Normativity Puns

anyone regain their confidence in Kant after reading Mehmet Demiray's 2016 Article "The Instrinsic Normativity of Law..."? Tbh, saved my undergrad thesis.

Robertson, Simon & Janaway, Christopher. “Introduction: Nietzsche on Naturalism and Normativity.” Robertson, Simon & Janaway, Christopher (eds.) (2012). Nietzsche, Naturalism & Normativity. Oxford University Press.

Key words: naturalism, normativity, metaethics, values

I. Nietzsche’s Normative and Naturalistic Projects. - It seems that this normative project has a lot to do with some sort of naturalism which includes the denial of supernaturalism and by extension metaphysics. But N neglects a clear explanation of the basis of his naturalism; rather he seems to assume it and apply it. All of this is widely agreed on, but there is still disagreement about: How is N a naturalist? Is it ontological or merely methodological? How reductive and systematic is his naturalism?

2. Nietzsche as naturalist. - Some readings claim that N renounced any concepts of truth for any doctrine at all, including naturalism. But it seems that a robust naturalistic conception of truth is consistently appealed to by N. For he constant seeks for natural explanations to replace supernatural or metaphysical ones.

But it is hard to define N’s naturalism. Brian Leiter interprets N thusly: 1) Philosophy should be somewhat continuous with natural science in both methods and results. 2) Substantive naturalism – “only those properties picked out by the laws of the .physical sciences are real.”

Others object that Leiter’s reading is too strong [or dogmatic?] for N; too systematic, scientisitc, mechanistic, and reductive, ignores the role of culture and ignores first person awareness and engagement. Naturalism can affect our normative thought, for example in our conceptions of free will that affect our views of agency and responsibility.

3. Nietzsche and Normativity. - Janaway and Robertson assume that: Values are a species of norm. Values are about the good, the bad and virtue. Norms are about reasons and oughts. N’s work on morality is normative, criticizing it base on concepts of “excellence” and “Flourishing” - Flourishing is an excellence ordering of one’s drives; a unified self expressed through “externally” excellent action. N claims that moral values inhibit flourishing and excellence. N’s positive ideal is “value oriented”; where action and normativity are based on values which are broadly aesthetic.

4. Metanormativity. - There is disagreement over the metaethics of N’s ‘positive perfectionist claims’. To help us clarify this, let’s review the

Do evaluative judgments have any place in the academic field of History? If so, how are these framed, and how are they distinguished from normative claims made in other fields such as, say, Anthropology or Political Science?

I've been more and more enamored with my culture, especially as I go through the work of decolonising and depatriarchising myself.

Though it's not my path, I appreciate how much my country offers for those who vibe with Sufism, and in general how much I love its history and deep culture. I'm seeing myself more and more as a true representative of my national identity. I am fiercely against power hierarchies and appreciate diversity. Pan-arabism myth and Islamic hegemony have tried to suppress these currents from our self-understanding. I do my best to build an outlook on culture that is both forward looking and grounded.

I'm curious, how do you all relate to connecting to your cultures beyond the ways Islam perverted it?

People have criticized moral naturalism due to the apparent impossibility of getting normativity from natural properties. In other words normativity is something which is conceived clearly enough to at least recognize its absence, so when people say that nature lacks "normativity," what do they mean?

For example, Kane B has recently commented: "I accept the standard critique of moral naturalism that it fails to capture normativity/prescriptivity. ... My view is that you can't make any normative/prescriptive statements under your definition. ... It's probably the most common objection to moral naturalism. ... Under your brand of naturalism, we wouldn't be able to make normative statements, because you are redefining the words in such statements in a way that drains them of their normativity."

The moral naturalism that Kane B was commenting on was a rough definition of morality as being the minimization of suffering. All moral language would be defined according to how it relates to suffering. Should means that doing this thing will help to minimize suffering, good means that this thing reduces suffering, and so on. Under such definitions we can make statements that have the form of a normative statement, such as "People should give to charity," and this would be true if giving to charity helps to minimize suffering, but Kane B insists that despite appearances this is not actually a normative statement due to it being defined entirely in naturalistic terms. Perhaps we might say that it is syntactically normative but semantically non-normative.

So the question is: What exactly are we talking about here? What is the concept that's supposed to be missing from naturalistic morality that's being called "normativity/prescriptivity"? I'm not asking for a pronouncement as to whether moral naturalism is correct or incorrect, but just a clarification of this concept within the debate. Why did Kane B say that naturalistic normative statements lack "normativity" and what did he mean?

