Well if we can agree that the freedom of speech issue in Britain is being whipped up by the populists and the Tory’s who are aping the populists, along with themedia organs aiding them in this. — Punshhh

I think it is mostly down to social media that makes what was already there present in your face. I do not honestly think anything has gotten much worse overall in day-to-day life. I could be completely wrong though. I am not really in the best position to say and nor can I judge your view as I do nto know you at all.

However we do seem to now have freedoms of speech extended to be racist in public and on media platforms, mysogonist, to lie in the media, unquestioned and to spread conspiracy theories as fact.
It now seems to be much worse to accuse someone of being racist (you’re not allowed to) than it is to actually be racist (which is fine). — Punshhh

Much worse compared to when exactly? What is the metric? I am not being snarky at all here, just want to know on what kind of information you are basing this on.

I know there is a going to be a substantial declin ein living standards in the UK (and already has been) over the coming decades and that this will undoubtedly play into the hands of populists, so I am likely to take your perspective seriously. I have friends and family there who say things have generally gotten worse in many areas of life; financially, socially and politically.

In the sense that we are viewing morality as simply 'preference' ('boo!' or 'yay!') empathy is what extends the 'boo!' or 'yay!' to others. This sets up the framework for what we commonly call 'morality' but morality is still just preferences not some objective framework. It may appear as objective because these kinds of frameworks have allowed humasn to function more effectively as social units.

People experience empathy very differently. — Tom Storm

Nevertheless, they are empathetic.

But for me, morality is a social phenomenon: it concerns how we behave toward one another, so some account of shared value has to enter the picture. — Tom Storm

If it is a social phenomenon then based on what, if not how we dispose ourselves and express our feelings? The shared account is an expression of collective empathy. Someone not concerned about people being punched in the face has probably never seen anyone be punched in the face.

Experience hardens or softens 'feelings'. Reason helps us shape this experience into a more sceptical and open framework when assessing 'right' from 'wrong'.

At root I believe the whoel confusion lies in the conflicting uses of 'ought' in the epistemic, moral and logical senses of the term. These seems to be repeatedly consumed and spat out by each by many people trying to hold to a rigid line of thought.

The premise being pushed here in this thread is a misunderstanding of the situation. Namely that freedom of speech in the U.K. is under attack. It isn’t [...] — Punshhh

Well, it is. The UK is not an exception though. Freedom in any form has to be fought for. Differing freedoms compete and conflict.

Be worried when no one is attacking or defending any form of freedom. When that happens it is game over!

This is why I am more in favour of tackling ideas that conflict with people's hard fought for freedoms, rather than pushing them aside. Conflict is a necessary state of being as far as I can tell.

I am pretty sure 'spiritual' matters have not waxed or waned, it is more or less a change in how we view this or that as spiritual.

The manner in which people treat the concept of money is very much a 'spiritual' in comparison to say how others woudl regard religious piety in the past. The admixture of status, or social reputation, feeds into the ideation on the self; thus, people measure their own self value in a variety of ways all of which are at base 'spiritual'. Meaning a recognition of where the ego collides with 'otherness'.

Perhaps this is more or less what you are clutching at in the OP? If so maybe I can refine it further in the future, but sadly I am away soon so will not likely be able to post until next year.

If you are an emotivist this is not a particularly relevant question. You decide based on what suits your own disposition. People tend to prefer things that benefit them. An entirely selfish or selfless person will soon come to realise that you have to be selfless and selfish to some degree respectively.

If something 'feels' right to you it feels right. You can of course come to change your mind about it with more information. If your feelings do not fit into societal norms you then bend them to your will as best you can or suck it up. The culminative effect has been what we broadly refer to as 'morality' but I see no reason to say 'killing people is wrong' is necessarily a True statement.

What I personally find most intriguing is the interplay between normative values across different domains, and exactly how different such domains really are. If anything I think the most moral act anyone can make is to sacrifice their own sense of morality for the betterment of others because I am someone who values humanity. I 'feel' that human is good.

Every moral position (realist or otherwise) has problems logically. I think this is simply because there is more to life than abstract truths.

The main argument against an emotivist position that adherents of it tend to struggle with is precisely what you outlined. If there is no point from which two people can agree on then it is impossible to figure out a better course.

Here are two problems with this criticism.

(1) Can this be at all possible? Can two people never come to a general agreement about anything deemed 'moral' from which to build a common understanding from.

