2 Do you really think gaysex is wrong?

What is so philosophical about this question? A lot, I would say. In the first place it is about right and wrong, so ethics is involved. Second because it makes me wonder, why we have so many moral ideas about sexuality in general and for instance not about dish washing. When and why become something a moral issue? Gaysex seems to be such an issue. Let's focus on that question first. Something becomes a moral issue when we have a conviction that something ought not to be done. The motivation can be derived from religious feelings or to say it in a simpler way: it is in the Bible. Stephen Law comes with an amusing argumentation. You say that gaysex is wrong, because the Bible says so in Leviticus 18: 22 - 23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." Leviticus 20:13 is even more severe: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them." But if you say that this is a moral rule, then why do you eat moules or porkmeat or wear a linen jacket. That is also forbidden according to the Bible. The argument is that people are selective about what the Bible says and what should be read as a command of God. Or to say it in other words, people choose only those things from the Bible to base their moral obligations on, which suits their personal opinions. One theological work around is to hold that the Old Testamental laws of Leviticus are set aside by Jesus. However, also Paul declares that gaysex is unnatural in Romans 1: 18 - 32. "and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." So refering to a Bible as an absolute source of knowledge about what is right and wrong could be ok, if you also can give a justification why some commands as mentioned in the Bible have to be obeyed and others may be ignored. If we are not religious, we still could say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural. However, Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter. It is a fact that you see similar behavior among other primates and all kinds of animals. Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal. Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans. Or think of that female spider that devours her partner after some intimate moments ^_^. This leaves us with fundamental questions on ethics. Neither an eclectic use of a Bible or Koran, nor a reference to animal behavior is a sufficient argument to declare gay sex immoral or morally acceptable. Or to be even more specific, what is the relation between our sexual behavior and ethics? Why does something become a moral issue tho all involved choose in free will and with sincere mutual consent to engage in certain sexual activities? The Discussion [13:18] herman Bergson: the floor is yours ^_^ [13:18] Samuel Okelly: "One theological work around is to hold that the Old Testamental laws of Leviticus are set aside by Jesus. " which one herman? [13:19] hope63 Shepherd: could wse leave jesus out of this sam? no known testimony of his part.. [13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i thought the chapter again led to no answer in Law's opinion just a collections of for and against arguments that lead nowhere [13:19] herman Bergson: It is said that Jesus in a way replaced the Mosaic Laws with his teachings.. [13:19] Alarice Beaumont: well.. if there would only love between men... no children... no people left on the world [13:19] oola Neruda: different cultures in different places at different times... have different "rules" for society..... what is good/bad.... infanticide is one of those things.... who is to say which society ... and which time and place ...are right [13:19] ChatNoir Talon: But that is not the case, there is not ONLY gay love [13:20] hope63 Shepherd: sex in society..that is the question.. [13:20] Samuel Okelly: it is said that jesus fulfilled the mosaic law not replaced it [13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: yes sam [13:20] Sovereign Repine: Could it be that the behaviors mentioned, gay sex and beastiality create no offspring and that is the true motivation for the disapproval? [13:20] Alarice Beaumont: fortunately... but i think ... that is the reason one find's it not "natural" [13:20] Samuel Okelly: hope63 can you allow herman to answer on his own please? [13:20] Samuel Okelly: I think to ask “Do you really think gaysex is wrong?” is an intentionally provocative question. I think until we can establish an understanding of what makes anything right or wrong )in order to avoid talking across each other) the specific nature of the question, namely “gaysex”, becomes a needless digression and only serves to open the door on some tired yet predictable bigoted religion bashing. [13:20] hope63 Shepherd: open discussion sam.. [13:21] herman Bergson: That is an argument Sovereign...procreation [13:21] herman Bergson: But that would make a lot of sexual actions immoral [13:21] ChatNoir Talon: Most of them probably [13:21] Marya Blaisdale: except it isn't that way, Alarice - so it seems incoherant to say that if all people were homosexual then there would be no children. On top of that, science offering the possibilities it does now - I expect even in the obviously unlikely event that all of humanity became homosexual - there would still be children. [13:22] oola Neruda: i agree with Sam [13:22] Sovereign Repine: and furthurmore that Paul was one of the first Catholics and not really representative of Jesus's teachings and for the same procreative reasoning disappoved? [13:22] herman Bergson: I dont agree Samuel... [13:22] herman Bergson: What is at stake here is the question....when becomes something a moral issue and why [13:23] ChatNoir Talon: Something is wrong (to me, obviosuly) when it hurts people [13:23] herman Bergson: one option is...because of religious feelings....but not everyone is religious [13:23] Alarice Beaumont: i think this is because the society thinks it is not "common" [13:23] Alarice Beaumont: and love between men is quite unusual [13:23] oola Neruda: when and why.... yes... rather than a specific conclusion [13:23] Marya Blaisdale: But as Stephen points out in his book, red hair is not common either - that doesn't make it wrong :] [13:23] herman Bergson: But not 'common' doesnt need to mean immoral [13:23] Samuel Okelly: is it logical to ask when something becomes "moral" if we dont have an understanding of what it means "to be moral"???? [13:23] hope63 Shepherd: procreation is propably the only universal for organisms. but- ari is not here unfortunately.. its a survival question.. not an ethical one.. [13:24] Daruma Boa: right hope [13:24] oola Neruda: we are in an era when zero population growth is not just desirable...it is probably imparitive [13:24] herman Bergson: Besides the general question I put forward, there is the observation that sexuality and ethics have a close relation [13:24] Sovereign Repine: The truely ethical response to a person's sexual activities as long as it harms no one is for society to mind thier own business. [13:25] Marya Blaisdale: Sam, Stephen provides this example specifically because it provides an opportunity to break down the reasoning as to why someone might think it is wrong - and therefore get to the point of how we decide what is moral and what is not [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: the situation in china upheld that one child famillies and 10000 children were lost in the earthquakes [13:25] herman Bergson: Indeed Sovereign...I tend to agree with that view [13:25] ChatNoir Talon: Agreed Sovereign [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but it has never been so :-) [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: every society makes laws regarding the bedroom [13:26] Daruma Boa: true i know that from the us;-) [13:26] herman Bergson: So I think that the relation between sexuality and ethics goes deeper... [13:26] ChatNoir Talon: or the kitchen, or the rug, or the bathroom sink... [13:26] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. the moral views of things which men and women do are even different in the society.. even if they do the same thing [13:26] hope63 Shepherd: agreed. in gthe history of life -and i refer to darwin- the individual mind thei own business and survive if it works.. [13:26] herman Bergson: it is about free consent....bodily integrity....things like that [13:26] Samuel Okelly: if that is the case marya, then "gaysex" IS reduced to a digression of a bigger issue [13:27] Jangle McElroy: But gay sex was commonplace and accepted practice in a nearby and influenctial culture for centuries before Christ - in Greece, where Paul came from. So the Middle Eastern religions (Judaism/Christian/Muslim) have picked this as a banned practice, amongst others (like eating shelfish) as something that helps define the community they are from and the rule of law applied to the citizens. [13:27] hope63 Shepherd: right jangle [13:27] Sovereign Repine: Could childhood nurturing create the negative image and is it the latent desire for gay sex that evokes the repugnance? [13:28] herman Bergson: Indeed Jangl...even pedophilia was accepted among the Greeks [13:28] oola Neruda: sovereign... i don't think it is that simple [13:28] Marya Blaisdale: He uses this approach, Sam, because it is something that is easily understood - he approaches this in the book as a discussion between god and a man about why it is or is not wrong - it is stated in plain english and is easy for all levels of experience to understand - which, to my mind, is of greater importance [13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: ys [13:28] Ze Novikov: becareful not to confilate our understanding of sex and that of ancient Greece [13:28] Ze Novikov: they are not the same [13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: it was very well presented in the book [13:28] Thoth Jantzen: referring back a bit, i think i agree with sam, too - the question as put is meant to get attention, sensationalize. the issue of what's right or wrong - how to decide that - is more fundamental than any more specific question. and that fundamemental question is really only approachable in socio-cultural contexts where right or wrongness matters and based on criteria important in those contexts. almost all the rules in the bible can be shown to have some practical 'purpose' - healthwise, family-wise, etc. - for the times they were formulated. [13:29] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. very good written [13:29] herman Bergson: I agree Ze....it wasnt sex in our sense of the word [13:29] oola Neruda: agreed toth [13:29] herman Bergson: Well.....I dont agree.... [13:29] Samuel Okelly: furthermore is it “gay sex” we are being asked to consider or is it the broader social implications of redefining and reconstituting the family unit? [13:30] herman Bergson: the question is just formulated with a wink... [13:30] herman Bergson: and second..I put forward a completely different...wider question on ethics... [13:30] Marya Blaisdale: The point is, I think, to allow 'anyone' to access philosophical thinking, from an angle that 'anyone' can understand - so to my mind, it is not a matter of sensationalising it - it is a matter of presenting the question and therefore the issue, in manner than can be understood by all people [13:30] Thoth Jantzen: yes, but imho opinion it derails discussion before it gets started... [13:30] Thoth Jantzen: polarizes it from the beginning. [13:30] Sovereign Repine: 'the family unit' is a 'boogie man' used by christians to attempt to dominate [13:31] herman Bergson: So see no polarisation here [13:31] Thoth Jantzen: just my opinion. ur mileage, of course, may vary. ;o) [13:31] oola Neruda: liberals and atheists embrace the idea of a family unit too... [13:31] herman Bergson: Again....what is the question here is ..when and why becomes something a moral issue.....and gaysex is a sentive example of it [13:32] Samuel Okelly: [13:30] Sovereign Repine: 'the family unit' is a 'boogie man' used by chrisians to attempt to dominate remember what i said about bigoted religious bashing? [13:32] oola Neruda: agree Sam [13:32] Thoth Jantzen: well, that's the thing. it's better to apporach such issues as people, not liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, atheists or theists. [13:32] Sovereign Repine: every homosexul son and daughter is a family membe to someone [13:32] herman Bergson: Then I want AGAIN return to my question.... [13:33] Sovereign Repine: so how can they not be part of the f'family unit' [13:33] herman Bergson: I gave two options.....religious feelings and a look at nature [13:34] Thoth Jantzen: well, there's a question.... [13:34] hope63 Shepherd: you see the things as you were told to see them.. not the origins... not the complexity of human/cultural development.. [13:34] herman Bergson: I put another argument forward......how are moral commands selected from the bible.. [13:34] Daruma Boa: lol a good one [13:34] oola Neruda: maybe those are not the only options... think again of ... how do we know things... and all the nit picking of how things exist or are defined...etc.... [13:34] Jangle McElroy: Erratically and with prejudice [13:34] hope63 Shepherd: how did moral commands come to beeing.. [13:34] Thoth Jantzen: what criteria do we use to define right and wrong? do we start from a religious standpoint? nature? seems that those limit choices and approaches. is there a more broad or fundamental context to begin from? [13:35] Sovereign Repine: The natural condition for teh survivalof the species is heterosexul, all of us have the capacity for either hom or hetero sex. [13:35] hope63 Shepherd: culture question.. [13:35] herman Bergson: Well Thoth....the next question may help you answer that [13:35] herman Bergson: Skepticism has a long tradition in philosophy [13:36] herman Bergson: So the broader scene for an answer would be culture [13:36] Samuel Okelly: to speak of "the bible" is