ProtagoranSocratist

I view good philosophy as being a foundation for math and science. When you establish what the definition of good is, then you can measure it. Now its science. When you can objectively define knowledge, you can study it and apply it. Good philosophy over the years evolved into the sciences we use today. The philosophy we study are its failures. Attempts at finding the answer to a problem that came close, but ultimately did not give the solution to the problem it covered.

For example, consider this statement: "I am a liar". Let's say, i'm telling the truth, that i make a habit of lying, but then this would automatically reveal the statement as a lie as well, canceling it out because for once i've told the truth. But then let's say this isn't true, and i actually am an honest person...so then the statement I made about me being a liar is a lie, which confirms that i'm not honest, and the logic circle repeats again. — ProtagoranSocratist

Examining why its a paradox is philosophical. Just solving the paradox alone isn't. Good philosophy is about seeing a problem, setting up definitions that we can all understand and use, and demonstrating how those definitions lead to solving the problem at hand. This requires writing, imagination, and logic.

The difference for each type of writing is the intent. For example, a novelist doesn't care about presenting an argument or house of ideas, they just want to please the imagination of the reader, and keep them flipping pages till the end of the story. A poet's individual poems aren't necessarily connected in the structure of their book, but each poem is a miniature structure of their own, them wanting to say as much as possible with only a few words... — ProtagoranSocratist

Agreed 100%.

Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I can't speak for all, but I would guess this. The introduction to trans rights was a coordinated effort built off the success of the gay rights movement. Instead of debating from the ground up, it brought from the top down. If you were educated, why wouldn't you support trans rights? Its just like gay rights...right? Kathleen Stock, a philosopher in England, left the position after pressure for her views on trans gender and gender rights.

Early on, you could not even question the issue in many places on the internet. You would be banned for even saying something like, "I don't believe a trans woman is a woman." It was a secular religion and saying anything against it was blasphemy. The life of a philosopher in modern day is hard. Underpaid, untenured, and immense competition for positions as there are far more students than teaching positions. Why risk your livelihood on debating the issue?

The AI issue was a landmark for my personal interest in philosophy. Can you point to anyone doing good work here that I may not know? — Jeremy Murray

No. I do not keep up on modern philosophy. I'm much more interested in the scientists doing the work and the psychologists doing the analyzing.

That we all live a panopticon, or a "village" with its "cage of norms" as Yascha Mounk put it recently - a village without the "genuine sense of community" brought about by daily face-to-face contact. — Jeremy Murray

Yes, the online world and the real world are completely different. See how many people talk like a$$holes online? They're likely quite polite face to face. The presence of a human being brings a different dynamic than a faceless wall of text.

But as the client population changed rapidly over the next decade, the model of care seemed to solidify in place? — Jeremy Murray

The model of affirmation is profitable. Clients will come see you to be told the things they want to hear, and the promise of a magic drug that will fix their problems. Far fewer people want to pay money to be told they need to do work to fix their problems, or that their problem doesn't make them special in an attention seeking way.

(I am not trying to pick on the left - I am simply more familiar with examples in the left-wing context I have long lived in). — Jeremy Murray

The left and the right both have positive and negative qualities. Each offers different approaches to solving problems, and neither side is right all the time.

I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist? — Ciceronianus

I post the answer here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Ucarr is quite familiar with it. The only logical answer is that the universe is uncaused. What that logically entails is in the writing.

I still think this is an excellent list of guidelines, and you shouldn't change this original draft as it's very well written, and doesn't appear to have any grammar mistakes that can confuse readers. — ProtagoranSocratist

Thank you, that's kind. :)

One thing I wrote in the process of writing my first book was that writing is about a lot more than the word choices: it's also about structure and psychology. You structure your ideas to get your ideas across effectively (at least this is how you look at it for a non-fiction genre like philosophy), without the confusion...and minimized misinterpretation (but you can't get rid of this entirely, as some of the best writers are misinterpreted), and the psychology is needed for trying to figure out how people will respond to your text before you hit the "send" button. — ProtagoranSocratist

In terms of casual and emotional philosophy, you're completely correct. What you're often times appealing to is the context of human emotion. Its not as important to describe the dimensions of an Oak chair, and often times the writing is an interplay between the reader's mind and the writer's provided work. Such writing is never a solo enterprise, and it will likely be a unique experience for different individuals.

