Essay:The LGBT Question, Answered: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Applying this 'scientifically' (this is actually pseudo-science), let's say in biology, organisms can be classified into Plants, Animals, or Fungi (or more). That there is no exception to these, and it retains its exact mechanisms which are pure. Sure, both Plants and Animals have a respiratory system, but this doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of metaphysics. Right? | Applying this 'scientifically' (this is actually pseudo-science), let's say in biology, organisms can be classified into Plants, Animals, or Fungi (or more). That there is no exception to these, and it retains its exact mechanisms which are pure. Sure, both Plants and Animals have a respiratory system, but this doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of metaphysics. Right? | ||
Unfortunately this is where metaphysics falls apart. Under any scientific, mathematical or | Unfortunately this is where metaphysics falls apart. Under any scientific, mathematical or even general concepts, examples of purity aren't generally found. For example in science, ''phytoplankton'' can eat animals (the opposite of how it is done) and ''microzooplankton'', which are classified as 'animals', can also utilise photosynthesis, a characteristic typical in plants.<ref>{{Web citation | ||
| title = Plants Are Not Animals and Animals Are Not Plants, Right? Wrong! Tiny Creatures in the Ocean Can Be Both at Once! | |||
| author = Patricia M. Gilbert | |||
| date = 2019-03-27 | |||
| url = https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00048 | |||
| quote = For decades, most scientists have thought that phytoplankton lived only by photosynthesis. It turns out that many of these phytoplankton also eat the way animals do. Some eat other phytoplankton, some eat bacteria, and some eat tiny animals. | |||
}}</ref> Are these plankton both animals and plants? If we say so, this only blurs the lines between purity and distinct characteristics between one form and another. Thus we cannot state metaphysics is scientifically correct. What about mathematics? Well even though maths is seen to be more rigid, we cannot state maths is more pure. Maths is based on assumptions (or axioms), but it does not mean those axioms are consistent or complete, as proven by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Decision Problem by Alan Turing. For simplicity, it means that the rules we have in mathematics, are not pure either. | |||
Can the laws of dialectics help the scientific or mathematical field? It can. Lenin for example in the '[[Unity of Opposites]]' that positive or negative cancel each other. Same with derivative and integral within calculus. This helps the mathematical field far more, as dialectics describes the ''relationship'' between two or more forms, rather than assuming that each form is isolated. Let's look back at phytoplankton. Whilst the classification is obscure and irrelevant, the phytoplankton presents itself as a valuable food source. So it presents itself [[Contradiction|contradictions]] between nature as its creator, but also with other lifeforms such as types of fish. | |||
This helps us understand that the nature runs of dialectics. Metaphysics would give us not an incomplete view, but it would also hold back our understanding of the world. However, a metaphysicist may claim that the phytoplankton is an ''exception'' or anything as such. However this is only said to continue their stupid idea that metaphysics is the ideal philosophy for people. I do not like the term ''exception'' and will refrain from using it as you will see later. With the existence of exceptions, it means the model that the metaphysicist proposes with their views, is not rigid. The idea of nuance, which the metaphysicist tries to comprehend, is completely foreign to the metaphysicist. Hence what Mao said: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics."<ref> | |||
{{Citation | |||
| author = Mao Zedong | |||
| year = 1955 | |||
| title = Introductory note to "Material on the Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique | |||
| title-url = https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch22.htm | |||
}} | |||
</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
== Sexuality == | == Sexuality == | ||
Revision as of 18:29, 21 September 2023
This will be a long essay likely. Also the chapters will likely change as the essay is written.
Preamble
The LGBT[a] Question involves answering many aspects. This includes sex, sexuality, and gender. Many Marxists and so-called 'Marxists' have tried to answer this question utilising the tools of science. However the correct application to the scientific method requires a concrete understanding of Materialist Dialectics. This essay serves not only to understand LGBT people from a dialectical perspective, but also serves as a critique to the 'marxists' (in other words: revisionists, reactionaries) who claim the LGBT people are either idealist, or do not align with the dialectical framework.
This has been pushed by several 'marxists' including the 'marxists' on TERF Island[b] This is pushed to the extent that criticism stems from outright denial of gender, espousing it as 'Gender Ideology', to as low as 'supporting' the transgender movement, whilst outright denying other aspects of the LGBT people.