a misguided digression in my view as i do not doubt that ppl long before moses received the decalogue acted with a sense of morality [13:36] Thoth Jantzen: seems to me we should get as low as possible, and then work up to some level where morality matters, and look around there for some reasonable hooks to start thinking from mayeb. [13:36] herman Bergson: True Samuel [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: ok sam. but since when .. and who.. [13:37] Sovereign Repine: yet every religious leader who speaks out on homosexuality quotes the bible [13:37] Jangle McElroy: I'd politily suggest the survivial of the species argument is perhaps missing it's mark. When the rules were created the elders / rulers / priests cared about the survival of their people, no-one else. It's survival of 'us' whoever the 'we' are that define outselves by a particual ethical code, religious belief. or set of rules [13:37] oola Neruda: not the muslims [13:37] Thoth Jantzen: not the mullahs [13:37] Thoth Jantzen: ;o) [13:37] Sovereign Repine: well, a holy book of some kind [13:37] Thoth Jantzen: well, that's sort of a given, no? [13:37] Sovereign Repine: funny how all were written by the one and only god [13:37] Samuel Okelly: Sovereign "yet every religious leader who speaks out on homosexuality quotes the bible" are you serious ? [13:38] Laraya Mills: the most textes against homosexuality are from the old testament - and that is rooted from much older cultures, than christianity or Islam [13:38] Marya Blaisdale: Please keep in mind, this question provided by Stephen Law is relative to an example he relates in his book - it is specific, and as I mentioned before, it is presented in such a way as to make it understandable - the example is provided via a conversation between the god of the bible and a man - just letting you know so you have the context [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: like' lara? [13:38] ChatNoir Talon: Wait wait wait, this discussion seems to be going in circles. I've got a question, who's got a problem with gaysex? [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: this chapter is on line btw [13:38] Jangle McElroy: The one and only god is appearing in different guises with similar teachings i na very small geographic area to a few different tribes though. [13:38] Sovereign Repine: lol [13:38] Laraya Mills: before jewish even, hope [13:39] hope63 Shepherd: cite [13:39] herman Bergson: Yes ChatNoir...that is a good question [13:39] Sovereign Repine: I do not [13:39] ChatNoir Talon: If no one here does, then that means that part 1 of the discussion is done, right? [13:39] Thoth Jantzen: chat, that question's answer depends on the approach to it. so u first need to find a good approach to answering it. [13:39] oola Neruda: ask a prison inmate [13:40] Marya Blaisdale: I expect most people who have taken the time to think about it, probably don't have a problem with it ChatNoir, but most people apparently don't think about it ... [13:40] Laraya Mills: I live together with another woman...if that answers the question [13:40] herman Bergson: It does Laraya ^_^ [13:40] Sovereign Repine: that is called enlightenment, Marya [13:40] Jangle McElroy: Laraya - how if Mom ? ;) [13:40] herman Bergson: But let us return to the fundamental ethical theory here [13:40] Laraya Mills: not Mom, Jangle [13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0 [13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:41] Jangle McElroy: Understand, of course. [13:41] ChatNoir Talon: Alright, seeing all of us here agree that gaysex is not a problem we can hit the ethical question of right and wrong [13:41] herman Bergson: The issu ehere is....why something becomes an issue of right and wrong.....what critaria do we use [13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: whom doees it harm???? [13:41] Sovereign Repine: but who determines what is right or wrong? [13:42] Laraya Mills: I would like to raise 2 subjects, which go a bit deeper than this, if I may [13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Sovereign..who does.... [13:42] ChatNoir Talon: The individual does, then it gets agreed upon by society [13:42] herman Bergson: What means do we have to establish absolut emoral rules [13:42] herman Bergson: do thewy exist? [13:42] Sovereign Repine: I have decided that is is not wrong and that is the way it will be. [13:42] hope63 Shepherd: morals and emotional sensations are not always compatible.. too complex to discuss on a basis like tonight.. [13:42] herman Bergson: Right Hope... [13:43] Laraya Mills: for me the question is not w h o determines what is right or wrong...but think about w h a t determines what might be right or wrong...so going to the root of what r i g h t or w r o n g really is as such [13:43] Sovereign Repine: It is a short discussion, Hope [13:43] herman Bergson: What I want to show that it is not just a funny question about gaysex here... [13:43] herman Bergson: Yes...we could do that..... [13:44] Daruma Boa: never thought that [13:44] Ze Novikov: and what DO we mean by gay sex? [13:44] herman Bergson: But first there is the observation of Hope.....emotions and moral values arent always in sync [13:44] Laraya Mills: agree to hope for this point, yes [13:44] Samuel Okelly: assuming the family unit is redefined to accommodate gay relationships (rather than simply gaysex), what are the moral consequences regarding children? Should they be allowed to know their biological parents for example? [13:44] Jangle McElroy: Historically, it's the people who write things down and disseminate them that make the rules, sometimes their interpretation of what was said. There is continuing argument in those of Jewish faith because the bible says Moses dropped the commandments written perfectly by the finger of God on tablets. And when Moses went back for another set, God told him to write them down himself. The Jewish religion still debates whether the rules are perfect. [13:44] herman Bergson: gay sex; sexual relations between people of the same gender [13:45] Sovereign Repine: That is evident from all the fallen fundementalist preachers when caugt performing acts they preached against. [13:45] Alarice Beaumont: oh it does harm the women... very nice men are no longer "on the market", Gemma.. quite a shame [13:46] hope63 Shepherd: man hat mich grad bemerkt im chat lol [13:46] Laraya Mills: I think the whole question of this moment is to easy, since it reduces to "sex....no matter whether gay or whatever sex....a better question might be what sex is without love...maybe like some sort of guitar with no strings....you can play it but It won#t be real music... [13:46] herman Bergson: It is not my intention to answer all the questions that are brought up here... [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: nope it is not [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: and not possible anyway i think [13:46] herman Bergson: But I hope you see the complexity of the issue [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: very much so [13:46] Sovereign Repine: The consent for sexual relations is not a communal decision. [13:46] hope63 Shepherd: herman.. you open up a beehive.. and this is what you get..lol [13:47] ChatNoir Talon just eats up the honey [13:47] herman Bergson: Indeed Hope...and all are alive and kicking :-) [13:47] herman Bergson: That is a good thing to see [13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: every class is a beehive [13:47] Rodney Handrick: lol [13:47] oola Neruda: would extramarital affairs be ok just because the people are of opposite sexes.... [13:47] Qwark Allen: :-) [13:47] oola Neruda: what is it we really need to find out [13:47] Sovereign Repine: I suspect that this class is one of those enlightening moments. [13:48] ChatNoir Talon: Ethical standings [13:48] Samuel Okelly: FTR, I believe in an objective morality. I think the arrogance of relativism has shown itself to lead directly to chaos. To simply dismiss the existence of an objective morality merely on the grounds that ppl can not agree what it is or where to find is lazy philosophy . the truth is out there [13:48] Laraya Mills: it is not so much the answer possibly to be given....but the numbr of different questions which everyone may take with her/him... [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: there has not been one argument presented here today that i have not heard before [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: on either side [13:48] herman Bergson: The word extramarital already implies a lot of other moral obligations oola [13:48] hope63 Shepherd: how about reflecting about the origins of morals/ethics.. how did they get into our brains.. [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :_) [13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: or on the question of right and wrong [13:49] oola Neruda: exactly Herman [13:49] herman Bergson: Very true Gemma :-) [13:49] ChatNoir Talon: Agreed, Gemma [13:49] herman Bergson: And this brings us to the question: can there be new answers? [13:49] Jangle McElroy: What about virtual affairs, perhaps that's a more relevant debate in an environment where you do not know the gender of a partner and they may look like a furry animal on your screen ? [13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: not yet!\ [13:50] Sovereign Repine: these are not new questions to critical thinkers, indeed, it is those in the dark we shourld fear [13:50] Daruma Boa: true [13:50] Rodney Handrick: true gemma [13:50] Laraya Mills: I don't fully agree gemma....we are still just scratching on the surfaces based on what thedifferent educations and families have given to us to start our path [13:50] herman Bergson: That I was thinking Sovereign....we are a pretty educated group here [13:50] hope63 Shepherd: good question jangle.. emotions/sexual desires based on virtual stimulations.. [13:50] ChatNoir Talon: Why is that people who are ignorant are in the dark? People that know skin cancer is caused by sunlight should stick to darkness.... [13:51] Marya Blaisdale: Which is why, Sovereign, that it is a good thing that Stephen has written this book in such an accessible way [13:51] Daruma Boa: point 26 / sl [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly that is why i say not yet on the question of new answers [13:51] Sovereign Repine: The question is , so is to educate those in the dark, their bigoted parents? [13:52] herman Bergson: Well...fortunately that is not our discussion of today ^_^ [13:52] Marya Blaisdale: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay- sex.html (in case anyone wants to read it) :) [13:52] Laraya Mills: thx Marya ;-) [13:52] Sovereign Repine: In regards to the teaching of right and wrong I think it fits very well. :) [13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...:-) [13:52] Daruma Boa: great thxs marya [13:52] Jangle McElroy: Even reading the title dissuades me from reading the text. [13:53] Marya Blaisdale: well if you're an experienced philospher Jangle, then there is no need for you to read it [13:53] hope63 Shepherd: smile.. i'm wit yu jangel.. [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: the text is really a dream [13:54] herman Bergson: Well....to loose your critical attitude only because of a statement, isnt very philosophical [13:54] Jangle McElroy: Marya, isn't the answer to that something along the lines of 'no one is ever experienced enough to assume they know?' ;) [13:54] hope63 Shepherd: marya .. may be experienced philosopher is not always needed.. i retain a comment from jaspers 8 a philosopher>9 who said trhere is a philosophers in all of us:) [13:54] herman Bergson: And just for the record.... [13:54] herman Bergson: I am NOT discussing Stephen Law's book here [13:55] Marya Blaisdale: I do believe that Hope, and I do believe that no one knows everything :) [13:55] Sovereign Repine: experienced philosopher? [13:55] herman Bergson: I only use it as a starting point [13:55] Marya Blaisdale nods [13:55] herman Bergson: You can read it to get a focus on the subject at hand [13:56] herman Bergson: But I will come up with other questions myself as I did today [13:56] Daruma Boa: oh i am so sorry. i must leave now. [13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: we all do i think :_) [13:56] Laraya Mills: if you guys wish to, I tell you a little part of my private life since I life in one of such situation you are discussing here...maybe this might lead you to some track [13:56] herman Bergson: Anyway.... I think we got at least a glimps of the basics of a theory on ethics...and what it all implies [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: see hyou all thursday [13:57] Daruma Boa: hopr to see u all on thursday again;-) [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: next question [13:57] Alarice Beaumont: bye Gemma :-) [13:57] Daruma Boa: thank u herman! [13:57] Ze Novikov: Herman once again tyvm and see you soon bbfn [13:57] Qwark Allen: yes [13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:57] Qwark Allen: :-) [13:57] Qwark Allen: cya soon [13:57] herman Bergson: Ok...CLASS DISMISSED ^_^ [13:57] Samuel Okelly: thanks herman :) cheerio for now :) [13:58] Jangle McElroy: Thanks [13:58] herman Bergson: Thank you for the good debate [13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks [13:58] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman [13:58] ChatNoir Talon: thanks herman [13:58] ChatNoir Talon: see you all [13:58] herman Bergson: Nice to see you Rodney..:-) [13:58] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡ [13:58] Samuel Okelly: [13:58] Samuel Okelly: † [13:58] Samuel Okelly: † (( take care everyone )) † [13:58] Samuel Okelly: † [13:58] Samuel Okelly: [13:58] herman Bergson: Bye Samuel [13:58] Sovereign Repine: Thank you , Mr. Bergson [13:58] Rodney Handrick: Hey! [13:58] herman Bergson: My pleasure Sovereign

