@Sinomatic
This is not an attempt to revive the past discussion, just something I didn't get to post because something came up and the thread got closed. And I can't send personal messages.
I agree completely that communication is a lot different in person, and I feel ashamed for trying to belittle your point of view, rather than just disagreeing with it. I apologize for that.
I don't totally understand your ideas about class and culture, but perhaps the following is right. You seem to think that God created "prime" classes. As was probably apparent, I was speaking of class in a different sense--simply as something which is classified or distinguished from other things. The way I think about it, classes are human ways of carving up the world to conceptualize it. (Well, some classes, especially socio-political ones, were created for more nefarious purposes, e.g., to exclude and marginalize). Some classes are pretty fixed, others are much more malleable and even fleeting (e.g., being sick). A lot of classes are not well-defined (e.g., classes of race). If you think of classes as human ways of carving up the world, no class is in principle immune to revision, since most classes (e.g., biological, cultural) are the product of contingent factors or human ways of defining boundaries. It seems you think there are some classes (the "prime" ones) that are completely stable, have fixed boundaries, and not subject to revision. I guess this would make sense if you think those classes were created by God.
I am really sympathetic to your remarks about WHO you are--you are not defined by a feeling, an action, or even one role you perform. The issue of personal identity is complex. I'd also agree that how you identify yourself does not make you that. (If I conceive of myself as an honest person but I lie all the time, I'm not an honest person, right?). But then what defines WHO we are? I think our character, values, actions, and history. But because my idea of classification does not rest on much more than that, I see no basis for denying anyone classification if that classification in fact coheres with their character, values, actions, and history. That includes desires and proclivities like the proclivity to engage in homosexual activity.
Anyway, this all ended up being a much more theoretical discussion than what I was thinking you were initially saying. So I should have just asked for clarification initially.
This is not an attempt to revive the past discussion, just something I didn't get to post because something came up and the thread got closed. And I can't send personal messages.
I agree completely that communication is a lot different in person, and I feel ashamed for trying to belittle your point of view, rather than just disagreeing with it. I apologize for that.
I don't totally understand your ideas about class and culture, but perhaps the following is right. You seem to think that God created "prime" classes. As was probably apparent, I was speaking of class in a different sense--simply as something which is classified or distinguished from other things. The way I think about it, classes are human ways of carving up the world to conceptualize it. (Well, some classes, especially socio-political ones, were created for more nefarious purposes, e.g., to exclude and marginalize). Some classes are pretty fixed, others are much more malleable and even fleeting (e.g., being sick). A lot of classes are not well-defined (e.g., classes of race). If you think of classes as human ways of carving up the world, no class is in principle immune to revision, since most classes (e.g., biological, cultural) are the product of contingent factors or human ways of defining boundaries. It seems you think there are some classes (the "prime" ones) that are completely stable, have fixed boundaries, and not subject to revision. I guess this would make sense if you think those classes were created by God.
I am really sympathetic to your remarks about WHO you are--you are not defined by a feeling, an action, or even one role you perform. The issue of personal identity is complex. I'd also agree that how you identify yourself does not make you that. (If I conceive of myself as an honest person but I lie all the time, I'm not an honest person, right?). But then what defines WHO we are? I think our character, values, actions, and history. But because my idea of classification does not rest on much more than that, I see no basis for denying anyone classification if that classification in fact coheres with their character, values, actions, and history. That includes desires and proclivities like the proclivity to engage in homosexual activity.
Anyway, this all ended up being a much more theoretical discussion than what I was thinking you were initially saying. So I should have just asked for clarification initially.
Last edited:
