Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments
Hi MS, Indeed, lets try to finish up this post. You attempt to impugn God and his morality. But I don't think you have considered or pondered the words of the prophet Isaiah chapter 40:13-14-- "Who has understood the mind of the LORD or instructed him as his counselor?. Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?" If you reject these words, then your "arguments" make sense. Your understanding is the end-all. The only source of wisdom is from inside your head. But theists believe (faith) the prophet's words to some extent. They show some humility by accepting that their creator knows more than they. They think it somewhat odd that the creation can be more righteous than the creator. So as you engage theists in argumentation, keep this in mind. Two groups of people have fundamentally different views on where wisdom comes from. You will label them brainwashed, they will label you disdainful.juwilker
July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Hi, Back from Denver. Took a little longer than I thought, but I'm glad to see the thread still intact. Let's try to finish it up. KF @ 542: "MS: I find it a little odd to be lumped in as part of Christians who are deemed one and all incapable of laying out detailed frameworks of ethics, presumably including grounding." A child can lay out a 'detailed framework of ethics'. What Christianity lacks is a secure foundation for that framework. I know one is available because your nicenesystheol... link features it prominently in its Kant's Categorical Imperative guide. However, Christianity can't really use the Golden Rule / Categorical Imperative as a base for its morality because too much of the Bible can't pass that test. Show me a family that wants its first born son to be murdered, for example. Even many of your God's more recent actions are revealed to be wantonly immoral. An example would be God's design and manufacture of the malarial parasite. Show me one family that wants its children to die of malaria, yet children, the sick and the elderly are the main victims of this God-designed, God-made disease. (According to Michael Behe, that is. Personally I think nature did it. I dont know why Christians hate their God so much they blame all the "natural" evils kkn Him.) And don't get me started on allowing slavery and killing gays, witches and anyone who picks up a stick on the Sabbath. Since so much of Christian "morality" can't pass even a simple test like the Golden Rule, you resort to a much simpler test: "Do I really, really feel this action is immoral?" You illustrate with an example such as torturing and killing a child and note that nearly everybody agrees that this is wrong. But you ignore that this action also spectacularly fails the Golden Rule test. But no matter, you have now shifted the grounds of Christian morality to something that any system can pass: Do I really, really feel that this is immoral?" And Halliujah, it works! Every single thing you dislike is immoral and everything you like is moral! And since your conservative Christian friends and acquaintences have very similar tastes, they all agree with you! Praise the Lord for giving His people an absolute objective universal system of morality!! (Please ignore anything the Bible says about doing what seems right jn your own eyes.) Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to test your morality against the Golden Rule and reject those portions of it that fail that test. Bringing it back to the OP, this is what I predict will happen in the future: The world will continue to put various parts of Christian morality to objective tests, Christian morality will fail those tests and conservative Christians will shake their fists at a the immoral non-Christians because they just KNOW what's right and what's wrong. They can FEEL it! If you disagree with any of the above, try giving us a Christian condemnation of whatever kind of gender issues upset you the most and then justify your pronouncements with the Golden Rule. Who gets hurt by cross dressing? And if the answer is, "No one," or "Some people will be very offended," you lose.MatSpirit
July 11, 2017
July
07
Jul
11
11
2017
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
StephenB
SB: “I” refers to the *person,* not to the person’s *experiences* ...
When one says "I" one does not refer to one's experience of oneself? One refers to the "person" in a general sense? I can assure you that this is certainly not how I use "I".
SB: If you didn’t have access to my “I,” you would not be able to inform me about the fact of your disagreement. What you don’t have access to is my experience of your disagreement.
With "I" one does neither mean one's person in some general sense, nor one's body nor ways of communication with the external world. With "I" one means the self–aware self-experiencing core of oneself.
SB: In the same fashion, you can know that my “I” exists (and your I) ...
You cannot know with certainty that my "I" exists. From your perspective I may lack conscious experience.
SB: ... but you cannot know what it is like to be me, just as I cannot know what it is like to be you.
Indeed.Origenes
July 4, 2017
July
07
Jul
4
04
2017
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
F/N: A discussion of Moral Turpitude has high relevance to our test case, as it shows how law recognises crimes in violation of the inherent law of our nature:
http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article13.htm The term ‘moral turpitude’ first appeared in US immigration law in 1891, which directed the exclusion from the United States of ‘persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.’ See the US Supreme Court decision of Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). It has never been defined by statute, but in the common-law tradition has been given meaning by courts that have construed it over the years. One widely-accepted definition is as follows:
Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. [Citations omitted] Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which is per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude.
