Philosophical Discussion

The real life drama forum. Discuss your relationships or get to know the other members here.
User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 19th, '08, 17:43

welcome paris.....i know your asking gboy...but i dont see how it can be wrong....it involves consenting adults...iIt promotes monogomous relationships...it ends discrimation against gay couples in regards to benefits available to straight married couples including some state benefits... it will also do wonders for the wedding industry...lol....i'm actually still waiting to find out why exactly gay marriage is harmful to straight marriage and society.....or how we'll all start marrying horses....etc.....

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 19th, '08, 18:00

Sight. Where is G'boy today?

So am I. So am I. But all the reasons you stated in favour of gay marriage don't constitute an argument. If one of you "bros" gave me a valid argument against gay marriage, I would gladly try my best to refute it. If one of you "bros" could give me a valid argument for gay marriage, I would do the same. Just to see if it can be done.

Like climbing a mountain, I would do it - because it's there. Image

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 19th, '08, 18:29

Paris_Hangover,

To answer your OP.

It depends on what the concept of marriage denotes.

If marriage denotes that two people are a couple and was established to honour that fact then a "couple of gays" would be honoured by it and it ought to proceed.

If marriage denotes that two people are necessary to have children and was established to honour that fact then a "couple of gays" could not be honoured by it and it should not proceed.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 19th, '08, 18:41

Hi Ms. Paris! :-)

Question 1. Is homosexuality (or gay marriage) immoral?

Answer. We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?

As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, homosexuality and gay marriage neither pick your pocket nor break your leg.


Question 2. Since homosexuality is okay, have we opened the door to child molestation, bestiality, and polygamy?

Answer. This is a commonly-used extrapolation by theists who argue the immorality of homosexuality. It is also quite an absurd argument. As stated above, homosexuality between consenting adults is morally acceptable. However, neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent, so any sexual activity with them would be morally unacceptable. Especially in the case of children, sexual activity is doubly immoral, in that we are both causing harm to the child and to the child’s parents.

The extrapolation to polygamy is quite curious, given the history of many religions in support of it. The bible supported polygamy and extramarital concubines, and polygamy was supported by the Mormon religion until they sought statehood in the United States. And, in some Islamic countries polygamy is still legal. Should polygamy be legal? Now we are treading into the area of cultural norms, and (if all participants are willing adults) outside the concern of mere morality. There are significant cultural benefits to only officially sanctioning pair-bonding, not the least of which is simplicity of laws. Beyond that, many cultures with polygamy have been tied to the subjugation of women and to attempts at child marriage, which are immoral.

So, although lasting polygamous relationships between consenting adults are possible and the participants should not be guilty of any crime, still there is a legitimate argument that society should only officially sanction pair-bonding with a legal status such as marriage, due to the inherent complexities and confusion of polygamy. Preventing homosexuals from using the “marriage” structure only causes undue hardships on innocent people who are otherwise fulfilling all the other duties of members of society. And granting them marriage causes little to no confusion, harm, or complexity to the rest of us.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 19th, '08, 21:05

AF_1 wrote:Hi Ms. Paris! :-)

Question 1. Is homosexuality (or gay marriage) immoral?

Answer. We have learned that all morality is based on sympathy, so we must go back to that. Are homosexual actions between two consenting adults harmful to anyone else? Of course not. Do the participants consider it harmful to them? Obviously not, they consented to it. So why should the rest of us care whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual or something in between?
I have heard the argument that nobody knows whether or not homosexuality is damaging to the persons involved or others, which is of course an argument from ignorance. That doesn't quite prove that homosexuality is harmless, though. I have also heard the argument that homosexuality runs contrary to the direction of nature, which is to produce offspring, but that is an argument from design. Combined, the two might make a viable argument against homosexuality. What do you think?
As for gay marriage, we do see a large societal benefit in marriage, straight or gay. Pair-bonding creates a more stable family environment, and gives a person someone to rely on for support. Since it hurts no one, and helps those in such a relationship, why should there be a problem with gay marriage? The same goes with raising children. There is no evidence whatsoever that children of gay couples suffer more abuse, are less well-adjusted, or are in any way less nurtured or cared-for than children of straight couples.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, homosexuality and gay marriage neither pick your pocket nor break your leg.
Absence of evidence is not positive proof of absence, as the saying goes. There is also no (current) reason for people to believe that homosexual pairing can give a stable family environment, since no research has been done on that topic. How do we know that a homosexual pairing in a heterosexual yet nonmonogamous relationship (should we allow such things) might not be more beneficial to the persons involved and the rest of society? (This is a male and a female pairing, whether either is homosexual or not, and getting whatever sexual desires they have fulfilled in whatever ways necessary.)
Question 2. Since homosexuality is okay, have we opened the door to child molestation, bestiality, and polygamy?

Answer. This is a commonly-used extrapolation by theists who argue the immorality of homosexuality. It is also quite an absurd argument. As stated above, homosexuality between consenting adults is morally acceptable. However, neither children nor animals have the capacity to consent, so any sexual activity with them would be morally unacceptable. Especially in the case of children, sexual activity is doubly immoral, in that we are both causing harm to the child and to the child’s parents.

The extrapolation to polygamy is quite curious, given the history of many religions in support of it. The bible supported polygamy and extramarital concubines, and polygamy was supported by the Mormon religion until they sought statehood in the United States. And, in some Islamic countries polygamy is still legal. Should polygamy be legal? Now we are treading into the area of cultural norms, and (if all participants are willing adults) outside the concern of mere morality. There are significant cultural benefits to only officially sanctioning pair-bonding, not the least of which is simplicity of laws. Beyond that, many cultures with polygamy have been tied to the subjugation of women and to attempts at child marriage, which are immoral.

So, although lasting polygamous relationships between consenting adults are possible and the participants should not be guilty of any crime, still there is a legitimate argument that society should only officially sanction pair-bonding with a legal status such as marriage, due to the inherent complexities and confusion of polygamy. Preventing homosexuals from using the “marriage” structure only causes undue hardships on innocent people who are otherwise fulfilling all the other duties of members of society. And granting them marriage causes little to no confusion, harm, or complexity to the rest of us.
The argument you refuted is also a slippery slope, which nobody in their right minds would accept. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to be in their right minds. :roll

But how would you argue that homosexual marriage provides a benefit to society? How would you argue that homosexual marriage is harmless to society - or could you show that both homosexual and heterosexual marriage cause equal impact on society, temporary social concerns notwithstanding?

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 19th, '08, 21:11

Britishk wrote:Paris_Hangover,

To answer your OP.

It depends on what the concept of marriage denotes.
I agree. There are so many to choose from, though. I wish we could all just pick one.
If marriage denotes that two people are a couple and was established to honour that fact then a "couple of gays" would be honoured by it and it ought to proceed.
This definition of marriage is the one sectarians seem to favour, yes. But is it true that this is the concept of marriage we should accept?
If marriage denotes that two people are necessary to have children and was established to honour that fact then a "couple of gays" could not be honoured by it and it should not proceed.
Are you saying that marriage can be about the ability to have children? What about a couple who marry knowing they cannot have children and would instead have to adopt? Ordinarily, society (except for an extreme minority) would tend to allow a heterosexual couple who cannot have children at all even if they did not intend to adopt. In this case, since gays could adopt (if allowed), shouldn't marriage then be allowed to gays under this definition? That would mean that the root here is whether or not gays should be able to adopt children, but is not contingent upon the actuality of the adoption.

User avatar
xplicit
Posts: 19
Joined: May 13th, '08, 18:34

Post by xplicit » May 19th, '08, 21:43

Who are you, mademoiselle Paris? :unsure:
Have we met before?
Currently Watching: The Hour of Dog and Wolf I Last Friends I SP/Security Police I

Biker555
Posts: 11
Joined: May 13th, '08, 03:45

Post by Biker555 » May 20th, '08, 16:06

Paris_Hangover wrote:I have heard the argument that nobody knows whether or not homosexuality is damaging to the persons involved or others, which is of course an argument from ignorance. That doesn't quite prove that homosexuality is harmless, though. I have also heard the argument that homosexuality runs contrary to the direction of nature, which is to produce offspring, but that is an argument from design. Combined, the two might make a viable argument against homosexuality. What do you think?
Two bad arguments do not add up to one good one. You just have two bad arguments.
Absence of evidence is not positive proof of absence, as the saying goes. There is also no (current) reason for people to believe that homosexual pairing can give a stable family environment, since no research has been done on that topic. How do we know that a homosexual pairing in a heterosexual yet nonmonogamous relationship (should we allow such things) might not be more beneficial to the persons involved and the rest of society? (This is a male and a female pairing, whether either is homosexual or not, and getting whatever sexual desires they have fulfilled in whatever ways necessary.)
Nonsense. There have been many homosexual couples who have stayed together for decades, so we have evidence that they can be in stable relationships.
The argument you refuted is also a slippery slope, which nobody in their right minds would accept. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to be in their right minds.

