a metaphysical question or is it?

[Peter Kropotkin]

my entire thread, the "Foundation of Philosophy"
is a metaphysical thread... it asks, what is the first principle,
and metaphysicians have asked that question since the beginning
of time... but notice, at no point did I actually say, Metaphysics..
and the reason is simple, what happens is that people react the
to the word, Metaphysics, instead of thinking about what metaphysics
actually means... like saying "existentialism" and reacting to
the word "existentialism" instead of thinking about what
the problems of existentialism are, or what concepts within
existentialism should we engage with....

in essences, I reject metaphysics and the metaphysical
questions as not relevant in our lives... basically because
as noted, what metaphysical questions actually exists?

is there a god? is there nothing? everything is an illusion?
the subjective, the objective, truth, there is no god...

metaphysical questions go on until the cows come home....
and don't actually lead us anywhere.. ok, there is a god or
as I hold to be true, we live in a no-god universe.....
now what? does the question of knowledge, of epistemology
actually answer this question of whether is a god? nope...
this metaphysical question doesn't have an answer
that actually helps to live our lives... even if, if we
accept the idea of a god, as many proclaim, the clear
goal of religion and belief in god today, encourages people
to base their politics and in forcing others to live within
their religions, as Christians do today, forcing Americans
to practice Christianity, whether or not they are Christians...
to have Christian morality, banning abortion, Christain ethics,
banning trans/gay people, to live as a Christian, by allowing
people to refuse services based on their Christian beliefs,
for example those who won't bake a cake for those who
don't hold Christian beliefs or those who won't sell
condoms or abortion pills because it violates their
own religious beliefs....forcing others to live as Christians,
even if that isn't there belief system...is not only anti-religious,
but anti-democratic... if "all men/people are created equal"
then all values are created equal and must be treated, acted
upon equally... you cannot refuse service to another based
on religious beliefs because your beliefs are equal to their
beliefs... how do you "prove" that your beliefs are
superior or more special than another set of beliefs?

these are metaphysical questions... how is one set of beliefs
superior to another set of beliefs? On what grounds do we
judge a set of beliefs to be superior or inferior?
the only answer appears to be a metaphysical answer....
because that is how god wants it, or it is the "truth"
whatever the truth may happen to be.... your version or mine...
and how do we judge that? what standards are we using?
and why those standards and not another set of standards?
if we point to an answer outside of experience, we are
then engaged in metaphysics..... outside of experience....

those who oppose abortions use metaphysical responses
to support their anti-abortion stance....they don't engage
in matters of experience in their defense of being anti-abortion....
abortion is label wrong and that is their entire defense
of being anti-abortion.... they are engaging in metaphysics
when they do so....reaching for first principles, life is sacred,
when they are unable to actually defend that principle using
experience....for experience teaches us that abortion is
a real-world solution to a real-world problem...

the anti-abortion crowd doesn't use experience as an argument
against abortions...and therein lies the problem with metaphysics,
it fails in the face of real-world problems and solutions...
because it is not an engagement with reality or experience....
it is an engagement with what coulda, what shoulda, what woulda..
and not reality...it is a theory vs experience.. and personally,
I will take experience seven days a week and twice on Sundays...

Kropotkin

[Agent Smith]

A certain corpse ... somewhere in the land of stones and grass, green grass ... lies in its rotting coffin ... like one Mr. Ho likes to describe it ... a disarticulated skeleton ... it's ... it's not like England now is it?

[Gary Childress]

A certain corpse ... somewhere in the land of stones and grass, green grass ... lies in its rotting coffin ... like one Mr. Ho likes to describe it ... a disarticulated skeleton ... it's ... it's not like England now is it?

