tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3062079544294977462..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Frege on objectivityEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger246125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36090775145670625912021-04-17T10:13:57.375-07:002021-04-17T10:13:57.375-07:00The comments written by this Unknown read like a p...The comments written by this Unknown read like a parody. I find it hard to believe that some people are living caricatures of leftists like how he's showing himself to be, maybe I'm too charitableMechaMutohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15312424884885394087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65268508928354018832021-04-13T09:48:28.161-07:002021-04-13T09:48:28.161-07:00Be that as it may, the point of Dr. Feser's po...Be that as it may, the point of Dr. Feser's point, if I understand it correctly, is that the subjective is "irrelevant" in politics and society. My point is that, on the contrary, it could hardly be more relevant.<br /><br />Surely, Jesus found this out the hard way. If anyone has ever experienced how powerful the subjective is, it was Jesus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50831318477366658472021-04-10T13:37:58.854-07:002021-04-10T13:37:58.854-07:00*weren't...*weren't...Modus Pownenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722658439091652726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63594217720101765172021-04-09T13:41:28.747-07:002021-04-09T13:41:28.747-07:00Yeah, Rachel Dolezal also comes to mind. Blacks we...Yeah, Rachel Dolezal also comes to mind. Blacks were exactly thrilled about her identifying with them.Modus Pownenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722658439091652726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28659155888769850192021-04-09T10:24:05.873-07:002021-04-09T10:24:05.873-07:00Fred, Daniel, Anonymous, Jonatan B - April 8, t.25...Fred, Daniel, Anonymous, Jonatan B - April 8, t.25PM- 10.51AM<br /><br /> What is it with you people - why can't you understand the simplest of things? Well, I will have a couple of suggestions to make about that later. Right now, let me summarise for you how it is.<br /><br />1. In humans, biological sex IS binary ( or as close to that as makes any difference ).<br /><br />2. However, notions of gender ARE socially constructed, and so are not objective facts as is the value of the gyromagnetic ratio of a muon for example.<br /><br />3. Therefore, it makes every sense to say that ( for example ) a women iS NOT necessarily the same thing as a biological one.<br /><br />4. Further, since human psychological and behavioural diversity is enormous, the traditional binary division of genders IS ludicrously simplistic.<br /><br />5. It IS a fact about many people that they self identify as a member of the opposite sex, or use completely new catagories to label their gender or sexuality.<br /><br />6. Whether the identifications and new catagories mentioned in 5 above are accepted by our society and legal system IS a matter of decision, and getting to the state where they are accepted IS a matter of legal, social and political struggle, one in which - as in so many other matters - you are clearly on the wrong ( and loosing ) side of history .<br /><br /> I have not conceded the intellectual superiority of my opponents Jonatan, because this is not an essentially intellectual matter, indeed, the only relevant thing that any of you have said involved the inaccesibility of the lived experience/qualia of biological women to trans ones, in which case the latter may be in error about the nature of their psychological state. Well,so they might, but then again ( unless any of you Vulcans can arrange a mind meld to find out ), perhaps they are not. In any case, who cares?<br /><br /> Part of the problem here I would suggest is that you are all oommitted to very rigid notions of gender and human sexiality born of your dogmatic, sexually repressed and retarted religion, and rationalised by your minority and very widely contested or rejected metaphysics. But you must have learned by now that the rest of humanity is hardly beholden to your very highly contested ( or rejected ) belief systems.<br /><br /> The other part of the equation is your utter lack of care or empathy for people different from yourselves who wish to have their deeply held inclinations and identifications recognised and respected, and to be allowed to live out their lives as they wish . But such has been the natute of the dogmatic religious mind throughout history. In your case though, this tendency is disguised by your intellectual pretensions and insistance on injecting logic and syllogisms into a sociopolitical arena where they are not relevant . YAHWEH only knows how you conduct yourself when interactibg socially with friends, family and colleagues. You are a bunch of dogmatic cold fish, who in the case of some of the more egregious logic heads ( in an inappropriate arena) are maybe autistic too.<br />.