But how would you argue that homosexual marriage provides a benefit to society? How would you argue that homosexual marriage is harmless to society - or could you show that both homosexual and heterosexual marriage cause equal impact on society, temporary social concerns notwithstanding?
Same sex marriage would provide a benefit in the same way as different sex marriage provides a benefit. Why would it be any different in the benefits to children (if any), or to the spouse?

To get at the core of whatever point it is that you are trying to make, what benefit to society do you think there is in traditional marriage? How would you argue that it is harmless to society, or as good as homosexual marriage?

Unless you bring religion into this (which I fully expect at any moment), what difference does it make whether your neighbors are homosexual and married, or heterosexual and married? No one is requiring you to join in on their activities, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 20th, '08, 18:26

Biker555 wrote:Two bad arguments do not add up to one good one. You just have two bad arguments.
I am making no arguments. I only state the arguments I have heard. I would never make an argument such as these anyway.
Nonsense. There have been many homosexual couples who have stayed together for decades, so we have evidence that they can be in stable relationships.
I know. The problem is that homosexual couples have been out of public view, so it's pretty hard to convince people that stable homosexual relationships are possible. For some reason, most people persist in the (mistaken) notion that only heterosexual relationships can have that kind of stability.
Same sex marriage would provide a benefit in the same way as different sex marriage provides a benefit. Why would it be any different in the benefits to children (if any), or to the spouse?
Exactly. But can you make the argument? I haven't heard a rational argument to the contrary, either.
To get at the core of whatever point it is that you are trying to make, what benefit to society do you think there is in traditional marriage? How would you argue that it is harmless to society, or as good as homosexual marriage?
I have no point I am trying to get at. My goal was to solicit an argument for or against as I am willing to take either position. I want to have something concrete because most of the discussion on gay marriage nowadays has no rational basis whatsoever.

And I don't know how I would argue that homosexual marriage is harmless to society, nor would I be able to argue that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are on equal footing. At least, not without somewhere to start.
Unless you bring religion into this (which I fully expect at any moment), what difference does it make whether your neighbors are homosexual and married, or heterosexual and married? No one is requiring you to join in on their activities, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
David Hume missed the point.

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of bringing religion into this debate. My motives in this endeavour are quite honestly and clearly stated in my first post.

Would it help you if I told you I am a gay individual seeking to enter a permanent relationship (marriage) with my partner?

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 20th, '08, 21:37

best to move to cali if ya'll wanna get married.....cus cali struck down same sex marriage ban....http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.s ... index.html.... dude....i was starting to think we'd lose our reputation as a bastion of liberal debauchery....anyway...its going to be interesting to see which states will go kicking and screaming...and will finally be forced to allow gays to marry due to a supreme court decision in the decades to come....

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 20th, '08, 22:10

ok paris...let me try this again....heres the best logical non religious argument that i can come up with against gay marriage...marriage conservatively speaking is used to promote and raise a family.....a family consists of two consenting parents and at least one child....the effects of marriage are again conservatively speaking primarily monitary....homo couples cannot "accidentally" or even naturally give birth to a child...the only options for a homo couple to obtain a child adoption and in vitro are quite expensive...to obtain a child in this fashion unnaturally you need to be in the higher tax brackets....

so the proportion of homo individuals that can actually obtain a child dont need said tax assistance and the ones who cannot are thereby recieving public tax money that isnt going to its designed purpose...the reason the same does not go for hetero couples is because its too difficult to split the hairs and decide who rightfully deserves the tax breaks....different areas of the country have different costs of living and raising a child and after all is said and done changing the system and determining who rightfully deserves it more money would be spent doing so....

this would be the true conservatives NOT the neo con imbeciles you see in office today stance if i'm not mistaken.....that said i can only consider myself conservative in a fiscal sense which causes issues with my strong liberal social leanings and in no way does this argument override the implications of the discrimination and social injustice that the homos go through....and yea i know it is not a very philosophical argument against it...i dont really think there is unless you hide behind a veil of ignorance.....

krakaD
Posts: 2
Joined: Aug 26th, '06, 15:58

Post by krakaD » May 20th, '08, 23:43

To get slightly back on topic time cannot be a dimension because it has few if any properties in common with dimensions. (I am using dimension in a length/width/depth since) a dimension is simply a line at any given point in time. length can be modeled as a 1 dimensional line. As 3 dimensional beings we have trouble perceiving it 1 dimension at a time but we know it is there, because it has been mathematically proven as well as common sense tells you that it exists whenever you measure something with a ruler. Dimensions move through time in the same way that a point moves along a line at any given point in time, a line extends along a plane, and a plane extends along space at any given point in time. Time is analogous to line, plane, point and space, but is larger than space and contains all space, no matter how infinite it is.

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 21st, '08, 02:59

My "Theory of Everything"

Here it is... the summation of the last ten years of my thought.

In the following analytic, I will attempt to show that spatiality is given only by the period of the existential attunement of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe. Furthermore, I will attempt to show that the physicalistic conception of time-as-worldly-succession -- t -- is nothing other than the primary spatial dimension, from which the secondary spatial dimensions -- x, y, and z -- are derived. In other words, temporality-as-such, as a pure enduring, cannot be thought of as having a structured "dimensionality," because it is the same essential conception as identity-as-such. Temporality-qua-identity, then, is nothing other than the purely transcendental conception known as: being.

The following is a full-fledged ontological inquiry into the metaphysical foundations for all possible physicalistic ways of thinking, as well as an attempt to implicitly "point the way" towards a wholly experiential, transcendental spritualism, thereby serving as grounds for all possible authentic ethical activity.


===========================================================================


We begin our analytic with the temporal universe. The temporal universe is an existential state of consciousness, as opposed to the so-called "spatial universe," which is an epistemological array of facts. The temporal universe can perhaps best be described as the "Zen meditative state," whereby one has the feeling only of an enduring self-sameness. We can gain a conceptual understanding of the temporal universe by thinking of it in terms of the existential modality of I-world unity. This existential analytic, then, will focus upon this conception of the mode of I-world unity -- temporal universality -- qua the transcendent consciousness of a purely undifferentiated duration.

It is from the mode of I-world unity that the phrases "I am" and "There is time" are understood as being self-referential. That is, when we think of time-qua-endurance, we are truly thinking of our inner, essential selves: our pre-conceptual identities. And vice versa, when we think of our ownmost identities, we are truly thinking of the essence of time-itself. Temporality and identity, therefore, are self-referring conceptions. They are the primary meta-concepts from which all other ways of thinking -- conceptualizing -- may be derived. In the same vein, the transcendental mode of I-world unity is the mode from which all other "ways of being" may be understood

This "First Metaphysics" is an investigation into all possible ways of being through an existential analytic of the temporal universe. In order to do this, the existentially analytical manner of questioning must be fully distinguished from the epistemologically synthetical manner of questioning. An existential analytic is an attempt to discover inner philosophical truth through the investigation of how one's "existential attunements" -- moods -- conditions a pre-conceptual understanding of the "world" in which one finds oneself. An epistemological synthetic, on the other hand, seeks to put together -- synthesize -- a logical ordering of "worldly facts" so that a particular phenomenon may be formally conceptualized. In other words, an existential analytic is an attempt to understand the very "possibilizing ground" of the "phenomenal universe" itself

An existential analytic is meant to implicitly "point the way" towards spiritual transcendence by way of an elucidation of the ontological "wherefrom" of spatial dimensionality; on the other hand, an epistemological synthetic is meant to "lay out a blueprint" for the physical construction of the appearing world through the logical use of spatial dimensionality. The "direction" in which this existential analytic is meant to point is towards the authentically transcendental way of being: the mode of I-world unity. It is only through this truly authentic manner of being that an authentic ethics becomes possible

The mode of I-world unity always only deals in transcendental possibility, and never in epistemological actuality. The existential way of questioning is only concerned with what is possible. On the other hand, the epistemological way of questioning is concerned only with what is actual, or, impossible. All actuality is by definition an impossibility. A better way of putting this, perhaps, is that actuality and possibility do not directly oppose one another; rather, possibility is the existential transcendence of actuality

Our concern in this existential analytic is to see how all epistemological, actualistic ways of thinking can be derived from the transcendental mode of I-world unity. It is within this transcendent mode that temporality is understood as the pure endurance of one's ownmost identity: the I. The phrase, "the I," is simply another way of referring to the temporal universe. In other words, the I, qua the temporal universe, is the very origin of all worldliness. To accomplish transcendence, then, the I must "pull" all apparent worldliness back into itself, so "reconstituting" the mode of I-world unity. But what does this mean that the I must "pull" all apparent worldliness back into itself? What must be our sense of the conception "world" so that it may be "pulled" in such a manner

We must now come to understand what is meant by "world" in our manner of an existentially analytical questioning. In order to do this, we must question how it is that the temporal universe undergoes spatialization. We can conceptualize this spatialization as the annihilation of the mode of I-world unity into the mode of I-and-world disunity. This annihilation, perhaps, can best be understood as basic biological necessity, as in the satisfaction of thirst and hunger, as well as any other "natural" urges. The precise reasons for annihilation, however, are not important to our task at hand. The important thing is that we gain an understanding of the essential nature of the annihilation that takes place within the framework of our existential analytic.

