What Every Androphile Should Know, But Is Afraid to Ask

* philosophically

If you are like most people, philosophy can be scary shit. It requires thought, and some thought can be rigorous and challenging. It uses words no longer "pop" or "hip." But most androphiles are not like most people, at least in one major regard, their sexuality. If they also are aware of the following principles of philosophy, it will help eliminate mind traps that seem to find currency among barbarians. Philosophers, of course, arose out of Greek Civilization, not out of tribal barbarism. Knowing that difference often makes a difference:

THE SKEPTICAL STANCE

Also, known as critical reason. "Question authority." Indeed, question everything. The philosophical method is by doubting -- by challenging beliefs and assumptions -- by taking the extreme skeptic's point of view. The "philosophical method" is progressively (1) methodical doubt, (2) formulate hypothesis, (3) scrutinize, and (4) reach a conclusion. But doubting is the beginning of all inquiry.

THE FACT/VALUE DIVIDE

Also, known as the "Is/Ought Divide" and "Naturalistic Fallacy." A statement of fact does not a value make, nor a value into a fact make. Crime is a fact, but of little value. Democracy is value, but not always a fact. Facts and Values are entirely-different realms of thought. See, David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature. See also, G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica.

THE FALSIFICATION CRITERION

Any claim that -- in principle -- cannot be falsified, also cannot be verified, and thus cannot be a factual (true/false) claim. It's logically impossible. See, Sir Karl Popper, "The Falsifiability Criterion" in collected essays.

THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

Observations that inductive reasoning has worked in the past do not imply that it will always work. For example, the fact that the earth has rotated on its axis every 24 hours for the past 356 days times 14 billion years gives no evidence it will do so again. For most philosophers, the "problem of induction" pertains only to future predictions of causal events. See, David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature and Sir Karl Popper, On Objective Knowledge. On the other hand, Wesley Salmon, ""Modus tollens without corroboration is empty; modus tollens with corroboration is induction," which is brilliantly using inductive reasoning to validate deductive logic, but, deductive logic cannot validate inductive logic. That's the "problem."

ALL KNOWLEDGE IS PROVISIONAL

All knowledge, even scientific, is always provisional "as the best explanation" at present, subject to improvement through criticism, e.g., Einstein's Relativity is superior to Newton's Physics. All else is mere belief. See, Sir Karl Popper, On Objective Knowledge.

NOMINALISM

Human language operates by nominalism, not by essentialism. Language identifies thought by naming thought, not by defining their essences. Names are predicated (attached) to thought principally by either (1) specific and unique objects named and/or (2) a set of descriptive statements that constitute our ideas named. Ergo, the "reason" that PostModernism is "bullshit" is because it attacks "essentialism," when essentialism is a phantom without straw or men. In addition to syntax and semantics, language also operates by constitutive rules. Not a minor detail. See, William of Ockham, Summa Logicae and John Searle, Speech Acts.

SAME-SEX ATTRACTION IS "NORMAL"

The sexual attraction, arousal, and intercourse by the same dimorphic member of a species is "biologically normal" as a standard variant of human sexuality and of 450+ other species. Reading the Classics would have told you that! Those who regard same-sex attraction as "outlaw" need to find another motif, as "outlaw" is abnormal, and homophilia is quite normal biologically. See, E. O. Wilson, On Sociobiology and On Human Nature. See also, Homer, Plato, Sophocles, etc.

THE EMPIRICAL BASIS

Claims without an "empirical basis" (without our senses) are (1) endlessly regressive, and/or (2) dogmatism, and/or (3) psychologism. Statements, and reasoning based on statements, without empirical content (perceptual experience) can never be falsified, and therefore can never be verified, and thus cannot be known. Such claims without empirical basis properly belong to the realm of metaphysics, fanciful speculation, and creative imagination, but not of knowledge. See, for example, Romans 1. Bible. See, J. F. Fries & Karl Popper, "The Empirical Basis" in collected essays. See, Greek epic, drama, poetry, and other arts.

NEVER ARGUE WITH A FOOL

Anyone whose sole criterion of fact is his a priori "beliefs," has himself as an a priori a fool. Without "evidence," without "reason," what remains to argue? Battlements are needed (with rabbi, priest, minister, or imam to explain their strategies).

CLASSICAL VALUES

Traditional biblical values are not classical values. The classical values include truthfulness, justice, equality, equity, courage, pride, temperance, fortitude, nobleness, fairness, democracy, restitution, autonomy, proportion, distributivism, "the mean," and the other basic liberal values of the Enlightenment, including freedom and liberty. None of these classical values are to be found among "biblical values," which may explain why Nazis, Christians, Jews, and Muslims still appeal to them. See, Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, and Frederick Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals.

HEDONISM

Pursue pleasure (or, the "most pleasant"), and avoid pain (or, the "least pleasant"). Religions deny the hedonist's axiom, despite its self-evidence (the opposite sentiment is impossible to maintain). What actually is the most pleasant, and what actually is painful, may be disputable. But the axiom is not! See, Epicurus, Vatican Fragments (what's left of them). See also, David Hume, Treatise on Human Nature.

SUMMARY

You may have noticed that many, if not most, of the principles listed above concern "knowledge," or epistemology -- what do we know, and how do we know it? Why does philosophy make the theory of knowledge so central? Because what we know, or think we know, impacts on how we act and live. Look at Washington, Jerusalem, and Peking.

You may independently know of philosophy's use of mathematics, formal deductive logic, and inductive critical thinking, in addition to the theory of language. The computer you are using is using Boolean Logic every step of the way. Your reading is using English language every step of the way. Your mind is using both every step of the way.

All of which is very useful, as tools, but only as tools. Like a hammer and nail. Something to use in order to build, after the architect and engineer have devised strategies to build upon their development of knowledge. Computers cannot think, and never will, but some humans choose not to think, and hope computers will. (See, Making versus Doing versus Creating versus Known, in Aristotle.)

Some beliefs, like astrology, are harmless (unless you're planning your prenuptial by the stars' heavenly alignment and the Apocalypse that never comes or arises). Alchemy has long been replaced by chemistry and atomic theory. And, while few of us need Einstein to get us to the moon (Newton is still serviceable), time-space has its privileges. And, evolution has long been proved a FACT, regardless of who values it. A Celtic sage by the name of Phil Donohue (daytime interview host married to Marlo Thomas) once opined, "No one has ever died from too much knowledge, only the wrong beliefs held as knowledge." Amen, brother Phil and Sister Marlo's husband. That's why philosophy survives!

For example, if one believes (falsely) that homophilia is "unnatural," or a "moral evil," or "unethical," it might affect the way an androphile acts? You think? You doubt it? Good for you! Philosophy always begins and ends with a question. How else can we find out?