h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Is the Pope a feminist?"

"The Vatican's statement about the role of women has been greeted with worldwide astonishment. But there's no reason to despair, says Germaine Greer - this could be the best thing that has happened to feminism in years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1276145,00.html


"Catholic feminists who snatch at the straw of the Pope's statement that housework should be paid for should remember that Wojtyla cannot imagine a world in which housework is done by anyone but women. His Holiness's lavatory is cleaned by nuns."

az

Blackberry Cat,

I was not intending to exclude the Egyptians Babylonians ect, The Greek example was the best one I had in my head at the time and I felt it most clearly related to the european context. Incidentaly there is some evidence that the culture of the Minoan civilisation was much more female orientated or balanced if you like.

I think that the 'warrior caste' idea, has a good deal of currency, but I also wonder if as with many things it isn't more complex than that, one of the defining features of early civilisation seems to be the accumulation of power into the hands of a few. The 'legitimising' forces involved appeared to be physical strength but also dependant population. So although I accept your premise I think the development of the City, and with it a slave caste as well, was at least equally influential.



Re Logic, Although the critique of the Umbrella stands in some senses but could be dissassembled further, I am increasingly of the opinion that Logic, whilst useful, can be taken to be a panacea. The difficulty with this is the assumption that logical premises can be applied to all contexts feels increasingly flimsy to me.

I come back to 'Cogito Ergo Et Sum' and find that although it is possible to make deductions about the external reality, they are so influenced by by assumptions that I must tread very cautiously.

So in your example of the cup of tea, the sugar/milk may well make it taste better and the sewage not; from your perspective, but not from mine as I like neither Milk nor Sugar, (Nor Sewage)

The assertion was made was all that can be said about the umbrella example was:

"If I don't go out carrying an umbrella, it isn't raining."!

This does not hold either, as I quite like being out in the rain and regard an umbrella as an obstical to my enjoyment of it.

This brings me back to my original premise, that human experience is so complex that logical argument can only hold within restricted frameworks and great care needs to be taken when applying them to broader contexts, because on almost every occasion someone can turn round and say, 'ah but that doesn't take account of......'

Hi Toxx,

A number of posts have intervened but I'm replying to your post no.20431.

"As I've said, God is immaterial and eternal in one of its senses. This has to be the case for whatever caused/created the material world. The only alternative is to suppose (impossibly) that the material world has always existed."

No. A valid alternative is to suppose that the material world (i.e. the universe) was created spontaneously out of nothing. I can't explain how but I'm certainly not going to assign a triple-O intelligence to the nothing without plenty of evidence.

"There is no physics of the immaterial. The boundaries of the material world and those of science are the same."

That's not strictly true either. There is a physics of the void where there is no material but there is at least time. There is of course no physics of 'nothing' where there is neither material nor energy nor time. On the other hand there is no logic of 'nothing' either except perhaps "I am not, therefore I don't think".

"

Any place and way He bloody well likes. That's what being omnipotent is all about."

Well obviously that is sound logic; how does he manage to be omnipotent? Because he is omnipotent and can therefore be whatever he likes. Yer 'avin' a larff, incha?

F

Do I get the feeling there's really two conversations going on here....
Anyway, to comment on the discussion about women and the church: there's been people on both sides of the debate quoting the Bible to prove their points. The trouble is, the thing's full of contradictions, which leads to the problem of how, exactly, can you live your life according to it? Following the whole thing is clearly impossible regarding a lot of issues, so, how do you decide which parts apply.

(BTW, UWE's in Bristol, not Plymouth. Good try though )

Fathom.



You say 'was created' implying a creator. Presumably you mean 'came about' or words to that effect as you also say 'spontaneously'. OK, forget assumptions about the creator, but surely there has to be a cause of the universe. To say 'spontaneously' is to say 'out of nothing and because of nothing' isn't it? OK, maybe 'nothing' in material terms is right, but that can be God!



I don't accept that talk of 'time' is coherent when there's no material - which you've agreed includes energy. Can you give me one topic of physics that would apply?

Yup.

God's omnipotence is such that He only has to will something to be the case for it to come about. I don't know how this is done. There's certainly no physics of it until the material manifestation is there. One way of looking at this is to say that the universe is an idea in the mind of God or, alternatively, that it is God's sensorium.

toxx

hi android,

<>

Yes, just the two at the moment. Things have been a bit slow around here of late.

Welcome to the thread.


az

Hi SD.

<"If I don't go out carrying an umbrella, it isn't raining."!

This does not hold either, as I quite like being out in the rain and regard an umbrella as an obstical to my enjoyment of it.>

The point is that it follows logically from the original assumption (not my example) "If I go out when it is raining, then I carry an umbrella." Your behaviour indicates simply that the assumption is not true of you, but your remark has nothing to do with logic.

I agree with your broader point. The majority of human thinking cannot be captured by reference to logic. That's the point I was making to Noggin.

toxx

Ah ha consensus developing here,

This comes to the basis of a question I have not yet adequately answered with reference to logic.

How can it the validity of logical processes be tested, when there is so much uncertanty in the environment Logic is attempting to examine and deduce rules and principals from.

