That would be a neat trick for a God to play on themselves. — AmadeusD

What kind of god would I be if I couldn’t do something like that?

What I think I would commit to is that the Tao is ontologically prior to our conceptions of it. — ChatteringMonkey

My problem with that, and I’m not joking, is that ontology is one of the 10,000 things. On the other hand, when I’m in my human form, I call Taoist principles metaphysics too. That’s one of the things I like most about Taoism—you often have to hold two contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time.

The idea of returning to "the source" is important IMO, that is to some extend what is missing it seems to me in Western tradition where we get hung up on fixed conceptions without returning. — ChatteringMonkey

It took me a long time to get a feel for what return is about in this context.

Do you recall if there was a thread on intuition? — Tom Storm

I started a thread on introspection once and I’ve included discussions of intuition in a number of other threads. I don’t remember any discussions that were specifically on the subject of intuition by either myself or others.

reason is situated, embodied, enactive and emerges from our lived, affective engagement with the world. Reason is not a detached faculty that can apprehend universal truths on its own; it’s shaped by biology, culture, experience. Truth claims therefore are always embedded in context, practice, and perspective. — Tom Storm

It can be all that and still a tool

They can certainly use it to give a sheen to their prejudices, but to what extent is it merely a post hoc rationalization of affective commitments? — Tom Storm

I think this is exactly right, and I think it shows what’s wrong with philosophy. If you can be doing this for thousands of years and not recognize where reason really stands, what its role really is, what’s the point?

I wouldn't say the Tao is above or better than human conceptualisation of it in a directly valuative sense, but prior ontologically... the human world is part of it. And insofar conceptualisation is only partial/perspectival, and presumably can lead us astray for that reason, maybe it is a reason to put a little less stock in it. — ChatteringMonkey

I’m tempted to get into a rational, nitpicky non-Taoist discussion of the intricacies of what Taoism means, e.g. The human world is not part of the Tao because the Tao doesn’t have parts. All
I can tell you is it doesn’t feel that way to me. There is the Taoist idea of return. The Tao continually manifests as the 10,000 things—the multiplicity of the human world—which then continually returns to the Tao. It’s all happening over and over again all the time.

I don’t think I’m really disagreeing with what you said though.

To make the point a bit more salient for this discussion maybe, that is the issue with the Socratic view on Life, and Christianity consequently, that it presumes that it can box in Chaos, conceptualise the whole of it and make life entirely predictable and planable on the basis of these fixed conceptions. — ChatteringMonkey

I don’t know enough about the Socratic or Christian view of life to make an intelligent comment on this.

Do you hold a similar view about reason? I fell out of love with reason some years ago. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you’ve noticed I talk about intuition much more than I talk about reason here on the forum. I generally say that much more of what we do, what we think, the decisions we make are done based on that intuition. Looking at my own experience, formal, systematic reason happens rarely and usually as a check on what I’ve come up with my other methods

I write the things I write here directly onto the “paper.” It’s when I go back and edit them that I have to deal with them more formally, at a distance, rationally.

Surely some part of you knows how it works? Your personal Lord of Illusion? — frank

What would be going on in your mind if you had been cut off from all physical and social experience since you were born.

Surely some part of you knows how it works? Your personal Lord of Illusion? — frank

I have some idea how my mind works in this, our purported reality. But that knowledge is based on my experience and understanding that my mind is connected with an outside world and other people.

So your answer is that everything is you, but parts of you are no available to consciousness right now? — frank

Sure. It might not even be possible for them to become conscious. Who knows how my isolated super brain might work.

The connection is the verification of certain rules which must apply or not apply. If this verification were merely private, it would be empty. Rule making by definition is public. — Colo Millz

I’m not sure whether the problem is with @frank’s comment or my response… As I think about it more, I think it was my response that was incorrect. See my response to @frank’s response immediately above this one.

Doesn't your solipsistic view conflict with your everyday behavior? For instance, you talk to me without knowing what I'm going to say next. How could that behavior fit with solipsism? — frank

Your existence might be an hallucination, a dream, an illusion, a brain aneurysm, psychosis, my imagination. Maybe I got lonely. I stole the following from a post I made many years ago.

One of the Hindu gods was sitting around, lonely. For company, he made himself forget he was god, and split himself into many parts. Maybe I’m God. I have this image of god behind the stage in a puppet theater that includes everything. He plays all the parts, speaks all the parts.

I’m not tossing this out just to be difficult. If I am the only thing that exists, it’s doubtful I would take any doubts I had about the existence of a real world outside myself seriously. Why would my lonely, isolated reality behave the way you think it should here in this purported reality.

