tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8390454275613623350..comments2024-03-28T10:44:57.324-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: From Socrates to StockEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87334109878276503332021-11-04T13:38:02.931-07:002021-11-04T13:38:02.931-07:00I think you are being harsh. She came on Radio 4&#...I think you are being harsh. She came on Radio 4's "Woman's Hour" and talked about her experiences, and she came across as just broken. That's really what harassment does to people. It wears them down. It's actually quite painful to listen to. But the worst thing about it is that after what's happened to her (and Selina Todd, for that matter), who else is going to come out and speak the truth? Were I an academic, I doubt I'd want to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17160849586422297642021-10-31T15:30:42.951-07:002021-10-31T15:30:42.951-07:00There is so much wrong, deceptive, delusional and ...There is so much wrong, deceptive, delusional and insane with what you said here, it's terrifying.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17922293511230395024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27148752005738874592021-10-29T13:45:31.246-07:002021-10-29T13:45:31.246-07:00Indepently of this article I also thought of Socra...Indepently of this article I also thought of Socrates but in contrast to Stock (rather than an a analogy) now that she has apparently handed her enemies a win by resigning. Would Prof Feser still hold to his position now she's thrown the towel in? Or am I being too harsh? Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083772355881787143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42388512692074103212021-10-27T07:21:43.232-07:002021-10-27T07:21:43.232-07:00Disagree all you like but please...don't be bo...Disagree all you like but please...don't be boring. Yer being boring. Do better.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45256442503921635862021-10-25T08:44:53.318-07:002021-10-25T08:44:53.318-07:00It is interesting to note that Socrates was accuse...It is interesting to note that Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens. The angry mob now wants to make sure people who teach the young cannot be allowed to have employment in a position where they influence young students. Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88343453569378609922021-10-20T11:04:00.107-07:002021-10-20T11:04:00.107-07:00And now Margareth Atwood, the one who wrote Handma...And now Margareth Atwood, the one who wrote Handmaid's Tale!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75212078862260614452021-10-20T04:12:20.062-07:002021-10-20T04:12:20.062-07:00Mister Geocon-Thank You. I wasn't talking abou...Mister Geocon-Thank You. I wasn't talking about same sex couples but about people experiencing within themselves a disconnect between their sex and gender.jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62387549210493301892021-10-19T17:36:22.201-07:002021-10-19T17:36:22.201-07:00jmchugh,
We ought to love the same-sex persons, s...jmchugh,<br /><br />We ought to love the same-sex persons, sure, but accept them? No. It ought be with tough love that we accept them, the love we give to someone suffering from an addiction. We don't give a free pass to alcoholics just because they have a genetic predisposition toward a particular behavior. We ought to treat same-sex attracted persons the same.Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56640012270562733302021-10-19T02:51:50.809-07:002021-10-19T02:51:50.809-07:00Yes, jmchugh, it's confusing. In general, I fi...Yes, jmchugh, it's confusing. In general, I find that people get angry in arguments when they don't know what they're talking about. But Tony seems to be erudite, so it confuses me that he feels he needs to resort to such things.<br />As for forcefully changing the meaning of gender- well, definitions evolve, and come to be used in different contexts. "Idiot" comes from "private"; so if a person is private, are they an idiot, just because that's how the word used to be used? I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it's been forcibly altered; it could have just evolved with time and being used in different ways by different thinkers.<br />I'm using the words in the ways that they are being used in current discourse on this subject- if you think they should be defined differently, then this is perfectly valid, but I think the onus is on you to explain a) what you exactly want to define it as (or, as you would put it, the definition you want us to return to), and b) why your definition should be favored (or, why defining the word your way clears up issues, and the other possible one(s) obfuscate(s) them). So far, as far as I can see, you haven't answered either of these, except for broad brush strokes. So it would be helpful if you could use some specifics to explain your view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33266931972633715142021-10-18T21:11:00.781-07:002021-10-18T21:11:00.781-07:00That is correct, Zamoyski. All these iniciatives t...That is correct, Zamoyski. All these iniciatives to change language are intended by political reasons, if meaning gets on politics way them to hell with it. To give a example, here on my country there is on the woke left a silly push to turn all the pronouns gender-neutral. If the phrase allows the subjects genders to be know, it has to go. The least i can say is that it makes phrases very ugly. It clearly is there because they want to influence how the people think. <br /><br />A case that happened a few days ago is of a doctoral student on one of the biggest universities here who wrote a text about the asiatic identity on the country and used the woke language to refer to some nationalities. The necessity of changing language was so great that she changed the word "árabes"(arabians) to "arábus" when "árabes" is ALREADY a gender-neutral word! <br /><br />Fortunately, this particular madness still only gets laughts. The student article got famous as a meme, being mocked and mocked. The sad part is that the university clearly is contaminated already, for the article got recomended on the college Facebook! Seeing how the progressists are slowling having their wins here, maybe this will become a respectable opinion here...Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27568920436110350752021-10-18T19:23:01.507-07:002021-10-18T19:23:01.507-07:00I'd say you're way off the mark in saying ...