Can a man really turn into a woman?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply

Can a man really turn into a woman?

Gender is fluid, mutable, interchangeable, just a social construct (yes).
2
22%
Gender is fixed, immutable, not subject to change, sumthin' concretely intrinsic to the person (no).
7
78%
 
Total votes: 9

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8811
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Neo-Marxism is just their excuse."

Post by henry quirk »

Agreed. Sure, there are legit socialists/commies runnin' 'round making noise, but most of the young folks claimin' to like and want socialism don't know diddly. What they've been told is: under socialism they'll get free shit and they'll be free to pursue their interests. Pretty much: it's vapid utopian manure havin' little to do with Marx beyond the kid crayon version foisted up by dicks like Sanders and bitches like Warren.

Now, for them legit commies runnin' around: they know Marx and his variations, but -- really -- they operate out of a prehistoric impulse to push people around, take their shit, and generally sit atop mountains of skulls as king.

That Marx, you gotta hand it to him: he dressed up tribal bullshit in finery, passed it off as philosophy, and gave rise to all manner of atrocity. He actually recast the perfectly normal and natural desire to be individually free as 'wrong' and got away with it.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Dachshund »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:27 pm
Neo-Marxism is just their excuse. The motive is much simpler, and far less intellectual, and much less "moralizing." It's just that privileged children want to do what they please. And they want free stuff. And they want to be told they're wonderful and good and delightful for wanting it. That's all.

Dear IC,


Yes, agreed. Though I think we need to remember that these kids are also victims. The fact that they are behaving in foolish, antisocial ways, is largely a consequence of the kind of garbage they have been taught by their teachers and college professors. The average 18 -19 year-old is very vulnerable and impressionable; she or she, naturally assumes, that adults placed in positions of authority in society, persons like university professors, are wise and trustworthy individuals who will have their best interests at heart. Unfortunately, this is not the case. American educators have betrayed the trust that was placed in them by students and their parents. It is a monumental scandal and something that could be quickly eradicated - I'm talking about the indoctrination of youth with Postmodern propaganda and the destruction of the traditional humanities/Liberal Arts curriculum.


What has happened is that for well over 30 years now, young people in the West (particularly in the US) have been intensively bombarded with the poisonous precepts of Postmodern philosophy/ideology through the curricula in their high schools and universities. It is, as I say, chiefly the humanities/liberal arts/Social Sciences curricula that have been effected; the STEM (Science, Technology Engineering, Mathematics) curriculum, thankfully, is still uncorrupted. This is mainly because it is not so easy to peddle ridiculous/absurd narratives about the subject matter of chemistry, physics and mathematics. ( Though I do recall reading a review of one paper published in the "reputable" literature by a notable feminist US college professor who had argued that "quarks" and "electrons" were socially-constructed, "sexist fictions" and that "black holes" were evidence of a "deeply" gynocentric kosmos" (and so on). The response from the scientific establishment was rapid and predictable, and when the machine-gun smoke had cleared, this particular feminist scholar was nowhere to be seen. :D



So what exactly is Postmodernism in its philosophical context ? I tend to see it as an ideological/philosophical/political amalgam of: "Critical Theory" ( like the "Frankfurt School" Critical theory that Herbert Marcuse brought onto US college campuses in the 1960s/1970s), "Cultural Marxism", "Neo-Marxism", Social Constructionism, "Post-Structuralism" (e.g. Foucault's early work) and "Deconstructionism". I mean, it's difficult to pin down because I could add lots of other "isms" to the list, like the distinctive pragmatism of a notable, Postmodern philosopher like America's Richard Rorty, or the psychologisms in the work of some Postmodern theorists who incorporated psychoanalytic concepts into their philosophy.



If you strip "Postmodern philosophical theory down to its sub-frame, you will see that it is squarely based on old-fashioned Marxist precepts, in particular, the oppressor-oppressed narrative. In Marx's work, history was all to do with the economics of ongoing class struggle: i.e; of an impoverished, oppressed proletariat being suppressed and exploited by an oppressor, namely, the wealthy bourgeoisie. In Postmodern neo-Marxism the, meta-narrative is still that of an oppressed --oppressor struggle, only now it is not between (socioeconomic) classes, but between competing Identity Groups (differentiated according to categories such as: ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation (LGBTIQ), sexual expression. For instance, if you are a white, straight, married, American male in 2019, a SJW would classify you as a member of a powerful, privileged, "oppressor" Identity Group; whereas if you are a black American female who is a single mother, you would be classed as a member of a dis-empowered, persecuted, oppressed Identity Group. The ideology of Postmodern neo-Marxism does not recognise the existence of individual human beings, BTW; there are no such things as individual human persons, only GROUP IDENTITIES: Black, Latino, Cis-Gendered, Lesbian, Male, Queer, Feminist, Disabled and so on. One of the problems with Identity politics is that the number of groups has an unlimited potential to multiply. For example: In a hypothetical PoMo world order, there might be an organised group of transsexual Black, Pygmie males who are bald, fat and wheelchair-bound who cry out that they are dis-empowered, victims of discrimination and as such demand the state provide £5 million cash compensation, a permanent suite at the Ritz Hotel, a Rolls Royce motor car and a chauffer to ferry them about in it.

"Derrida was, IMO, the founding father of the Postmodern neo-Marxist movement in the West. He was a life-long communist (an orthodox Marxist) who simply could not accept the fact that Marxism in the Soviet Union had failed, when, in the later half of the 1950's the truth was plainly exposed for the entire world to see. (For example: (1): In the US, the capitalist economy that Marx and Engels had predicted (in 1844) would soon implode had survived the Great Depression and two World Wars, and in the later half of the 1950's was absolutely booming; (2): The in 1956, Kruschchev, personally tells the world that Stalin had, in fact, been an evil, genocidal tyrant whose regime murdered millions; (3) : That same year, 1956, - a bad one for the Kremlin - countless thousands of people around the world , who now all had that amazing, new-fangled contraption called the television at home, turned it on one evening and saw live images of Red Army tanks and troops invading Hungary and enforcing a brutal, bloody clampdown of the Hungarian people protesting Soviet rule in their country. (No one knows how many Hungarians were imprisoned or murdered or "disappeared, in 1956; my guess is that it was no small number as we do known that hundreds of thousands of Hungarians fled the country (to seek asylum abroad as refugees) during, and immediately after, the Soviet clampdown."


By the end of the 1950s most Western Marxists have seen enough and tore up their communist party cards. If you happened to be a Marxist academic working in the Western academy, your days of preaching and publishing the virtues of Marxism were over, and you needed to "re-skill" fast or you'll be out of a job. People like Derrida and Foucault were not fools, they knew the game was up Orthodox Marxism was now a dirty word in the academy, so what did they do? Derrida is the main culprit, so I'll focus on him. Derrida thinks: "I need a new philosophical/political theory that retains the most important/fundamental precepts of Marxism (because, as I mentioned above Derrida was a "true believer") but looks as though it's got nothing to do with Marxism from the outside - I need to build a "Trojan Horse."


So he did build a "Trojan Horse", and when it was completed, he posted it to the US (the English language department at Yale University) in 1968. To cut a long, long story very, very short Derrida infected the American academy with the template of what would, over the next 50 years develop into the philosophy of Postmodernism. Derrida became (and remained) a celebrity in the United States for many years, much like a Hollywood star. He was handsome, tanned, always outfitted in the height of French chic, assumed to be an Aristotelian genius, a debonaire playboy whose affairs with beautiful, French girls and use of cocaine fascinated America's fashionable Liberal intelligentsia. My point is that Derrida, although he was a passionate Marxist was hardly a champion of the down-trodden masses. In fact, he couldn't have given a fuck about anything but his pretentious, pampered, narcissistic self. Make no mistake , Derrida was a very clever man indeed, but the bottom line is that he misused his intellect to become one of the 20th century's most devious and dangerous academic charletans. The next time you hear some idiot feminist "sounding off" on television or images of brainless mobs of 19 - year-old SJW girls protesting White America's racist past on campus, you can thank Derrida for that.


Postmodernist neo-Marxist theory has, as I mentioned, permeated all of the non - STEM faculties in pretty much the majority of America's high schools and colleges. It's effect, over the past 30 years has been utterly devastating. University students studying, say English Literature, History, Politics or Anthropology , (for example, are being taught worthless politicised garbage). Students studying the prose of , say, Francis Bacon, are taught that he was a vicious, male, chauvinist pig = a "dirty dog" whose "toxic masculinity" undermines his reputation as a great thinker. Shakespeare, as well, is guilty of just about every conceivable crime in the Politically Correct handbook - did you know that a number of his famous male characters are (metaphorically speaking) inveterate "pussy - grabbers ( !) That's right (!) - no better than that scoundrel, DONALD TRUMP; and this is why we need to ban the works of William Shakespeare from the English curriculum FOREVER ! The degrees these wretched children obtain are not worth the (imitation) parchment they are printed on. Because they have acquired, in their years of study, no marketable academic/intellectual/practical skills. (And) It comes as a shock to them when they graduate with a PhD in Lesbian Sexuality, a Master's degree in Queer theory, or a Bachelors degree in Hillary Clinton Studies to learn that they unemployable. This means they cannot repay their student loans, and that means that someone (guess who ?) has to "cough up" and service the multi-TRILLION dollar student loan debt, before it "sinks the "Titanic.""