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-05-07 10:57:13

1 Where does the Universe come from?

We can look at the universe like this, as shown by the picture behind me or like this in the way Einstein did with his Einstein field equations (EFE). For your information (^_^) : The EFE collectively form a tensor equation and equate the curvature of spacetime (as expressed using the Einstein tensor) with the energy and momentum within the spacetime (as expressed using the stress-energy tensor). And what is more interesting when you start calculating with these formulas, which is in fact a way of deductive reasoning, you come to conclusions which you can test by observations through telesopes and other instruments. The fact that we can measure redshift in the light from distant galaxies tells us that the galaxies are receding from us, and from each other. It only takes a little logical deduction to conclude that as they are now all receding from one another, then at some finite point in the past (believed to be around 13 billion years or so) they must have all been at the same point. And thence we come to our question: Where does the Universe come from?From a bang, a BIG BANG. This theory explains a number of cosmological phenomena, not everything, but you know how it is with science: we are working on it. However, there is absolutely nothing in this theory that tells us how it was before this big bang. So it can't be the answer to our question, because we are still left with the question of what caused the big bang? The first thing we may observe is that we are trapped in causal thinking. Don't misunderstand me, it works fine in a lot of situations, but when we apply the principle to our question we get in trouble. What caused the big bang? For some it is a solution to say: God. But that leaves us with the legitimate question: Where does God come from? Some might answer that God has no cause. He/She is an exception to the rules of causality. Fine, but how do we know that? Who told us that except our own mind? One of the characters in Law's book says: " Maybe wasn't the universe caused by something. Maybe its existence is a simple fact." Maybe we have to be pragmatic indeed and accept the existence of the universe as a kind of axiom and play with our Einstein calculations to explain what can be deduced from that axiom. Stephen Law leaves us with four alternatives: 1. Answer the question by giving a cause for the existence of the universe. 2. Claiming that the universe has a cause, but that we are (not yet) able to discover it. 3. Claiming that the universe might not have a cause - its existence is just a simple fact. 4. Denying that this question makes sense at all. There is something to say about this question indeed. By asking "WHERE ..... FROM? we are automatically trapped by spatio-temporal thinking. Even worse, not only trapped....we are completely unable to think otherwise. All we communicate about is solely the result of our thinking And this thinking has its limitations. Therefore it is not surprising that Kant said, that we are unable to know "das Ding an such" (the reality as such). And other philosophers came with the thesis that the only reality is the reality of the mind. And in regard to our question you might get the feeling that all we actually have is only our mind. The Discussion [13:26] herman Bergson: So I suggest that we dont discuss, but just vote....lol [13:27] Paula Dix: :)) [13:27] hope63 Shepherd: well.. i think we don't know any more about our mind/brain as we do about the universe.. [13:27] Teleo Aeon: a democratic view of the universe ? :) [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol [13:27] herman Bergson: You might be right Hope [13:27] herman Bergson: But yet this question takes us to our limits [13:28] hope63 Shepherd: the limits of you capacity to understand.. [13:28] Paula Dix: Whats to deny a creator thats not mystical? [13:28] herman Bergson: yes.... [13:28] hope63 Shepherd: therefore we looked for a god who would understand all.. [13:28] hope63 Shepherd: and have him with us:) not against us:) [13:28] herman Bergson: But that doesnt work.... [13:29] herman Bergson: we still keep coming with the question ...Where are you from ? [13:29] Lian Hornet: and fill it with the god of the gaps [13:29] Samuel Okelly: or science of the gaps [13:29] hope63 Shepherd: where from where go.. that is exactly space time limits [13:29] Samuel Okelly: pseudo-science at best [13:30] herman Bergson: Science wont help here either I am afraid Samuel [13:30] Samuel Okelly: i agree herman [13:30] Marya Blaisdale: I think the question tends to point to the fact that we may not be thinking about it the 'right' way - and that putting things down to a 'first cause' is perhaps the wrong way of doing it - I keep wondering why it is that people seem to presume that there was ever 'nothing' - which brings up the question of why is there something rather than nothing (which is the same core point as 'where does the universe come from) [13:30] herman Bergson: Reading about cosmology is fascinating [13:30] Qwark Allen: i have 3 things, that i`ve been thinking about 1st- the speed of light it`s not a absolute value, it changes with some conditions. gravity it`s one of them! in consequence of it, einstein was close to the truth, but not to the truth it self 2d- the universe doesn`t have 13 bilions years. they say. but we don`t know where we are at a specific point of the universe, to have this reference. we know that the light traveled 13 bilion years until we get it, but we are not at the edge of the universe, to state that it`s is lifetime so far 3rd- if we are in a universe in expansion, where are we expanding? [13:31] herman Bergson: Yes...Qwark....you point at what are the facts.... [13:31] Lian Hornet: From the observable universe, qwark, galaxies are expanding homogeneously, without a center in sight [13:31] Paula Dix: Marya, thats why i ask if creator cant be someone "like us" [13:31] Qwark Allen: i know [13:31] herman Bergson: Science has only an incomplete theory... [13:31] Qwark Allen: yes [13:32] oola Neruda: now they feel there are pockets of space that are expanding at different speeds... they liken it to swiss cheese with the "pockets" being the mini universes [13:32] Marya Blaisdale: Well, I don't think there is or was a creator, Paula - I think that 'something' has always existed - by 'something' i mean matter of some sort [13:33] herman Bergson: I think that we are imprisoned in our own mind..our way of observing and thinking... [13:33] oola Neruda: and the universe not being radially symetrical but lumpy... and no dark matter... the theories change constantly [13:33] Paula Dix: and having a non mystical creator will only put the question more distant, not solve it :) [13:33] Samuel Okelly: we observe that everything in the known universe has a cause and is contingent on some “other”. It is therefore perfectly logical to hold that the intricate complexity of what is observed is “caused” by something or someone that is not restricted by matter or spatiotemporal considerations. [13:33] herman Bergson: Let me tell you about a trick... [13:33] herman Bergson: When you have flies in the house..how to keep them out [13:33] Paula Dix: But Samuel, that would imply on a cause to god also [13:33] herman Bergson: You fill a small plastic bag with water and hang is in the door opening or window.. [13:34] Samuel Okelly: no it wouldnt [13:34] Qwark Allen: yes, we use that a lot here in summer [13:34] Paula Dix: why not? [13:34] herman Bergson: A fly doesnt see a small bag but a huge sea it seems [13:34] Marya Blaisdale: The thing is, Samuel, is that thinking about it in terms of just 'cause' is probalby not correct - a cause is an effect, an effect is a cause - it is a very complex system of relationships that work together, imo [13:34] Teleo Aeon: yes I tend to agree Marya. I go with Heideggers notion of Being on that one. that the existence of a nothing is not even able to be possited in any logical way...aka, parmenides. Also, I don't believe in Time.. I think what we call Time is merely a transcoding of spatiality. [13:35] Marya Blaisdale nods [13:35] hope63 Shepherd: sam.. because our capacity to think is limited to cause and effect doesn't prove a thing about what is.. [13:35] hope63 Shepherd: we just have to work with those axioms.. [13:35] Samuel Okelly: because matter is of the universe, as is time., there is no reason to presume that matter or time also apply beyond what we know [13:35] herman Bergson: Forget my fly ^_^ [13:35] Paula Dix: Samuel, im curious about your idea why everything having a cause wont imply on god having a cause [13:35] oola Neruda: i am with Teleo... i feel that the questions about "existance" that Heidegger brings up... existance itself [13:35] Ze Novikov: lol [13:36] oola Neruda: existence of anything at all [13:36] herman Bergson: Hold on for a moment [13:36] Samuel Okelly: @paula - an uncaused cause [13:36] herman Bergson: Yeah..that is the end..the uncaused cause.... [13:37] herman Bergson: With all due respect Samuel, but where did we humans got the knowledge from about uncaused causes.. [13:37] herman Bergson: and why should there only be one....cant there be a dozen? [13:37] Samuel Okelly: fides et ratio [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: we make them up.. we made up god to answer5 unsolved questions.. [13:38] herman Bergson: I think you should look at my fly who has a complete different perception of reality [13:39] Qwark Allen: what perception we have from reality? [13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh wow yes so many views from the eyes [13:39] herman Bergson: we have just one way of perceiving reality and we call it of course the right way.... [13:39] Samuel Okelly: a theist might reply that ppl deny god to hide the arrogance of their own ignorance [13:39] Qwark Allen: what our eyes see? [13:39] Paula Dix: Samuel, but then not everything has a cause, wich makes your first rule invalid [13:39] herman Bergson: That is an argumentum ad hominem