<i>I'd say you're way off the mark in saying that such a definition is indefensible and objectively wrong.</i> <br /><br />I do not say that the thing, whatever name you want it to go under, that is being described as a social construct, has no reality, and therefore cannot bear a name. I am OK with naming it something. I am OK with noting and naming the <i>socially formed customs</i> associated with the sexes being an aspect of the world - an aspect that, because formed socially, may potentially be modified. <br /><br />I am saying that naming it "gender" in contradiction to the old meaning of gender, has no clearly defensible basis. There was no reason (other than ideology) to give it THAT name, i.e. to force an already existing name/concept to accept a very different definition. And since that fatefully bad judgment, the debate has fruitlessly circled round and round <i>whether</i> there are socially formed customs <b>associated with</b> the sexes instead of what is the RIGHT WAY TO DEAL with the socially formed customs associated with sex. <br /><br />What would have been wrong with arguing, instead of co-opting the word "gender", that "there are some females whose aptitudes, dispositions, and desires don't fit very well within the confines of the socially formed customs for females, and it is appropriate to discuss <b>to what extent</b> these females should, or should not, feel free to disregard those customs, and to what extent the rest of society should, or should not, accommodate their aptitudes, dispositions, and desires that are not compatible with the socially formed customs"? It doesn't take a <i>forced re-writing</i> of the term "gender" to address that question. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5524935779494054592021-10-18T18:42:47.081-07:002021-10-18T18:42:47.081-07:00Anonymous, on "implicit insults" there d...Anonymous, on "implicit insults" there does seem to be enormous anger in many of the comments here. I'm not sure I understand it. We have a group of people who exhibit unusual characteristics. As social scientists we need to study this phenomenon dispassionately. If we're Christians we need to love them.jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25094235641793253572021-10-18T18:32:52.976-07:002021-10-18T18:32:52.976-07:00Tony-The vast mass of people are not going to hear...Tony-The vast mass of people are not going to hear your distinction between the two meanings of defective. Moreover, I think that it is very important to point out that there may be no solution to this problem, assuming my theory that the issue is a genetic problem and not a psychological delusion. If there is no easy solution and it's a long term problem what do we do? Stamp our feet and yell "defect"! Or, do we love these people, tr0eat them with dignity, and help them to love themselves as they are? Sure, in the beginning a doctor would need to find out what's going on and see if there are psychological factors but once those are ruled out, I say love and acceptance are in order. jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30038611635775626632021-10-18T17:49:11.864-07:002021-10-18T17:49:11.864-07:00And yet you feel the need to come here and comment...And yet you feel the need to come here and comment on them...Jonatan Blaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13482328049096000947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45117710928366386992021-10-18T09:13:06.503-07:002021-10-18T09:13:06.503-07:00This may be the point. Ex falso quodlibet.
Recal...This may be the point. Ex falso quodlibet. <br /><br />Recall that this ideology holds that (all?) categories are fictions that exist to maintain power (this can, of course, be the case, especially when a category is indeed fictional). Perpetual revolution is needed to break up these calcifications of power. The way you do this is through a dialectical method. <br /><br />Gay marriage is another example. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. In order to reconcile both "marriage" and "gay marriage", you need to gut the term "marriage" of its meaning, which of course entails redefining it into nonexistence. If I say that circles are just round triangles, then I've destroyed the meaning of triangle and redefined "triangle" to mean "shape". <br /><br />Gay marriage is not about expanding the institution to be more "inclusive", but about destroying the very notion of marriage altogether. Oktavian Zamoyskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17976343876406335849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25393546639373661562021-10-18T07:39:43.634-07:002021-10-18T07:39:43.634-07:00"The world does not listen to you reactionari..."The world does not listen to you reactionaries."<br /><br />You say that as if that's a good thing.Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77817792264767735352021-10-18T06:47:46.383-07:002021-10-18T06:47:46.383-07:00It’s true! That’s why our opponents are so ignoran...It’s true! That’s why our opponents are so ignorantJourney 516https://www.blogger.com/profile/02672507879326467173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70552671110408356122021-10-18T05:31:09.142-07:002021-10-18T05:31:09.142-07:00With the greatest respect, Tony, I've already ...With the greatest respect, Tony, I've already made quite clear that I am not advocating a position- I'm not sure whether feminism or conservatism is correct, although I think trans activism makes no sense. So please stop saying things like, "You're trying to have it both ways." I'm not trying to have it any way at all.<br />I would also be grateful if you stop putting forward implicit insults (e.g. "Nobody with half a brain would think this")- they add nothing to your case or the discussion and just seem intended to cause frustration. Which is a shame, as you're clearly much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, so you don't need to resort to such tactics<br />Your first few points are very interesting, but alas they have nothing to do with what I actually said. My point was that there is a distinction in theory, even if a masculine female is practically impossible. The fact that you even talk about them separately shows that there is such a distinction. <br />Let me use an analogy: God's goodness and his omniscience are inseparable and the same thing. That said, distinguishing between them in theory can be useful. In the same way, being female and being feminine may be inseparable and the same thing, but there's still a theoretical distinction to be made.