I suppose the ontological argument starts out by being analytic. Personally I believe that the existence of anything metaphysical should not attempt to be anything but an analytic statement.

My problem is however slightly different to what Kant held here if I understand you correctly. I think it's a bit more Platonic (if I can take certain liberties with Plato's work). The idea of a horse - as in the archetype or form of the perfect horse - is true to horseness (apologies for my creative word use) in ways that a real horse cannot be. We only recognize the real horse because it has enough of the archetype or original form to allow us to distinguish it from everything else that has far less or no horse at all. The horse is pure in understanding but loses those qualities here in the real world. The horse might therefore be better off and even superior in understanding alone.

While I don't think it was the original idea with the argument, one must admit that it opens the door to at least consider an argument that says existing in understanding alone is superior to existing in both reality and understanding. We would in a way taint the perfect idea by bringing it into a broken reality. But I am stretching it.

Now I understand that some people would feel offended by me calling reality broken and all such but it's just an idea. If it makes any sense.

Could you explain a little more about why you understand Kant asks this question? I'm not sure I understand how you bring the two together. Thanks.

I'm a bit late on this. But why isn't there something wrong in assuming 'reality' as perceived by us is necessarily a step up? Why does ultimate perfection lead to existence. And what makes us think we can perceive of the kind of excellence that would assume existence?

We all laugh when we hear that people used to think we were the center of the universe. But isn't it equally dangerous to assume that we can perceive an appropriate excellence and that our consciousness perceives a reality that is a necessary consequence of such excellence?

It's not an atheist that knows the thoughts of people, it's just another person who cared enough to read more about Einstein than the little quotes you find under motivational posters.

At no point did I say I'm either a theist or an atheist. So revisit that. I tend to keep this to myself as I'm here for the argument and not my personal beliefs. So before you advise people to be 'good little atheists' you must make sure that they are (a) and atheist and (b) that 'good little atheist' means what you say it does. I suspect that in this case it was used as a patronizing term. That does not make for good arguments.

I never said it is amusing

I merely pointed to the fact that arguments have a tendency to become amusing as they fall apart or as they become void of any point or logic. Your mentioning the dictionary is beyond funny: it has degraded beyond funny and is now just ridiculous. Note that I'm not calling you ridiculous. I don't know you. But I've seen your argument and it does not look good.

I never stated that these things are gods, the dictionary does.

Words have true meaning only within a given context. The dictionary would give you a literal meaning and then some dictionaries give you a little sentence to illustrate context. The dictionary didn't give the word meaning in this context, you did that, and that's why your argument is wrong.

The same people that say gods exists also say man landed on the moon, the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, etc.

I'm not sure if this is true. Firstly, do you mean those exact people? I don't think there's an organisation called they like in Larson's cartoon that comes up with facts. It would in all probability be people from the same field, inclination or school of thought. But this is not a conclusive response to your statement - it's grey because we can't really establish who these people are.

My second point is better. Say someone makes point A and point A is true and shifts humanity into a desirable future. That person then makes point B. Does the findings and validity of point A have any bearing on point B? Unless they are based on the same findings they do not.

The fact however is that the assumptions, methodologies and logic that resulted in the moon landing and the discovery of the solar system, fails to give us any evidence that points to a god. The facts don't say 'a god does not exist', they just can't prove that a god does. There is no negative proof, but in the absence of positive proof they assume. That assumption you can challenge. You can say 'you can't assume until you have evidence' but then you must do the same and then no one knows (and that is probably a better logical position to take).

To illustrate the point of negative proof I always like to use the out of stock shelf. A full shelf is proof that they have the product (say cinnamon cola). An empty shelf merely means that cinnamon cola is not stocked here but can be somewhere else. So while there is no proof that the store has stock, you can keep looking because there is no proof that they have no stock either. A little sign that says 'cinnamon cola out of stock' is negative proof. You can call the search off because you now have evidence that there is no cinnamon cola in the store.

Both theists and atheists are at a shelf with no cinnamon cola. Atheists believe that the product must be here, on this shelf because this is where products are sold - if it's not here it must be out of stock. Theists say that cinnamon cola is different and that it need not be on the shelf to be available for purchase.

On both sides I get arguments that make no sense. Your dictionary one is such an argument. On the other side is the atheist (and atheist comedian's) favorite one where they ridicule the possibility of a man in the sky. Their lack of knowledge in that way is frightening. But some atheists has hopped on this band wagon and they hide their bigotry under the veil of 'fashionable arguments'.

