Your post is important because while the concept of 'fallacy' is important in relation to the idea of falsehood, there are specific logical errors which make so much difference in the basic assumptions of human thinking. It is probably not so much as 'truth' being 'out there' in an objective realm, beyond all else. The subjective construction, as well as the intersubjective, are important in understanding of the objective. This comes into play in the whole approach to understanding, including inductive reasoning.

Even the idea of 'progress' seems to signify an ongoing progressive understanding and the nature of this does lead to the question of to what extent can this be sought objectively. Science may involve the empirical, but how this is constructed, subjectively, in human understanding is a different matter. It may lead to the question of is there is any essential value-free objective logic or evidence?

You are quite right to query the idea of a fallacy, with the idea going back to Plato. There is the idea of 'truth' as opposed to falsehood, and thinking about this on the basis of logic alone may lead to a presumption of duality. The introduction of the empirical and evidence may lead to questioning of this binary distinction because evidence can usually be found to support arguments for and against in most aspects of thinking about life and existence.

Perhaps you should try vaping, with some CBD included as an alternative to conventional cigarette smoking. Nevertheless, there is probably not enough evidence at this stage to know whether it is safer than 'ordinary' tobacco cigarettes, or whether CBD and vaping are a mythic fad.

Your point is that it is difficult to follow the rational facts which appear. I struggle with this too, although I am not a smoker! Generally, I find it hard to follow the practical steps which would seem to be the 'best'. It is the reason why advice doesn't usually work, especially in health promotion. Evidence of what helps and the logical steps necessary on that basis doesn't seem to make that much difference.

It could be seen as a problem of lack of self discipline, or alternatively it may be that human action and choices are made in the immediate contexts of the situations in which we find ourselves. This often makes evidence and logic as redundant and abstract. Nevertheless, it may be that what is seen in retrospect is different from in the immediate, so time is significant. Also, the many variables may come into play. A person may give up smoking and still not get to see his grandchildren.

Generally, I was impressed by Whitey's presentation of various logical fallacies. However, the only thing which did make me query it was the summary on the back cover which spoke of 'winning arguments'. This attitude does suggest attempts at persuasion as opposed to the genuine search for truth'. I am not suggesting 'Trutth' with a capital T as absolutism but as weighed understanding. The alternative of philosophy as a means of persuasion is based on one's own needs or possibly of some group interest or ideology. Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead.

I wonder how much conventional thinking is about the wish for answers and certainty. The way in which questions keep arising shows how knowledge is static and evolving. The generation of questions may be part of the creative process in itself and the premature formulation of 'answers' in a clear, definitive way is what leads to dogma and rigidity.

As much as trauma and suffering can have a detrimental effect on wellbeing, it does serve the purpose of making people go further in thinking and exploration. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that all who explore philosophy are suffering. But, at the same time, suffering does propel deeper thinking and may prevent some from complacency and lazy logic.

I guess that there is also a difference between the idea of philosophy as a basic set of ideas and assumptions for daily life and philosophy as an academic pursuit. They are not separate entirely though because the academic philosophy is not just as a form of mental gymnastics which looks and sounds good but is about fine-tuning of thinking. Independently of studying philosophy as such, it is likely that some have more of a questioning disposition than others. Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory.

In thinking about suppositions and prejudices, it is where philosophy and psychology come together in self-knowledge and critical thinking. In some ways, CBT is an angle which is a foundation for philosophy and it is comparable with the Stoic thinkers. For all the complex knowledge and models science some of the essential questions of philosophy are recurrent in human civilisations. I don't relate to people seeing philosophy as a waste of time and energy but it is also possible to go round and round in circles, and I am sure that I do this at times...

I wished to engage with Barticks at one stage because I saw that he did have some interesting but unusual ideas. However, what I found was that he insulted me so much, with his sense of superiority, or ignored what I had said. For this reason, even though the forum may be important for diverse viewpoints, I felt more relief than sadness in discovering that he had been banned.

Forming questions is an important part of philosophy. I often remember a point which you made once which was that asking the wrong questions is like premature ejaculation. To a large extent I agree but, at the same time it may be that reframing common philosophy questions allows for thinking from new angles as a way of lateral thinking.