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25031210272511424942021-04-09T08:09:02.058-07:002021-04-09T08:09:02.058-07:00"play with his sister's toys and desire t..."play with his sister's toys and desire to wear her clothes" - did that growing up. Many hours playing with barbies and we used to dress up quite often. <br /><br />"insist that he is a girl" - never did that. However I do have a big concern that there is developing a social status (for parents)to having a transgender child where parents (or teachers) might use the excuse of some normal behaviour (what boy didn't play with his sisters barbies?) as an excuse to confuse a young child. Children at ages 3-5 aren't really clear on the concepts of sex/gender anyways. I have 5 kids, 7 and under. All so far, have gone through an age where they think what separates boys from girls is extremely superficial particulars (length of hair, color of clothing etc.) they see around them. There is way too much wokeness on the part of adults AND vulnerability on the part of children (those things don't mix)and I have absolutely no confidence that parents/teachers will be faithful in their fiduciary duty towards children and not insert confusion where there isn't any or capitalize of age-related confusion where there is. Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15815423557402118285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89887673635461289162021-04-08T19:02:41.472-07:002021-04-08T19:02:41.472-07:00Awe wee lamb.Awe wee lamb.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68259270512309601772021-04-08T13:13:44.217-07:002021-04-08T13:13:44.217-07:00Mister Geocon,
Regardless, if we were talking abo...Mister Geocon,<br /><br /><i>Regardless, if we were talking about how people with this condition would be treated in an Integralist society, I’d say that such an order would have therapists trained to deal with this sort of thing. ...</i><br /><br />In a well-ordered society, 'transexuality' would be a non-problem: it would simply never occur to people to want to change their sex, and without the fragmentation and disintegration of society engendered by the ideology of radical individual autonomy, the number of mentally disturbed individuals feeling radically alienated from society and traditional norms would be greatly reduced.Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06302131576186856435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43076887739014274482021-04-08T10:55:37.193-07:002021-04-08T10:55:37.193-07:00"...sometimes logical certainty is important...."...sometimes logical certainty is important..., but our social life and politics is not like that. Some of you people intellectualise far too much in areas where it is not necessarily appropriate to do so ( or at least not necessary ) and come across as cold fish. Some of you may well be autistic ( absolutely no insult implied or meant here )."<br /><br />Ok so basically you conceid that your opponent's arguments are intellectualy superior. You could have done it more graciously but at least it's clear who's the intellectual and who's the anti-intellectual.Jonatan Blaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13482328049096000947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37024415305940857892021-04-08T10:30:40.191-07:002021-04-08T10:30:40.191-07:00Narratives gain power. Especially when lies go unc...Narratives gain power. Especially when lies go unchallenged. Sometimes truth is more important than winning friends. Ask Jesus.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59603020002309984112021-04-08T10:21:56.346-07:002021-04-08T10:21:56.346-07:00Dale Carnegie of 'How To Win Friends And Influ...Dale Carnegie of 'How To Win Friends And Influence People' wrote that: You can't win an argument.<br /><br />'Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.<br /><br />You can’t win an argument. You can’t because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? Well, suppose you triumph over the other man and shoot his argument full of holes and prove that he is non compos mentis. Then what? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior. You have hurt his pride. He will resent your triumph. And -<br /><br />"A man convinced against his will <br /><br />"Is of the same opinion still."' <br /><br />https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HxWdXMqoQtjDhhNGA/according-to-dale-carnegie-you-can-t-win-an-argument-and-he<br /><br />Or let's look at Robert Greene's take on the issue: 'Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.'<br /><br />Or Benjamin Disraeli, two-time PM of the UK: 'Never argue. In society nothing must be discussed; give only results.'<br /><br />And here is the only time it is useful: 'Verbal argument has one vital use in the realm of power: To distract and cover your tracks when you are practicing deception or are caught in a lie. In such cases it is to your advantage to argue with all the conviction you can muster. Draw the other people into an argument to distract them from your deceptive move. When caught in a lie, the more emotional and certain you appear, the less likely it seems that you are lying.'<br /><br />I would say that this is true 99% of the time with 99% of people. When speaking of political issues, this is a reality that simply has to be part of any reasonable equation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34463354229963384412021-04-08T07:46:49.706-07:002021-04-08T07:46:49.706-07:00Oh, so if we express puzzlement and amazement that...Oh, so if we express puzzlement and amazement that anyone could believe transgender ideology is sane and anger at the chemical mutilation of children, we're irrational bigots. But if we make convincing rational arguments to support our points, we're "cold fish" and "autistic." I see. Heads you win; tails we lose. Clever rhetorical strategy, but I call bullshit.