Oh dear, I''m rambling again... (!) so let me quickly get to to main point I wanted to make. Postmodern theory is still running rampant through America's high schools and colleges .You almost certainly will not hear any mention of the actual term "postmodern"/"postmodernism" in the media or in what you are told your children are being taught, but it is, in fact, postmodernism. Postmodernism is the dominant world-view they are being taught to embrace. What you need to know is that postmodernism has only one objective as an ideological movement and that objective is TO UTTERLY DESTROY THE WHITE, MALE WESTERN PATRIARCHY. The teachers and professors who promote postmodern theory in US high schools and universities are basically communists who despise capitalism and America's Western patriarchal traditions. These people are very big on HATE. They hate just about everything: the use of logic/ reason; the idea that men and women of good will can solve their problems through the use of civilised, rational discourse; (Christian) marriage, White Western males; the nuclear family, the moral idea of absolute RIGHT and WRONG.


The only thing that they do not hate is POWER. In fact, or the postmodernist thinker, EVERYTHING BOILS DOWN TO POWER - nothing else matters. Because this is how they understand the social world, namely the person with the bigger club will always bludgeon down the person with the smaller club (or no club at all) and thus prevail in the conflict. That's what life is all about for Derrida, the quest for POWER. The quest for the POWER that is needed to beat the shit out of any groups in society who happen to disagree with you. When you have the power, you can "smash them like guitars", crush them like cockroaches, and thus become "King of the Castle.".


The leaders of the postmodern movement in the US want the POWER to smash the 2000 year-old phallogocentric Western culture of America. "Phallogocentric" was a term coined by Derrida: phallo = phallus = PENIS; logo = logos = the word/logic/reason When Derrida criticises Western countries like the UK, the US, Australia, etc; he is saying that he believes the White (Anglo-European) American male is, basically a brutish "slave-master", one who has for centuries forcibly subjugated and enshackled women and the members of ethnic minorities, it views the American patriarchy as a tyrannical, institution of privilege and domination, he rejects Enlightenment rationality as an instrument of (male) oppression ( this includes, BTW, a rejection of capitalist economics. You can see the influence of Postmodern ideology very clearly in the Democratic Party's lurch to the lunatic left of the political spectrum. The current Trump impeachment inquiry farce is another example of how profoundly Postmodern neo-Marxist thinking has addled the Democratic Party's mind.



Finally, what to do about the problem of Postmodernism in American education. That's easy. Trump should immediately cut all federal funding to all colleges in America by 30%, likewise federal research grants. In the ensuing battle for funding in colleges across the nation, Postmodernism would not survive.


Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dachshund wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:02 am Yes, agreed. Though I think we need to remember that these kids are also victims.
Perhaps. But at some point, adulthood has to set in, and that excuse is no longer reasonable. We expect fits of temper of children, and sometimes we make adjustments to the fact that they're underdeveloped and acting up. However there comes a time when adults must take responsibility for what they allow themselves to do and to believe. And then, responsibility shifts.
I'm talking about the indoctrination of youth with Postmodern propaganda and the destruction of the traditional humanities/Liberal Arts curriculum.
I know all about that.
Though I do recall reading a review of one paper published in the "reputable" literature by a notable feminist US college professor...
Perhaps you know about this, too. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts ... -hoax.html I was vastly amused.
So what exactly is Postmodernism in its philosophical context ?

I know about this, too.
The only thing that they do not hate is POWER.
They actually get this from Nietzsche, originally. The idea that "will to power" is the explanation of every social phenomenon is deeply ingrained in their minds. But it comes to them through Foucault, Nietzsche's most morally-demented disciple, who also tells them that "knowledge is power." Since the university deals in knowledge, they presume that each category or piece of knowledge is covertly bent to some covert agenda. People who are "woke," or "in the know" are those who think this way, and thus can see the hidden agenda in every piece of information. And this sort of thinking accounts for the "sexism-in-science" theories they promulgate. Even science, they say, is merely a tool of factional power, and not a repository of impartial facts.
Finally, what to do about the problem of Postmodernism in American education. That's easy. Trump should immediately cut all federal funding to all colleges in America by 30%, likewise federal research grants. In the ensuing battle for funding in colleges across the nation, Postmodernism would not survive.
I would argue that academic freedom is important. But it must be genuinely academic freedom. Right now, disciplines with no intellectual structure, no rigour, no historical or sociological integrity, no honesty, and no scientific quality are leading the universities. And this needs to stop.

But nobody's asking us, of course. :wink:
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Dachshund wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:02 am So what exactly is Postmodernism in its philosophical context?
It's empowering individuals to construct their own meaning and knowledge directly from their own, first-hand experiences (hence: constructivism) while deconstructing the meaning of generations past.

It's a revolt against Logocentrism, which is, ironically, harmful to free speech and free thought, as it manifest in the form of linguistic prescriptivism.

It's a revolt against the idea that knowledge is transferable via written language alone when this language is not relatable to the learner's direct experiences. It's a focus on learn-by-doing, not learn-by-reading.

Practice before theory. It's a new label for an ancient idea - pragmatism.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:07 pm
Dachshund wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:02 am So what exactly is Postmodernism in its philosophical context?
It's empowering individuals to construct their own meaning directly from their own, first-hand experiences (hence: constructivism) while deconstructing the meaning of generations past.
Imagine that. We used to think that education was expanding to the mind, increasing the scope of one's world by means of engagement with the body of human knowledge, broadening one's horizon to be aware of others, filling one's tiny realm of personal experience out by providing things like historical knowledge, scientific information, familiarity with great thinkers, and so on. Silly us.

And now we find out that "first hand experiences" are and the tiny-minded prejudices of individuals are the high road to truth. What wonders will academia still reveal to us?
It's a revolt against Logocentrism, which is, ironically, harmful to free speech and free thought, as it manifest in the form of linguistic prescriptivism.
Ah, yes..."logocentrism," the supposed "tyranny of the word." :roll:

We learn so much more when we read nothing. :roll: "Freedom" is really enhanced when we are devoid of the narrow, corrective action of the wisdom of others and the legacies of knowledge of past generations. :roll: Ironically, these "constructivists" just can't stop writing...page after page after page of turgid, unreadable, contradictory prose, great tomes of "logos," telling us just how bad "logocentrism" is.

The Postmodern academy is so baldly hypocritical as to deny the value of "logos" and use words to do it.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm Imagine that. We used to think that education was expanding to the mind, increasing the scope of one's world by means of engagement with the body of human knowledge. , broadening one's horizon to be aware of others, filling one's tiny realm of personal experience out by providing things like historical knowledge, scientific information, familiarity with great thinkers, and so on. Silly us.
It's just a shame that what you believe about teaching and how it is being practiced is not engaging to learners in 2019. Just because you teach it doesn't mean they are going to learn it, let alone - understand it.

Everything that you call 'knowledge' was SOMEBODY's personal experience at some point!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm And now we find out that "first hand experiences" are and the tiny-minded prejudices of individuals are the high road to truth. What wonders will academia still reveal to us?
It's not the road to truth - it's the road to meaning. Nobody has a fucking clue what "truth" is, but we sure know that all meaning is contingent.

Now that I have meaningful experiences - I understand the theory. The theory is just language to speak about the experiences.
Now that I have the experience - I can recognise multiple theories (languages!) which speak about the same experience.

Which is precisely what constructivism is: meaning-making.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm We learn so much more when we read nothing. :roll:
Strawman :roll: We learn so much more when we actually understand (empirically) what we read.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm The Postmodern academy is so baldly hypocritical as to deny the value of "logos" and use words to do it.
False dichotomy. They deny the meaning of YOUR logos.

I don't want to use your language to speak about the world - I want to use mine.

My language will always be more meaningful to me than your language.

The phenomenology of human experience hasn't changed in thousands of years - what changes is society and language. Postmodernism is pragmatism under a new banner.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:30 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm Imagine that. We used to think that education was expanding to the mind, increasing the scope of one's world by means of engagement with the body of human knowledge. , broadening one's horizon to be aware of others, filling one's tiny realm of personal experience out by providing things like historical knowledge, scientific information, familiarity with great thinkers, and so on. Silly us.
It's just a shame that what you believe is not engaging to learners in 2019. Just because you teach it doesn't mean they are going to learn it, let alone - understand it.
"Engaging"? When did the ability of an idea to appeal to adolescent desires for amusement become the measure of its value? Do you learn more from merely being entertained, or from disciplining oneself to an academic "discipline" and to training oneself to task?

You know the answer to that. That which comes without effort is almost always poor in comparison to that which comes by effort.
It's not the road to truth - it's the road to meaning. Nobody has a fucking clue what "truth" is.
The truth is that there's no "meaning" where there's no "truth." That's why nobody has a clue anymore. We gave up the idea of truth in order to buy adolescent "freedoms"; and we find that with no truth there's no rules for the new game we want to play. But a game without rules is not merely boring...it's pointless. It's not even enjoyable for the participants...just confusing...aimless...conflict-ridden and impossible to win.

And the result? Greater freedom and happiness for all?

Or this? https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm We learn so much more when we read nothing. :roll:
We learn so much more when we actually understand (empirically) what we read.
Well, for the Postmodernist, there's nothing to "understand." In Postmodernism, when we "look into" another view, we just find our own image, the reflection of our own prejudices, and the proof (we suppose) of the veniality and deceptiveness of everybody else. What we really see is our own silly face staring back at us, the face of a small-minded, power-hungry, self-absorbed fool.