Of course, when questions are asked it does vary as to how far they can be answered, especially in relation to evidence. For example, the issue of life after death cannot be answered completely with 'evidence' for or against. Similarly, the question as to whether the idea of belief for or against the idea of God being 'logical' is difficult to answer fully. Both logic and evidence are not complete in themselves, allowing for subjective interpretations in understanding. The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. Also, questions in themselves can also be statements in themselves, as in the art of rhetoric.

The emotional satisfaction/comforts of logic may be appealing. I am not sure how this would stand in terms of reason and postmodern deconstruction may, alongside logical positivism, may have left a void of uncertainty. I am not sure exactly what a postmodern construction of logic would be.

However, it may involve the deconstruction of the core of assumptions about the rational. Subjective meaning may be important, as well as understanding the basis of logic and how it is constructed, especially in relation to the notion of rhetoric as the art of argument in the process of persuasion.

When I first came across the Shoutbox I wondered what was going on. However, after seeing it for over a year, I now see it value because some of the philosophy debates can be so academic and detached from life. Sometimes, the Shoutbox seems full of pigs, and it does put me off a little, but on the other hand, I I probably feel so oppressed by philosophical pigs and other creatures, that a certain amount of light relief is necessary. It may be that the Shoutbox allows for a certain amount of emotional ventilation which cannot be contained in the rational perimeters of so many philosophers threads.

In many ways I see the current thread as having some diverse opinions, and if anything, what seems strange is that the thread title is 'Positive characteristics of females' and the main focus is upon transgender. This may hark back to the way in which a lot of the original objections to trans people comes from the quarter of lesbian feminism, especially of those assigned to the male gender in 'female spaces'. Strangely, it seems that gender fundamentalism seems to almost coincide with religious ideas, especially a focus on what genitals a person has.

I am not sure that a completely unbiased angle is possible or one definitive clinical study stands supreme but approaching the issue from a philosophy angle requires a certain degree of impartiality. I do come from a background in training in various psychological therapies, ranging from the psychodynamic to the cognitive models. I agree that the discussion of various therapies is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Gender dysphoria and its 'treatment' medically and therapeutically, and if anything what I question more than anything is why on a forum such as this, so many threads are created focused on trans issues. It is probably that they generate a lot of moral feeling, mostly from the angle of what is projected onto those who identify as transgender, including those who transition. It may be that the whole issue raises critical issues about the nature of gender, which those who are gender euphoric, as opposed to gender dysphoric, may wish to sidestep. This involves the cultural construction of gender and, to what extent this is biological or about exaggerations of biological differences based on reproduction.

I am not sure what many, including yourself, are suggesting for gender dysphoria. There is often such an emphasis on protecting the feelings of those who are offended by gender dysphoria and those who claim to identify outside of the binary.

So much seems to be based on opinion rather than any clinical basis. For example, you say that 'antidepressants do more harm than good' which is merely your viewpoint. Surely, there is a need to step back and look at evidence as critically as possible, not picking and choosing what to select. Part of the problem is that there is so much information online. In order to offer approaches which are intended to aid those who are struggling with gender identity issues, there is a need to look at the issue from various angles.

I suppose it is also worth considering what both the concepts of chance and destiny mean, because at times they are used in a rather vague way, almost as if they are opposites. To some extent I see the term chance as conjuring up a lack of direction and purpose. Destiny may be about some fixed end, but they may not be opposites entirely. There is starting points and ends, which may be where the concept of causation comes in. It could be asked if causes and ends are in a straightforward linear process or to what extent the goal is inherent in the understanding of the causal process?

One important question may be what is the link between aesthetics and ethics? I am not sure how it stands as a question in the context of this thread but it does seem to have some potential relevance here. There is the comparison between aesthetic and moral beauty. However, there Is a danger that the idea may be stretched towards trying to make ethics pretty, if it is only about superficial appearances rather than a deeper search for appreciation behind surfaces. Certainly, the lives of the artists may reveal many flaws, especially in how their artistic quests led them to in towards the uncanny and strange lands, sometimes almost with disregard of social and moral norms...

I suppose we should take it all with a sense of humour as it is possible to think so hard about all these issues. Threads start and fade and if we agonise over them we won't do ourselves any good. So it may be best to take it in the strongest philosophy stride, as a mixture of chance and manifest destiny.

Just before I log out, in case anyone gets confused and sees it as some kind of sexual pun, when I said that I don't like playing sport it is meant as field games, such as football!