(2) Even if it is granted that (1) is possible, then does this criticism not also lie at the feet of every moral theory there is? Meaning, just because someone says or believes they are not X or are Y does this mean they actually are. The subjective nature of the kinds of problems involved in ethics means people either stop thinking and resort to a theoretical framework that suits their 'gut feeling' (altruism, some form of consequentialism, or perhaps deontic stance), rather than actually tackle the reasons they feel they way they do as opposed to what they think is 'right' or 'wrong' or how they morally 'ought to' feel about this or that.

I am unsure. I remain unsure. I have experiences that have given me certain insights, but they are wholly subjective so I simply have to do as I do and question as I go.

The labels we use serve a purpose in discourse not as a picture frame for reality. I do see too many adhering to 'emotivism' or 'virtue ethics,' or whatever other niche carved out in the landscape of ethics, as if it is a writ physical law they must abide by.

They are all useful and contrastign perspectives that can allow us to understand others thoughts and actions as well as our own. I still end on the simple thought that people 'feel' this or that way is better suited to them at this or that given moment. If I need a label to sketch my ethical disposition it is as some kind of emotivist, but (big BUT!) it tells you very, very little about how I regard other people's views and values, how I judge them, if I judge them, and what actual moral theories I may feel are better generally, or specifically in certain contexts.

But this doesn’t resolve the problem — Tom Storm

I do not see a problem. Meaning, I do not think it makes sense to view such as problematic. It is a bit like saying 'life is problematic' .. well, yeah! If it was not would we bother doing anything. Problems are good things not bad things; unless you 'feel' otherwise of course ;)

As an explicit example you can ask anyone this simple question:

"What is the biggest problem you have?"

Then whatever they may say think about whether or nto they have really said anything much other than "I do not like this thing" understanding that underneath it there is a whole invisble world upon which such claims remain oblivious to.

I recommend Bernard Williams' 'Ethics and The Limits of Philosophy' if you wish to dive deeper (note: he is not an emotivist).

If morality is just about how you feel, why should anyone else care about your feelings at all, and why should you care about theirs? — Tom Storm

Because it makes practical sense to do so. Empathy exists.

Whereas I would say that what makes Bob's thread bannable is not that it is "essentialist" (because many progressive readings of race, sex, gender, etc.are also essentialist in many respects) but because it is a (facile) argument in favor of the reasonableness of racism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That may have been the case 100 years ago, but certainly not now. But you have said "essentialist" in quotes so maybe you mean something different.

Either way such discussions can be taken up in the forum proper.

I was looking for a specific cite to a specific journal that mirrors the 7 bullet pointed conclusions set forth at the beginning of this banning entry. — Hanover

That is a different topic. I was referring to the one on racism. I provided examples of people in academia who both argued for and against race as a 'natural kind'.

My hesitancy in letting this go is that you're suggesting his post was true — Hanover

What are you talking about? Where did I suggest anything of the sort? The thread was closed before I could even comment on it. The other (homosexuality) was deleted (and I did comment on that one).

His framing of the term 'bad' and 'moral' were strange to say the least. I can maybe see the logical argument he was trying to form and pushed back against it. You cannot see because that thread was deleted.

:lol: :D

You can probably find the different positions of race as 'social kind' and 'natural kind' taught in practically every reputable university.

Framing his stance as essentialist based on the post he provided is less than charitable. It speaks for itself. It is very, very much a 'natural kind' stance not an essentialist one.

He literally stated:

I will firstly note that this discussion post is not:

1. Suggesting that any race is better than the other;
2. Holding that race is an essential property of a human; nor
3. That race can be used to segregate, deny rights, or otherwise persecute people of different races.

Hence, he is talking about race in the sense of 'natural kind'.

If you wish to read up on the idea of 'race' as a 'natural kind' or as a 'social kind' these might help:

- Sally Haslanger
- Quayshawn Spencer*
- Joshua Glasgow
- Lewtonin (?)
- Rosenberg (data analysis rather than philosopher if I recall?)
- Robin Andreason*

(*advocates of forms of 'natural kind')

If you do not there is no definitive answer to this. Some points from the 'natural kind' side hold weight, but there is certainly more traction in terms of 'social kinds'. Personally, I think there is an admixture of sorts.

In terms of essentialism we already know that there is more diversity within a group of people than there are between groups of people. That is not up for debate as far as I can see. If it was it would be on highly, highly, highly speculative grounds at best!