For that is what we have told ourselves that we all are.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:23 pm The Postmodern academy is so baldly hypocritical as to deny the value of "logos" and use words to do it.
False dichotomy. They deny the meaning of YOUR logos.

Typical duplicity from Postmodernists. If "logos" is wong, then they should not use "logos." If it's being used by them, and they think it's creating a reliable meaning, then they are rendering their own thesis false: they are showing that "logos" is actually very meaningful. So which way is it? They can't have both.

It's like Lyotard's going around telling everybody to practice "incredulity toward metanarratives" -- to doubt all "big stories" about how things are said to be -- except, of course, Lyotard's own Postmodern metanarrative, toward which we are apparently to practice complete credulity, and just accept as true. :shock:
I don't want to use your language to speak about the world - I want to use mine.

The problem with that idea is that "language" is not, by definition, a private possession. You don't want to use it just to talk to yourself...or if you do, you'll get nothing done in this world. You'll speak in vain to your own mind, and move anyone else's not at all.

The whole purpose of language, the only real reason for using it, is to communicate with others...to share, persuade, discuss, debate, motivate, coordinate, participate, critique, impart, inform, mobilize, rationalize, publish, politicize, reveal, and so on. All these are words requiring others to be recipients of what one is communicating, and one cannot even do these activities without involving others.

To have only "one's own language" is like a child having an "imaginary friend": kind of pathetic, and ultimately futile...but maybe cute for kids.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm "Engaging"? When did the ability of an idea to appeal to adolescent desires for amusement become the measure of its value?
Ever since you can bring a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink.

In any way - that's a fairly loaded question. Everybody measures value differently.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm Do you learn more from merely being entertained or from disciplining oneself to an academic "discipline" and to training oneself to task?
False dichotomy. Training oneself to task comes way easier when the subject matter sparks one's curiosity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm You know the answer to that. That which comes without effort is almost always poor in comparison to that which comes by effort.
Exactly! Learning by doing always requires more effort than learning by rote.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm The truth is that there's no "meaning" where there's no "truth."
And a postmodernist would say that the truth is that there are multiple meanings and multiple truths.

As is evident by the thousands of schools of Philosophy.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm That's why nobody has a clue anymore. We gave up the idea of truth in order to buy adolescent "freedoms"; and we find that with no truth there's no rules for the new game we want to play. But a game without rules is not merely boring...it's pointless. It's not even enjoyable for the participants...just confusing...aimless...conflict-ridden and impossible to win.
Welcome to reality - where many of the rules are made up (by humans) and the points don't matter.

That is PRECISELY why we are forced to invent our own meaning and values. Because reality is intrinsically nihilistic.

What is a young, impressionable mind to do when it's told by authorities that authorities are fallacious?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm And the result? Greater freedom and happiness for all?

Or this? https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
How do you attribute this to Postmodernism when postmodernism attempts to address this exact problem?

Life is meaningless - invent some meaning, because nihilism sucks.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm Well, for the Postmodernist, there's nothing to "understand."
Nonsense. A postmodernist invents their own meaning for the word "understanding". What it means "to understand" for you is entirely different to what it means "to understand" for me.

I understand that nihilism is true, and in an act of defiance, and warm embrace of my own Free Will - I choose to value something anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm In Postmodernism, when we "look into" another view, we just find our own image, the reflection of our own prejudices, and the proof (we suppose) of the veniality and deceptiveness of everybody else. What we really see is our own silly face staring back at us, the face of a small-minded, power-hungry, self-absorbed fool.

For that is what we have told ourselves that we all are.
And because that is the truth of human nature, we need to turn a blind eye to it and CHOOSE to be something else. We need to BECOME something else.

Of our own making.

Isn't society the very rejection of the "law of nature"? Now that's power!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm Typical duplicity from Postmodernists. If "logos" is wong, then they should not use "logos."
You are projecting your religion here. There isn't only one logos, and you certainly don't get to claim it your own.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm If it's being used by them, and they think it's creating a reliable meaning, then they are rendering their own thesis false: they are showing that "logos" is actually very meaningful. So which way is it? They can't have both.
It can be both. It is both. And neither. Which is the inherent nature of a good philosophy - self-contradictory, and therefore self-enforcing.

From a contradiction anything follows. Quite literally.

Are you so grossly ignorant of human nature as not to know that a man may be very sincere in good principles, without having good practice? My principles are sound; my practice will improve with practice --Samuel Johnson
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm It's like Lyotard's going around telling everybody to practice "incredulity toward metanarratives" -- to doubt all "big stories" about how things are said to be -- except, of course, Lyotard's own Postmodern metanarrative, toward which we are apparently to practice complete credulity, and just accept as true. :shock:
Exactly! Doubt every narrative - except your own. Invent your own!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm The problem with that idea is that "language" is not, by definition, a private possession.
Anything that can be taken away from you must not be regarded as a true possession --Seneca

You can't take away my language - it's my private possession.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm You don't want to use it just to talk to yourself...or if you do, you'll get nothing done in this world. You'll speak in vain to your own mind, and move anyone else's not at all.
Is that what you you use your language for? To move others? No wonder it doesn't work!

To move me - your language is of no use to you. If you want to move me - you need to learn mine!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm The whole purpose of language, the only real reason for using it, is to communicate with others...
Whole purpose or your purpose?

I use languages to communicate with computers. I use languages to take notes (communicate with my future-self). I use languages to think. No "others" involved here.

That language is incredibly useful and embedded in all human culture and history is undeniable, but your reasons for using language needs not be my reason.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm to share, persuade, discuss, debate, motivate, coordinate, participate, critique, impart, inform, mobilize, rationalize, publish, politicize, reveal, and so on. All these are words requiring others to be recipients of what one is communicating, and one cannot even do these activities without involving others.

To have only "one's own language" is like a child having an "imaginary friend": kind of pathetic, and ultimately futile...but maybe cute for kids.
How would you know? Have you ever invented your own language?
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm "Engaging"? When did the ability of an idea to appeal to adolescent desires for amusement become the measure of its value?
Ever since you can bring a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink.
Actually, you can.

That's what the "disciplines" have been about all along. To learn is not easy. Sometimes it's even painful, even physiologically; because the brain does not like to do real work anymore than the muscles do. It takes effort, self-control, focus, commitment, and a whole bunch of things that entertainment never asks.

Consider this: how long did it take you to read "logos," words and sentences, deriving meaning out of them? Were you a good reader at 8 years old? Probably most of us are not. It takes closer to 16 or 17 years to learn to read competently, and much longer to be expert.

Now, how long did it take you to learn to watch TV?
Training oneself to task comes way easier when the subject matter sparks one's curiosity.
Of course. But not all things "spark one's curiosity." Some of learning is hard, even within a field we find generally "sparking".

Consider this: when you're at university, you choose your own main subject. But sometimes you've got to do a seminar or write a paper; and even if you love the subject generally, at that moment you do not feel "sparked." Yet if you persist, you learn a lot.

If we learn only the things we feel "spark" us, we actually learn very little.
Exactly! Learning by doing always requires more effort than learning by rote.
That is true. But only half. Some of anything one does is rote, and without the rote, one is not sufficiently able to participate so as to "do" the thing in question. So a surgeon may perfect his craft by doing; but I want him to have some rote knowledge of anatomy before he opens anyone up. And I want him disciplined to the craft of surgery by the traditions of the discipline, and I want authoritative others watching him while he works and telling him what to do, until he's capable of being one of them.

I want him properly "discipled" into the "discipline," not merely learning by doing, much less hacking around wherever he feels "sparked."
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm The truth is that there's no "meaning" where there's no "truth."
And a postmodernist would say that the truth is that there are multiple meanings and multiple truths.
That's tautological and self-defeating. If someone says that the truth is many "truths": one should ask, "Yeah? Is that TRUE? :shock: Because if it is, then it's false that there's no singular truth -- there is, namely the Truth of Relativism. But that makes Relativism itself false, because now there's one Truth.

But if Relativism is not true, then it's false.

So it's false either way.
As is evident by the thousands of schools of Philosophy.
The existence of many beliefs does not imply that all beliefs are equal or true. That's a non-sequitur. Like the answer to 1+1, it may be that there are infinite wrong answers...and one right one.
Welcome to reality - where the rules are made up (by humans) and the points don't matter.
"Whose Line Is It Anyway."
That is PRECISELY why we are forced to invent our own meaning and values. Because reality is intrinsically nihilistic.
Then that means that we delude ourselves, because we can't handle reality. But why not? Because reality doesn't even include the precept that we can't drug ourselves into stupidity with some delusion that helps us avoid nihilism.

However, that's hardly the path of wisdom.
How do you attribute this to Postmodernism when postmodernism attempts to address this exact problem?
Because Postmodernism is such a bad solution that it makes the problem it addresses worse.

Consider this: we have a lot more Postmodern people around these days. But the suicide rate continues to climb. At best, that suggests Postmodernism is impotent to address the problem it claims to address...and at worse, it implies it's possible it's contributing to it.
Life is meaningless - invent some meaning, because nihilism sucks.
What if the problem is in the first premise...that life is meaningless? What if that premise has been adopted on what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning as an irrational and unexamined supposition, instead of a recognition of reality?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm Well, for the Postmodernist, there's nothing to "understand."
Nonsense. A postmodernist invents their own meaning for the word "understanding".
That's the very meaning of the word "nonsense": that which makes "no-" "sense" to rational thought.

