tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post1402876848427945856..comments2023-06-09T14:31:42.016+01:00Comments on Philosophy Metametablog: August Bread CrustPhilosophy Metametabloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323470189556733345noreply@blogger.comBlogger239125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-57636706737410769932015-08-29T02:17:25.603+01:002015-08-29T02:17:25.603+01:00Almost as annoying: that historical ignorance has ...Almost as annoying: that historical ignorance has become so much the norm in these exalted circles that the assumption that Aristotle was 'the last great philosopher of antiquity' (presupposed in an earlier example in the same paper) can be expressed without drawing down a firestorm of ridicule. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-67757006359826489832015-08-29T01:47:30.876+01:002015-08-29T01:47:30.876+01:00I had a longer post, but grew tired of myself befo...I had a longer post, but grew tired of myself before finishing it. Shorter version:<br /><br />- Thank you both, sincerely, for your responses.<br /><br />- Help hasn't helped, but In any case I've thought like this for at least half my life and all of my adult life. If this isn't me, I'm not sure who is. <br /><br />- It seems weird to me to think that ideas of reality formed based on a positive state of mind are inherently any more valid than ideas of reality based on a negative state of mind. I'd rather be a relatively young dead failure than live a life that is so much less than what I could have/should have done. That said, it's not over quite yet. Depending on finances, it could be next week. I don't know. It's not over today is all I can offer right now. <br /><br />- Not sure who I was thinking of deceiving? AM guy knew that I was single and that I just didn't want to risk commitment. AM guy's wife supposedly agreed to a "don't ask don't tell" relationship. (That could have been a lie, but then it's not my lie. Not sure what my obligations are there. I've thought about it and have yet to come to a firm conclusion.)<br /><br />- I agree that monogamy is unnecessary. Couples should do what works for them. Also agree that the misreading was understandable. <br /><br />- Not the first time I've been called cold, and I can be. Sometimes it's helpful that I'm emotionally distant, sometimes not. I don't mean to condemn anyone by saying he sucks at a particular skill. We all suck at things! It's human, and it's okay. But people usually develop seduction skills through practice, and usually the best have had a lot of practice. If what you (I) seek is someone who's comfortable finding someone else for a night, the seducer is a reasonable choice. If a person to whom monogamy comes more naturally is desired, a non-seducer makes more sense. (Though there will be exceptions on both sides, I'm sure.) I've never had a natural understanding of how people and their social interactions worked. Breaking things down like this is how I make sense (when possible) of how humans seem to work..<br /><br />Not sure that was shorter. Oh well. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-62539981570593590012015-08-28T22:34:18.674+01:002015-08-28T22:34:18.674+01:00I think sexism explains why between 2006-2012, I t...I think sexism explains why between 2006-2012, I thought boys were supposed to pay for dates. It probably also explains a few other contingently recurring patterns of behavior and expectations.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-37666289199800555192015-08-28T22:33:39.575+01:002015-08-28T22:33:39.575+01:00Yes, we are all Rachel. That's right. It's...Yes, we are all Rachel. That's right. It's always her. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-43662834411773271002015-08-28T22:09:16.056+01:002015-08-28T22:09:16.056+01:00Yes, I do think sexism exists. And I do think I...Yes, I do think <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect" rel="nofollow">sexism</a> exists. And I do think I'm honest with myself about that.<br /><br />I am not sure you are being similarly honest. I often see feminist theories being touted in these terms. "Sexism" "influences", but then also "causes", and "makes" and "gives". What in the world gives a construct like "sexism" such power? We only believe in "sexism" as an explanatory device anyway: an explanatory device, naturally, for otherwise-observed data. It's not like "sexism" is an actually-floating object out there in the world, even according to those who believe in it most. If it does exist it's just a pattern of facts. The question is: what does "sexism" explain, and is it a good explanation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-38482437691612499752015-08-28T20:36:50.977+01:002015-08-28T20:36:50.977+01:0011:39, this is 9:12.
I think you raise some very ...11:39, this is 9:12.<br /><br />I think you raise some very good and basic points.<br /><br />I certainly agree that, as a tactic (I wouldn't call it a "strategy") for quick cultural change, it may be very effective to adopt and push clearly simplistic views on the matters at issue. From a political point of view, simplistic approaches seem to possess great power. Of course, being simplistic, these positions often collide with each other. The anti-"essentialism" that is crucial to one favored position becomes an embarrassment to the "essentialism" required by another. Thus, as you recognize, the best embodiment of feminism to effect change requires that gender be purely a social construct -- anti "essentialism" -- and the best embodiment of the trans ideology to effect change requires that gender be something wired into the brain (with a genitalia/brain mismatch) -- i.e., "essentialism".