While I agree that philosophy can be entertaining, emotional, and subjective, what I was referencing is objective philosophy. This philosophy is not intended to be entertaining or play on the reader's imagination. It is a logic puzzle. A carefully crafted set of definitions that build into what the author will claim is a certain conclusion.

Most of your famous philosophers follow this model more closely. Its the careful construction of definitions with a particular meaning in the context of the paper that builds to a certain conclusion. In this way, the writing is not about one's own subjective interpretation. It is a carefully crafted blueprint that if followed to a T, promises a solid house. In writing like this a reader has to be very careful not to put their own intent in words that the writer is not intending. It is essential that the terminology in such writing be understood for the reader to fully understand the philosopher's point. It is this type of philosophy that requires the vocabulary be solid and understood or else the whole enterprise may fall apart.

Sure, there are some sources you should not trust for information based on snap judgements, but the way you phrase it doesn't work as a guideline...at least not for me. For example, who can really agree on examples of "poor language"? It seems rather loaded...sometimes people understand statements spoken with bad grammar better than they understand statements made with good grammar. In colloquial speech, people tend to use poor grammar and break the teacher's rules all the time. If you break the official rules of language in a clever way, sometimes people commend the creativity. Coining terms and violating grammar rules are both a process of creating new meanings. — ProtagoranSocratist

A well stated point, and you are right that 'poor language' is well, 'poorly worded in its intent'. The example you give is what I would consider well worded in intent. Good objective philosophy will have clear and unambiguous intent with its phrasing and terminology. If someone is trying to build a house, unclear vocabulary and writing are often examples of a writer who's trying to fudge their logic to get to the conclusion they want because if they don't they'll arrive at a different destination.

Also, "proof" tends to be over-rated, and proving superiority to others doesn't have any value within itself besides the thrill of winning. — ProtagoranSocratist

I agree that using a discussion to assert superiority is an indicator of an inferior individual. :D The philosophy I'm referencing is someone who is trying to build an objective solution to problems like ethics, knowledge, or ontology. The goal is not to assert personal superiority. In fact, they don't matter to the argument at all. The argument is the point itself. An offered tool and solution for others to gain wisdom for the benefit of their own life.

Let me give you an example of my own writing. This is about what knowledge is, and which inductions are most reasonable to use in your life.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

This one is a little less fun (I'm a terrible salesperson) but fits more of the objective model I was noting where definitions and arguments must be carefully made. This is about the logic of what the universe's start had to be (Not a God argument)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Read them if you want or not. But they are my approach as I've attempted to embody rather than describe.

Hello Ucarr, I'll try my best to analyze what you've written and tackle it properly.

If A⟹B, with A=Asking a question, and B=If A, then someone exists, so C, with C=There is not nothing because A. — ucarr

Lets take your first set A -> B
A= "Asking a question"
B= "Someone exists"

Yes, if a question is being 'asked', the word 'asked', a verb, necessitates that 'someone is doing the asking'

C can be simplified from "There is not nothing" into "There is(exists) something"

So if someone exists, then logically, something exists as well.

“Why not nothing?” elicits the reasoning that reveals that math, logic, and science are incomplete and also that the universe is open (it didn’t start from nothing) and cannot be closed. — ucarr

Here is where the logic no longer works. Just because something exists, does not mean that the particulars of math, logic, and science are incomplete. Nor can it be logically claimed that it did not start from nothing. That's an assumption, not a proof.

So with that, the rest of the post is unnecessary to consider.

That doesn't seem "odd" at all. It, actually, should be SOP for anyone engaging in this sort of thing. You assess an idea on the same terms it was developed by means of, not other terms. This is exactly what I was talking about on my last comment on the "irrational belief" post. Everybody came to it with predefined terms and, instead of openly considering the possibility, immediately launched into why it's not a possibility. Why? Because the only terms they could think in are those that presuppose that belief can be rational. See the circle? — Millard J Melnyk

I appreciate the words. It is often frustrating dealing with some long time members of this forum. Many try to make it a social place for their own pecking order, and are more interested in shutting down discussion for ego's sake than the joy of thinking with a new person.

et's say that everything you said is absolutely true. This is what knowledge and induction are within "your self-context". What does this understanding enable you to do that you could not do without it? — Millard J Melnyk

Excellent question. And your follow up points are sound.

