another look at philosophy given it limits...

[Peter Kropotkin]

the point of philosophy is to look at or create
the first principle of existence... to create a universal
belief system that is applicable to everyone...past, present
and future.... to find/create an moral/ethical system that can be
applied to everyone, everywhere....

but as I have pointed out, if philosophy is unable to find/create
a first principle, to find a universal moral/ethical value or system,
what does that do to philosophy?

if philosophy is not an entire look at a first principle, then
what is the point of philosophy?

why do philosophy if we can't discover or find a first principle,
a universal value applicable to all people, at all times..

I would suggest that in only discovering partial values,
values that only apply to some, but not all, we
need to ground our understanding of the universe in
this partial, half understanding of what it means to be human.....

as so much of our values and understanding comes from
our childhood indoctrinations and education,
we can use philosophy to work out or overcome
those childhood indoctrinations/education...

I know this to be true... is not a universal truth, but
a local, within me, truth... and how do I come up with
that truth? I can use philosophy as a guideline to explain
or discover what that truth means to me, not as a universal
truth, but as an individual partial truth applicable to me,
but not to everyone...

so, the question becomes, if the truth, moral/ethical values
are personal, applied to myself alone, how are we to
unify, as a species, as a culture, as a state or as a society...
if the truth is not universal but individual....

Kropotkin

[Agent Smith]

"Painting yer nails again, Maryam?"

"Yep. Do you like the color? Does it suit me?"

"I'm ancient Maryam. Back when I was yer age, things were simpler. Yes, it suits you."

"C'mon, you're not that old!"

"I am, Maryam, I am, but that's not important! The color suits you."

"Thanks."

"I have to go now."

"Where to? It's late."

"A canoe, two paddles, and the ocean waits for me."

[Peter Kropotkin]

or to say this another way, that what we consider to be
"moral'' ''ethical'' is really an historically biased opinion
about what is moral/ethical.....

if we look at historical pictures of children, we see that
boys were dressed as girls, as young children.. my wife
has a picture of her father, as a young child, maybe 3 or so,
dressed as a girl...

and this was an historical fact... rare was a picture
of a young boy, under the age of 4, dressed in "boys"
clothing....

so what does this tell us? that our understanding of cross-dressing men,
is historically driven... and if it has history, it is temporary...
but we must ask, why this changed from history dressing up
boys as girls, to today, to todays, hypermasculinity?

History is in fact a series of actions and reactions to our past...
the 60's, the hippies are a reaction to the rigid and strictness of
the 1950's.. which was a reaction to the recent World War...
and the 30's were a reaction to current events,
as was the twenties to the prior events of WW1...

And so, today we are reacting to previous, prior events...
and thus comes this attack on cross-dressing, transgenders,
and gays....

and what brought about this current history of attacking trans/gays?
it is a reaction to history... those who attack trans/gays are actually
acting from fear... the current hysteria about transgender people
comes from the fear created by 9/11 and fears caused by our insecurities
about who we are today... for every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction.. Newton's third law....

and just as this is true of nature and physical events, it
is also true of human beings and their actions...

one time, my daughter in reaction to something we did,
came into our living room and announced that she was a lesbian.,.
and we said, great, more power to you, and less then 10 minutes
later, she came back and announces she wasn't a lesbian...
and we said, great, more power to you.,... because we didn't react,
she had nothing to react to....she was looking for some sort of
reaction and didn't get it.. and she moved on.....
and that is human nature....to seek a reaction
and if they don't get it, they move on.....

want to end men dressing like women, just accept it
as normal and part of what it means to be human,
and cross dressing will end in less than a year....
there is nothing to react to if we just accept it as
normal...

such is the nature of human beings....is it a universal reaction?
nah, it is, as almost as human behavior is, temporary, "ad hoc"
subject to the ebb and flow of what is going on today within
the world and our lives....

for most people, most people they don't usually go about cross-dressing,
and that is ok... as is cross-dressing is ok...or being transgender
as is being gay or binary, sexually or whatever else is going on
in the mind of people...( I just can't keep up with what people
are self-identifying with sexually, and frankly, I don't care.
it makes no difference to me how you sexually identify as)

so the point of philosophy isn't to understand or work out the universal
principle on which we base our lives on, there are no universal principles
to base our lives on, but we can philosophically think about our local,
''ad hoc" beliefs and see if they have any validity to us... if they are not
just beliefs and values indoctrinated/educated into us....
that is the value of philosophy.. to explore the beliefs and values
that we have individually about ourselves and the world...

am I gay? I have examined that belief/value and decided I am not
gay.. and I have no need to be gay... it is of no interest to me.....
it doesn't threaten me or challenge me, it is just a belief that
some people have about themselves... and more power to them...
I don't need to act or react to the fact that some people
are gay or think themselves to be gay... but to those who
feel threatened by gay people, you need to examine why
you feel threaten by gay people? what is it a reaction to?
is is just a continuation of your indoctrinated values/education....

philosophy is for the understanding of what values/beliefs we hold
and why those values/beliefs and not other values/beliefs....
it is an individual question as to what values I hold and if those
values/beliefs are indeed indoctrinations/education, what values/
beliefs should I be holding?

