Welcome to the 21st century, people - where no matter how sound your logic and how good your science is, people will still refuse to believe in sense for what it is: sense!
In today's episode of planet earth, we have a transgender who thinks that transgenderism isn't a mental disorder, we have a scientist who thinks that metaphysics could exist in reality, and we even have a political activist who doesn't believe in free speech!
Buckle your seat-belts people, because you are in for an intellectually stimulating and painful experience of understanding this beautiful, beautiful specimen of philosophical thought.
Everything - that's right – everything inevitably has a question mark at the end of any answer. Did you know this? I didn't, and I still don't.
They tell me it's groundbreaking, those postmodernists.
Let's begin today's episode.
We start with our first guest: Stacy.
Say hi Stacy.
Hi.
OK. So tell us about yourself and why you're here.
Well, I'm a transgender woman and I believe that I don't have a mental disorder.
Hm. But Stacy, wouldn't you agree that it's a mental dysfunction for a person born as a man to want to identify as a woman because of biological errors in their brain?
Well, that is...
Hm. OK, well let's talk more about the mental illness a person may experience on a day-to-day basis.
OK.
Do you see any dysphoria you have experienced with your gender as mental illness?
Of course! ...I've felt really horrible for periods of my life. And I still suffer because of social ideas about my gender. But it's perfectly normal to experience mental illness! Anybody can feel that way.
Of course, Stacy. But it's when people experience severe and enduring mental illness because of biological causes that they have a mental disorder.
Yeah. I think I understand that.
Now here's the thing, Stacy. Transgender people could all successfully transition as soon as possible in a world without prejudice towards transgenderism, and then they would only experience mental illness through their transgenderism because of any lingering dissatisfaction they would still have about their gender.
Yeah, like because we can't become biological females... yet, I guess.
Yeah, science might make breakthroughs in the future that allow us to change our sex. To let biological men bear children, breastfeed and develop bigger hips.
That world would be ideal. Like, we've gotten pretty far with hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery, but those things you mentioned are still be a bit away from us.
It would solve the problem. But we should also focus our attention on the other solution.
What's that?
Curing the underlying dysfunction in the person's brain that causes them to identify as the opposite sex.
I find that offensive, to be honest.
I don't mean to delegitimise your trans experience, Stacy, but if you never had to go through all this in the first place, then wouldn't that have been a good thing?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So do you understand that transgender people experience severe and enduring mental illness because of biological causes, but that the mental illness would be less experienced if the social prejudices were addressed or if science made the right breakthroughs?
...Yeah.
And do you also understand that if the gender identity disorder was cured in the brain that there wouldn't be any mental illness because of it, because it wouldn't exist anymore?
...Yeah!
Stacy, ladies and gentlemen.
Now let's welcome our second guest: Steven.
Hi Steven. Tell us about yourself and why you're here.
Hi. My name is Steven and I'm a biomedical scientist.
And what is it that you believe?
I want to assert that metaphysics could exist in reality.
But isn't the definition of metaphysics a theory or idea that has no basis in reality?
Yes, but I want to assert that reality could be subjective, and so metaphysical ideas could have an actual basis.
But reality is what actually occurs, and for something to actually occur there has to exist objective proof of it. So wouldn't you say that your statement is false?
Let me provide an example.
OK.
What occurs? If a tree falls down and nobody hears it - did it fall down?
Yes.
And if everybody heard a tree falling but no tree fell down?
Then they were hallucinating.
Quantum theory might contradict you here.
Do you mean quantum mysticism?
You may call it by that name. But there is something to be said for its views.
There is something to be said for nonsense?
There is something to be said for the subjectivity of philosophical ideas.
Steven, may I ask a question?
You certainly may.
Do you know what the definition of philosophy is?
That would be the achievement of wisdom from questioning the fundamental nature of stuff.
No, that's actually a consequence of good philosophy.
What's philosophy then?
Philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts by trying to apply sound reasoning.
Hm.
Steven, if I may ask another question, where did you get this idea that philosophy has to be subjective?
Well, that is...
If thoughts and ideas are logically clarified by sound reasoning, then it follows that they must be true. Are you going to say that the truth is subjective?
Well, we can never be sure of anything.
If you can't even be sure of logical truths, then there is no basis for knowledge. And that, if you will excuse my profanity, is bullshit.
What do you mean?
Steven, can you possibly say that two plus two does not equal four?
Well... Erm, I mean, er...
It's impossible. This is an example of an objective truth, and this alone should prove postmodernism to be unsound.
...Yes, perhaps.
Steven, ladies and gentlemen.
We move on to our final guest: Mark.
Hi Mark. How are you?
I'm very good, thanks.
Good. OK, so tell us about yourself and why you're here.
Hi. So I'm a liberal democrat and I don't believe in free speech exactly.
What do you mean by that?
I believe that public speech should only be free insofar that it doesn't issue hateful remarks to others.
But then wouldn't that be censorship and not free speech?
The reality is that minorities are victimised by the freedom to say whatever to them. In our modern society we should seek to empower them, not allow their victimisation.
Hm. So where would you draw the line for what constitutes this victimising type of speech?
Blatantly hateful remarks, and so offensive statements with inserted malice.
OK. So you believe that this type of public hate-speech should be stamped out all over society.
Yes.
Well, here's my thoughts: in safe spaces such as schools or work, I believe that there should exist a moderation of hate speech so as to not not disrupt the study or work place.
OK.
But in the wider society, if we stamp out all forms of public hate speech, we stamp out freedom of expression; and that's what totalitarian societies do.
Yes but we need continually strong efforts to ensure equality. I believe it's the right approach.
Mark, people can learn not be hateful to minorities when they realise that there's no sound logical basis for asserting that minorities are inherently unequal. Don't you agree with this?
Yes, but it's not as easy as that.
Perhaps when we have more elucidated philosophy on the matter, then we will be able to affect more change through logic.
Indeed. That would be ideal.
So let me ask another question, Mark: how much do you think society can be changed through philosophy alone?
If I am to be perfectly honest, I don't know. Profound words stir our hearts, and sound logic stimulates our brains. When people experience sense they believe in it, more strongly than anything. Perhaps the movement of society could be enacted through such profound philosophy. I do not know.
Ladies and gentlemen – Mark. Thank you very much.
It was my pleasure.
And that will be that for today's episode. Tune in next time.
↧