I hate being treated as a woman or just only a woman sometimes, and not because of the mysoginy that plagues the world, most of the people that do it do not have any malicious intent is just the way they act to women, like girls to the right or boys to the left or "Wow how cute of you or you're so pretty" and other stuff people do when they perceive you as a woman and just act a certain way.

And I know they dont have any bad intentions, they even have good intentions that if I was just a woman would kind off make me feel good. But it doesn't, depending of the day I feel either uncomfortable or down right sad to the extent I just want to curl in bed.

I just kind of think that I'm stupid because none of this people intent to harm me and I haven't told them that I am not just a woman because I still don't feel comfortable enough in my identity to handle the backlash it may come.

I just hate the cis-normativity. And was worst I don't know how to act in order for others to not feel like I do. I do my best to treat everyone as just human, but like there are sometimes, like in school projects, that I abstain from asking people’s pronouns or preferred names.

(I’m fluidflux: gender fluid + gender flux)

PS. Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes.

Hey everyone!

I am writing my thesis on growing up nonbinary in a binary world. And I am struggling to find a specific term for binary normativity. I actually don't think there is one yet. I mean a term like heteronormativity, cisnormativity or allonormativity, but for the specific normative idea, that there are only two distinct, completely seperable genders.

I think binary normativity sounds clumsy, you could use cisnormativity probably, but I'd like to have something distinct. And then there is Exorsexism (I've read that like 1-2 times, but never in academics), but that just straight up sounds like exorcism.

Has anyone heard of something else? If we were to make one up, what would you think of e.g. Duonormativity? Or other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!! :)

by "beneficial" i mean theoretically beneficial, i.e. the pros of the theory, or points or attractions in its favour.

Constitutivism holds that normative properties and their authority about a thing are grounded in the essential or grounding (and therefore inescapable and, authoritative?) properties of that thing, or what makes the thing the type it is. Caricature e.g.: whether some car is good might be grounded in what it is to be a car. One e.g. is that morality's content and normative authority is grounded in the nature of moral agency.

What attracts me most is the seeming pulling of an ought from an is or perhaps a must.

Constitutivists include Korsgaard, Velleman, Katsafanas and historical precursors include Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche. Perhaps Spinoza too.

Also: what is the relationship between constitutivism and virtue ethics/epistemology?

People are just assumed to have the possibility of being gay or bi. The only instance I can think of when a character explicitly has to say they are gay is when Kana gets rejected by Mahena.

I mean there is a term "amatonormativity" related to romantic love, but what is the analogue for sex? I know the word "heteronormativity" but it is not exactly what I mean.

Does anyone have tips on the current literature on "Normativity"?

I am thinking of applying to this Berlin research project:

https://www.geisteswissenschaften.fu-berlin.de/en/normativitaet-kritik-wandel/index.html

Looking through the recent papers and works of the Principal Investigators in "philosophy": (ie Prof. Dr. Georg W. Bertram; Prof. Dr. Stefan Gosepath; Prof. Dr. Rahel Jaeggi; Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmidt) , there really isn't much to go on. Improvisation and Normativity, Jaeggi"s stuff on Forms of Life.

What is the literature they would be expecting you to engage with in this project?

I was watching Pink's video for Beautiful Trauma and appreciate them playing with stereotypical gender roles but the swearing and BDSM stuff at the end is too much for my kids.

Any ideas on stuff that counters the girls get Barbie, boys get army men narrative? Or shows alternate versions of sexuality, gender fluidity, etc.? I've found some good children's books in this area but not video-based material. I think it'd be valuable for all my kids, but especially my son. He's very empathetic and I worry a lot about societal expectations crushing that out of him.

Thanks!

Edit 1: Thanks all! Other parents/caregivers might have go-to sites for gauging age-appropriateness of this, but I looked up some frequent suggestions and commonsense media suggests (from youngest to oldest):

• Kipo and She-Ra

• Avatar the Last Air-Bender

• Steven Universe

Although sometimes the age recommendations are more based on complexity and guessing what will be hard for kids to understand vs. mature themes.

Edit 2: We started She-Ra tonight and it was a big hit! Excited to see where they go with it.

I'm kinda going through it right now. The details are irrelevant, it's just that I have a history of having dealt with a lot of shitty cis people and some trans people who, while dating me, imposed their ideas about what, who and how I should be on me by constantly comparing me to cis people of my assigned gender, asking me why I wasn't more like that, telling me I was gross or insufficiently feminine for them, freaking out about their sexuality and other people's perceptions thereof and on and on and on.

