:up:

OK. I must not be understanding what the discussion between C and MU is about then.

Sure, but don’t people hold presuppositions (axioms) which they don’t know they have? E.g., Reality can be understood through science? And aren't conscious biases also important?

Just checking as a non-philosopher here. Aren't biases generally like axioms or presuppositions, which provide a kind of foundation to one's thinking?

Since bias is an essential aspect of thinking, then to remove it from thinking would incapacitate and annihilate the thinking. T — Metaphysician Undercover

Sounds to me like this is accurate. Even a quest to remove biases is itself a bias, even if it might seem to be a performative contradiction?

Is a potential task of philosophy to question and perhaps dismantle axioms (beliefs, biases) one holds to find enhanced approaches to thinking and living? I can't help but find myself in a realm of 'good' biases and 'bad' biases and how this is determined strikes me as needing to be bias led.

I know the feeling. :cool:

and a bit savantish, — wonderer1

Isn't that like being a bit pregnant? Sorry - couldn't help it... :wink:

What? My pet peeves don't rule? I'm aghast!!! — BC

I hate to tell you...

No one was "assigned" a sex (not talking about gender) at birth until that peculiar construction was pushed by the transgendered and their allies. — BC

Kind of, but sex was always 'identified' or 'determined' then 'recorded' on birth paperwork and a birth certificate. Whether the word is assigned or identified makes little practical difference. The point being that recorded sex at birth by a health professional, as opposed to self-identified gender may be seen as separate matters - and by no means all trans folk, as I'm sure you know, agree on criteria, just as cishet males won't all agree on masculinity. Thank Christ.

I don't either, and have followed the trans person's world view, whether I thought it was sensible or not. — BC

Fair enough.

The only "man" who got pregnant was a woman transgender who had had nothing removed and decided to reverse her hormone therapy and have a child. It was reported in the popular press as some sort of "breakthrough". It was a breakthrough of stupidity into sensible discourse. — BC

And for me this type of issue is a separate matter to the reality of transgenderism. It's located in peripheral discourse or sense making about the issue. What worries me is people making a hasty generalization fallacy into 'therefore all trans is stupid.' Which I'm not accusing you of doing. There will no doubt be bullshit present too as there are in all matters.

I didn't have to provide social services to a MAGA Trump-type (I retired before Obama was elected) but had one walked into the office, I would have provided the services they were due. — BC

Now you've clearly crossed the line.

:up:

I have never understood how exactly words are meant to map onto reality. Is it a map-territory relation issue? People like Rorty, I believe, hold that language is not reality, but it is used by us to construct a reality - truth then is just about language doing something, but never involves a reality outside of this or, by implication, outside of us. Do words even point to reality? All of this is elementary Saussurean structuralism, I guess, but I have no good answer to these matters. You?

Ok. Off topic, but it sounds like control or autonomy is very important to you. I'm always fascinated by how different we are despite all the ways in which we are alike.

IOW: Whatever you do, whyever you think you're doing it, somebody's going to call it self-interest. — Vera Mont

I don't know whether we can even tell in theory what motivates us. It's not all that important to me, to be honest. My intuition says self-interest is probably inescapable, but this comes in soft and hard versions and we need to recognize that self-interest is not incompatible with altruism.

You're going to have to trust me on this one despite it just being an internet conversation. — Philosophim

Hey, I don't doubt that you are sincere and believe this. I guess I hold a view that all people, regardless of how they make decisions, are influenced by unconscious factors - biases, desires, etc.

More an Epicurean than a Stoic? :cool: — 180 Proof

No question. :wink:

I would not have felt guilty. I have no particular feelings towards my sister or her kids. She's made her own choices in life. I still sometimes have pushes to just leave and go up North. But I don't because its not time yet. I choose my outcomes in life based on what is most moral, because I've spent a lot of time thinking on these things and not letting my emotions sway my decisions. — Philosophim

You sound very certain. You are talking about what you are conscious of. Can you rule out unconscious influences on your actions - guilt, duty, pride, etc? In my own case, I rarely know why I do anything and have very little insight into my motivations - I'm a swirling vortex of contradictions and unconscious values and biases. Despite this I feel unreasonably content.

In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it. — Jacques

In other words there is no selflessness? Personally I suspect self-interest plays a role in much altruism. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that this is always the case, but it may be. The real question is does it matter? If morality is ultimately a social enterprise and about cooperation and flourishing, then the idea that there is something in it for us all to be moral is possibly inescapable.

Maybe we're having a language barrier of intentions here. I've tried to make it clear that I do not benefit from giving my money away compared to using the money for myself. I am not contradicting myself. When I say, "It is better for me", translate this to, "It is more ethical for me". I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear. — Philosophim

I don't disagree with you, but I wonder if a soft form of self-interested altruism might be behind such actions? Any thoughts on this? I take similar actions, providing money to various causes, etc. But I wonder if 'it is more ethical to me' comes with it a kind of satisfaction in doing one's duty, being part of a solution... whatever it might be.