Samual...forbidden in this class [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: and could beturned around.. [13:40] Samuel Okelly: said in response to " [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: we make them up.. we made up god to answer unsolved questions.." [13:40] herman Bergson: Also forbidden ^_^ [13:40] Lian Hornet: So this is a discussion on the anthropic principle? [13:40] Samuel Okelly: one rule for all i propose [13:40] Marya Blaisdale: I think starting from a premise of 'cause then effect' is probably 'causing' more problems than it needs to - I think if we were able to perceive it as a constantly flowing network of [cause is effect is cause is effect is cause etc], then it would make more sense - but that is just my thinking on this ... [13:41] hope63 Shepherd: marya..poblemn is that people need a source.. [13:41] herman Bergson: Our fixation on cause and effect is indeed a killing factor here [13:41] hope63 Shepherd: to understand the flow.. [13:41] herman Bergson: but we have no other way of explaining the relations between things [13:42] Paula Dix: yes, thats my question, what to put instead of cause/effect [13:42] Marya Blaisdale: that there are 'relations' is exactly the point I think, the way it all works is via relationships - the way things affect each other and how that passes on to and with other things [13:42] Samuel Okelly: @paula - It would become invalid if we were to apply the rules from within to apply to the exterior [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: well.. i shouild say humanity has gone a long way to dioscover the cause effect principle.. there might be more to discover in the future..:9 as it always happened:9 [13:43] herman Bergson: Yes PAula...that's the point....we dont know of any other relation....tho maybe a correlation based on statistics [13:43] hope63 Shepherd: took a long time from ptolemee tpo galileo [13:43] herman Bergson: Almost back to Hume and the billiard balls... [13:43] herman Bergson: We just see happen A and then B.....that is all [13:43] Marya Blaisdale nods [13:44] herman Bergson: A did not cause B....B just happened after A [13:44] Marya Blaisdale: the problem seems to be then applying that context of thinking to the whole instead of keeping it within its context [13:45] oola Neruda: like keeping the camera on just the pitcher at a baseball game and never getting to see what the outfield and batter ... and all those guys are doing... [13:45] herman Bergson: So science is nothing more then, then telling which events are seen togetther or after another [13:45] Samuel Okelly: i think this forces to us to question what it means “to know” something [13:46] herman Bergson: That is question 19 Samuel ^_^ [[13:46] herman Bergson: And yes Marya..I love contextual thinking and reasoning [13:46] Marya Blaisdale nods :) [13:46] Samuel Okelly: im sure many of the questions will overlap [13:47] hope63 Shepherd: well.. based on premises we can deduct a lot of things.. and they work so far.. doen't mean we answer all questions.. unless we speculate.. [13:47] herman Bergson: Indeed Hope....the deductions work....a plead for pragmatism :-) [13:47] hope63 Shepherd: do we have another chioce? [13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: iI liked that oola [13:48] herman Bergson: What did you mean by your baseball example oola.. [13:49] hope63 Shepherd: we can'0t see the whole picture..but with modern tv slit screen you could oola.. [13:49] herman Bergson: oola? [13:50] herman Bergson: Well....at least we may conclude that science doesnt answer our question.... [13:50] hope63 Shepherd: every tv station has 20 cameras .. the fact that you see only one picture is the chioce of the responsable.. [13:50] herman Bergson: Makes it even worse with this Big BAng...for it had to take place somewhere, or am I mistaken? [13:51] Samuel Okelly: an uncaused cause vs infinite regress [13:51] oola Neruda: phone [13:51] Marya Blaisdale: I think the station example is a fair one, for example, we need to understand that the one particular angle we are seeing, is just one context and we can come to some understandings about that one particular context, but should not then apply the exact same rules or thinking to other possible angles [13:51] hope63 Shepherd: nothing wrong woth the big bang i think.. just moving thoughts to a certain point.. not answering.not trying .to answer the crucial what was before..:9 [13:51] herman Bergson: Neither makes me happy Samuel :-) [13:52] Teleo Aeon: Herman somewhere posits a spatial position outside of space itself.. so it doesn't really work to do that from what I can tell. [13:52] hope63 Shepherd: right marya.. [13:52] Samuel Okelly: occam's razor to decide which is preferable from a logical viewpoint? [13:52] herman Bergson: That brings us back to my fly who everybody missed..:-) [13:52] Ze Novikov: lol [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: i did not [13:52] hope63 Shepherd: lol.. the water bag..:? [13:52] Lian Hornet: Cosmic Inflation theory describes an event less than a second after the big bang, and allows for the possibility for an infinite universe that could have no actual center [13:52] herman Bergson smiles [13:53] hope63 Shepherd: so why are still flies around when you live close to the ocean.. [13:53] Paula Dix: Marya, the way you talk (cause=effect) is dialetic? Clear talk about that all the time [13:53] herman Bergson: Lian..that timeing I regard as utter nonsense :-) [13:53] Ze Novikov: all the dead fish Hope [13:53] hope63 Shepherd: lol [13:53] Lian Hornet: timing? [13:53] oola Neruda: i meant.... that we have certain tools and points of view... and they limit us... we need the rest of the camera that hope is keeping to himself [13:54] hope63 Shepherd: some of the humans must smell like dead fish too then ze..:) [13:54] herman Bergson: Yes..a second after the big bang.... [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: we have to go soon Herman [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: what is the next chapter???? [13:54] Ze Novikov: lol [13:54] Alarice Beaumont: that gay question [13:54] Lian Hornet: Oh, I would have to be a physicist to judge it that why... but cosmic inflation is accepted by most cosmologists [13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: are we going in the book order or skip;ping around [13:54] Lian Hornet: *that way [13:55] herman Bergson: Ok..oola..that brings us back to my statement that we are trapped in the limitations of our mind....causal, spatio-temporal thinking [13:55] oola Neruda: yes [13:55] Qwark Allen: we need to first know about our blindness to reality [13:55] Marya Blaisdale: Paula, I'm afraid I don't understand the question? [13:55] hope63 Shepherd: what about the theory that universe expands only to meet again in a point and becomes the some melting pot of materia? [13:56] herman Bergson: But that is a paradox Qwark... [13:56] hope63 Shepherd: what about anti.materia? [13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye [13:56] herman Bergson: ye Gemma [13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday [13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye gemma :-) [13:56] Samuel Okelly: bye gem [13:56] herman Bergson: How can we see when we are blind? :-) [13:56] Ze Novikov: bb Gemma [13:56] Qwark Allen: not a melting pot af mateia! a quark plasma [13:56] hope63 Shepherd: discovered i think in cern at geneva.. [13:56] hope63 Shepherd: anyway they are looking for it [13:56] Paula Dix: Marya, Clear says this idea of cause=effect=cause is dialectic, but i dont understand this word well, would you use it there? [13:57] Qwark Allen: because our senses are made to see a very little portion of reality [13:57] Marya Blaisdale: Mmm, who is Clear? [13:57] Qwark Allen: very small one [13:57] Qwark Allen: i was amazed when i read about [13:57] Paula Dix: Marya, my friend FL [13:58] herman Bergson: Be well Qwark :-) [13:58] Qwark Allen: you need to know what is light it self, to understand what i`m saying [13:58] hope63 Shepherd: takle care Q [13:58] Marya Blaisdale: ohh, okay Paula :) [13:58] Qwark Allen: cya soon frinds [13:58] Alarice Beaumont: bye qwark :-) [13:58] Ze Novikov: cy Q [13:58] Paula Dix: :)) [13:59] herman Bergson: I think we can discuss this till the outer limits of the universe.. [13:59] Paula Dix: lol [13:59] herman Bergson: So I would suggest to return back to earth and thank you for your participation [13:59] Marya Blaisdale: Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Eastern and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato's Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference. [13:59] Marya Blaisdale: Wiki :) [13:59] Ze Novikov: TY Herman [13:59] herman Bergson: And I especially want to greet an old old friend Lian Hornet..:-) [13:59] Paula Dix: im still trying to get the idea that we cant think about before big bang because time itself started there... [14:00] Lian Hornet: aloha [14:00] hope63 Shepherd: hello lian [14:00] herman Bergson: Yes Paula....that is the fascinating moment [14:00] Paula Dix: Marya, but there are other definitions of dialectic, i guess most modern isn Hegel [14:00] oola Neruda: because of how we define time... [14:00] oola Neruda: measured by change [14:01] Ze Novikov: bb everyone 'til next time in the same dimension [14:01] herman Bergson: Not a discussion on time plz..^_^ [14:01] oola Neruda: baieee Ze [14:01] Paula Dix: bye Ze :) [14:01] herman Bergson: Would really take too much time [14:01] herman Bergson: Bye Ze [14:01] Marya Blaisdale: Well, I'm not sure what Clear means there, Paula - maybe you could ask her to explain what context she is using it in? [14:01] Paula Dix: lol she already gave me tons of explainings, i was trying to get another one from you that maybe would make things clearer :))) [14:02] herman Bergson: Ok Paula....while you Clear out this issue, I'll dismiss class first ^_^ [14:02] Marya Blaisdale: lol [14:02] Paula Dix: lol [14:02] Paula Dix: And then there is gravity!!! [14:02] herman Bergson: Thank you all for participating