Do you ever shut up? You need to shut up before you start making sense. That's my advice, take it or leave it. I can't help you any further than that. Or if you want to talk to a psychiatrist, that's an option also. Your choice, I can only give you the option I took. I thought it was the best option for me and everyone. I did it for that reason and no other. If my choice was a mistake, then you try to do better if you can.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now as I have stated before, that the primary
modern philosophical question, (since 1850)
has been this:

On what grounds or standards do we base our ethical
and moral theories on?

as the prior grounds for ethics/moral has been metaphysical
in nature... we have based all our ethical/moral theories on
on the idea of good, or goodness or "objective values"
or "subjective values" or the idea of beauty or the search for
money/profits.. all of these have been the previous basis for
ethical/moral theories...

which implies there this is a "god universe" but
our modern belief, said or implied, is that this is
a "no god universe" in which case on what do we
base our ethical/moral theories on?

we have removed the first principle, whatever they may be,
as a basis for ethics/morality.. so on what "rock" do we now base
ethics/morality on? the end of the metaphysical age means the end
of traditional ethics and morals...the end of basing morals and ethics
on a set of beliefs in the metaphysical world...

so, what do we now base ethics/morality on,
if not metaphysical concerns?

as I have noted before, I think we can do so based on
the idea of order vs chaos.....

if it violates order, if it creates chaos/disorder, then ethical
it is wrong... if it help create order, then it is right...
and why order vs disorder?

as I have explained before and do so now...
we human beings must have order in gain our
necessary biological and psychological needs...
if the age is chaotic or disorder, we have a much
harder time getting our biological needs of
food, water, shelter, health care, education..
disorder/chaotic times make it difficult for us
to achieve these biological needs...

whereas an orderly times or situation, allows us to better
able to achieve our biological needs of food, water, shelter.. etc, etc.....
and this is also true of us in our seeking out our psychological needs...
finding love, esteem, a sense of belonging, safety/security...
are all best met in times of order... and much harder to achieve
in times of disorder/chaos...

the question of morality/ethics must be about us being able to
meet both our biological and psychological needs...
for these needs are not voluntary or we can do without them..
we are constructed by evolution to have these needs, failure
to meet these needs means we will either collapse or even die....
and our ethical/moral theories must take this into account....

and thus all of modern philosophy has been a search for an ethical/moral
theory that isn't metaphysical.... without a god or a religion....

and that today is the name of the game... the creation of an ethical/
moral theory that has no metaphysical basis...

and what is that ethical/moral theory?

you tell me....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

so let us bring to life a moral/ethical position...

as noted in my "defense of cross-dressing'' thread....
those who oppose cross-dressing, have certain arguments
against cross-dressing... but those arguments have as a moral/ethical
basis, a metaphysical base... and their arguments are usually fall into
these lines.... its ok to cross-dress until, until it involves the children....
the "what about the children" defense.. ok, what about the children?
what is the defense against allowing cross-dressers to
read to children? the usual defense is, they are "grooming"
children" and the evident for this is, what? so anyone who wants
to read to children is "grooming" children? or perhaps as one has said,
they are reading to children in a "sexual way" and what exactly is
a sexual way? well reading to children on their cross-dressers lap?
ahhh, now we have found out the truth about Santa Claus..
he likes to have children on his lap...and that makes it automatically
sexual.. Santa is a perv.. and is "grooming children". and now you know.....

virtually all moral/ethical arguments are based on a metaphysical
basis...it is wrong because of some metaphysical grounds..
anyone who puts children on their laps to read to them is
corrupting children, "grooming" them....so women who
put children on their lap to read to them, is "grooming''
children or a sexual perv.....or grandparents who read to
their grandchildren are "grooming" them or sexual pervs?

but one might say, there is no sexual intent with parents or
grandparents... but there is sexual intent with cross-dressers...
and you know this how? you can just look at someone and
be able to tell their intent of reading to children while
children are sitting on their lap....Ah, no...you can't...
but does tell me your mental state, you think that by
definition, children sitting someone's lap is sexual and
''grooming" of children... that is within your mind,
if you believe this, the intent is within you.. not on anyone else...

morals/ethics based on metaphysical values can lead someone
being radical wrong about the intent of that person and even
more radical wrong about what their ethics/moral values are....

