A poor craftsman always blames his tools.

But a philosopher worth reading is creative and brings new ideas into being, using old language and a few neologisms. It is as if you were to demand that all paintings be done in oils, and never watercolour. You would be ignored, but more seriously, you would miss some great art.

We can't just give in to silence and let the others rule as they please. — baker

Silence has power. Others can only rule because we take their nonsense seriously out of habit. We have a huge advantage if we can communicate and they can only bullshit.

↪unenlightened So you're just going to let them win, without a fight, 3:0? — baker

No. I am not going to waste my time trying to communicate with those who do not wish to communicate. When there is no honesty, language is meaningless. Have you not noticed?

CBT, [...] is based in large part of Stoicism. — Ciceronianus

Was not aware of that; I thought it was based on behaviourism.

And how should we "address trauma"? — Ciceronianus

Post Restante, somewhere obscure. And put enough stamps on that it won't be returned to sender.

If only...!

One who has been traumatised is brought face to face with their trauma in every relationship, the fear, the abandonment, the shame, or whatever, is reawakened by random normal relationships with others and with the environment. We can address it if we can recognise it in each other and make room for it without being 'triggered' ourselves. If it is recognised for what it is, an upwelling of old emotion, there is an opportunity to welcome the feeling into the present that has not produced it, and in experiencing it to experience a catharsis that liberates one from it, one reclaims the hurt in safety, and can then let it recede into history.

That's easy for me to say...

There was a system of enslavement of junior boys by senior boys as part of the traditional system of boys schools in Britain of the Empire, institutionalised to teach the future administrators of said Empire how to rule. The juniors would be assigned to a senior and required to "fag" for him, which amounted to being his personal servant. "Fagging" was usual until after WW2 and gradually fell out of favour thereafter as the Empire was dissolved. Temporary homosexuality was also rife, of course as it is in prisons, but whether that connection comes from that usage or not I do not know.

Otherwise, a faggot of wood is a measure of small firewood sticks; or in another possibly connected usage, a meatball made with various kinds of offal, perhaps a better candidate for an insulting reuse. Available at your grocers:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282049626

This is not me; it is merely a frog that resembles me somewhat.

Farewell, @Vaskane, alas all too neuro-typical in some rather reactive ways.

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people. — Philosophim

You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there.

So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex. — Philosophim

This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual.

The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening.

Is your position that sex, per se, is not a binary, or that it varies independently of biology? Not a loaded question, I just can't understand where you place yourself... some of waht you're saying seems to support a position as above, and some appears to be pushing toward a clear-cut notion of sex as definite, but somewhat unimportant. — AmadeusD

My position is that there is not a thing "sex" that is or isn't binary, nor do I want there to be. We talk about men and women and it is uncontroversial for me (or you) to say "I am a man" and there is no need to enquire as to my hormones my genitalia or my genes. I also talk about "my wife", but if pressed, I cannot produce a marriage certificate, yet I think everyone understands well enough. (We held hands and jumped over a broom.)

Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty. — Philosophim

It's always refreshing to be asked what one thinks instead of being told. I resist clear definitions because they over-simplify life.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype.

But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid.

I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about.

"...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways.

Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'.

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said?
— unenlightened

By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live. — Philosophim

You do love your definitions don't you.

. Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute.

" Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. A bit premature to decide in advance of looking. Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. Just cool your ardour and have a little respect.

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment. — Philosophim

Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. Transport overcomes the limits of legs, refrigeration the limits of the seasons, and so on.

Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. But this does not define the man who has had the snip, but can still satisfy his lover in all matters bar impregnation.

These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage.

I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that. — Philosophim

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? I haven't remotely implied anything like that. I described how attitudes to sex and gender have changed in my lifetime, and asked you why you think it so important to redefine sex, and what that will mean for people. And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt?

See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. Except for certain types who like to pretend they 'cannot see race'. Clearly the genetics of race are more complicated than those of sex.

I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity).

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" — Philosophim

My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation. What works for this sport may not work for another sport and neither may be appropriate for prison segregation.

Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks. — Philosophim

You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again.

I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head.

If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again. — Philosophim

Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics?

