@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)?

You are prioritising the logical normative meaning over the everyday epistemic normative use.

Like here:

If I am talking about apples and how tasty they are you can assume I am talking about apple devices, but that would be pretty silly, unless you are assuming I mean 'tasty' in a metaphorical sense.
— I like sushi

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.

What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women. — Banno

You are taking normative logical priority over normative epistemology.

Maybe now we can get into the nuts and bolts of philosophical discourse! :smile:

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 think you are being culturally biased. — Athena

No, I was being techincal:

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants. — I like sushi

Here is a snippet of the kind of things 'spirituality' covers:

I am using the term "spirituality" to describe the everyday ways ordinary
people attend to their spiritual lives. Some people describe themselves as deeply
spiritual, and some devote considerable energy and discipline to their spiritual
development. Others consider themselves not very spiritual or religious, or not
interested in having a spiritual life. Some find spiritual development and sup
port as committed members of a congregation; others see no connection be
tween their spiritual lives and any organized religious group. Some consciously
choose practices to enhance their spirituality; others notice their spiritual prac
tices only retrospectively or when asked to think consciously of them (for
instance, in response to a sociologist-interviewer).

Lived religion is constituted by the practices people use to remember, share,
enact, adapt, create, and combine the stories out of which they live. And it
comes into being through the often-mundane practices people use to trans
form these meaningful interpretations into everyday action.1 Human bodies
matter, because those practices—even interior ones, such as contemplation—
involve people's bodies, as well as their minds and spirits — Lived Religion Faith and Practice in Everyday Life MEREDITH B. McGUIRE (p. 98)

What does reality with a capital R mean? — Athena

Looking at it as 'The Universe/Totality' rather than 'A Deity' (in terms of some Buddhist views).

As you can probably tell, this is not a subject matter I pass over in a trivial manner. I have actually but a fair bit of study into this from various different perspectives. It is a very tricky topci to discuss due to the nature of the subjective feelings and experiences involved. I am more interested in objective uses.

Spirituality, just like Religion, means different thigns to different people. If we are all using different meanings without knowing it, then the chances of a productive discussion are likely reduced.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.

What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women. — Banno

It is salient if you are sticking strictly to normativity in the logical sense rather than the epistemological sense. You have just continued to corner yourself in the logical sense.

I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans. — Banno

And as we have said, epistemology nomrativity says otherwise. It is not defeasible, but it is more than reasonable to state that we ought to believe "woman in a forest" refers to a female. You understand this perfectly well I imagine; and have stated this elsewhere I think?

Accept that there are epistemic norms just as there are logical norms. Accept that in day-to-day speech we tend to see epistemic norms in use rather than niche cases. It should also be noted that given this has been a hot topic it makes sense to actually state transwoman when referring to a transwoman to avoid confusion (you know, standard understanding so everyone knows what the hell is going on).

If I met someone who was a transwoman tomorrow I would likely mention this to my wife by saying "I met someone today who said, blah blah blah ..." and would likely add in somewhere that they were a transwoman, just like I would add in any other unique distinction, such as 'guide dog,' 'one eye' or 'wearing a clown outfit'. There is a chance I would not mention any other points as the content of the discussion we had may have been the priority rather than just idle chitchat and saying what I did in the day and who I talked to.

The politics and personal take is likely raising your hackles and clouding your judgement.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet. — Banno

Yes. One ought not (in a normative epistemic sense) talk about apple devices being sweet if we are referring to how they taste rather than stating you like the device. This is basic stuff.

If philosophim is stating that when we hear 'woman' we ought to assume 'female' he is epistemically correct. It is defeasible, but that is not the point. If 'woman' is being used in a technical setting then the use of the term requires careful delineation as speech can become confusing. In a technical setting it goes that when referring to a transwoman we should say transwoman to more easily distinguish between how 'woman' can be used. In such cases 'cis' and 'trans' would be ideal.

Anyway, back to work ... :)

Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

You have already agreed that this is not how language currently works. You did this by admitting that 'woman in a forest' is generally taken to mean female.