Also, I think one has to be a little careful of some aspects of sexuality, especially self disclosure. That is because online discussions are very different from those face to face. Most importantly, it is not a safe therapeutic space because it is a philosophy site which the public can read. It may be worth you thinking about because the more I use this and sites in general I am aware of a need for a certain amount of caution in what I say.

Not that I am recommending silent suppression of speech. I am simply saying that the nature of too much self disclosure on a public philosophy site is worth reflecting upon, mainly for how it may impact on you at some point rather than just those who read it.

Good night,
Jack

I will leave the discussion for now because I need to get up early tomorrow. It does seem from what you have said that your life has involved a lot of struggle. To end on a light upbeat note, we have one thing in common, as I can't bear playing sport at all either. Good night!

You seem to be making the mythical assumption that people who change gender are just people who can't accept homosexuality. It is not that simple because it is not necessarily about the body one is attracted to but to how a person feels about one's own body prior to any sexual relationship with another, or independently of actual relationships at all.

Why can't a person with a female body identify as a gay man? Some, such as Poppy Z Brite, a famous author who wrote, 'Lost Souls' has transitioned and is living as a gay man. There are many male to M to F individuals who identify as lesbian and F to Ms who identify as gay men. That is because gender identity and sexual preference are distinct from one another. Life is full of diversity.

It does startle me how people seem to have so much of an issue with what other people do. It may be that 'oddness' in itself is the problem as it was always those who were outside the norm who came under critical attack and subject to moral panic, like the way people seized upon Aids to condemn the gay and bisexual community. In the past, the bearded ladies, dwarfs and those who looked different were cast into the role of circus freaks.

In some ways, there have been the romantic deviants, like the sexually ambiguous pop singers. But, there is still a strong shadow of hatred and many people who look and act outside of the norm are subject to forms of bullying and violence in many places in the world. Those who continue to wish to be allowed to express their issues with the deviant 'others' often overlook this aspect of the power dynamics at play. They do not seem to link this together in their analysis, because they don't wish to consider the issue of prejudice and the nature of projection.

As I know that you are in England now, I am wondering if you are aware of the most controversial trans legal case of Kiera Bell. I would imagine that you have heard of it but as it is in England I will point it out for anyone who is not familiar with it. Basically, this is a young woman who is detransitioning, after taking puberty blockers and testosterone and having chest surgery as an adolescent. Kiera was living as Quincy and at age 21 regretted this treatment.

As a result, Kiera, as she is now known, sued the adolescent gender clinic. She argued that as a teenager she was not stable enough to have the capacity to consent. She won her case and it has far wide ranging effects. Of course, it does seem that her medical treatment happened so quickly and much of it is irreversible.

However, it has become a source of activism and it does seem that many, including Christian groups, have seized on it as a means of supporting gender fundamentalism and she has become a celebrity. There are even T-shirts with the slogan, 'Queen Kiera Bell'. It does seem to have become a culture war between those who are stressing gender rights and those who are wishing to assert fundamentalism. The aspect which I wonder is how will people navigate their own personal searches while the issue of transgender is seen as a political one rather appreciating the complexity of it as an aspect of personal identity and psychology.

Yes, Thailand is interesting and it does seem that there is increasing intolerance to those who question the binary. It may be partly that more people are wishing to express androgyny. On the other hand, I do wonder if so much opposition is about a gradual wish for more totalitarian powers and suppression of human freedom.

Yes, the case of Reimer is an interesting case in pointing that gender goes beyond cultural issues. It was certainly a problem that intersex people were not given a say in their own choice of gender. However, it is questionable to use it to oppose trans identities.

It does seem that in the current cultural backlash many individuals think that they have a right to insist on their views as the ultimate one, often based on citing examples of online research. Having worked in mental health care, including working with trans identified individuals, it does seem that the voices of professionals and their patients are often pushed aside It is matter of politics rather than about the well being of those who turn to the medical profession for support. So many media sites seem to be platforms more for people to vent their opposition to people with gender identity issues and most trans people just wish to live their lives rather have to face transphobia daily.

I have just read that the author Louisa May Alcott, famous for writing, 'Little Women' and 'Jo's Boys' was probably non binary and wished to be male. It is likely that people with some kind of dysphoria have existed in all times in history and various cultures. It is simply expressed differently and approached in varying ways.

