Reality Redefined

By -




Reality is not something pre-existing that we must learn to deal with as best as possible. That would be inconvenient, and might impede our desires.

No, reality is whatever we define it to be.

Comments

  1. Keshav Srinivasan10:40 PM

    Gene, they're not talking about redefining reality, they're talking about redefining what they see as a socially constructed conception of femininity. Now you may think that that conception of femininity is grounded in reality, but it mischaracterizes their position to say that they reject the notion that reality is something pre-existing. They just have different beliefs about that pre-existing reality than you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:20 AM

      No.

      Delete
    2. Keshav Srinivasan11:09 AM

      Um, would you care to elaborate?

      Delete
    3. Unknown3:43 PM

      Keshav, feminists already think that femininity is grounded in reality. If feminists state otherwise, they are free to toss out paternity leave, sexual harassment laws, abortion 'rights', etc., since, if these things are not tied to biological reality, they must be social and therefore, according to their own views, arbitrary!

      Feminism is just female narcissism. It isn't even good philosophy.

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell9:04 PM

      "If feminists state otherwise, they are free to toss out paternity leave, sexual harassment laws, abortion 'rights', etc., since, if these things are not tied to biological reality, they must be social and therefore, according to their own views, arbitrary!"

      Flounder!

      "Feminism is just female narcissism."

      That's a stretch.

      Delete
  2. Prateek5:22 AM

    What's wrong with this ad is that if you thought women were always capable of serving in the navy, you would not have to "redefine" them?

    Using the word "redefine" implies they were never suited for it in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown3:40 PM

      Prateek, the problem is that they are *not* suited for it - at least not as well as men. Do some research on problems with pregnancy, sexual harassment, deployability due to injuries and medical problems, sensitivity training, etc. As an example, the Marine Corps. just finished a two year study on women in combat units, and they found out what the Brits have known for twenty years; women are not suited for these roles.

      If they were more brutal in their assessment, they would have found that women aren't as suitable for the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, etc. as men. The research is out there - look it up.

      Really, in all honesty, this isn't (or at least, shouldn't) be a big surprise.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell9:06 PM

      "Using the word 'redefine' implies they were never suited for it in the first place."

      Agreed.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more