Food for thought. KFkairosfocus
July 3, 2017
July
07
Jul
3
03
2017
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Back, later.kairosfocus
July 2, 2017
July
07
Jul
2
02
2017
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Origenes, If you didn't have access to my "I," you would not be able to inform me about the fact of your disagreement. What you don't have access to is my experience of your disagreement. In the same fashion, you can know that my "I" exists (and your I), but you cannot know what it is like to be me, just as I cannot know what it is like to be you.StephenB
June 29, 2017
June
06
Jun
29
29
2017
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
StephenB: Everyone has access to the other person’s “I.”
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree.Origenes
June 29, 2017
June
06
Jun
29
29
2017
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Origenes
When you say “I exist”, you are making a claim about something that only you have access to — only you know what you mean with “I”.
"I" refers to the *person,* not to the person's *experiences,* or what it "means to be him," which belongs to him exclusively. Everyone has access to the other person's "I."
Because you are the only one who has access, you are the only one who can be the source of that claim.
You can be the source of the claim that you exist and you can also be the source of the claim that I exist. I can be the source of the claim that I exist and I can also be the source of the claim you exist. No knowledge of the other person's experiences are necessary to apprehend the fact of his existence.StephenB
June 28, 2017
June
06
Jun
28
28
2017
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Origines, that one has internal access to self-awareness including that one exists does not mean that this does not have objective warrant. In this case as I showed earlier, self-evident undeniable warrant. As in in attempting a denial the issue is: WHO is objecting? KFkairosfocus
June 28, 2017
June
06
Jun
28
28
2017
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
StephenB
SB: I would argue that the apprehension of a self-evident truth is internal but the apprehended truth is, in itself, external. God, as the source of objective truth, is outside the subject/person, (ontology) but the subject/person comes to know it from the inside (Epistemology). The term “I exist,” then, is a statement or recognition that comes from inside the person/subject about an external objective truth–the fact of his existence, of which he is not the source.
When you say “I exist”, you are making a claim about something that only you have access to — only you know what you mean with “I”. No one else knows what is to be you. Because you are the only one who has access, you are the only one who can be the source of that claim. When you say “I exist” you are not making the general claim that subjects exist, you are making a specific claim about one particular subject, namely you. And again, only you are in a position to make this claim. When I, or anyone else, claim that “you exist”, then this is a fundamentally different claim than you saying “I exist.”Origenes
June 28, 2017
June
06
Jun
28
28
2017
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Origines, we are well warranted to hold that we exist, given our conscious awareness. That is, we are things that exist, that have existence. That existence is objective, warranted to be true on pain of absurdity if one attempts the denial. (As in, WHO is it that must exist to attempt denial of existence?) So, existence is itself objective -- indeed, self-evident for conscious, rationally contemplative creatures -- and points onward to the root of reality. Which is a necessary being, for various reasons as already discussed. KFkairosfocus
June 27, 2017
June
06
Jun
27
27
2017
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
Origenes:
“I” is not external. If “I” is external, what is not?
Not I.Mung
June 27, 2017
June
06
Jun
27
27
2017
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Origenes, I would argue that the apprehension of a self-evident truth is internal but the apprehended truth is, in itself, external. God, as the source of objective truth, is outside the subject/person, (ontology) but the subject/person comes to know it from the inside (Epistemology). The term “I exist,” then, is a statement or recognition that comes from inside the person/subject about an external objective truth--the fact of his existence, of which he is not the source.
If the self-evident truth “I exist” is produced by a subject/person, then how it can it be an ‘objective’ truth?
The subject does not produce the self-evident truth of his existence, he apprehends it. Indeed, God produces not only of subject's existence, but also the subject's faculty of intellect that does the apprehending.
“I” does not refer to consciousness as a universal commodity. When I refer to “I”, I refer to something that only I have access to. No one but me has access to what I call “I”. When I say “I exist”, I am the only one who knows what he is talking about.
“I” is just another word for the subject. “I exist” is a statement from the subject about the objective fact of his existence. You are the only one who knows that you know you exist, but you are not the only one who knows that you exist. Subject = the knower of a truth or fact; Object = a truth or fact that is known.StephenB
June 27, 2017
June
06
Jun
27
27
2017
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
William J Murray & Kairosfocus
WJM: All statements of self-evident truths refer to commodities that are sewn into the fabric of existence, which means these commodities are both internal and external.
“I” is not external. If “I” is external, what is not?
WJM: From my spiritual perspective, “I exist” is a statement that refers to consciousness, which IMO is a universal commodity (which means one might think of it as external to our local persona/identity) which permeates through us and manifests internally/locally as our personal thoughts, intentions, ideas, etc.
“I” does not refer to consciousness as a universal commodity. When I refer to “I”, I refer to something that only I have access to. No one but me has access to what I call “I”. When I say “I exist”, I am the only one who knows what he is talking about.
WJM: So, in the same sense that A=A and 1+1=2 represent external truths, they also represent internal truths.
Regarding those statements, let’s note that knowledge presupposes a knower and that therefore all knowledge has a subjective aspect.
WJM: It’s not really an “external” source; ultimately, the source is God, which holds everything in manifest existence by the power of “I exist”, or “I am”.
I would argue that “I” is unique experience only accessible to me and no one else — God included. Therefor “I exist”, as a self-evident truth for me, can only have one source: me.
KF: While one experiences this awareness as a subject, this does not then imply that there is no objective aspect, no “external” reality connected to it.
You seem to think that only external things are “real” and “objective.” Why is that?
KF: Existence is itself objective and points to the root of reality.
Existence in general is not at issue.Origenes
June 27, 2017
June
06
Jun
27
27
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Origines, the issue is that something like a rock cannot be deluded to be aware of its existence, it is not conscious. To be aware that one exists, one must be conscious and capable of rational contemplation. While one experiences this awareness as a subject, this does not then imply that there is no objective aspect, no "external" reality connected to it. Existence is itself objective and points to the root of reality. Which is a necessary being, for various reasons as already discussed. KFkairosfocus
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Origens asks:
Does a self-evident/objective truth have a source external to a subject/person?
All statements of self-evident truths refer to commodities that are sewn into the fabric of existence, which means these commodities are both internal and external. From my spiritual perspective, "I exist" is a statement that refers to consciousness, which IMO is a universal commodity (which means one might think of it as external to our local persona/identity) which permeates through us and manifests internally/locally as our personal thoughts, intentions, ideas, etc. So, in the same sense that A=A and 1+1=2 represent external truths, they also represent internal truths.
If so, how can “I exist” have an external source to a subject/person?
It's not really an "external" source; ultimately, the source is God, which holds everything in manifest existence by the power of "I exist", or "I am".
If the self-evident truth “I exist” is produced by a subject/person, then how it can it be an ‘objective’ truth?
It's not produced by the subject person; ultimately everything that exists is produced and maintained in manifest existence by a fundamental, universal "I am" - God. In my opinion, of course.William J Murray
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
SB, I point to something else in Ruse and Wilson, their appeal to "illusion." Conscience pervades our conscious mental life, including reasoning. Accordingly, if one injects as a consequence of alleged origin by blind chance and mechanical necessity acting through the claimed capability of descent with unlimited incremental modification from some original unicellular life form, then one has set loose general delusion in that mental life. As a consequence, one has sawed off the branch on which we must all sit, reducing mindedness to delusion. This undermines even the possibility to have a real reasoned discussion pivoting on understanding meanings, ground-consequent relations, and inferences on inductive evidence etc. For, we have undermined responsible rational discourse and the capability to genuinely have understanding of ourselves and our world. Self-referential incoherence and self-falsification -- one of ever so many cases for Darwinist accounts of human origins. But then, we are dealing with interlocutors who struggle with reduction of claims to contradiction thus falsification. We are in a bad way as a civilisation. KFkairosfocus
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Pindi, it is presumed that one deals with people of adequate experience to understand meanings. The logic involved is a hypothetical, causally connected implication, R => W, having to do with atmospheres, convection, condensation, formation of rain, falling of droplets, effect of a substance such as water when it comes into contact with a suitable surface due to the particular balance of forces of adhesion and cohesion leading to contact angle of meniscus etc -- hence BTW, Raindance car polish. Grant R, W follows by force of cause. This is not to be confused with R IFF W, as there may be other causally sufficient conditions for W. The relationship is a logical connexion, it is a sufficient (causal) condition for W, that R obtains. This is not saying R actually obtains, but specifies a causal link, And likewise, it is presumed that one has background relevant to understanding distinct identity and some knowledge that planets exist as distinct identifiable entities, e.g. they will have differing positions, paths, visual magnitudes and colour. On this, once S & J are distinct, no planet or entity in general, p, can be such that p = J AND p = S. Planet as sky-wanderer is enough background for this. Nor do we need to have planets as actual entities, this would obtain in a purely mental, abstract simulation-world, once such entities are defined as distinct. Such a world is similar to one constructed by using the von Neumann construction to get counting numbers, extending to get reals then complex, then vectors, thence an abstract space with temporal changes, then defining particles, properties and trajectories, etc. KF PS: A horse is a contingent possible being entity [similar to a hypothesised unicorn . . . which I believe will exist on our planet within 100 years through genetic engineering, as there will be a market for something like that], so if one exists it was caused, and if one is present in a room, R, then its presence there is causally grounded.kairosfocus
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
SB, you are incorrigible.Pindi
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Dionisio: Your honour, I would like to introduce as evidence for the prosecution, post number 556. The people restPindi
June 26, 2017
June
06
Jun
26
26
2017
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
KF and StephenB, FYI, Your politely dissenting interlocutor apparently missed a comment addressed to him in another thread: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/another-bad-day-for-darwinism/#comment-634471 https://www.youtube.com/embed/D1ZYhVpdXbQDionisio
