 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 80 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2609023 Today 7 Topics 127236 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes the dark moments of your life never leave you thats for sure, ive had my fair share, not to the same level as your describing perhaps, its good your still alive in that case. At the least you have alot of life experience, its hard to put a shine on things like that happening to you, but you seem to be able to have a fair healthy perspective on things, cant say id be as resilient in that sort of situation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know if I'd paint trauma as "life experience". but it's only recently when my life is... well. Less trauma filled. After becoming street homeless, my advocate (provided to me by a charity), after going to councils and being told to fuck off, because I wasn't "vulnerable enough", got me hostel places. A week or two of staying in churches overnight! It was mighty bizarre. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
was all this taking place in london, did you family know of your situation? where do you live now? and is your life more stable? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes life experince probably doesnt sound like a suitable phrase, if used in the usual context. It is experience though it changes you being for the rest of your life for good or ill |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, to be honest, my experiences are also conflated with the fact I'm transgender. I started working outside of London, which is unfortunately where my first work-related 'event' happened. It was getting more and more difficult, for a number of reasons, for me to remain in my hometown. I moved to London, and continued working a job, with prostitution as a sideline to fund medical expenses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you needed to fun money for medical procedures? sounds like you have had a hell of a time, hows long have you been out of it all~? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd like to "defend" myself quickly here. (A) Nobody can identify the 2 persons I mentioned in the original post. (B) They are both very open about being/having been escorts and their mental health issues. So I'm not passing on secrets. The conversation I desribed in the original post also happened in public with other people listenting in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Monoid's answer that - leaving crimes such as rape aside - "the problem" with prostitution comes from the fact that sex - in "normal" circumstances - is connected to love and friendship .. strikes me as quite plausible. If you don't mind getting into it. Did you feel that having sex for money interferred with your capability to form loving or friendly relationships in general? .. Also, glad to hear that you seem to have made some progress regarding your traumatic experiences and hope you'll continue getting better |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not for medical procedures, but for medication itself. I haven't done it in maybe two years, and hopefully will never have to, again. Circumstances made this the only viable option, and I hope that circumstances will never once more fall upon me where this is even considerable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well I hope you benign afresh, and not let the terrible things that have happened hold you back. The past doesnt exist anywhere apart from your own mind now, I hope your doing much better, never nice to hear about suffering even if i dont know you what so ever, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sex, does not necessarily tie to love and friendship, and vice versa. I am currently in a deep and loving relationship, and have my strongest emotional bond with another being, and have discovered how to correctly (for myself, and others) utilise trust in a relationship. Sometimes my PTSD can mean I cannot have sex, but I am with someone who respects "stop", and "no". I have had consensual sex with people who I have pursued no additional conversation, I have had romantic relationships and intense close friendships without sexuality. Sex, for some, is something reserved for someone they are comfortable with, in a relationship with, or trust immensely. For others, sex can be an activity they pursue with no need or want for emotional connection. Some don't feel like sex is an activity or idea they would ever pursue. Sexuality is a wider spectrum than any one person can dictate, but I have personally existed within these three mentioned. Right now, I reserve my sexuality for someone of whom I share intense trust with. It's for the individual to decide what sex means to them, and to communicate it with the parties involved, so there's no misunderstanding. Remember "normal" only exists to dictate a mass. Are you blob, or are you being? What's normal for you, can be weird for another. It's subjectif innit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sex, love and friendship should be taken off the market in a perfect world. That which is scared does not have a price but an intrinisic value. The sancity of the human person, sex and love. We must vest our love and desire in things to which we assign an intrinisic, rather than an instrumental, value, so that the pursuit of means can come to rest, for us in a place of ends I doesn't outrage me if people hire prostitutes or that people work in such jobs. But personally i am deeply conservative and sceptical about the whole issue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good to hear that your past experiences are no real hindrance in forming deep and trustful loving relationships. You can't get better things than love and trust, I feel. Thanks for sharing your perspective |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you're skeptical, I'm happy to answer questions you may have. And thank you, Welt. It's not always easy to share things like this, but this is an opportunity to divulge information to people who may not have other means of attaining answers to difficult questions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I remember you being a materialst atheist. Yet you describe sex, love and friendship as sacred (which is traditionally a religious concept ... and it's not clear if that concept can survive without it's religious context). .. How is it possible then that these things are "sacred"? What's the ontological basis, so to speak, of that statement? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes it is. I used it merly because i am not aware of an equivalent concept in non-religious ethics. The point tho is, that socialists are not alone in pointing out the corrosive effects of the market, and in emphasizing the distinction between things with a value and things with a price. Christian conservative share this scepticism to some extent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But within capitalism, or even socialism, who are you to decide what the individual chooses to give? I don't see how you can prescribe a tenet of sacredness to something that is not a social property. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if I didn't think monoid was just a troll persona I'd say he's the xltronic personality most likely to convert to traditional Catholicism. Everything about him reeks of frustrated traditionalism and a strong disgust response towards the ostensibly "profane" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But sacredness is just about peoples' attitudes of reverence towards this or that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don’t think you can say that the concept of sacredness refers JUST to the attitude of reverence. Why? Because the attitude of reverence is not understood by the devout person as something that springs up randomly and subjectively in the devout person but as the correct attitude towards external reality. So Muslims treat the Kaaba as sacred because of the more fundamental belief that God as an independent reality ordered its construction as a place of worship. … With your (re-)interpretation of the meaning of "sacredness" the concern for external reality seems to drop out of the picture. But people clearly are interested in measuring up to an external reality. … Are they not? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think sacredness and reverence always concern something "external" that transcends the self, yes. And it goes beyond subjective experience into cultural practices and norms, and shared values. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I do like this place sometimes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
still a mystery isnt it, i think perhaps due to it being multifaceted in origin, kind of like how brown do you like your toast, the reasoning can be anything |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So ... we agree here, so far so good .... but I sensed some disagreement when you came up with that characterization of sacredness ... you must have wanted to make SOME point, I guess |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think we do disagree, because nothing in my expanded description of sacredness and reverence conflicts with naturalism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree that your definition doesn't conflict with naturalism. Even if naturalism is true the term "sacredness" still has comprehensible meaning. I'm not sure though if you agree with the following. If naturalism is true, then all propositions of the form "X is sacred" must be false. Why? Because nature merely is. If you look at the world as natural then you can only describe how it is, not how it ought to be. But things which are sacred are things which you OUGHT to revere. So naturalism means that it's false than anything sacred exists. So ... anything you agree or disagree with here ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's weird to me is that divine command theory is a form of subjectivism. I think if moral propositions are truth bearers, they have to be objectively and necessarily true. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(oh, I'm confusing subjectivism and noncognitivism, but you get my point I think) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I also find divine command theory strange and not entirely comprehensible. However, it’s not as if you have to choose between either (A) naturalism or (B) divine command theory. These are not the only options. But, as I said above, I think that if naturalism is true, then nothing sacred can exist and no absolute moral obligations can exist (because understanding the world as nature means looking at it as a collection of purposeless, neutral facts). … So if - for whatever reason - you don’t accept that a proposition such as "You shouldn’t rape innocent children" is not objectively true/only something like a social convention, then you have to bite the bullet and accept that a "supernatural“"realm exists (whatever it looks like in detail). And if - for whatever reason - you accept naturalism, then, I think, you have to bite the bullet and accept that raping children and so on is not objectively wrong. …. I’m very open to arguments to the contrary, however. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In order for you to believe that it's not wrong to rape a child if naturalism is the case, you'd have to believe that raping a child is only contingently / conditionally wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(because understanding the world as nature means looking at it as a collection of purposeless, neutral facts) In the supernaturalist's caricature of naturalism, there are only parts, never wholes, and certainly never supervenience. It's something like Ryle's category mistake, except it occurs in various domains, not just philosophy of mind (where it also occurs). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think I might have some idea why you find the idea weird that necessary moral facts are only true if certain other metaphysical facts hold. Let’s see if what you have in mind roughly matches the following. If you look at a proposition like "You shouldn’t rape children" [P1] and ( a ) assume that it expresses something like a necessary moral fact and ( b ) further assume, that the obligation is only necessary if the further seperate fact holds that there is a "supernatural" entity which makes the moral demand objectively true …. THEN it looks as if P1 is ironically and weirdly not necessarily true, but only contingently true, depending on whether that curious supernatural entity makes it true or not. HOWEVER, that only shows, I think, that "moral facts" are NOT MADE TRUE BY OTHER MORE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS, but that "Being Itself", for the lack of a better term, has an inherently moral structure, form or shape. Why? If something exists necessarily it can’t depend on anything else, so it must be given due to "the very form of Being". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So what’s the problem with naturalism and morality then, if "Being Itself" has an inherently moral structure (and you don’t need, let’s say, God as a law-giver)? Doesn’t nature then just have an "inherently moral structure"? The problem is that naturalism claims that "Being Itself" indeed does have a specific form, namely, that Being Itself is what is revealed by the natural sciences .. and these natural sciences show the universe as an a-moral, neutral place, which is free of value. … So now you claim, it seems, that there’s in the end not a contradiction between naturalism and moral obligations because of supervenience. So I actually agree that in principle supervenience could be a way out. However, there’s such a deep flaw when it comes to supervenience, that I personally find it difficult (even though not 100% impossible) to see it as a serious alternative. If ( a ) naturalism means that the "basic stuff" of the world is the material universe as described by physics and ( b ) objective moral facts supervene on the facts described by physics, then ( c ) it seems you would need a BRIDGING PRINCIPLE to explain how you get from the value-free propositions of physics to objective moral facts. But do you have an example for even a roughly plausible bridging-principle? I’m open to hearing about them, but I haven’t yet encountered one. Maybe you think we DON’T need a bridging principle. But then I’d like to hear, why you dont’t think so. Or maybe you think my definition of naturalism is wrong. But then I’d like to hear why an alternative definition would be better. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
by noted theist Richard Swinburne talking about necessary moral facts, which would be so whether or not there's a God, and how moral facts supervene on non-moral facts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
money has made whores of us all, we all suckle at the devil teat |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I understand your point. Is that bridge possibly even beyond the realm of our understanding of quantum physics? What is the bridge between the body and the mind? Human morals differ from "nature's morals", maybe. But what's important here is the mind that thinks the moral up, not the moral. For me at least. You could look at things from a point of view and say all our morals come from selfishness. That the "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you" is actually born out of an act of selfishness. For survival possibly; as an alternative to just beating the crap out of anything and anyone for power. Oh fuck I'm spouting shite again. I'll stop now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are you all instinctive people would you say? Like when you go to see a prostitute, is it instinct talking, or your mind? Yes sure it's both. Goodnight! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think altruism is advantageous in an evolutionary sense. It seems to me morals emerge systemically as a consequence of natural cooperation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He should ask himself what makes god intrinsically moral in the first place, but then his brain would end up in some sort of freaky loop, im guessing his answer would be, cos he is god |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't bother, his demand for a "bridging principle" is a tactic. It's like when a creationist asks for a transitional form between two species. Does finding the transitional fossil satisfy the demand? No, it just creates two new gaps. Saying that God accounts for something ostensibly mysterious doesn't solve the mystery, because God becomes functionally equivalent to saying "I don't know". In other words, they are literally worshiping and celebrating ignorance. As Spinoza put it, "...he who seeks the true causes of miracles and is eager to understand the works of Nature as a scholar, and not just to gape at them like a fool, is uniÂversally considered an impious heretic and denounced by those to whom the common people bow down as interpreters of Nature and the gods. For these people know that the dispelling of ignorance would entail the disappearance of that astonishment, which is the one and only support for their argument and for safeguarding their authority." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good point. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So to sum up: welt: Hey, it’s a really interesting question, how out of lifeless matter there could arise something such as consciousness and morality. Because matter, as normally understood, is morally neutral and unconscious. fleet mouse: The answer is supervenience. welt: So how does it work then? fleetmouse: It works, I don’t know how it works, but it definitely works. welt: So you don’t think it’s fair to want an explanation? fleetmouse: No, wanting explanations for Supervenience is ignorant. You just have to accept it, otherwise you are worshipping ignorance. That’s just bizarre and seems very intellectually insecure. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I actually feel like commenting more seriously on the other raised issues. But I don't have all that much time and I feel a bit like talking to a Social Justice Warrior, who shuts down every rational challenge with "Sexist! Racist! Islamophobe!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everyone's made interesting points. Bless us trying to work it all out! Welt: Fleetmouse can seem tough, but deep down he's a softy at heart. I think he enjoys the debates, not the put downs. I don't see bad intentions here. You bring up Spinoza, peeps, what about Descartes? His aim at one point as a philosopher was to prove the existence of God. Augustin of Hippon was the first to give it a proper go, if I'm not mistaken. Schroedinger's God. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, okay. .... Be it so. I'll just try to answer the most important point for now.. The "God-of-the-gabs" accusation seems to be based on a deep mis-understanding of the nature of explanation. So what’s the structure of an explanation? - You have (a) some un-explained state of affairs, which needs explaining and (b) an explanation, which does the explaining, but does not itself get explained. Example: (a) Why is the moon very similar in chemical make-up to the earth? (b) Because the material of the moon was once part of the earth, but an interplantery rock crashed into the earth and the moon formed from the debris. This is an explanation, even though the explanation is not itself explained. It’s not explained why the rock crashed into the earth. Now you can of course often go on explaining the explanation, but eventually you will have to come to an end. So where do explanations come to an end? I’d say the ending-point of all explanations is a claim about something like "the very structure of Being Itself". So materialist naturalists don’t explain where matter comes from. And they don’t need to. From the point of view of the materialist it’s fair to say: I don’t need to explain where matter comes from, because ultimate Reality as such just is material. That’s the end. And similarly people who claim that consciousness or values are part of the basic make-up of Reality or Being Itself, don’t need to explain where these aspects „come from“. They just express what Being is. That’s the end. So now the question emerges: What is most rational to accept as the basic structure of Being? … And here materialistic naturalists get into an awkward position. Because they actively deny that consciousness and moral values are part of the "Basic Form of Reality", it follows logically that since they are not grounds, they are grounded. So now, as a materialist, you have to come up with an explanation how mental and moral phenomena are grounded in material reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
(And let’s be real here. It’s not as if the demand for an explanation of supervenience is something non-naturalists come up with, because they are weird people and have an irrational aversion towards naturalism. Naturalists have tried to come up for decades with explanations. It’s just that they fail again and again and again.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its an ecumenical matter |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Was that from Father Ted? I know that it's a line from some comedy series! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