These are not a step forward but a regressive move backward. In order to go beyond a way of thinking, you first have to demonstrate a proper understanding of it. — Joshs

Do you think there's a serious attempt at understanding and he got it wrong or do you think that other factors may be at play (deliberate misreading, etc)?

One of my pet peeves. Newborns are identified as male or female, they aren't arbitrarily assigned a sex. — BC

But who is saying anyone is arbitrarily assigned a sex? I thought this was about gender, not sex. People don't identify with the gender that accompanies their sex at birth.

All this genderendering results in such peculiar constructions as "persons with a uterus" or "pregnant persons" in health care settings. Stupid, stupid, stupid. — BC

Even if this language is stupid, stupid, stupid - it doesn't change the reality that there are people who identify with a particular gender, regardless of the sex they are born with. How we negotiate this is a matter of etiquette and practice. It ain't going away because it's a pet peeve.

Staying with space operas, what do you think of the portrayals of "human dilemmas" in Firefly (or Serenity) or The Expanse? — 180 Proof

I'm not a sci fi guy, but I enjoyed Firefly/Serenity. I admired the imaginative literary ambition of the original Trek (in small doses) but later Trek seemed a bit contrived and mechanical for my taste. I remember hearing about Next Gen in 1987 and saying (quite idiotically it turns out), 'This will never catch on, Trek was an unrepeatable one off!'

Go well.

That is not what this discussion is about. — Philosophim

I generally think practice or doing is more important than theory, but I hear you. A useful definition I have gone by is a transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's a standard definition.

I've probably said all that matters to me on this subject. I'm old enough to remember when we rooted out 'fags' on the football field because 1) 'they played like girls' and 2) 'they'd be staring at your dick in the locker room and upsetting team morale'. Yes, a different issue, with alternative nuances, but it is instructive around how we formulate responses about identity and how apple carts are predictably upset.

Issues around bathroom use, sport access, prison allocations are all matters of etiquette and practice we can work out over time. Will there be mistakes? Sure. Will there be good news stories? Them too. Happy for you to explore these with others interested, although bear in mind the bigots often use specific and infrequent examples of sport or prisons to justify trans hatred in what I suspect is a hasty generalisation fallacy.

.

I left mine in my other pants pocket.

When I see the word "transgender" in popular culture it is currently unclear and confusing. — Philosophim

Sure. I'm happy for others to worry about definitions. It's never been confusing in practice for me or the people around me, but I understand it preoccupies a lot of people's time. Bear in mind definitions are tricky - we can't really define religion as Karen Armstrong and our own @Wayfarer point out. Atheism has a range of definitions. I take it to mean I have heard no good reasons to believe in gods, others take it to mean that there are no gods. And on it goes. :wink:

Is this in the sense of gender, or sex though? — Philosophim

My understanding is it's gender, which is separate to biological sex. But I'm not one for debating this minefield of a subject, I'm no expert and people understand it in different ways. I'm happy to support trans-people and I've never experienced any problems associated with the issue in the years I have known and/or worked with trans or gender diverse people.

I work with several trans people and I have known quite a few trans people over 30 years. I refer to them by their chosen gender and there have never been any issues, whether trans male or trans female. A friend of mine is trans and says they never felt male and always felt female. It helps them to look that way so that they are recognized as their preferred gender. I sometimes use a male pronoun by accident on account of years of habit. I have friends with children who are trans. They don't think their body matches their sense of self. That's how they describe it.

It's complicated and people are different, even trans folk. I am not an expert on the subject.

And this sounds like an ad hominem fallacy. You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into believing the institution of government is good that you get angry at even the suggestion that this might not be the case. — AntonioP

Perhaps you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into thinking anything not anti-government is bad that you imagine I must be aggrieved. It was just an observation. 'Indoctrinated'? 'Angry'? Sounds more like you're doing the ad hominem's around here. Which is alright by me, I'm not the gatekeeper of tone.

At least it will be quick...

Tell that to the 'tax is theft' mob. :wink:

Thanks. If someone says they were born in the 'wrong body' and identify as male (born sex as female) do you have some reflections regarding an approach we might take?

the idea that gender is strictly socially constructed is ludicrous. — Joshs

Can you say some more?

Sounds like a standard libertarian, anti-governmental screed. Rose is a high profile anti-tax protester. Personally I think we should abolish human beings. Have you read about the harm these creatures have done - even before the birth of government - the tyranny, the unprovoked aggression and countless evils....

Btw, Sam Harris' notion of "wellbeing" is much too vague (& positive psychology) for me. — 180 Proof

Got ya.