<br />As to your last two paragraphs, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. Again, this returns to the subject of what gender is, and as I'm sure you know, there's a big debate over it. But given that Jane Clare Jones and others have defined such things which obviously are social conventions as part of gender, I'd say you're way off the mark in saying that such a definition is indefensible and objectively wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69258978732342863312021-10-18T04:36:32.649-07:002021-10-18T04:36:32.649-07:00Do the short ones matter? I'm just asking for...Do the short ones matter? I'm just asking for a friend.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13192808559430318712021-10-18T03:27:58.801-07:002021-10-18T03:27:58.801-07:00We've now reached a special kind of materialis...We've now reached a special kind of materialism: one that denies matter exists.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62344457305968115642021-10-17T23:59:28.964-07:002021-10-17T23:59:28.964-07:00In such a case while you may be technically correc...<i>In such a case while you may be technically correct in saying "you are defective" to say such a thing to people or about people is just cruel. </i> <br /><br />Ah, I see: you are ascribing to the use of the term "defect" the <i>sense</i> that "you are a defective", meaning "you are only defectively human", i.e. part human, part monster. Lacking humanity, sub-human. <br /><br />But of course, that's not the only way the term "defect" is used and can be used. A child born with a severe harelip sometimes cannot suckle properly, and in the old days could easily die from it. Now we can do surgery on the birth defect, and they can live a normal life. The surgery corrects the defect. To deny the defect is to deny their need for surgery. We don't call them "defectively human" and deny basic human rights: the child is 100% human, just damaged. It isn't cruel to admit that defects damage our ability to function. <br /><br /><i>Now mind you you can, if possible, still treat these problems you just do it in a way that is not dehumanizing.</i><br /><br />Right, treat them as a human being in need of medical help because they have a disorder. That's not cruel. Refusal to treat them because you have refused to call their condition a disorder is cruel. That is NOW HAPPENING in the psychological profession. <br /><br /><i>No sensible therapist starts treating someone by declaring, "You are defective." </i> <br /><br />No sensible therapist starts "treating" someone by declaring: "you are fully healthy in every respect. See you again next week when I will repeat that you are fully healthy in every respect." To treat some problem is to say that the person is in a state of disorder. <br /><br /><i>At most, if I say anything at all, I might say "you have a disability."</i> <br /><br />You are a cruel, heartless person! To call someone like that "disabled" instead of "other-abled". And to stand there refusing to help them do something that takes two hands, because you wouldn't be so callous as to TAKE NOTICE of their lacking two hands! Cruelty again! <br /><br />You see how the "cruel" card can be played? I don't mean it above, and you should stop using it here too. A person who is unhealthy because they have a "personality disorder" (your words, not mine) <b>have a disorder</b>. Refusal to accept the meaning of the term doesn't help people who are sick and need help. Nobody here means by "have a disorder" a sense remotely like "you are a disorder" or "your very humanity itself is disordered, so you are a sub-human". You are projecting stuff that isn't here. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16812167431503554962021-10-17T23:40:26.758-07:002021-10-17T23:40:26.758-07:00At one time 'gender' was just used as a po...<i>At one time 'gender' was just used as a polite way to talk about sex. But it now is also used to refer to the social conventions that have traditionally been assigned to each sex.</i> <br /><br />So, the word had one meaning, and then some people chose to take it and change it to be used differently. <br /><br />On whose authority do they get to give it a different meaning than the meaning it had already? If they needed a term for a concept not yet named, there's a method for that: make a NEW WORD. It's a time-honored activity. If people agree with the usage, it becomes part of the language. <br /><br />You get a problem by doing it your way: confusion. You (or "they") use it to mean some new concept, but in speaking I hear it under the old concept, and then we are talking at cross-purposes, without actual communication. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15252279149712629122021-10-17T22:17:50.464-07:002021-10-17T22:17:50.464-07:00Thankfully, the world does not listen to you react...Thankfully, the world does not listen to you reactionaries. Some of u write LONG posts as if u think they mattered. They don't. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36918430176049487282021-10-17T17:58:22.779-07:002021-10-17T17:58:22.779-07:00Tony-I made a mistake in my remarks on the Catholi...Tony-I made a mistake in my remarks on the Catholic church. That language does still stand. What is happening is that many want to change it. I agree with them although it may be a technically accurate description of the act.jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18256425782213988482021-10-17T17:55:34.778-07:002021-10-17T17:55:34.778-07:00Tony-Surely a missing arm or a defective valve is ...Tony-Surely a missing arm or a defective valve is different from a person who has, say, a personality disorder or a person who is experiencing a gender mismatch. In the latter two cases the sufferer is not only facing an issue of a physical problem but a question that pertains to their identity, their sense of self, their very being. In such a case while you may be technically correct in saying "you are defective" to say such a thing to people or about people is just cruel. Now mind you you can, if possible, still treat these problems you just do it in a way that is not dehumanizing. No sensible therapist starts treating someone by declaring, "You are defective." (Come to think of it, I wouldn't say to a person with a missing arm, "You are defective." That would be pretty cold. At most, if I say anything at all, I might say "you have a disability."jmchughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03687641643148628056noreply@blogger.com