the ''WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" defense is really about something
within your own head and nothing to do with children or ethics or
morality....

and more importantly, it has nothing to do with what ethics/moral
values ought to be based on... experience and reality.. not on metaphysical
values that have no basis in reality...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

PK seems to be conflating mindreading or projecting or false generalization or generalization with metaphysical values...

virtually all moral/ethical arguments are based on a metaphysical
basis...it is wrong because of some metaphysical grounds..
anyone who puts children on their laps to read to them is
corrupting children, "grooming" them....so women who
put children on their lap to read to them, is "grooming''
children or a sexual perv.....or grandparents who read to
their grandchildren are "grooming" them or sexual pervs?

What metaphysical value must a person with those concerns have?
Perhaps a definition of metaphysical value would help.
For example, it seems to me an atheist secular leftist might have similar concerns about men interacting with other people's children. What is the metaphysical value or belief that is necessary for being concerned about grooming?

How are these concerns different, as far as having some metaphysical belief or value involved, from any other moral or ethical belief?

[Peter Kropotkin]

PK seems to be conflating mindreading or projecting or false generalization or generalization with metaphysical values...

virtually all moral/ethical arguments are based on a metaphysical
basis...it is wrong because of some metaphysical grounds..
anyone who puts children on their laps to read to them is
corrupting children, "grooming" them....so women who
put children on their lap to read to them, is "grooming''
children or a sexual perv.....or grandparents who read to
their grandchildren are "grooming" them or sexual pervs?

What metaphysical value must a person with those concerns have?
Perhaps a definition of metaphysical value would help.
For example, it seems to me an atheist secular leftist might have similar concerns about men interacting with other people's children. What is the metaphysical value or belief that is necessary for being concerned about grooming?

How are these concerns different, as far as having some metaphysical belief or value involved, from any other moral or ethical belief?

K: let me rewrite this to help you...

a Christian hold's that what morality/ethics is, is what is
in the bible.. thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal,
thou shall not take the lords name in vain...
are three such ethical, moral standards,
ethical/moral beliefs... god himself has given us
our ethical/moral beliefs....
they are ''true" because they come from god himself..

now because they are "transcendental'', outside of experience,
or as my handy-dandy dictionary tells me:

Transcendental: relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm:

(in Kantian philosophy) presupposed in and necessary to
experience, "a priori" before experience...

so these ethical/moral beliefs are "transcendental" before experience....
thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not take the lords name
in vain...

if we look at the history of ethics/morals, we can see that what has
been defined as ethical/moral, has come from such "transcendental"
or what might be called as, metaphysical (transcendental and metaphysical
are really the same thing, they stand outside of experience)

and what we hold to be ethical/moral belief systems, such as the one
held by various civilizations/states, Greece or Roman, for example,
their ethical, moral values are derived from their religion, and/or a belief
in god... the Greeks for example held as values to be followed, as
ethical/moral values: loyalty, hospitality, self-control, and family
(to be sure they held other values, but let us keep this simple
to help us understand this) these Greek values were derived from
the gods.. or as the Greeks thought, from Homer, which they felt
were divinely inspired...much of both of Homer's work, the Iliad
and the Odyssey, had much of the action driven by the gods...
take out the gods from both works, and there isn't much left...
just a common war fought over a women....

Greeks values/morals/ethics were derived from the divine Homer,
as virtually all ethical/moral systems are derived from religious/
transcendental/before experience.. from India, the Vedas/
the Puranas, were divinely inspired, the Hindu's belief system practice
eternal values that were inspired by these Hindu texts..
(a wiki search can show this)
religious values, are values that are inspired by the gods/religion,
is the basis of virtually all religions and their ethical/moral beliefs...
and virtually every single moral/ethical system is a system
that is based on religion/or a god....which means that
metaphysical or transcendental values, before experience,
are the values of every society/state/civilization...