I am at a position where I am wondering where the Philosophical frame of referance is heading, Structuralists and post structuralists have come and gone and abou the only agreement that has been arrived at is that 'it depends.'

It would not be the first time that Philosophical thought has turned to mathematics for answers, the logical processes you are discussing emerged from that domain. I am wondering if there are strategies which can be applied which accomodate the basic principals of the science of complexity, i.e. order, chaos, sensitivities, strange attractors ect which can help develop understaning to accomodate the vital significance of the point of view, just as Quantum Mechanics acknowledges the impact of the observer on the observed.

In terms of the development of Knowledge Foucault adressed this to some extent but I found myself uncomfortable with the convolutions of his arguments. As I have said with reference to Occams razor I dont necissarily dismiss the complex in favour of the simple out of hand. However The manufactured elements, don't always seem complex simply because they are but more to underpin the expertees of the writer.

So I wonder if the tendencies of Logic to obsfucate the topic of discussion and lead it into concereteness both deny the complexity of the external reality and hide the inward manifestation of that reality from all but the initiated: How can this be challenged? how can Logic be made useful to the masses? And how can its central uncertanty be used to advantage.

Completely off topic, but I just have to say it. I saw this t-shirt, and the front read as follows:

"God is dead."
- Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead."
- God

StrontiumDog

I was massively over-simplifying
Yes, I think there were several processes that fed into each other

The development of agriculture led to settled communities with storehouses, fields etc that needed to be defended from other communities and from nomadic peoples etc. Hence the need for a warrior caste.

The ruling class varied a lot. In Sumeria there were priest-kings, in Greece warrior-nobles, but all used religion that became more and more male-dominated to justify their position.

The Aryans (Greeks, Persians, the lot who invaded India) seem to have been more male-dominated than the peoples they conquered (not the Celts though)so sometimes the change wasn't part of an evolution within a society.

<>

Pity I didn't actually say that then, isn't it?

What I actually said was that all thinking is mediated by rules. The rules in question may perfectly well be nonsense in terms of correct logic, but that's neither here nor there.

Noggin

Noggin. I humbly apologise. I hold you in considerable respect. However ....., well, I won't go on.

Suffice it to say that thinking isn't mediated by rules. It would be much closer to the truth to say that rules are the product of thinking. Neither is there such a thing as 'correct logic'. There are infinitely many possible logics (read 'Philosophy of Logics' by Susan Haack). A logic needs only to be consistent and complete. I could define these if required. For human reasoning read 'Mental Models' by Phil Johnson-Laird. Very erudite, and he's a nice guy too.

Would you care to tell us why you take the view that thinking is mediated by rules? How are the rules instantiated?

toxx

SD. We don't derive logics from the environment! Logic is not a summary of human thinking. Piaget thought that it was to some extent. Hardly anyone thinks so now and I did my PhD on an aspect of this topic. Disagreement is welcome, but you have been warned.

OK, I'll expand on what I said to Noggin. A logic is sound if and only if, given the axioms, all theorems can be derived from the rules of inference and no contradictions can be derived. In short, given true axioms, all and only true conclusions can be reached using the rules. This is not much like human thinking. I'll give just two reasons for saying that right now: we get things wrong and we disagree.

toxx

Why does everyone seem to think that the scientific theories about the big bang mean that all religious writing on the subject is wrong or vice versa.

Hows this for a nice simplistic description of the big bang...

"God said let there be light and there was life"

Obviously there is a God. God is simply what created this place in which we live. People of different religions and beliefs just rationalise it differently.

Slight typo there of course I meant "and there was light" !!!!!

'The Aryans (Greeks, Persians, the lot who invaded India) seem to have been more male-dominated than the peoples they conquered (not the Celts though)so sometimes the change wasn't part of an evolution within a society.'


The Aryan invasion is a myth! See BHARATEEYA HISTORIOGRAPHY @ http://www.hindubooks.org/hist_ssathe.html

Alji

Hello TRPhil,

You say: "Obviously there is a God."

It's not obvious to me. What evidence do you have that makes this so obvious?

F

'Obviously there is a God. God is simply what created this place in which we live.'

I don't believe the 'Big Bang' myth or the 'Let there be light' myth. I have no need for a creator or 'The Creator'. I believe in 'Life' as the creative force in an ever evolving, ever present universe.


Alji

You mention contradictions in the Bible, NSPA. I'm not saying there aren't any necessarily, but can you name some? (I don't mean old versus New Testaments, because contradictions there are to be ewxpected, to an extent, given the purpose of the New...) But my betting is that any that exist are matters of trivia - somewhere in the OT it says 700 men fought, in another book it says 7000 at the same battle, type of thing...

Hi TRPhil

<>

I'm happy with both scientific theories and religious writing, and also with your 'simplistic description' (although it's not necessary to equate the creation with big bang theory). I agree with you that 'obviously there is a God', but only in a qualified sense: the word 'obviously' should allow for some deduction work being needed.

It clearly isn't obvious in the sense of being self-evident - if that's what you meant, I agree with Fathom.