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75109073462590215062021-04-08T07:40:40.171-07:002021-04-08T07:40:40.171-07:00Interesting. Can you suggest any good books that m...Interesting. Can you suggest any good books that might go into greater detail about your points here? Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43197178858054411872021-04-08T07:37:04.035-07:002021-04-08T07:37:04.035-07:00Let's say you are crippled in some apparent wa...Let's say you are crippled in some apparent way. Would you find it hurtful for me to point out that you're crippled? It would depend, right? If you know that human beings by nature are supposed to have the limbs you are missing, then you will stand a better chance at acknowledging that you're crippled. Thus, bodily and with respect to the particular defects in question, you will be in an inferior in that particular respect in relation to those who are not crippled. Now, you may genetically be bodily superior overall to some other person who isn't crippled and your condition may be the result of some accident, hence why I say that, generally speaking, from what I wrote above, we can only infer a very particular kind of inferiority. But if you suffer from pride, you may very well feel hurt by the truth that you are inferior in the manner described. You may deny that it is a defect, or you may deny your inferiority, or you may deny its importance. You may play the game of sour grapes or try to cut down those who are superior. You might create an entire intellectual edifice that rationalizes your pride with "nuance" and various invented and imaginary measures of the good (like theories that try to reduce EVERYTHING to social construction, for very particular reasons, I might add). However it manifests, one thing is clear: you are demonstrating an infantile inability to recognize the pure and simple truth. So it is with the females you mentioned. A butch woman isn't feminine. There is no "nuance" here. With respect to femininity, she is simply inferior to a more feminine woman. She can be great at manual labor or wrestling or whatever else, even better than other women, but qua femininity and all that entails, she will be inferior. He feelings are rather an indictment of her lack of humility rather that the supposed insensitivity of those who state the obvious. (I am reminded of the anecdote in which Thomas', having encountered a levitating nun, commented on the largeness of her feet.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6897740079518176882021-04-08T07:18:28.748-07:002021-04-08T07:18:28.748-07:00The issue is not with natural law, but with how na...The issue is not with natural law, but with how naively and childishly some people apply it to reality as a matter of practice. Yes, we have a nature, and yes, to work against it is as sound of a definition of evil as you will find. Furthermore, there is an objective fact of the matter. To claim otherwise is, as you write, incoherent. But the point is that Man is fallen and so in practice, he will be very actively engaged in subverting his own good. So in practice, yes, lots of things are expressions of the libido dominandi, of the will to dominate. Entire ideologies and swathes of social norms will be expressions of the tyrannical will to dominate. Indeed, that is probably the chief sin that afflicts all men! Thus, "the World" that the Bible speaks of is not Creation, obviously, but a reflection of the false reality of the fallen angels, an upside down world of delusion sustained by temptations, empty promises, confusion, and error. To "sell out" is ultimately to buy into this delusion. <br /><br />So I think a sound account of reality as it is can, without difficulty, reconcile both the fact that there is an objective fact of the matter and that genuine debate engages the merit of the claims being made, while also prudently recognizing the universal desire to dominate and how it can corrupt our capacity to recognize the truth and to act rightly. The audience needs to have this addressed in a holistic manner because intellectual satisfaction and wisdom entail the explanation of observation and not detached theorizing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47650987898288123722021-04-08T05:49:43.683-07:002021-04-08T05:49:43.683-07:00Agreed. Agreed. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85780373969013140252021-04-08T05:28:50.904-07:002021-04-08T05:28:50.904-07:00Oh, so if we express puzzlement and amazement that...Oh, so if we express puzzlement and amazement that anyone could think transgender ideology sane or anger at the chemical mutilation of children, then we're irrational bigots. But if we make convincing rational arguments for our positions, we're "cold fish" and "autistic." I see. Heads you win; tails we lose. Clever rhetorical strategy, but I call bullshit.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3678892439817485072021-04-08T05:05:37.006-07:002021-04-08T05:05:37.006-07:00Son of Ya'kov
I just find you hilarious.