If you're up for it, I'd like to try to persuade you that solipsism is wrong. I just need for you to play devil's advocate and defend it. Ok? — frank

Let’s take a shot at it.

And because you can't disprove it to yourself, I can't persuade you to reject it. — frank

Solipsism as usually understood is not something that can be verified or falsified empirically. It’s metaphysics. It’s something you can pretend to believe because it makes figuring things out easier.

…This is because argumentation has as it's goal a meeting of the minds.

This state of affairs shows that mental states are enjoyed in isolation. By this I don't mean they're private in the Wittgensteinian sense, but rather that there appears to be clear boundaries between what I'll call minds. — frank

Just because I cannot experience what you experience directly does not mean there isn’t a connection. You are right though, what connection there is is not clear or direct.

Isn't one of the first things the Dao de jing tells us that 'the Dao that can be named is not the real or eternal Dao', essentially indicating that logos or reason cannot be primary. — ChatteringMonkey

Short answer—yes. Longer answer—yes, but. The line after the one you’ve quoted goes—“the name that can be named is not the eternal name.” As I understand it, naming is what humans do—conceptualization, reason. In a sense, Taoism is an anti-intellectual philosophy. This is from Verses 70 and 71 of Steven Mitchell’s translation of the Tao Te Ching.

My teachings are easy to understand
and easy to put into practice.
Yet your intellect will never grasp them…

…Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

This is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu, the second founding text of Taoism.

Any rectification that requires hooks, ropes, compass, or T-square is really a hacking up of the inborn nature. Any consolidation that requires ropes, cords, or glues is really an invasive attack on the intrinsic powers. And bending and scraping before ritual and music, warmly eulogizing humankindness and responsible conduct “to comfort the hearts of everyone in this world”—all that is really just a way of destroying the normal and sustainable state of things. The normal and sustainable state of things is to curve without needing a hook, to be straight without needing a carpenter’s line, to be round without needing a compass, to be angled without needing a T-square, to be attached without needing glue, and bound together without needing cords.

On the other hand, Taoism is full of seeming contradictions and paradoxes. This is from Verses 25 and from Mitchell’s translation.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness…

Mystery and manifestations—as I understand it, the Tao and human conceptualized reality—come from the same place. The Tao it’s not above or better than the human world, they arise and return together.

This is definitely outside my wheelhouse. What a dumb cliché. So, somebody set me straight.

You called this an autopsy, but I don’t think that’s what it is. It’s not even a eulogy. I’m not sure enlightenment values are dying and I can’t really imagine what they would be replaced by.

Science is all about measurement, and measurement is all about ratios. For one to be 6 foot tall, is to have a ratio between height and foot length of about 6:1. And from 'ratio' is derived the terms 'rational' and rationalism. Now Socrates counters Protagoras in a way neatly summarised in the comments
here. {Please read this link, it's very short, but important to understand.} — unenlightened

I think this is misleading. To nitpick—as far as I can find, the word “rational,” meaning, established by reason came first and the meaning as a ratio of two integers came much later.

This is an early version of the conundrum that still haunts us in the form of a dispute about subjectivity and objectivity, but what the enlightenment did was to come down firmly on both sides. It carves out a realm of physicality that is entirely separate from the mind of man and calls that the objective world, and relegates morality to the subjective world of Protagoras, where all is relative to man and thus a matter of opinion. The 'is/ought' separation begins here. — unenlightened

I think “subjectivity” is the wrong word here, and I think that’s important. As I understand it, before the enlightenment, the universe was seen as infused with meaning. That meaning was not seen as subjective, although I’m not sure objective is the right word either. I think what you’re calling “subjectivity” is something that humans were supposed to observe and understand through our experience and reason.The world and it’s meaning come first, and our subjective understanding comes afterwards.

It is this isolated yet undeniable self, that now constitutes the subjective realm, undeniable and unarguable because isolated, and the material world becomes shared and objective, because it is not the phenomena that are shared, but the ideas and thoughts we have about the phenomena. If this is sounding upside down and inside out, well you are not alone! — unenlightened

I certainly don’t want to go back to the pre-enlightenment world, the world of the divine right of Kings. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize some of the issues you highlight. I have made the argument here a number of times in several different contexts that man is the measure of all things. That’s right at the center of my understanding of what Lao Tzu has to tell us. Taoism recognizes both the human and non-human worlds without conflict. As I sometimes put it—the world is 1/2 human.

So, do we reform rationalism? I am not at all sure that’s possible. On the other hand, I don’t want to go back to the values of the old way, as if we could.