Postmodernists are idiots.

I don't say that pejoratively. I say it analytically. Postmodernism places the "id" at the centre of meaning, the self as the locus of truth. One who lives in a particular region is an "-iot," like a "patriot" or a "Cypriot." So one who lives with himself at the centre of meaning is an "idiot."
What it means "to understand" for you is entirely different to what it means "to understand" for me.
I'm sorry...I can't understand this. :wink:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm In Postmodernism, when we "look into" another view, we just find our own image, the reflection of our own prejudices, and the proof (we suppose) of the veniality and deceptiveness of everybody else. What we really see is our own silly face staring back at us, the face of a small-minded, power-hungry, self-absorbed fool.

For that is what we have told ourselves that we all are.
And because that is the truth of human nature, we need to turn a blind eye to it and CHOOSE to be something else. We need to BECOME something else.
No we don't. We're ultimately Nihilists, remember? We don't "need" to do anything. There's no "better" or "worse" way to be, no "right" and no "wrong," no "good" and no "evil" -- even that our own wishes can possibly make so. So there's nobody we owe to "choose" anything, and no, we don't NEED to BECOME anything at all.

We can stay as self-satisfied fools.
Isn't society the very rejection of the "law of nature"?
Which "society"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm Typical duplicity from Postmodernists. If "logos" is wong, then they should not use "logos."
You are projecting your religion here. There isn't only one logos, and you certainly don't get to claim it your own.
No, I'm not. I'm using "logos" only in the Greek sense, of "rational speech" or "word." He who claims words have no meaning uses words that have meaning to achieve his purpose. He's just being a hypocrite.
From a contradiction anything follows. Quite literally.
From a contradiction, NOTHING follows. Every Buddhist knows that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm It's like Lyotard's going around telling everybody to practice "incredulity toward metanarratives" -- to doubt all "big stories" about how things are said to be -- except, of course, Lyotard's own Postmodern metanarrative, toward which we are apparently to practice complete credulity, and just accept as true. :shock:
Exactly! Doubt every narrative - except your own. Invent your own!
Why is your own immune? Lyotard thinks you should doubt all but his...you say I should even doubt yours, and make up my own. But behind all that is still Nihilism...it won't matter, because they'll all be lies, and all I'll be doing is deceiving myself.

And THAT"S your recommendation? :shock:
You can't take away my language - it's my private possession.
I can't take away your imaginary friend, either. That doesn't mean you possess one.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm You don't want to use it just to talk to yourself...or if you do, you'll get nothing done in this world. You'll speak in vain to your own mind, and move anyone else's not at all.
Is that what you want to use language for? To move others? I only need it to move myself.
You don't. Dogs, rats and paramecia move fine. If that's the level you have in mind for yourself, then you'd be right...you don't need language.
To move you - my language is of no use. I need to learn yours.
Right. We need an "our" language we both share. But Postmodernism presumes we're both locked up inside the iron cages of our own meaning, so ultimately, the exercise would be futile.

One wonders if any of them have ever lived in a society. :wink:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm The whole purpose of language, the only real reason for using it, is to communicate with others...
Whole purpose or your purpose?
Whole purpose.
I use languages to communicate with computers.
You shouldn't. Just make up your own, one that no computer "knows" or can process, and see how that works for you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:03 pm to share, persuade, discuss, debate, motivate, coordinate, participate, critique, impart, inform, mobilize, rationalize, publish, politicize, reveal, and so on. All these are words requiring others to be recipients of what one is communicating, and one cannot even do these activities without involving others.

To have only "one's own language" is like a child having an "imaginary friend": kind of pathetic, and ultimately futile...but maybe cute for kids.
How would you know? Have you ever invented your own language?
Oy vey. :roll:
No. And I've never shampooed my cat either. But I'm quite sure both would be futile.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm That's what the "disciplines" have been about all along. To learn is not easy. Sometimes it's even painful, even physiologically; because the brain does not like to do real work anymore than the muscles do. It takes effort, self-control, focus, commitment, and a whole bunch of things that entertainment never asks.
Then why do I find it so enjoyable to learn? Just not the way you want me to...
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Consider this: how long did it take you to read "logos," words and sentences, deriving meaning out of them? Were you a good reader at 8 years old? Probably most of us are not. It takes closer to 16 or 17 years to learn to read competently, and much longer to be expert.

Now, how long did it take you to learn to watch TV?
I taught myself to read at age 3. I have no idea what it means to be an "expert at reading".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Of course. But not all things "spark one's curiosity." Some of learning is hard, even within a field we find generally "sparking".

Consider this: when you're at university, you choose your own main subject. But sometimes you've got to do a seminar or write a paper; and even if you love the subject generally, at that moment you do not feel "sparked." Yet if you persist, you learn a lot.

If we learn only the things we feel "spark" us, we actually learn very little.
If we force ourselves to learn something we don't want to learn - we learn even less.

I mastered the skill of exam-passing. I also mastered the skill of post-exam forgetting.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm That is true. But only half. Some of anything one does is rote, and without the rote, one is not sufficiently able to participate so as to "do" the thing in question.

So a surgeon may perfect his craft by doing; but I want him to have some rote knowledge of anatomy before he opens anyone up. And I want him disciplined to the craft of surgery by the traditions of the discipline, and I want authoritative others watching him while he works and telling him what to do, until he's capable of being one of them.

I want him properly "discipled" into the "discipline," not merely learning by doing, much less hacking around wherever he feels "sparked."
And if somebody wants to be a surgeon, or a lawyer, or any of the professions which society will prevent him from practicing without rote learning - then so they shall.

And they shall learn the language of the profession.

If they so choose.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm But if Relativism is not true, then it's false.

So it's false either way.
You are a slave to logic. It's just an instrument. It doesn't mandate what you ought to believe.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm The existence of many beliefs does not imply that all beliefs are equal or true.
Again - you don't know what 'truth'.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm That's a non-sequitur. Like the answer to 1+1, it may be that there are infinite wrong answers...and one right one.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this universe... those who understand binary and those who don't.

You confuse symbols with meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Then that means that we delude ourselves, because we can't handle reality.
You don't have a choice in the matter - nobody can handle Reality. Your brain is too small for such complexity.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm But why not? Because reality doesn't even include the precept that we can't drug ourselves into stupidity with some delusion that helps us avoid nihilism.

However, that's hardly the path of wisdom.
Can your drug yourself to wisdom? If we can - why isn't that a path?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Because Postmodernism is such a bad solution that it makes the problem it addresses worse.
Postmodernism addresses the exact same problems Pragmatism addresses.

And the pragmatic motto is "If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Consider this: we have a lot more Postmodern people around these days. But the suicide rate continues to climb. At best, that suggests Postmodernism is impotent to address the problem it claims to address...and at worse, it implies it's possible it's contributing to it.
We have a lot more of every Philosophy these days - because the number of philosophies grows with the number of cultures.

Maybe Philosophy is responsible for all this suicide? I don't know....
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm What if the problem is in the first premise...that life is meaningless?

What if that premise has been adopted on what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning as an irrational and unexamined supposition, instead of a recognition of reality?
It's not a premise - it's a conclusion. Following an extensive examination and an objective, scientific recognition of reality.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm That's the very meaning of the word "nonsense": that which makes "no-" "sense" to rational thought.

Postmodernists are idiots.
Ok. Then according to you I am irrational and an idiot.

It's just your opinion.

Everything I sense makes perfect sense and is meaningful to me ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm I don't say that pejoratively. I say it analytically. Postmodernism places the "id" at the centre of meaning, the self as the locus of truth. One who lives in a particular region is an "-iot," like a "patriot" or a "Cypriot." So one who lives with himself at the centre of meaning is an "idiot."
You don't strike me as a man with much analytical skill.

Postmodernism places the pursuit of meaning as the highest human value. Exactly like Philosophy does.

And with some faith - humans will arrive at much the same conclusions that every Philosopher has been arriving at for thousands of years ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm No we don't. We're ultimately Nihilists, remember? We don't "need" to do anything.
Obviously. But we choose otherwise.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm There's no "better" or "worse" way to be, no "right" and no "wrong," no "good" and no "evil".
Exactly. So we invented it - like all concepts.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm even that our own wishes can possibly make so.
There is nothing other than our own wishes to make it so. God doesn't exist. We must become God out of our own Free Will.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm So there's nobody we owe to "choose" anything, and no, we don't NEED to BECOME anything at all.

We can stay as self-satisfied fools.
That's exactly what I said. It's exactly the reasons above why I choose not to be a nihilist.

If nihilism is true, then I have Free Will. And my first act of Free Will is to reject nihilism.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Which "society"?
The human one.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm No, I'm not. I'm using "logos" only in the Greek sense, of "rational speech" or "word." He who claims words have no meaning uses words that have meaning to achieve his purpose. He's just being a hypocrite.
He who rejects their own hypocrisy is the worst hypocrite of all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm From a contradiction, NOTHING follows. Every Buddhist knows that.
Then choose not to be a Buddhist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Why is your own immune?
Because I choose it to be.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Lyotard thinks you should doubt all but his...you say I should even doubt yours, and make up my own. But behind all that is still Nihilism...it won't matter, because they'll all be lies, and all I'll be doing is deceiving myself.
It's not nihilism - it's Free Will.