Kropotkin

[Agent Smith]

Watch Sean Michael Carrol (1966 - ?) - philosophy & science come together in him. That said, it's hard ta tell where P begins and S ends and that, mon ami, is precisely why we evolved a particular seta glands.

[alan1000]

A debate between Peter Kropotkin and Agent Smith.

And Jesus wept...

[Iwannaplato]

or to say this another way, that what we consider to be
"moral'' ''ethical'' is really an historically biased opinion
about what is moral/ethical.....

if we look at historical pictures of children, we see that
boys were dressed as girls, as young children.. my wife
has a picture of her father, as a young child, maybe 3 or so,
dressed as a girl...

Do you mean the parents actually thought they were putting girls' clothes on a boy? Or do you mean that what is considered now to be girl's clothes was what boy's wore?

and this was an historical fact... rare was a picture
of a young boy, under the age of 4, dressed in "boys"
clothing....

Same question: do you mean that what they dressed in then was not what we would consider boy's clothing now?

so what does this tell us? that our understanding of cross-dressing men,
is historically driven..

Certainly attitudes and judgments have changed, but cross-dressing would be a very similar phenomenon: the desire to wear clothes associated with the opposite sex. If you have a cross-dresser who gets sexual satisfaction out of that they actually NEED there to be sex-assigned clothing. It doesn't matter what, but they would get pleasure out of dressing like the opposite sex. In fact they'd lose something if there was no such thing. Might be a net gain, but some crossdressers would probably have to find some other way to feel what they feel when they crossdress.

and if it has history, it is temporary...
but we must ask, why this changed from history dressing up
boys as girls, to today, to todays, hypermasculinity?

I think this is confused. I also don't think today compared to 50 or 100 years ago men are hypermasculin. Can you demonstrate that.

It seems like you are basing a theory on changes of fashion, rather than say, that the sexes were considered the same or men were less masculin then.

History is in fact a series of actions and reactions to our past...
the 60's, the hippies are a reaction to the rigid and strictness of
the 1950's.. which was a reaction to the recent World War...
and the 30's were a reaction to current events,
as was the twenties to the prior events of WW1...

And so, today we are reacting to previous, prior events...
and thus comes this attack on cross-dressing, transgenders,
and gays....

Whatever the era was when you think boys were being dressed as girls, gays and crossdressers were in much more danger and much more discrminated against than they are now. There would be no out politicians, sports figures, movie stars, doctors, electricians, whatever. You did that and you were toast. Hollywood would make you marry someone under the same production company so you seemed straight. Hitting on a straight man as a gay would with great regularily put in you in the way of violence.

And transgenders, forget about it. Whatever era you are talking about with boys in girls clothes or probably boys in clothes we would now consider feminine, they were vastly more homophobic, transphobic and homophobic in relation to crossdressers (who may or may not have been gay).

and what brought about this current history of attacking trans/gays?
it is a reaction to history... those who attack trans/gays are actually
acting from fear... the current hysteria about transgender people
comes from the fear created by 9/11 and fears caused by our insecurities
about who we are today... for every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction.. Newton's third law....

Which is about inert matter.

and just as this is true of nature and physical events, it
is also true of human beings and their actions...

Nah.

one time, my daughter in reaction to something we did,
came into our living room and announced that she was a lesbian.,.
and we said, great, more power to you, and less then 10 minutes
later, she came back and announces she wasn't a lesbian...
and we said, great, more power to you.,... because we didn't react,
she had nothing to react to....she was looking for some sort of
reaction and didn't get it.. and she moved on.....
and that is human nature....to seek a reaction
and if they don't get it, they move on.....

want to end men dressing like women, just accept it
as normal and part of what it means to be human,
and cross dressing will end in less than a year....
there is nothing to react to if we just accept it as
normal...