I actually do think these kinds of topics are going to grow in importance as people start tinkering with their DNA and augmenting their bodies. At some point we are going to have to deal with a picture of humanity that is less and less distinct as a singular species due to such technological innovations. Such uncomfortable talk today helps prepare the grounf for better and more accurate discussions in the future, surely?

Anyway, flogging a dead horse. He is gone. Someone else will tryand bring up such things again I am sure and maybe they will do a better job of it :)

Maybe life would be worse if we all tried harder, instead of just doing, as Nike and Yoda might argue. — bert1

True enough :D Trying not to try takes serious effort!

Pretending to be whatever a human being, is possibly meant to be, is an interesting passtime :)

He was advocating for Essentialist views or Natural Kind views. I think it leans more towards a Natural Kind view, so why not simply engage with it that way?

I just so happen to know about this area as it was the subject of my final essay last year.

I think it would have been very interestign to dive into discussion about differences and similarities between national identity and race identity. This is kind of what he was getting at, but form a 'Natural Kind' view rather than 'Social Kind' view.

If that singular post is representative of his approach I see nothing wrong with it. His post about homophobia was strange in the manner in which it used the concept of morality and wrong, but was certainly one that could have led to a very productive discussion on all these front and centre issues on personal identity and their political weight.

I do find engaging in political topics tiresome because all too often people (including myself) are just too ready to put you in a box if you happen to question something they feel strongly about. I am sure we can just cut past the snipes and fluff and get to the heart of the interest if we all tried a little harder right? I do not expect it is easy to do, but I belive it is more than worthwhile at least trying to.

It goes both ways. Paying for basic healthcare and education is inherently wrong to me. Some things we take for granted are deemed irredeemably unethical when we move away from our cultural centres.

I so judge other countries based on my own personal experiences :D

People shouldn't get falsely arrested. Yet actually convictions are where the actual issue lies. Anyone can make claims that this or that person's public views are basically hate speech etc. First level is if someone takes this to court or a prosecutor makes a case of it. — ssu

I completely disagree. If someone is arrested on false grounds they have had their freedom removed. If you had to spend the night in a cell, and suffer the indignation of being hauled away, then I think this is a major issue.

Not taking this seriously can lead to people being arrested on trumped up charges simply because there is a political motive to do so. That the conviction goes through is way worse, but the root of the problem lies in false arrest rather than false prosecution.

I think this started in the UK with the grooming gang scandal. If it happened earlier, please let me know.

The solution to this is simply transparency: never, ever hide the statistics or the ethnicity of convicted felons. Do not give an impression that you are hiding something, nothing erodes public trust more and gives credibility to issues like. Also treating ethnic groups differently, if they react differently to arrests etc. is a very bad strategy. — ssu

This happened due to social media. When I was growing up and you heard of this or that crime being committed the identity of the perpetrators were kept mostly out of the public eye. The world has changed, that is all.

In this light I can argue just as well that nothing erodes public trust more than being exposed to information seasoned and cooked up by platforms with a money driven agenda to rake in $$$$ rather than provide a vague and distanced picture of current affairs.

Note: I have no solution. Just pointing out that there are just too many factors to consider here and most people have no time to filter through even half of the data out there. Even less have the ability to moderate their own opinions or form a reasonable representation of what is going on.

Being blind can tell you more than having full sight in some circumstances. I think everyone is politically hoodwinked. Such is life as a human :)

Assuming he is 'wrong' is anti-philosophical.

Maybe people had tried to point out the inconsistent use of terminology? I have no idea. If it is the case that he was just repeatedly pushing the same position over and over without engaging with the criticism laid at his feet, then fair enough.

The post as it was laid out was homophobic because people view it as homophobic. For race he was questioning the its use as a 'social construct' as opposed to essentialist claims.

Would I be allowed to start a thread questioning the validity of the uses of terms like 'homosexual' or 'race'. These are all relevant in terms of how we communicate and sort through the messiness of language. I do not see the point in gagging people on the basis of hate speech.

Let racists speak out. Let homophobes speak out. There are certainly areas where someo would label one person as 'racist' where others would not, as there are areas where people are labeled as 'homophobic' by some when others would not.

The necessary messiness of communication means we should do more of it with an intent to disagree in some areas and agree in others. Trying to understand why people hold the views they hold allows us to better understand why we hold the views we do, and perhaps question the reasoning and reinforce or rethink our approach.