If you have a better narrative than mine - use that. It's only pragmatic.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm I can't take away your imaginary friend, either. That doesn't mean you possess one.
What, like God?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm You don't. Dogs, rats and paramecia move fine. If that's the level you have in mind for yourself, then you'd be right...you don't need language.
But I want language.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Right. We need an "our" language we both share. But Postmodernism presumes we're both locked up inside the iron cages of our own meaning, so ultimately, the exercise would be futile.

One wonders if any of them have ever lived in a society. :wink:
Do you ever get tired of your black-and-white view? Try Relativism - it's way more colourful.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Whole purpose.
I don't share your purpose - so it can't be the 'whole' purpose.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm You shouldn't. Just make up your own, one that no computer "knows" or can process, and see how that works for you.
That's exactly what we do. Have you seen how many programming languages are there?

And we can teach computers to understand ALL of them!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm No. And I've never shampooed my cat either. But I'm quite sure both would be futile.
I speak 4 languages, I can program in 8 or 9.

The notion of multi-paradigm thinking is lost on you. For somebody who proclaims that education is all about learning different perspective, how about learning different modes of thinking?

You do that by learning languages.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm That's what the "disciplines" have been about all along. To learn is not easy. Sometimes it's even painful, even physiologically; because the brain does not like to do real work anymore than the muscles do. It takes effort, self-control, focus, commitment, and a whole bunch of things that entertainment never asks.
Then why do I find it so enjoyable to learn? Just not the way you want me to...
It could be because you're not pushing yourself to the level of your capacity. The addition of discipline always takes us farther than mere "spark" alone.
I taught myself to read at age 3. I have no idea what it means to be an "expert at reading".
Good point. You could live to 80, and still find better ways to read. However, most people can't even really do it until their mid-elementary years, and could get better for the rest of their lives.

Being entertained isn't like that. A toddler has the basic "skill" of absorbing TV the minute you turn one on.
If we force ourselves to learn something we don't want to learn - we learn even less.
Not true. We can discipline ourselves to learn loads of stuff.
I mastered the skill of exam-passing. I also mastered the skill of post-exam forgetting.
We all feel that way. But that's because exams are not a particularly effective teaching tool. However, it is true that sometimes fear of them does stimulate us to pay attention when mere "spark" will not.
And if somebody wants to be a surgeon, or a lawyer, or any of the professions which society will prevent him from practicing without rote learning - then so they shall.
And good thing, too. Nobody wants unskilled, uninformed people being their lawyer, their surgeon or their engineer.
And they shall learn the language of the profession.

If they so choose.
Of course. And they shall not be qualified, and get no money for it, if they do not. It's up to them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm But if Relativism is not true, then it's false.

So it's false either way.
You are a slave to logic.
Funniest response ever. :D Thank you for that.
It's just an instrument. It doesn't mandate what you ought to believe.
That's what Postmodernists tell you. But then, they try to use logic to get you to believe it. Hypocrisy is their stock-in-trade. They can't even keep faith, in their actions, with their own ideology. That says all you need to know.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm The existence of many beliefs does not imply that all beliefs are equal or true.
Again - you don't know what 'truth'.
Well, then you're using the word "truth" as a synonym for "opinion." That's Postmodern, but it's not sensible, because if "opinion" is enough, then the word "truth" is redundant. However, what they want is the pedigree of Truth, so they can impart it to their own prejudices; but they don't want the factuality of Truth or its absoluteness and exclusivity, because then it would stand against the ideological fictions they want you to believe.

So they use the word in an Orwellian way: "Truth" for them means both, "my view has all the power of real Truth," and "it only has to be 'true' for me, and you have to accept it."
You confuse symbols with meaning.
Not a bit.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Because Postmodernism is such a bad solution that it makes the problem it addresses worse.
Postmodernism addresses the exact same problems Pragmatism addresses.

And the pragmatic motto is "If it's stupid and it works then it isn't stupid".
Yes. But Pragmatism is also a delusion. Because "works" means only "works for." And what a thing should "work for" is not established by Pragmatism itself. So we end up taking the telos, the rightful "end," "purpose" or "outcome" of life for granted, because Pragmatism can't tell us what it is.

Well, killing fields, gulags and factories of death are Pragmatically useful for the purpose of eliminating unwanted populations. Why, by Pragmatism, is that goal not as good as any other? What works, works.

Rather, their view boils down to, "If something gets me what I think I want, then I will do it."

That's toddler philosophy.
Maybe Philosophy is responsible for all this suicide? I don't know....
Maybe.

But one thing for sure: Postmodernism isn't reversing the trend. People are not happier than they were before Postmodernism, even though there are more Postmodernists. In fact, many are some of the most miserable, angry, arrogant, empty, self-absorbed and resentful people you'll ever meet -- hardly a recipe for happiness.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm What if the problem is in the first premise...that life is meaningless?

What if that premise has been adopted on what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning as an irrational and unexamined supposition, instead of a recognition of reality?
It's not a premise - it's a conclusion. Following an extensive examination and an objective, scientific recognition of reality.
Trot out that data for me.

What "objective, scientific recognition of reality" are you speaking of?
Postmodernism places the pursuit of meaning as the highest human value. Exactly like Philosophy does.
But Postmodernism stupidly denies that meaning is possible, at the same time. So it's sent its followers on a hunt for something it assures them cannot be found.
There is nothing other than our own wishes to make it so. God doesn't exist. We must become God out of our own Free Will.
:D You actually think you are going to "become God"?

Take a look at yourself. Think again. You're a contingent being, who popped into existence because your mom and dad had that romantic evening. You weren't even asked. And when you die, you may not even see it coming. In the meanwhile, you're a decaying being, walking toward death.

This is your "god"? :shock:
If nihilism is true, then I have Free Will. And my first act of Free Will is to reject nihilism.
Not at all. Nihilism doesn't promise free will. It promises nothing, by definition. You could just as easily be the mere toy of causal forces, as Determinism says you are. Either way, Nihilism gives you no way of knowing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Which "society"?
The human one.
There are many of those.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm No, I'm not. I'm using "logos" only in the Greek sense, of "rational speech" or "word." He who claims words have no meaning uses words that have meaning to achieve his purpose. He's just being a hypocrite.
He who rejects their own hypocrisy is the worst hypocrite of all.
Heh. Better is he who is not a hypocrite in the first place.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Why is your own immune?
Because I choose it to be.
Then it's not.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Lyotard thinks you should doubt all but his...you say I should even doubt yours, and make up my own. But behind all that is still Nihilism...it won't matter, because they'll all be lies, and all I'll be doing is deceiving myself.
It's not nihilism - it's Free Will.
It's not free will...it's self-delusion. Free will is only possible within options, and the options themselves are not provided by free will.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm You don't. Dogs, rats and paramecia move fine. If that's the level you have in mind for yourself, then you'd be right...you don't need language.
But I want language.
Apparently not. Even though you use it, and insist on using our common one (English) in the process of trying to argue for it, you claim there's great virtue in having "your own language." :shock:
Relativism - it's way more colourful.
Relativism is ultimately just grey. It leads to nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm Whole purpose.
I don't share your purpose - so it can't be the 'whole' purpose.
The existence of a real purpose does not entail that everybody knows about it the same amount, or at the same time.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:27 pm You shouldn't. Just make up your own, one that no computer "knows" or can process, and see how that works for you.
That's exactly what we do. Have you seen how many programming languages are there?
No, it's not what you do. Your "languages" have no utility if no entity (another person or a computer) has the ability to "read" them. You've still got two-sided communication, not "your own language" there.

Now, that's pragmatic. :wink:
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm It could be because you're not pushing yourself to the level of your capacity. The addition of discipline always takes us farther than mere "spark" alone.
You are still dichotomising it.

I don't know whether discipline or spark takes us further, but I know that discipline AND spark takes us further than either.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Being entertained isn't like that. A toddler has the basic "skill" of absorbing TV the minute you turn one on.
I had the choice between TV and the books - I went for the books.

I guess I am wired that way?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Not true. We can discipline ourselves to learn loads of stuff.
And I have disciplined myself to never learn stuff that's not immediately useful to me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm We all feel that way. But that's because exams are not a particularly effective teaching tool. However, it is true that sometimes fear of them does stimulate us to pay attention when mere "spark" will not.
If fear motivates you - use it to hack your mind. It doesn't motivate me.

Regret motivates me. Of all the things I regret was wasting time in academia is high up on my list.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm And good thing, too. Nobody wants unskilled, uninformed people being their lawyer, their surgeon or their engineer.
You are still conflating formal education with skill/experience.

I want neither a lawyer, nor a surgeon, nor an engineer fresh out of university.


Of course. And they shall not be qualified, and get no money for it, if they do not. It's up to them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm That's what Postmodernists tell you. But then, they try to use logic to get you to believe it. Hypocrisy is their stock-in-trade. They can't even keep faith, in their actions, with their own ideology. That says all you need to know.
I have been using logic to demonstrate to you that it's all made up. I am literally showing you that I can CONSTRUCT any logical system to conclude anything I want it conclude.

I am showing you the systemic foundational problem with logic, and you insist that's "using logic". OK, well - I can't help you if you don't understand how formal systems (don't) work.