Annihilated, then, the I and the world stand in opposition to one another. As an opposition, the world has become an indeterminate question for the I. It is within this manner of being an indeterminate question that the world can be said to "appear." Whereas the world was once united with the I, it is now a mere appearance for. This mode of indeterminate questioning is always an awaiting of the resolution of the degenerative mode of I-and-world disunity. This awaiting is the fundamental existential attunement -- mood -- from which all other ways of questioning may be derived. As an annihilation, an awaiting can be said to "make space" within the absolute fullness that is pure temporality. Annihilated, the temporal universe becomes spatialized into a temporal multiverse, consisting of a linear succession of "different times".

Between each of these distinct "times," there is said to exist a "space." We can now come to a definition of spatiality-itself: the period of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe. It is from this first, essential spatiality that the conception of dimensionality is understood. It is within this context of spatial-dimensionality that the degenerative temporal multiverse manifests. The time-line that is constructed from our succession of "different times," then, is the primary spatial dimension and is known in scientific terminology as t. It is from this primary t-spatiality that the secondary spatialities -- x, y, and z -- can be existentially understood.

Within the degenerative temporal multiverse of t-spatiality, the act of measuring becomes a possibility. In terms of t-spatiality, to measure is to quantify the difference -- distance -- between "time points." The existential way of putting this is: to measure is to quantify the indeterminacy of awaiting -- the space -- between times of transcendent I-world unity. It is only in relation to this "primary" form of measurement -- the measurement of t-spatiality -- that the "secondary" form of measurement -- the measurement of xyz-spatiality -- becomes a possibility. This is for no other reason than the fact that temporality-itself is how we come to identify with our very selves, so as to perform the basic tasks of self-preservation.

*-----------------------------------*-----------------------------------*

This existential analytic of the temporal universe is an ontological questioning. Etymologically speaking, ontos is the Greek word for being. Ontology, therefore, is a logical -- step-wise -- inquiry into the meaning of being. Put simply, then, being is the "holding firm" of the temporal universe. In other words, being is the realization of the existentially transcendent mode of I-world unity.

There is, to be sure, a difference between the temporal universe and the temporal multiverse. This difference is known as the ontological difference. The ontological difference is the major modal difference, meaning that it is the primary difference between all possible ways of being. There is only one ontological difference: that being the difference between the transcendent mode of I-world unity and the degenerative mode of I-and-world dis-unity.

It is only within the temporal multiverse that the many secondary differences become manifest. These differences are known as ontic differences, meaning the differences between the many worldly appearances. These ontic differences, then, are minor modal differences. While there is only one ontological difference, there are infinitely many ontic differences. The questioning of the ontological difference has the character of transcendental spirituality whereas the questionings of the ontic differences have the character of dialectical physicalism. To question ontologically is to put oneself on the way towards spiritual transcendence, so that an authentic ethics becomes a possibility. To question ontically is to quantify -- lay out a blueprint for -- the world as it appears to the I, qua the degenerative temporal multiverse.

It is from the temporal multiverse that the logos arises. The logos is the entire set of words, symbols, and images that are used to re-present the world as it appears to the I. The use of the logos in this way is known as logic. To think "logically" is simply to question ontically. It is in this logical manner of questioning that the scientific paradigm is understood. Science is always only an ontic questioning: a questioning of the many minor differences between appearances. Spirituality, however, is always an ontological questioning: a questioning of the single major difference between being and worldly-appearance-as-such.

The task of the authentic existential project, then, is to "repair" the annihilated conception of time-as-worldly-succession -- the temporal multiverse -- back into the transcendent conception of time-as-I-endurance -- the temporal universe. This kind of "reparation" is one of the major tasks of the Eastern philosophical tradition, by way of meditation, yogic exercises, riddles, and allegorical lessons. It is not my purpose, however, to advocate for any particular way of spiritual transcendence above any others. My purpose is simply to say, "The truth is, unity transcends multiplicity."

*-----------------------------------*-----------------------------------*

This existential analytic has attempted to reveal the problem with all previous "metaphysical theories": the "failure" of equating time with the simple, linear successiveness of the temporal multiverse, rather than with the enduring permanence of the temporal universe. The point of this existential analytic of the temporal universe has been to outline a strict metaphysical construct that will clear up any confusion caused by all previous attempts at such. This philosophy was wholly inspired by my reading of the book Being and Time by the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Particularly, Heidegger's expositions of being-in-the-world, Da-sein (there-being), worldliness, and temporality were a major help towards my taking the "existential leap" in the manner of my philosophical questioning.

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 21st, '08, 04:02

Hi there Dkane75 bf, I remember only some of Heidegger; I did study him and have delivered a conference paper on part 1 of Being and Time, but admittedly I am a bit rusty. So perhaps it's only my lack of facility with the concepts, but I find I can make neither heads nor tails out of most of this jargon. Again, this may all be my fault, but here's an example of the kinds of problems I have just working my way through your thesis.

1. What is "spatiality", and what does it mean for it to be "given"? Causally supplied by? Mathematically deducible from?

2. What is a "period"? An interval of time? How can an interval of time "give" something?

3. What is "attunement"? What thing is being "attuned" to what other thing?

4. What makes an attunement "existential"? What other kinds of "attunement" are there?

5. What is a "resolution"? Narrative, causal, emotional, what?

6. What is the "annihilated temporal universe"? What other kinds of "universe" are there, and how does this cause "attunement" From your beginning I see that you seem to treat "universe" as a metaphor -- is this correct?

7. What is "time-as-worldly-succession"? In what way is this a "physicalistic" conception?

8. What does the variable "t" range over?

9. What makes a spatial dimension "primary"?

10. What does it mean for a dimension to be "derived"?

11. How is temporality different from "temporality-as-such"?

12. What is "enduring"? What would a "non-pure" enduring look like?

13. What is a "structured" dimensionality, and how is it different from an "unstructured" one?

14. What is "identity-as-such" and how does being the same concept as "temporality-as-such" entail that it cannot have "structured dimensionality"?

15. What is a "purely transcendental conception"? How would it be different from an impurely transcendental one?

I mean really bf, If I'm having these kinds of difficulties just in the first four sentences, you can imagine that others are having similar obstacles with the rest of your paper. Mwah!

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 21st, '08, 04:25

<b>@DKane75</b>: It looks like a strange mixture of Hegel, Heidegger and Spinoza to me with a bit of Kant thrown in for good measure.. These philosophers are hard enough to understand in themselves but this is just completely and utterly incomprehensible.. :P

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 21st, '08, 14:10

Paris_Hangover wrote: I agree. There are so many to choose from, though. I wish we could all just pick one.
Why can't that be done?
This definition of marriage is the one sectarians seem to favour, yes. But is it true that this is the concept of marriage we should accept?
The species requires that its individuals reproduce themselves. This is a very important fact.
Are you saying that marriage can be about the ability to have children? What about a couple who marry knowing they cannot have children and would instead have to adopt? Ordinarily, society (except for an extreme minority) would tend to allow a heterosexual couple who cannot have children at all even if they did not intend to adopt. In this case, since gays could adopt (if allowed), shouldn't marriage then be allowed to gays under this definition? That would mean that the root here is whether or not gays should be able to adopt children, but is not contingent upon the actuality of the adoption.
You did not focus on the facts. It is true that human survival requires that men and women produce more individuals; this is a fact! The established marriage contract simply honours that fact. It does not require its implementation.