All that said, this is a private enterprise though. Anyone can be banned for any reason the owner sees fit. It matters not if we agree or disagree with them that much.

My criticism can be considered or not. I am pretty sure the owner appreciates being questioned if they set up a philosophy forum.

He made an attempt to define his understanding of what 'morality' meant to him and said that within those contexts.

Questions about the use and meaning of terms like 'race' and 'homosexuality' are very much front and centre in western academia.

He framed his understaanding of 'morality' his way. I questioned that and hoped to point him towards a better way to frame his words. That will not happen now.

The thing is this is the exact kind of questioning front and centre in mainstream academia.

Your rules are your rules though. I think attempts to open discussion on sensitive topics are a good idea.

I see no problem with someone espousing views I dislike if they do so in a graceious manner and an open mind.

Yet the case was immediately dismissed by judge, which brought credibility to the system. — ssu

This is precisely the point Rowan Atkinson was making. It is not credibility to the system if someone is falsely arrested. Someone should not be arrested for such acts in the first place.

It is what it is though. Could be far worse.

From 2012: Rowan Atkinson on Free Speech

This seems a bit odd to foreigners, who don't know so well the UK legal system and the actual practices. — ssu

Why? People are falsely arrested in other countries too.

@flannel jesus

Do you think it's necessary to distinguish between freedom of private speech and freedom of public speech? — Astorre

This is an important (and impossible) distinction.

Certain things are not allowed to be discussed on this forum even though they are pertinent to philosophy. This is a private domain though.

What counts as 'public' and 'private' is not always clear. This is especially the case when it comes to the simple fact that most of what people say can easily be spread on the information highway with a simple click.

It is not a new thing. People have been arrested for doign next to nothing many times in the UK.

It is not the ones going to prison that is really an issue, it those who get arrested when they should never have been arrested in the first place. Rowan Atkinson made a speech about this around two decades ago I believe (?) about this.

Someone being arrested for nothing and then released is poor policing. The example given was someone getting arrested for calling a horse 'gay'.

The biggest difference today is simply social media. Everywhere I look people are glued to their phones watching every little thing going on. If people wish to make X look like Y they can pretty easily.

When it comes to 'inciting violence' I think it is hard to draw a line as to what constitutes incitement and what does not.

More recent work has centred on the presumption that disability is inherently a bad thing. That rather than being inherently negative, having a disability is just one more way of being a human, not inherently a disadvantage or a negative, but treated as such by many in the community. It’s in this area that perhaps the most interesting recent work in the philosophy of disability is continuing. — Banno

Really. Interesting. I would say it is inherently negative for obvious reasons ('dis-'). How does the term translate into other languages? I imagine there's a variety of terms that have no negative elements.

Personally, if I was blind I would not be too pleased with people calling me 'disabled'. I would simply, if necessary, to be referred to as being 'blind'.

What is a 'true philosophical depth' of any definition?

Ontology and Epistemology are effectively the same, but also different. If that is what you are getting at?

I do not understand what the problem is. Words have different uses. It is not mathematics.

Nature is synonymous with Normal, but not always. Why is this such a problem for you? Do you have the same issue with Usual and Typical?

Words are words. They are not reality.

Why do you wish to create your own language? What purpose is this meant to serve?

Normal can be used to express natural.

Usual, normal and typical are truer synonyms.

I am curious why you say 'supernatural' rather than 'unnatural'?

In terms of flexibility, I would say 'natural' has a different set of polysemic uses to the other three cases. That there is overlap is likely due to how metaphorical usage slowly alters into literal usage overtime.

In terms of basic sturtural use 'usual' is perhaps closer to 'natural' as they both use the same prefix in 'un-' whereas the other two have more unusual (or less 'natural') structures. it does sound out of place to say 'natural' here because creativity in linguistics allows for a greater sense of flexibility in how words can be repurposed.

I would say it is abnormal for humans to have more or less than two legs, and I would say that it is unnatural for humans to have more or less than two legs.

In short:

I don't think normal is equivalent to natural (which resorts to central tendancy). — Copernicus

It can be. Just like an apple is equivalent to a banana if we are using them as examples of fruit, natural and normal are equivalent if using them as examples of commonalities only, not specifically. Reminds me of how 'little' is used more by children and 'small' more by adults--certain cultural 'norms' of use, or 'natural' uses, dictate how we receive what is being said.

Nature cares not about us. We have departed from our natural state of living by way of civil interactions that have culminated in the biggest threat to our lives being each other.

Our aggression and violence are not a negative traits. The simple fact that they are no longer directed in opposition to the forces of nature (for most people) means we seek out other avenues of direct opposition to combat against. This comes in many forms over the course of human civil history.

A tree bears fruit we can gorge on and branches that can impale us.

Humans offers both opportunities for companionship and competition.

Incoherent gibberish. bye bye

I was just explaining on the origin of the word. The word didn't exist. — Corvus

No you were not:

The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real. — Corvus

That is not an explanation of the origin of the word. Neither does it come close to saying the word did not exist before.

I am not saying that the subtle body is a substance of substance dualism, but arguing that it may point to a more complex picture than currently envisioned within science. — Jack Cummins

The problem is you are not saying what you mean by 'subtle body'. It this area of interest there are multiple interpretations and meanings that can be used for certain terms. Without any context all we are going to do is talk past each other.

The creative process is involved and it has less of a quasi religious aspect than what may often be called spiritual. Eureka moments or epiphanies are important in the process of human individuation or a person's life quest.. — Jack Cummins

This might be getting closer to some idea of what you are trying to talk about? Are you just asking about ASCs?

I will revert back to saying gibberish then. :D

So you simply meant that trans- is a modifier? I think we know that. It is still a 'real' prefix. What were you trying to say?

bi- and bilingual is the same structure too. So what?

Gibberish

Etymology of Trans-

So you are suggesting this as a form of substance dualism with the 'subtle body' being consciousness? As in consciousness is simply the interaction between two distinct substances?

Is that it? If so how are you proposing we look at this in terms of how consciousness has 'evolved'?

But, that is not the only way of thinking and it is possible that consciousness is not entirely dependent on the physicality of the body as the apparatus. — Jack Cummins

Maybe. Still unsure what you are asking in the OP though. Can we blindly speculate about how some non-physical aspect of human consciousness has shaped the evolution of human consciousness? If you think so, then what is your speculative approach?

I am talking about exactly what I said I was talking about repeatedly, over and over.

Epistemic norms are not the same as logical norms in terms of truth value. I have been pointing out , for god knows how long, that Banno is constantly favouring logical normativity over epistemic normatively--which outside the confines of techincal dialogue is basically a faulty approach.

Just like 200 years ago if you said 'doctor' you ought to assume 'male doctor' not 'female doctor' because the epistemic weight backs this up. To say we ought not assume 'doctor' means 'male doctor' is a logical normative approach not an epistemic normative use of 'ought'.

NOTE: This is not my opinion. If Banno think I am making no sense that is something he will have to overcome. Honestly I just think he is trolling now, as I assume the laughing face means 'haha!' you tookt he bait, or 'haha' you're wrong. If it is the later then he can engage is a serious metaphilosophical debate if he wishes.

There actually is something interesting to get into here if you are willing. There is literally no need to use tranwomen as an example if that is too sensitive a subject for you?

So:

1- Logic should not prioritise itself above epistemology in a logical normative sense.

2- Epistemology should prioritise itself over logic in an epistemic normative sense. — I like sushi

Do you understand what I am pointing to here? I am looking at what I guess could be called a meta-normative problem here.

In order to carry his OP, Phim has to show it is false in every case. it isn't. — Banno

This is not true. You do not need to show something to be false in every case for it to be epistemically true.

Why can you not grasp this simple fact?

I think we need to establish the materialistic and energy/consciousness difference. — Athena

Do so please. I do not think there is any such thing as materialistic spirituality, other than by way of fetishism? Or are you talking about something akin to 'soul'/'mind' when you think of spirituality?

Please do steer clear of quantum woo-woo talk or this will go nowhere fast. I first love was physics.

No. I am saying they are both valid.

We can, not we ought. — Banno

Of course, the epistemic and logical use of 'ought' are both valid. We can use either.

You have essentially restated (1):

1- Logic should not prioritise itself above epistemology in a logical normative sense.

2- Epistemology should prioritise itself over logic in an epistemic normative sense. — I like sushi

You are being very slippery here ;)

We use one in one situation and another in another?

A red apple is an apple. Logical ought says true. Epistemic ought says we should think so even though it may not be the kind of apple we are thinking of; therefore, true.

What are your thought about statement (2)?