All formal systems require choice - there's no other way to arrive at axioms.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Well, then you're using the word "truth" as a synonym for "opinion." That's Postmodern, but it's not sensible, because if "opinion" is enough, then the word "truth" is redundant. However, what they want is the pedigree of Truth, so they can impart it to their own prejudices; but they don't want the factuality of Truth or its absoluteness and exclusivity, because then it would stand against the ideological fictions they want you to believe.
Your entire argument rests upon the axiom "Truth is absolute". The entire postmodern philosophy is built upon attacking the unity of truth.

Given the facts before you - I think I am right? There are at least two versions of truth on the table. Mine and yours.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm So they use the word in an Orwellian way: "Truth" for them means both, "my view has all the power of real Truth," and "it only has to be 'true' for me, and you have to accept it."
You don't have to accept my truth any more than I have to accept yours.

That's literally why we have so many theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth and no objective way to determine which ones are "right" or "wrong".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Not a bit.
Very well, then we shall both agree that 1+1 = 10.

That's two bits.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Yes. But Pragmatism is also a delusion. Because "works" means only "works for." And what a thing should "work for" is not established by Pragmatism itself.
No shit! Because your pragma is different to my pragma.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm So we end up taking the telos, the rightful "end," "purpose" or "outcome" of life for granted, because Pragmatism can't tell us what it is.
Why do you work so hard to reject your free will? Why do you insist on somebody telling you what the "purpose of life" is? Find your own!

Of all the Pagan rituals Christianity stole, they surely forgot the most important one - the Wiccan Rede.

Do what you will, so long as it harms none.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Well, killing fields, gulags and factories of death are Pragmatically useful for the purpose of eliminating unwanted populations. Why, by Pragmatism, is that goal not as good as any other? What works, works.
Killing Nazis and Socialists is also pragmatic for Freedom - so hey! Par for the course.

Do you have any better ideas to deal with intolerant prescriptivists?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Rather, their view boils down to, "If something gets me what I think I want, then I will do it."

That's toddler philosophy.
It's the most mature philosophy of all once you have your Morality all figured out.

What I want never seems to intersect with what's immoral. Imagine that!

A Relativist who embraces objective morality. Talk about a contradiction.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm But one thing for sure: Postmodernism isn't reversing the trend. People are not happier than they were before Postmodernism, even though there are more Postmodernists. In fact, many are some of the most miserable, angry, arrogant, empty, self-absorbed and resentful people you'll ever meet -- hardly a recipe for happiness.
And if happiness is what you pursue, don't let me stop you.

Some might argue that happiness is for animals - meaning is for humans. Much like you argue - some times you have to do things that are necessary but unpleasant.

Different philosophy - same conclusion.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Trot out that data for me.

What "objective, scientific recognition of reality" are you speaking of?
The subjective definition of "objective" - the pragmatic necessity required in order to bootstrap the scientific method.

The method for constructing models of reality by examining evidence, which fundamentally mandates that if it's not wrong - it's not science.

So by your conception of Truth, nothing True can ever be scientific, because it has to risk being False
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm But Postmodernism stupidly denies that meaning is possible, at the same time. So it's sent its followers on a hunt for something it assures them cannot be found.
It doesn't - postmodernists claim that there is too much meaning. Infinite meaning if you will.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm :D You actually think you are going to "become God"?
I actually think the ideal of God has pragmatic utility.

It sets the direction. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Omniscience.
More power is better than less power. Omnipotence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Take a look at yourself. Think again. You're a contingent being, who popped into existence because your mom and dad had that romantic evening. You weren't even asked. And when you die, you may not even see it coming. In the meanwhile, you're a decaying being, walking toward death.

This is your "god"? :shock:
Yes. Relatively, pragmatically and morally speaking it's better than your God.

That is literally why I chose it over yours.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Not at all. Nihilism doesn't promise free will. It promises nothing, by definition.
Exactly - it doesn't tell me to value anything. Not even Free Will. That's precisely WHY I have Free Will.

I am free to choose my values.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm You could just as easily be the mere toy of causal forces, as Determinism says you are. Either way, Nihilism gives you no way of knowing.
I don't need a way of knowing - that's an agnostic religion.
I need a way of not-knowing - that gives me is a way out.

If nothing is knowable - then I get to choose what knowledge means to me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm There are many of those.
There are many countries - there is just one human society.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Heh. Better is he who is not a hypocrite in the first place.
If you choose to believe that - good luck. I am yet to meet somebody who lives up to that principle ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Then it's not.
It literally is. You can criticize me and I can ignore you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm It's not free will...it's self-delusion. Free will is only possible within options, and the options themselves are not provided by free will.
Then I am delusional. What's it to you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Apparently not. Even though you use it, and insist on using our common one (English) in the process of trying to argue for it, you claim there's great virtue in having "your own language." :shock:
There is great virtue in having your own. You can't claim your free will without it.

I can't convince you of that fact with language ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Relativism is ultimately just grey. It leads to nothing.
That is not how I experience it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm The existence of a real purpose does not entail that everybody knows about it the same amount, or at the same time.
It kinda does. It reduces to a methodist epistemic problem.

How do you know what the purpose is?

If you tell me "I just know" your method is no better than mine.

I just know that I have Free Will ;)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm No, it's not what you do. Your "languages" have no utility if no entity (another person or a computer) has the ability to "read" them. You've still got two-sided communication, not "your own language" there.
You have never studied computer science, have you?

It's part and parcel of the curriculum to invent a brand new language, and then 'teach' it to the computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers)

What you end up with is a language that can understand itself. A compiler that can compile itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_(compilers)

What you end up learning from this process of DOING (not reading) is an empirical understanding of the concepts of grammar, syntax and semantics.

Par for the course for philosophy, methinks? To know thyself - is to develop a language to say things about yourself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm It could be because you're not pushing yourself to the level of your capacity. The addition of discipline always takes us farther than mere "spark" alone.
You are still dichotomising it.
No, it's cumulative. "Spark" plus discipline does a whole lot more than "spark" alone. That's not to say that "spark" is bad, or that it's any worse than discipline by itself. But "spark" is not enough, because lots of things require discipline to learn.
I don't know whether discipline or spark takes us further, but I know that discipline AND spark takes us further than either.
Now you've got it.
I had the choice between TV and the books - I went for the books.
It would be better for us all if more people made your choice.
And I have disciplined myself to never learn stuff that's not immediately useful to me.
That's unfortunate. I found both my education in Latin (which seemed useless at the time) and my education in linguistics (which I did not plan to take) of no immediate value, but of immense value in the long run. Lots of stuff is like that.
Regret motivates me. Of all the things I regret was wasting time in academia is high up on my list.
Wow. Well, regret sucks as a motivator. It makes you feel like crap, and doesn't actually lead to anything good, unless you can translate it into reform of some kind, which a lot of people never manage.

I remember one speaker telling me about talking to a counsellor, and the counsellor telling him, "The main thing I have to do in my job is to help people give up the hope of having a better past." :shock:

If you think about it, that's profound. Too many people are filled with regret, as if they could undo what they've done. But they never can. Only looking to what can be done differently in the future has any pragmatic value...or any hope for freedom from regret.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm And good thing, too. Nobody wants unskilled, uninformed people being their lawyer, their surgeon or their engineer.
You are still conflating formal education with skill/experience.
No. I'm saying both have important contributions to make.
I have been using logic to demonstrate to you that it's all made up.
If you use logic, then you've destroyed your own case -- because you've then demonstrated its utility for at least one issue.
All formal systems require choice - there's no other way to arrive at axioms.

Logic isn't a particular set of axioms, though. It's a methodology that works once your a priori axioms are already in place. Logic does not stipulate any particular content; it just sets the methods that will be used to manage that content.

It's like equations. Equations give you variables. But the values of the variables have to be plugged in by your choice. Once you set X as = 6, the rest follows methodologically; but if you set X as = 4, the conclusion's going to be different.

The method's not at fault there. It's not the logic does not "work," anymore than it's that maths don't "work" because the values of variables come from outside the equation. It's the fundamental suppositions that must be correct, if logic is going to do the right work.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Well, then you're using the word "truth" as a synonym for "opinion." That's Postmodern, but it's not sensible, because if "opinion" is enough, then the word "truth" is redundant. However, what they want is the pedigree of Truth, so they can impart it to their own prejudices; but they don't want the factuality of Truth or its absoluteness and exclusivity, because then it would stand against the ideological fictions they want you to believe.
Your entire argument rests upon the axiom "Truth is absolute". The entire postmodern philosophy is built upon attacking the unity of truth.
Is that true? Absolutely?

Get it? If you win, you lose on that argument.
There are at least two versions of truth on the table. Mine and yours.
Whoops. You slipped a term there. "Versions of truth," are different from "the Truth." Versions often vary. Truth does not.

Truth is not "opinion." Truth judges the value of an "opinion."
...no objective way to determine which ones are "right" or "wrong".
Sure we do. Test them against reality. It's very objective. But logic is also very helpful, if your premises are realistic first.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Yes. But Pragmatism is also a delusion. Because "works" means only "works for." And what a thing should "work for" is not established by Pragmatism itself.
No shit! Because your pragma is different to my pragma.
It's worse than that.

Pragmatism gives you the illusion of knowing what you're doing...what you should be doing, in your own best interest...when you actually may not have it at all. It makes one think that those fundamental axioms which we talked about earlier don't matter...that you can simply assume their rightness, and charge right ahead to get what you think you want, by looking at what seems to "work" at getting you to it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm So we end up taking the telos, the rightful "end," "purpose" or "outcome" of life for granted, because Pragmatism can't tell us what it is.
Why do you work so hard to reject your free will?
This has no impact on the free will issue.