This is a reactionary position, especially with so-called Patriotic 'socialists' who aim to deny the LGBT movement all together and consider it as a cornerstone of the CIA. But is that true? Would it be more nuanced than this? Only evidence can disclose the truth, and thus before we consider LGBT people, we must understand what is metaphysical and what is dialectical.
Metaphysics and Dialectics
If you understand anything about dialectics from either the article or even a 101 overview, you must understand that dialectics presupposes change. With metaphysics however, everything is contained with one aspect, and that aspect cannot fundamentally change. Let us look at it from a metaphysical point of view. There is an item, it could be any item possible, let us say '1'. We understand the idea of '1' from its utilisation in mathematics. We could increment 1 (or add 1) to make 2. However metaphysics states that 1 remains the same. 2 also remains the same. It retains its purity, in other words, no other aspect or form of nuance would ever change this '1'.
Applying this 'scientifically' (this is actually pseudo-science), let's say in biology, organisms can be classified into Plants, Animals, or Fungi (or more). That there is no exception to these, and it retains its exact mechanisms which are pure. Sure, both Plants and Animals have a respiratory system, but this doesn't necessarily contradict the idea of metaphysics. Right?
Unfortunately this is where metaphysics falls apart. Under any scientific, mathematical or even general concepts, examples of purity aren't generally found. For example in science, phytoplankton can eat animals (the opposite of how it is done) and microzooplankton, which are classified as 'animals', can also utilise photosynthesis, a characteristic typical in plants.[1] Are these plankton both animals and plants? If we say so, this only blurs the lines between purity and distinct characteristics between one form and another. Thus we cannot state metaphysics is scientifically correct. What about mathematics? Well even though maths is seen to be more rigid, we cannot state maths is more pure. Maths is based on assumptions (or axioms), but it does not mean those axioms are consistent or complete, as proven by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Decision Problem by Alan Turing. For simplicity, it means that the rules we have in mathematics, are not pure either.
Can the laws of dialectics help the scientific or mathematical field? It can. Lenin for example in the 'Unity of Opposites' that positive or negative cancel each other. Same with derivative and integral within calculus. This helps the mathematical field far more, as dialectics describes the relationship between two or more forms, rather than assuming that each form is isolated. Let's look back at phytoplankton. Whilst the classification is obscure and irrelevant, the phytoplankton presents itself as a valuable food source. So it presents itself contradictions between nature as its creator, but also with other lifeforms such as types of fish.
This helps us understand that the nature runs of dialectics. Metaphysics would give us not an incomplete view, but it would also hold back our understanding of the world. However, a metaphysicist may claim that the phytoplankton is an exception or anything as such. However this is only said to continue their stupid idea that metaphysics is the ideal philosophy for people. I do not like the term exception and will refrain from using it as you will see later. With the existence of exceptions, it means the model that the metaphysicist proposes with their views, is not rigid. The idea of nuance, which the metaphysicist tries to comprehend, is completely foreign to the metaphysicist. Hence what Mao said:
"Idealism and metaphysics are the easiest things in the world, because people can talk as much nonsense as they like without basing it on objective reality or having it tested against reality. Materialism and dialectics, on the other hand, need effort. They must be based on and tested by objective reality. Unless one makes the effort one is liable to slip into idealism and metaphysics."[2]
Sexuality
Gender and Sex
New Movements
Identity Politics and the Liberalisation of the LGBT People
Notes
- ↑ For the sake of simplicity, the LGBTQIA+ or the Queer community will be referred as LGBT. I will state other sexualities or genders later on.
- ↑ Also known as the United Kingdom.
References
- ↑ “For decades, most scientists have thought that phytoplankton lived only by photosynthesis. It turns out that many of these phytoplankton also eat the way animals do. Some eat other phytoplankton, some eat bacteria, and some eat tiny animals.”
Patricia M. Gilbert (2019-03-27). "Plants Are Not Animals and Animals Are Not Plants, Right? Wrong! Tiny Creatures in the Ocean Can Be Both at Once!" - ↑ Mao Zedong (1955). Introductory note to "Material on the Hu Feng Counter-Revolutionary Clique.