The linear flow of time might be an illusion. Time might not be a line at all (maybe a mesh intertwined with space as both have separation abilities :) ) . So yes, the passing of time is an illusion. But time is real. If it wasn't everything would be 'now'. The fact that you are reading this word now and this word now means you are in fact at two different 'time places'. Given the current reality and the perceptive capacity of our brain, time is real.

Thewayitis, your argument is not even amusing. To assume that by believing in one definition of the word 'god' you are providing a premise from which you can argue a atheist is in fact a theist is beyond ridiculous.

The argument is not a linguistic one and does not deal with the nature of the word. A handsome man has very little in common with a higher being. A higher being is in question and has nothing to do with what is almost nothing more than homonyms.

I think it's insulting to any god (be it the God or who ever you choose to believe in) to be associated with your logic. I personally think it's illogical to look for scientific evidence of something that is by definition 'super natural' and beyond nature. If you believe, do so to the benefit of other people. If you don't, do that too to the benefit of others.

I think there's a lot to be said for anyone who honestly and sincerely pursues the truth (as opposed to people looking for being 'right').

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Defining a point in hindsight and adding context

I'm assuming this is a discussion that is aimed at understanding and not accusing. Like the difference between a law and philosophy class. Could you explain what the context was that the original statement could stand on. I thought it was implicit that there was some social context to the injury of male or female. Pure injury, caused by no external social or physical world is equal. Yes, you'd be right, but the argument would be useless as no such situation exists. And if we are going to create a hypothetical situation or position to make a point, please state why we'd create it. (Like John Rawls' original position which was aimed, funnily enough, at tackling this sort of issue). Otherwise, if unspecified, we assume the real world (the default) which is necessarily a response to social and physical input. Anything else is arm chair discussions which I find to be a waste of time, unfocused and very ad hoc (which Rawls was but it was to argue a point and he had things narrowed down).

Archetypes

"certain archetypes that are seldom embodied by individuals" - I'll go with that. It's never useful to look at an individual as an archetype. But it useful to make sense of society at the hand of archetypes. If you're going to argue feminism at the hand of individuals you are wasting time. Feminism deals with society and that eventually impacts the individual. That is why I would discard exceptions to the rule

(or small groups) as social science does not deal with absolutes or 'complete' statistics (as in it requires 100% before we can say yes. 60% is yes, 70% is more yes).

Why do we gravitate towards them?

Billions of years of evolution made men and women what they need to be. Combine that with supercharged evolution since we made the first symbol that could carry meaning and you're left with a situation where gender evolution happened in a very uneven way (hence all the arguments around all these things). But the reality is that we don't know. It's there, been there for millions of years and is obviously not a construct of 'evil media' and 'evil big business'.

You are fooling yourself if you think being able to put someone in an archetype is going to give you any real information about them.

You're right. An archetype reveals very little about the individual. But in the broadest strokes it can predict values and norms. Like they say: 'no one is unpredictable'. By that I don't mean to say you can predict the individual's next step but you can predict what societal values and 'truths' would be within the next 10 years. That in no way deals with the individual. But I have had many an argument where 'the individual' is used as irrational and emotional leverage to challenge the 'archetype models'. It's silly, the argument is bogged down and it goes on forever because the same logic does not count. (Look even at the difference between micro and macro economics - completely different rules at the aggregate but it all makes sense).

difference and hostility are not even interchangeable in this discussion.

Linguistically no, you're right. But in principle yes. So let's then rephrase: 'you assume a direct positive correlation between difference and hostility. The one implies the other'. Hostility is very often caused by difference, but difference doesn't cause hostility as often. It's like saying my car is green, therefore all things green is my car.

Also, there are two ways of seeing difference. One assumes that difference marks hierarchy and the other assumes only that difference assumes difference. You seem to be of the former.

I am not denying men and women have fundamental differences.

Which differences do you believe we have?

You referred to men and women as separate species. That is a pretty deep difference, even figuratively.

While I believe all animals vary this deeply between male and female, I cannot claim to know much about that. I'm no biologist and we don't really understand the social dynamics of animals to the depth that we understand our own. In this (and this is from a human perspective) I am aware of enough difference between men and women so as to constitute the same difference that I am aware of between the lion the tiger.

My apologies for any poetic liberties taken. Although, I'm sure you'll jump on this to say "don't hide the faults in your weak statement under poetic liberties, if you didn't mean we are two species then don't say it" or some such bickering response.

A person can replace another person if they have the same qualities. Barring reproductive roles, there is no single quality particular to either gender. Of course there are some uncommon to one and common to the other, but I think an enormous reason for that is not genetic, it is environmental. People raised without gender roles would be more similar than they are now.