<br /><br />But there are at least two points to make here. First, there is always a price to be paid in the long run for adopting views and policies that are based on false assumptions, and especially when those assumptions contradict each other. Second, whether or not a view is a good one for tactical purposes, there is the key question as to whether scientists and philosophers, who generally take it as their mission to pursue the truth, and who trade on that reputation, should be in any important way bound by such concerns.<br /><br />Perhaps in a later comment I'll flesh out those points. But I think that we really are rehashing the arguments made once upon a time -- and still to this day, in fact -- that we must not allow certain ideas (such as evolution) to get currency because it would undermine public morality (as based on religion). (Even though I'm an atheist, it does indeed seem plausible to me that we are tending toward a worse state overall because few people believe in religion than the state we were in when the vast majority did believe in religion, at least in its more benevolent forms.)<br /><br />As with religion, how long can the truth be resisted in any case?<br /><br />I guess that actually counts as a third reason to remain faithful to the truth in these matters: in the end, we have to find a way to adjust to it, however unwelcome, because we can't escape even its acceptance by the larger public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12893534498963034712015-08-28T19:58:22.751+01:002015-08-28T19:58:22.751+01:0011:23, I never claimed that gender is reducible to...11:23, I never claimed that gender is reducible to biology. Only that physical sex does and should play some important role in what it meant to say someone 'is a man' or 'is a woman'. That's rather obvious in cases like e.g. allowing MTF trans to play in women's sports. It is less obvious but quite plausible in cases like integrating womens' bathrooms. It seems like womens' concerns about permitting men into women's restrooms or changing rooms might reasonably have something to do with a sense that men are larger, stronger, more aggressive, and more likely to violate boundaries, which IMO is plausibly connected to physical differences between the sexes. I never see anyone complain that the massive differential in male and female incarceration for violent crimes is due to sexism, I think that's because people do feel, acknowledged or not, that the sexes differ strongly along that dimension.<br /><br />11:39 agree completely about the strategic dimension here. Both gay rights and trans rights are trying to rerun the civil rights playbook for what could be described as behavioral rather than racial differences. And they are having a lot of success. But philosophy should be about searching for truth and not enforcing unanimity in politically beneficial strategic claims. That's a big reason why the invasion of social justice thinking into philosophy is so harmful.<br /><br />In the case of transgender ideology, there are some real and pressing moral problems created by the identity claim -- most notably, parents pressing their children into irreversible medical treatments due to ascribing a transgender identity, when the children are too young to really understand all the implications of the parental ascription of that identity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-76566290794617964042015-08-28T19:39:45.623+01:002015-08-28T19:39:45.623+01:009:12,
I agree that there's much for an honest...9:12,<br /><br />I agree that there's much for an honest philosopher to ponder here, and it's a shame so few are.<br /><br />But I do think this lack of reflection has an at least understandable reason. In most cases, what we're not questioning is the assumption of some kind of essentialism. And I think that's because in egalitarian politics, essentialism has strategic political and moral force.<br /><br />Take, for example, the gay rights movement. Morally and philosophically, the dominant cultural question of "is one born gay?" irrelevant, since there's no justification for discrimination even if it's not inborn. But strategically, convincing the public that gayness is an essential identity trait was absolutely crucial. <br /><br />There's a long history of this in egalitarianism. Initially, anti-racism and feminism used this strategy: human beings are essentially the same, racial and gender differences are trivial, unimportant, and so discrimination on their basis unjustified.<br /><br />But that became a problem when later wave feminists wanted to valorize gender difference rather than ignore it, and when multiculturalists want to valorize cultural and ethnic identities rather than trivialize them, as the human essentialism strategy inadvertantly does. The strategy outlived its usefulness.<br /><br />The trans-rights movement is using the same strategy. If someone is essentially a gender other than their biological sex, then there's real moral and political force to the demand not discriminate against them, not accept their asserted identity, or to pressure them into acting out of character with that identity.<br /><br />But as primarily a strategy, rather than primarily a truth claim, it runs into problems. Many feminists--rightly I think--are bothered by the simplistic picture of gender it promotes. What does it usually mean when a trans-woman says she's a woman? It means her psychological identity conforms to all the broad stereotypes of womanhood. It means, often, that she's more "feminine" than most biological woman. That's an awkward outcome, since it implies either the human essentialism of feminism or the gender essentialism of trans-discourse is wrong.<br /><br />But of course, that it's philosophically suspect strategic discourse doesn't clearly count against the egalitarian cause.