If I am talking about apples and how tasty they are you can assume I am talking about apple devices, but that woudl be pretty silly, unless you are assuming I mean 'tasty' in a metaphorical sense. Either way, simply being able to interpret one thing as another does hold the weight of 'should' and 'ought to' in an epistemic normative sense--basic conventions of communication. It pays to understand the context, correct misunderstanding and, more importantly, where possible avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to clarify the use of a term in a given context and have a conventional use of a term where such distinctions are unclear.

If I say I like orange this is understood as me saying I like the colour orange. If I say I like an orange people do not say 'An orange what?' unless it is relevant to the context of the exchange.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.
— I like sushi
I'm not sure if this was a view you were attributing to someone else, or were advocating yourself.

Might be worth clarifying. — Banno

Nothing needs clarifying.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant:

PhilosophyTube

For me, that is a spiritual notion of who I am and where I belong. I am energy and the same, but not the same, because nature is fractals. — Athena

Spirituality in the context of Religious Studies and Philosophy are fairly distinct. In religious studies it does cover secular and non-secular variants.

Religious definition deals with conscious connection to God, Reality, or more generally The Divine. The Buddhist tradition pivots more toward Reality with a capital R than The Divine.

Philosophical definitions vary, but usually refer to some meaning beyond individual experience that focuses on the larger picture--more anthropological in nature.

My criticism toward the OP being we can only talk about something complex constructively by picking and choosing where and how to explicate what it is we wish think and wish to express. Only from such points can a constructive discussion flow. Otherwise we are just spilling water on the floor rather than using it to turn a wheel and get some traction.

For both Phd and Masters you are expected to learn to write in a certain manner. Forcing people to meet high standards is a good thing. It is not to hamper progress, but rather to hone people's writing skills so that they can express their ideas more cohesively.

It is a mistake to think of your Masters or initial Phd as being a ground breaking. Your following Phd's should look more like what you want to say as you have already proven your ability to tackle this kind of work on your first Phd.

Standards are standards. If anything they have been slipping imo.

At any time you can publish a work by sending it to a philosophical journal.

I will bow out here. This is too wishy washy for me. Not surprising given the subject matter. If you manage to hone in on something in particular rather than merely gesturing at this or that maybe I will have something of real substance to say.

As a starting point it would be worthwhile outlining what is meant by 'spirituality' as concisely as possible, as well as how so-called non-secular experiences of spirituality may differ from secular ones and how this can in any way be useful in looking at the sociological and biological evolution of humanity.

I will keep an eye on this thread in the meantime though. Hope it goes well for you.

Thanks :)

Altered states of consciousness are induced by stress on teh body for sure. The actual 'harsh' experiences induced can either leave someone whole or shattered. I am not sure that path is a good idea for everyone. I was lucky.

Such things are not really of much use and most people woudl not go there willingly; nor woudl I recommend doing so.

Anyway, I have things to get to work on so will be avoiding this interesting distraction.

Would be nice if someone started a thread regarding what the future may hold in regards to defining humans in the eyes of the law, the social functions and how language may change. If no one does I am sure to eventually ... WAY too busy atm.

BYE :)

I think you have to understand this in the social context. As I mentioned, there are clear instances of social contagions among teenage girls; through eating disorders to self-harm. Currently we are seeing something like this with gender identity.

Anorexia and bulimia are undoubtedly highly concurrent with instances of body dysphoria. We could suggest here that this is related to gender identity in many cases too (ie. a woman shoud look like this or that). There is always going to be lesser and greater degrees of overlap in different cases across a whole spectra of aspects.

I would call gender identity a brain variation. It is pretty damn clear in the cognitive neurosciences that neurogenesis is HIGHLY dependent upon hormonal balance. It does not take a genius to figure out that teenagers go through a rather dramatic hormonal change. It is no wonder there are instances of social contagions in teenage girls. More so girls probably due to the general difference in hormonal balance between the sexes.

The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, but doubt he would like such a comparison! :D I am sure I would agree with Amadeus on many point too, but that does not mean I think they hold much weight in any conversation.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.