Inside the modern economy yes. We are equal and capable in the same ways. But why would humans (after evolving along the same line as all the other species) be genetically equal while every single other species (bar for hermaphroditic species like snails and such) are different. Do you honestly believe that outside the native island of Super Woman (and like you said, excusing reproductive function), a society will flourish with only men or women?

This statement of yours also flirts with the argument as to where the lines between nature and nurture really is. There was an interesting article in Philosophy Now an 'The soup and the scaffolding' which you may or may not have seen. While the actual article might not be so relevant the thinking helps with this sort of dilemma. (I haven't taken a look but I'm sure back issues are free on the web).

(As a side note, there's a laughable school of feminism that aimed at caging men and merely holding them for reproductive purposes. It was sort of grounded in this sort of thinking of absolute equality. Also, at the time of finding this, I knew a lot of guys who liked the idea. This is a comic side note so don't have a fit please, it's not part of the argument).

If our closest ape relatives displayed personality dimorphism anywhere near as extreme as the one you're positing in humans, then I would be more inclined to think such a thing had a more deeply-rooted foundation in our species as well.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm no biologists but I'm pretty sure they're quite different. I don't speak ape so I can't really engage at that level. Also refer to my previous statement.

I think the variation between two people of the same gender is far more profound than the difference in average test scores. I think it would be even more so if there wasn't an attempt to push genders into adopting a specified set of traits.

You believe far too much in the unique nature of the individual. On a global scale for today alone, individuals cluster very accurately around archetypes that make their behaviour, beliefs and values quite predictable. If you add the dynamic of time (meaning you not only compare Turks to Italians but Turks from 2001 to Italians from 2004) we all become little carbon copies of the other people that circle that same archetype. But what does it mean when women from Turkey in 1965 shared a same gender differences to women from Sierra Leone in 2005? If gender difference are taught (like you're supposing) then how did the teachings so accurately pass between all these societies while many of these societies are still not connected to the internet. More so, the least connected societies are the greatest perpetrators of gender inequality. Note that this is not to argue that gender inequality is right or wrong, it merely goes to show that it might be natural (in the broadest terms of the word).

I feel I have to point these details out as you look to block the discussion by nit picking instead of moving it ahead. Very annoying and it slows the discussion down.

Now feminism is a societal concept so forget about the beauty of the individual. The individual is irrelevant here. We can build archetypes or typologies based in infinite variables and perceptions. To say that male A and male B can in certain respects vary more than male A and female A is true. But that is irrelevant as we are not discussing those respects. It's a stupid statement. This is a discussion on gender and feminism on a societal level. So get all other ideas of 'other respects' between 'two individuals' out the way. They don't matter here.

I didn't try to somehow present transsexuality as a rule, but as a refutation of your blanket statement that men make poor women and women make poor men. And it was not the only refutation I offered. Every person in the world is a refutation of their own way, as I doubt there is anyone who adheres to the prescribed traits of their gender 100% of the time.

And then this is your individual nonsense again.

Now please, if you are here to bicker and jump between contexts to suit your argument, state that up front and I won't bother.

Awareness doesn't assume tolerance. And intolerance doesn't assume a violent reaction.

My point was that intolerance of the individuals based on ideas of a whole stems from a lack of understanding.

That I'd agree with, judging the individual based on the whole is probably not an example of 'intelligent intolerance'.

Dreams happen when our brain gets a chance to relax and sort things out. It's also been argued to be something that actually help us sleep. Our brain effectively never shuts down, it does stop taking input though.

The paralysis you get when you partly wake up has been explained as a demonic presence, or a strangling spirit (struggling to breathe). It is however closer related to the sudden movement some people have as they fall asleep, it's as you start dreaming without a fully paralyzed body.

Dreams probably have meaning in as much as it combines your perceptions with your experiences and can therefore be seen as one of may tools that will describe how you see the world.

I understand that it means you’re good at one thing and not another (rocket science and weaving). But you make a specific reference ‘it’ (I’m assuming intolerance) ‘means lack of understanding as far as anthropology is concerned’. Anthropology is an academic field, the subject is culture and you said a cultural intolerance meant a lack of understanding of the academic field (anthropology). By substituting the academic field and its subject, you can better understand the inherent logic in that statement which was ‘a better understanding of the academic field means tolerance of its subject’. I’m questioning whether you’re ability or the capacity to understand necessarily mean you’ll tolerate it.