Gays cannot act in that way which the marriage contract was established to honour. This is the central issue. It has been proposed that a "civil union" contract be substitute in its place and that would be just fine with me.
dkane75 wrote: In the following analytic, I will attempt to show that spatiality is given only by the period of the existential attunement of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe
What on earth are you trying to say? Please don't use complex vocabulary without knowing the proper definitions.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 21st, '08, 19:18

slowmoe wrote:ok paris...let me try this again....heres the best logical non religious argument that i can come up with against gay marriage...marriage conservatively speaking is used to promote and raise a family.....a family consists of two consenting parents and at least one child....the effects of marriage are again conservatively speaking primarily monitary....homo couples cannot "accidentally" or even naturally give birth to a child...the only options for a homo couple to obtain a child adoption and in vitro are quite expensive...to obtain a child in this fashion unnaturally you need to be in the higher tax brackets....
However, a homosexual couple can adopt a child, which requires no such consideration. And considering how many children we have in orphanages and foster homes, it is probably a benefit to society (relatively speaking) if a homosexual could adopt a child, thereby giving that child a stable and loving family life. At this point, your initial requirements that marriage be used to promote and raise a family are met. But what do you do about childless heterosexual couples who have no wish to adopt? In our current society, these couples are favored even over a homosexual couple who want to raise children.
so the proportion of homo individuals that can actually obtain a child dont need said tax assistance and the ones who cannot are thereby recieving public tax money that isnt going to its designed purpose...the reason the same does not go for hetero couples is because its too difficult to split the hairs and decide who rightfully deserves the tax breaks....different areas of the country have different costs of living and raising a child and after all is said and done changing the system and determining who rightfully deserves it more money would be spent doing so....
It is not true that homosexual couples are less likely to need tax assistance. Currently, homosexual couples have a higher tax burden than similarly coupled heterosexuals, and they must deal with financial difficulties outside the protection of a marriage, thereby increasing financial burden. At present state, if homosexual couples were allowed to raise children, their financial burden would probably be greater than that of a similar heterosexual family and therefore they would be more likely to need state assistance.

Besides which, we should not confuse frugality with prosperity. I can tell you from experience that homosexual couples learn to be frugal because of the current state of affairs. The fact is, though, there are no studies (that I know of) which correlate homosexual couplehood with an increased level of income. So any arguments based on this notion are without empirical basis.
this would be the true conservatives NOT the neo con imbeciles you see in office today stance if i'm not mistaken.....
You're probably right. But they aren't, I don't think. Image
that said i can only consider myself conservative in a fiscal sense which causes issues with my strong liberal social leanings and in no way does this argument override the implications of the discrimination and social injustice that the homos go through....and yea i know it is not a very philosophical argument against it...i dont really think there is unless you hide behind a veil of ignorance.....
I disagree. This is actually quite well-constructed. Unfortunately, though, it rests upon unfounded and unwarranted assumptions. Being conservative in a fiscal sense is fine (I am), but that really has no impact on whether or not a homosexual couple should me married if you can't present empirical evidence to support your argument.

Very nice, though. This is probably one of the best arguments I have seen against gay marriage in a long time.
its going to be interesting to see which states will go kicking and screaming...and will finally be forced to allow gays to marry due to a supreme court decision in the decades to come....
My prediction - the last three to go will be Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee.

G'boy, nice post.
dkane95, I'd be interested to see your response.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 21st, '08, 19:38

Britishk wrote:Why can't that be done?
I do not know. Blame it on politics. Image
The species requires that its individuals reproduce themselves. This is a very important fact.
Very true. But does this have anything to do with marriage? I have heard the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then there is no further drive to continue the species, but this is a slippery slope. One thing such an argument misses is the fact that a good 50% of gay and lesbian couples have a desire to raise children (per a study referenced somewhere, sorry I will search for the link later). Obviously, homosexuality does not remove the drive to continue the species, then.
You did not focus on the facts. It is true that human survival requires that men and women produce more individuals; this is a fact! The established marriage contract simply honours that fact. It does not require its implementation.
You are right - I did not focus on the facts. I was interested in the facts others would cite in favor of their arguments. But this still does not answer the question of whether a marriage should only honor the solution of a problem which seems to have no further relevance to our species, namely, that of ensuring the survival of itself.
Gays cannot act in that way which the marriage contract was established to honour. This is the central issue. It has been proposed that a "civil union" contract be substitute in its place and that would be just fine with me.


I agree that gays cannot act in a way which the marriage contract (at least, the white anglo-saxon Christian version of it) was established to honor. That begs the question of the relevance of marriage, however. In addition, a "civil union" does not uniformly apply a rule, and that is the heart of this question before us - is it true that we must apply these rules for determining the validity of a marriage and the benefits of such in a non-uniform manner? And if the answer is no, then what is the purpose of calling the same thing by a different name?

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 22nd, '08, 05:08

Everyone,

I've already gone down the path you are all trying to take me in the ILovePhilosophy.com forum. You are all coming from the so-called "analytical philosophical tradition" which is utterly unphilosophical in nature. I, however, am coming from the Continental tradition which is an honest to goodness attempt to expand the bounds of "human possibility" through the use of such notions as being, spirit, and transcendence. You all parade around with your linguistic "compound microscopes," and therefore cannot see the forest for the trees.

The entire "analytical" philosophical position is based upon the simple re-presentation of the world as it obviously appears. You say that our language must always "stick to" this narrow representativeness without ever asking of the possibilities of transcending the determinism of the physicalistic paradigm. I am a questioner of such profound originality that there is simply no way to read my words and perform any kind of intelligible criticism of them within a handful of minutes. My mind has been at the depths of the philosophical universe for over 10 years now. The comments that you all had concerning my essay were so petty that to even respond to them would be a waste of time of monumental proportions.

As far as the series of questions posed by G'boy, I will only say this. This is typical of the so-called "analytical tradition." He crafted his entire response within 30 minutes of me posting my essay. I am not interested in "quick takes" like this. There is no possible way to have even an inkling of what I am trying to accomplish by reading only a few paragraphs. You should read the entire essay, many times over many days before you attempt an intelligible criticism. I will not engage with any arbitrary wordplay, ala G'boy. This kind of activity is at the height of anti-philosophical absurdity.

I would just say that you all need to have a better grasp of the essence of the Continental philosophical tradition before you try to tackle me head on here. Trust me, I fully understand where you "analysts" are coming from and your scepticism concerning notions like "transcendental spiritualism." I know where you come from because I was at that level of philosophical thought when I was in grade school.

But I have grown up since then, and I have spent innumerable numbers of hours reading -- and meditating upon -- every form of philosophy under the sun. Perhaps you would all be wise to do some intensive study on your own before you find it necessary to embarrass yourselves again.

Thank You,
DKane

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 22nd, '08, 14:19

DKane75,

As I begin to read through your work, I'm becoming considerably confused from the amount of vocabulary that is entirely new to me. So I got out my dictionary and started painstakingly learning the definitions of all the new words. However, I am still getting tripped up as the context is very difficult to gain when I may not know three words in one sentence. I'll give you an example:
In the following analytic, I will attempt to show that partiality is given only by the period of the existential attunement of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated temporal universe.
I underlined the words that I have never met before.

Now, this is how I would translate to vocabulary that I already understand:

In the following project, in which I reasoned my conclusion from a combination of different parts of the subject, I will attempt to show that something related to space is given only by the period of existing in harmony of awaiting the resolution of the annihilated universe that has and will exist for a finite time.

Obviously, that sentence makes no grammatical sense, and still no meaning can be deciphered. I agree that you shouldn't have to dumb-down your writting just so that 'laymen' can understand, but considering I cannot understand it with the help of a dictionary, and my linguistic skills are far above the national average, perhaps it would be best to simplify some of the language, mon ami.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 22nd, '08, 15:50

Comprehensibility is the sole responsibility of the author. I am (to eschew false modesty) an intelligent, open-minded and philosophically literate person: I find the OP utterly incomprehensible.

dkane75 might well be the greatest genius to hit philosophy since Aristotle, but the OP is certainly insufficient to demonstrate that hypothesis.

Feynmann, Asimov, Hawking, et al. can make quantum mechanics and astrophysics comprehensible to the ordinary educated person; philosophers have absolutely no excuse for writing incomprehensibly.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 22nd, '08, 15:53

@dkane75....dude...how precisely are you supposed to "expand the bounds of human possibility" when your fellow humans have no idea what your series of ill linked buzz words mean.....yeah the tradition from which you come is interesting indeed....i'm a long way from understanding so i doubt i could be of much help.....It is from that interest that I asked the question I did from the other forum.....and one more thing as if i had a clue....though this shall fall on deaf ears in both camps...i'd hazzard a guess and say that this philosophical purity you bring or the fullness you describe shall unlikely be understood until theres a mastery of simplicity in your description......with kindest regards i am and remain....peace out....