Now what happens if, as it has happened in the west,
that we in the west, have lost our belief in god/religion?
or as Nietzsche said, we have killed god... on what do we
base our moral/ethical beliefs on if, if we have no
god? In a no-god universe, upon what values and why those
values, do we use to determine our ethical/moral values?

That is the entire basis of Nietzsche's search... can we base
ethics/moral on human values/beliefs? or said another way,
what experiences do we have, on which we can base our
ethical/moral values on?

Nietzsche decided upon the values of the "higher" man...
those are the values/beliefs that we should hold as
our ethical/moral basis... not on Christianity, which was
as he called it, "values of the slave" the slave was determine
to bring down the "higher" man by forcing the master/the
higher human being to live within Christan or slave values...

for N. the highest moral/ethical values were the "Greeks"
as described by Aristotle in his "Nicomachean Ethics"..
that is the value system that was the basis of Nietzsche
value/moral/ethical system... now note that this value/
belief/moral system is not based on any sort of religious
or belief in god...in a no-god universe, how can we
base values/beliefs/moral/ethics on a god that doesn't exists?
we can't... we must find an ethical/moral system,
(as a basis for what we call ethical/moral without any
recourse to god or a religion) and as I have noted before,
every major philosopher has attempted to create a moral/ethical
system without any reference to either god or a religion.
from N. to Wittgenstein to Heidegger to Sartre, all of them
engaged in the attempt to create a moral/ethical system
that was not from god or religions.. and all of them failed....
and that is the major question of philosophy today...
how do we create/hold to an ethical/moral system that
is entirely based on human values, without any reference
to a god or a religion?

in a no-god universe, what is the basis for our ethical/moral
system? thou shall not kill.. is an excellent moral value,
but can we judge that moral value within human values
and not on religious values or by a god?

So, to be practical again, the right believes that abortions are immoral,
but without any recourse to god or religion, how do we know
that abortions are immoral? on what basis do we decide that
abortions are wrong or evil, in a no-god universe?

or how are we to judge that people who cross-dress and
read to children are "evil' or "wrong" or "immoral" ..
again without any recourse to a god, in a no-god universe?

that is the question before us... on what grounds do we
decide such questions like abortions, book reading
cross-dressers, or the act of murder, is wrong? Again, without
any recourse to a god or religion? Strictly on human beings
and their values....I judge murder to be wrong because of.......?
and without making any reference to god or religion....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

Now what happens if, as it has happened in the west,
that we in the west, have lost our belief in god/religion?

yes, exactly. What is the non- metaphysical source of values/morals?

we can't... we must find an ethical/moral system,
(as a basis for what we call ethical/moral without any
recourse to god or a religion) and as I have noted before,
every major philosopher has attempted to create a moral/ethical
system without any reference to either god or a religion.
from N. to Wittgenstein to Heidegger to Sartre, all of them
engaged in the attempt to create a moral/ethical system
that was not from god or religions.. and all of them failed....
and that is the major question of philosophy today...
how do we create/hold to an ethical/moral system that
is entirely based on human values, without any reference
to a god or a religion?

I don't think we can say they failed or at least we should explain in relation to what criteria.

in a no-god universe, what is the basis for our ethical/moral
system? thou shall not kill.. is an excellent moral value,
but can we judge that moral value within human values
and not on religious values or by a god?

It seems to me you are always using some kind of what gets called metaphysical ontology. All we have here are behaviors and attitudes, those we like and those we don't.

I don't like murder.
Murder is objectively wrong.

For the latter judgment you need something ontologically controversial, that is, metaphysical - again using the term as you are using it. It doesn't have to be religious or theistic, but what is the physical thing that makes something not just a behavior or attitude but a moral that all somehow need recognize?

So, to be practical again, the right believes that abortions are immoral,
but without any recourse to god or religion, how do we know
that abortions are immoral? on what basis do we decide that
abortions are wrong or evil, in a no-god universe?

And how do you know that making abortions available or performing them is moral?