Don’t confuse the whole and the parts. I’m not talking individuals, I’m talking culture. I can think South Africans’ obsession with reconciliation is idiotic but I can still like a South African. There I agree with you. You can like the part and dislike the whole. Important to keep them apart otherwise an argument can pivot on to suit whoever is speaking.

If by natural you mean probable I'd agree. It was not very probable but it is happening which is why we are struggling with it.

If I cannot define my point in hindsight there is no point to debate. Then it really is submitting a fact and then have someone rubber stamp it. The idea behind debate is to flesh out concepts and arguments as you go along in order to create understanding and forge new ideas. By blocking any new facts and clinging to ‘but you said’ is counterproductive. If this is your view then I’ll stop with this post.

In all my years of social research I’ve never worked with pigeon holes. I believe in archetypes that is very seldom reflects any individual. I think that’s a Platonic idea – it’s nothing new and nothing I thought up. Male and female are such archetypes and we gravitate towards them – much like the moon around the earth. We’re closer and further away and we vary in our intensity throughout our lifetime. I build arguments from the archetype out and in terms of archetypes, men and women really differ this much.

You seem extremely intolerant in that you see difference and hostility as the same thing. Your response for ‘we are different’ is the same as ‘one is better than the other’. I was a fan of Simone de Beauvoir’s feminist position that held a different but equal ideal. I believe she didn’t feel that we were more or less, but she definitely felt we were different in extreme ways. She was, in my understanding, verbal about the existing inequalities between men and women. We can be sensitive to the inequalities while still holding a view that we are fundamentally different.

I don’t divide people deeply. That’s ridiculous. I’m saying that women bring something different and equally important to the table. A man cannot replace a woman in society and a woman can’t replace a man. I find it strange that you think we can be that. In the modern economy the difference is irrelevant. Men and women are all the same in terms of the job market and economic function. But the modern free market is in its infancy if you compare it to the human race.

Are you focusing on the last 100 years when you have this discussion or do you keep in mind that humans too are animals?

And on fighting: There are a few assumptions between a broken nose and self worth. It’s a rather modern phenomenon to say fighting is bad. The connection between degrading human worth and scars of fighting is a modern social construct. There are many tribes (and even social groups today) in which physical challenges and the resulting scars are seen as adding human worth. But this mostly to men.

My reference to you saying there is no difference: You acknowledge difference but you hold that these are general differences and not particular to gender. There are gender based differences.

Transsexuals are also not the rule. Rules are very seldom ultimate and you cannot deny that transsexuals are anomalies. If they indeed claim they are women trapped in a man’s body that in itself acknowledges the difference between and women. If they are women in a man’s body they acknowledge that the woman inside makes for a strange man even with a fully functional male body.

Sorry, I guess quotes work better. This is the line I responded to there:

Always people in the time "oh no, this one is really impossible." In a few decades the singularity will likely be part of a High School physics class and we'll look like asses for ever doubting it could be answered.

Is that not the same as saying mechanical know how means you have to like all cars? I might be able to understand a culture and still not tolerate it. Why make the assumption that understanding will lead to tolerance?

As I understand, the singularity is by definition something that can't fit into our understanding. It's a relative position. The invention that would set it off would be our last invention. I just mentioned it because it opens the idea of something that we can no longer understand. The singularity itself is therefore not like the stars and the ocean as those stood apart from us.

If such a super intelligent race were to kick off, we'd be to them what cats and dogs are to us. Cats and dogs cannot understand what we understand. So, we might not be able to understand what a 'post-singularity' world would be.

If dogs don't fully grasp 1 dimensional time, why do we assume we can grasp time in it's entirety. Dogs might not be on an evolutionary path that will grant them the faculties to and so we might not be building the neural capacity to do that either. In order to grasp the universe we might (for argument's sake) have to grasp 5 dimensional space, 2 dimensional time and two other things that we don't even know of.

I know it sounds like we'll end up in an 'I think therefore I am' position, but it there anything that indicates that we can know?

On Peter Pan syndrome:

It's not at all a natural situation, but to be brutally natural one would have to discard technology and language and resort to a world of physical domination. The 'nature' ship has sailed. That is if you don't subscribe to the idea that whatever happens on earth is natural.

Educated, high earning women is not a problem at all. It's after all what we were hoping for for such a long time. The subsequent social fallout is a problem. We need to readjust our view and accept that men need not always be the providers. Once that social issue is sorted out, things should be fine.

I've seen groups of people battling with social values that are weeks old. The idea of a 'male provider' is much older and one needs to keep in mind that this adjustment phase might cost society male role models. That should be prevented at all costs.