Sure and if gays are accepted everyone will be heteorsexual. If you accept conservatives, everyone will be liberal.
Accept transpersons and they won't be transpersons.
It's ironic: you'd actually get cancelled by the Left if you were somehow publshing this somewhere where anyone actually visited or you had some a political position or some other claim to even a whiff of fame.

am I gay? I have examined that belief/value

You examined your values and beliefs????
Like, you didn't notice that you weren't attracted to men that way, you needed to examine your values???
Did you find that being gay went against your values?

and decided I am not
gay.. and I have no need to be gay... it is of no interest to me.....
it doesn't threaten me or challenge me, it is just a belief that
some people have about themselves

You think being gay is about belief? Like it's not about attraction?
Are you attracted to women or a woman because of a belief, or were you attracted to her?
Do you choose ice cream on the grounds of your beliefs?
I hate Brussel Sprouts when I was a kid and I wanted to hold hands with girls and not boys. I would blush and get shy around girls. Not much has changed there except my focus on one woman.
Did I hate Brussel Sprouts because of a belief?

[Age]

the point of philosophy is to look at or create
the first principle of existence...to create a universal
belief system that is applicable to everyone...past, present
and future.... to find/create an moral/ethical system that can be
applied to everyone, everywhere....

To 'you' 'it' may well be, but to the rest of 'us' 'it' CERTAINLY IS NOT.

UNCOVERING the ALWAYS EXISTING 'moral/ethical system' that ALREADY DOES apply to EVERY one, EVERYWHERE has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

but as I have pointed out, if philosophy is unable to find/create
a first principle, to find a universal moral/ethical value or system,
what does that do to philosophy?

'you', "peter kropotkin", NOT being able to find NOR create some 'thing' does absolutely NOTHING to 'philosophy', itself, and this is BECAUSE of what the word 'philosophy' references to, EXACTLY.

if philosophy is not an entire look at a first principle, then
what is the point of philosophy?

The word 'philosophy' came about to refer to 'that part' of just HAVING a 'love-of-wisdom', or in other words JUST HAVING a LOVE of 'learning and becoming wiser'. The 'point' of 'philosophy', itself, is to become JUST WISER.

why do philosophy if we can't discover or find a first principle,
a universal value applicable to all people, at all times..

LOL It WAS from HAVING a True LOVE OF or a True DESIRE to LEARN MORE and ANEW, and thus JUST BECOME WISER, Naturally.

Through and from just HAVING A REAL LOVE OF WANTING TO LEARN MORE, and thus BECOMING WISER, Naturally, one VERY QUICKLY, VERY SIMPLY, and VERY EASILY i will add, JUST DISCOVERS, FINDS, LEARNS, and thus COMES-TO-KNOW and UNDERSTAND the FIRST PRINCIPLE, which APPLIES to EVERY one, EVERYWHERE.

Which, by the way, I have POINTED TO and SHOWN 'this' throughout this forum a few times, ALREADY.

I would suggest that in only discovering partial values,
values that only apply to some, but not all, we
need to ground our understanding of the universe in
this partial, half understanding of what it means to be human.....

Well that seems like a pretty obvious GIVEN.

The QUESTION is HOW, EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I have POINTED OUT and SHOWN 'this' throughout this forum a few times, ALREADY.

as so much of our values and understanding comes from
our childhood indoctrinations and education,
we can use philosophy to work out or overcome
those childhood indoctrinations/education...

SO, WHY have 'you' NOT ALREADY USED 'philosophy' here "peter kropotkin"?

WHY do 'you' DO and USE the VERY OPPOSITE "thing' OF 'philosophy'?

I know this to be true... is not a universal truth, but
a local, within me, truth... and how do I come up with
that truth? I can use philosophy as a guideline to explain
or discover what that truth means to me, not as a universal
truth, but as an individual partial truth applicable to me,
but not to everyone...

Well it seems rather ABSURD to be USING the very 'thing', which UNCOVERS and FINDS 'Universal Truths', to just find some very unimportant and insignificant so-called 'truths' ABOUT 'you', ALONE.

so, the question becomes, if the truth, moral/ethical values
are personal, applied to myself alone, how are we to
unify, as a species, as a culture, as a state or as a society...
if the truth is not universal but individual....

Kropotkin

OF COURSE 'you', individual human beings, have 'your' OWN so-called 'truths', but 'they' are CERTAINLY NOT necessarily ALIGNED with the One and ONLY 'Universal Truths'.

Which, by the way, are EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to UNCOVER, and FIND, and almost IMMEDIATELY i will add here.

That is; ONCE one LEARNS and KNOWS H.O.W.