It's as if the Right is the only team that has metaphysical justification.
The left will talk about the right to choose. Rights are metaphysical. They can be legal. But that's not what the Left means. They mean that even if it is illegal it is still a woman's right to choose. I want women to be able to choose, but I don't know what these rights are that they are talking about. It sounds like a metaphysical concept.

or how are we to judge that people who cross-dress and
read to children are "evil' or "wrong" or "immoral" ..
again without any recourse to a god, in a no-god universe?

Well, you can. Just as some can decide that it is good to invest tax dollars in having those readings. Both are deciding that something is has a positive or negative value.

that is the question before us... on what grounds do we
decide such questions like abortions, book reading
cross-dressers, or the act of murder, is wrong? Again, without
any recourse to a god or religion? Strictly on human beings
and their values....I judge murder to be wrong because of.......?
and without making any reference to god or religion....

I've heard the right justify their objections to drag readings without reference to the Bible or God. I've heard support for the readings without direct reference to metaphysical things or processes.

We can certainly try to figure out what we want. We can explain why in relation to consequences.

But as it has always been the case. You can't convince everyone.

There's the rub, humans are diverse. They have diverse values.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Kropotkin" post_id=635426 time=1681489736 user_id=22684]
my entire thread, the "Foundation of Philosophy"
is a metaphysical thread... it asks, what is the first principle,
and metaphysicians have asked that question since the beginning
of time... but notice, at no point did I actually say, Metaphysics..
and the reason is simple, what happens is that people react the
to the word, Metaphysics, instead of thinking about what metaphysics
actually means... like saying "existentialism" and reacting to
the word "existentialism" instead of thinking about what
the problems of existentialism are, or what concepts within
existentialism should we engage with....

in essences, I reject metaphysics and the metaphysical
questions as not relevant in our lives... basically because
as noted, what metaphysical questions actually exists?

is there a god? is there nothing? everything is an illusion?
the subjective, the objective, truth, there is no god...

metaphysical questions go on until the cows come home....
and don't actually lead us anywhere.. ok, there is a god or
as I hold to be true, we live in a no-god universe.....
now what? does the question of knowledge, of epistemology
actually answer this question of whether is a god? nope...
this metaphysical question doesn't have an answer
that actually helps to live our lives... even if, if we
accept the idea of a god, as many proclaim, the clear
goal of religion and belief in god today, encourages people
to base their politics and in forcing others to live within
their religions, as Christians do today, forcing Americans
to practice Christianity, whether or not they are Christians...
to have Christian morality, banning abortion, Christain ethics,
banning trans/gay people, to live as a Christian, by allowing
people to refuse services based on their Christian beliefs,
for example those who won't bake a cake for those who
don't hold Christian beliefs or those who won't sell
condoms or abortion pills because it violates their
own religious beliefs....forcing others to live as Christians,
even if that isn't there belief system...is not only anti-religious,
but anti-democratic... if "all men/people are created equal"
then all values are created equal and must be treated, acted
upon equally... you cannot refuse service to another based
on religious beliefs because your beliefs are equal to their
beliefs... how do you "prove" that your beliefs are
superior or more special than another set of beliefs?

these are metaphysical questions... how is one set of beliefs
superior to another set of beliefs? On what grounds do we
judge a set of beliefs to be superior or inferior?
the only answer appears to be a metaphysical answer....
because that is how god wants it, or it is the "truth"
whatever the truth may happen to be.... your version or mine...
and how do we judge that? what standards are we using?
and why those standards and not another set of standards?
if we point to an answer outside of experience, we are
then engaged in metaphysics..... outside of experience....

those who oppose abortions use metaphysical responses
to support their anti-abortion stance....they don't engage
in matters of experience in their defense of being anti-abortion....
abortion is label wrong and that is their entire defense
of being anti-abortion.... they are engaging in metaphysics
when they do so....reaching for first principles, life is sacred,
when they are unable to actually defend that principle using
experience....for experience teaches us that abortion is
a real-world solution to a real-world problem...

the anti-abortion crowd doesn't use experience as an argument
against abortions...and therein lies the problem with metaphysics,
it fails in the face of real-world problems and solutions...
because it is not an engagement with reality or experience....
it is an engagement with what coulda, what shoulda, what woulda..
and not reality...it is a theory vs experience.. and personally,
I will take experience seven days a week and twice on Sundays...