On the guy breaking another guy's nose:

Having your nose broken does not take from your human worth. The males in many animal species fight for both pleasure and dominance. In a very primal and natural way one can say 'it's a guy thing'. Men fight and they are happy to. If you like social projects, put all your prejudice aside and interview men at a fighting academy. Men deal with fighting better, they recover faster and they handle trauma better. They are, naturally, better fighters and more inclined to do so.

On girls and language:

It has bearing on the direction of feminism. It's a tip of an iceberg. It indicates that there are fundamental differences in the way information is perceived and processed. Possibly to the same end, but different in every other way. The fact that I used academic subjects in the example is irrelevant.

And on dichotomy:

We are two different species. The divide between men and women is massive and it's laughable to think we're going to squeeze both of us into the same mold. Men make for strange women and women are strange men. If we are the same, if there is no difference, why do we have feminism. Did the savage mind create inequality or did culture create it? And even so, where was the starting point. Was it because one looked down to see a protrusion and the other a cavity and so it started?

In the animal kingdom some females eat males, in the aviated species they look different - so much so that you can mistake them for two different species. How many nature documentaries open a new scene with 'in the male of the species' or 'in the female of the species'? Why are we so special to think we're exactly the same, bar for reproduction? It's absurd.

But equally absurd is to say we have different human worth. I state this explicitly in my previous argument and you conveniently forget to highlight and mention that. Don't cherry pick from arguments. Equal human worth is of paramount importance. It is the lack of equal human worth that brings the very legitimate rise of feminism.

If we are then the same, can you explain the point of homo and heterosexual relationships. I've spoken to many gay men and they are in gay relationships for more than just the male physique and genitals. The male human is different. The same goes for lesbian relationships and heterosexual relationships.

That is a good point to note - that not liking is different to intolerance. I guess what I meant with 'I'm going home' is a total rejection of that culture of being legitimate. It really is a bit more than Karl, but he is mainstream entertainment.

The world has for a long time been subjected to mass produced media content (and it was great). That was largely broad sweeps of 'mainstream' western culture. We could all understand and digest it. It was ubiquitous and easy to accommodate. Smaller cultures (and there are millions) were offsets from the 'main world culture'. However, current day is a world where everyone produces and distributes content to everyone. All cultures (in which the internet is available) now lay claim to the status of 'world culture',making it more and more difficult to accommodate all, especially if some contradict.

I'm speculating that this hyper awareness will make people shut off to the outside world. They won't chase them away, they will just disengage.

I also don't think being 'sick of all the Arabs' constitute an intelligent form of intolerance. That's more like being a moron. Which I guess raises and interesting question: is intolerance necessarily unintelligent?

Also, do not make the mistake to assume your culture for the world and judge women accordingly. I've spoken to many women who love their position in societies that we might deem sexist.

Having said that, societies where women (or anyone for that matter) are burnt alive for having an opinion is never ok.

The world is starting to face a problem where men are taking a back seat. Women are out graduating men and subsequently out earning them. Men in return are surrendering (the ever rising Peter Pan syndrome) or in some cases fighting back in a physical way (dare I say in lower income areas). Lower income areas funnily enough, generally have stronger women (emotionally and socially) while men are more troublesome - this I base on my personal research in South Africa).

To an extent I feel we're making the mistake of thinking that men and women are the same. We're equal in worth but not in many other ways. For example, it is better if a guy breaks another guy's nose instead of a woman's. Guys are better suited to fighting. We take punches better and pound for pound we are stronger. We're less flexible but stronger. That's why we shop with girls, we're better at carrying bags (joke...ish).

Girls are quicker to pick up language and boys math. It doesn't mean that boys should be engineers and girls language teachers, remember, this was true before we had formal language and math. It indicates that there are fundamental differences between that male and the female of the human animal. One might argue that it's the hunter gatherer thing but personally I like to think that we were different even before we hunted and gathered.

The old crime is inequality in human worth. The new crime is assuming equality in all aspects of life. We are different and alike like a nut and a bolt, two completely different pieces that serve the same, equally important purpose. Men and women should err on the side of tolerance and respect and try to figure out how our differences can be leveraged in a modern era to create a better, more useful society.

Age does matter. We are not in relationships with other human bodies but with human beings which are to a large extent a sum of experiences. If the age gap is too big those experiences will be too different and will affect the relationship. Russian to someone who grew up during the cold war would mean communist and if you grew up in the 90's it would mean mail order bride, death metal or masculine leadership (just an example, not all people will have these connotations).