Recent comments in /f/philosophy

notenoughroomtofitmy t1_j1jpg87 wrote

Reply to comment by Zanderax in From sexual union to the divine – the teachings of Ibn al-‘Arabi by ADefiniteDescription

> we shouldn't be looking backwards into historical religious beliefs for progress.

Looking back towards religious motivations to imbibe progressive outlooks works to some extent with religious people on the fence. It makes things relatable to religious folks, and makes them open up to the new way of looking at things rather than defensively close their outlook and feel persecuted.

Heteronormative stance is wrong by today’s western standards where the primary goal of a relationship is emotional fulfillment of the couple, but had a more rational basis in the past (and some societies today) with most cultures seeing marriage as a union between two people for practical purposes like progeny, strategic alliance, asset allocation and preservation etc, with “love” being secondary motivation at best. This is exemplified by how “union by love” are seen as pure, idealistic inspirations in middle eastern and some Asian (not East Asian specifically, geographically Asian) cultures because these types of relationships weren’t commonplace and hence had many metaphors and allegories attributed to them.

Goes without saying, I’m not saying any of the above “wrong” things are actually correct. We have evolved to see the flaws in those types of thinking, which is great.

One can dismiss 99.9999% of historical content because it doesn’t fit the modern progressive standards. But a stable progressive society isn’t built in isolation, we need inspirations and connections to our cumulative past to justify our reasons for being better today. You and I might not need this, but many people do.

19

notabraininavat t1_j1jmd3s wrote

Reply to comment by Flymsi in Knowing the content of one’s own mind might seem straightforward but in fact it’s much more like mindreading other people by ADefiniteDescription

Haven't figured yet, but my tendency is to think about it as the normative structures that implicitly regulate our behavior. In the vein of Lacan's dictum, 'the unconscious is structured like a language', but from a Brandomian perspective.

1

iiioiia t1_j1jhcgd wrote

Reply to comment by Fluggernuffin in Epistemic Trespassing: Stay in your lane mf by thenousman

> but even then, an expert's opinion is only more valid than a layman's because of specialized knowledge or experience; either learned from another expert, or observed directly

Another problem: "an expert's opinion" can be considered from various perspectives, like on average, or also on a per opinion basis - and, one can (at least in theory) take complexity into consideration (say: multi-variate causality), or ignore it (and thus perceive that it does not exist).

> If a so called "expert" made an assertion without presenting citation or evidence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge that assertion.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to challenge all "expert" assertions, though doing so skilfully is not our strong suit.

0

Zanderax t1_j1jc7fx wrote

Reply to From sexual union to the divine – the teachings of Ibn al-‘Arabi by ADefiniteDescription

This article pegs itself as progressive but is in fact still very regressive.

> since the woman is the locus for existence of the children

Women aren't just baby machines, they should have their own existence and it shouldn't be assumed women want or need children to be satisfied in life.

> The greatest union is that between man and woman

This is very heteronormative. It doesnt seem very accepting at all to queer identities or relationships.

Feminism is trying to move us past religion, we shouldn't be looking backwards into historical religious beliefs for progress.

−65