Kropotkin
[/quote]

Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions. The answers must be as universal as possible because it's the most universally important questions. The fact that the word metaphysics has been used to refer to all manner of nonsense is irrelevant. A philosophy is a coherent set of answers to a set of phosphoryl questions. Metaphysics answers may be judged on whether they form a coherent narrative of our place in the universe. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. An answer is a framework of understanding. When you understand this answer, you'll understand the value of metaphysics.

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, back to the question at hand...
how do we know that cross-dressing, book reading
men are immoral?

as noted before, we are indoctrinated/educated with
certain ideas... and among those indoctrinations,
lie the belief that anyone who cross-dresses, is by
definition, immoral... but as noted, how do we know this?
on what grounds are we to judge that cross-dressing
book reading men are immoral? We must as I have noted
reject metaphysical/transcendental beliefs such as are given
by religion or faith in god...so, how else are we to judge
what is moral and what is immoral?

we can use experience... and to assume, and that is all
those who oppose book reading cross-dressing men do...
if he is cross-dressing, he must be holding to immoral thoughts
about children... he is planning to "groom" children..
and all of is based on what, exactly? your intuition about
the intentions of book reading, cross-dressing men? well,
if that book reading, cross-dressing man puts a child on his lap,
that is of course, his intention to turn the child into another
book reading, cross-dressing man...but that very thought
has no basis in reality.. it is strictly inside your head..
which is based on your own indoctrinations and education...
and we discover the value of overcoming as Nietzsche suggests...

we overcome our indoctrination and education, in which
we think all book reading, cross-dressing men are automatically
suspect of "grooming children" or of being the sexual object
of men, book reading cross-dressing men, by children being put on the
lap of book reading cross-dressing men...

the question here is not about book reading cross-dressing men,
but the question is why you think that all book reading cross-dressing
men are ''grooming children''? or have the intent of sexualizing children
by reading children books to children....

the real question is about your own indoctrinations/education....
what values/beliefs do you hold and why those values/beliefs?

I hold that for most people they hold values and beliefs, they
were indoctrinated with, educated with...your own belief/value
system is there because of the indoctrinations and education
you received as a child... indoctrinations and education from
your family, the state, the schools, the media, the church,..
all play a role in the indoctrinations and education of
children of which you were, once......

for me the question is not about book reading, cross-dressing men
who read books to children while the children are sitting on their
laps... the question to me is about the indoctrinations and education
you received...in which you got your values, beliefs, opinions
and dreams from....we are indoctrinated/educated into holding
certain values and beliefs.. among those values and beliefs
are, the greatness of America, the idea of god, the nature of sin
and how we are all guilty before god because of Adam original sin...
indoctrinations/education, nothing more....

those are the lens through which we view the universe...
we see the world, reality through indoctrinations and education...
thus we see the world falsely.... we act as if, as if, our childhood
indoctrinations and education are actually how the world is...
how reality is..... and that is how most people view book reading,
cross-dressing men, through their childhood indoctrination
and education...

so I hold that what we must do is not assume that the world
is as we believe it is, we must work out what our childhood
indoctrinations/education was and then overcome them...
and by doing so, we can see the world a bit more clearly..
more in line with actual reality, not the reality created
by our indoctrinations and education..

so in a nutshell, we must look inside ourselves before
we can look outside....what values do I hold, that
are actually my values and not values that were
indoctrinated/educated into me......

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Now what happens if, as it has happened in the west,
that we in the west, have lost our belief in god/religion?

I: yes, exactly. What is the non- metaphysical source of values/morals?

K: and we reach the $64,00 dollar question....and all I am attempting
to do is reach the point where we can honestly ask this question...
ask and then finally be able to answer this question.....

we in the west have had 150 years of world wars, the Holocaust,
atomic bombs, the justification of torture and murder as
defended by "in the defense of the state" the state must be able
to defend itself by all means including torture and murder....

on what grounds can we defend this? this is the fundamental
question of our times....how do we defend our beliefs and action,
if we can't defend them on metaphysical/transcendental grounds?

I know murder is wrong.... know how? what knowledge do
you hold that make you sure that you know that murder is wrong?
I know that incest is wrong, and you know this how?
I know that rape is wrong, and you know this how?
just exactly how do you know your values and beliefs
are your own and that they are right?
on what do you base your beliefs on? what knowledge is
the source for your values/beliefs?

that is the question....
and what is your answer?

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

I: yes, exactly. What is the non- metaphysical source of values/morals?

K: and we reach the $64,00 dollar question....and all I am attempting
to do is reach the point where we can honestly ask this question...
ask and then finally be able to answer this question.....

That may be all you are attempting to do, but it's not all you're doing. You frame the issue as those who are against drag queens reading to kids at libraries are basing position on metaphysical values.

Apart from conflating conservatism in all forms with the religious right, it comes off as implicit that those in favor of these events do not derive their positions from metaphysical values.

But here you make it clear there is no answer, yet, to how to derive values other than via metaphysical values. So, it's implict that those on other parts of the political spectrum are doing this.

One nice way to highlight what is missing in your presentation of the issue is that some feminists have come out against the drag queen readings, basing their critiques on what they see as a regressive view of women inherent in drag.

IOW they have derived from somewhere values that are not conservative but still object to the readings. Where are they deriving this? They are nto simply saying they don't like it. They see the readings as wrong. From what realm do they get this read.

What realm to rights come from? (for example) What are they made of?
If we have not solved the non-metaphysical source of values or at least, if you have not, then the fact that your posts, with regularity, imply or state that only conservatives do this, is misleading. Liberals and lefties would be doing this also. They might be atheists, but they are still magically producing values on some metaphysical claims, somewhere in there, if one looks hard emough. Often, however, it's right there on the surface in talk of rights. Rights are metaphysical entities.

we in the west have had 150 years of world wars, the Holocaust,
atomic bombs, the justification of torture and murder as
defended by "in the defense of the state" the state must be able
to defend itself by all means including torture and murder....

on what grounds can we defend this? this is the fundamental
question of our times....how do we defend our beliefs and action,
if we can't defend them on metaphysical/transcendental grounds?

Which is all a worthwhile discussion. But given that you think we can't do this yet, attributing metaphysical values only to one group is problematic.

I know murder is wrong.... know how? what knowledge do
you hold that make you sure that you know that murder is wrong?
I know that incest is wrong, and you know this how?
I know that rape is wrong, and you know this how?
just exactly how do you know your values and beliefs
are your own and that they are right?
on what do you base your beliefs on? what knowledge is
the source for your values/beliefs?

that is the question....
and what is your answer?

I don't have a totalizing answer. I don't have an answer that I can put forward that I consider must bind everyone who reads it to my values. My values are my values.

I can look for common ground. IOW I can find that people who disagree with me dislike X. I can then argue that something I dislike leads to X. They may then, if convinced by stastistics or orther analyses of effects, join me in the dislike of whatever it is I specifically dislike in that instance. Sometimes people don't realize what the positions lead to. I can point to inconsistancies in their positions. But I have no magic tool to say my value is objective and they bow down as I wave my moral wand around.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=635674 time=1681568784 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Kropotkin" post_id=635426 time=1681489736 user_id=22684]
my entire thread, the "Foundation of Philosophy"
is a metaphysical thread... it asks, what is the first principle,
and metaphysicians have asked that question since the beginning
of time... but notice, at no point did I actually say, Metaphysics..
and the reason is simple, what happens is that people react the
to the word, Metaphysics, instead of thinking about what metaphysics
actually means... like saying "existentialism" and reacting to
the word "existentialism" instead of thinking about what
the problems of existentialism are, or what concepts within
existentialism should we engage with....

