Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:33 am 'Safe'....

Speaking of managing morons...

.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am Well, I stand by most people thinking that they are talking about the territory, meaning something/asserting something about the territory. Whatever that means about their intelligence.

Not a single human walking Earth has direct acces to the teritory. Except via our perception.

There's no better way to describe naive realists except by re-emphasising their naivety.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am So, when you are talking about, here, about intelligent people, you are talking about your map of intelligent people, not the actual people out there.

I am talking about people "out there" whom I perceive as intelligent "in here". Whatever traits I associate with "intelligence".

In particular I am not associating many of those traits with you. But hey - different people, different yardsticks for perceiving intelligence.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am Nope. I can see them talking to third parties on their own team and contradict themselves in minutes.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I don't perceive you as intelligent...

You are about 100 years behind figuring out that contradiction is caused by self-reference; and self-evaluation. And since we are always referencing and evaluating our percepts there's no escaping contradiction.

You are just guilty of the usual mental gymnastics and compartmentalisation people do so as to ignore that their own contradictions.

Any sufficiently-expressive language will necessarily contradict because it's self-referential. That's a feature, not a bug.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am That's you in a nutshell. You can't have a civil discussion You have to insult - I know, you'll say you were just stating the facts, lol. In any case, it makes you look weak to me. You can't rely on your arguments.

I am relying on my arguments. I am arguing THAT you aren't evry intelligent, and my justification for perceiving you as such is because you place extraorgdinary significance on non-contradiction.

You place about the same significance on non-contradiction as theists place on God.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am And you can't even refer to the specifics of the topic once in your responses to me. IOW not once do you take up gender, trans-issues.

You don't seem like the type who can handle specifics. You can't even find your way around contradictions; let alone the mess that is the clash of perspectives.

Don't worry. One day when you learn how to practice the principle of charity you'll realise that you've been mistaking paradoxes for contradictions all your life.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 12:38 am But I don't take it personally because you were just talking about your convenient map of anyone who disagrees with you and not me.

Back on ignore.

Isn't this like the 5th time you've "ignored" me?

The cat's out the bag now.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:30 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:16 pm There are some traits and behaviors that we have no control over having or not. Some we do have control over, like being a baseball player - just need to choose to play baseball.

That's not a trait... Having a penis is a trait. Playing basketball isn't

Of course it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan
"Michael Jeffrey Jordan, also known by his initials MJ, is an American businessman and former professional basketball player."

If not, then so much for your idea of self-determination. One cannot determine whether they have a penis or not.

You're making an unwarranted distinction between having a particular physiology and what you can, and can't do with that physiology.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:30 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:16 pm This is why it is considered racist and sexist to judge people based on their skin color or sex, because this is something that they have no control over. We do judge people based on their free choices and actions. Actions speak louder than words and your actions have more to do with your identity than the words of someone that does not know you or has never met you. So we do have some degree of self-determination, but not completely, as evidenced by your request for proof of my claim. What you are requesting is an observation of behaving in some way that shows I am a Dark Lord of the Sith. What behaviors and traits determine, or prove, one is a man or a woman?

No idea!

Tell me something I didn't know.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:30 pm I just use the words...

But you haven't even done that as evidence of me still not understanding your position. All you've done is draw scribbles on the screen. Communication needs to have happened for you to have uses words, and not just drawn scribbles on the screen.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 8:55 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:29 pm If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

This is a contradiction, sadly, the Left woke side. And just to put my reaction in context, I more or less come from that side. But part of the time one will hear that gender does not exist, that it is all cultural and that sex is meaningless (biologically, psychologically). But you will then also here that a transperson who identifies as a woman IS a woman. And my guess is that some transpeople are aware of this and realize that in some deep way they are not accepted by their supporters, even as their supporters publically and vocally support them. If there is no essential difference, then there would be no need to change to the other sex, no need for the operations, hormones, etc. I don't know how this has gone on so long without this contradiction being more central to discussions. I must be crazymaking for some people, including transpeople and their families.

But that's the issue - calling people names for simply questioning their claim. This is the symptom of a delusional person:
-Feelings of being exploited.
-Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
-A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
-Persistently holding grudges.
-A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/d ... l-disorder

This isn't much different from how a religious person reacts to having their beliefs questioned. Religion and the idea that you can be put into the wrong body that is a different sex are all mass delusions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:10 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 8:55 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:29 pm If gender does not exist, then how can one change it through self-determination? What is it they are changing, if anything?

This is a contradiction, sadly, the Left woke side.

Does there ever come a point at which philosophers figure out that the operand "exist" can be used to refer to the presence of a concept in one's epistemology; completely decoupled from ontology?

Saying "X doesn't exist" is just another way of saying "I don't use those terms/concepts to reason about reality".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

The irony, of course is that the epistemic use of the term is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the naive use of the term. It actually signals meta-cognitive awareness.