Forgive me if I'm overly wordy here, but I'm not sure I can summarize it succinctly. Let us start at the base: survival. To survive at the most basic level of the world, you have to live with an awareness of the truth of the world as much as possible. If I imagine I can fly and jump off a cliff, reality meets my end. You might think that you can cut the fuzz off of that old apple and eat the rest, but the fungal roots that are too small to see might give you the gift of food poisoning later.

The constant interplay between deductive and inductive evaluations is a balance of accuracy vs effort and efficiency. If a bear is running at me in the woods, making the inductive leap of, "Its probably not going to be my friend," is the better call then pulling out a note pad, putting on your science glasses, and experimenting up close and personal to see if the bear is aggressive or friendly.

So at the basic level, its easy to see why we would want a methodology that gives us the best chance of ascertaining the reality around us. Realizing that sometimes our own distinctive knowledge, our vocabulary, outlook, and world view may limit us can allow us to re-examine our assumptions if our normal application of solving a problem is no longer working.

I think, but feel free to object, that its not much of a leap to see the value in being rational in terms of solving physical problems of the world. Physics gives us cell phones, proper throwing form for their body lets a football player optimize accuracy, and I want my mechanic to tell me the alternator is busted, not that gnomes have infested my car.

But lets move it up a bit. I'm in a comfortable society. I don't have to worry about food, water, or bears anymore. I do my job, I pay my bills, and I have a hobby of trying to prove to the world that the Earth is flat. My hobby doesn't really hurt me. It gets me scorn and side-eyes, but I still have my job, my family, and my life. I'm content. What reason do I have to be 'rational' in this particular area of my life?

Maybe I don't. Maybe I'm willing to incur all of the costs that come with holding the theory that the Earth is flat because of the alternative benefits you get from it. What can anyone say to such a person? This person has arrived at a place in their life where the accuracy, effort, and efficiency they apply to the problem is optimal for what they get out of it. I can from my viewpoint say, "They would be happier, better off, etc. realizing the rationality behind why the world is round and admitting that," but that's really MY experience isn't it? Another busy body telling the world how it should act purely because that would work for me personally.

If one could encapsulate and isolate one's rational processes to a trivial portion of their life, then who cares? Arguably its difficult for most people to to do so. Rationality becomes as habitual as irrationality and tends to spread to other areas of your life. So I think from a personal standpoint, one has a better chance of survival and pleasant life approaching the world with the best way of understanding it than not.

Now, all of this is for the 'personal-self-context'. This question becomes much more important when two personal contexts meet. While I might not be able to convince the person that believes the world is flat, that its actually roundish, if I have a method of rationality that can be objectively agreed upon, not simply subjectively, then I can have confidence that there is a correct answer in the discussion. Otherwise it all devolves into personal feelings. Which hey, animals have survived that way for years, and many of us humans do as well. :) But an objective way of being able to evaluate arguments and discussions is like having a screw driver for a screw. An objective approach to knowledge is a tool. You don't have to use the tool, and some may be satisfied just twisting it in themselves. But in many areas of life it will make it easier to 'get the job done' if you have it than not.

Alright, that's probably a good point to stop before this becomes a ramble. What do you think?

Oh, my. — T Clark

Indeed. The difference between you and I is I have the evidence in this thread to back that claim, while you have nothing but your own prejudice.

If i may butt in...

This is what i tried to explain earlier in the thread: rights themselves are vague and delusional, it's a means of saying "i am entitled to such-and-such", but they only have practical application in legalism. — ProtagoranSocratist

Feel free to always discuss. :)

I'll try to reiterate here what I'm referring to. Civil rights are generally rights established through law that give citizens certain protections in legal society. In terms of civil rights, you are correct that they only have practical application in legalism.