in essences, I reject metaphysics and the metaphysical
questions as not relevant in our lives... basically because
as noted, what metaphysical questions actually exists?

is there a god? is there nothing? everything is an illusion?
the subjective, the objective, truth, there is no god...

metaphysical questions go on until the cows come home....
and don't actually lead us anywhere.. ok, there is a god or
as I hold to be true, we live in a no-god universe.....
now what? does the question of knowledge, of epistemology
actually answer this question of whether is a god? nope...
this metaphysical question doesn't have an answer
that actually helps to live our lives... even if, if we
accept the idea of a god, as many proclaim, the clear
goal of religion and belief in god today, encourages people
to base their politics and in forcing others to live within
their religions, as Christians do today, forcing Americans
to practice Christianity, whether or not they are Christians...
to have Christian morality, banning abortion, Christain ethics,
banning trans/gay people, to live as a Christian, by allowing
people to refuse services based on their Christian beliefs,
for example those who won't bake a cake for those who
don't hold Christian beliefs or those who won't sell
condoms or abortion pills because it violates their
own religious beliefs....forcing others to live as Christians,
even if that isn't there belief system...is not only anti-religious,
but anti-democratic... if "all men/people are created equal"
then all values are created equal and must be treated, acted
upon equally... you cannot refuse service to another based
on religious beliefs because your beliefs are equal to their
beliefs... how do you "prove" that your beliefs are
superior or more special than another set of beliefs?

these are metaphysical questions... how is one set of beliefs
superior to another set of beliefs? On what grounds do we
judge a set of beliefs to be superior or inferior?
the only answer appears to be a metaphysical answer....
because that is how god wants it, or it is the "truth"
whatever the truth may happen to be.... your version or mine...
and how do we judge that? what standards are we using?
and why those standards and not another set of standards?
if we point to an answer outside of experience, we are
then engaged in metaphysics..... outside of experience....

those who oppose abortions use metaphysical responses
to support their anti-abortion stance....they don't engage
in matters of experience in their defense of being anti-abortion....
abortion is label wrong and that is their entire defense
of being anti-abortion.... they are engaging in metaphysics
when they do so....reaching for first principles, life is sacred,
when they are unable to actually defend that principle using
experience....for experience teaches us that abortion is
a real-world solution to a real-world problem...

the anti-abortion crowd doesn't use experience as an argument
against abortions...and therein lies the problem with metaphysics,
it fails in the face of real-world problems and solutions...
because it is not an engagement with reality or experience....
it is an engagement with what coulda, what shoulda, what woulda..
and not reality...it is a theory vs experience.. and personally,
I will take experience seven days a week and twice on Sundays...

Kropotkin
[/quote]

Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions. The answers must be as universal as possible because it's the most universally important questions. The fact that the word metaphysics has been used to refer to all manner of nonsense is irrelevant. A philosophy is a coherent set of answers to a set of philosophical questions. Metaphysics answers may be judged on whether they form a coherent narrative of our place in the universe. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. An answer is a framework of understanding. When you understand this answer, you'll understand the value of metaphysics.
[/quote]

[Skepdick]

my entire thread, the "Foundation of Philosophy"
is a metaphysical thread... it asks, what is the first principle

The first principle is that there are no first principles.

what metaphysical questions actually exists?

All of them.

and therein lies the problem with metaphysics,
it fails in the face of real-world problems and solutions...
because it is not an engagement with reality or experience....
it is an engagement with what coulda, what shoulda, what woulda..

That's a lot of metaphysical bullshit.

It's implicit in the world "problem" that we should engage reality in a manner that makes the problem go away.

[phyllo]

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:28 pm
my entire thread, the "Foundation of Philosophy"
is a metaphysical thread... it asks, what is the first principle

The first principle is that there are no first principles.

Kropotkin immediately butchered 'first principles' into one "first principle".

Which he then equated with god.

Thus the rest was a total waste of time.