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 22nd, '08, 18:01

Hi dkane75! :-)

I've not studied Heidegger or the continentals generally as I've found the analytic tradition I've had capable of framing and resolving internal disputes about various topics that are covered by philosophers.

Some initial questions then.

In your opening paragraph you equate consciousness with the universe. Why? You refer to the universe as a physico-logical construct, I would say that my concept of 'universe' and how I understand it might be that, i.e. that I have a metaphysical model that has patterned the data in a way that this concept helps explicate, but I'm not sure that the origin of the data is my consciousness. Perhaps you're not saying that?

When I think of my identity, I think of my personality, moods, memories and so on, as well as the sensory evidence of my being physically 'separate' from others, I am not thinking of time. Could you elaborate on why I am thinking of time-itself? Am I misunderstanding you with regard to what you mean regarding me thinking about my identity?

I'm having trouble relating the phrase 'existential attunements' to 'ontological wherefrom'. Isn't the wherefrom innate? I can't see how my processing of raw data from the senses, while of course is filtered preconsciously, can be described in the terms you're using. It strikes me that the blueprinting you refer to directly forms from non analytical means, or rather, that your existential analytic cannot be parsed as far as I can see without being filtered by the patterns applied to that data resulting from the blueprinting. The ontological status of self as I have come to understand has derived from an epistemologically synthetic approach. As a physicalist I see you introducing a redundant layer to considerations of being.

Surely the possibilizing ground you refer to is delimited to sensory input, and that forms the entirety of what we have as humans to work with when determining the nature of reality.

Regarding your essay, I'm worried you think you're on the verge of a Nobel prize, or rather, I worry that you feel the need to say it out loud. Irrespective of this concern from a fellow Salieri I have to question the importance of your notion of temporal universe. Are you saying the only universe that exists is what is experienced when one does not want or need something. Obviously the non heideggerian (me) equates reality with what is, and the universe is something that, er, is, and as such it sounds awfully like you're saying the universe only exists when I'm not hungry or otherwise needing something, given you say that there can only truly be a temporal universe. I don't understand why you're placing any kind of importance on that part of one's life where one happens not to want or need anything.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 22nd, '08, 22:08

sorry off topic a bit...but hey ya'll....i really need help trying to understand this passage from aristotle....
Further it is evident that motion is an attribute of a thing just when it is fully real in this way, and neither before nor after. For each thing of this kind is capable of being at one time actual, at another not. Take for instance the buildable as buildable. The actuality of the buildable as buildable is the process of building. For the actuality of the buildable must be either this or the house. But when there is a house, the buildable is no longer buildable. On the other hand, it is the buildable which is being built. The process then of being built must be the kind of actuality required.
i understand that aristotles definition of motion is "The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially, is motion,".....but this example is really confusing to me.....please help....thanks.....

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 22nd, '08, 22:39

slowmoe wrote:@dkane75....dude...how precisely are you supposed to "expand the bounds of human possibility" when your fellow humans have no idea what your series of ill linked buzz words mean.....yeah the tradition from which you come is interesting indeed....i'm a long way from understanding so i doubt i could be of much help.....It is from that interest that I asked the question I did from the other forum.....

You are without a doubt a shining star of gentlemanly graciousness in this pit of unendingly pitiful pedantry, Slowmoe.

For everyone else. You can take my philosophy or you can leave it. I could not care less what you people choose to do with it. I am here for the long haul. Do not feel inadequate if you can't understand my thoughts at first blush. If I felt it worthwhile, I would also do this kind of childish bickering that so consumes you.

I am difficult to understand because the ideas I am trying to convey have never before been explicitly formulated. I believe the philosopher who came the closest to my perspective on temporality was Henri Bergson, although he did not utilize my manner of an existentially analytical questioning. My purpose is to perform a full elucidation of the "mechanics" of the transcendence of the multiplicity of worldly appearances. I have determined that the common conception of temporality -- the temporal multiverse -- is nothing less than the a priori spatiality that "grounds" all other forms of spatial dimensionality (e.g. "world space"). It is from these grounds that the physicalistic paradigm of "cause and effect" takes root. I feel that an explicit understanding of the temporal "wherefrom" of spatiality-as-such is a necessary step in understanding how it is that the 'I' can possibly transcend the multiciplity of worldly appearances into which it is "thrown."

Now if you cannot understand from where I am coming or to where I am attempting to go, then all I can say is that you continue to study all philosophical traditions. Do not let this thing called the "West" be the sum total of your philosophical horizon. You would be wise to look into DT Suzuki, for starters. This will allow you to become unburdened from your petty prejudices against anything that smacks of speculative originality.

Now, please stop telling me how much you fail to understand me. Do you really think I would feel that I had accomplished anything of note if a bunch of chatty-hacks had instantly told me, "Way to go... that makes perfect sense."?
and one more thing as if i had a clue....though this shall fall on deaf ears in both camps...i'd hazzard a guess and say that this philosophical purity you bring or the fullness you describe shall unlikely be understood until theres a mastery of simplicity in your description......with kindest regards i am and remain....peace out....

Slowmoe,

Could you give me an example of something that is unnecessarily complicated? I am all ears. You must understand, however, that I want to put forth a scholarly face with regard to my formal writings. I am not interested in "dumbing down" my terminology for the sake of widespread acceptance if it fails to accurately depict the subtle complexity of my thought. In fact, I find that it can only lend an air of credibility to me if I state things in the precise language that I feel the concepts merit. So you see that there is indeed a fine line between "simplicitly of description" and "complexity of thought." Again, I will need explicit examples of where you feel that I am egregiously crossing this line.

Thank You,
DKane

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 23rd, '08, 02:21

slowmoe wrote:sorry off topic a bit...but hey ya'll....i really need help trying to understand this passage from aristotle....
Further it is evident that motion is an attribute of a thing just when it is fully real in this way, and neither before nor after. For each thing of this kind is capable of being at one time actual, at another not. Take for instance the buildable as buildable. The actuality of the buildable as buildable is the process of building. For the actuality of the buildable must be either this or the house. But when there is a house, the buildable is no longer buildable. On the other hand, it is the buildable which is being built. The process then of being built must be the kind of actuality required.
i understand that aristotles definition of motion is "The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially, is motion,".....but this example is really confusing to me.....please help....thanks.....
Aristotle's motion is, simply, action.. Action does not exist on its own, but is the action of the entity which is acting: entities act, or move.. A thing in motion, ie, in action, changes from what it is to what it could be (which is all that "fulfills a potential" means)..

A pile of wood can potentially be built into a house, ie, is potentially buildable.. When the pile of wood is actually being built into a house, it is actually buildable.. The potentiality of being built is being fulfilled, and the pile of wood is in motion (because it is being moved).. When the house has been built, the pile of wood no longer exists, has no potential or actual properties, and is not buildable..

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 23rd, '08, 02:39

Further it is evident that motion is an attribute of a thing just when it is fully real in this way, and neither before nor after. For each thing of this kind is capable of being at one time actual, at another not. Take for instance the buildable as buildable. The actuality of the buildable as buildable is the process of building. For the actuality of the buildable must be either this or the house. But when there is a house, the buildable is no longer buildable. On the other hand, it is the buildable which is being built. The process then of being built must be the kind of actuality required.
You are either doing a particular thing or you are not doing that particular thing.
It is not possible to do nothing nor is it possible to not do that which is required of the result desired.
When you are doing that which the desired result requires a different result cannot be achieved.

If you desire to achieve the life proper for a human being you must achieve it as a human being. The desired result determines the action required to achieve it. This is the Law of Causality.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 23rd, '08, 03:06

I don't think that's what Aristotle's point was, mate..

To go further and to get closer to the point, there are a couple existents in play: the pile of wood, the house, the builder, the process of building.. They are all related in the following way: the builder builds (engages in the process of building) the pile of wood into the house.. The pile of wood is buildable, because the builder can build it into the house..

But what is the fulfillment of that potential, or the actuality of the buildable?? It's not the wood or the builder, because neither of those would make any sense.. According to Aristotle, then, "the actuality of the buildable must be either this or the house." But it carnt be the house, because "when there is a house, the buildable is no longer buildable" - after the pile of wood is built into the house, there is no longer a pile of wood and therefore there is no longer anything buildable, so that there is no longer a potential that can be fulfilled.. If there is no longer anything buildable, then there carnt be any actuality of the buildable, because the actuality of the buildable depends on there being something buildable..

