I have a way of showing the emphemerality of the world by giving extreme situations, such as my brick wall example in your ‘real’ thread, but everyone knows I’m not being literal, when you take the extreme side of an argument on morality, that is the side that gives it any ground, you are being just as absurd as me saying that I can change sides of a brick wall only through perception, but no one nessesarily knows you mean to be absurd. Admittedly by my logic your feigned argument is as good as any in any fundamental sense, but those such as myself who read it are going to be staring at it in slack jawed astonishment. There’s nothing wrong with making an ass of yourself, but that’s not even being clever.
Similarities in the logical forms of a good argument for a certain moral position and one for a certain metaphysical position are not necessarily indicative of the idea that we might find one good form that works for everything.
Does that make any sense at all?
Well let’s break it down.
I’m already lost, even if we were to take for granted what the word ‘good’ means, it’s a real stretch to say that any argument for a moral position is good.
Of course, I understand that. What I don’t understand is why you bring that up, I thought it was already well established that we were on the same page as far as thinking that one can’t find perfection in discussions. Perhaps you don’t understand most of what I say.
Now granted you not understanding me is not the same as me not understanding you, at least in theory, because I sometimes go by the name Coherent, In Coherent, Iny for short. I simply want you to show that you understand my position on morality or if you want to put it this way I want you to show that you understand my misposition on morality due to my stupifying ignorence. I mean break it down, show me where I’m lost, dellusional, just spewing random words, circular, tautological, you name it, you won’t hurt my feelings, it just that it’s one thing for you to tell everyone that philosophy is not being done properly on ilp and to simple say that one needs to more well read, etc., ect., but it’s another thing to use your philosophical method to expose my amatueristic ‘philosophy’.
Well you identify the extreme example with the argument having grounding. The problem is that most of the time you wont be dealing with these extreme examples, and so it’s possible that those well grounded arguments don’t actually describe the underlying shit as they should and we end up debating over who knows how to argue the best or something.
I’m just saying that having apparently equivalent arguments for one opposing conclusions doesn’t necessarily mean anything at all. It could be the case that there are any number of problems with both of them. I think taking one side and sticking to it in order to have grounded arguments can prevent one from having an understanding closer to reality but unfortunately that’s gonna entail some kind of letting go. I can’t just keep on being a plain ol utilitarian once I know about the organ donor example, and I can’t just be an all out capitalist once I know what it does to the poor in spite of it’s benefits, and I can’t just call myself a dualist when I know that mofos are out there doing tricks with numbers and symbols that tell us all this is essentially reducible to one thing if we analyze one way instead of another way.
So you end up having at some point just having to decide what to do and I guess if you’re more entertained by books that tell you it’s your duty to serve the ego and that you’d be naive if you were an altruist then you end up leaning like a politician too far in one direction. Balance man. It’s what the Buddha taught. Or someone. I don’t know. If we gotta have a whole new convo or something lemme sleep for a while first. Happy cinco de mayo.
I don’t even know of one book that tells me that. It’s all me and my experience. I know that my argument of altruism being shit can be turned into nothing, but it’s a form of expression. If I had gotten hit by a bus, there’s no chance in hell I wouldn’t be on any forum related to such speaking against buses. I get hit by a freight train called the social-contruct-of-altruism, I must express my loathing, to make progress. I think you would understand that being that you have your own dispositions which you like to speak on repeatively. I hear you everytime; you wanted to be a certain type of person, a professional philospher I guess, and would be willing to fit into a certain archaic sociological role, but it wasn’t feasable, you now do what you must do to live well, because there is no ‘God’s truth’ as to why you shouldn’t if you can.
You really might benefit from reading more of my threads. Not because they’re insightful and well written, but because you seem to steriotype me in a certain way, perhaps because I resemble so many others you’ve spoken to, and you may find that I’m an entirely different person, not a better or worse one just different. As far as uniqueness goes, maybe I am, it seems like it to me, but if I’m not then that should mean there are others out there that think the way I do, I’ve never even come close to finding one like that. The most important issue to me is my views of morality, your the closest I’ve found so far to someone who shares them (and maybe one other poster here…) Plenty of people live well and are proud of it, but so few can really explain themselves without sounding like they’re suffering from some sort of denial. Happy cinco/seis de mayo.