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-05-04 04:19:42

00 The Introduction

======================================================

25 Adventures in Thinking

======================================================
Become a philosopher yourself ! Classes are every Tuesday and Thursday at 1.00 PM PST.
That equals 22:00h European time. You'll find some info about me on
www.herman-vos.nl. My resumee you'll find by clicking on the photograph at the homepage.
======================================================

1. Where does the Universe come from?
2. Do you really think gaysex is wrong?
3. Aren't we just a brain in a jar?
4. We can travel in time, can't we?
5. Did the relativist win?
6. Can my computer think?
7. How reasonable is it to believe in God?
8. How do I know, that you have a mind too?
9. Why don't they call my painting Art?
10. Can there be ethics without religion?
11. Is Creationism science?
12. We should improve the human being by genetic manipulation, ...or not?
13. Is my brain my mind?
14. Why do you believe, that the sun will rise tomorrow again?
15. Is it justified to punish people?
16. How can a word mean something?
17. Can we justify the killing of other people?
18. Why does mathematics work?
19. What is knowledge? Hihi...I do't know!
20. How do we know that something is wrong?
21. Is it allowed to eat other creatures?
22. Am I still the same person after all these years?
23. Do miracles exist?
24. How do I discover fallacies?
25. Aren't paradoxes fun?

======================================================

Before we start, you may be tempted to ask, "Well, what of it?" Is it really necessary for us to bother about complicated questions of philosophy? To such a question, two replies are possible. If what is meant is: do we need to know about such things in order to go about our daily life, then the answer is evidently no. But if we wish to gain a rational understanding of the world in which we live, and the fundamental processes at work in nature, society and our own way of thinking, then matters appear in quite a different light. So the condition for participating in The Philosophy Class is that you feel an interest in gaining a rational understanding of the world in which we live. Last week I had the following converstation: [2009/04/23 16:28] Marya Blaisdale: (Saved Thu Apr 23 23:22:24 2009) Hi Herman - just a quick question - are you basing your 25 adventures in thinking on Stephen Law's book, the Philosophy Gym? [2009/04/23 16:31] herman Bergson: hello Marya, if you look at http://www.thoughts.com/herman_bergson/ you can see in my profile/project description that you are correct. That book is real fun to use [2009/04/23 16:32] herman Bergson: after two projects..one on 100 philosophers and another on 25+ women philosophers [2009/04/23 16:32] Marya Blaisdale: The wording caught my eye as I took part in a short course with Oxford Uni based on this book - and am in touch with Stephen as well. Stephen is going to be one of the speakers at our event on Saturday on Science & Religion, which might interest you :) [2009/04/23 16:33] herman Bergson: This is a small world ^_^ [2009/04/23 16:33] Marya Blaisdale: lol, yes it is :) [2009/04/23 16:33] herman Bergson: amazing :-) This means that I run the risk that the Master himself might be looking over my shoulder everytime. Let me introduce him to you. He is on youTube. youTube MOVIE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ3UrDEh2co When you look at the list of questions, you may notice that there is actually no relation between the individual questions. They are all stand alone topics. I have no specific plan regarding how to treat each question. Some may be dealt with in one session of our class, others might require more sessions. My startingpoint is in fact question Zero: Does science answer all our questions or do we still need a philosopher's help? Some people hold the view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things. We have 25 adventures ahead to put this view to the test. Next Thursday we'll start with an easy one: Where does the Universe come from? There is one thing you should keep in mind. This is The Philosophy Class with the emphasis on CLASS. It means that this is not a free debating group. The goal of the discussions is to learn something more than how smart each of us is. We have a question and we want an answer. The Discussion [13:22] Laila Schuman: :-) [13:22] Alarice Beaumont: sorry.. crahsed [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: sl [13:22] herman Bergson: Anyone has a question???? ^_^ [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: not yet [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: will you conduct the class as before?? [13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: lecture first and then discussion?? [13:23] Vladimir Apparatchik: Daniel Dennett in answer to your question said that philosophy is what you do when you don't know what question to ask . Do you think this is so Herman? [13:24] herman Bergson: Yes...the system will be the same...unless someone comes up with a better idea of course.. [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i think not [13:25] herman Bergson: philosophy is what you do when you don't know what question to ask ??? [13:25] Paula Dix: Isnt science a branch from philosophy? [13:25] Alarice Beaumont: no.. think science is the underlaying / proof of philosophy... [13:25] Alarice Beaumont: and if there is proof.. no longer philosophie [13:26] Vladimir Apparatchik: Yes, Once your are clear on the right questions then you can do the science. Philosphy helps you to clear up what the right questions should be [13:26] herman Bergson: Well..there will be a big fight I think...about science and its place in our knowledge system [13:26] Alarice Beaumont: :-) [13:26] Paula Dix: lol [13:26] herman Bergson: I see...that is what Bertrand Russell already said... [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: i think so [13:27] herman Bergson: When a question gets an answer it moves over to the realm of science [13:27] herman Bergson: But as Paula said..isnt science an branch of philosophy? [13:27] Samuel Okelly: what are plato and socrates discussing in the school of athens behind us? [13:27] Paula Dix: hmmm but the answer can be changed, so more thinking is always in place [13:27] Vladimir Apparatchik: OK Thanks Herman [13:28] Laila Schuman: science is fulll of unanswered questions... they are called theories... and many of the answers we THINK we have... end up with other answers [13:28] herman Bergson: The weather, Samulel...just the weather [13:28] Paula Dix: lol [13:28] Laila Schuman: like now they think...maybe no dark matter at all... [13:28] Samuel Okelly: well i DO see someone pointing to the heavens ;-) [13:28] Paula Dix: thats why he is pointing up! :)) [13:28] Paula Dix: lol [13:29] Laila Schuman: for example [13:29] herman Bergson: Generally Aristotle's forcast is pretty good :-) [13:29] herman Bergson: Which make me miss Aristotle today too :-) [13:30] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. really a shame [13:30] herman Bergson: Well...our underlying question will be...makes philosophy still sense under the rule of Science.. [13:30] herman Bergson: Dont answer it now....we fisrt have to do our 25 questions ..:-) [13:31] Laila Schuman: science is not perfect... it is a quest... a journey... not the answer [13:31] Alarice Beaumont: ah .. good :-) [13:31] herman Bergson: You are the wrong public....you know the answer..:-) [13:31] Samuel Okelly: IS / OUGHT problem ???? [13:32] herman Bergson: But yet I hope we'll enjoy exploring the other 25 questins [13:32] Alarice Beaumont: this sounds good Laila :-)) [13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: i see some battles coming already [13:32] Samuel Okelly: isnt that the fun and exciting side to philosophy gemma? ;-) [13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: lololl [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: sometimes not!!!! [13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...Aristotle's weatherforcast tells us about coming thunder :-) [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:33] Alarice Beaumont: llooll [13:33] herman Bergson: Oh yes Samuel..I really look forward to this project...to me it is fun [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: well you love a new challenge [13:33] Vladimir Apparatchik: Herman - do you recommend reading Stephen Law's book? And before or after your sessions? [13:34] herman Bergson: The book is a joy to read....that is for sure...and fun too [13:35] herman Bergson: I will follow the book,,,Stephen Law saved me a lot of work btw...and I will try to elaborate on the issues....finding new arguments and so on [13:35] Laila Schuman: yay [13:36] herman Bergson: At least the book is worth reading...before or after class [13:36] herman Bergson: Before it helps you focus, after it helps you put pieces together... [13:37] Vladimir Apparatchik: OK Thanks [13:37] herman Bergson: But without reading the book you'll enjoy class equally, I think [13:37] Pippistrello Bonetto: and are you sure we will find the missing puzzle piece? [13:37] herman Bergson: Hmmm... [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: i doubt it [13:38] Laila Schuman: lol [13:38] Alarice Beaumont: then it wouldn't be called "philosophy" ^^ [13:38] herman Bergson: I guess at the end you may be puzzled yourself [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: after all the classes we came to we stil have the same questions [13:38] Qwark Allen: eheheheh [13:38] Qwark Allen: what is reality? [13:38] herman Bergson: I wouldnt agree with you Gemma... [13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:39] herman Bergson: I think that the questions arent the same anymore [13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: that may be true yes [13:39] Marya Blaisdale: sometimes the questions need to change, in order to find the right answers, maybe :) [13:39] herman Bergson: I mean..before you had only the question.. [13:40] herman Bergson: after you had the same question with a number of arguments related to it [13:40] Vladimir Apparatchik: As Dennett/Russell said, Marya [13:40] Marya Blaisdale: Nice that such famous people quote me then ;) [13:40] Vladimir Apparatchik: :) [13:40] herman Bergson smiles [13:41] herman Bergson: Well..I think you now all know what is awaiting you :-) [13:41] herman Bergson: Is there any question left unanswered? ^_^ [13:41] Alarice Beaumont: hmm..let me think ... [13:42] Alarice Beaumont: ^^ [13:42] herman Bergson: Ok..keep thinking Alarice ^_^ [13:42] Alarice Beaumont: lol [13:42] Alarice Beaumont: no... if it is ok.. i rather listen to you lol [13:42] herman Bergson smiles [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:42] herman Bergson: Ok... [13:43] herman Bergson: Then I thank you for your participation and look forward to see you on Thursday [13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ok thank you herman [13:43] Pippistrello Bonetto: a last question [13:43] Pippistrello Bonetto: was raffael a philosopher, as bruce nauman said the true artist is helping the world by revealing mystic truth? [13:43] Samuel Okelly: thanks herman :) [13:43] Paula Dix: it will be fun :)) [13:43] Marya Blaisdale: Thanks Herman [13:43] Pippistrello Bonetto: oke thats art [13:43] herman Bergson: He is known as a painter only Pippi [13:44] Pippistrello Bonetto: i know [13:44] Paula Dix: hmmmm as an atheist artist i protest the definition :)) [13:44] Pippistrello Bonetto: i know also its another theme [13:44] herman Bergson: what definition Paula..that he was a painter? [13:44] Thoth Jantzen: how about changing 'mystic' with 'deep'. [13:44] Laila Schuman: artists DO have subject matter... sometimes it is trivial... sometimes they tackle even the taboos of a society [13:45] Paula Dix: true painter reveals the mystic truth [13:45] Pippistrello Bonetto: nice [13:45] Laila Schuman: in fact..it is the mentally ill and the artists who are allowed to touch the taboos [13:45] Paula Dix: yes, deep or subjective [13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm [13:45] Laila Schuman: one because they don't know better... the other because it is their role [13:45] Thoth Jantzen: well, not always subjective. ;o) [13:45] Laila Schuman: so some artists are philosophers... but not all... each should be examined separately [13:46] Pippistrello Bonetto: right [13:46] herman Bergson: I worked 20 years in an Academy of Fine Art....I know painters ;-) [13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:46] Pippistrello Bonetto: per kirkeby is an artist , a philospher, a scientist,.... [13:46] Pippistrello Bonetto: see [13:46] herman Bergson: Some artists are philosophers..yes...but not because they are artists [13:47] Pippistrello Bonetto: because they are human? [13:47] Paula Dix: ive seen a nice definition, philosophy and art are two separate mountains, but from the top of any you can see the whole [13:47] Pippistrello Bonetto: the whole...? [13:47] herman Bergson: I dont like that romanticism about artists..:-) [13:47] Thoth Jantzen: except for the other side of the neighboring mountains. ;o) [13:47] Paula Dix: "whole" :) [13:47] Laila Schuman: if you look at pure science... and pure art... you can see that both are doing the same journey... to seek ... to push the boundaries... [13:47] Paula Dix: lol or under the mountain [13:48] herman Bergson: in the 16ht century the famous painters were just craftsmen. [13:48] Laila Schuman: philosophers too... and others [13:48] Marya Blaisdale: What is 'pure' art? [13:48] Pippistrello Bonetto: right herman [13:48] herman Bergson: Nothing philosophical about them [13:48] Paula Dix: Yes Laila, thats what i think, we all deal with the same things [13:48] Laila Schuman: that is true herman... they were commercial artists [13:48] Laila Schuman: leonardo and mike... commercial artists [13:49] herman Bergson: I dont agree with your idea about art Laila... [13:49] Samuel Okelly: not all artists have something of value to say [13:49] herman Bergson: It is a specific interpretation of art [13:49] Thoth Jantzen: that'd make the mona lisa the Marlboro Man of her day? hmm... [13:49] Laila Schuman: is ok herman... then we have something we can discuss [13:49] Thoth Jantzen ponders that one. [13:49] Pippistrello Bonetto: hmm look at leonardo's scetchbooks [13:49] Paula Dix: an history of art guy said there is no bad art, only people that dont get this or that work [13:50] Pippistrello Bonetto: pure scientism [13:50] herman Bergson: But to prevent that we end up in the famous SL continuous debate...Class dismissed [13:51] herman Bergson: We are discussin question 9 already ^_^ [13:51] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma [13:51] Pippistrello Bonetto: lol herman [13:51] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Gemma&quark :-)))

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-04-29 07:46:29

27 Susan Haack (1945 - ......)

[13:07] herman Bergson: This will be the last woman philosopher [13:07] herman Bergson: so the end of this project [13:07] herman Bergson: this means...a new project [13:07] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * :::::::::: [13:07] herman Bergson: I found a nice source [13:07] Qwark Allen: :-) [13:07] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:08] herman Bergson: not with philosophers but with funny philosophical questions [13:08] Daruma Boa: a quiz? [13:08] Ze Novikov: :)) [13:08] herman Bergson: Like....How damaging is skepticism? [13:08] herman Bergson: or Why does something become art all of a sudden? [13:09] herman Bergson: 25 adventurous philosophical questions [13:09] herman Bergson: It is based on the book of Stephen Law, The philosophy gym. (2003) [13:10] herman Bergson: Kind of all those questions you always wanted to ask [13:10] herman Bergson: But first Susan Haack [13:10] Daruma Boa: i am sure, that i alwasy wanted to ask that ;-) If you want to be in the frontline of the philosophical debate on epistemology, Theory of Knowledge, then you should turn to Susan Haack. She was educated at St Hilda's College, Oxford.- She did postgraduate work in Oxford and went to the University of Warwick as a Lecturer and later Professor of Philosophy. She is now a Professor at the University of Miami. In her book "Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology" (1993) she writes: -QUOTE Once upon a time - not so long ago, in fact - the legitimacy of epistemology was undisputed, the importance to epistemology of such concepts as evidence, reasons, warrant, justification was taken for granted, and the question of the relative merits of foundationalist and coherentist theories of justification, was acknowledged as an important issue. Now, however, it seems that disenchantment reigns. (...) A full explanation of the now-fashionable disenchantment would no doubt be quite complex, and would require appeal to factors external to the philosophical arguments, as well as to those arguments themselves. I don't think it is unduly cynical to speculate that part of the explanation of the urge to move away from familiar epistemological issues towards questions more amenable to resolution by cognitive psychology or neurophysiology, or A!, for example, lies in the prestige those disciplines now enjoy. But part of the explanation, and the part which concerns me here, lies in a widely-held conviction that the familiar epistemological issues have proved to be hopelessly recalcitrant, and, most particularly, that neither foundationalism nor coherentism will do. -END QUOTE Isn't it a wonderful description of the situation? A situation we have run into so often here ourselves. And we also learn the names of the new kids in class: foundationalism and coherentism. It is all about the justification of knowledge. That discourse already began with Plato and still goes on and there they are: foundationalism and coherentism, probably state of the art. I have to say probably because Susan Haack wrote this in 1993. So some insights may have changed, but I guess philosophy is not such a fast moving train so it still is interesting to have a look at these two new names. Foundationalism is any theory in knowledge, that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs . Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they enjoy a non-inferential warrant (or justification), i.e., they are not justified by other beliefs. What's new here? Not much actually, for it is nothing more than Descartes and Hume said. The foundational belief of Descartes (died in 1650) was "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, so I am) and Hume (died in 1776) said that the foundational belief was our primary sense experiences. So a statement is called TRUE if it refers to foundational believes or can be based on other statements that do so. As you see, you can choose to be a rationalist or an empiricist. The other one: coherentism? The problem with foundationalism is the threat of an infinite regress: on what is statement P founded? On statement R....and R? It is justified to ask on which belief R is founded and so on. Where to stop? Is coherentism the solution? As a theory of truth coherentism restricts true sentences to those that cohere with some specified set of sentences. Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other beliefs. Just one remark: you may have a coherent set of believes A, which corresponds to reality and another set B which does not but yet is coherent. But if one supposes that there can only be one complete set of truths, coherentism must provide a way to choose between these competing sets. Susan Haack offers a new solution, which she calls 'foundherenrism'. The word puzzles me. I read 'Found' and 'Here' in it. That is all. Well...what did she find? To throw light on the structure of knowledge, she uses the analogy of solving a crossword puzzle. Even if two people differ about the answer to a particular clué, they are using the same framework, and their aim is identical, to solve the whole puzzle. The framework of the crossword puzzle is the coherence of statements, the particular clué is the foundational belief, that has to fit in. This dates all back from 1993. Susan Haack is still doing fine, I guess. I'd love to know what the state of the art in epistemology now is: is her approach still holding? The Discussion [13:20] herman Bergson: So much on Susan Haack [13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: back to basics [13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:20] herman Bergson: Well... [13:20] herman Bergson: Just before class I read an interview with her [13:21] herman Bergson: it may explain her crossword puzzle analogy [13:21] herman Bergson: she has a rather liberal concept of science [13:21] herman Bergson: she calls it critical commonsensism [13:22] herman Bergson: a term derived from Charles Peirce, US pragmatic philosopher around 1900 [13:23] herman Bergson: It means that science is nothing more than and expansion of our commonsense thinking of every day [13:23] herman Bergson: except that it is more precise and more critical [13:23] herman Bergson: I liked that idea :-) [13:24] herman Bergson: Was about her book Defending Science: Within Reason Between Scientism and Cynicism (2003) [13:24] herman Bergson: Interview was 2007 [13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: ah [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: not in youtube?/ [13:25] Daruma Boa: ^^ [13:25] herman Bergson: It also reported that her book Philosophy of Logic was translated and published in China! 2008 [13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: or a magazine [13:25] herman Bergson: No....was some dutch translation.... [13:25] Daruma Boa: only in china? [13:25] herman Bergson: a sec [13:26] herman Bergson: Over dit boek sprak Susan Haack op 7 maart 2007 in een interview met D.J. Grothe bij Point of Inquiry, het digitale mediacentrum van Center for Inquiry. [13:26] Daruma Boa: ahha^^ [13:26] Alijah Rajesh smiles [13:26] herman Bergson: Point of Inquiry and Center for Inquiry are the links [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i just found something [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: from 2007 [13:26] herman Bergson: http://www.atheisme.eu/nl/entry/10/susan_haack__verdediging_ van_de_wetenschap [13:27] herman Bergson: that is the page with the links [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1241317 [13:27] herman Bergson: Is that the interview? [13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: i have not looked yet [13:28] herman Bergson: You certainly should find the english version [13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is [13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: this it [13:28] herman Bergson: It shows modern philosophical thought.... indeed a way to defend against scepticism [13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: long winded interviewer lol [13:29] herman Bergson: the idea that scientific thinking is just more precise daily thinking has a link to pragmatism [13:29] herman Bergson: there is no absolute truth in your veryday thoughts [13:29] Qwark Allen: ehheeheh tuff to read in dutch! at least to me :-) [13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: this is audio [13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: in my link [13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: english [13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i will listen later [13:30] herman Bergson: ok...I'll check it too [13:31] herman Bergson: But what is more important is that she drops the idea of absolute truth in science without falling into scepticism [13:31] herman Bergson: or relativism [13:32] herman Bergson: So a nice philosopher, leaving us behind as the last one of this project ^_^ [13:32] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free... [13:32] Daruma Boa: there is no 26th philosopher? [13:33] Daruma Boa: to be worth to talk about [13:33] herman Bergson: This one is already 27 Daruma [13:33] Daruma Boa: oh ha [13:33] Qwark Allen: eheheh [13:33] Qwark Allen: nice [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:33] Daruma Boa: i missed something^^ [13:33] herman Bergson: And to be honest..actually there are about 5 more in my list [13:33] Ze Novikov: 27 women is enough for you Herman? [13:33] Daruma Boa: ahhhhh i knew it;-) [13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: i doubt it [13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Ze....seems so :-) [13:34] Qwark Allen: ehheeheh [13:34] herman Bergson: women philosophers, Gemma ^_^ [13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: oh ok [13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:34] Ze Novikov: lol [13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha! [13:34] herman Bergson: in fact we have talked about 125 philosophers now [13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing [13:35] Ze Novikov: :)) [13:35] herman Bergson: I think it will be more fun now to put things to practice [13:35] herman Bergson: in philosophical questions [13:35] Daruma Boa: i think too. [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: i think that is what we have been ending up with anyway [13:36] Daruma Boa: when will we start with the next project? [13:36] herman Bergson: Ah..the start of the NEXT project... [13:36] herman Bergson: Good question [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: i think Herman needs a vacation [13:36] herman Bergson: Due to RL obligations I wont be here on Thursday... [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:36] Daruma Boa: i have either no time [13:37] herman Bergson: So..indeed Gemma....a break of a few days ...till Next Tuesday..:-) [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:37] herman Bergson: Besides it is such sunny weather this week :-) [13:37] Daruma Boa: oh. thats bad. i have no time then [13:37] Daruma Boa: yes!! [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: it would be nice to send a notice outlining the new project to teh group aand teh break [13:37] Daruma Boa: in germany too [13:38] herman Bergson: That is what I will do Gemma.... [13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:38] herman Bergson: 25 entertaining philosophical questions...^_^ [13:39] herman Bergson: not taken lightly however :-) [13:39] Daruma Boa: is every class written in your blog, herman? [13:39] Daruma Boa: so i could read it [13:40] herman Bergson: Of course Daruma....there are about 179 entries now in the blog ^_^ [13:40] Daruma Boa: i am in class on the 5th of may;-( [13:40] herman Bergson: http://www.thoughts.com/herman_bergson/ [13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: you can catch up Daruma [13:41] Daruma Boa: ok. so i will read the next lesson on tuesday and thursday [13:41] herman Bergson: They will be in the blog...:-) [13:42] herman Bergson: Any questions left..? [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: not that i can think of [13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: no [13:43] herman Bergson: Well..then I hope to see you again on next Tuesday ^_^ [13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-) [13:43] Daruma Boa: thank u herman [13:43] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman ******* [13:43] Qwark Allen: thank you [13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: thank you Herman and i know you really enjoyed it [13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: and changed some ideas of your own i think [13:43] herman Bergson: the project was a revelation to me.... [13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: with the women [13:43] Anne Charles: Thanks, Professor, enjoy your day off [13:44] herman Bergson: to learn what jurks male philosophers can be ^_^ [13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!!! [13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE*********** [13:44] Daruma Boa: so bye until may;-) [13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: lololololoool [13:44] herman Bergson: Take care Daruma :-)