And what are your clear and unambiguous thoughts on the matter? Yes I am very familiar with Orwell. And that is why I am asking you what follows from this new definition of the sexes.

To be clear, it has to be new because genetics is new.

In the good old days when men were men and I were a lad, men were men and women were grateful, or if they weren't so much the worse for them. And anything else was an abomination. I was an abominable long haired hippie.

Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling?

That is; I assume there is something more to this than a mere idiosyncratic defined usage of words.

If you have to find an explanation for a ghost you saw, that's fine, you still saw it. — flannel jesus

Nonsense. You saw something, but not a ghost. "It's a ghost." is the explanation, to which one finds an alternative - just a hologram, trick of the light, too much mushroom tea.

it should be capable of sussing this one too — flannel jesus

Science would have to entertain the hypothesis.

if ghosts are visible, they ought to be visible to everyone regardless of belief. — flannel jesus

Well that does not compute. For example, science used to declare that there were only 4 tongue tastes: sweet, sour, salt, and bitter: turns out there are five, the other being known to the orientals, and hence called 'umami'. What one does not believe exists, one can find another explanation for. and it happens in science frequently - the aether, dark matter, dark energy etc.

Apples don't disappear if someone doesn't believe in apples. — flannel jesus

But they only appear to people who have eyes. Perhaps we sceptics lack some sense?

It's their non-existence and unreality that makes them troubling. If they actually existed one could deal with them, or call the police.

Antigonish.

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...
— Hughes Mearns

No comment therefore.

Well it's doing something, which is saying nothing with words just as tuning an engine is going nowhere in a vehicle, or sharpening a knife is not cutting anything with it. The words, the engine, the knife are idle; while the philosopher, the mechanic and the knife sharpener are busy.

Is there not a traditional distinction between doing things with words and philosophy - a la Wittgenstein - engine idle and being tuned? Hence a book about how to do things with words actually does nothing, except to lay out how best to do whatever one wants to do. That turns out to be rather dangerous, like giving a sharp knife to a toddler.

If I were religious I would reference the Lord dealing with the uppity builders of the tower of Babel.

But wouldn't you be lowering your opinion of racing and politicking, if philosophy is idle talk? I'd argue you were. If idle talk was the same as sharpening language, then a politician has no tools; and if these are compared to mechanics and racing drivers, the whole thing is brought down and idle, and wouldn't run - around the track or for the office. — Fire Ologist

The talk is idle, but the philosopher is productive. It's the linguistic view of philosophy, that we are not in the business of making pronouncements like physicists priests or politicians, but of making the language fit for such purposes. Hence some of Wittgenstein's somewhat cryptic notions about his book saying nothing, but showing the fly the way out of the fly-bottle and pulling the ladder up behind it. I'm not sure i agree with him, mind. But he was an engineer by training, so he knew the difference between a mechanic and a driver and the value of each.

Yes. Philosophy is idle talk, (according to Wittgenstein,) in the same way that a mechanic tunes the engine in 'idle'. Mechanic is to racing driver as philosopher is to politician, or knife grinder to chef. The knife is idle in the hands of the knife grinder, in exactly the sense that he is not cutting anything. What is a little odd though, is that in the case of the philosopher, many of them seem to have little idea about what they are doing, which is tuning and sharpening the language, rather than using it to win arguments and influence people.

So from there to the sovereign individuals and from there quite naturally to the automatic right of the sovereign male to usurp the female body for his own gestation and subsequent pleasure and procreation. the sovereign foetus - ideosynchronicity!

A mathematician can say what he likes… A physicist has to be at least partly sane — J. Willard Gibbs

{J. Willard Gibbs is definitely pre-post-modern.}

Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able.

This means, unfortunately that political discussion can no longer be had with most politicians in public.

Why would anyone bother to do nothing with words?

Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live.
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And their posts are hard to forgive.

And a boat.

The bad news is that if some bits of the world are going to get colder but overall its going to get warmer, the bits that get warmer are going to get a good deal warmer than the "average". And whether it gets hotter or colder, trees cannot stock up on thermal clothing or bottled water, and forests can only move a matter of meters per year under their own steam.

I believe in Money, and his prophet, Trump.