I love your reply. I also love democracy because it is about our differences and how, together, we make things good. — Athena

Yes. I don’t want to hang around only with people who think the same way I do.

I can appreciate that point of view, but I can not accept it for myself. — Athena

And there’s no reason why you should. From what little I know of you, you are clearly a person of will. That’s a good thing, but it’s not what’s right for me.

I am not sure frivolous thinking has much value. — Athena

Curiosity is not frivolous thinking, it is going where your heart leads you. If your heart doesn’t tell you what the right thing to do is, nothing will. Here’s a quote. I use all the time. It’s from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

what should we think about? — Athena

Follow your curiosity. It knows where it’s going—or at least how to get there.

assuming everyone is American — Jamal

No, no, no… We just assume everyone wishes they were American.

This, me thinks, is the arbitrarily-placed, obsequious stipulation that when removed makes the entire topic just a tad bit more open to conversation, no? — Outlander

No.

OK, no more questions, just pointing out that your motto, while no doubt useful, isn't likely to convince someone who hasn't already adopted it as a motto. — J

I really wasn’t trying to convince anyone, I guess I was just pointing out that we were headed off into a more complicated discussion which is probably outside the intended scope of this thread.

Why does the lack of a definitive answer drain the meaning from a question? — J

What value, meaning, is there in a question that can’t be answered, even in theory? What do you do with it? What does it teach you? What implications, consequences does it have? How do I use the OP’s opening question?

how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Do something with that. Show me what value it has. Let’s go further than that. We’ll assume there is something beyond the reality we can experience that is not accessible and never will be. How does that change anything?

These are the kinds of questions that make philosophy look ridiculous. I guess that’s why they bother me so much.

But surely the statement, "There is a reality that humans can't experience" is either true or false, isn't it? I still don't see the leap from "unanswerable" to either "meaningless" or "neither true nor false." — J

@T Clark’s motto—If there is no way of knowing whether a statement is true or false, even in theory, then it’s either metaphysics or meaningless.

If you ask any more questions, I’m going to give you my prerecorded RG Collingwood metaphysics lecture, which you’ve probably heard before.

explain to me, as simply as you can, why the question is meaningless. — J

I didn’t say it was meaningless. I said it was meaningless or metaphysics. Metaphysics doesn’t have to be true or false. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, it can’t be. Something that is metaphysical becomes meaningless when there is no possible use for it. I don’t classify making people say “golly geewhilikers” as useful.

If a being is omniscient, it knows every possible outcome of every possible creation. — Truth Seeker

This is not necessarily true. It depends on what your definition of “omniscient” is. It might just mean knowledge of everything the way it is right now. If the universe is not determinate, an omniscient entity might not be able to know the future.

This highlights the fact that your whole argument is about language and not about reality.

If a being is omnipotent, it has the power to bring about any logically possible outcome, including the existence of beings who are equally omniscient and omnipotent. — Truth Seeker

Again, this comes down to the meaning of the word “omnipotent” which you’ve defined as having “the power to bring about any logically possible outcome.” it really doesn’t make much sense to me.

A world where all sentient beings are equally omniscient and omnipotent would contain no involuntary suffering, no vulnerability, and no inequality, since each being could prevent harm to itself and others. — Truth Seeker

This doesn’t strike me as necessarily true.

A perfectly omnibenevolent being necessarily prefers the outcome that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering. — Truth Seeker

Again, I don’t see why this is necessarily true.

If a deity created sentient beings who suffer, that deity either lacked the knowledge, the power, or the will to prevent that suffering. — Truth Seeker

Again, again, I don’t see this as necessarily true either.

Therefore, a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be all three at once. — Truth Seeker

In summary—your argument strikes me as the kind of argument someone who doesn’t have a good grasp on what omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence mean. To be fair, I know you’re not the one who started this particular way of seeing things. It’s been around for centuries.

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

We know for a fact there are things we do not, and perhaps cannot, currently experience that we will be able to sometime in the future. I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

If, instead, you were talking about aspects of reality that we will never have access to, even in theory, then the question is meaningless. Or maybe metaphysics.

@Jamal

I noticed that @Pieter R van Wyk’s account has been deleted. Are you deleting all accounts for banned people now or was that a request by him?

So, that isn't all that needs to be said. — AmadeusD

But it is all I'm interested in saying right now.

I acknowledge, understand and do not argue with the fact that we're talking about an extremely small population. We're talking about negligible numbers of offenders. — AmadeusD

Agreed. That says everything that needs to be said. I think we’ve taken this far enough now.