<br /><br />Just as there'd be no justification for discrimination against gay persons even if it weren't an inborn trait, there's also no justification for rejecting most of the demands of the trans-rights movement, even if trans-people aren't "really" or essentially the gender they say.<br /><br />(And of course, noting that it's strategic is not claiming it's false, only that it's useful, regardless of its truth.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-81475274057737451022015-08-28T19:37:34.451+01:002015-08-28T19:37:34.451+01:00Yeah, well if you're not into it, you don'...Yeah, well if you're not into it, you don't have to go there of course. As for gendered conferences and blah blah blah climate networking, my guess is that the best thing to do is keep doing philosophy until it's not worth it? I dunno. That's not super insightful or helpful. I guess be honest with yourself about whether or not you think there really is this thing called sexism out there, and if there is, how it might influence men and women to interpret women less charitably than men- or worse, cause women to undervalue their own abilities. This second thing not only makes women perform well below their potential, but it also gives us this annoying tendancy to trust authority figures' opinions of us way too much. So if some authority figure inappropriately thinks we're dumb, we'll believe it when we shouldn't. And similarly, when someone inappropriately praises us, we'll think they're right too.<br /><br />Obviously this is a gross oversimplification, and not all women, and women are autonomous adults, of course. But since this sort of behavior is socialized, we shouldn't freak out that much. We should just try and figure out how to change the culture. And it should go without saying that there are going to be growing pains along the way. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-71100395363153445752015-08-28T19:23:38.183+01:002015-08-28T19:23:38.183+01:008:07, I agree with the spirit of the post, but I t...8:07, I agree with the spirit of the post, but I think this comment is a bit question-begging: "modern trans ideology insists that men in dresses are REALLY women, and condemns anyone who points out that it's impossible to change physical sex as a disgusting bigot."<br /><br />I think we can stake out a third, more skeptical position: that the science of sex and gender is disputed, that the theories of gender that underlie much of the political discourse around trans identity are unjustifiably dogmatic in virtue of that disputed science (as well as in virtue of their theories' insufficient attention to that science).<br /><br />This allows us to critique the movement from a more philosophically cautious position, rather than leaping to the equally contentious dogma but that gender is reducible to biology.<br /><br />In short, we can reject radical social constructionists without presupposing reductionism. (For those of you who are reductionists: isn't it in your interest to persuade those in the middle against the social constructionist extremists?)<br /><br />My own suspicion is that the biological basis of gender is so limited and flexible that there's only "reality" on the level of anatomy, there's no "real" gender, period. So one is neither "really" psychologically a man in virtue of being so anatomically NOR is one "really" a woman trapped in a man's body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-63328028095652447192015-08-28T19:00:55.598+01:002015-08-28T19:00:55.598+01:00Also ground zero for warped political ideals such ...Also ground zero for warped political ideals such as "It is morally wrong to be physically attracted to people."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-7941526498768570472015-08-28T18:38:35.826+01:002015-08-28T18:38:35.826+01:00Okay, I can buy that. To me it seems like, if that...Okay, I can buy that. To me it seems like, if that's the purpose of FP, there is a lot of excess ideology (FP is not just "What it's Like", so to speak). I don't think Jacobson, Saul, McKinnon, Goguen, Barnes, etc. are there to pow-wow about shared experiences. But it's more or less unobjectionable that you use it for that. And I'm not about that boycotting-things-that-are-"tainted" life (purportedly homophobic pizzerias and so on).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-31761967614922896122015-08-28T18:28:41.444+01:002015-08-28T18:28:41.444+01:00Lol 9:55. I've definitely had the first WTF yo...Lol 9:55. I've definitely had the first WTF you describe... And it's not imposter syndrome. I actually do think I'm pretty good, but I'm not sure how that would have been made clear to anyone but myself yet. But the there-is-some-confusing-overcompensation-going-on WTFs are what *this* blog is for. FP helps with the more traditional WTFs, like being sexually harassed, or being one of very VERY few women in a fairly large department. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-49704079731907599972015-08-28T18:03:11.730+01:002015-08-28T18:03:11.730+01:00Jesus Christ. Those few paragraphs in there are gr...Jesus Christ. Those few paragraphs in there are ground zero for political philosophy - or, really, just politics - trying to constrain the conclusions of far more foundational LEMMing subjects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-23195662064244816742015-08-28T17:55:26.361+01:002015-08-28T17:55:26.361+01:00Oh I get it. So those moments when you're like...Oh I get it. So those moments when you're like "WTF, I keep getting invited to all these conferences and everybody is treating me so well despite the fact that my work is middling at best"? Or earlier, moments like "WTF, my publication record and dissertation definitely don't merit these job offers; I wonder why I'm getting them"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-52100666836670118692015-08-28T17:12:38.278+01:002015-08-28T17:12:38.278+01:00Yes, the trans issue is something that would leave...Yes, the trans issue is something that would leave any honest philosopher with much to ponder.