Aristotle's idea of definition and heteronormativity

[Anonymous No.18465020]

I know this sounds like a title for a cheap undergrad final thesis but hear me out. I have a right wing friend (I myself am not really that into politics) who is pretty well-read and last time we met we were talking about woke stuff like trannies and faggots. He defended gender essentialism and traditional marriage by invoking Aristotle's concept of definition which consist of genus proximum (proximate kind) and differentia specifica (specific difference). Now his argument ran along these lines - the left has it all wrong attempting to make gender and marriage more "inclusive" to account for the existence of non-heteronormative people because definitions are always not inclusive i.e. are based on pointing out the kind to which the defined object belongs and what makes the object stand out from the rest of the kind or what makes this object so unique that it cannot be regarded as a typical representative of the kind. This observation prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions of all kind and in the process abolish reality itself because to Aristotle (and this is his interpretation) reality is not fully perceived unless it is perceived conceptually with the aid of definitions. My question is - are there any books that develop something like a Platonist/Aristotelian gender theory or are there any specific books in which Plato and Aristotle themselves adressed these issues?

[Anonymous No.18465028]

>hear me out

[Anonymous No.18465072]

>>18465020
>are there any books that develop something like a Platonist/Aristotelian gender theory or are there any specific books in which Plato and Aristotle themselves adressed these issues?
Not really along the lines that you're looking for. Aristotle was not a gender essentialist.

[Anonymous No.18465100]

>>18465020
Aristotle believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. He had no concept of inertia and his overall worldview was pretty wacky.
That being said, it is not uncommon for definitions to be "extended" in science and mathematics. For example inner product was first defined simply as the dot product in Euclidean space, but it was later generalized and extended to much more general environments (like function spaces). Woke idiots do not abolish specific differences; they simply remove the differences to another realm. For example, they see a difference between a cisman and a transwoman, even if in the eyes of the /pol/tard both are men and they see no difference; conversely, woke idiots see no difference (or at least they claim they see no difference) between a ciswoman and a transwoman, since they're both "women" in their eyes, whereas the /pol/tard sees a difference.
Woke idiots are simply using different definitions, it's not that they are abolishing all definitions. That kind of PoMo drivel about abolishing reality is kinda fringe (or so it seems to me) and very few woke extremists take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.18465118]

>>18465020
Your friends sounds based and you sound like a faggot. If I were he I’d stop hanging out with you.

[Anonymous No.18465122]

>>18465020
>gender theory
you cannot reasonably apply modern post-modernist and marxist ideologies to antiquity.

[Anonymous No.18465151]

>>18465020
did you read what Aristotle had to say about gays in the Nicomachean Ethics?

[Anonymous No.18465174]

>>18465020
>This observation prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions of all kind
Nothing schizo about that; it's completely true.

[Anonymous No.18465202]

>>18465020
this >>18465118
if you were a better friend maybe he wouldn't be on road to becoming an esoteric hitlerist to revolt against the modern world, but, as it is now, being surrounded by faggots tends to radicalize you

[Anonymous No.18465216]

>>18465020

What makes you think that great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle would have even tried to address degenerate issues present only today like transgenders ?

You don't need even need to appeal to Aristotle to refute that trans are degenerates, all you need to do is appeal to biology.

There are only 2 sexes: male and female. The third option: intersex is just a genetical error.

Also all transgenders without exception suffer from a mental illness called gender dysphoria.

Now tell me again on what premises should society go above and beyond to cater to transgenders in the context in which there are infinitely more pressing issues in the world (global warming, wars, famine, poverty, diseases, cruel treatment to humans and animals, etc) ?

Why do you think a global society should even acknowledge transexuals' existence ? They have a mental issue and there's many other mental issues which don't gather this much publicity, why ? What makes transgenders so important ? Moreover, why should we pass a MENTAL ILLNESS (it's a fact) as normality since we don't do this with any other mental illness ?

Fuck trannies and jews. Trannies' problem is an actual non-problem. It merits attention only in its characteristic as mental illness from specialists, but absolutely NOTHING more.

So fuck gender theory, fuck trannies, fuck lefists, fuck woke faggots, fuck you all and kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.18465234]

>>18465202
>modernist ideology
>revolting against the modern world
BIG YIKES!

[Anonymous No.18465289]

>>18465216
>global warming
Kek

(Well, at least you didn't list "le Covid pandemic" in the top spot, that's a start, I guess.)

[Anonymous No.18465297]

>>18465216
>cruel treatment to humans and animals
For some reason I find it difficult to believe you actually care about that.

[Anonymous No.18465312]

>>18465289

Are you trying to imply that global warming is not an issue ? The climate has already changed drastically in a few decades, I can clearly remember how the seasons were when I was small and how they are now. Seasons were being contained to their respective months most of the time, nowadays I get autumn weather in the summer, summer weather in the winter and winter lacking snow whereas it used to snow a lot before.

In the past 2 years we barely had a bit of snow in my country the whole winter and when I was young we had huge amounts of snows every year.

Tell me how global warming is fake, retard since that's what you imply. It's actually the most important issue right now since it could be the start of humanity's extinction.

[Anonymous No.18465317]

>>18465297

I do, especially about animals, but I feel so powerless to do anything about it that I just end up being very angry about it and I end up not thinking about it actively.

[Anonymous No.18465321]

>>18465020
>This observation prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions of all kind and in the process abolish reality
NRx got there first. Of course NRx is heavily inspired by marxist post-structuralists and the even more marxist frankfurt school, so I suppose it’s all the same. Especially when you view NRx as a progressive force a la Nick Land.

[Anonymous No.18465328]

>>18465317
but this is exactly what OP's friends was talking about. if you actually care about animal suffering then a logical corollary would be genociding all predatory species. you're a syptom of extending the definition of rights to non-human beings like animals

[Anonymous No.18465332]

>>18465317
>fuck you all and kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.18465333]

>>18465072
>Aristotle was not a gender essentialist.
Yes, he was. It just wasn't a big issue in his time so he never had to blow a storm up about it.

[Anonymous No.18465337]

>>18465312
>I can clearly remember how the seasons were when I was small and how they are now.
So can I. Ten years ago was significantly warmer than right now.

"Global warming", (like "Covid") are simulacra. They only exist because the media shat those memes into your head, thus rendering you into a literal shithead cuckold.

[Anonymous No.18465346]

>>18465072
>Aristotle was not a gender essentialist.
Because it was a given at that time

[Anonymous No.18465348]

>>18465328

You're making an unreasonable claim. I'm not saying eliminate animal suffering altogether, just human induced suffering. If animals kill each other in nature, it's part of a natural cycle where all animals have their own chances according to their ability.

But humans intentionally growing millions of animals in extremely bad conditions where they can't even move or stay in their own shit and killed after a few months of life is not part of this "natural cycle", they're also separating parents from their offspring leading to mental anguish for these animals (proven). It's akin to torture.

[Anonymous No.18465361]

>>18465337

You realise that global warming doesn't manifest just in getting warmer everywhere right ? It also manifests in deregulating the temperatures, accentuating extremes (either making the weather colder or hotter, but in the end it will end up being hotter overall). Please inform yourself or next you're going to tell me the Earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.18465371]

>>18465020
>Platonist/Aristotelian gender theory
I’ll be as upfront as I possibly can: you have to be fucked in the head to even consider Ancient Greek philosophers giving a shit about the stupid gender ideas our contemporary “thinkers” have.
Do you know how Plato and Aristotle called transgenders? Eunuchs, and they were all slaves. That’s it.
The sex-gender difference is a laughable concept that could only be entertained by mentally ill people.
Other than that, Plato considered woman to be the reincarnation of coward men. Take of that what you may.

[Anonymous No.18465372]

>>18465333
>Yet Aristotle does not think that gender belongs to essence because essence has to do with eidos — species, or form. A male and a female animal of the same species will not, he thinks, be essentially different.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2108042

>The conclusion that nothing is essentially male and nothing essentially female thus follows from the conjunction of these three Aristotelian ideas:
>(1) the idea that what is essential to a living being is included in the logos of its eidos;
>(2) the idea that, normally, reproduction is by eidos transmission;
>(3) the idea that in bisexual reproduction the father is always the agent cause, whether the offspring are male or female.
>We have seen why, according to Aristotle, gender does not belong to essence.
https://philpapers.org/rec/MATGAE-2

[Anonymous No.18465377]

>>18465312
>it could be the start of humanity's extinction
Global warming will not be the proximate cause of human extinction.

[Anonymous No.18465384]

>>18465216
>You don't need even need to appeal to Aristotle to refute that trans are degenerates,
Um yeah you actually need to or at the very least you need to appeal to essentialism/essences of Aristotle. If the sexes you identify, male and female, are really just human pragmatic inventions, they don't exist. If they don't exist people can do exactly the same liberal bs they are doing today. Biology can tell us that men and women have different sexual organs but they can't tell us what the essence of "sex" is. And because of a the recent materialist conception of the world, matter can change anytime it wants to, it can evolve. As a consequence, people can simply come up with the rationalization that the sexes has evolved.

[Anonymous No.18465386]

>>18465337
>"Global warming", (like "Covid") are simulacra.
Pleb take. Global warming is a simulacra because it only touches *us*, westerners, through it's media presence. If you live on the periphery, "global warming" doesn't exist, but what exists in it's place are droughts, famine, major population displacement and natural disasters.

[Anonymous No.18465388]

>>18465384
sexes have evolved*

[Anonymous No.18465391]

>>18465348
>You're making an unreasonable claim. I'm not saying eliminate animal suffering altogether, just human induced suffering.
humans are animals. again - you're using a premodern distinction between man and the beast and want to apply it in a modern/postmodern context. this cannot work
>But humans intentionally growing millions of animals in extremely bad conditions where they can't even move or stay in their own shit and killed after a few months of life is not part of this "natural cycle", they're also separating parents from their offspring leading to mental anguish for these animals (proven). It's akin to torture.
the distinction between physis and nomos is a pretty major part of ancient philosophy. Leo Strauss has a great essay about it but once more this distinction is part of premodern philosophy. any honest person after Darwin has to say that suffering caused by humans to animals is not qualitatively different than suffering caused by animals to other animals. this is precisely what OP's friend meant when he was referring to blurring distinctions in order to make them more inclusive

[Anonymous No.18465402]

>>18465333
>Yes, he was. It just wasn't a big issue in his time so he never had to blow a storm up about it.
Eidetic reduction has always required that you eliminate all forms of inessential variation, such as gender.

[Anonymous No.18465439]

>>18465377

I said it could be start of it. Sure, humans won't go extinct right away because it's 2 celsius degrees hotter, but it will lead to a plethora of other issues like raising ocean levels, ceratin hot spots on earth becoming uninhabitable, extreme meteorological events with more frequency (like tornadoes and hurricanes), wildfires (just check the wildfires in recent years, they manifest in new ways and are harder to contain and burn a lot of area).

It won't make us go extinct right away, but if it continues like this, eventually it will go extinct.

>>18465384

Aristotle can't prove essences. No metaphysical concept can be proven with certainty because then it wouldn't be metaphysical, but physical. You can at most make a logically coherent claim, but there is no definitive proof, thus you can't use essences as a premise for any argument.

Male and female are not pragmatic inventions, they're literally the duality in which life manifests itself. There are humans females with a vagina (and specific chromosomes) and humans males with a penis (and specific chromosomes).

Intersex is an error of nature. But nevertheless, trannies are not intersex. They're either born male or female.

> And because of a the recent materialist conception of the world, matter can change anytime it wants to, it can evolve

There is a difference between natural evolving processes and a tranny arbitrarily pretending to be another sex due to a (factually proven) mental illness.

Trannies should just kys they can't justify their mental illness in any circumstance. They're abominations of nature and most of them become trannies as an excuse for being unable to get laid and a lot of them have a predatory nature in which they argue for more freedom for kids to "explore their sexuality" (aka grooming for pedophiles).

[Anonymous No.18465446]

There is only one sex—male—and its failures (female).

[Anonymous No.18465448]

>>18465386
You're taking for granted that it's real in the first place...

[Anonymous No.18465460]

>>18465100
Their definition of a cisman and a transwoman is what they respectively claim to be without any point of reference whatsoever. If these definitions do not meet certain criteria as to exclude that which is not then there is no practical difference between them

[Anonymous No.18465463]

>>18465439
>Male and female are not pragmatic inventions
Where do we get the concept of male and female if everything can just be reduced to matter?

[Anonymous No.18465467]

>>18465216
Read Symposium. All heterosexuals originated from hermaphrodites.

[Anonymous No.18465469]

>>18465439
>It won't make us go extinct right away, but if it continues like this, eventually it will go extinct.
I disagree. Human ingenuity can easily account for all of those issues. Earth was inhabited by similar life when all that carbon was in the air.

Now, it might prompt mass migrations that touch off a nuclear war. That could do it. But I wouldn't consider that proximal cause.

[Anonymous No.18465480]

>>18465439
>No metaphysical concept can be proven with certainty because then it wouldn't be metaphysical, but physical
what about mathematical proofs? if mathematical objects don't have a corresponding object in the real world then they are immaterial and yet there is something like a mathematical proof

[Anonymous No.18465485]

There's nothing right-wing about gender essentialism, sorry. Real right-wingers embrace the volatility and plasticity of the divide between male and female energies (notice how warped gender is in traditional myths and cultures: all the tranny and homo gods and heroes, etc.). The gender binary, like the Jewish nuclear family, is an aberration of the mercantile Protestant world. Reject modernity. Embrace the third gender.

[Anonymous No.18465486]

>>18465361
> Warming is when it gets cooler
And you're the one complaining about troons?? You're no better. Just different in the vector of your insanity and reality denial.

[Anonymous No.18465489]

>>18465391

>humans are animals. again - you're using a premodern distinction between man and the beast and want to apply it in a modern/postmodern context. this cannot work

Humans are animals in a technical sense, but humans are the only one that "torture" their prey or play God by spefically engineering animals to conform to their needs (produce more eggs, milk, etc while effectively making these animals more vulnerable to developing malformations, etc).

There is no animal on Earth with human's capacity for cruelty. Animals just kill their prey and eat it, humans literally torture other animals by keeping them in extremely shit conditions. They even do it for fun.

Look at the annual chinese dog eating festival where they skin dogs ALIVE and kill them with fire in their eyes and torture them in the worst way possible.

How can you even compare such capacity for inducing pain with animals that just kill their prey quick ? You must be emotionally or intellectually retarded to not observe this difference.

> any honest person after Darwin has to say that suffering caused by humans to animals is not qualitatively different than suffering caused by animals to other animals

I don't think you get the point. Read what I said in this post above, it pretty much includes an answer to this too.

Humans have a special ability to inflict pain on other animals which isn't found in nature. Animals don't live in cages as big as their body for months wallowing in shit and certaintly don't skin each other alive or burn each other alive.

Please stop trying to look intellectual, because you're literally ridiculous in your attempt to justify inflicting pain on animals on such a large scale and in such inhumane methods as specified.

[Anonymous No.18465495]

>>18465386
Are you implying that the "global south" at any point in its existence wasn't subject to droughts, famine and population displacement??

[Anonymous No.18465496]

>>18465485
wtf i love the right wing now

[Anonymous No.18465498]

>>18465485
>Real right-wingers embrace dialectics
sorry, no

[Anonymous No.18465499]

>>18465448
>You're taking for granted that it's real in the first place...
Why do you think we've been inundated by Muslims for the last decade? Because their on their second drought (if not third at this point) since 2005. A whole generation had to move to their urban centers only to discover there was no job there either, and then moved over here because our government promised them a better life at no cost whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.18465502]

>>18465489
>or play God by spefically engineering animals to conform to their needs
No, ants do that too.

[Anonymous No.18465510]

>>18465499
There wasn't a point in history when Muslims weren't in drought. It's just them failing at civilization and irrigation practices, "warming" has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.18465516]

>>18465439
>No metaphysical concept can be proven with certainty because then it wouldn't be metaphysical, but physical
That's a 'tard moment for sure.

[Anonymous No.18465528]

>>18465510
Read a book dumbass global warming is real and we’ll be under water by the end of this Century

[Anonymous No.18465534]

>>18465467

And what factual proof does Plato have for that ? I'm pretty sure that none since Plato didn't even bother with sciences (Aristotle did). So it's irrelevant and probably making a claim based on metaphysical claims which have no base. And even if I were to say you're right for the sake of the argument you wouldn't be able to make a case for transexuality being normal nowadays because transexuals are born male or female as I've said, not hermaphrodites.

>>18465469

>Human ingenuity can easily account for all of those issues. Earth was inhabited by similar life when all that carbon was in the air.

That's just a presupposition. Humans don't have the ability to account for everything, they're ultimately limited beings after all. Also, if other life can survive certain conditions is irrelevant because we talk about humans, not other species.

>>18465480

Mathematics are not metaphysical concepts. You might believe it to be so because in math you work with numbers and formulas, but math is just a human-created expression of reality. Mathematics is literally a language, a sign language developed by humans to explain observations and relations found in nature.

>>18465486

Huh ? Are you retarded or what ? Global warming is an expression coined to point out the overall aspect of what's happening, but the particular effects of global warming don't manifest just in temperature raising, but also in unusual events (snow in the desert).

There's so many studies about this that it's ridiculous to even believe otherwise.

But since you're a schizo, I'll give you another argument:

If global warming was a psyop, why would the world leaders like Trump deny it exists ? Why are so many countries reluctant to adhere to regulations against global warming ? Cause if it's a psyop, as your schizo mind sees it, then all countries should follow it and lead a concentrated effort to make it look real, but it's exactly opposite nowadays since most countries barely do anything to fight against global warming.

[Anonymous No.18465543]

>>18465516

Ok, proceed to explain with facts the existence of God and the soul. If you can't do it (be careful, not a single human has been able to do so since the existence of humanity), then I'm right.

>>18465502

Explain.

[Anonymous No.18465546]

>>18465543
>be careful, not a single human has been able to do so since the existence of humanity
translation: "no one has done it to my satisfaction"

[Anonymous No.18465548]

>>18465534
>most countries barely do anything to fight against global warming
Because they know it’s a hoax pushed by the juice

[Anonymous No.18465557]

>>18465534
>but math is just a human-created expression of reality
Lol so you just proved the original point in saying that most concepts are just human pragmatic inventions if essentialism is not true.

Additionally, if mathematics is just pragmatic, if mathematical realism is false, then we aren't really doing anything useful in math. Since the Pythagorean theorem assumes that there is a universal triangle, a non believer in mathematical realism would have to resort to the conclusion that the Pythagoreans theorem is false since it does not account for individual and particular triangles.

[Anonymous No.18465559]

>>18465546

No, it literally means no one has derived the existence of the soul or God from the physical world.

Any claim for the existence of the soul and God requires a degree of "belief", and belief does not equate with certainty.

You're just an inferior human being if you can't grasp this simple truth.

>>18465548

But if you say it's a psyop, that means there's a mastermind which has control on a global scale otherwise it wouldn't be a psyop. Yet on a global scale countries barely conform to this supposed psyop, which means it isn't a psyop.

Sometimes I'm unsure if /lit/ is made of a lot of pseuds or I am just more intelligent than the average human.

[Anonymous No.18465560]

Jesus fuck what a retard.
We aren't much better for engaging him tho.
It's a nice day out. I'll go for a walk.

[Anonymous No.18465571]

>>18465528
Sounds like you actually have great faith in what the state organs of information tell you, not sure why you were pretending earlier to think it was just a simulacrum

[Anonymous No.18465581]

>>18465559
>No, it literally means no one has derived the existence of the soul or God from the physical world.
You are assuming a fundamental belief in logical positivism which is self refuting. Support the claim that says, "all proofs must come from the physical world."

Oh wait you can't because that would require a proof that is not physical.

[Anonymous No.18465596]

>>18465337
>"Global warming", (like "Covid") are simulacra.
Simulacras aren't such because they aren't real, but because *we* cannot ever reach their reality, because we are lost/paralyzed in an infinity of signifiers.
Just because a war didn't happen for us doesn't mean it didn't happen for those getting bombed or shot at.
Go reread Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.18465601]

Plato would unironically be supporting a mild version of gender theory. The essence of female and male are only accidental to the idea of human (see the argument in the Republic book V)

[Anonymous No.18465607]

>>18465601
Maybe accidental to the idea of human, but accidental to the individual?

[Anonymous No.18465608]

>>18465557

>Lol so you just proved the original point in saying that most concepts are just human pragmatic inventions if essentialism is not true.

How did you even deduce that ? I literally said mathematics is a sign language whose purpose is to explain reality. It's not something invented that doesn't conform to reality, it litearlly conforms to reality, but if it doesn't have an expression in our language, we can't talk about it, no ?

This doesn't mean that "male" and "female" are just human created concepts. Yes, in a sense they are "human created concepts" (by this meaning that humans created the word "male" and the word "female"), but they didn't create them to design something arbitrarily, they literally point out a biological reality. They're just the expression of something that already exists, of the dualism male-female.

Or let me put it different since I'm afraid you can't comprehend it:

a) Humans are born male and female.

b) Humans see that humans are born male and female

c) Humans create the words in their language "male" and "female" as labels for this biological reality

d) You come and say: haha got u man since humans created this concept for the purpose of language, that means males and females don't exist it's all relative to how i feel, i can be female now and have a vagina then next second grow a penis, yea, language means that i literally create reality haaha.

Point d) is literally what you think + the consequences of what you think. Which is extremely absurd for any moderately intelligent human.

>if mathematical realism is false, then we aren't really doing anything useful in math.

Mathematic is false, it just isn't reality itself. I don't know how to make you visualize this fact. Yes, most things in the world can be "mathematized", that is, put or explained through a mathematical approach. Math is real in the sense that it corresponds to reality, but math itself is not real. You don't "see" numbers, formulas or anything else in reality, these are just expressions for humans to explain reality.

[Anonymous No.18465614]

>>18465020
>This observation prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions of all kind
Literally and unironically true though
>no nation/people
>no religion
>no race/ethnicity
>no gender
and soon
>no humanity (trans-humanism / digital implants / DNA splicing technology)

[Anonymous No.18465615]

>>18465216
>MENTAL ILLNESS (it's a fact)
Ah yes, the DSM-V was literally handed to humans by God along with the ten commandments and stayed carved into stone tablets from the beginning of times.

[Anonymous No.18465619]

>>18465596
The Iraq war being 'for oil' is a lie in the same way that some drought was caused by your car fumes, even if both the war and the drought happened.

[Anonymous No.18465622]

>>18465608

Mathematic is not false* on last paragraph. Missed a word.

[Anonymous No.18465637]

>>18465559
>No, it literally means no one has derived the existence of the soul or God from the physical world.
>Find something immaterial in the material world

[Anonymous No.18465646]

>>18465619
Didn’t it happen for oil? Who would make up that it happened for oil, who would that benefit

[Anonymous No.18465649]

>>18465615

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Even trannies accept it, but you don't for some reason. Weird. I guess you just need huge amounts of copium to stave off suicide.

>>18465581

"All proofs must come from the physical world" already has a built-in assumption that there's a non-physical world, so I'm put in an impossible position where I have to afirm that there's a non-physical world to explore that all proofs come from the physical world.

Let me put things in another perspective:

It's more reasonable to believe something exists based on empirical observations and rational thinking than arbitrarily believe something like "God" or "soul exists in the absence of such proof.

Why ?

Because if we accept that God or the soul exists just because we believe it, then reality becomes subjective and anything I believe is equally as reasonable as God or the soul. That means anything my mind can conjure up can be reality since the only requirement for it is me having the belief in it.

[Anonymous No.18465651]

>>18465174
>>18465321
>>18465614
are there any books that elaborate on this? I mean specifically on how the left wants to abolish concepts and in consequence reality

[Anonymous No.18465655]

>>18465608
>How did you even deduce that ?
Because you said humans invent mathematics in order to explain reality. This idea is similar to creating a microscope in order to explain reality. Therefore, numbers are just human inventions (pragmatic inventions), not existing mind independently.

>they literally point out a biological reality.
Yes there is a biological reality, but how do we deduce what male and female is from a clump of atoms? How do we understand that there is something male, and something female if everything is reducible to the physical and atomic structure?

>but math itself is not real.
Is logic real then? If not, how are we having this discussion? You could say that logic is invented too but then that would require logic in order to explain that statement. At some point there is something immaterial. You are presupposing logical positivism which is itself self refuting.

>1)The only things that are real and can be proven are physical
>2)Logic is not physical
>3)Therefore, logic is not proven or real

See how circular this is?

>these are just expressions for humans to explain reality.
Yes, in other words, pragmatic inventions.

[Anonymous No.18465663]

>>18465608
>Which is extremely absurd for any moderately intelligent human.
Meh. I mean, I'm 100% sure that the vast majority of troons are just on the spectrum and do not have gender dysmorphia. For the poor souls that do have this condition (I've never met any, so assuming it is real), life must be insanely shitty.
Hypothetically, I do not see it as something terrible I'd have to do if I'd have to bend the rules of language and call a male a female for the sake of their mental wellbeing.
The thing here is that it seems pretty obvious that this has in reality very little to do with folks who are born with gender dysmorphia and much more with enabling the narrative of an internet subculture having gone through too many degenerative iteration to even count at this point.

[Anonymous No.18465674]

>>18465637

That's the whole point. You're talking with certainty about the existence of something immaterial, but you have no proof it exists since it's immaterial.

Before making that statement you should ask yourself: "how can I have the certainty that God, as an immaterial entity exists, when there's no way for me to prove his existence since he's immaterial ?"

Lol.

[Anonymous No.18465675]

>>18465649
So you just admitted that there are immaterial entities. I wasn't the anon arguing for the soul, although I think we can prove it, or something like it, with the immateriality of the mind.

[Anonymous No.18465683]

>>18465649
prove big bang

[Anonymous No.18465703]

>>18465649
>Gender dysphoria is a mental illness
So was homosexuality until not so long ago, along with melancholia and lunacy. In the USSRR being a delinquent or a dissident was considered a mental illness. Think what you will of trannies, but mental illenesses are not objective, cross-cultural and value-free concepts.

[Anonymous No.18465716]

>>18465174
>>18465651
My impression is the opposite. We keep churning out NEW definitions. We are tyrannised by definitions. This is what Foucault was talking about. Western culture cannot stop talking about sex, medicalising sex, spawning new sexualities. Like a mob spawner kinda thing. Consider this example. When you read old literature it is relatively common to see described the prettiness or handsomeness of someone's foot, in a way that seems kinda odd to the modern reader. Then, in the 19th century, psychiatry invented the concept of the sexual fetish, and with it, a new kind of human being called a fetishist. Now this form of aestheticism and/or eroticism is strictly relegated to a distinct and separate breed of human being called the foot fetishist. I imagine it is a bit like the way in the Islamic Golden Age it was culturally acceptable, even for imams, to find beautiful boys attractive, and to write love poetry to them, but you couldn't be a sodomite. These two acts, one revered and the other abhorred, were not equivocated under a general category of 'homosexuality'.

[Anonymous No.18465721]

>>18465703
And depression wasn't a mental illness 50 years ago but we still knew there was something wrong with these niggas. These things change all the time and if gender dysphoria isn't a mental illness tomorrow it may be one the day after because there is obviously something wrong in the minds of these people.
These arguments are appeals to authority at best

[Anonymous No.18465738]

>>18465100
>Aristotle believed the Sun revolved around the Earth
Not according to OC Sure, the most interesting and lucid Aristotelian I know of. Indeed, this guy's lectures have really opened my eyes about Aristotle, and how he BTFO's Plato. I even went out and bough the Revised Oxford translation of Aristotle's works, and it was one of the best literary investments I've ever made.
His comment about Aristotle's Astronomical ideas starts at 9:30:
https://youtu.be/LKCOfMbJvCI?t=570

[Anonymous No.18465761]

>>18465655

>numbers are just human inventions (pragmatic inventions), not existing mind independently

Yes. Numbers are an abitrarily chosen symbol to represent a quantity. But again, this symbol is representing an objective reality. Just as male and female represents a biological reality.

>Yes there is a biological reality, but how do we deduce what male and female is from a clump of atoms? How do we understand that there is something male, and something female if everything is reducible to the physical and atomic structure?

Huh ? DNA is a thing. Chromosomes dictate the characteristics you'll take when you're born as a human. Considering the multitudes of ways in which humans develop (some have freckles, some bigger ears, some smaller hands, some no hands, etc), the sex of a human 99.9% of times is either male or female (except intersex, as I've said, but this is just an error, a deviation). Weird no ? There are so many possible configurations in which humans can develop, yet it's always a constant that humans are born either male or female. That should tell you something. If it was possible to develop something entirely different than male and female, then transexuality wouldn't even make sense since transexuality is already assuming the existence of male and female since it supposes the transition from something to something else.

We understand that something is male or female by the way it develops, any further reductibility attempts are made just to move the goal post to argue with ambiguous terms.

>Is logic real then? If not, how are we having this discussion? You could say that logic is invented too but then that would require logic in order to explain that statement. At some point there is something immaterial. You are presupposing logical positivism which is itself self refuting.

Logic is probably less tham mathematics in this regard. Logic is not a system of expression about reality, but a method of analysis about the coherence and validity of our language. is it real ? In a sense you could say so since we use it, but it doesn't have an independent existence, no.

Logic is a tool for the analysis of language (arguments, sentences), so by saying it's not real (as having independent reality), you don't invalide the existence of language. Language is also arbitrarily created (english, german, etc). The fact that so many different type of langauges exist is testament to that (if humans express themselves in so many languages, that means language is something arbitrarily created, not independently existing).

>You are presupposing logical positivism which is itself self refuting.

I already answered this, see >>18465649

>1)The only things that are real and can be proven are physical
>2)Logic is not physical
>3)Therefore, logic is not proven or real

Since we created logic, it exist. Just as statues don't exist in nature, humans arbitrarily create them. Rockets or nuclear bombs are creations too. Word limit 1/2

[Anonymous No.18465765]

>>18465721
>These arguments are appeals to authority at best
Aren't you the one making such claims when you say that there's obviously something wrong with gays, traps and depressed people just because they appear in the modern version of a diagnostic manual?

[Anonymous No.18465798]

>>18465761
> Language is also arbitrarily created (english, german, etc)
Language presupposes the concepts which exist prior to the language. Language is created to express the concepts that we have.

[Anonymous No.18465800]

>>18465765
no im not the guy you replied to but i believe there is obviously something wrong with trannies because they believe they are something they are not not because shrinks say so.

[Anonymous No.18465803]

>>18465703
>So was homosexuality
It still is a mental illness. It was redefined as "normal" due to political pressure, not science. We are basically talking about men who want to lick each others' assholes and masturbate into each others' mouths and anuses. This is not mental health, as the many other harmful behaviours associated with male homosexuality surely indicate (pic related). These are the behaviours which cause so much disease amongst the homosexual community, as well as the origin of much if not most VD amongst heterosexuals, due to bisexual men "closing the disease gap" by spreading the results of his homosexual behaviour among his heterosexual partners.
To be honest, I don't care if two men want to lick each others' assholes, but don't expect me to call it "healthy" or "good" in any way.

[Anonymous No.18465822]

>>18465761

2/2

But with these things we know they exist because we create them. Including language or logic. it doesn't exist by itself, it exists only because we created it and use it.

So you reach the situation where you have to accept either that:

1) God or soul can't be proven at all since there's literally nothing in reality to hint the existence of these metaphysical objects

2) You have to accept that they can exist, but only insofar as they are arbitrarily created by humans, yet without connection to any material object, in which case there's no point in talking about it (kinda what Kant argues for too).

>>18465663

Yeah, a lot of troons don't actually have gender dysphoria possibly, just use transexuality as an enabling factor for their frustrations. They can chimp out at "cis-gendered" people because they're trannies and can employ a lot of emotional blackmailing.

But it's dangerous to bend things to what people arbitrarily believe about themselves (female thinkings he's male or vice versa) because it also denaturates the concepts themselves, then in the ambiguity you can make a case for other retarded shit as well. It also forces people to conform to something purely isn't reality. Society doesn't conform to a lot of people that have mental illnesses (or hallucinations), why should it conform to what people gender dysphoria believe ? Instead we should research the causes and cures of these conditions, not enable them as normality.

>>18465675

I didn't, you might want to explain how I admitted that. Be careful that immaterial doesn't mean metaphysical. Logic itself is immaterial, yet exists as an intersubjective reality (in our collective mind). If God and soul are immaterial too, that doesn't mean they exist unless you admit that they're also a human creation, which means that they don't exist independently, you get the idea.

>Language presupposes the concepts which exist prior to the language. Language is created to express the concepts that we have.

No. There's something that exists before concepts as well, it's called mental representation. Or a mental image. When you see something, you also learn the mental image of that thing. The concept is also a mechanism of language that encapsulates more characteristics of the object of which we have a mental image.

[Anonymous No.18465831]

>>18465798
>Language presupposes the concepts which exist prior to the language. Language is created to express the concepts that we have.
Are you fucking retarded? Go see how many concepts do feral children have.

[Anonymous No.18465860]

>>18465803
>Of homosexuals questioned in one study, 43% admitted to 500 or more partners in alifetime, 28% to 1000 or more.
Hmmm, based alert?

[Anonymous No.18465871]

>>18465860
You think licentious behavior is based? :3

Nay, my friend, your wiring is steering you wrong.

[Anonymous No.18465872]

>>18465831
What is language used for other than to express ideas?

[Anonymous No.18465886]

>>18465872

Refer to >>18465822 last paragraph.

Also, ideas aren't the same as concepts. Ideas are generally made of concepts since ideas are complex constructions.

[Anonymous No.18465905]

>>18465439
>No metaphysical concept can be proven with certainty because then it wouldn't be metaphysical, but physical
If anything anything can only be proven because of metaphysics. Try reading about epistemology.

[Anonymous No.18465931]

>>18465905

Epistemology is not tied with necessity to metaphysics. They're often correlated because having a certain metaphysical view also posits a certain epistemological perspective.

But metaphysics is not a requirement for epistemology to exist. You can explain the ability ti know and limits of human knowledge scientifically if you wish (thought it might not be comprehensive since we're still in the process of finding out how humans work exactly).

[Anonymous No.18465949]

>>18465803
Start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.18466100]

>>18465297
>You don't think my mental illness should influence how people act and speak
>therefore you must like to see people and animals suffer
Get a load of this massive retard

[Anonymous No.18466121]

>>18465496
Dilate.

[Anonymous No.18466144]

>>18465822
>Instead we should research the causes and cures of these conditions
Not disagreeing with you there, but given how little we have figured out about cogsci, I don't think we are anywhere close to a cure or even a form of symptom treatment.
>But it's dangerous to bend things to what people arbitrarily believe about themselves (female thinkings he's male or vice versa)
That is the thing. If this was or had ever been about folks with gender dysphoria, I don't think it could ever have been dangerous at all. If the logic was just "we can't fix them, and for some weird fucking reason it really hurts them psychologically to simply be addressed as their born gender, so what's the big deal to call a man a woman".
The slippery slope argument of "it's dangerous to enable them" really doesn't work here since we have nothing to compare it to. The troons that have manifested themselves are just degenerate looking for any excuse to express their degeneracy, and possibly capitalize on it. You think someone who'se been waking up crying and screaming since they were 4 wondering why they have a dick and not a vagina would want to talk about it to the world? No they wouldn't. Only shameless profiteering cunts would do that.

[Anonymous No.18466161]

>>18465931
It is. Read Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. You can’t explain knowledge without resorting fundamentally to intelligibility.

[Anonymous No.18466206]

>>18465931
>Epistemology is not tied with necessity to metaphysics.
Only in the sense that you can affect the ἐποχή. Outside of it, yes, you cannot develop an epistemology without simultaneously implying a metaphysic, and vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.18466232]

>>18465100
>That kind of PoMo drivel about abolishing reality is kinda fringe (or so it seems to me) and very few woke extremists take it seriously
Seriously now? You are claiming that woke people that "see no difference (or at least they claim they see no difference) between a ciswoman and a transwoman, since they're both "women" in their eyes" are fringe? That's the majority opinion.

[Anonymous No.18466235]

>>18465402

Suck my dick Husserlian faggot

[Anonymous No.18466320]

>this whole fucking thread
Richard Weaver was 100% correct about everything. Nominalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. William of Ockham ruined seven centuries (and counting) of Western thought.

[Anonymous No.18466415]

>>18466320
based department

[Anonymous No.18466435]

>>18465020
>prompted him into a schizo rant about how leftists want to do away with definitions
Are you blind? It's the truth.

[Anonymous No.18466444]

>>18465216
Ouch, so much ressentment. ouch

[Anonymous No.18466643]

>>18466444
>yikes
>ya'll
>lets unpack this
back you go