Perhaps you're mistaking two terms: "freedom" and "anomie." Freedom is the ability to choose among the options reality presents. Anomie is a state of absolute lack of rules, guidelines or grounds for making any particular decision better than any other one at all. Freedom works within the game; anomie can't even figure out what the game should be.

People love freedom. But they're terrified in the existential presence of anomie. They will give up all their freedoms to avoid the pain of floating in a valueless vacuum, with neither sense of direction nor any basis for choosing one.
Why do you insist on somebody telling you what the "purpose of life" is? Find your own!
You can't "find" something that does not exist.
Of all the Pagan rituals Christianity stole, they surely forgot the most important one - the Wiccan Rede.

Do what you will, so long as it harms none.
If you follow that rule, you can let your neighbour die in a ditch. After all, you didn't "harm" him.
Do you have any better ideas to deal with intolerant prescriptivists?
Yes. "Tolerance" means (literally) to "put up with" something someone else is doing. But you don't have to "put up with," or "tolerate" things you don't find offensive.

Are you "tolerant"? Then learn to put up with the prescriptivists. Give them their rights and their hearing, the way you would want to have yours. You don't have to agree, but you do have to tolerate them. Find a way to do it, or you'll have to give up your own claim to "tolerance."
That's toddler philosophy.
It's the most mature philosophy of all once you have your Morality all figured out.
No, it's literally, actually, the "philosophy" of every toddler. Toddlers want what they want, by the nearest means to get it. They have to be told, "No," because they actually don't know what's good for them, and don't know how to know. They can't imagine a world beyond their immediate gratifications. They're tiny Pragmatists.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm But one thing for sure: Postmodernism isn't reversing the trend. People are not happier than they were before Postmodernism, even though there are more Postmodernists. In fact, many are some of the most miserable, angry, arrogant, empty, self-absorbed and resentful people you'll ever meet -- hardly a recipe for happiness.
And if happiness is what you pursue, don't let me stop you.
It's not. Happiness cannot be found by pursuing it, because it's a byproduct of other things. Absent those other things, it just cannot be found.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Trot out that data for me.

What "objective, scientific recognition of reality" are you speaking of?
The subjective definition of "objective..."
No, no...the "premise" we were talking about what that "Life is meaningless."

I was asking how you'd achieved knowledge of that fact, by means of "objective, scientific recognition of reality." (Actually, though, since Postmodernists say there is no "reality," I'm not sure what you're referring to).
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm But Postmodernism stupidly denies that meaning is possible, at the same time. So it's sent its followers on a hunt for something it assures them cannot be found.
It doesn't - postmodernists claim that there is too much meaning. Infinite meaning if you will.
It amounts to the same thing, because all Postmodernists mean by "meaning" is the delusion of objective significance in a universe that has no such thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm :D You actually think you are going to "become God"?
Yes. Relatively, pragmatically and morally speaking it's better than your God.

That is literally why I chose it over yours.
Self-worship. The contingent, decaying being falls in love with itself. This passes for sophistication? Does it pass even for sanity?
I am free to choose my values.
But none will be really valuable. Because as per Postmodernism, all values are arbitrary and keyed only to the power of various interests.
If nothing is knowable - then I get to choose what knowledge means to me.
What you get is anomie.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm There are many of those.
There are many countries - there is just one human society.
Not when it comes to values.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm It's not free will...it's self-delusion. Free will is only possible within options, and the options themselves are not provided by free will.
Then I am delusional. What's it to you?
In the world you appear to imagine yourself to be living in? Nothing. In my world, we care for others. We try not to leave them delusional.
I can't convince you of that fact with language
Right. Because the use of language destroys the thesis.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:03 pm Relativism is ultimately just grey. It leads to nothing.
That is not how I experience it.
Perhaps not.
How do you know what the purpose is?

If you tell me "I just know" your method is no better than mine.
I believe God on that question.
What you end up with is a language that can understand itself. A compiler that can compile itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting_(compilers)
I wondered if we'd have to get to this. Oh well.

Computer languages aren't "languages." They're mathematical and symbolic sequences used to prompt mere machines to produce outcomes. That's all. To call them languages is to mistake a mere metaphor for a solid reality.

But if you understand computers, I would hope you know that.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm No, it's cumulative. "Spark" plus discipline does a whole lot more than "spark" alone. That's not to say that "spark" is bad, or that it's any worse than discipline by itself. But "spark" is not enough, because lots of things require discipline to learn.
And some times discipline is not enough either.

Whether we say "X wasn't disciplined enough" or "X wasn't excited enough" about finishing their studies. Either way - they quit.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Now you've got it.

I always got it. Now you understand what I mean.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm It would be better for us all if more people made your choice.
Don't ask me for answers - I have no idea if it's nature or nurture.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Wow. Well, regret sucks as a motivator. It makes you feel like crap, and doesn't actually lead to anything good, unless you can translate it into reform of some kind, which a lot of people never manage.
It's a great motivator in a regret minimisation framework. Do that which you will regret least on your deathbed.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm I remember one speaker telling me about talking to a counsellor, and the counsellor telling him, "The main thing I have to do in my job is to help people give up the hope of having a better past." :shock:

If you think about it, that's profound. Too many people are filled with regret, as if they could undo what they've done. But they never can. Only looking to what can be done differently in the future has any pragmatic value...or any hope for freedom from regret.
Which is why you don't dwell on regret about the past. You dwell on regret from the imaginary future you want for yourself.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm If you use logic, then you've destroyed your own case -- because you've then demonstrated its utility for at least one issue.
I never claimed logic isn't useful. That would be silly - I make money by writing software.

I am claiming that logic is not prescriptive on human reasoning. I use logic - I am not subservient to logic.

First we assume the desired outcome, THEN we write the software to achieve the result.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Logic isn't a particular set of axioms, though. It's a methodology that works once your a priori axioms are already in place. Logic does not stipulate any particular content; it just sets the methods that will be used to manage that content.
The methods are a direct consequences of the chosen axioms and rules of inference.

Choosing different axioms produces different conclusions.

If the software produces different conclusions than the ones I TOLD it to produce - that's called a bug.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm It's like equations. Equations give you variables. But the values of the variables have to be plugged in by your choice.
Before the variables have to be plugged in by my choice, the equations have to be manufactured. Also by my choice.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Once you set X as = 6, the rest follows methodologically; but if you set X as = 4, the conclusion's going to be different.
Who defines the method? Oh - I do!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm The method's not at fault there. It's not the logic does not "work," anymore than it's that maths don't "work" because the values of variables come from outside the equation. It's the fundamental suppositions that must be correct, if logic is going to do the right work.
Obviously the method is not at fault - I invented the method. It's my fault for inventing a method that doesn't work.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Get it? If you win, you lose on that argument.
How can I lose the argument in a game without any rules? Worse yet - how can I lose an argument when I can always construct a set of rules according to which "I win"?

You are still programmed to think like a philosopher. You think your arguments are going to convince me of anything, instead you are only affirming your understanding and I am affirming mine. It's just narratives.

Far worse than the systemic contingency of all philosophies is the cultural stigma - arguing is adversarial, which is the exact opposite of how effective, cooperative communication actually works in practice.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Whoops. You slipped a term there. "Versions of truth," are different from "the Truth." Versions often vary. Truth does not.
Whoops. You slipped a new conception of Truth there. That's one more than we had 10 minutes ago.

Making my point for me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Truth is not "opinion." Truth judges the value of an "opinion."
Then I am Truth and I am judging the value of your opinion - your opinion is worthless to me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Sure we do. Test them against reality.
Test for what exactly? We have no shared pragma.

My beliefs work for my purposes and your beliefs work for your purposes. How do you test whose purpose is correct?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Pragmatism gives you the illusion of knowing what you're doing...what you should be doing, in your own best interest...when you actually may not have it at all. It makes one think that those fundamental axioms which we talked about earlier don't matter...that you can simply assume their rightness, and charge right ahead to get what you think you want, by looking at what seems to "work" at getting you to it.
OK, then assume the negative pragmatist position. If it doesn't work - it's not true.

Still leaves you with a subjective definition for "works".
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm This has no impact on the free will issue.
Sure it does. If there is an objective purpose - then I can't possibly choose my own.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Perhaps you're mistaking two terms: "freedom" and "anomie."
A person who makes up their own language never mistakes terms. I use words precisely the way I mean to use them.

If you are misunderstanding my meaning - we can work on rectifying your understanding.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Freedom is the ability to choose among the options reality presents. Anomie is a state of absolute lack of rules, guidelines or grounds for making any particular decision better than any other one at all. Freedom works within the game; anomie can't even figure out what the game should be.
The notion of anomie transgresses the is-ought gap. Seeming as you care so much about rules - shouldn't you care about that one?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm People love freedom. But they're terrified in the existential presence of anomie. They will give up all their freedoms to avoid the pain of floating in a valueless vacuum, with neither sense of direction nor any basis for choosing one.
Some people thrive under such uncertainty - I am one of those people.

I make a lot of money selling certainty to those who hate uncertainty.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm You can't "find" something that does not exist.
You can invent something that doesn't exist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm If you follow that rule, you can let your neighbour die in a ditch. After all, you didn't "harm" him.
I am a hypocrite, remember? I can break my own rules if I so choose.