These are the end times, when the disciples of Money will end poverty forever by slaughtering the the massed armies of the poor who are even now starting to sweep up from the South to invade our lands and rape our children. Only the few loyal worshippers will survive, to be caught up by the Great Penis Extension and transported to the Great Marketplace in the Sky, there to serve Bezos forever.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything. — G.K.Chesterton

Or to put it another way, one's life must have a centre; something must have more importance to a person than other things. Rather than tedious bickering about mere existence of a being with the name we have learned to give it, consider, when things fall apart, what you will seek to preserve? Some habit or understanding or relation to the world that is the last thing you will surrender.

Call that your god, or by some other name as you please.

On the one hand:—

Reanalysis products indicate that the present-day AMOC is on route to tipping.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189

And on the other hand:—

Our results indicate that, by neglecting calving-front retreat, current consensus estimates of ice-sheet mass balance4,9 have underestimated recent mass loss from Greenland by as much as 20%. The mass loss we report has had minimal direct impact on global sea level but is sufficient to affect ocean circulation and the distribution of heat energy around the globe

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06863-2

A case of 'Many hands make light stop working.'

Perhaps it would be helpful to turn things around for a moment and ask, 'what would have to occur for nature to disobey laws?' Miracles? Magic? One difficulty would be that if folk were able to turn water into wine on a regular basis, we might come to see it as a lawful natural talent, rather than disobedient nature. On the other hand, if it only happened the one time, we might simply deny the event.

So, you think Entropy is a causal force, — Gnomon

No. "because" not "by cause". An explanation is not a cause of anything except, occasionally, understanding.

Women defecate too? But they're so pretty. — Hanover

If women were pretty, there would not be the huge beauty industry to which every woman in the world ever pays homage every day. This is esoteric knowledge revealed here in public for the first time: women are disgusting.

This is a case of becoming hypnotised by superficial appendages.

Every complex member of the fauna is fundamentally a worm, consisting of mouth, stomach, gut, and anus. The addition of systems of discrimination (senses), self-protection (exo/endo-skeletons), movement and manipulation (limbs, fins, tentacles, claws) are all little extras that serve to feed and hide the essential inner worm.

Would you agree that the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite increasing general entropy {see image below}. If so, the topical question could be rephrased as : why do physical systems tend to follow a middle-of-the-road course, toward more & more order, as they evolve? Moreover, why is the cosmos now in a moderate state of Entropy, which allows Life & Mind to emerge? — Gnomon

I think the scientific presumption is that demons do not exist. If they did exist, they would be just the entities to impose laws on particles like political economists such that wealth/energy would accumulate rather than dissipate.

But I would say, in disagreement with the above
"the average cosmic-trend-to-date has always been toward more local complexity (dust >> stars >> galaxies >> Earth), despite because increasing general entropy. The complex ordering that is life is an eddy in the energy dissipation stream of the sun. and in no way contradicts entropic flow.

As to why we live in that peculiar condition that allows life to exist - that is a question too fatuous to respond to.

Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. — Gnomon

This is Hegel's "geist", disguised in pseudoscientific language. He, and you, may well be right. I certainly agree that the scientific view cannot account for everything, because it resolutely excludes the subject from consideration. But I at least, cannot not pretend that a hypothetical metaphysical aspect of reality that results in "progress" and implies a goal, is science. The great advantage of Hegel's version to my mind is that the direction it establishes is towards freedom - that is to the transcendence of the limitations of physical law as that goal. Thus for example, nature evolves heavier than air flight, and intelligence does the same thing faster and more extensively for flightless apes. And the science side of this is that life does it by exploiting exactly those chaotic complex situations where a butterfly's wing or a neuron's firing can have a disproportionate effect on the world.

the key part.

To what extent these regularities are a function of our cognitive apparatus or are in nature itself, I'm not sure we can say. Our physics and science are incomplete and our philosophical understandings of what humans bring to observation and the concomitant construction of what we call reality, are also partial.
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

The way you tell it is almost as if our cognitive apparatus is unnatural, or supernatural.

That's the first type of law, not the second type. — flannel jesus

Then you need to answer the question that I refuse; what makes nature obey the second kind of law?