By elimination of all the other possibilities, "the actuality of the buildable as buildable is the process of building." The action of building the house out of the pile of wood fulfills the potential of the wood to be built into the house.. It makes the house an actual, instead of a potential..

The process of building transforms the pile of wood, which potentially is (ie, could be) the house, into the house.. It makes actual, ie, real, what might be.. Aristotle's question was... what makes the potential, actual?? And his answer was, movement, or action.. :-)

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 23rd, '08, 15:11

Sounds logical!

Potential exists but it must be (can only be) actualised by proper physical action.

For example. The potential for happiness exists but it must be actualised by proper physical action. Or: Since it has been actualised there no longer exists a potential for travelling to the moon.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 23rd, '08, 15:28

Paris_Hangover wrote:Very true. But does this have anything to do with marriage? I have heard the argument that if gay marriage is legalized, then there is no further drive to continue the species, but this is a slippery slope. One thing such an argument misses is the fact that a good 50% of gay and lesbian couples have a desire to raise children (per a study referenced somewhere, sorry I will search for the link later). Obviously, homosexuality does not remove the drive to continue the species, then.
Any rational person would not make false statements about this issue. Its simply not true that gays or gay relationships; in some way or another, influence the reproductive drive of straights.

And the issue is not can gays raise a child or not; of course they can. The issue is does a gay relationship produce children; and of course it does not. This is the heart of the marriage issue. Marriage honours the needs of the species - in other words it honours the union of men and women while not demanding production from them. It merely honours that relationship necessary for human survival.
You are right - I did not focus on the facts. I was interested in the facts others would cite in favor of their arguments. But this still does not answer the question of whether a marriage should only honor the solution of a problem which seems to have no further relevance to our species, namely, that of ensuring the survival of itself.
You don't think that the specific act upon which the survival of the species depends is any longer relevant to the survival of the species?
I agree that gays cannot act in a way which the marriage contract (at least, the white anglo-saxon Christian version of it) was established to honor. That begs the question of the relevance of marriage, however. In addition, a "civil union" does not uniformly apply a rule, and that is the heart of this question before us - is it true that we must apply these rules for determining the validity of a marriage and the benefits of such in a non-uniform manner? And if the answer is no, then what is the purpose of calling the same thing by a different name?
Who is proposing that a "Civil Union" be set-up that does not address the economic and property issues?

Biker555
Posts: 11
Joined: May 13th, '08, 03:45

Post by Biker555 » May 23rd, '08, 16:01

dkane75 wrote:Slowmoe,
Could you give me an example of something that is unnecessarily complicated?
Yes sir, he could. But, he's ashamed enough as it is to do so, for the complication is born not necessarily of your own making but instead of his own inability to grasp the depth of your work.

Slowmoe will admit that there was a scent of his being improper in suggesting as he did, and though he certainly has no desire to flower not even the slightest of negative remarks, he never the less felt compelled to relay that it’s his way of thinking that the needs to ensure your readers understanding trumps the need for maintaining the flavor in your articulate style; moreover, and in any case, he wishes to maintain a positive posture without negativity.

Slowmoe is no philosopher, as it should be so apparent, and for what it's worth, he has made but a mere four passes (so far!) through your work. Though it's difficult for him to understand breadth, depth, and scope completely, seeing as he's not quite accustomed to the philosophical jargon of the times, he feels that there is a certain ‘purity’ that if better understood may very well be better received by those you encounter around these parts.
I am all ears.
Slowmoe doesn't know you, you’ve been put on the defensive, and he doesn't know if that’s a common position you would otherwise find yourself in elsewhere or not. He simply doesn't know. But, if you’re as open-minded as your work exemplifies you to be, then he is sure you’ll prevail and withstand the scrutiny of some people around here or there that have proven themselves to be much more knowledgeable than him.
You must understand, however, that I want to put forth a scholarly face with regard to my formal writings.
Why? You hint verbiage of a last philosopher. Would not such a person want to differentiate from such scholarly formality? Slowmoe sticking with his statement. Greatness is associated with simplicity, not a scholarly face.
I am not interested in "dumbing down" my terminology for the sake of widespread acceptance if it fails to accurately depict the subtle complexity of my thought.
Nor should you, especially for his sake, but ‘acceptance’ isn’t the issue -- understanding is. Not his, mind you, but for those who pride themselves of being so logically minded.
In fact, I find that it can only lend an air of credibility to me if I state things in the precise language that I feel the concepts merit.
Precise? You have a lot to offer and he has a lot to learn. Perhaps Slowmoe oughts not be so quick to judge, and he did judge you. He will be more cautious in the future.
So you see that there is indeed a fine line between "simplicitly of description" and "complexity of thought."
He agreed.
Again, I will need explicit examples of where you feel that I am egregiously crossing this line.
Slowmoe's going to bow out for now and watches from the sidelines.

Btw, DKane, you bring welcomed variety of thought. Slowmoe for one hopes you stick around.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 23rd, '08, 20:38

Dear all,

To be fair to dkane75, I want to start this discussion with the articulation of what I believe is a common view in the philosophical community. This view might go something like - there are two schools of thought in contemporary Western philosophy: the analytic tradition following the work of Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein, and the continental tradition following the work of Sartre, Heidegger, and Foucault. All major philosophers in the Western tradition fall into one of these two schools, and these philosophical schools are directly opposed to each other on a number of key issues, both methodological and in terms of content.

This characterization of contemporary Western philosophy is fairly accurate in a superficial way, but I want to discuss the supposed significance of this distinction. Many people seem to place a great deal of importance on which school they identify themselves with. I think that this is a mistake and is almost certainly detrimental to the philosophical community.

Analytic philosophers often accuse their Continental counterparts of being unclear, inarticulate, and generally obscurantist. However, consider the output of Analytic philosophy: it is highly technical and almost exclusively concerned with issues in language and scientifically-informed metaphysics. Analytic philosophy almost never addresses the kinds of issues that bring most people to philosophy in the first place, questions about the meaning of life. Of course, the typical Analytic philosopher has a ready-made explanation for this apparent lack. They claim that questions about the meaning of life are vague in the extreme, or are simply meaningless questions, and therefore no informative discussion can be had on such a topic. Though that response may seem perfectly reasonable and well-reasoned, it does not seem to address the lingering feeling that such questions are really, truly, deeply important for all humans.

On the other hand, continental philosophers accuse their Analytic counterparts of being too technical, to the point of being trivial. They will commonly express the view I outlined above, with reference to their school of philosophy as the "philosophy of everyman." But consider the style of Continental output: it is often so inclined toward a literary, metaphorical style that one cannot be very confident about what it says at all. If this tradition is supposed to represent the concerns of the everyday person, questions about the meaning of life, etc... then it doesn't seem to be doing a great job at its task. After all, the average person on the street probably couldn't make heads or tails of the average Contintenal position because it is so difficult to understand. In that case, whether it is oriented toward what are seen as more 'fundamental' or 'universal' philosophical concerns, it is in no great position to claim having provided answers to these questions.

My point here is not to say that either school is better or that they are both bad, but merely to point out that they are just different. Both schools have legitimate claims to be considered philosophy as they both draw directly from the methodology and doctrines of the Ancient Greek philosophers, and both continue to produce prolific output concerning a broad range of questions both highly abstract and possibly strictly metaphorical - like the question of the meaning of life - to the more concrete and though, less controversial, no more easily settled debates in areas such as ethics, political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of language. While the differences between the analytic and continental traditions may seem stark, I take them to be, at the ground level, more about difference of style than any really substantial like methodology or content.

If I am right about this last part, then there is no reason to reject someone's view just because they happen to fall into a different tradition than what you are used to reading or thinking about. People on both sides of this "war" are guilty of knee-jerk rejections against anything that is presented in the style of the other philosophical school. I propose that we stop falling into this particular habit, at least here on these forums. It seems to me that there is no good reason to reject out of hand something that someone says MERELY because they happen to fall into the stylistic trappings of whichever school you happen to dislike. Without any explanation why I am wrong about this last claim, it has got to be regarded as a simple fallacy for you (or me) to reject someone else's doctrine just because of the philosophical tradition they are a part of.

That said, I am certainly not advocating that we accept any old view in the name of tolerance, that would be the height of anti-philosophy. Surely, we must continue the dialogue and continue debating the issues, but what I AM advocating is that we do so on topic. If someone presents something in a style you are unfamiliar with or dislike, try putting more effort into understanding what they are saying before you comment on it. If they are really saying something you take to be wrong, attack the argument rather than the person or school of thought. If your work is criticized, attempt to respond to the criticism rather than insult the person who is making the criticism. And if someone is really not making any sense, no matter how you look at it, then call them on it. But do so politely, please! We should seek truth, but in doing so we should also practice tolerance to what degree it is warranted. And I believe it is warranted to a greater degree than it is sometimes practiced around here.