Obviously this hurt me a lot growing up and left me feeling like I would always be the one to get the short end of the stick in terms of dating. It also messed with my self esteem because it felt like people kept setting impossible standards for me; since I'm not a cis woman but a trans man, I personally can't and won't and don't want to perform womanhood or femininity, so asking me to is just hurtful.

So this is where the current situation comes in. Person A I was interested in keeps telling me that really, they're interested in women. After we had already discussed that we'll only be friends. I have an inkling that that means cis women. Cue me feeling doubly hurt. I get being rejected but to keep telling me that you prefer cis women and are much more interested in them is just shit for me. Because all of my past life I've gotten this response, from people who were actively dating and pursuing me no less! All of my life I've been unfairly compared to cis women. I'm fucking not a cis woman. I'm a trans guy. Great that at least now you acknowledge that I'm not a cis woman, but stop telling me that you prefer them every chance you get. It gets fucking old. I know your cishet idea of yourself is sacred to you and all of society. I know you have to demonstrate how much you don't care for me to feel secure in your identity. But it fucking hurts me and I resent you for it. Just deal with your problems on your own and leave me out of it, forever if possible. I don't need to keep hearing how I'm not the thing people look for. Fuck you. I'm someone's cup of tea. Keep your shitty preferences. Have fun with them. There's something better out there for me and you can have your boring old heteronormative romance. Enjoy the picket fences. I'm out of here.

I would say Angla-nòrmadachd but when I google the term, absolutely nothing comes up. Is it incorrect sa Ghàidhlig OR is it just a new term?

For anyone unfamiliar with the term anglonormativity, it basically explains the assumption that English is the language that will be used in a given situation, even when there are options.

Mòran taing 😎

And what might be their reasons or arguments for thinking this?

Contrary to most professional philosophers and not contrary to most laymen's view of philosophy.

Hi can anyone pls explain the normativity k I saw it on wiki while scouting? Like how would it link Also how should I answer it - I run the dp aff? Are there any analytical arguments I can make or cards I should cut? or does anyone have any 2ac answers they can send?

I have like so many strange ks to prep out so anything would be extremely helpful

• thanks

So I'm posting this and another rant, without changing the wording or the format, I've been unable to pose this as a question in any sub with a sizeable population, it just gets removed. The real rant I suppose is about how it's impossible to talk seriously about these issues in a forum where people will see it.

I saw a similar question and while the poster there seemed satisfied with the responses he got, I still don't get it.

The top voted response to that question was talking about gender dysphoria, so I want to frame my question around gender dysphoria since that seems relevant. I'll list some definitions of terms;

Gender Dysphoria:

>Gender dysphoria is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. - NHS
>
>Some people who are transgender will experience “gender dysphoria,” which refers to psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity. - APA
>
>The DSM-5 defines gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults as a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and their assigned gender, lasting at least 6 months, as manifested by at least two of the following:
- A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
- A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
- A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
- A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
- A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
- A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender) - DSM 5

Gender and Sex:

>Gender Versus Sex
Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex (APA, 2012). Gender is a social construct and a social identity. Use the term “gender” w

Bi people are seen as untrustworthy because bigots assume we cannot be fully satisfied with only one partner. This is less of an assumption made about straight and gay people (though I am aware there are still a lot of negative assumptions about gay men being very promiscuous).

Is the idolisation of monogamy more at the root of biphobia than the idolisation of straightness?

Do you feel that people would be less biphobic if they could understand that we are able to pick one person and be completely monogamous with them, just as they can pick one person and be monogamous to that one to the exclusion of any others they're attracted to?

Do you think a societal shift away from monogamy would make a difference?

Hoping to hear your views :D

I've been reading about moral non-naturalism/naturalism, and I came across the phrase "irreducible normativity", and I'm not quite sure what it means. I have some ideas, but I probably shouldn't go off assumptions. I've found that semantics is very important in philosophy, and sometimes philosophers use words in a way that differs from our everyday usage (e.g. the words subjective/relative causes people a lot of confusion).

Normativity meaning that there's only one way to do something and any other ways are bad, or deviant.

Examples:

• Ice cream is a summer food. Eating ice cream in the winter is bad. Ice cream should only be eaten in the summer. People who eat ice cream during the winter are bad, and deviant.

• Pancakes are a breakfast food. Eating pancakes for dinner is bad. Pancakes should only be eaten for breakfast. People who eat pancakes for dinner are bad, and deviant.

• Animation is only for children. Adult animation such as Anime or the Simpsons is bad. Animation should only be for children.

• Music can only be real music if it has singing and a Melody throughout. Rap doesn't have a melody throughout. Rap isn't real music. Rap music is bad. Rap music should be banned.

Do you consider Australia to be a country with low, or high normativity?

What countries come to mind as ones with high normativity?

Do you consider the United States to be a country with high levels of normativity?

In volume 2 of Derek Parfit's On What Matters he argues against moral naturalism. He claims that: "Moral and natural facts are in two quite different, non-overlapping categories."

Part of his defense for this claim involves what he calls the "normativity objection". He sets the stage for this claim by asking to imagine that you are in a burning hotel. You can only escape by jumping out a window into a canal below. Your life, we can assume, is worth living. So it is clear that:

(A) You ought to jump.

Parfit goes on to say that Naturalists would interpret (A) in as the naturalist claim:

(B) Jumping would most fulfill your present fully informed desires, or is what, if you deliberated in certain naturalistically describable ways, you would choose to do.

He goes on to say the following: "Given the difference between the meanings of claims (A) and (B), such claims could not, I believe, state the same fact. Suppose that you are on the top story of the hotel, and you are terrified of heights. You know that, unless you jump, you will soon be overcome by smoke. You might then believe, and tell yourself, that you have decisive reasons to jump, that you should, ought to, and must jump, and that if you don't jump you would be making a terrible mistake. If these normative beliefs were true, these truths could not possibly be the same as, or consist in, some merely natural fact, such as the causal and psychological facts stated by (B)."

My confusion is that I have no idea why Parfit makes the assumption that the claim that you ought to jump can't be captured by/understood as (B). He seems to think it is just obvious and says little more to defend this claim. It isn't necessarily that I disagree, I just don't get what he is claiming. I can hardly agree or disagree with his assertion that (A) cannot be (B), because it isn't at all clear (to me) why he thinks this. Is there some more explicit reason for why he states that claims (A) and (B) cannot be analogous? Why does he just assume that the should/ought statements differ so greatly from (B)?

I recently started reading a book by Hilary Kornblith called Knowledge and its Place in Nature. As far as I can tell it is more or less Nietzsche's line of thinking translated into analytic philosophy lingo. Can anyone confirm that?

I have a hard time squaring my atheism with presuppositionalist christian apologists who tell us our naturalism leaves us with extreme skepticism and Kornblith says in his book that some thinkers like BonJour and others said something to that effect as well.

Kornblith wants to talk of knowledge as a kind of animal cognition. When we do that, do we lose normativity in epistemology?

If we do, why is that a problem? And if there is no solution, should we really capitulate to theism or Platonism?

Why can't a biological theory of cognition suffice to cover all we need to know about knowledge? Why do we need philosophy at all? Why can't science suffice?

Do evaluative judgments have any place in the academic field of History? If so, how are these framed, and how are they distinguished from normative claims made in other fields such as, say, Anthropology or Political Science?

Hey everyone!

I am writing my thesis on growing up nonbinary in a binary world. And I am struggling to find a specific term for binary normativity. I actually don't think there is one yet. I mean a term like heteronormativity, cisnormativity or allonormativity, but for the specific normative idea, that there are only two distinct, completely seperable genders.

I think binary normativity sounds clumsy, you could use cisnormativity probably, but I'd like to have something distinct. And then there is Exorsexism (I've read that like 1-2 times, but never in academics), but that just straight up sounds like exorcism.

Has anyone heard of something else? If we were to make one up, what would you think of e.g. Duonormativity? Or other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!! :)

Hey everyone!

I am writing my thesis on growing up nonbinary in a binary world. And I am struggling to find a specific term for binary normativity. I actually don't think there is one yet. I mean a term like heteronormativity, cisnormativity or allonormativity, but for the specific normative idea, that there are only two distinct, completely seperable genders.

I think binary normativity sounds clumsy, you could use cisnormativity probably, but I'd like to have something distinct. And then there is Exorsexism (I've read that like 1-2 times, but never in academics), but that just straight up sounds like exorcism.

Has anyone heard of something else? If we were to make one up, what would you think of e.g. Duonormativity? Or other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!! :)