I...Son of Ya'kov<br /><br /> I just find you hilarious.<br /><br /> I mean 'So what was yer boi Stalin's excuse for burning the non "lacks belief in ism" there Papa you old Kangarro". Bet Papalinton had a right old laugh. As if he is a Stalinist or in any way supportive of that regime too. You however are a Catholic.FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59255590279423348192021-04-08T02:35:04.556-07:002021-04-08T02:35:04.556-07:00Anonymous @ 2.06AM
DittoAnonymous @ 2.06AM<br /><br />DittoPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35038293003537765012021-04-08T02:06:28.467-07:002021-04-08T02:06:28.467-07:00Dr Yogami
I respect your perspective on transgen...Dr Yogami<br /><br /> I respect your perspective on transgenderism while disagreeing with it, but could I appeal to you to beware the personal 'yuck' response to unfamiliar things, which occurs in many people and leads them to conclude that something is wrong and amiss, when in fact nothing is. It occurred with anaesthetics, xenotransplantation, IVF and GM foods for example, but these things no longer overly concern or seem monsterous to modern people, and my perspective is that transgenderism ( and possible future developments like uterine transplants in a minority of cases ) is just like that. One must have a very good evidence based reason in a pluralist world to prohibit something, and hugely contested theological beliefs, or a personal 'yuck' response to them, is not that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50814244587183331662021-04-07T22:55:30.530-07:002021-04-07T22:55:30.530-07:00Have the comments been closed
Have the comments been closed<br />DrYogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426423741048374038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76305500451606066132021-04-07T22:39:55.184-07:002021-04-07T22:39:55.184-07:00Anonymous,
We're still talking about less tha...Anonymous,<br /><br />We're still talking about less than 1 percent of the population. It's an issue that has been hyped up beyond its actual importance to people's lives generally...although I'd argue that it does have implications for how society thinks about men and women. I'm unconvinced that participating in a delusion about their nature is a good thing to be doing.<br /><br />There has been talk of uterus transplants for trans women, possibly from cadavers from female donors. This disturbs me: from 'Frankenstein' to 'Donovan's Brain' to 'X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes', the Mad Scientist is a trope in sci-fi for a reason. There's so much fascination with what technology and human ingenuity can do that the lingering question of whether it SHOULD be done gets brushed aside.<br /><br />Yeah, I really don't think we're going to persuade each other on this subject. We're operating from very different premises and what you or I think isn't going to matter anyway. Time will tell what happens with this issue although I can't help thinking that eventually the whole thing will collapse and people will go back to ordinary binary categories of thinking about human beings.DrYogamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08426423741048374038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36142106135705391872021-04-07T22:38:10.414-07:002021-04-07T22:38:10.414-07:00@ BalancedTryteOperators April 6, 2021 at 8:26 AM
...@ BalancedTryteOperators April 6, 2021 at 8:26 AM<br />You write: "Buddhism does teach that every Holocaust victim deserved it because of karma. Catholics would never say such an absurd statement."<br /><br />But the church and Catholics were not averse to helping thousands and thousands of Nazi criminals escape to South America and elsewhere. <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/the-ratlines-what-did-the-vatican-know-about-nazi-escape-routes/a-52555068" rel="nofollow"><b>SEE HERE.</b></a><br /><br />Your CHURCH was much more actively involved in the effects of the holocaust than Buddhists.<br />Your whataboutism simply smacks of hypocrisy. <br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79304439120856855172021-04-07T21:46:37.557-07:002021-04-07T21:46:37.557-07:00Simon Adam @ 3.51PM
You write", "Now whe...Simon Adam @ 3.51PM<br />You write", "Now whether this is a useful concept depends on whether it equates to something in nature. If it does, consistently, then it hints at something with a more fundamental nature, something related to the very intelligibility of the universe. What we don’t seem able to do is understand the fullness of the ideal form of this concept, and I would argue that applies to everything, even numbers and maths which are commonly seen as living in some Platonic realm."<br /><br />What you have written comes closest to expressing how I envisage the relationship between the physical and the metaphysical, which I believe has some merit for consideration. On an earlier thread on this blog I was responding to the idea that an exploration of the metaphysical must be vectored from its 'physical' element, that is, grounded to something in nature, from the natural world as we understand it. For what it's worth, I wrote:<br /><br />"I'm not particularly wedded to the notion of metaphysics as I think there are some deeply problematic issues with the concept. However, it seems reasonable to infer that whatever discussion on the metaphysical must be grounded in the physical, that is metaphysics must supervene the physical and not waft out detached from it. Otherwise metaphysics ends up with pink unicorns, flying pigs, angels with wings, and other disembodied entities and malevolent spirits that apparently regularly cross over the divide between the natural and the supernatural world as Aquinas tells us occurs."<br /><br />However, the issue for me is with Part C - divine ideas. There is no ontological basis for these. They are creative and imaginative, not unlike pink unicorns, flying pigs, angels with wings, and talking burning bushes, not grounded, nor supervening the physical. While they may fill some explanatory void in our current knowledge, they are nonetheless ethereal and tenuous in reality with no basis in epistemology.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85712032721285370292021-04-07T21:10:25.698-07:002021-04-07T21:10:25.698-07:00@ Mister Geocon April 7, 2021 at 1:43 PM
You wri...@ Mister Geocon April 7, 2021 at 1:43 PM<br /><br />You write: "For some reason, everything I've posted on here gets rejected."<br /><br />I think I know the problem, Mr Geocon. Before you hit the 'PUBLISH' icon make sure your cursor is somewhere in the reply window. <br /><br />If you were anywhere among the other responses and your cursor is there with you, when you scroll down to the message window you are about to send and hit the 'PUBLISH' button, and not bring down the cursor with you, your message will disappear into the ether, irrecoverable.<br /><br />So make sure the cursor clicks in the message window before publishing. Hopefully this will solve the problem.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com