Human rights are considered 'natural rights'. These are rights that if we got a bunch of smart people together, would bring rational arguments to say, "We believe that all people at a minimum, should be able to act without the threat of retaliation or punishment.

These are not rights by law, they are rights by rationality. You can of course argue that X human right isn't really a right, but the point is that human rights are generally a well argued set of principles that we would want to be civil or legal rights for individuals in any government.

Here's an example. You have a country that restricts the ability of people to speak their mind's freely. People in such a government must only say what the state deems correct, both in terms of language and content. "The country of CheckSlovickiston is the greatest country in the world!" If you do not say that, you can be put in prison for 30 days for slandering your country.

Now there's no debate that this is the law of the country. But can we not think, "But should it be?" Perhaps in this instance we say, "No, that's silly, but the government can restrict this type of speech instead. They can say 'The country of CheckSlovickiston is in the top ten greatest counties of the world!'. If they say less than that they can be thrown into prison."

As people discuss, we keep finding debates. Top 20? Top 50? What if its a Tuesday? Arguing for every little individual restriction becomes extremely difficult and keeps running into the same problem. Who decides what people should say? Is that good for the people of the state? And so a person make come up with a principle, a 'right' of 'free speech'. The idea that government in practicality, or for the flourishing of its people, undertake methods of controlling people's speech. This becomes 'a human right' that exists as a principle apart from any legal implementation.

Do you have to agree that free speech is a human right? No. But the point is its a rational principle that we can discuss apart from what the actual law is, and instead about what the actual law should be.

What did you actually mean then? If it wasn’t that, I don’t understand how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote in my response to AmadeusD. — T Clark

Since you were continuing in the thread, I wanted to get away from internal bickering and back to the point of the OP, which is about whether trans rights are human rights.

I agree. Let’s give up on that. You can think I’m arguing in bad faith and I’ll think you’re paranoid and full of shit. — T Clark

Except I'm not paranoid or full of crap (Language please!). You responded to me with:

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

Of which I never once implied in any way in this or any other thread that I've posted dealing with the subject of trans individuals. We do call out straw men here on the philosophy forums, and I clearly am in the right here to do so.

Make that paranoid, full of shit, and creepily obsessed with transgender people. — T Clark

A double post where you call me sh**? You know sh** posts aren't meant to be literal. Lets define a term here:

bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I have asked you politely to focus on the OP which is human rights. You have not when I've requested you to. I've politely asked you to address the topic of the discussion and you've three times, perhaps one unintentionally, attempted to make this about me instead of the subject material. I have called you out on it each time, and you have attempted to correct than backpeddle back to insults of which I have not initiated your way.

You're behaving like a bigot TClark. Ignorant, unintelligent, off topic remarks with a bent towards slander towards me instead of open discussion. Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you're full of yourself.

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

No. I really wish you would stop implying that I have this excessively negative view of trans people. You've apologized and corrected yourself to me at least twice in this thread, I really shouldn't have to say this any longer if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. Read what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying.

I'm simply noting that despite the fact this person would be viewed as a man by anyone, because he is trans gender, he and the transgender community are saying he has a human right to go into the female locker room where women strip naked. As you can tell, the woman is clearly distraught, and if you watched the whole thing, you hear that she is a lesbian who supports people's sexuality and transgender people in general. But this particular situation felt like a violation to her.

Do you think her feeling violated isn't a human right over his claimed human right to enter the female locker room? If this was your mother, wife, daughter, or sister, would you tell them that being upset about it is wrong, and that their feelings of being violated are transphobic and discriminatory?

Here you go TClark. These are a couple of video splices taken from a lesbian woman who encountered a trans gendered woman in the bathroom. Do you think he has a human right to be in the woman's locker room after seeing this? Because according to trans gender rights, they claim he does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNRj69YTZM

I'm aware of mainstream term definitions and categorizations, of course, but I don't approach experience (mine and others') through that filter, and I dispense with accepted definitions and categories if they don't fit what's really going on. — Millard J Melnyk

Perfectly fair as this can allow room for creative thought. But if we're going to develop it into a coherent argument, we have to eventually come to definitions that accurately describe what's going on that all can agree on.