In some cultures, like India and North America, there are gender neutral communities. These may comprise people who are born intersex or choose to live as the other gender than they were assigned to at birth. In Western society, gender dysphoria is probably approached differently because the medical technology is there to enable them to be more physically at ease witg their bodies, especially if social attitudes reflect intolerance of people's choice of gender identity.

I think that the wind has just thrown the thread into the lounge as an invisible hand of destiny somehow!

Yes, there is probably a link between causality and the issue of chance. However, to see chance as a cause is probably missing many other aspects, and it is about the many variables. It may be like if it is a strong windy day and a tree blows down and kills a person it is not possible to attribute the death to the wind or the tree alone because it is the interaction between the two and that a person was in the vicinity.

With regard to the idea of predestination, it has probably developed differently in various philosophy contexts. However, as far as I understand in the Judaeo-Christian tradition it often was in relation to the idea of sin, salvation and of the afterlife. It was based on the assumption that God, as designer, crafted each person and had a role in being responsible for the individuals.

This led to the question as to whether God was accountable for whether human beings could overcome sin. This moved onto the complex issue as to whether human beings were destined to enternal life in hell or heaven. It raised a lot of issues about the nature of evil and most thinking about chance and destiny. It is so different from the way most people think of the issues today, based on the knowledge of science. Beyond the issues of physics, which led to Einstein's query, 'Does God play dice?' the dynamics of philosophy have altered so much.

Quantum physics has looked at the issue from so many different angles. Einstein's ideas about the existence of God were ambiguous, and some physicists like Stephen Hawking have come from a materialist angle whereas others like Paul Davies and David Bohm have challenged materialistic determinism. The main difference with quantum theory is that so many questions have arisen. There is Heisenberg's emphasis on the uncertainty principle and so many theories, including chaos theory, which suggests some underlying order within the background of chaos and unpredictability.

One overriding understanding emerging is the systems point of view. This may involve perception of the various aspects of the issue of chance in the natural order and in human life, including free choice. In particular, in thinking about human nature and behaviour, the bio-psychosocial approach may be important. This involves thinking about the basic aspects of biology, including genetics as well as the various aspects of psychological development, including cultural and factors in social life. This is such a big contrast with the Christian notion of predestination which relied on a belief in the source and God, as a deity and creator, behind the scenes of nature and life.

Your argument about Putin's mother and father in bed is part of the idea of predestination. With the act of reproduction it involves the genetic elements and how this comes into play in the creation of a unique biological being. However, it goes way beyond this, with the circumstances in which they met.

When two people come into a relationship it involves the chance aspects of them meeting. For example, I know people who have met a partner in some unusual place, like a launderette or a couple I know met when the girl was running and the boy came to her rescue. So, it can include the unlikely aspects of life and probability.

On an experiential level I sometimes find that what happens goes beyond the scope of probability. For example, I often find that I get stuck in situations in which whatever I do I land up in the same predicament. I am not saying that there is no possible movement ever but when people have repeated experiences of a similar nature it can challenge the idea of chance and randomness. Nevertheless, it could be that the subconscious plays a role in the process and, in this way, intention in its deepest sense may have some role in the nature of will and chance in human consciousness in our lives, and it may be a bit different in nature and physics.

In some ways, it could be argued that it is a waste of talent if people don't make use of it. I know of someone who was a very good violinist but just decided not to do it any longer. If someone doesn't make use of their potential there is the possibility that they may regret it later, but to see it in a moralistic light may be unhelpful because it just leads to unhelpful guilt.

The trouble is that creativity is not something which mechanical, but it can be in the sense that people may go through the motions in a repetitive way. That would be an emphasis on art as a product. It may be how art and the arts are seen in a consumer society, but that is different from the process.

In some ways, the process of making art may go beauty, and aesthetic techniques. It can be a way of expressing the sublime and beautiful but as a journey it may go beyond this and also about experiencing and living with ugly and the darkest moments of experience and existence. This area was opened up in particular in the postmodernism of the twentieth first century. Each of us may have preferences, whether it is visual art, literature or music. For example, sometimes people are surprised that while I like classical literature my music tastes incorporate goth, metal and punk.

This is where subjectivity comes into it. I read Kant's, 'Critique of Judgment last year and was surprised how he recognised the subjective aspects of aesthetics. The issue may be that each person has their own subjective balance or symmetry rather than it being an 'out there' objective measure, even though there are shared intersubjective cultural aspects. These may involve shared social meanings but the beautiful and the ugly are based within the personal mind of the perceiver, even though there are likely to be overlaps based on the pleasure or displeasures of sensory experiences. In creating art one is making one's mark in the cultural niche but a prescriptive approach to what one should create may extinguish the source of creative inspiration.