Only in this case I don't have to break any rules. Helping my neighbour perfectly coincides with "Doing what I will".

I will to help my neighbour out of the ditch and offer assistance.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Yes. "Tolerance" means (literally) to "put up with" something someone else is doing. But you don't have to "put up with," or "tolerate" things you don't find offensive.
The only thing that offends me is harm.

And we have many mechanisms available to us for establishing personal boundaries and agreeing on what harm is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Are you "tolerant"? Then learn to put up with the prescriptivists. Give them their rights and their hearing, the way you would want to have yours. You don't have to agree, but you do have to tolerate them. Find a way to do it, or you'll have to give up your own claim to "tolerance."
Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance? I am intolerant towards intolerance.

Again. I am a hypocrite - I get to decide when to break my own rules.

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm No, it's literally, actually, the "philosophy" of every toddler. Toddlers want what they want, by the nearest means to get it. They have to be told, "No," because they actually don't know what's good for them, and don't know how to know. They can't imagine a world beyond their immediate gratifications. They're tiny Pragmatists.
Any world you can imagine (even one beyond your own gratification) you need Pragmatism to bring it about.

If your can't manifest your ideas into being - what good are they in 'practice'?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm It's not. Happiness cannot be found by pursuing it, because it's a byproduct of other things. Absent those other things, it just cannot be found.
Exactly. Happiness (for me) is a byproduct of meaning.

I figured out what's meaningful and that makes me happy ;) The things other people found meaningful didn't make me happy.

Seems the system works just fine then...
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm No, no...the "premise" we were talking about what that "Life is meaningless."
I told you - It's not a premise - it's a conclusion. If you found the meaning of live using science - by all means. Tell us how!

Having failed to find any meaning in Christianity, physics, maths, history or philosophy - I was kinda forced to invent my own. Very Pragmatic - I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner.

Oh, I know why! Because nobody tells you to INVENT meaning - everybody tells you to FIND meaning. Important fucking distinction...
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm I was asking how you'd achieved knowledge of that fact, by means of "objective, scientific recognition of reality." (Actually, though, since Postmodernists say there is no "reality," I'm not sure what you're referring to).
Sure, I can play the Anti-realist game as well as I can play any other philosophical position. Hence - the systemic problem.

All philosophical positions can be argued for AND argued against - because all philosophies are reducible to axiomatic systems.
And if there's one thing I understand - it's how to construct axiomatic systems from the ground up - it's so systematic it's a bore.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm It amounts to the same thing, because all Postmodernists mean by "meaning" is the delusion of objective significance in a universe that has no such thing.
ALL post-modernists? I don't remember you ever asking me what I mean by meaning?

There were no airplanes in the Universe either. Then we invented them. Like meaning.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Self-worship. The contingent, decaying being falls in love with itself. This passes for sophistication? Does it pass even for sanity?
Worship is a strong word. It's just the Anthropic principle. I like being alive. Don't you?

I am happy to be called insane - your opinion matters not one bit to me :)
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm But none will be really valuable. Because as per Postmodernism, all values are arbitrary and keyed only to the power of various interests.
If you say so. It matters not one bit in practice.

People with aligned interests incorporate. People with aligned interests, but different ideas how to "get there" segregate.

Unity in values doesn't not mandate unity in action.

In systems theory it's called equifinality.
In logic it's called confluence.
In English - there's many ways to skin a cat.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm What you get is anomie.
Again. It doesn't matter what you call it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Not when it comes to values.
Then choose a country which is compatible with yours. Good thing we have a choice, don't you think?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm In the world you appear to imagine yourself to be living in? Nothing. In my world, we care for others. We try not to leave them delusional.
In my world we care for others too. And we give them freedom of thought and freedom of religion (and a whole bunch of other freedoms), rather than assuming they can't adult all on their own.

We even let them hold onto their God-delusion ;)

Much better for everyone, I think?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Right. Because the use of language destroys the thesis.
It doesn't. I am a hypocrite, remember? I get to ignore my own rules.

All philosophies suck. Every single one of them. Mine included. They are all contingent on the philosopher.

So read as many of them as you feel necessary to write your own Bible e.g CONSTRUCT your own philosophy.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm I believe God on that question.
Me too!

Just so it happens - I invented the Idea of God and so I know exactly what God has to say on the matter.

Convenient, eh?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Computer languages aren't "languages." They're mathematical and symbolic sequences used to prompt mere machines to produce outcomes.
You mean like you use English symbols to prompt people to change their minds?

Interesting ;)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9015
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Can a man really turn into a woman?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:52 pm I am claiming that logic is not prescriptive on human reasoning. I use logic - I am not subservient to logic.
I see.

So logical arguments will never impress you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Logic isn't a particular set of axioms, though. It's a methodology that works once your a priori axioms are already in place. Logic does not stipulate any particular content; it just sets the methods that will be used to manage that content.
The methods are a direct consequences of the chosen axioms and rules of inference.
No, the methods aren't: but the input is. The rules of logic are actually quite well defined.
Choosing different axioms produces different conclusions.
Yes, but the fault there is in the axioms, not the method.
Who defines the method? Oh - I do!
Logic has its own rules. They're not defined by individuals in an ad hoc way.
How can I lose the argument in a game without any rules?

Yes, that would be the problem. If you don't recognize that logic is better than illogic or ad hoc rationalizing, then it would be impossible to persuade of you of anything. Fair enough.
You are still programmed to think like a philosopher. You think your arguments are going to convince me of anything, instead you are only affirming your understanding and I am affirming mine. It's just narratives.
Then perhaps you're not quite clear on the difference between "logic" and "narrative." That seems evident now.
Test for what exactly? We have no shared pragma.

That's the function logic would serve for us in this discussion...if you believed in it. But since you say you don't, I think it's not "shared pragma" we lack, but shared confidence in logic.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Pragmatism gives you the illusion of knowing what you're doing...what you should be doing, in your own best interest...when you actually may not have it at all. It makes one think that those fundamental axioms which we talked about earlier don't matter...that you can simply assume their rightness, and charge right ahead to get what you think you want, by looking at what seems to "work" at getting you to it.
OK, then assume the negative pragmatist position. If it doesn't work - it's not true.
Same problem: "not work" for what purpose? What establishes that that purpose is legitimate, or even in your real interest, whatever you happen to think?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm This has no impact on the free will issue.
Sure it does. If there is an objective purpose - then I can't possibly choose my own.
Oh. You mean "free will" is "choose your own purpose"?

Well, since you didn't make yourself exist, you can't say for what purpose you exist. You might have some idea of a contingent "purpose" you are choosing to pursue, but that won't automatically connect you to any ultimate purpose at all.
The notion of anomie transgresses the is-ought gap.
How so? "Anomie" just means "lawlessness," or better, "the absence of any rule or guideline in a given situation." The is-ought gap has to do with morality, not teleology.
You can invent something that doesn't exist.
To "invent" a purpose for your existence, where no such thing actually exists, is simply to self-deceive. One can do that.
I am a hypocrite, remember?
I did not say you were. I said that Postmodernists are. Do you regard yourself among them?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Yes. "Tolerance" means (literally) to "put up with" something someone else is doing. But you don't have to "put up with," or "tolerate" things you don't find offensive.
The only thing that offends me is harm.

And we have many mechanisms available to us for establishing personal boundaries and agreeing on what harm is.
It's not so easy as that.

For example, I would say that subjecting children to Postmodern indoctrination is "harm." You might say it's "teaching them how it is." You might say that teaching about God is harm. I might say that failure to teach them about God is harm. A racist would say that miscegenation is harm. A multiculturalist would say that being a racist is harm. A eugenicist would argue that letting certain people procreate is harm, and sane people would say that practicing eugenics is harm...

It's not so clear a concept as you suggest. Not nearly.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Are you "tolerant"? Then learn to put up with the prescriptivists. Give them their rights and their hearing, the way you would want to have yours. You don't have to agree, but you do have to tolerate them. Find a way to do it, or you'll have to give up your own claim to "tolerance."
Have you heard of the paradox of tolerance? I am intolerant towards intolerance.
Then I'm afraid you would simply be intolerant, full stop.

Because nobody ever "tolerates" things they like. For example, I'l bet you never had to "tolerate" an ice cream cone on a hot day. But you do have to "tolerate" bad service at a restaurant sometimes.

A tolerance that does not tolerate the unpleasant is not any tolerance at all. We can only measure our tolerance by how well we put up with things we don't like.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm No, no...the "premise" we were talking about what that "Life is meaningless."
I told you - It's not a premise - it's a conclusion.
Oh, so when you said you had knowledge of this through "objective, scientific recognition of reality" you were kidding.
I don't remember you ever asking me what I mean by meaning?
Please...go ahead. I'd like to know.
All philosophies suck. Every single one of them. Mine included. They are all contingent on the philosopher.
I have to wonder why you're here, then. You seem to spend a great deal of time on something you say "sucks."
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:53 pm Computer languages aren't "languages." They're mathematical and symbolic sequences used to prompt mere machines to produce outcomes.
You mean like you use English symbols to prompt people to change their minds?
No, because there's no "mind" in a computer. That's the point. It's capable, if sophisticated enough, in replicating the appearance of those operations, but never in genuinely doing the operations. Computers, as you know, are just machines. So they have no mind to change.
Post Reply