Agency (i.e. ethos) consists in individual and collective capabilities (i.e. adaptive habits, skills, norms-conventions, commons-affordances) of agents to help others and themselves to prevent and reduce harm to others and themselves. — 180 Proof

:up:

Assuming that ethics is the study of reasons for moral judgments and conduct of 'how persons can adaptively (ergo ought to) treat each other', what do you think of flourishing (i.e. well-being) as an ethical goal? And 'reducing harm' as an optimally moral (i.e. normative) means to that end? Do you believe, Andrew, that there are not any sound reasons for morality and that it's only a matter of personal 'sentiments' or arbitrary (relative) customs? :chin: — 180 Proof

I think this is a useful frame to remind people of whenever they struggle to identify reasons for having moral behaviour.

What are your thoughts on the rather broad category of 'human flourishing' (or 'wellbeing' as Sam Harris has it)? Some people argue that such ideas are too vague or subjective to be useful frames for focused moral discussions.

Thanks for your explanation.

It's not a project of reforming society, it's a mental model that could reform if it was ever popularized as a norm of complex thinking. — Christoffer

I'm not sure you are following my words either. As I keep saying the chances of this happening are close to nil. But I'm glad you're thinking about these sorts of ideas. More people should. Take care.

What principles underly our intuitive moral judgments and cultural moral norms?
• Behaviors that solve cooperation problems are moral
• Behaviors that create cooperation problems are immoral

These principles define the morality of behaviors and, therefore, moral ‘means’.

The principles are almost silent about moral ends, but not entirely. Moral ends (goals) achieved by creating cooperation problems (as the Nazi’s did by exploiting outgroups) are innately immoral by Morality as Cooperation Strategies underlying principles. Ends achieved by exploitation are innately immoral because they contradict the function of morality – solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma.

Therefore, the fact that people can and do cooperate to do evil, as the Nazis did, does not reduce the cultural usefulness and philosophical relevance of the empirical observations that underly Morality as Cooperation Strategies. Instead, Morality as Cooperation Strategies explains why the Nazis' evil goals based on exploitation were innately evil - they created cooperation/exploitation dilemma problems rather than solving them. — Mark S

To my taste this section would benefit from clearer wording and exposition. Perhaps also some examples.

Are you saying that any behavior which creates cooperation problems is immoral? Can you define cooperation problem?

Would not cooperation problems also stem from groups in society who hold different values? How does this method manage pluralism? For instance - how do we manage the competing groups who hold to religious views and consider things like sex before marriage and homosexuality immoral? Remember these are determined by 'God', not by cooperation.

How does your model address such dilemmas - is it sufficiently flexible to incorporate such religious differences, or does it rely on society to embrace secularism, or call on religions to change their values?

I brought up the subject of esotericism in relationship to 'the transcendent'. The transcendent usually refers to a state or aspect of reality that surpasses the limits of ordinary physical existence, such as a dimension of reality that exists beyond the sensory world. In religious or philosophical contexts, the term 'transcendent' is used in relation to the deity or (in Buddhism) the state of being of a Buddha. — Wayfarer

This and the following three paragraphs are very nice. Thanks.

Why would people not be able to change? Have we not changed behaviors and ways of life, culturally, over decades and centuries based primarily in what people find the best way of life at the time? — Christoffer

Not relevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether people change or not. We're talking about a theoretical, programatic intervention to deliberately build change in thinking, with a specific philosophical approach. We disagree on the feasibility of this project. That's all. Let's move on.

The question we used to ask ourselves in this space is how do you tell the difference between the genuine esoteric (which is truthful) and that which leads to Rolls Royces and the underaged? Answer - there's no reliable way. It is instructive to see the extent to which materialism (the riches of consumer capitalism) seem to be valued by gurus and sages.

I knew folk involved in Siddha Yoga who used to have mystical experiences when Gurumayi came to town. Such visits were also breathless, orgiastic festivals of, 'She looked at me, she looked at me!' more in keeping with Beatlemania, including the requisite merchandising - books, videos, posters, t-shirts, etc. I found the entire thing decidedly shonky and the adherents ended up no happier, no less materialistic than before they decided they had penetrated the esoteric. But I guess this does not mean the is no esoteric to 'know'.

Interesting. Yes, the word esotericism was used in Theosophical groups I knew many years ago. People went off it, I suspect, because it became a synonym for the eccentric and off beat. I personally think that subjects like Gnosticism, neoplatonism, Sufi mysticism are less esoteric now than they were considered to be 30-40 years ago. But we also lost the counterculture and split off into a myriad of sub-cultures.

There's that quote from Baba Ram Dass, with which you may agree:

In mystical traditions, it is one's own readiness that makes experiences exoteric or esoteric. The secret isn't that you're not being told. The secret is that you're not able to hear.
- Baba Ram Dass

I think this quote (its sentiment being critical in the conversations we used to hold) crystallises how many might consider what is essentially the ineffable demarcation in this subject, between finding meaning and loosing yourself in meaninglessness. Or something like this.

No, it's not at your expense. It's just a playful juxtaposition. :pray: