Kropotkin and science...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

as we like to say, better late than never…

as I have noted, I favor the rational, logical, scientific approach
and why is that Kropotkin?

it has to do with my own engagement with science…

you have two possibilities toward the “truth”…
one start with the truth and then justify that “truth”
this is the method of religion and the right wing…
they have a “truth” and you are a “traitor”
if you don’t follow that particular “truth”

the second possibility is my way in which we seek the “truth”,
it isn’t already what we have committed to, it is something we find
as we seek…

thus those who say, there is such a thing as “scientific dogmatism”
hold to science like they hold to religion or the political…
the “truth” already exists and we are coming to that “truth” or
we are far away from that “truth”… but that is a religious
vision of science… a scientist doesn’t begin with the “truth”
he seeks it… that isn’t “scientific dogmatism” to seek the “truth”
but it is “scientific dogmatism” to say, here is the “truth”
once and for all time…

let us flesh this out… for centuries, it was believed that the Sun
revolved around the Earth… and that the Earth was the center of
the universe… that is a “truth” that wasn’t challenged… it was accepted
as the final, set piece of how the universe worked…that is certainly
a religious viewpoint, but it isn’t a scientific viewpoint…
we have evidence that suggest this isn’t true… in the religious viewpoint,
we don’t examine or pursue any attempt to seek out what is “true”,
for what is “true” is already an accept value, the Sun revolves around
the Earth…
but science is an attempt to seek out what is the reality behind
this “truth”… and that is what I favor… this seeking of the reality behind
what seems to be apparent and “true”…

it is not “scientific dogmatism” if I am seeking what is “real and true”…
I am not just taking anyone’s word for it, I am seeing for myself…
and I go where the facts, the “truth” takes me… I could learn the science
behind the fact, if I could learn the math and science behind the theory
of evolution and black holes and the revolution of the Earth around
the sun…

thus I am engaged in seeing where the facts and “truth” leads me,
not going toward some already preset and determined “truth”
as it has been laid out… as religion does and has the conservatives
take it to be…

Thus I follow science in the attempt to seek out what is “true”.
I don’t accept what I am told, I seek out by what knowledge I
personally have to seek out what is “true” in any given situation…

or said another way, I engage with philosophy as I engage in science…
I seek out the “truth” of the situation by whatever means I have at
hand…those who oppose this, come up with fantastic and
unbelievable stories as to how this isn’t possible… that there
is some sort of corrupt scientist… and by extension, all scientists
and science is corrupt but the finding out of corruption
is in the peer reviewed papers that happens with each published
paper…science polices itself and it does a fairly good job…

and with that self-policing, science holds itself accountable…
it is not the science that I hold as true, but the attempt
at holding science and scientist accountable…it is the method
of science I approve of, not necessarily the science itself
I engage with…it is within the method of science that
I seek the ‘‘truth’’ not in the method of religion in which
the “truth” is given and not change or attacked or questioned…

seeking the “truth” regardless of where it leads me, is the
scientific method and the philosophical method
and Kropotkin’s method…

Kropotkin

2

the scientific method leads us to seek the “truth”
and not assume the “truth” we have is final or absolute…
the scientific method allows us to seek out what is “true”
and what is false, but and this is important, science
isn’t the end all, be all of existence… we can have ‘‘truths’’
that are not found in science… for example, I might seek out
what is the meaning of existence… I might seek out the “truth”
of what does existence mean, I might use the scientific method
of seeking out this meaning but I am unable to use various scientific
theories like evolution or quantum mechanics to answer my question
as to what is the meaning of existence… for science can tell us the
how, but not the why…Why do we exist is beyond the ability of science…
but the question of why is possible within philosophy or even religion…

certain question lie outside of science ability to answer, just
as certain questions lie outside the ability of philosophy to
answer and certain questions lie outside of religion to answer…

ask a scientist, what is the “meaning of life” and there is no
way for that scientist with the science at hand, to answer that
question…in the future, when science, philosophy and religion
are one and the same, we can answer that question, but not today…

only within philosophy or religion can we approach that question…
and within philosophy, we can’t begin with a “truth” and then
use science to justify that answer… as religion has done over
the last 150 years…no, to use philosophy to answer the
metaphysical question, what is the “meaning of life”
means we use the scientific method of seeking an answer,
we seek out possible “truths” to the question of “what is
the meaning of life” we may or may not be able to answer that
question, but that doesn’t mean we stop seeking an answer…

in seeking the truth, “what is the meaning of life”
we don’t necessarily need to find a “truth” or the search
becomes pointless… the seeking itself is as valuable
as the answer is…

I could spend my entire life seeking the meaning of existence
and it would be a life well spent…

it might be said that the point of existence is the seeking, not
necessarily finding but in the seeking of the truth of what it means
to exist… the meaning of existence could easily be in the seeking
of the meaning of, the reason of existence…

and those who fail to seek, fail in finding the purpose of,
or the point of, the meaning of existence…

to exist is to seek… … I am, so I seek…

perhaps that is the short answer to what is the
question of the “Meaning of existence”…

Kropotkin

3

Based on what you’ve been posting on these boards for years, I wouldn’t describe you as someone who has an analytical mind.

The left wing does that quite a lot and probably a lot more than the right wing. You can see it in that debate between Matt Walsh (right winger) and transsexuals (left wingers) that was hosted by Dr Phil few months ago. Not only are these transsexuals thinking like women, they are also dressing like women and even believing they are women.

Well, I don’t think that’s your way. Just look at what you’re doing here on this forum. You’re definitely more of a propagandist. You write a lot of lengthy posts, you start a lot of threads, but you never ever have a rational debate with anyone. Your posts are mostly your assertions restated over and over again mixed with insults towards members of this forum and attacks on entire groups of people. You never ever uncover your reasoning process.

Ecmandu thinks that he’s the greatest person that has ever lived. Does that mean it’s true? Similarly, if you believe you are interested in truth, does that mean it’s true? Of course not. But you’re repeating it over and over again as if it’s some sort of convincing argument. Kropo said he’s right, therefore he’s right. Really?

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” is a statement commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels. The emphasis should be on the word “repeat”. The reason I don’t like people who repeat themselves too much is because repetition is often employed to persuade audience by being louder than one’s opponents.

See, someone says you’re a bad guy and your response is to literally start 10 new threads where you insist that you’re a good guy – literally just insist and proclaim that you’re a good guy.

4

Magnus.

“ Ecmandu thinks that he’s the greatest person that has ever lived.”

Magnus. If everyone is not the greatest person who’s ever lived. I failed.

5

And why is that? What’s stopping them?

What if they are different by definition? If they are, nothing will ever make them “one and the same”.

That sounds wrong. The purpose of every effort is to attain some goal. If your goal is to find truth, it’s understood that you want to find it [truth] at some point. It’s less desirable to just search for it without ever finding it. After all, you are “seeking the truth”, you are not “seeking the seeking of truth”.

6

Peter Kropotkin: as I have noted, I favor the rational, logical, scientific approach
[/quote]
M: Based on what you’ve been posting on these boards for years, I wouldn’t describe you as someone who has an analytical mind.

K: which says far more about you than it does about me…

M: The left wing does that quite a lot and probably a lot more than the right wing. You can see it in that debate between Matt Walsh (right winger) and transsexuals (left wingers) that was hosted by Dr Phil few months ago. Not only are these transsexuals thinking like women, they are also dressing like women and even believing they are women.

K: I can’t actually make the connection between the “TRUTH”
and transsexuals. I don’t suppose you may want to make it a
bit clearer…

K: the second possibility is my way in which we seek the “truth”,
it isn’t already what we have committed to, it is something we find
as we seek…"

M": Well, I don’t think that’s your way. Just look at what you’re doing here on this forum. You’re definitely more of a propagandist. You write a lot of lengthy posts, you start a lot of threads, but you never ever have a rational debate with anyone. Your posts are mostly your assertions restated over and over again mixed with insults towards members of this forum and attacks on entire groups of people. You never ever uncover your reasoning process.

K: I find it interesting that you didn’t notice that I usually end a post/thread
with a question… “what is your way?” is one example of a Kropotkin post
ending with a question… this suggests to me that you have no idea what I am
doing… or even wonder what I am doing? you see me as polemists, whereas
I lay out an argument that forces one to “debate” that argument with oneself…
my goal isn’t to convince anyone… but to get people to think about
what it means to be human or American or a liberal…I ask questions
using myself as a standard… as some base line to use in making up your own
mind about the questions I ask…Kropotkin believes in X, Y, Z… what do you
believe and just as importantly, why those beliefs and not another?
I ask that in the vast majority of my posts/threads… and yet, you never notice…
I wonder why?

K: let us flesh this out… for centuries, it was believed that the Sun
revolved around the Earth… and that the Earth was the center of
the universe… that is a “truth” that wasn’t challenged… it was accepted
as the final, set piece of how the universe worked…that is certainly
a religious viewpoint, but it isn’t a scientific viewpoint…
we have evidence that suggest this isn’t true… in the religious viewpoint,
we don’t examine or pursue any attempt to seek out what is “true”,
for what is “true” is already an accept value, the Sun revolves around
the Earth…
but science is an attempt to seek out what is the reality behind
this “truth”… and that is what I favor… this seeking of the reality behind
what seems to be apparent and “true”…
[/quote]
M: Ecmandu thinks that he’s the greatest person that has ever lived. Does that mean it’s true? Similarly, if you believe you are interested in truth, does that mean it’s true? Of course not. But you’re repeating it over and over again as if it’s some sort of convincing argument. Kropo said he’s right, therefore he’s right. Really?

K: again, missing my point… I repeat my arguments to force one to
gain an understanding in what others believe… It actually doesn’t matter
what I believe in… I am old and without ego… that is the lesson of being old,
you stop believing the bullshit…

M: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” is a statement commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels. The emphasis should be on the word “repeat”. The reason I don’t like people who repeat themselves too much is because repetition is often employed to persuade audience by being louder than one’s opponents.

K: I am not attempting to persuade, I am attempting to get you and others
to think about what you believe in… I know already what I believe in…
and even that changes because why? Because what is the “TRUTH” changes
as we get older… that is the nature of existence…

K: it is not “scientific dogmatism” if I am seeking what is “real and true”…
I am not just taking anyone’s word for it, I am seeing for myself…
and I go where the facts, the “truth” takes me… I could learn the science
behind the fact, if I could learn the math and science behind the theory
of evolution and black holes and the revolution of the Earth around
the sun…
thus I am engaged in seeing where the facts and “truth” leads me,
not going toward some already preset and determined “truth”
as it has been laid out… as religion does and has the conservatives
take it to be…
Thus I follow science in the attempt to seek out what is “true”.
I don’t accept what I am told, I seek out by what knowledge I
personally have to seek out what is “true” in any given situation…

M: See, someone says you’re a bad guy and your response is to literally start 10 new threads where you insist that you’re a good guy – literally just insist and proclaim that you’re a good guy.
[/quote]
K: and someone has posted that I am a “commie scum”
So the fuck what? I am not interested in outside validation…
I have my “truth” but I am more interested in you finding or
discovering out what is your “truth” and why that “truth”
and not another “truth”

I see myself as a kind of teacher… I don’t lay out the “truth” I
simply get you to explore what you think is the “truth” and why
that “truth” and not another “truth?”

I simply ask questions, nothing more… and to see me as anything else
is to misunderstand me… but as a “son of a genius” (inside joke between
family members) I hold certain positions, which I have laid out time
and time and time again… but it has never occurred to you that
perhaps I lay out my own positions to clarify to myself what I hold
to be “true” and what is not “True”… in other words, you can only see
your small side of the story… that there is always, ALWAYS another side
to the story is a lesson you still need to learn…
and the medium of human communication lies within the stories
we tell each other, but that is another thread/post…

Kropotkin

7

How so? That wasn’t meant to be an insult though I suppose it ended up being one anyways. I was merely responding to what you said about yourself by sharing what I think of you. I don’t think you’re particularly analytically minded.

The connection is that they confuse what they want to be (females) with who they really are (males). They also don’t understand how language works, so they have a bit of a trouble understanding what it means to be a female. Matt asked them to define the word “female” and their response was “It’s whatever anyone thinks is a female”.

And what exactly does that prove? You’re stlil not interacting with other people.

The point is that your interaction with other people is severely limited. For example, you are not listening to anyone, you’re not asking them questions, etc. You already know everything, so why would you? You already know that I’m wrong, for example.

Absolutely noone believes you’re without an ego. I do, however, believe you’re old. But being old does not necessarily mean being wise.

Excessive repetition is bad because 1) noone needs it, and 2) it negatively influences the mind to believe that the repeated statement is true merely because it is stated too many times. I don’t particularly care about your intent, I am merely observing the effect of your actions. And the effect is the same as that of a propagandist.

The effect is the same as that of a person trying to proselytize. Your intent is not particularly relevant.

Truth has no capacity to change and I explained why in that other thread of yours. The idea that it does is merely a postmodernistic invention. It’s a bit strange for someone who think of himself as being analytically minded to be so much under the influence of postmodernism.

Well, it wasn’t me; and I certainly don’t praise that sort of behavior.

And the best way to do that is via what Ancient Greeks called dialectics.

But you do lay out the “truth”. Take a look at your opening post. Among many other things, you are claiming that there is no, that there cannot be, corruption in science.

Really? The only question you asked in your opening post is the following:

“as I have noted, I favor the rational, logical, scientific approach
and why is that Kropotkin?”

And it wasn’t you asking it but your readers . . . imaginary readers. They were asking YOU.

Please no.

8

Magnus: “Based on what you’ve been posting on these boards for years, I wouldn’t describe you as someone who has an analytical mind.”

Kropotkin: which says far more about you than it does about me…

M: How so? That wasn’t meant to be an insult though I suppose it ended up being one anyways. I was merely responding to what you said about yourself by sharing what I think of you. I don’t think you’re particularly analytically minded.

K: I can’t actually make the connection between the “TRUTH”
and transsexuals. I don’t suppose you may want to make it a
bit clearer…"

M: The connection is that they confuse what they want to be (females) with who they really are (males). They also don’t understand how language works, so they have a bit of a trouble understanding what it means to be a female. Matt asked them to define the word “female” and their response was “It’s whatever anyone thinks is a female”.

K: as I have known several transitioning people, from male to female and
female to male, so your statement makes no sense to me… they are not
confused… far from it… they are quite clear as to what they want…
so, once again, you are reading something that isn’t there… as to
the use of language, they are quite clear in their language… for them
it is true that "to be a female… is “whatever anyone thinks is female”
they believe that… the problem here lies with your rigid nature
and inability to even think about change… apparently in your world,
change never happens… as for me personally, I don’t understand
this need for change or even the idea of binary or transgender or
any of that stuff… but it isn’t about me, is it? just because they feel
it, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, it just means you don’t feel it…

K: I find it interesting that you didn’t notice that I usually end a post/thread
with a question… “what is your way?” is one example of a Kropotkin post
ending with a question…"

M: And what exactly does that prove? You’re still not interacting with other people."

K: and so what? this idea of engagement is very important to you
and it isn’t important to me at all…I don’t care if I am interacting with
people… my goal isn’t really interaction, but to get people to think
about their values, their beliefs, what it means to be a human being or
an American? Interaction isn’t really necessary for that…

K: this suggests to me that you have no idea what I am
doing… or even wonder what I am doing? you see me as polemists, whereas
I lay out an argument that forces one to “debate” that argument with oneself…
my goal isn’t to convince anyone… but to get people to think about
what it means to be human or American or a liberal…I ask questions
using myself as a standard… as some base line to use in making up your own
mind about the questions I ask…Kropotkin believes in X, Y, Z… what do you
believe and just as importantly, why those beliefs and not another?
I ask that in the vast majority of my posts/threads… and yet, you never notice…
I wonder why?"

M: The point is that your interaction with other people is severely limited. For example, you are not listening to anyone, you’re not asking them questions, etc. You already know everything, so why would you? You already know that I’m wrong, for example."

K: I don’t have any answers, I just have questions… from where I sit,
I don’t care if you believe in god or not, the question for me is simple,
the why? What makes belief in god so important? what that value
and not another? the why question drives all my post/thread…

K: again, missing my point… I repeat my arguments to force one to
gain an understanding in what others believe… It actually doesn’t matter
what I believe in… I am old and without ego… that is the lesson of being old,
you stop believing the bullshit…

M: Absolutely noone believes you’re without an ego. I do, however, believe you’re old. But being old does not necessarily mean being wise.

K: it doesn’t really matter if you believe I am without ego… it really doesn’t…
and I don’t believe I have ever said I was wise… I have said, more than once,
that I am seeking wisdom, why isn’t that your goal?

M: Excessive repetition is bad because 1) noone needs it, and 2) it negatively influences the mind to believe that the repeated statement is true merely because it is stated too many times. I don’t particularly care about your intent, I am merely observing the effect of your actions. And the effect is the same as that of a propagandist.

K: everyone is a critic… and I don’t listen to critics…

K:I am not attempting to persuade, I am attempting to get you and others
to think about what you believe in… I know already what I believe in…
[/quote]
M: The effect is the same as that of a person trying to proselytize. Your intent is not particularly relevant.

K: I am pretty sure you don’t understand a word I am saying…

K: and even that changes because why? Because what is the “TRUTH” changes
as we get older… that is the nature of existence…

M: Truth has no capacity to change and I explained why in that other thread of yours. The idea that it does is merely a postmodernistic invention. It’s a bit strange for someone who think of himself as being analytically minded to be so much under the influence of postmodernism.‘’

K; modern, postmodern, anti-modern… “its all rock and roll to me”
or so says Billy Joel…I don’t put much stock into these philosophical
labels… they don’t mean much…

K: and someone has posted that I am a “commie scum”
[/quote]
M: Well, it wasn’t me; and I certainly don’t praise that sort of behavior.

K: you really don’t pay much attention to ILP much, do you?

K: I have my “truth” but I am more interested in you finding or
discovering out what is your “truth” and why that “truth”
and not another “truth”

M: And the best way to do that is via what Ancient Greeks called dialectics.

K: dialectics… really aren’t the only game in town… there are other
methods of philosophy out there… and how do you know that the
“best way… is dialectics?” why is that the best way?

K: I see myself as a kind of teacher… I don’t lay out the “truth” I
simply get you to explore what you think is the “truth” and why
that “truth” and not another “truth?”

M: “But you do lay out the “truth”. Take a look at your opening post. Among many other things, you are claiming that there is no, that there cannot be, corruption in science.”

K: actually, I believe you brought up the point of corruption and I
was responding to you, in another thread…

K: I simply ask questions, nothing more…

M: Really? The only question you asked in your opening post is the following:

K: “as I have noted, I favor the rational, logical, scientific approach
and why is that Kropotkin?”

M: And it wasn’t you asking it but your readers . . . imaginary readers. They were asking YOU.

K; and still failing to understand me…

K: and the medium of human communication lies within the stories
we tell each other, but that is another thread/post…

M: Please no.

K: if I so displease you, perhaps you would be happier not reading me…
I am already on block by several posters…

Kropotkin

9

Well, they certainly know what they want – they want to be females. But the fact that they want to be females does not mean that they are females. That’s where their confusion lies.

And I would also say that any male who wants to be a female is wasting his potential – throwing it out of the window – which, if true, would mean that their desire to be a female is a bad one. That’s another place where their confusion lies.

They are claiming they are females (in the conventional sense of the word), which they are clearly not, and because they can’t prove that through legitimate means, for obvious reasons, they are trying to prove it by changing the definition of the word “female” to something else and then showing that they are that something else. It’s a sophistic argument. They are, essentially, equivocating i.e. using one and the same word throughout the argument without sticking to the same meaning. It’s a subtle thing that can easily escape the inattentive eye.

In effect, they are doing the very thing you are accusing the right wingers of doing. They “start with the truth” and then attempt to “justify that truth” by inventing seemingly sound arguments (rationalization.) They claim they are females (which they are not) and then they try to prove that by playing word games.

As an example, Wikipedia is actively lying about Ellen Page’s sex. They say that she’s a he. How so? You can’t say “Well, Wikipedia is using Ellen Page’s variation of English language to describe her, so it’s not really making a mistake, merely speaking a different language”. But “en” is for “English” not for “Ellen”. Wikipedia articles are written in standard English. And if they changed the rules at some point, when they did make sure that everyone understood that?

The most likely effect that you have is that of a preacher. Maybe you don’t want it to be that way, I am not disputing that.

That’s clearly not true. You have already stated that the greatest problem of the modern day America is religion. That’s an answer to the question “What’s the greatest problem of the modern day America?” It’s certainly not a question. It’s not even an expression of uncertainty.

How does this reinforce the idea that you’re open-minded?

I didn’t say that they mean anything to you. I said that you are influenced by a philosophical movement that is called “postmodernism”. Maybe you are not aware of it – that’s possible – but that does not mean you aren’t at least indirectly influenced by it.

Because this is a forum, a discussion board, not a blog. Beside that, it’s a way to demonstrate open-mindedness (which you’re claiming for yourself.) In general, when people avoid civilized interaction, it’s a sign they aren’t open-minded.

10

Peter Kropotkin: as I have known several transitioning people, from male to female and
female to male, so your statement makes no sense to me… they are not
confused… far from it… they are quite clear as to what they want…
so, once again, you are reading something that isn’t there…

M: Well, they certainly know what they want – they want to be females. But the fact that they want to be females does not mean that they are females. That’s where their confusion lies.

K: I have to ask, why does this bother you so much? I mean who cares if someone
wants to be male or female or neither or both? I don’t see how it is any of
our business whether people want to be male or female?

M: And I would also say that any male who wants to be a female is wasting his potential – throwing it out of the window – which, if true, would mean that their desire to be a female is a bad one. That’s another place where their confusion lies.

K: and thus showing your prejudice against those who wish to transition… a male
becoming female… how is that wasting their potential? Are males really that
superior to females?

K: as to the use of language, they are quite clear in their language… for them
it is true that “to be a female… is “whatever anyone thinks is female”
they believe that…”

M: They are claiming they are females (in the conventional sense of the word), which they are clearly not, and because they can’t prove that through legitimate means, for obvious reasons, they are trying to prove it by changing the definition of the word “female” to something else and then showing that they are that something else. It’s a sophistic argument. They are, essentially, equivocating i.e. using one and the same word throughout the argument without sticking to the same meaning. It’s a subtle thing that can easily escape the inattentive eye.

K: and once again missing the point… people want to be the best they are
and they may feel that best thing is by a transition of some sort…
not only do I not see anything wrong with it, I would suggest we could
learn something from it…

M: In effect, they are doing the very thing you are accusing the right wingers of doing. They “start with the truth” and then attempt to “justify that truth” by inventing seemingly sound arguments (rationalization.) They claim they are females (which they are not) and then they try to prove that by playing word games.

K: and how does this effect you at all? Does it always bother you so much
when people do things you don’t approve of? if I were you, I would worry
less about other people and think about why you are so biased or prejudice
again LGBT people…

M: As an example, Wikipedia is actively lying about Ellen Page’s sex. They say that she’s a he. How so? You can’t say “Well, Wikipedia is using Ellen Page’s variation of English language to describe her, so it’s not really making a mistake, merely speaking a different language”. But “en” is for “English” not for “Ellen”. Wikipedia articles are written in standard English. And if they changed the rules at some point, when they did make sure that everyone understood that?

K: and so what if Wiki is lying… (spoiler alert, it isn’t lying) where is
the crime in Ellen page wanting to be male? or female or something else?

K: and so what? this idea of engagement is very important to you
and it isn’t important to me at all…I don’t care if I am interacting with
people… my goal isn’t really interaction, but to get people to think
about their values, their beliefs, what it means to be a human being or
an American? Interaction isn’t really necessary for that…
[/quote]
M: The most likely effect that you have is that of a preacher. Maybe you don’t want it to be that way, I am not disputing that.

M: I don’t have any answers, I just have questions…
from where I sit,
I don’t care if you believe in god or not, the question for me is simple,
the why? What makes belief in god so important? what that value
and not another? the why question drives all my post/thread…
[/quote]
M: That’s clearly not true. You have already stated that the greatest problem of the modern day America is religion. That’s an answer to the question “What’s the greatest problem of the modern day America?” It’s certainly not a question. It’s not even an expression of uncertainty.

K: and what is my stated, expressed goal? to get people to think, to wonder,
to engage in who they are and why?

K: everyone is a critic… and I don’t listen to critics…

M: How does this reinforce the idea that you’re open-minded?

K: everything seems to you to be black and white… there are no
shades of gray or nuances…that is why you miss much of what I write
about… the world is very literal for you and for me, it isn’t…

K: modern, postmodern, anti-modern… “its all rock and roll to me”
or so says Billy Joel…I don’t put much stock into these philosophical
labels… they don’t mean much…

M: I didn’t say that they mean anything to you. I said that you are influenced by a philosophical movement that is called “postmodernism”. Maybe you are not aware of it – that’s possible – but that does not mean you aren’t at least indirectly influenced by it.

K: you really, really like labels and putting people and idea’s and
objects into their place. … you have OCD don’t you?

K: dialectics… really aren’t the only game in town… there are other
methods of philosophy out there… and how do you know that the
“best way… is dialectics?” why is that the best way?