Just some thoughts...

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 23rd, '08, 22:00

@paris..... holdup girl.....what do you mean to be fair to dkane....have you gone back a page or so and read his posts.....he was the first to throw out ad homs at gboy for asking questions about his work......yea i agree it is foolish to judge material simply by identifying a tradition it emerges from....bring on the continental thought....there is lots of good stuff..... @jscorpio.....thanks for the help.....hearts you.....peace out.....

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 25th, '08, 17:05

Can we all please grow up? It doesn't matter who started the fight.

I am standing by my earlier statement. I think my view regarding tolerance and polite disagreement is completely warranted.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 25th, '08, 20:45

Discussion #2:

What is Truth?

Truth is a pro-life concept. The antonym of truth is lie. For a something to be considered as being true it must first be; i.e., it must be real. Aristotle’s identification that existence exists; means that truth is; what it is. And what truth is; is reality. Since reality necessarily exists and since ones perceptions of reality are unavoidable; this means that ones perceptions of reality are necessarily true. Since the imaginary is necessarily a contrivance of reality; truth based upon the imaginary is necessarily contrived; meaning manmade.

Lie is an anti-life concept. A lie is a thing which is known to be false but is being purposefully held in the place of a truth that is known to exist; i.e., to lie is to purposefully hallucinate. It is to announce ones fondness of ones self-induced mental illness. Since truths are necessary for survival, lies will result in pain, suffering, destruction and eventually death.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 25th, '08, 21:03

Hi neighbor! :-)

<b>Britishk wrote:</b> <i>Since truths are necessary for survival, lies will result in pain, suffering, destruction and eventually death.</i>

I don't agree that this is the case. Some lies result in social harmony and increased productivity. A society based around a very powerful, yet false, set of assumptions could result in the opposite of pain, suffering, destruction and death.

But anyway, if your point was that science works and it is a good idea to employ it rather than ignore it for some reason, I agree.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 25th, '08, 21:26

AF_1 wrote:Hi neighbor! :-)

<b>Britishk wrote:</b> <i>Since truths are necessary for survival, lies will result in pain, suffering, destruction and eventually death.</i>

I don't agree that this is the case. Some lies result in social harmony and increased productivity. A society based around a very powerful, yet false, set of assumptions could result in the opposite of pain, suffering, destruction and death.

But anyway, if your point was that science works and it is a good idea to employ it rather than ignore it for some reason, I agree.
Lies contradict reason and reality. Eudaimonia is necessarily grounded in reality and lived by reason. (Try to live by the maxim that things are not what they are, and the mind is powerless to tell the difference. See how far you get and what kind of harmony and productivities result.) Lies certainly do contradict people's ability to live.

Science does not "work" in any pragmatic sense. Science is the study of reality by the methods appropriate to the kind of consciousness men possess. Ignoring science is, identically, ignoring reality. Trying to live well while ignoring reality is, in principle and in every case in practice, impossible.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 25th, '08, 21:32

The scientific method is a tool by which we can verify, through experiment, the validity of our hypotheses. By use of the method we can learn about the universe. In that respect the scientific method is a tool and does indeed "work" despite the nit you pick.

Regarding lies, I agree that ignoring reality utterly would be disastrous, however it is very common for people to employ social lies or hopeful lies to themselves or others in order to remain in an unpanicked state during crises. Sometimes it is better to believe that a hopeful outcome is more likely than it is in reality in order to better condition oneself to achieve that outcome.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 25th, '08, 21:53

AF_1 wrote:Regarding lies, I agree that ignoring reality utterly would be disastrous, however it is very common for people to employ social lies or hopeful lies to themselves or others in order to remain in an unpanicked state during crises. Sometimes it is better to believe that a hopeful outcome is more likely than it is in reality in order to better condition oneself to achieve that outcome.
Can you give me an example where not knowing what is necessary; but lying to oneself that one does know, is better than actually knowing. Or, can you give me an example where one is lying about a disaster about to happen (i.e., believing that it is not) and therefore one is not acting to alleviate it is better that knowing the disaster is about to happen therefore one is actively acting to alleviate it.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 26th, '08, 02:34

No, but I can give you the following example:

Imagine a patient undergoing some elaborate brain surgery that only has a success rate of 10%. Now, it would benefit that patient if he is not panicked therefore there could be some benefit to the patient willfully ignoring knowledge of the odds and simply doing the following:

1. Telling the doctor to withhold the odds for a successful procedure from him and simply asking him to use his best judgment, thereby sparing him the stress of knowing that he has only a 10% chance to live.

2. Praying to a deity the night before, even if this deity is entirely imaginary, if it calms the patient and keeps his body in an unpanicked state it may affect the outcome of the procedure.

Now, obviously the patient/doctor set are not entirely willfully ignoring scientific truths, if they were then the doctor would be ineffective. The patient, knowing that doctors are the most effective healers, is better off than fooling himself that God will somehow heal him if he prays.

However, once it gets down to crunch time and the decision to employ a doctor trained in medicine is made- then it is not always best to be 100% truthful with oneself. Sometimes hope even hope in something that is unscientific or illogical, is the best set of mind to have to accomplish some goal.

I'm not trying to contradict your statements I'm just demonstrating that there is some wiggle room in a statement as, uh, stylized as "Since truths are necessary for survival, lies will result in pain, suffering, destruction and eventually death."

Lies, hopeful lies, can sometimes benefit one in times of crises.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 26th, '08, 03:51

The person in question does not currently have the capacity to act on his knowledge. At this point in time, his knowledge is irrelevant to his ability to live. These assumptions of this example contradict the context into which it was injected.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 26th, '08, 04:00

Not at all. The person in question can panic, can commit suicide, can drive away in a car, all of which would be relevant to his ability to live. And my point is that having the most accurate knowledge of his condition might actually be a detriment in that very moment, whereas positive visualization or some kind of appeal to a spiritual being may calm the man. Is this willful spinning of reality in crisis the same as a willful lie as Britishk defined? I'm not sure.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 26th, '08, 04:11

Ok, let's say the man has cancer that needs to be operated on or he will die. He knows that he has cancer, yet he tells himself that he doesn't and he goes to Las Vegas to gamble.

He collapses in Vegas, is taken to a hospital there, and, while unconscious, is operated on by the best oncologist staff in the world. They know the only procedure that can save him, and are the only ones that know. The man lives.

Had the man accepted the truth, that he had cancer, he would have been operated on in Phoenix and died because the staff there was not as good.

In that example, the man's lie to himself actually benefited himself.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 26th, '08, 04:20

Mr. AF_1,

Are you determined to think of the one situation in the world which might buttress your silly point?

Philosophy is a science, and the way you are going about it is certainly not scientific. What you are doing is fanciful and absolutely ungrounded in reality.

There are so many problems with the example of the cancer patient, but you would try to counter every one by stringing up an even more fanciful, even more ungrounded hypothetical scenario, ad absurdum or infinitum, whichever takes longer. So there is no point, as you have proved in your last response.

Philosophy deals with abstract ideas and their applications to concrete examples. Eg, people are able to sustain their own lives by their ability to think if and only if they keep a clear mind and refrain from deluding themselves. To the extent that people delude themselves, their ability to think is obstructed, and their ability to live is correspondingly reduced.

The cancer patient in your example cannot sustain his own life, whether or not he deludes himself. Whether other people sustain him does not depend on his capability to think. As regards him, whether they do or not is happenstance. His own power of self-sustenance is gone.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 26th, '08, 04:31

<b>Paris_Hangover wrote:</b><i> Are you determined to think of the one situation in the world which might buttress your silly point?
Philosophy is a science, and the way you are going about it is certainly not scientific. What you are doing is fanciful and absolutely ungrounded in reality.</i>


What I'm doing is indeed very scientific.

I'm holding people's axioms up to the light of theoretical reasoning. If one claims that lies are anti-life and (necessarily) lead to pain, death, etc... I disagree because lies have no such power, and in a theoretical example a lie could easily be the necessary ingredient in a causal chain leading to the opposite of pain, death, etc..

It's more meaningful to understand how lies could possibly lead to suffering, and how they usually do. Human behavior is a complex thing and dogmatic axioms about what necessarily causes what in every single case are just a pain in the rear.