The same issues prevail in so many aspect of human life. What defines a human life? Is a fetus 'human'? What is a 'human'? Will augmented humans in the future be 'human'? Along these lines I think we will see a whole plethora of problems arising that mirror this whole confusion around trans women as women. So it will be that 'augmented humans' (CRISPR and/or neural implants) will be 'humans', but there will be a difference we have to take into serious consideration.

Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. You can guarantee that some minority of transgender activists will denounce this for various reasons, because this is how humans behave. People care about their identity. Anything that makes people question their own identity is usually met with opposition (primarily negative). This all makes perfect sense in the greater picture of humanity and how animals interact and function in general. We are weird animals!

Some humans have brain disorders and others do not. I do not see transgenderism as a brain disorder.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

There is something to be said for social contagions and teenage girls. This has no bearing on what interests me here though.

I am VERY interested in this kind of area. If you are still struggling to define what it is (in part or full) you wish to discuss then come back to me when you have found a way.

Pick one then. I see no issues raised atm just a vague gesturing towards something. If that is all you can do then there isn't much more to be said on my part.

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced. — Jack Cummins

Sounds a little tangled. Can you pick one thread so there is something to get ohld of in amongst this. It is a very complex area with many nebulous concepts. Maybe start by substantiating what division there is between the secular and the spiritual? Expanding form Eliade maybe?

I was just referring to plain old freedom - to do as one wishes.

Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness — Jack Cummins

It will as long as we are human. Spirituality emcompasses secular activities too, like in dance or music. Art is a very significant part of what it is to be a human being. I cannot see any way in which humanity exists without such spirituality.

At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. — Jack Cummins

Broadening he cognitive horizons of all individuals so quickly will result in an expansion of fears.

But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively? — Jack Cummins

Individually? I have. I see more human freedom than ever before, perhaps it is freedom that kills people's spirituality more than anything. If there is no need to seek relief beyond the more mundane aspects of existence then people's capacity for art and culture may atrophy for a while.

As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. — Philosophim

In logical terms it is just like saying "banana fruits are fruits". I see no big deal with this. The context is clear enough itis just that people have trouble with understanding the logic of sentences; nothing new there.

I only care about the logical use of language not the political baggage.

Of course. There are bad actor for and bad actors against. I do not really see what the big deal is, but can easily imagine how someone or more conservative values may react defensively to this just as they have to many other societal nuances they were previously oblivious too.

To repeat, I have never met anyone who annouced their gender to me upon meeting. I would find it strange if they did. If someone walked up to me in the street and said 'I am hetrosexual' or 'I am a cis woman' I would tell them to fuck off or perhaps ask why the hell they felt the need to announce this to me (probably the latter as it does interest me, but I expect I would probably end up walking away wishing I had just gone with my first instinct :D). The person's age, attractiveness and many other factors would effect how I engaged for sure!

For now I just see trans women as a category of women. They are clearly not polysemous linguistically or there would not be two terms. Bananas are fruit! Fine. So what? I don't really care. In legal terms 'banana are fruit!' may start to actually matter if a green grocer is insisting they are advertising they are selling a 'variety of fruit' meaning 'many bananas', or in the case where foods were listed as 'organic' because they were trying to pass of the use of 'organic' in chemistry as equivalent to what most people assumed when reading the packaging. NOTE: I am not equating either of these to trans women. I am just presenting a selection of difficulties and misuses of language.

I think we have made each other reasonably clear to each other on this? My contention is based in the use of language and how people attribute meaning in given contexts.

I admit i will never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so the same applies to someone who's a man, but either doesn't want to be a man or doesn't feel like they should be one. — ProtagoranSocratist

I will never fully understand what it is to be a human. I still have views and opinions about humanity and humans though.

This is part of the reason why this is such a contentious issue. — ProtagoranSocratist

It is contentious due to bad actors or do gooders believing that are good actors. Where each of us fall is neither here nor there in terms of how language functions and how we ought to (normative logical sense of 'normative') use language in this or that given situation.

The deifition of what it is to be a human is going to become a serious concern in the near future. The whole issue of trans genderism will evaporate when people can genetically alter themselves to such a degree that they can become female.