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Pindi
I’ll discuss the horse if you admit you are wrong about the rain<
Nope. If it rains, the streets will get wet unless you change the ordinary causal conditions. That applies both in the world of mental logic and real world logic. I am not buying your claim that you don't know what ordinary means. Now I am going to the prove the point another way by using your counter example: If you cut off rain before it reaches the ground, the ground will not get wet from the rain. That statement is true for the logic of the mind and also for the logic of the real world. I need no empirical evidence or observations to prove the point. Is that last statement true or false? I have answered all your questions and challenges, now please answer my question. After all you have dodged the questions about Jupiter and the horse. At least take this one on.StephenB
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
KF, so you believe the truth of this statement: "If it rains the streets will get wet" can be determined purely by logic?Pindi
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
Pindi, actually, it is you who are revealing more about your views than you expect. I am almost dumbfounded to see that there are people who apparently believe that falsification by reduction to contradiction is not telling us something about truth, pivoting on the logic. The more I learn about the kind of mindset that we are dealing with, the more sad I get when I contemplate just how perilous is the situation of our civilisation. Fire deh pon mus mus tail, but 'im think seh ah cool breeze deh deh. KFkairosfocus
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
LT, simply put up a denial that what happened to that child was evil. This simply will not work, it is absurd. It is not grey area ambiguous or dubious that this is evil. And the actual event, especially with known people, redoubles the force. I should add, it was likely the murderer -- never caught -- was a fellow student or at least part of the university community, perhaps somebody who ate in the same cafeteria as I did, where the victim would regularly come to get dog food. KFkairosfocus
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
SB: I'll discuss the horse if you admit you are wrong about the rain. No adjustment is needed in the mental model. I used your exact words. If you want to change your statement to: "if, assuming the ordinary conditions of what it means to rain in the street, it rains, then the streets will get wet" you can, but that doesn't advance your cause. What are the "ordinary conditions"? Why is a very hot road and a very light rain not "ordinary conditions". Depends where in the world you are of course (or for that matter, what planet you are on). Your position is hopeless. Give up. KF, put him out of his misery.Pindi
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Pindi
I’m not changing anything.
Yes, you are. You are changing the ordinary conditions of what it means to rain in the street. If it rains, the streets will get wet. If, using one of your examples, you cut the rain off before it reaches the ground, then we need to make the adjustment in the mental model. Example: If rain is cut off before it reaches the ground, the streets will not get wet from the rain. That statement is true logically and is also true in the real world--unless you change the conditions again. We can do that with all your examples. Let me give you another example of how logic can instruct us about the real world It is logically impossible for a horse to appear in your living room without a cause. I need no empirical data, experience, or probability speculations to make this statement. I have apodictic certainty that this kind of event simply cannot happen. This is a statement about the real world based solely on reason. No empirical verification is necessary.StephenB
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
StephenB, your question was - using logic, is this statement about the real world true? "[a] If it rains, the streets will get wet." I'm not changing anything. I'm just pointing out the myriad real world situations when this statement is not true. Meaning that, using logic only, you can't say this statement about the real world is true. KF, or someone, can you help SB with his logic? He won't accept it from me.Pindi
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Lar Tanner to kairosfocus
In the end, and accounting for my own obtuseness, I don’t see at all that our discussion has illuminated any “certain moral principles are objective,” unless we mean that such principles are provided in charged language from only a single point of view.
If you agree that the test case is evil, and if you say that you know it is evil, then you are also saying that it violates objective moral standards, and further, that you know it does. The purpose of the test case is to elicit that kind of response. So having acknowledged at least one small component of the natural law, the next step is not to walk it back but rather to ask, "What other kinds of acts violate the same natural moral law that I now know know to be true?" Meanwhile, it isn't the nature of "charged" language that makes it evil, or appear evil, it is the nature of the evil acts that gives the language its charge. Of course "rape","murder," and "kidnapping," are charged words. So are "death," "hate," and "genocide." These are all evil things and we don't need to get worked up emotionally to know it. Knowledge is a function of intelligence, not feelings or emotions. If you know that wanton acts of violence are wrong, then you also know that they objectively wrong and against natural law.StephenB
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
William J Murray: A=A is a self-evident truth that has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or “heartfelt belief”. So is “I exist” and “1+1=2”.
Does a self-evident/objective truth have a source external to a subject/person? If so, how can "I exist" have an external source to a subject/person? If the self-evident truth "I exist" is produced by a subject/person, then how it can it be an 'objective' truth?Origenes
June 25, 2017
June
06
Jun
25
25
2017
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3 20

Leave a Reply