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 26th, '08, 04:44

AF_1 wrote:What I'm doing is indeed very scientific.
Since science is the study of reality, and since what you are doing has nothing to do with studying reality, what you are doing has nothing to do with science. Since philosophy is a science, what you are doing has nothing to do with philosophy either.
lies have no such power
A person's knowledge determines his actions; if a person's knowledge is flawed, he cannot act to any success.
It's more meaningful to understand how lies could possibly lead to suffering, and how they usually do. Human behavior is a complex thing and dogmatic axioms about what necessarily causes what in every single case are just a pain in the rear.
Where were you when I explained it? Just apply the principle to concrete instances. Suppose a person deludes himself into thinking he is a great musician and proposes to spend all his savings to produce an album. Nobody will purchase the album, and he will fail and lose all his money, reducing his capability to live well and in some cases endangering his life.

Hyperanalyzing causal chains is a very crude, and ultimately wrong, method of approach. The correct approach is analyzing a person's method and content of thought and how it affects his actions.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 26th, '08, 18:52

Paris_Hangover wrote:Can we all please grow up? It doesn't matter who started the fight.

I am standing by my earlier statement. I think my view regarding tolerance and polite disagreement is completely warranted.
my bad....sorry am learning one day at a time....yea i agree with ya about polite disagreement.....peace.....

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 26th, '08, 20:39

Slowmoe bf, I'd like to continue the discussion in here from page 26 of "What's on your mind right now?". You know I don't want to get anymore dings for going off topic. LOLLOL&LOL!

Anyways bf, it's possible that there may be something to the evolutionary explanations. But we'd never be able to tell, given the extraordinary influence that simple sexism has clearly had.

I mean really bf, consider the question of great female scientists. Here the answer is pretty straightforward. With extremely rare exceptions, in the modern era people who have made great advances in science have been people who were first well-educated in the fundamentals of science. Ordinarily this means people who went to university, or the equivalent, in science. MIT didn't build its first women's dorm until the 1960s. Most of the Ivies didn't go coed until the 60s and 70s (Columbia in the 80s). And you can ask any woman in science about whether the playing field is level for women today.

Music is pretty much the same. Music isn't just about genius; it takes study as well. Beethoven bf studied with Haydn; how many female pupils did Haydn have? How easy do you think it would have been for a woman to get an incredibly expensive orchestra to rehearse with in the nineteenth century?

I notice that the Starbucks guy didn't ask, "Why is there no female Dickens?" That's because writing is an area where barriers to entry have been low for quite some time; women were always allowed to read and write, although not always to publish. And male pseudonyms were an easy entre into the literary world for writers like the Brontes, who managed to succeed in letters despite social pressure. And since then, there has not been a shortage of good women writers or of "serious" women writers.

And it's worth noting that good women writers still do tend to be undervalued by a sexist critical establishment; fine women writers like May Sinclair who can by pigeonholed into traditionally female genres, for example, are never considered as serious as writers in traditionally male genres, such as Rudyard Kipling. How much worse must it be for women in fields where autodidacticism is harder; women who depended on teachers who they knew were probably as sexist as the rest of their society to get them to the point where they could make a contribution? Einstein was one of generations of male students at his postsecondary school; his wife was the only woman in her class. With those kind of numbers for inputs, why would you expect the same number of geniuses in the output?

Sure bf, maybe there are subtle differences in physiology. But surely any such differences are absolutely swamped by the undeniable fact that women have been denied the opportunity to excel in these fields until extremely recently. SNAPSNAP!

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 26th, '08, 22:45

Everyone,

Lowering my standards in writing so that you "analysts" can already understand.

Men and women, if you have noticed, are very different creatures. Just listen to what they talk about and think is important versus men. I don't think that most women find the hard sciences to be interesting, not compared to shopping, family, gossip and entertainment. Men are more interested in competitive sports and competition in general while women use manipulation to get what they want. Furthermore, geniuses tend to be loners, while women demand a social networking environment. In addition, women's brains are wired differently than males, and their emotional swings are more pronounced.

Nature dictates that women have a different role to play than men, not just society. In the few cases where women have excelled in gaining recognition, many of them seem to be more male, even in appearance, than female.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 26th, '08, 23:50

Ha! Nice.

Er, that is satire, right?
Because with all the women I know, "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" is a <i>joke</i>.

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 27th, '08, 00:12

Britishk wrote:Ha! Nice.

Er, that is satire, right?
Because with all the women I know, "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" is a <i>joke</i>.
I can't think of a worse torture than to be left in a room full of women and be forced to listen to the vapid things that they talk about. Perhaps you and your associates are atypical. No satire intended.

Biker555
Posts: 11
Joined: May 13th, '08, 03:45

Post by Biker555 » May 27th, '08, 00:30

I think you're showing your age, DKane. I've been in far too many rooms with a bunch of men talking about sports, hot chicks, "sweet rides", and any number of other subjects of inane blather. In such situations, I generally strike up a conversation with the first person I see unable to avoid rolling their eyes. Almost always it is a much more intelligent person and, more often than not (of course assuming there is at least one in this awful room), a female. Understandable, since even completely uninterested guys feel they need to act interested lest their "manliness" come under suspicion. Viewing the population as a whole, I'd say both males and females who are of above average intelligence are atypical. I certainly see no reason to think men are more likely to be more intelligent than women.

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 27th, '08, 01:19

Biker555 wrote:I think you're showing your age, DKane. I've been in far too many rooms with a bunch of men talking about sports, hot chicks, "sweet rides", and any number of other subjects of inane blather. In such situations, I generally strike up a conversation with the first person I see unable to avoid rolling their eyes. Almost always it is a much more intelligent person and, more often than not (of course assuming there is at least one in this awful room), a female. Understandable, since even completely uninterested guys feel they need to act interested lest their "manliness" come under suspicion. Viewing the population as a whole, I'd say both males and females who are of above average intelligence are atypical. I certainly see no reason to think men are more likely to be more intelligent than women.
Is there not some misrepresentation of my statement being made here? Did I ever mention the issue of intelligence in the context of the nature of women? Please point that out to me if I did so. What I did indicate is that women generally (and many men as well) focus their discussions on the mundane and prosaic. I did not indicate that there are not intelligent and accomplished women. There have been, and are, plenty that are very capable. However, if you think that women in general are keen to discuss science, math, philosophy and politics, please present evidence for same. I'm talking about in real life, not in a classroom or in one's profession. When I bring up these kinds of topics with most women they think that it is extremely boring. Their true interests are elsewhere.

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 27th, '08, 02:51

dkane75 wrote:However, if you think that women in general are keen to discuss science, math, philosophy and politics, please present evidence for same. I'm talking about in real life, not in a classroom or in one's profession. When I bring up these kinds of topics with most women they think that it is extremely boring. Their true interests are elsewhere.
I mean really Dkane bf, when I bring up these topics with men, they mostly think that they're pretty boring, too. I haven't noticed any difference in the interest in math, science or politics between men and women in my circle of friends. I think philosophy is boring myself. It would be strange if this weren't so, since I know a lot of women who do math or science for a living.

Anecdotal evidence, of course, but what more were you hoping for?

I also agree that your age and situation likely have something to do with this perception. I'd assume, based on my experience in the United States, that women of your generation are a lot less likely to have been able to pursue careers or even education in math, science, or politics. It seems a bit backward to start with a woman who has been told from birth to age forty or so that she is biologically incapable of doing certain things, and forced instead to focus her energies on a certain sphere of influence, and then point to her as evidence that she didn't have the aptitude for the career you denied her in the first place.

If you break your son's shins once a year when he's growing up, he's not likely to become a very good soccer player as an adult.

dkane75
Posts: 7
Joined: May 21st, '08, 02:28

Post by dkane75 » May 27th, '08, 12:33

I would say that younger women are considerably more materialistic and superficial than older ones, and the current generation is excessively shallow. My point was not that shallowness is restricted only to females, but that the exceptions are fewer in this category.

Just take a look at tv talk shows in the US, the movie garbage that comes out of Hollywood, and the junk that passes for music today and those who patronize this junk, and you will see that it is predominantly females. They are the ones who are fashion junkies and contemporary music groupies and who continually have a cellphone growing out of their ears. They read pulp fiction (if they read books at all) and vote for candidates because they are cute. Is this true of every woman? No. Just most of them.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 27th, '08, 15:38

Dorothy Hodgkin
Marie Curie
Suzanne Langer
Judith Weir
Jocelyn Bell
Rosalind Franklin

My mother became pregnant (with me) while doing her PhD. When she told her prof, the answer was "If you prefer to hang nappies on the line than do research in science, that is your choice, but know this: the day you leave this department, the door slams behind you".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest