#metaphysics and ethics

[onecornerface]

On "gender fraud" and against the "Real Identities" defense of trans people

Trans people are often accused of committing "gender fraud." Sometimes this accusation is made in the sexual context, e.g. "tricking" a cis straight person into having "homosexual sex." And some politicians are now aiming to make it a "gender fraud" crime to use gender identifications (in documents or other official contexts) that differ from assigned natal sex. There is also a popular longstanding trope that depicts transfemmes in particular of being deceivers (cf. scholarship by Julia Serano and Talia Bettcher).

A common rebuttal to the "gender fraud" allegation is what I'll call the "Real Identities" defense. According to this view, trans people "really are" the genders they self-identify as, so they are not committing fraud. I disagree with this argument. In fact, I think this argument is bad for many trans people.

First, many trans people do not have a clear or stable conception of their own gender identities, or they take a long time to reach such a clear and stable conception. Many of today's trans men will identify as nonbinary in ten years, and vice versa. Many of today's femboys will identify as trans women in ten years, and vice versa. The Real Identities defense privileges the subset of trans people with long-term stable gender identities (or conceptions thereof)-- and discriminates against the subset of trans people whose gender identities (or conceptions thereof) change over time. Moreover, young trans people are likely to experience more such changes, so the Real Identities defense is likely ageist.

Second, many trans people have gender identities that are not readily communicable to cis people or to mainstream gender conceptual frameworks (or perhaps even to other trans people). Some transfemmes do not readily identify either as trans women or as nonbinary in a straightforward way. But they might need to oversimplify their gender identity to "woman" or "nonbinary" to make it intelligible to cis people-- but in a possibly misleading way. The Real Identities defense implies they will be at perpetual risk of committing "gender fraud" if they choose the "wrong" form of oversimplified communication to cis people-- even when such oversimplified forms of communication are their only options.

Third, for a wide variety of reasons, many pre-transition or non-transitioning trans people are not open about their trans status, and they purport to be cis people. The Real Identities defense implies that many closeted trans people commit "gender fraud" by failing to come out as trans. But that's ridiculous. People obviously have a right not to come out as trans. So either this isn't gender fraud, or gender fraud is permissible after all.

A further problem is that it is not clear what it means to say that trans people's identities are real-- and it is not clear that there are knock-down arguments in favor of the claim that trans people's identities are real. The Real Identities argument against "gender fraud" allegations appears to hold the rights of trans people hostage to questionable metaphysics and obscure gender theories. Is ethics really so strongly downstream from metaphysics and linguistics? I doubt it.

The better argument against "gender fraud" is that trans (and other) people have strong presumptive rights of privacy to facts about their own biological, historical, psychological, and ontological status. Under most circumstances, cis people and institutions do not have a right to know these facts.

A similar argument was made by Florence Ashley, who also argues against what I've called the Real Identities defense in the context of "gender fraud" and "rape by deception" allegations when there is nondisclosure of trans status when having sex. They make a rigorous defense of trans people's rights to privacy.

[philosophybits]

Morals themselves remain subject to all sorts of corruption as long as we are without that clue and supreme norm by which to appraise them correctly.

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

[apesoformythoughts]

“One general description of madness, it seems to us, might be found in the statement that madness is a preference for the symbol over that which it represents. The most obvious example is the religious maniac, in whom the worship of Christianity involves the negation of all those ideas of integrity and mercy for which Christianity stands.

But there are many other examples. Money, for example, is a symbol; it symbolises wine and horses and beautiful vesture and high houses, the great cities of the world and the quiet tent by the river. The miser is a madman, because he prefers money to all these things; because he prefers the symbol to the reality.

But books are also a symbol; they symbolise man's impression of existence, and it may at least be maintained that the man who has come to prefer books to life is a maniac after the same fashion as the miser. A book is assuredly a sacred object. In a book certainly the largest jewels are shut in the smallest casket. But that does not alter the fact that superstition begins when the casket is valued more than the jewels. This is the great sin of idolatry, against which religion has so constantly warned us […]

Idolatry exists wherever the thing which originally gave us happiness becomes at last more important than happiness itself. Drunkenness, for example, may be fairly described as an engrossing hobby. And drunkenness is, when really comprehended in its inward and psychological reality, a typical example of idolatry […]

Now in this sense bibliomania is capable of becoming a kind of drunkenness. There is a class of men who do actually prefer books to everything with which books are concerned, to lovely places, to heroic actions, to experiment, to adventure, to religion. They read of godlike statues, and are not ashamed of their own frowsy and lazy ugliness; they study the records of open and magnanimous deeds, and are not ashamed of their own secretive and self-indulged lives. They have become citizens of an unreal world, and, like the Indian in his Paradise, pursue with shadowy hounds a shadowy deer. And that way lies madness.

In the limbo of the misers and the drunkards, which is the limbo of idolators, many great scholars may be found. Here, as in almost all ethical problems, the difficulty arises far less from the presence of some vicious tendency than from the absence of some essential virtues. The possibilities of mental derangement which exist in literature are due not so much to a love of books as to an indifference to life and sentiment and everything that books record.

In an ideal state, gentlemen who were immersed in abstruse calculations and discoveries would be forced by Act of Parliament to talk for forty-five minutes to an ostler or a landlady, and to ride across Hampstead Heath on a donkey. They would be examined by the State, but not in Greek or old armour, which are their pleasures, and in which they may be trusted as safely as children at cross-touch. They would be examined in Cockney dialect, or in the colours of various omnibuses. They would be purged of all the tendencies which have sometimes brought lunacy out of learning; they would be taught to become men of the world, which is a step towards becoming men of the Universe.”

— G.K. Chesterton: “Lunacy and Letters”

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Zen

The philosophy of Zen is a branch of Mahayana Buddhism that emphasizes direct experience, mindfulness, and the attainment of enlightenment through meditation and intuitive insight rather than through doctrinal study or ritualistic practices. Originating in China as Chan Buddhism and later flourishing in Japan as Zen, this philosophy seeks to transcend the dualities of ordinary thought and to awaken to the true nature of reality, which is seen as beyond conceptual understanding.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Zen:

Direct Experience and Enlightenment (Satori):

Immediate Awareness: Zen emphasizes direct, immediate experience as the path to enlightenment (satori). This means engaging with reality without the interference of conceptual thought or the ego, often through practices such as meditation (zazen) and mindful awareness.

Satori: Enlightenment in Zen, known as satori, is often described as a sudden, profound realization of the interconnectedness of all things and the emptiness (śūnyatā) that underlies reality. This insight transcends ordinary understanding and reveals the true nature of existence.

Meditation (Zazen):

Seated Meditation: Zazen, or seated meditation, is the core practice of Zen. It involves sitting in a specific posture, focusing on the breath, and observing thoughts without attachment. The aim is to quiet the mind, develop concentration, and eventually experience deep states of awareness and insight.

Beyond Techniques: While zazen is a formal practice, Zen teaches that meditation can extend into all aspects of life, encouraging practitioners to bring the same mindfulness and presence into everyday activities.

Koans and Paradoxes:

Koans: Koans are paradoxical statements or questions used in Zen practice to transcend logical thinking and provoke direct insight. A well-known example is, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The purpose of a koan is not to find a logical answer but to break down the barriers of conventional thought and open the mind to a more profound reality.

Beyond Rationality: Zen often challenges the limits of rationality, using paradox and contradiction to point out that true understanding is beyond intellectual comprehension.

Non-Dualism and Emptiness (Śūnyatā):

Transcending Duality: Zen philosophy rejects the dualistic thinking that separates the self from the world, subject from object, and good from bad. Instead, it teaches that all distinctions are illusory and that true reality is non-dual.

Emptiness: The concept of emptiness (śūnyatā) is central to Zen. It refers to the idea that all things are interconnected and lack an independent, permanent essence. Understanding this emptiness is key to realizing the impermanent and interdependent nature of reality.

Mindfulness and Present-Moment Awareness:

Living in the Present: Zen encourages practitioners to live fully in the present moment, without attachment to the past or anxiety about the future. This mindfulness is cultivated in both formal meditation and daily activities.

Mindful Action: Zen teaches that any action, no matter how mundane, can be an opportunity for mindfulness and awareness. The concept of "being one with the task" is emphasized, where the distinction between the doer and the deed dissolves.

Simplicity and Naturalness:

Simplicity: Zen values simplicity in both thought and lifestyle. This is reflected in Zen art, architecture, and daily practices, which emphasize naturalness, austerity, and the beauty of the unadorned.

Natural Flow: Zen encourages a natural way of being, in harmony with the flow of life. This idea is often illustrated by metaphors of nature, such as the effortless way a tree grows or a river flows.

Compassion and Ethical Living:

Bodhisattva Ideal: Although Zen emphasizes direct personal experience, it also upholds the Mahayana Buddhist ideal of the bodhisattva—someone who seeks enlightenment not just for themselves but for the benefit of all beings. Compassion and ethical conduct are integral to this path.

Engaged Buddhism: In modern times, Zen has also inspired forms of engaged Buddhism, where mindfulness and ethical living are applied to social, environmental, and political issues.

Art, Aesthetics, and Expression:

Zen Arts: Zen has profoundly influenced Japanese arts, including tea ceremony, calligraphy, poetry (such as haiku), and gardening. These arts embody the principles of simplicity, mindfulness, and the transient nature of existence.

Expression of Enlightenment: In Zen, artistic expression is often seen as an extension of the meditative mind. The spontaneity and directness found in Zen arts reflect the same qualities valued in Zen practice.

Non-Attachment and Letting Go:

Letting Go of Ego: Zen teaches the importance of letting go of the ego, desires, and attachments that create suffering. By relinquishing these attachments, one can experience a deeper, more peaceful state of being.

Non-Striving: Paradoxically, Zen teaches that enlightenment cannot be attained through effort alone; it requires a state of non-striving, where one lets go of the desire for enlightenment and simply allows it to arise naturally.

Silence and the Ineffable:

Beyond Words: Zen often emphasizes the limitations of language in capturing the essence of reality. Many Zen teachings are conveyed through silence or direct, non-verbal actions, highlighting that the deepest truths cannot be fully expressed in words.

Ineffability of Truth: Zen suggests that true understanding comes from direct experience, not from intellectual discussion or analysis. This is reflected in the Zen saying, "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon," indicating that teachings are merely pointers to the truth, not the truth itself.

The philosophy of Zen offers a unique approach to understanding the nature of reality and the self, emphasizing direct experience, mindfulness, and the transcendence of dualistic thinking. By cultivating a deep awareness of the present moment and embracing the simplicity and natural flow of life, Zen practitioners seek to realize the interconnectedness of all things and attain enlightenment. This philosophy has had a profound influence on both Eastern and Western thought, inspiring not only spiritual practice but also art, literature, and approaches to everyday living.

[crooked-wasteland]

The Existential Separation of Heaven and Hell

The first question to ask is why are the settings of Heaven and Hell? 

It is why this is a rewrite or fanfiction and not being drafted as its own fantasy world devoid from the lineage of Hazbin Hotel. While Medrano’s version could have been set anywhere, separate of questions about God and religion, mine cannot. In fact, the entire story hinges on this dichotomy of cultural perception and history through the lens of theology. 

But more than being a critique of religion as a construct, it is a tomb in which a part of myself is buried. I’ve spoken briefly about my background in religion. My relationship with religion is the focus of the design, as is the state of Hell being a meaningless continuation of current life being the embodiment of my experience walking away from all the gods. Because I didn’t lose faith in my God as it were, I realized God has always ever been an apathetic observer to life itself. It made me see God himself as being morally bankrupt. 

The idea that he would help me pass a test but allow an entire family to die in a freak accident. That God was more concerned with two lovers—pure in their devotion—not presenting themselves before him for approval, than he was with children being beaten, tortured, or killed by their own parents. That it was more important that I hated people who loved differently than it was to hate those who wish harm to others. 

I didn’t see contradiction in that God; I saw a chaotic continuity. It wasn’t something made of love, but a creature drenched in apathy. My nihilism wasn’t born from a void left by an absent God; it was born from the void I saw inside Him. 

And that is a fundamental part of this story: My truth that God himself is an empty throne. He may sit upon it; he may not, but the outcomes are ever the same in his absence and his presence. 

Meanwhile, the origination of Hell as a human continuation of existence cut off from any god is to challenge you, regardless of your personal beliefs, to enter a world where nothing you do matters because you are cut off from that divinity. You are no longer required to keep striving for anything, no longer forced to seek sovereign approval. To confront you with that radical freedom to live purely free without consequence and be whoever you want to be. 

Will you become violent, cruel, debased?  When given no authoritarian consequences for your actions are you suddenly a demon, or are you simply you? 

I am of the firm belief that when faced with that ledge, what Camus would call “Absurd Freedom”, they quickly look away. There is an existential anxiety attached to that place, what Kierkegaard called “Angst”. Kierkegaard wrote, “Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.” The feeling of this concept is like standing on an edge over which you see nothing but darkness below. Would you have the fortitude to leap—or do you believe you would simply sink; becoming undone by freedom. For all the misery you have lived through to this point, regardless of whether it is great or comparatively small, is your sense of self so brittle that, without the threat of punishment, it crumbles? And if it crumbles—was it ever truly yours, or merely something you were assigned? 

My position is akin to a Kierkegaardian ‘leap of faith’, but not toward a god. Rather, a leap toward the human spirit. My world asserts that, no, most of us would not suddenly abandon our humanity just because the divine scaffolding has vanished. In fact, I believe many wouldn’t even confront it – they would simply continue, propelled by inertia. 

This state of drifting inertia, of surviving without living, is not new. Many have written about it from varied perspectives: 

Albert Camus – What he calls a “refusal to revolt” or assert one’s own existence; continuing to live while pretending you don’t have to choose how to do so. Soren Kierkegaard – What he called the “aesthetic life”.  Living for a beauty defined by wanton pleasure, detached irony, and distraction is a refusal to confront the radical freedom of choice in the name of silencing the anxiety it brings. Friedrich Nietzsche – What he named “herd morality”: the values we’ve constructed out of fear of the unknown, the resentment of the other, or for a convenient comfort rather than our own initiative built from will. What many erroneously see as a disavowal of social responsibility is actually Nietzsche’s attempt at demanding personal responsibility for our social beliefs. Simone de Beauvoir – What she called “Bad Faith” or the rejection of personal responsibility by pretending the systems we live in weren’t chosen. Her philosophy asserts that there is nothing wrong with living inside these systems, but it is a wicked lie to say we couldn’t choose something else. Michel Foucault – What he metaphorically called the “Panopticon Prison” or the state of internalized discipline and self-regulation for the benefit of institutional control. Carl Jung – What he would call the “Unintegrated Shadow”. Jung, though a psychologist and not a philosopher, is included because his theories reflect the same “institutionalization” of the Self—one that begins within us and which many live their entire lives denying responsibility of. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel – His philosophies compliment the rest by his mere definition of a “self”; not simply a thing, but a process in the same constant motion as the Solar System. You don’t exist on your own—you become who you are by being seen, challenged, and understood by others. His theory is hard to explain plainly, but think of it like this: You can’t understand a bird by looking at a feather. You have to see how that feather works with the wind and the anatomy of the bird’s hollow bones, and the motion of flight. The same is true of people—truth isn’t in the pieces; it’s in the synthesis. And that synthesis doesn’t have a clean ending; it can continue infinitely unless it is intentionally stopped short.  His definition of inertia, then, is the willful refusal to engage with the process.  Martin Heidegger – What he would call “Inauthenticity”, much like de Beauvoir’s Bad Faith, is a passive avoidance of one’s own truth. But where her philosophy focused on awareness of the self, he fixated on the awareness of time. Our pursuit of comfort and safety in the present is simply a means of ignoring that the inevitability of death gives urgency to life. We will die no matter what but living without agency is to act like we shall live forever. 

This is what defines the state of Hell. Not just what it is (a continuation of life without access to any god) but also why (to confront the material reality of the human condition we are living in). My Heaven and my Hell are a challenge unto you to radically accept the raw reality of life through fantasy. To travel through the valleys of the shadow of death without a god and without comfort and see how far you can go. See if you can create divinity rather than hide beneath it. 

[apis-vergilii]

we need more “looming presence of Aristotle” in our Divine Comedy fan art tbh

[bored-philosopher-corner]

Phd Journal - 25 10 2024

I recently read about the concept of digital immortality, in a social science, probably more specifically communication, thesis. It is a fascinating concept, both because it is highly interesting and deeply of our time, and also, at the same time and in the same expansive manner, deeply troubling for a plethora of reasons.

Digital immortality, storing our minds, our memories, the aspects of our personalities in a digital format to, so to speak, live on after our deaths, the deaths of our physical self, brings up questions about identity, consciousness and what it means to be humans. As a student of philosophy, the ethical implications are massive. Who controls these digital selves? How do we protect the privacy and the dignity of these entities, if and when they might exist, if it even is the correct terminology. What happens to our relationships with the dead and the living? All those questions are unsettling. I've thus found myself thinking that it was deeply related with transhumanism and transhumanists' want to enhance human beings, to...somehow, defy death itself. Transhumanists strive to transcend human limitations, by aiming to preserve consciousness and personality digitally, they envision a future where mortality is less definitive and rather is more of a state to be navigated and perhaps even overcome. However, does the/a digital version of ourselves truly represent our identity?

The metaphor or "defying" death captures another problem altogether : it's not just about exetnding life, but rather more about transforming our very nature.

Indeed, if human-beings were one day, in the future, digitally immortal, it would change not only the human-nature ; if there is such a thing as human nature, thinkers have been discussing this idea for thousands of years and there are still not one but many definitions of the concept of human nature ; but it would also potentially change the nature of Artificial Inetlligence. Which would be an entirely new concern. If, human-beings achieve true digital immortality, it could redefine what is means to be human and AI. The blending of human consciousness with AI could lead to a new kind of entity, neither fully human nor fully AI. Which poses new ethical and metaphysical challenges. As a student of ethics, I consider that human-beings cannot serve as tools, which would be deeply unethical, human-beings cannot be means to others' ends, which is very kantien, but I like his deontology. While AIs are by their very nature tools and can be used to further one's ends. Kant's categorical imperative champions the inherent dignity and worth of human-beings, emphasising that they should never be treated merely as means to an end. AIs, on the other hand, are specifically designed to serve as tools to facilitate human activities, according to some definition. This disctinction is fundamental between beings with intrisnict value and those created for a specific utility. All of which, when considering digital immortality, is a fine line to thread. Whith digital immortality, human-beings who become thus immortal would then be...what? They were, when living, moral agents, according to Kant's terms ; which I would like to use in my research ; and then, in their "false death", since they become immortal digitally, they would be AI-like or AI-powered, and thus somewhat tool-like? I see here that if a digitally immortal human-being, once a moral agent, becomes more AI-like, they moght straddle a complex line between their previous agency and being a tool, which, if they still have their consciousness while digitally immortal might pose a problem, but then, we are facing the immense problem of defining consciousness. On one hand, theyr would retain a form of their identity and consciousness (with all of its problems), but on the other hand, they would lack the autonomy of a living human and potentially become a means to others' ends. This hybrid existence therefore challenges the traditional ethical frameworks we are accustomed to. Do these human beings who become immortal digitally still possess the inherent dignity Kant assigns to humans, or do they transition into a different category of existence altogether?

This concept of digital immortality redefines our understanding of moral agency and ethical responsibility in the age of advanced technology. Though, assuming digital immortality is a real thing, we are not even sure that we will maintain our consciousness. And even then, which one? The one we had at the moment of our death, a compilation of our memoried (which might differ entirely from consciousness altogether accoridng to some definition, and I would agree that memories are not the same as consciousness) ? What kind of consciousness could a person, who, say, once knew the feeling of ice-cold air on their skin, the way a feather could fall, how their cat liked to be pet, the way their grandma cut fruits, how to braid their own hair, etc. how could such a full person still be considered conscious during their…non-life in the digital realm so to speak ? Indeed... The richness of human experience—those sensory details, emotional moments, tactile memories—are almost impossible to digitize fully. Digital immortality might capture data, memories, or patterns, but it might fall short of preserving the authentic consciousness or the depth of human life. Consciousness isn't just a compilation of memories but the ongoing, dynamic experience of being alive, which involves emotions, perceptions, and interactions with the world in real-time. Those nuances—like the specific feel of ice-cold air or the unique way your grandma cut fruits—are tied to the physical and temporal presence, things a digital format might not replicate. This line of thought highlights the potential disconnect between the data-driven immortality and the living, breathing essence of a person.

Then, would it mean that the idea of digital immortality stems froms the idea that everything can be put into mathematical data, thus abandonning the incredibly important quality of the full experience of life we get from living it? The concept of digital immortality does seem to arise from the belief that all aspects of reality can be reduced to data. Phenomenology, however, argues that the essence of the human experience is richer than any data set. Digital immortality thus misses the depth and richness of actual lived experience, and who would want that for themselves or for anyone? If the irreplaceable and fundamental aspects of being human are our free will ; the ability to make choices and understand the implications of those choices is a cornerstone of our humanity, it allows us to forge our own paths and embrace our individuality ; our feelings of both the physical world and the emotional world ; of paramount importance because our physical and emotional experiences shape our lives in ways that are deeply personal and often indescribable, joy, sorrow, love, pain, the sense of smell, of hearing, etc.—all these emotions, feelings and senses create a rich tapestry of human experience ; and, to name only three, the fact that we constantly create ; the act of creating—whether through stories, music, art, or any other form of expression—embodies our need to understand and share our experiences, it connects us to one another and to our shared history ; then digital immortality means nothing to us, because it does not capture and does not permit free will, feelings and/or creation. Digital immortality reduces these rich, multifaceted aspects of humanity to mere data, stripping away the very essence of what makes us truly human. Without free will, we can't make authentic choices. Without our feelings and senses, we lose the depth and richness of our experiences. Without the ability to create, we forfeit a core part of our identity. In this sense, digital immortality transforms us from beings into tools, mere shadows of our former selves. We lose the dynamic, ongoing experience of life that defines human existence. So, while the idea of digital immortality may hold allure, it ultimately fails to capture the true essence of being human, reducing us to something far less.

I mean to say that digital immortality, by missing these core human qualities, ultimately renders us non-existent in the true sense of what it means to be human.

[raffaellopalandri]

Against the Anthropocentric Machine: On the Necessity of Ecological Resistance to Capitalist Devastation

Today marks World Environment Day, a symbolic annual observance intended to raise awareness about ecological crises and inspire action to preserve the Earth. Image taken from Internet Yet in an era defined by accelerating climate collapse, biospheric degradation, and the enclosure of commons into commodified data points, mere awareness is no longer sufficient—nor is celebration. What is needed…

[theidealistphilosophy]

From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.

Sigmund Freud, Sayings.

[philosophybits]

At the present time there still exist many doctrines which choose to leave in the shadow certain troubling aspects of a too complex situation. But their attempt to lie to us is in vain. Cowardice doesn’t pay. Those reasonable metaphysics, those consoling ethics with which they would like to entice us only accentuate the disorder from which we suffer. Men of today seem to feel more acutely than ever the paradox of their condition. They know themselves to be the supreme end to which all action should be subordinated, but the exigencies of action force them to treat one another as instruments or obstacles, as means. The more widespread their mastery of the world, the more they find themselves crushed by uncontrollable forces.

Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

[just-codey]

Scholar Author AMA 2025

I am a careful author who writes both traditionally (ask me how) and off the cuff, full of imagination. I invite you to begin this thread with me and see where it goes. Let's explore a range of topics together:

My Book: Traditional Writing

History: Abraham, Odysseus, Aeneas, Justinian, etc.

God: Church, Universe, Jesus, Sovereignty

Order: Math, Science, Culture

Hope: Good, Beauty, Resilience

Dreams: Nature, AI, Translation, Business (Luck)

How good? This good. Free, intelligent human contact: therapy for your soul. Priceless ten hearts mentorship from an angel. Aliens have a point… check out success. Take your time… come back later. This is a thread worth keeping: dignity is usually too late but I am compassionate to catch your fall, walk beside you through these alien smoke signals, and find the truth. "I came here to make the world a better place." I surrendered to my Higher Power: I am not hiding, and the Universe is the stage I am walking on to.

My Book ( https://www.amazon.com/Just-Codey-Code-Philip-Renoud/dp/1480897531 )

Pinterest ( https://www.pinterest.com/prenoudscholar/ )

Patreon ( https://www.patreon.com/justcodey )

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Buddhism

Buddhism is a spiritual and philosophical tradition that originated in India around the 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha. Buddhism encompasses a wide range of beliefs, practices, and schools of thought, but at its core, it is concerned with understanding the nature of suffering, the path to its cessation, and the ultimate realization of enlightenment.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Buddhism:

The Four Noble Truths:

Dukkha (Suffering): The first noble truth is the recognition that life is permeated by dukkha, often translated as suffering, dissatisfaction, or stress. This includes both the obvious sufferings of pain, aging, and death, as well as more subtle forms of mental unease and dissatisfaction.

Samudaya (Origin of Suffering): The second noble truth identifies the cause of suffering as tanha (craving or desire) and ignorance (avidya). This craving is not only for physical pleasures but also for existence, non-existence, and various forms of attachment.

Nirodha (Cessation of Suffering): The third noble truth asserts that it is possible to end suffering by extinguishing its causes, namely craving and ignorance. This state of cessation is known as Nirvana, which represents the ultimate liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Magga (Path to the Cessation of Suffering): The fourth noble truth outlines the path to the cessation of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path. This path provides a practical guide to ethical living, mental discipline, and wisdom.

The Noble Eightfold Path:

Right Understanding (Samma Ditthi): This involves understanding the true nature of reality, particularly the Four Noble Truths.

Right Intention (Samma Sankappa): Cultivating intentions of renunciation, goodwill, and harmlessness.

Right Speech (Samma Vaca): Speaking truthfully, avoiding gossip, lies, and harmful speech.

Right Action (Samma Kammanta): Acting in ways that are ethical and non-harmful, following principles like non-violence and honesty.

Right Livelihood (Samma Ajiva): Engaging in work that does not harm others and is ethically sound.

Right Effort (Samma Vayama): Cultivating positive states of mind and preventing unwholesome states.

Right Mindfulness (Samma Sati): Maintaining awareness of thoughts, feelings, and actions, leading to greater self-understanding and wisdom.

Right Concentration (Samma Samadhi): Developing deep states of meditation that lead to profound insights and the cultivation of wisdom.

The Three Marks of Existence:

Anicca (Impermanence): Everything in life is in a constant state of flux. All phenomena are transient, and clinging to anything as permanent leads to suffering.

Dukkha (Suffering): Suffering is an inherent part of existence, arising from the impermanent and unsatisfactory nature of life.

Anatta (Non-Self): There is no permanent, unchanging self or soul (atman). The belief in a permanent self is an illusion that contributes to suffering.

Karma and Rebirth:

Karma (Action and Consequence): Karma refers to the moral law of cause and effect, where intentional actions lead to corresponding consequences. Good actions lead to positive results, and bad actions lead to negative outcomes, both in this life and future lives.

Rebirth (Samsara): Buddhism teaches that beings are trapped in a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (samsara), driven by karma and craving. The ultimate goal is to escape this cycle by attaining Nirvana.

Nirvana:

Liberation from Suffering: Nirvana is the ultimate goal in Buddhism, representing the cessation of all suffering, the end of the cycle of rebirth, and the realization of ultimate truth. It is a state of peace, liberation, and enlightenment.

Beyond Dualities: Nirvana transcends all dualities and conceptual distinctions, including the dichotomy of existence and non-existence.

Meditation and Mindfulness:

Central Practices: Meditation (bhavana) and mindfulness (sati) are central practices in Buddhism, aimed at cultivating concentration, insight, and mental clarity. These practices help individuals develop a deep understanding of the nature of reality and the mind.

Vipassana and Samatha: Two main types of meditation in Buddhism are Vipassana (insight meditation), which focuses on gaining insight into the true nature of reality, and Samatha (calm-abiding meditation), which develops concentration and tranquility.

The Middle Way:

Avoiding Extremes: The Buddha taught the Middle Way as a path that avoids the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. It represents a balanced approach to spiritual practice that leads to enlightenment.

Practical Wisdom: The Middle Way also refers to the balanced application of wisdom in everyday life, guiding ethical conduct and mental development.

Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda):

Interconnectedness of All Phenomena: Dependent origination is the principle that all phenomena arise in dependence upon other phenomena. This interconnectedness means that nothing exists independently, and everything is part of a complex web of cause and effect.

Causality and the Cycle of Suffering: Understanding dependent origination is key to understanding the cycle of suffering (samsara) and how to break free from it.

Ethical Conduct:

The Five Precepts: Buddhism provides a set of ethical guidelines known as the Five Precepts, which include abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxication. These precepts help cultivate moral discipline and support the path to enlightenment.

Compassion and Loving-Kindness (Metta): Compassion (karuna) and loving-kindness (metta) are central ethical values in Buddhism, encouraging individuals to act with care and concern for the well-being of others.

Schools of Buddhist Philosophy:

Theravada Buddhism:

Focus on Early Teachings: Theravada, also known as the "Teaching of the Elders," adheres closely to the early teachings of the Buddha and emphasizes individual liberation through wisdom and ethical conduct.

Arhat Ideal: The goal in Theravada is to become an Arhat, an enlightened being who has attained Nirvana and is free from the cycle of rebirth.

Mahayana Buddhism:

Great Vehicle: Mahayana, or the "Great Vehicle," offers a broader interpretation of the Buddha's teachings and emphasizes the Bodhisattva path, where practitioners strive to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings.

Emptiness (Shunyata): Mahayana philosophy introduces the concept of emptiness, which suggests that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence, highlighting the interdependence and impermanence of all things.

Vajrayana Buddhism:

Diamond Vehicle: Vajrayana, or the "Diamond Vehicle," is an esoteric form of Buddhism that incorporates rituals, mantras, and meditation practices aimed at achieving rapid enlightenment. It is closely associated with Tibetan Buddhism.

Tantric Practices: Vajrayana involves complex tantric practices that are believed to transform the mind and body, leading to enlightenment.

The philosophy of Buddhism is a profound exploration of the nature of existence, suffering, and the path to liberation. Through its teachings on impermanence, non-self, dependent origination, and the cultivation of compassion, Buddhism offers a comprehensive framework for understanding and overcoming the challenges of life. Its emphasis on mindfulness, ethical conduct, and wisdom provides practical guidance for achieving inner peace and spiritual awakening. Whether through individual practice or engagement with the broader community, Buddhism continues to inspire and guide people in their quest for meaning, peace, and liberation.

[tmarshconnors]

“A high degree of intellect tends to make a man unsocial.”

Arthur Schopenhauer was a German philosopher. He is best known for his 1818 work The World as Will and Representation.

[starseungs]

idk if im posting a fic tomorrow

[bored-philosopher-corner]

PhD Journal - 27 10 2024

I was reading this article on Aristotle's ideas on human and animal rational abilities, and some things the author wrote struck me.

He wrote "The world, however, looks very different to humans. Things can appear red or painful to an animal, but not noble or unjust", I simply think this is untrue in many ways.

The statement seems to dismiss the possibility that animals can perceive qualities beyond basic sensory or emotional experiences. While it’s true that human perception of concepts like nobility or justice is deeply tied to our social structures and language, it’s a bit presumptive to assume animals don’t have their own complex experiences or social behaviors that might parallel some of our more abstract ideas.

For example, certain animals exhibit behaviors that suggest a sense of fairness or altruism. Elephants have been observed mourning their dead, which could indicate some level of emotional complexity that goes beyond just pain or pleasure. Similarly, primates have shown behaviors that suggest a rudimentary sense of justice or fairness.

Dismissing these possibilities might be limiting our understanding of animal cognition and consciousness.

I think that we can't know what is going on truly in another's mind, whether it might be a human or an animal, an if we presume that other people have the same notion of what is just or unjust as we do, then why not presume animals also have that ability or that notion? It wouldn't be that much of a stretch either.

Indeed, assuming we can know with certainty what is going on in another's mind—whether human or animal—is a profound leap. My understanding about assuming that other people share our notions of justice and injustice opens up a fascinating angle: if we grant this assumption to humans, it’s a small step to extend it to animals as well.

Different cultures and individuals can have varied perceptions of justice, shaped by their experiences, social structures, and personal beliefs. Similarly, animals, with their own social structures and behaviors, may possess their own notions of fairness or injustice that we simply don't fully understand yet. Observations of animals showing empathy, cooperation, and even mourning behavior hint at complexities in their social interactions and emotions that may parallel human experiences in some way.

Moreover, Aristotle’s idea that humans are “social/political animals” highlights our inherent need for community and governance, but it also suggests that social structures aren't unique to humans. Many animals exhibit social and political behaviors within their groups. Take wolves, for example—they have complex social hierarchies and cooperation mechanisms. Elephants demonstrate empathy and mourning, which indicate an awareness of right and wrong within their social context.

Assuming that humans, as animals, are the only ones capable of moral reasoning ignores the nuanced behaviors of other species. The same principles that govern human social and ethical behavior can often be observed in the animal kingdom, albeit in different forms. So, it's quite reasonable to propose that animals might have their own versions of what is morally right or wrong based on their social structures and interactions.

Recognizing that animals might have their own notions of right and wrong, based on their social behaviors, encourages us to approach them with greater empathy and respect. It challenges us to rethink our interactions with all creatures, fostering a sense of shared existence.

Greater consideration for animals and insects can lead to more compassionate and protective actions on our part. This might mean advocating for their habitats, reducing our ecological footprint, and ensuring that our advancements do not come at the expense of their well-being. Embracing this perspective not only enriches our ethical frameworks but also enhances the way we coexist with the natural world.