M: Because this is a forum, a discussion board, not a blog. Beside that, it’s a way to demonstrate open-mindedness (which you’re claiming for yourself.) In general, when people avoid civilized interaction, it’s a sign they aren’t open-minded."

K: my agenda is quite different than proving I am “openminded”…
and once again that is part of the reason why you miss so much of what I
write, because you try to fit it into some set, organized, very labeled
idea you have of people and philosophy… I am deaf… literally deaf…
and so I have a much different idea of communication than you do…
communication isn’t quite so set as you make it seem…and I am
sorry my way of communication isn’t what you feel is “Proper” for
a person or a philosopher, but it is my way… and as such, I shall keep it…
and why? because it works for me… it doesn’t have to work for you,
but it does work for me…and if my own agenda doesn’t work for you,
I really can’t help you… and you might say, and in fact will say, but
you aren’t being “openminded” or clear or whatever you decide to bring up,
and that is on you… not on me…I have no obligation to write or think
as you want me to…I am not engaging with your labels about how
philosophy has to fit into a certain format with only certain words with
only certain concepts… that isn’t my philosophy, that is your philosophy…

Kropotkin

11

Kropotkin and Science?

Oil and Water, LOL

12

It doesn’t bother me. I am merely showing, as per your request, that the left wing does that thing that you accuse the right wing of doing; that thing being rationalization.

What prejudice, monsieur? I never spoke of superiority and inferirioty. I merely said that males who want to be females are wasting their potential. He who is born male has certain masculine potentials. By deciding to become a female, he’s deciding to throw away those potentials. The reverse is also true. If you’re born female, but you want to become a male, you effectively want to throw away your feminine potentials. This implies that men and women are different, it does not imply that there’s a superior sex.

Yes, you are missing the point. I am merely showing that left wingers are fond of rationalization (transsexuals being merely an example.)

You claimed that rationalization is the biggest problem of modern day America. You attributed it to religion and right wingers. You are obviously bothered by people who rationalize. I don’t really know why. You never explained why – you never bothered to – but you are very quick 1) to accuse others of worrying irrationally about those same things, and 2) to demand an explanation for their worries.

I never claimed that I am bothered by LGBTQ people. I merely explained that they have a tendency to rationalize.

The crime is in lying. But the point is that they [transsexuals and Wikipedia] aren’t particularly fond of truth.

You are repeatedly accusing others [religious people and right wingers] of being closed-minded while claiming for yourself to be open-minded.

And as I said earlier, your intentions aren’t relevant. The effect that your actions have on those who read your posts is what matters.

The claim put forward by me is that your approach has a negative effect on most, if not all, people who come to this forum (not just me).

13

Peter Kropotkin: I have to ask, why does this bother you so much? I mean who cares if someone wants to be male or female or neither or both? I don’t see how it is any of
our business whether people want to be male or female?

M: It doesn’t bother me. I am merely showing, as per your request, that the left wing does that thing that you accuse the right wing of doing; that thing being rationalization.

K: uhhhh, no, it quite clearly bothers you… if you want to lie to yourself,
hay, be my guest

M: and thus showing your prejudice against those who wish to transition… a male
becoming female… how is that wasting their potential? Are males really that
superior to females?

M: What prejudice, monsieur? I never spoke of superiority and inferirioty. I merely said that males who want to be females are wasting their potential. He who is born male has certain masculine potentials. By deciding to become a female, he’s deciding to throw away those potentials. The reverse is also true. If you’re born female, but you want to become a male, you effectively want to throw away your feminine potentials. This implies that men and women are different, it does not imply that there’s a superior sex.

K: and who is rationalizing now?

K: and once again missing the point… people want to be the best they are
and they may feel that best thing is by a transition of some sort…
not only do I not see anything wrong with it, I would suggest we could
learn something from it…

M: Yes, you are missing the point. I am merely showing that left wingers are fond of rationalization (transsexuals being merely an example.)

K: not really, but hay, if you feel good about it, go for it…

M: and how does this effect you at all? Does it always bother you so much
when people do things you don’t approve of? if I were you, I would worry
less about other people and think about why you are so biased or prejudice
again LGBT people…

M: You claimed that rationalization is the biggest problem of modern day America. You attributed it to religion and right wingers. You are obviously bothered by people who rationalize. I don’t really know why. You never explained why – you never bothered to – but you are very quick 1) to accuse others of worrying irrationally about those same things, and 2) to demand an explanation for their worries.

K: and changing the goal line… I never said “Rationalizations is the biggest
problem in modern day America” I don’t even think I used that word…
I said, “what is destroying America is the use of the religious instinct
instead of scientific reasoning” and I happily stand by that statement…

M: I never claimed that I am bothered by LGBTQ people. I merely explained that they have a tendency to rationalize.

K: :-"

M: and so what if Wiki is lying… (spoiler alert, it isn’t lying) where is
the crime in Ellen page wanting to be male? or female or something else?

M: The crime is in lying. But the point is that they [transsexuals and Wikipedia] aren’t particularly fond of truth.

K: lying according to your very literal standards…
in your reasoning lies only black and white, right or wrong…
the world is full of shades of gray and as Nietzsche called it,
“degrees”… and what is the “truth?” black and white, according to
you… but it isn’t black or white or right or wrong… the truth is
really closer to being fog… it looks real enough, but quite often
dissipates into nothing…

K: my agenda is quite different than proving I am “openminded”…

M: You are repeatedly accusing others [religious people and right wingers] of being closed-minded while claiming for yourself to be open-minded.

K: and what did you do? you simply argued that the left was as “closed minded”
as the right… there is that lack of imagination thing going on with you…

M: And as I said earlier, your intentions aren’t relevant. The effect that your actions have on those who read your posts is what matters.

K: OH, really, UR assures me absolutely no one reads me or cares about me,
are you sure?

M: and why? because it works for me… it doesn’t have to work for you,
but it does work for me…and if my own agenda doesn’t work for you,
I really can’t help you…

M: The claim put forward by me is that your approach has a negative effect on most, if not all, people who come to this forum (not just me).

K: god, I hope so… I want to wake people up from their “dogmatic slumbers”
as Kant put it…if one person, just one person wakes up from my posting,
I will consider my entire posting life of 30 years to be a success…

Kropotkin

14

Peter.

You’re not smart enough and don’t have the integrity to wake people up.

15

K: and another “fan” gives me their support… :stuck_out_tongue:
and should I remain silent in the face of this overwhelming
support I am getting? Nah, I’m good… :sunglasses:

Kropotkin

16

I must say, even if all 8 billion people on
planet Earth said to me, ‘‘Kropotkin, you are
wrong. Stay silent in your ignorance’’. I would not stay
silent. I might even write more. I have overcome
plenty in my life and the only way I do that is by staying true to
who I am… I know my value even if I am the only one who sees
it. I have value… and someday, perhaps even those doubters
on ILP, maybe, will see it… =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Kropotkin

17

Peter. You’re a married man. It’s that simple.

Married people are hypocrites of a vast scale by default. People who have sex. People who delight in the exclusive access of even seeing others nude.

These are bigger sins than war.

I have no interest in hurting you.

In the court of the cosmos … you’d be laughed at.

18

nah, I’m good being married…

Kropotkin

19

And that makes you part of the problem, not the solution. I have no interest in hurting you… but it might sting a little when everyone laughs at you.

20

Instead of focusing on whether or not LGBTQ community bothers me, why not focus on the point that I raised? Why not argue against the idea that LGBTQ community has a tendency to rationalize?

Before you declare that I’m changing the goal post, make sure that you understand what is it that I’m saying. (This is yet another example of you making your mind up long before doing any sort of investigation, something you accuse the religious people of doing.)

You didn’t but is that necessary? It’s a paraphrasis. It’s what you said stated in different words.

Yes, that’s what you said. In other words, you said that “what is destroying America is rationalization”. You repeated it in the opening post of this thread. Take a look:

The bolded is also known as rationalization.

From Wikipedia:

You decide that something is right, or that something is true, and then you try defend it by coming up with as many seemingly good arguments in favor it as possible. The goal is to defend your existing beliefs at all costs instead of properly examining them. That’s what you’re complaining of.

Intentionally or unintentionally, they are being deceptive. Saying that someone is a man, while meaning they are a woman who wants to be a man, in front of an audience that uses the word “woman” in the conventional sense of the word, is being deceptive.

I know you’re a postmodernist, and that you hate being labelled as one, but postmodernistic language abuse is not a good thing.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Says the guy who declared that he does not listen to critics and that he’s not interested in engagement with other people. Very open-minded, very anti-dogmatic.