<br /><br />How are the yearnings of a trans individual different from those in the grip of Body Dysmorphia, who can't accept their body as is, and wish to change it, if necessary, by surgery? How do they differ from those individuals who feel powerfully that one or more of their limbs aren't part of them, and seek to have them removed surgically? If transsexuals represent as few as 1 in 20,000 individuals, how much of an obligation does society have to go to great lengths to accommodate their wishes? What if many or most transwomen are so primarily because they find envisioning themselves as women as highly charged erotically -- does that diminish their claim on society to defer to their demands? What about the issue of performing sex change surgery on children or adolescents -- is that ever permissible, given the real possibility it will result in a permanent change that the patient will regret? What if it turns out that extraordinarily high suicide rate of trans individuals has little to do with being accepted by society, and derives instead from a more basic problem in the psychological state of trans individuals -- does that alter whether we should regard them as exhibiting a kind of mental disease?<br /><br />And there are many other such things an honest philosopher might ponder. But where are they being pondered?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-21740023406738413282015-08-28T17:02:05.994+01:002015-08-28T17:02:05.994+01:00I like it for the same reason people like this blo...I like it for the same reason people like this blog: I can go there and find out that I'm not the only person going through what I'm going through- this big is a bit more general. FP focuses on the wtfs of the junior woman in philosophy experience. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-73079105227184284242015-08-28T16:07:23.638+01:002015-08-28T16:07:23.638+01:00I'm not 11:00 but I'll bite on the trans t...I'm not 11:00 but I'll bite on the trans thing. Not questioning the right to free gender expression. But while old drag queen culture was pretty live-and-let-live, modern trans ideology insists that men in dresses are REALLY women, and condemns anyone who points out that it's impossible to change physical sex as a disgusting bigot. Philosophers are supposed to be dedicated to truth. Someone who has built their entire identity around jamming a falsehood down peoples' throats and refusing to admit the legitimacy of even discussing it is likely to be a lousy philosopher. Not to mention an aggressively obnoxious person, as RM clearly is. Your modern trans ideologue tends to have all the entitled aggression of a classic macho male, plus all the pious sententiousness of a hardcore feminist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12693366106941697222015-08-28T15:49:44.855+01:002015-08-28T15:49:44.855+01:008:07 here. Not kidding: https://www.academia.edu/...8:07 here. Not kidding: https://www.academia.edu/15178504/On_the_Case_for_Truth-RelativismAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-26038259187493043662015-08-28T15:38:14.198+01:002015-08-28T15:38:14.198+01:00Are you sure? The golf clusb are pretty sweet and...Are you sure? The golf clusb are pretty sweet and you could probably sell them for at least $1000. The family of four is only worth about $100 plus-tip. The kids are kind of shitty too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-43799297798876461872015-08-28T14:25:03.507+01:002015-08-28T14:25:03.507+01:00Thanks I know logic quite well. You however seem t...Thanks I know logic quite well. You however seem to lack knowledge in basic human communication. So let me clarify: Someone wrote P, and I wrote yes P and have you seen Q? That's the way people talk to each other. I'm happy to provide further lessons in human sociability free of charge since you seem to be struggling with it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-81512265841564310252015-08-28T12:09:08.560+01:002015-08-28T12:09:08.560+01:00Hm, it's a difficult choice, but I will take t...Hm, it's a difficult choice, but I will take the family of four.<br />In a way I would prefer to make my own family, but this does seem a lot easier and cheaper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-36642809976314729262015-08-28T12:05:16.905+01:002015-08-28T12:05:16.905+01:00I am having waffles.I am having waffles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-91171392237732886712015-08-28T11:48:14.220+01:002015-08-28T11:48:14.220+01:00"The first premise "most people live liv..."The first premise "most people live lives that are, on net, happy" is not only indemonstrable but highly unlikely."<br /><br />I think the fact that most people don't commit suicide is reason enough to accept the premise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-49465390241266390522015-08-28T07:46:54.331+01:002015-08-28T07:46:54.331+01:00What the fuck are you talking about, 7:20 PM? I tr...What the fuck are you talking about, 7:20 PM? I truly have no idea how what you said has any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand. (I'm reminded of that famous quote about <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess" rel="nofollow">playing chess with a pigeon</a>.)<br /><br />Anyway, notice that I said "introductory logic <i>and critical thinking</i>". Which, if you'd taken such a course, you'll recall includes a section on communication skills. Which is why I added that. Which is why you sound either disingenuous or idiotic for not mentioning that I added that.<br /><br />And why yes, beer -> p, I'd have to agree! I meant to write 'doesn't <i>write</i> "p!"', but why ruin a funny accident? :-) 7:07 AMnoreply@blogger.com