Further along in this article, the author wrote "This story commits Aristotle to the claim that non-human animals are incapable of restraint. Nothing we have said so far suggests a view about animal cognition without restraint. One possibility is that, without restraint, the perceptual/imaginative stream has no effect on behavior, as a car's engine does not power its wheels when the car is stuck in neutral. But that account seems absurd, since animals get around just fine without rational cognition and therefore without restraint". Which, I still find myself conflicting with. I would argue that animals have some imagination, some phantasia in the aristotelian sense, like, say, squirells who imagine a hard winter and pile up, or bears who eat a lot before hibernating in preparation, having had phantasmata, of a hard winter.

I would think this personal interpretation aligns with a nuanced understanding of Aristotle. Aristotle did acknowledge that animals possess phantasia (imagination), which allows them to perceive and respond to their environment in complex ways. This phantasia involves the ability to form images or representations of things not immediately present, influencing behavior.

When Aristotle discusses animals and restraint, he distinguishes between rational restraint (unique to humans) and non-rational restraint. Humans use rational deliberation to exercise restraint, while animals rely on a form of non-rational restraint guided by phantasia.

Examples like squirrels hoarding nuts or bears preparing for hibernation illustrate that animals anticipate future needs based on imagined scenarios (phantasmata). This anticipation shapes their behavior, indicating that animals do have a form of cognitive processing that impacts their actions, albeit different from human rationality.

However, while it's traditionally thought that animals operate on instinct and phantasia rather than rational planning, recent studies suggest that some animals do engage in what appears to be foresight and planning. Squirrels caching nuts and bears preparing for hibernation might indeed involve more complex decision-making processes. These behaviors could indicate a form of non-human rationality, shaped by environmental cues and learned experiences. It’s a fascinating area where philosophy and ethology intersect, challenging our understanding of cognition across species.

The idea that animals may exhibit a form of rational behavior—distinct from human rationality—opens up fascinating possibilities. It challenges us to consider cognition on a broader spectrum, recognizing that animals might plan and make decisions in ways we don’t fully understand.

By acknowledging our limitations as humans in comprehending animal cognition, we invite a more nuanced appreciation of their capabilities. This perspective underscores the importance of approaching animal behavior with humility and curiosity.

Later, the writer stated : "he comparison to animals is still explicit: appearances cause movement in humans against their better judgment, in animals because they have no better judgment". Still, I find it difficult to agree with such a statement. For, from my experience and understanding, we see animals hesitate, like humans, out of doubt, out of fear, because they, like us, don't have enough information to be sure of their movements.

Observing animal behavior often reveals moments of hesitation, suggesting a level of decision-making complexity akin to human doubt and uncertainty. Animals, like humans, can exhibit caution and deliberation when faced with unclear situations, indicating that they do possess forms of judgment that guide their actions.

This implies that animals’ responses aren't merely automatic reactions to stimuli but involve a form of assessment based on available information. Thus, dismissing their actions as lacking "better judgment" underestimates their cognitive abilities.

The author continues, stating that "When Aristotle claims that animals acquire experience (empeiria), I think he means to tell this kind of story. He makes that claim in the opening chapter of the Metaphysics, in yet another comparison between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans have craft (technê) and reasoning (logismos) to help them get by, while beasts do not. Beasts live by their imagination, memory and apparently a small share of experience: But anyway, the other [animals] live by imaginings and memories, and have a small share of experience (empeiria), but humankind [lives] also by craft and reasoning". I still find myself disagreeing with this.

Indeed, I'd argue we should challenge such an interpretation. Bees producing honey, birds communicating through song, and animals using strategies to overcome obstacles all suggest a level of technê (craft) and practical reasoning in animals. Aristotle's distinctions might reflect the perspectives of his time, but contemporary ethology shows that animals possess complex skills, problem-solving abilities, and social behaviors that go beyond mere imagination and memory.

Bees, for instance, exhibit sophisticated behaviors in honey production, which involves communication through the waggle dance and precise construction skills. Birds, like parrots, use vocalizations that serve meaningful social functions, similar to human language. Many animals demonstrate problem-solving skills and the ability to devise and execute plans, reflecting a form of reasoning.

I would, in the end, perhaps argue that we should ackowledge modern perspectives, which might highlight the evolution of thought and encourage readers to reflect on how our understanding has progressed. It’s a way to show the growth of knowledge and the necessity of questioning and adapting ancient ideas to contemporary insights. Because, not acknowledging modern perspectives on animal cognition could indeed limit the relevance and adaptability of Aristotle's thoughts today. To truly honor the evolution of knowledge, it's essential to integrate current understandings while recognizing the historical significance of past thinkers.

[raffaellopalandri]

The Ontology of Silence: A Metaphysical, Ethical, and Political Inquiry into the Refusal to Speak in an Age of Compulsory Expression

We live in a time profoundly characterised by noise—auditory, visual, intellectual, emotional, and existential. Photo by Gaetan THURIN on Pexels.com From the moment we awaken to the digital sirens of notifications, traffic, alerts, broadcasts, opinions, arguments, advertisements, algorithms, and artificially induced anxieties, to the final hours of wakeful unrest where silence is neither…