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-04-22 04:40:07

26b Luce Irigaray again

Luce Irigaray was the second contemporary philosopher that explicitely focused on the position of women. Like I did, she wonders about the exclusion of women from the history of philosophy. And as an interdisciplinary thinker she added psychoanalytic theory and structural linguistics. In the former lecture I already pointed at her observation that our language is remarkably male oriented or to use Irigaray's words we should talk of "phallocentric and phallocratic". Characteristic of her concept of feminism is, that feminism for her doesnt mean the effort as a woman to become a man's equal, but to emphasize femininity and sexual difference and to claim equal respect for male and female. Irigaray argues that, since ancient times, mothers have been associated with nature and unthinking matter. Further,she believes that all women have historically been associated with the role of "mother" such that, whether or not a woman is a mother, her identity is always defined according to that role. Our philosophical roots are found in the Greek culture and it is well known what the position of men and women was in those days. Not to mention Aristotle's idea about the woman as a defective or incomplete man. In many of her texts, Irigaray seeks to unveil how both psychoanalytic theory and philosophy exclude women from a genuine social existence as autonomous subjects, and relegate women to the realm of inert, lifeless, inessential matter. The negative views of women, according to Irigaray, has nothing to do with the biological differences between the sexes. The differences are products of theories in philosophy or e.g. psychoanalysis, which have mainly been formulated only by men. While you may critizise Aristotle of being the source of all European thinking about the woman, we see this by men formulated theories still 100% alive in the Arabic world. Western culture will have to accept new paradigms for understanding women. Irigaray believes that language systems are malleable, and largely determined by power relationships that are in flux. So the emancipation of women can be achieved by freeing language systems of their phallocentric orientation and changing power relationships. What is importantant to Irigaray is, that the relation between the sexes is not a ahistorical fact. The way Luce Irigaray hopes to change things is by anaylizing the position of women, using a method she calls mimesis. Mimesis is a term from the arts and means the effort of the artist, painter or sculpture to stay as close as possible to reality in his work. As a philosophical method it means a process of resubmitting women to stereotypical views of women in order to call the views themselves into question. For example if it is stereotypical to see women as illogical, women should give a logical analysis of this view. You will have to read her books to learn how she uses this method, which she also calls 'strategic essentialism', which may mean something like formulating a stereotypical essence of the woman, just as a strategic move with the only purpose to show that this stereotype doesnt hold. The ultimate dream of Luce Irigaray is that we will live in a world of a true independent male and female (sexual) identity as two indepentent subjects. The bridge between these subjects will be created by love. From the love for yourself should develop the love for the other. It is unclear whether or not Irigaray is suggesting that the heterosexual couple is the model for ethical relationships. This means that the questions stays unanswered in what way her ideas apply to other than man - woman (love) relations. I leave it to you to find out what the importance is of these philosophical ideas. What I regard as an important contribution to understanding the position of women in our culture is her analysis of language and making us aware of how the man - woman relation is embedded in our culture. The Discussion herman Bergson: Sofar Luce Irirgaray :-) Gemma Cleanslate: what did you not like of her writing?? since she was a linguist also??? Gemma Cleanslate: i have not read her work at all Gemma Cleanslate: just about her philosophy which i liked herman Bergson: Well she is critizes on her style of writing...and I tried to read one chapter myself herman Bergson: To understand it I had to read it backwards.... Gemma Cleanslate: lololol Alarice Beaumont: ? herman Bergson: reading the last paragraph...understanding the conclusion... Gemma Cleanslate: maybe it was the translation???? Gemma Cleanslate: ah i see Cruella Muggins: well she got the love part right herman Bergson: then go back one paragraph to figure out how she came to that conslusion and so on :-) Cruella Muggins: well she said if I understood Gemma Cleanslate: ah well i have done that lots of times to be honest herman Bergson: Yes it was in English....French would have been even more difficult Cruella Muggins: love yourself then you can love others herman Bergson: Yes.... Cruella Muggins: which is correct Cruella Muggins: start backwards Cruella Muggins: yes herman Bergson: her basic idea is that you first have to develop your own identity ...as woman ..and as man too Cruella Muggins: halleluyah Cruella Muggins: is my belief Cruella Muggins: but she uses lots of big words Alarice Beaumont: but isn'tr it true? you cannot love someone else if you don't love yourself herman Bergson: And in her idea of this relation between man and woman she is a kind of dialectic.. Cruella Muggins: yes* Gemma Cleanslate: most philosophers do Cruella Muggins: what love themselves herman Bergson: Yes Alarice....that is true and even in then ten commandments Cruella Muggins: is that true Herman Gemma Cleanslate: the simple words make a philosopher sound like they do not know what they aer talking about herman Bergson: What should be true Cruella Cruella Muggins: That one should love oneself Cruella Muggins: primo Rentboy Benoir: i love myself every night herman Bergson: Well...I think it is a basic insight... Rentboy Benoir: no kidding Alarice Beaumont: lol herman Bergson: I mean....if you cant handle yourself, dont accept yourself as a person....how will you relate to another? Cruella Muggins: If you don t love yourself how can you possibly grasp the meaning of love Alarice Beaumont: yes.. that is a good question Rentboy Benoir: what i mean is i think it doesnt just apply to heterosexual relationships Cruella Muggins: me neither Alarice Beaumont: one has to find oneself first..ohterwise one is never content with others Rentboy Benoir: but to relationships herman Bergson: no not at all...I agree... Rentboy Benoir: any relationship Cruella Muggins: love is asexual Rentboy Benoir: it is herman Bergson: It is just that Irigaray emphasizes the man - woman relation so much in hetr work Samuel Okelly: what is love? Alarice Beaumont: respect is perhaps the better word?! Cruella Muggins: all encompassing Cruella Muggins: lol Rentboy Benoir: when did she write her work herman Bergson: Well Samuel...that is exactly what I dont like that much in her philosophy... Rentboy Benoir: ? Alarice Beaumont: well.. i think because of the big difference Herman... man to man.. they accept each other herman Bergson: Introducing a term like Love as an explanation how man and woman can relate Cruella Muggins: lost me Gemma Cleanslate: yesterday Samuel Okelly: rather a cliché question in some eways but an important one none the less if we are to understand her i imagine? Gemma Cleanslate: still living herman Bergson: I dont get much excited about that part of her philosophy herman Bergson: Waht really made sense to me is her linguistic analysis herman Bergson: Maybe because that is the most empirical part of her philosophy :-) herman Bergson: I am also not so interested in her psychoanalytic ideas Cruella Muggins: so what makes her interesting to you herman Bergson: Only in the sense that they express a real male thinking....Freud had no feeling for women Samuel Okelly: i have always felt that the empricists only take us so far along the road but never the full distance herman Bergson: As I said...by showing how language shapes the relations between man and woman and designate her position hope63 Shepherd: so who takes us all the way sam? Cruella Muggins: oh Cruella Muggins: or his Samuel Okelly: another great question hope ;) herman Bergson: yes...or his position :-) Rentboy Benoir: could you think of a specific example of language use Cruella Muggins: yes hope63 Shepherd: would need a profound knowledge oh history of humaity to get close to an answer.. Cruella Muggins: because why does a womans position have to be designated Cruella Muggins: and a mans never herman Bergson: Luce Irigaray did language experiments herself... Alarice Beaumont: yes.. for example the names of professions.... they used only to be in male language Alarice Beaumont: they changed the endings... so the same job now works with men and women Rentboy Benoir: ok Cruella Muggins: if only that Alarice Beaumont: at least in germany herman Bergson: She gave little assignments to formulate certain sentences... Samuel Okelly: why should we assign a greater value for equality over and at the expense of difference? Cruella Muggins: who takes us all the way herman Bergson: almost everyone, male and female students used the word He where they easily could have used the word SHE Cruella Muggins: nobody takes us Laila Schuman: yes Samuel herman Bergson: in their sentences Cruella Muggins: we go it alone Cruella Muggins: male female Cruella Muggins: same difference Cruella Muggins: yes but we can t change history Cruella Muggins: but we can evolve herman Bergson: It is not about equality, I would say Alarice Beaumont: yes Cruella Muggins: no Gemma Cleanslate: :-) Cruella Muggins: not really herman Bergson: In the first place it is about fully respect the sexual identity of the other Gemma Cleanslate: :-) Laila Schuman: or is it about power... Cruella Muggins: that is the word Cruella Muggins: RESPECT herman Bergson: without for instance associating female with motherhood by definition so to speak Alarice Beaumont: power.. might no be so wrong herman Bergson: and then putting the woman in a specific role Cruella Muggins: it defines so much last time icqme we talked about Laila Schuman: i contend that those in power are afraid of losing it... Cruella Muggins: the concept of rudeness Samuel Okelly: listening to feminist writers we would certainly be forgiven for thinking that is precisely what the feminists movement wants for women in society "equality" Samuel Okelly: we can equally respect "difference" Laila Schuman: right again Samuel.... i personally want fairness and justice Rentboy Benoir: i wonder how much of this is social conditioning and how much of it is nature? herman Bergson: I prefer to focus on ethics here. Gemma Cleanslate: it is a difficult thing universally herman Bergson: It is not eqaulity but equal rights for all human beings, male or female Gemma Cleanslate: very true herman Bergson: and I think that that is her point too herman Bergson: And that is also the reason that the emphasizes the sexual difference between man and woman Cruella Muggins: what are they? herman Bergson: That is for a biology class to explain, Cruella ^_^ Cruella Muggins: lol Samuel Okelly: clearly as there are physical differences it is reasonable to assume there will be social and cultural differences pertaining to the sexes but as laila pointed out i would prefer the focus to be on the ethics of fairness and justice herman Bergson: But philosophically I cant think of differences between men and women Alarice Beaumont: i think that's just what she wanted Cruella Muggins: no essential ones anyway herman Bergson: I cant think of any :-) Alarice Beaumont: respect for all... no different treatment in thinking herman Bergson: Yes Alarice Laila Schuman: it seems the female philosophers have an historical thread Laila Schuman: of being interested in ethics Cruella Muggins: want to be recognised Cruella Muggins: first herman Bergson: I think it is dangerous to say that Laila... hope63 Shepherd: females act like a minority group.. not knowing what po Laila Schuman: why hope63 Shepherd: power they could have.. Cruella Muggins: I dont believe that herman Bergson: We have seen a number of woman thinkers that were interested in metaphysics, epistemology, logic Cruella Muggins: that is patronizing Laila Schuman: of course... i did not mean exclusively ethics Samuel Okelly: there are biological differences regarding childbirth that will influence cultural and social attitudes... Laila Schuman: but i do see a thread Samuel Okelly: personally i think it is too simplistic to say "once the child is born then anyone can just do the same job" Gemma Cleanslate: i agree laila Laila Schuman: Samuel you are on a roll! i agree again! herman Bergson: There is no reason why it has to be a rule that everyone should be able to do the same job... Rentboy Benoir: but anyone can rear a child Laila Schuman: ahem herman Bergson: You can do any job you are talented for, I would say Gemma Cleanslate: oh i am not so sure rentboy Laila Schuman: yes Gemma Cleanslate: it is not like raising a puppy herman Bergson: There are good parents and bad parents...like there are good mechanics and bad mechanics Samuel Okelly: i think parents are by necessity muti-talented Laila Schuman: there are women who should not be caring for children... so it is not a feminist thing Rentboy Benoir: it makes little diffeence if the child is reared by a single father or a single mother Gemma Cleanslate: should be Cruella Muggins: anyone can put on a pampers Rentboy Benoir: am i on the right track here Gemma Cleanslate: welll Gemma Cleanslate: i have to disagree Gemma Cleanslate: there are differences Laila Schuman: no Rentboy...i truely believe the child will be affected Alarice Beaumont: yes.. i would agree with gemma Gemma Cleanslate: it can be done herman Bergson: First of all...educating kids is the work of amateurs :-) Samuel Okelly: the demands of parenting are great and require many skills that give rise to different "roles" Laila Schuman: my father died when i was three Rentboy Benoir: well Alarice Beaumont: you need both parents for a balanced raising of a child herman Bergson: you dont need a certificate or licence to educate children Rentboy Benoir: what is balanced Cruella Muggins: well I raised mine alone Cruella Muggins: they ok Alarice Beaumont: i did not say they wouldn't be ok... ,-)) Gemma Cleanslate: balanced is the different types of nurturing that help development Alarice Beaumont: it's hard job to do it alone... to find the right balance Rentboy Benoir: i know a single dad whos daughter is the most inteeligent "balanced", and adorable girl ever herman Bergson: I think we can end this discussion on educational theory ^_^ Gemma Cleanslate: great Gemma Cleanslate: lol Gemma Cleanslate: ok Laila Schuman: yes Alarice Beaumont: :-) herman Bergson: Of little philosophical importance Gemma Cleanslate: once a teacher always a teacher herman Bergson: I hope you now have some idea about the philosphy of Luce Irigaray... Gemma Cleanslate: :-) Cruella Muggins: love Cruella Muggins: is what i retained herman herman Bergson: Her Linguistic philosophy, her psychoanalytical approach herman Bergson: and yes..her final solution between the sexes being love herman Bergson: But there she had specific ideas too Laila Schuman: God is love Samuel Okelly: :) herman Bergson: Love was not a union between man and woman.... Cruella Muggins: see Cruella Muggins: got it right herman Bergson: in her opinion yoiu have the love for the other....and what comes into being is something new herman Bergson: the love between two persons herman Bergson: as I said..kind of dialectics Alarice Beaumont: hmm Samuel Okelly: greeks spoke of agape love as opposed to "eros" or "philia" Laila Schuman: nods herman Bergson: Yes..Samuel..maybe you could compare it with that idea herman Bergson: Well...then I would end this class by wishing LOVE to you all ^_^ hope63 Shepherd: agape.. isn't that diving without oxygen? hope63 Shepherd: until you faint? Cruella Muggins: in abundance Gemma Cleanslate: oh Hope Ze Novikov: :)) Gemma Cleanslate: you are truely hopeless Cruella Muggins: apne Hope Ze Novikov: lol Rentboy Benoir: kiss kiss Samuel Okelly: cheerio for now every1:) herman Bergson laughs Laila Schuman: baiee Sam Cruella Muggins: bye all herman Bergson: Bye Samuel Cruella Muggins: before you go Laila Schuman: Baiee Cru Ze Novikov: ty herman see you next time everyone herman Bergson: Bye Gemma :-) Laila Schuman: ZE! Alarice Beaumont: bye samuel Alarice Beaumont: bye gemma :-) hope63 Shepherd: bye sam.. Rentboy Benoir: thanks Cruella Muggins: Bye Herman Rentboy Benoir: and bye Rentboy Benoir: sir Cruella Muggins: and thankyou herman Bergson: Be well Cruella ^_^ Cruella Muggins: will try herman Bergson: We missed Ariostotle today :-) herman Bergson: Hi Laila Laila Schuman: hi hope63 Shepherd: yes..to b ad.. herman Bergson: Didnt see you enter the class Alarice Beaumont: yes.. he is very busy this week...hoped he would make it.. Laila Schuman: i had to pry people off the computer to get here hope63 Shepherd: aristoteles and his commentaries on love could have been something:) Laila Schuman: now i must give it baci Alarice Beaumont: lol Laila ;-) Laila Schuman: baiee all herman Bergson: A pitty ..:-( Laila Schuman: yeah Alarice Beaumont: bye Laila herman Bergson: Bye Laila hope63 Shepherd: bye alila.. Laila Schuman: bye Al... bye Hope Cruella Muggins: bye Laila Schuman: baiee prof. Cruella Muggins: civilised place here You can smoke Cruella Muggins: you herman Bergson: yes you can Cruella..:-) Cruella Muggins: :)))))))

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-04-21 15:12:15