Thank you!

I didn't know that there is a Sheldrake website, so thanks for telling me that. It may prevent me from building up more and more piles of paper books!

Even though Sheldrake speaks of fields his understanding is parallel with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, as memory inherent in nature. I discovered his writing while I was reading Jung and thinking about Western religious ideas. What I found helpful was that it was a way of connecting the ideas of Jung with nature and spatial reality rather than the collective becoming an abstract metaphysical void of disembodied spirits. Now, neuroscience seems to be the way of connecting perception and reality, especially in relation to the idea of qualia. But, the morphic fields provide another interesting angle, but it does seem that many disregard his writings.

It is probably because he does have a leaning towards the esoteric. I was in 'Watkins', an esoteric bookstore in London and saw that he has written some new books on consciousness. I avoided the temptation to buy any on that occasion but I would like to read the development of his ideas because I have only read his early work, mainly 'The Presence of the Past'. I read some of, 'The Sense of Being Stared At' and it does seem that so many people can pick up if they are being stared at from behind. It may involve the subliminal mind and it that this is connected to the existence of morphic fields.

I am familiar with the story of David Reimer and it is such an unusual one as I read his autobiography which he wrote some time before his suicide. Thinking about it now, the idea of raising a child who had lost his penis, in a circumcision accident, as a girl seems atrocious. But, for many years the case was important in sociology to show that gender can be learned socially. Money's work with Reiner was considered to be a great success.

It was only later that it was known that Reimer suffered so terribly. Even though he had been given surgery and hormones he still was extremely masculine and got made fun of for being so hairy. He did transition to male and I believe that he was going to have a phalloplasty and he struggled with depression. I knew that his brother had schizophrenia but I didn't know that he died of an overdose. It is not surprising that the twin suffered with all that had happened, especially the suicide of his brother.

I read an article in the news recently in which there is some possibility that the male chromosome may become extinct. This has led to some speculation that men may die out. However, there are some species in which the male chromosome has faded away but what happened was not a disappearance of males but the evolution of a new species.

Gender in its various forms may be part of evolutionary pathways. The various differences, including intersex and gender dysphoria are aspects of nature, just as homosexuality is, so independent of how people choose to act, including transitioning or not, it may all just be seen as diversity in the spectrum of evolutionary possibilities.

The idea of cause as being chance would imply no direct line of action and consequences. It is questionable whether the idea of chance is more a reflection of theism or atheism because some theists have believed in predestination and some atheists have maintained materialistic determinism.

Darwin's idea of natural selection in itself is not random entirely because the survival of the fittest is like an inherent biological imperative within nature. And, in connection with God, Darwin was not necessarily an atheist even though his ideas may have influenced others to become atheist.

It is hard to know how to see the specific roots of causation. Aristotle saw God as the first mover. However, it would also be possible to ask what caused God to exist in the first place? To some extent it may come down to whether mind or matter are primary. Many Eastern thinkers, especially the Buddhists, see causality a little differently because they don't see the material as being the primary force, even though they don't believe in a specific deity. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is the idea of karma, which is fairly complex involving both inner and outer sources of causation, although the idea is, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' which would imply chain reactions as opposed to chance.

It is good to see you again on the forum and I think that many have missed you. As for the fields, my interpretation is that they have wide reaching implications for the understanding of the way in which consciousness evolves. The fields are like memories in nature and about links between minds. It may be about patterns which exist in nature, as opposed to being 'supernatural'. Sheldrake's ideas which he is continuing to develop are fairly radical, with some support for aspects of extrasensory perception and even a leaning towards panpsychism.

You seem to class surgery and suicide together, as if they are similar when they are not. Surgery may be the healthy alternative to suicide for many. There is such a tendency especially in social media to focus on those who are unhappy with their gender transitions rather than having regrets. Also, some people just get on with their lives afterwards and don't make a big thing out of it. Many pass as their chosen gender and don't even need to tell people most of the time, except for intimate relationships or in a medical context.

Also, from what I have read about detransitioning, except in cases like Kiera Bell in England, who changed too early in adolescence, many who do go back to their natal gender do so on account of the social intolerance which they experience