"X exists" simply means that X has causal power. Ideas have just as much causal power as any physical object. Just look at your local mall during the holiday season. How is it that there are images of Santa Claus and a "Take Your Picture with Santa", as well as Santa Claus clothes and hat, if the idea of Santa doesn't have causal power. This is a problem for dualists in explaining how ideas can create physical effects in the world.

So the question isn't does God exist. It is how does God exist - as some kind of extra-dimensional alien or as a mass delusion?

How does gender exist? As biological sex, a delusional disorder, or something else?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm "X exists" simply means that X has causal power. Ideas have just as much causal power as any physical object.

That's another way to use the verb "exists". So what?

If you want me to paraphrase my point in your language so be it - When somebody says "X doesn't exist" they mean "The concept X has no causal effect on me"; or even "You expect the term X to cause/evoke a particular connotation but it doesn't. It has different causal properties in my mind than what you expect."; or even "The term X has no causal properties in my mind (and therefore doesn't exist)."

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm Just look at your local mall during the holiday season. How is it that there are images of Santa Claus and a "Take Your Picture with Santa", as well as Santa Claus clothes and hat, if the idea of Santa doesn't have causal power. This is a problem for dualists in explaining how ideas can create physical effects in the world.

Not sure why you are even going on this tangent? Nobody is denying any of this. The very purpose of language is to manipulate (have a causal effect on other minds).

The problem is that you use of a particular term may; or may not have the effect you predicted it to have.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm So the question isn't does God exist. It is how does God exist - as some kind of extra-dimensional alien or as a mass delusion?

Why do you continue to be so uncharitable with respect to mental phenomena? How does love exist? As some kind of extra-dimensional causal force or as a mass delusion?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm How does gender exist? As biological sex, a delusional disorder, or something else?

However the fuck everything else exists. Out there (in the world); or in there (in our minds). Either way it exists.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:09 pm That's not a trait... Having a penis is a trait. Playing basketball isn't

Of course it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan
"Michael Jeffrey Jordan, also known by his initials MJ, is an American businessman and former professional basketball player."
[/quote]
So if I were to bring Michael Jeffrey Jordan over for dinner at your house, where exactly are you going to locate those traits of his?

Where is his "American businessman" trait located?
Where is his "former proffessional basketball player" trait located?
Why are you having so much trouble locating those traits; and so little trouble locating his penis?

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:09 pm If not, then so much for your idea of self-determination. One cannot determine whether they have a penis or not.

You can't determine that you are in posession of a vagina similar to this one between your legs? I have a vagina similar to this...

(see, numbskull, I don't care about the squiggles - I care about the denotation of the squiggles)

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:09 pm You're making an unwarranted distinction between having a particular physiology and what you can, and can't do with that physiology.

Is it "unwarranted"? Justify.

It sure serves me well (for the purpose of clarity) to diistinguish between physiology and the use of physiology.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:09 pm But you haven't even done that as evidence of me still not understanding your position. All you've done is draw scribbles on the screen. Communication needs to have happened for you to have uses words, and not just drawn scribbles on the screen.

That's wee bit uncharitable. Again. What do you mean by "position"? In so far as I can tell I am not holding any. I am merely reporting my observations. What is it that you aren't "understanding" about the facts that I am drawing your attention to?

Are you confused about the tension between singularity vs plurality of identity? Maybe start there - how many identities do you have?

Perhaps you don't see much difference in the semantics of the statement "I am a basketball player" and "I play basketball." One is a statement of identity. One is a statement of behaviourt.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:17 pm Skepkdick's penis

FFS. Do we really need giant photos of your ugly penis, or are you trying to flirt with trajik logik?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:31 pm
FFS. Do we really need giant photos of your ugly penis, or are you trying to flirt with trajik logik?

Let's not be hasty. Are we sure that it isn't a photo of an unusual growth at the base of his spine?

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:46 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:31 pm
FFS. Do we really need giant photos of your ugly penis, or are you trying to flirt with trajik logik?

Let's not be hasty. Are we sure that it isn't a photo of an unusual growth at the base of his spine?

I don't really want to look at it again, but now that you mention it...
And since there is no such thing as gender then I assume there is no such thing as penises either--they are a 'social construct'.

@the penis flasher

If a human female is a 'social construct' then what does this 'construct' look/behave like? Please define it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:31 pm FFS. Do we really need giant photos of your ugly penis, or are you trying to flirt with trajik logik?

Didn't you say it's just biology? Why does biology upset you?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:00 pm @the penis flasher

If a human female is a 'social construct' then what does this 'construct' look/behave like? Please define it.

What part of 'socially constructed/defined' is eluding you?

Observe how the different sub-cultures are using the term to get a vague idea for its range of uses across different contexts.
There's no unified version.

Stupid Philosophers and your bloody definitions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:02 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 7:31 pm FFS. Do we really need giant photos of your ugly penis, or are you trying to flirt with trajik logik?

Didn't you say it's just biology? Why does biology upset you?

I'm fine with biology. I just don't want to see your ugly penis.