Until a conversation I had with one of my sons a couple of years ago, I assumed belief/believing had a modicum of legitimacy and value. Since then I've had the suspicion that isn't true, so I've been digging into it. — Millard J Melnyk

Yeah, its a realization some people eventually come to. "Hey, do I really know anything?" Descartes had this epiphany when he discovered that a triangle could exist that did not have a total of 180 degrees. Draw a triangle on a sphere for example, and the degrees are more than 180. So he began to doubt himself until he could come up with something he could not doubt, "I think therefore I am". So the question of, "Do I believe this, do I know this, can any of us know anything" is essentially the tradition of epistemology, or the study of knowledge.

So, I put what everyone says, including philosophers, out of my head, observe what's really going on, find the patterns resident in actual behavior, and then I go about reconciling the differences with academic and mainstream thinking. I think this is important because, to the extant that our most respected and most predominate thinking are responsible for the FUBARs in the world that look like they're increasingly threatening our very existence, I think it behooves us to assess and fix their psycho-social and ideological causes. — Millard J Melnyk

I am a big fan of first taking a fresh approach to problems and seeing what you come up with. That lets you approach the problem from your perspective instead of placing yourself into other people's perspective first. If you wish to read a few philosopher's perspectives, google "Epistemology" and see all the crazy stuff philosophers have come up with over the years. :)

Once I realized these statements have two parts and that the actual assertion part (P/"it's raining") for all forms is the exact same assertion, I realized that "epistemically identical" is an unnecessary qualification. They're the exact same. All that differs is the 2nd part that indicates the speaker's relationship to/attitude towards their assertion.
...So, that begs the question why it's important to the speaker to prefix the assertion with an irrelevancy. — Millard J Melnyk

Fantastic. You came up with on your own what is largely considered the difference between knowledge, belief, and truth.

Truth is generally agreed to be "What is". What do I mean? "Its raining". Its either raining, or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you or I know, believe, or disbelieve that its raining. It is! Its true no matter what we think about it.

So why are belief and knowledge important? A belief is an assertion of what you think is true, but of course it may not be true. And knowledge is an assertion of what you think is true, but of course it may not be true. The difference between belief an knowledge is that a belief does not need any rational thinking behind it, while knowledge does.

For example, I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Why? Well it looks like it. Its more of an emotional assertion about reality, and while it may be accurate, there's no reasoning behind it. Why do we care about reasoning? Because if something IS true, and we have all the information to ascertain that its true, then we could use reason with the information provided to come to that conclusion. So while being reasonable may lead to us knowing something, and that thing which we know is not true, its far more reasonable and likely to be a correct assertion of what is true then a mere belief. Someone might believe the moon is made of green cheese, but we know its not because we've been there and found it to be made of dirt.

The specifics of what separates a belief from knowledge are of course tricky, and pretty much what the entire study of epistemology is based on. I have written a nice summary intended for a thinker who does not need to know any history of epistemology or deep vocabulary if you want to read it. You might find it interesting. I'll link it again here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Read it if you want, no worry if you don't. :)

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. — ProtagoranSocratist

If you take the sides of the coin to their landed ends, yes. Jamal isn't fully stating that only academic structures should be considered, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be familiar with the subject material you're trying to write about. Depending on your personality you may wobble on one side of the coin over the other, but keep the coin spinning at all times.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies. — ProtagoranSocratist

Exactly. I hope Jamal and I have been able to show you different approaches that can be used depending on your needs and wants in exploring philosophy. Enjoy exploring regardless!

This doesn't quite capture my view, and I think it belittles the study of the philosophical tradition. — Jamal

My apologies for not adequately capturing your view, I will leave that to you then. It was also not my intention to belittle your viewpoint. I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, and that is valuable and valid. Mine is a more liberal view. I do not believe my view invalidates your view, nor does your view invalidate mine. I think they are both viable approaches to the field of philosophy. Fair if you disagree, its an opinion of mine.

Thank you Jamal. This is a fantastic post, and example of the types of conversations I think we all want here.

@ProtagoranSocratist I agree with most of what Jamal also posted here.

This suggests a picture of philosophy as a series of refutations leading to the culmination of the 21st century, in which we are closer to the truth than ever. Nobody who has studied the history of philosophy could seriously maintain this view. — Jamal

I will add a little addition to this. In context, I agree with Jamal. But in isolation from this context, philosophy is often historical and built off of the philosopher's prior. For example, John Locke's ideas influence George Berkely, Gottfried Liebniz, and arguably David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Many times philosophers are responding to the vocabulary and ideas of previous philosophers. Understanding this can often be useful.

But why read them at all? Why should we treat them with such respect just because people say they're "Great"? The reason is their fertility: for hundreds or thousands of years, ideas have grown from them. They have provoked reactions from the most philosphically minded people. They have been found to be endlessly interesting. — Jamal

This to me is completely reasonable for the philosophical historian. Just like a person who works out for a living is going to encourage you to exercise as much as possible, a philosophical historian is going to tell you to read as much as possible. If you have the time and passion for it, its a good reason to study them all.

Generally, Philosophim's philosophical attitude is instrumental and biased in favour of the present. I don't think these are good attitudes for philosophy. Philosophy is interpretive, and consists of dialogue, whether this is direct or in the form of written works reacting to each other. — Jamal

Jamal is completely correct in my viewpoint of philosophy. A philosophical historian is of course going to disagree with my viewpoint, and I respect that. We need philosophical historian attitudes to keep the availability of these works alive. They are the reason the field is still propped up, and why a forum like this exists.

Jamal may fail to realize my attitude is also needed for a healthy field of philosophy, as people like me are who push the field forward. Not that I'm claiming I have, but you need people focused on present day problems and issues to write the great works that will be examined years from now. I am more of a writer of philosophy, and I view reading philosophy as a means to further the ideas of today. I also understand many who come to this forum aren't interested in making philosophy their new hobby, but seeking out a few answers to some of the timeless questions that have bothered humanity over the years.

For example, I have written quite a few original works over the years, and you may find them interesting.

What are the things we can logically conclude about the universe's origins?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

An initial intro into what logically an objective morality must have at its core.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

And probably my proudest achievement, a working theory of knowledge that solves the problem of induction:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Your OP was a good one, and as you can see there are a few ways to address and view philosophy. Regardless of which works for you, I hope you find some enjoyment and new outlooks by exploring the field.

Well, no, we're not in agreement, because I haven't said and don't agree that think can mean the same thing as believe. — Millard J Melnyk

I apologize then, I'm clearly not getting it.

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", "know P", or "WHATEVER P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Can you explain how these are epistemically identical in all cases? The point I was getting at earlier is that you seem to want to use one concept with words that often have different meanings in different contexts. It would be much clearer if you voiced what that specific concept was without the introduction of different words.

You also use P as a noun earlier with "Its raining". So is "Its raining" epistemically equivalent whether I believe, think, or know about it? Or is it the believe, think, or know which is epistemically equivalent?

Part 2: The "I ____" part, referring to the speaker's relationship/attitude to the assertion, which as far as the truth value of the assertion is neither here or there. — Millard J Melnyk

Ok, this is contextual to oneself. But couldn't a person have a different intention? So I'm sure one person when they say 'believe' could mean 'assert'. In another context they could mean, "Consider". And in another context they could personally believe their belief is 'knowledge'. But these are all different concepts, whether their opinion of the concept in application to P is true or not.

The choice has nothing to do with P or its validity or truth value, which is identical in every case. — Millard J Melnyk

Are you just trying to say that "What is true is true regardless of what we believe/think/know about it?"

Understand that some philosophy is historical, but has been completely invalidated by modern day understanding.
— Philosophim

I’m not sure exactly how to take this. Seems to me we’re still arguing about the same things Aristotle and Confucius did. — T Clark

Yes, many are still relevant, but some are not. Leibniz' Monads for example. Older philosophy of mind theories that have been invalidated by neuroscience.

That's an excellent approach, and i commend your clear and sectioned response. — ProtagoranSocratist

Thank you for your kind words.

Writing is not easy. I guess the hardest part with philosophy is that it's harder to be original and also communicable. — ProtagoranSocratist

Well said. I've written many original philosophical works over the years, and coming up with the correct vocabulary to describe an idea is half the battle. Language needs iterations and steps. Too little and someone will tell you, "That's not what the word means." And they're right. Too much and they won't understand the concept. Its a difficult balance.

For example, my response to the "all belief is irrational" thread was original in wording, but very similar to all the other critics who participated in terms of finding the error in the OP. — ProtagoranSocratist

True, you may see that, but do others? And that's the frustrating part. We see our own ideas clearly but they can get lost in translation. At the least it has made me more sympathetic to people who seem to miss the initial point. As long as the poster is acting in good faith, I try to assume its that I need to refine my point, not that they 'don't get it'.

I'm currently more interested in the history of philosophy at the moment than I am in writing a book or internet essay for this reason...i recently wrote an alternative position to free will, determinism, and compatibilism, but i just don't know how to polish it so that others will get where I am coming from. — ProtagoranSocratist

I fully understand. Part of reading other philosophical history is to learn 'the lingo'. Sometimes arguments are historical, and without that historical context a lot of meaning is lost in the writing. If it helps, I really work to get the main idea out of what is being stated. A lot of philosophical argument start with strong premises that are built upon. It is the building where the scaffolding often starts to show its cracks. But beware! If you enter into the lingo and terminology of another philosopher, you are often stuck there. Being able to extract the ideas from the terminology and put them into approachable terms for a modern day and generic audience allows you to build in the direction you want to go without the restriction of their narrow vocabulary and concepts.

Finally, don't be too intimidated to share. You'll spend years refining it, posting it, and it likely being ignored or having a few people ignore what you're saying to tell you things they believe. Post your heart. Ignore the one's who don't give it the proper read that it deserves and forge onwards. Hopefully you'll find one or two people who really read it and can converse with you. Don't worry if its not perfect. Post it as a conversation topic and see what others think.

That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. — AmadeusD

Well said. One can support many part of an individuals cause without supporting everything they ask for. That does not make you an evil person. Its normal discernment of an honest individual.

"I ____ that P" is a two-part assertion. (think/believe/know in the blank, makes no real difference.) E.g., "I believe it's raining." P = "it's raining".

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", and "know P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Ok, I'm in agreement with you that in certain contexts, "I think" can mean the same thing as "I believe". But does it always? No. Many time "I think" can also mean "I'm considering". And considering is not a synonym of 'belief'.

If you're going to use a word that can have more than one meaning depending on context, but you're only interested in the context in which that meaning is a synonym of another word, just use that other word. Otherwise people are going to bring up the different contexts of the word you're using, and the argument will likely get into an argument over definitions instead of where you want to explore.

Part 1: P is the assertion proper, and it is identical in "think P", "believe P", and "know P". Epistemically identical in all cases. — Millard J Melnyk

Again, I think in a particular context these words could be synonyms, or have certain parts that they share. But 'know' is never the same as 'believe' unless you're using slang. Knowledge as a definition is a descriptor of whether a belief has a backing behind it that fits some reasonable standard beyond the base assertion. Another way to view it is, "If a belief can be irrational, than there is the possible contrast of a belief being rational."

Since there is no difference in P in any case, there is no reason (justified by assessing P epistemically) to choose "think" or "believe" or "know". — Millard J Melnyk

Unfortunately this just picks a very limited context and makes them all synonyms. So all you've really done is use one concept, not three. But it is the case that these words can represent different concepts in different contexts. Therefore you can's use the word as if it is a synonym in all contexts.

Actually, no -- which would be clear with a simpler example. Yours with "might be" and "visualizing in my head" and "plausibility" is unnecessarily complicated. Let's stick to "I _____ that P", it's all we need. — Millard J Melnyk

There's a difference between 'unnecessary complication" and "identifying real differences". I mean, we can call everything that's has green on it a tree right? "Fir tree", "bush" and "grass" are not unnecessary complications, they are observations of important differences in most contexts.

I said/implied nothing about thinking "on a plausibility for long enough, it becomes a belief statement". — Millard J Melnyk

So then, and please correct me again if I'm wrong, you're using belief and think as synonyms.

Yes indeed. I would go further and say that the philosophy is in that journey, not in its conclusions or theses.

Otherwise your post is mostly bad advice. — Jamal

Also OP avoid trolls that contribute nothing to the discussion but insults. A person who is open to discussion may disagree with your points, but they'll address them and provide counterpoints if they're being honest with you.

One problem is that often these old philosophers is they wrote in another language as well as time. Not only do you have to contend with the fact that no translation every fully conveys the meaning of the original work, you also don't have the context of the time and culture the author lived in.

So how to read them? I confess, I'm more of a philosopher that creates, not a fan of reading other people's works. I've done it many times and often times its an exercise in frustration. Here are a few things to help.

1. Try to nail the definitions down as soon as possible. Things like 'intuition' in Hegel's time and language are not the way most people use intuition today. Articles can help with this, but be careful. Many philosophers may start with a clear definition but quickly muddy it as they continue in their works. So always be aware of the context of what they are saying.

2. Do not over analyze one paragraph or piece. Analyze the full scope of the work. Often times a philosopher's work is a journey in itself. They may start one place and the initial reading seems like its X, but by the time you get to the end you realize they were really trying to end at Y all along.

3. Do not ever elevate the work because of the author. It does not matter that other people think this person deserves a spot light in philosophy. There are countless reasons for other people praising a work, and because we are human, it sometimes has nothing to do with the actual argument of the work itself. The argument is all that matters. Pretend its some guy on the street telling you the idea. If the argument is actually good on its merits and not merely because it hit a cultural niche at the time, you'll see how good it is yourself.

4. Understand that some philosophy is historical, but has been completely invalidated by modern day understanding. I advice you approach these as a fan or someone with historical curiosity only. Spending time on an old and outdated work is only for the biggest of fans, but is an entertainment exercise only.

5. Do not waste time on philosophical reading that has poor language, definitions, or easily disproven premises. I am amazed at the amount of people who will spend hours analyzing a piece of work that is invalidated within the first opening chapter of the discussion.

That was an enjoyable little read, but it's not responsive to the post. Sure, there are different ways of looking at the same thing. I presented mine here for the purpose of evoking feedback on it, not on yours. — Millard J Melnyk

Perfectly fair! Let me address your post then.

[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical. — Millard J Melnyk

This conflicts with most understandings of thoughts. A thought is an inner conscious experience. So for example if I'm thinking of a tomato, then I'm thinking of a tomato. Is that a belief? No. A belief is a claim that what we are thinking about is real beyond the thought itself. So if I thought about a tomato and said, "I believe this tomato I'm thinking about exists somewhere in the world," I'm nothing that what I'm thinking about is real beyond my thoughts. Prior to proving that it is true, it is a belief.

[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks. — Millard J Melnyk

I do want to clarify what an "I think" context is from an "I believe" context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're assuming that "I think there might be a tomato that exists in the world that I'm visualizing in my head," is different from, "I believe there is a tomato that exists in the world what I'm visualizing in my head."

If this is case, "I think" in your case isn't a statement of certainty, but a statement of consideration or exploration. You don't believe its the case, you think it could be. This is called "plausibility". There's nothing innate in your thoughts that confirms or denies that the thing you are thinking about can be found in the real world.

You are implying that if someone thinks on a plausibility for long enough, it becomes a belief statement of possibility or certainty. I would say that's not necessarily the case. Plenty of "I think"s simply stay that way. But correct me if I have the wrong base understanding of what you're trying to say here.

[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence. — Millard J Melnyk

If one changes from "I think" to "I believe" through the repetition of one's thoughts, then that is most certainly unwarranted confidence. But you have to demonstrate that this always happens, and I'm not sure you have here.

[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

Correct, and I think few would disagree with you.

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

Unfortunately I'm not seeing how this conclusion follows the premises. All you've noted is one type of belief, or a belief that insists on an idea's truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant. The point in my initial reply was to show you there are different types of beliefs. Probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational. The first three if believed based on one's epistemic circumstances, can be rational. Only if one disregards the epistemic circumstances that allow the other three beliefs to be cogent, can one come to an irrational belief.