I don’t care vs I care not

The phrase “I don’t care what you do in your bedrooms” often raises the question: does it signify tolerance as in “I’m okay with whatever you do in your bedroom,” or does it imply a desire for ignorance, “I care not to know what you do in your bedroom”? This interpretation suggests a boundary where personal activities are accepted as long as they remain unshared and private. This stance advocates for the discretion of one’s private affairs, especially those of a sexual nature, deeming it socially inappropriate to publicize intimate details.

The concept operates smoothly for those whose identities align with societal norms. Heterosexual individuals, for instance, are not compelled to announce their sexual orientation, as their behaviors and appearances typically do not challenge the status quo. Thus, for them, Trudeau's slogan may simply underscore the principle of maintaining sexual privacy. However, this perspective overlooks a crucial distinction for queer individuals: revealing one’s queer identity is not an overshare of sexual life but an integral part of their lived experience.

In societal interactions, such as attending social events with partners, queer individuals inadvertently disclose aspects of their private lives that heterosexual individuals do not. This difference highlights that a queer life is not merely a 'normal' life with an alternate sexual preference; it is an existence that encompasses every facet of being. Therefore, coming out is not about revealing bedroom activities, but rather about sharing one's true self and the entirety of one's life experiences.

I don’t care what you do in your bedroom

14/11/23

Pierre-Eliot Trudeau, the former Canadian Prime Minister, was a pivotal figure in the 1970s for decriminalising homosexuality. He famously stated that the government should not meddle in the nation's bedrooms, implying that what consenting adults do in private is not a matter for governmental scrutiny. This forward-thinking attitude was especially empowering for the queer community, enabling them to forge a significant existence within their community. Once their sexuality was decriminalised, they began addressing discrimination in workplaces, eventually leading to the achievement of marriage equality in the 2000s.

A recent example of this ongoing dialogue is Felix Auger-Aliassime, a prominent Canadian tennis player, who suggested a voluntary survey on the pro tour to anonymously identify members of the rainbow community. Notably, there are no openly gay male players on the tour. While several celebrated female players have come out, significantly influencing the community, the number of openly gay players remains minimal.

Reacting to Auger-Aliassime's announcement on Facebook, some echoed a modern variant of Trudeau's sentiment: "I don't care what you do in your bedroom, I only care about how well you play tennis." This attitude, akin to a contemporary "don't ask, don't tell" policy, seems accepting but actually limits the expression and recognition of diverse queer identities. It reduces the act of coming out to a mere declaration of sexual preference, ignoring the broader implications of being queer. Queer identity involves more than just sexuality; it's about how individuals present themselves, form relationships, and contribute to their communities.

From a relational identity viewpoint, the "I don’t care what you do in your bedroom" stance falls short. It overlooks the importance of openly living and expressing a range of queer identities, and the need for acceptance and respect in doing so.

logic and possible worlds

13/11/23

Logic focuses on abstract content rather than the structure of the real world, allowing logicians to disengage from worldly matters. Historically, twentieth-century logicians were primarily engaged in establishing consistent foundations for mathematics, which, in many cases, is their most significant interaction with real-world concepts. My own immersion into the 'real world' primarily began with the writing of 'Logic in the Wild' and my collaboration with Tim Dare, teaching a course on Logical and Critical Thinking to a diverse international group of students.

My re-engagement with the real world involved understanding feminist critiques of critical thinking. These critiques emphasize the presence and experiences of people in the world, highlighting how rigid, mathematical approaches to thinking can be oppressive in situations that don't warrant such strict methodologies.

In philosophy, metaphysics deals directly with worldly concepts. It differs from physics, which seeks to uncover and understand the physical laws governing our world, enabling prediction and control. Metaphysics, however, asks broader questions: What are the potential states of the world? Are certain features of the world necessary? For instance, physical laws operate under specific conditions, but they could potentially be different. How might physics look in a world where, say, gravity is stronger or the speed of light varies (can it?)?

These inquiries lead to reflections on the nature of mathematics. Are mathematical laws inherently necessary, or could they be different? What about the existence of necessary entities, like God, does it exist by necessity? Such questions guide logicians to explore the concept of possible worlds. Unlike scientists, who focus on making predictions about our world, logicians adopt a broader perspective, contemplating all the ways the world could potentially be. The primary criterion for considering a world in this context is consistency. Thus, logicians explore a multitude (infinitely many!) of possible worlds, accepting any that are internally consistent. This exploration of possible worlds represents the closest that logicians typically come to engaging with the concept of 'the world'.

Logic and the world

Logic remains indifferent to the world's specifics. Professional logicians often describe logic as absolute and universal, signifying its principles apply regardless of content or context. In my book, "Logic in the Wild," I characterise logic as the guardian of coherence, focusing on the structure of beliefs (or theories, etc.), rather than their subject matter. It's crucial to distinguish logic from truth: logic is not equipped to discern whether the world harbours giant flying pigs or exists as a computer simulation. By this, I don't imply logic is irrelevant to reality, but rather that it's not a tool for determining factual truths about the world.

Some logicians and mathematicians subscribe to the notion that logic, perhaps akin to mathematics or in its exploration of mathematical concepts, belongs to a Platonic realm. This realm, a domain of ideas or abstract entities like numbers, is considered as tangible as the physical world. If logic were to hold any knowledge about reality, it would pertain to this Platonic realm. This view was espoused by eminent 20th-century logician Kurt Gödel and has influenced thinkers like Roger Penrose, who posits that humans, unlike computers, have direct access to this Platonic part of the world. However, even if we accept that logic (and humans) may interact with a Platonic realm of ideas, logic still remains detached from our physical world.

Interestingly, logic's engagement with the world didn't begin by limiting itself to observable truths. Logicians expanded their purview to include the study of worlds through analyses of possibility and necessity. This aligns with the pursuit of universal truths, but in this context, the universality pertains to necessity. Questions like, "Is it necessary that two plus two equals four?" or "Is it necessary that all humans mortal?" and "Is the existence of giant flying pigs possible?" mark a shift in logic's focus from pure mathematics to an exploration of metaphysical possibilities.