I'm not sure how to reply. After thinking this through, I'm not sure I understood you right. Are you talking about the results of a social justice movement? I was talking about the effects of a single personal transition and the results on that individuals life in the portion you quoted. — Dawnstorm

Without going back and checking our previous posts, as I remember it, this whole discussion arose from me pointing out that homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder as gender dysphoria is currently. It no longer is.

But notice that bodily issues might go away with transition while the social problems won't go away. — Dawnstorm

They might or they might not go away. Again, I think the situation could be considered analogous to that for gay people. Although the problems are not gone, social acceptance has improved.

There have been many times when I wondered if I was the only one who retained any kind of institutional memory here. — Paine

I try to remember where people are coming from, not always successfully. I appreciate that you did.

Yes, James is on your wavelength, judging from your previous posts. — Paine

I didn’t know anyone was paying attention.

I often argue the real value of a religion is the internal experience of it's followers, not it's consistency with what we see externally. I've started listening to William James "The Varieties of Religious Experience" on LibraVox. It hit me immediately I should have read this long ago.

Not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental health issue. It no longer is.
— T Clark

This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. — Dawnstorm

You’re right. Just keep in mind what my post was in response to. Other posters were using the fact that gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness to undermine claims to their rights. Just claiming some characteristic is a mental illness does not justify discrimination.

It's perfectly possible to enjoy being homosexual; to enjoy gender dysphoria is... difficult at best.

— Dawnstorm

In the past, enjoying being a homosexual was probably also “ difficult at best.” How much of the difficulty associated with being transgender comes from how these people are treated in our society? I don’t know enough about this to have a strong opinion, although I don’t really think it’s relevant to the question at hand.

There are two things at issue here: a trans person's relationship to their own body, and a trans person's relationship to their social environment. There are various "reference groups" that matter to a trans person, and they might have incompatible demands. That includes local activists. You're navigating a difficult area: you "know" you're in the wrong body, but there are things that don't bother you. However, if you send incongruent images to your social environment, you're going to increase social discomfort. What's worse is that, even if your social environment is mostly supportive and you're fine with sending incongruent signals (i.e. a transwoman with a beard), you might experience pressure from activists to conform to the gender-expectations of your target gender. I've heard about trans people being pressured into voice lessons. The activist justification was, at least on one occasion, that a transwoman who talks like a man "makes their job harder". — Dawnstorm

What does any of this have to do with whether
transgender people deserve human and civil rights?

This site achieves it in the fallowing ways:

1. The way that "philosophy" is defined is not at all strict, discussions on politics are allowed, discussions on raw logic puzzles are allowed, discussions on religion are allowed...pretty much everything is allowed. This is super rare for any message board.

2. There's no pressure to understand any particular body of thought as it relates to philosophy. We are all coming from radically different directions in understanding.

3. the rules are so flexible that it allows the moderators to use discretion in cases where people members are consistently being a PITA, and they're clear enough they give you a good idea of what flies and what doesn't. — ProtagoranSocratist

You left out one— this is the most active philosophy site I’ve ever seen.

Relax guys; you're in a safe posada. :smile:

If you behave, there will not be any problem. — javi2541997

Yes, I think that’s the motto of the justice department and ICE here in the United States.

Yes please, thank you. If you're going to be obnoxious, you gotta have some class. — unenlightened

Yes. I do my best to make my obnoxiousness high-quality.

You have no actual basis to make your claim — AmadeusD

I have justification for my claim, admittedly, weak, but something. You have nothing.

but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. — AmadeusD

That’s fine, we can back off from the “in the world” standard. I still think your number is wrong, but we can leave it there. We’re not going to get any closer to agreement.

pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass — AmadeusD

I didn’t say that and you know that’s not what I’m talking about. We’ve had the same kind of discussion in the past with you claiming that there is no longer significant discrimination against Black people here. This is just more of the same. Again, we’re not going to do any better than this, so let’s leave it.

As I say, fair. But I also then responded? Odd reply. — AmadeusD

Not odd. I thought you might think I was using this to undermine your argument. Apparently not.

I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man; — AmadeusD

That’s disingenuous. You’re being cute, my man. You said:

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. — AmadeusD

Assuming I’m doing my math correctly, which is by no means certain, this comes to fewer than 800 incarcerations a year in the US out of a total of about 60,000.

This link indicates that the federal incarceration rate for all crimes for transgender people is about the same as their prevalence in society.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Incarceration-Violence-Oct-2016.pdf

In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. — AmadeusD

For the purposes of my calculations above, I assumed this was correct, although I’m skeptical. That information is not available for the US. Can you provide the documentation for the UK?

Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative. — AmadeusD

I wrote:

It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men. — T Clark

This is literally, obviously, and unarguably true.