Requesting iambiguous to discuss Judgement and Action

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

Calling something progress or regression because you believe it “in your head” is not the same [to me] as demonstrating that other men and women ought to believe it too.

And you speak of “my own” as though any particular individual can make a clear distinction between “I” and “we” and “them”. As this relates to all of the vast and varied [and ever shifting] historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

And yet with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the rules of logic, there are no demonstrable distinctions to be made between “I” and “we” and “them”. Unless ontologically, ultimately, there are. Whatever any particular individual might believe about the earth being round or flat there are ways [today] in which to demonstrate that it is in fact round and not flat.

There was once a time in human history when in order to be thought of as “one of us” you had to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth. One rendition of the religious objectivists.

But my point here revolves precisely around the assumption that with respect to conflicting value judgments, the objectivists bend the facts to fit their moral/political narrative. Thus it is said to be a fact that from the moment of conception the unborn is a human being. Or that with respect to the right of the unborn to live, this take precedence over a woman’s right to choose. Both sides claiming that their own narrative is the only one that is truly in accord with the facts.

Thus…

But what you have not established here [in my own opinion] is that your view of the good reflects the optimal rendition of it.

If by “on its own grounds” you mean concurring with both the definition and the meaning that you give to the words used in the argument, then you go up into the clouds of abstraction and insist that logically, epistemologically [with respect to “good” behavior] your definitions and meanings are necessarily true. And we know where arguments like that go here.

Yes, but others do. Then it comes down to either being able or not being able to establish that in fact it can be established [philosophically or otherwise] whether particular behaviors are or are not necessarily one or the other. In other words, on the same level as establishing whether the behavior actually occured.

But the bottom line [mine] is that for all practical purposes in any particular human community there must be rules of behavior established. Whether you call certain behaviors good or moral or politically correct or ideal or Godly or reasonble or virtuous or natural or ideological sound etc., there must be a way chosen in which to make distinctions. Then we are back to various combinations of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise. Somebody is either going to be permitted to behave as they choose [and be rewarded for it] or prohibited from doing what they want [and be punished for it].

I merely locate these individual preferences in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Because certain sociopaths embrace the assumption that the “good” exists, and that it revolves entirely around behaviors that sustain their own perceived self-interest. While other sociopaths dismiss the idea of good and bad altogeter. In a Godless universe, they presume, it all comes down to dog eat dog, survival of the fittest.

Thus when you speak of the “good” here, I am still not clear where you situate the meaning of that “out in the world” of actual conflicted human behaviors. It is as though [to me] you wish to argue that reasonable discourse is important here but when push comes to shove you do what you must to sustain any and all resources that you need in order to thrive. You don’t want to be caught doing something that others reject but that is in part because you don’t deserve to be caught.

Consequently, when you speak of “my position” it is still rather murky insofar as it might be or not be in sync with the manner in which I am entangled in this …

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

…when I broach the distinction between “good” and “bad” behavior".

The living die. And the overwhelming preponderance of them think about the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave as that is intimately intertwined in what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it. The existential relationships that I explore here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

And how one factors in “good” and “bad” behavior on this side of the grave can be rather far removed between the theists and the atheists.

For all of us [down through the ages] “should” appears to revolve around…

1] the consequences embedded in being unable to enforce our own favored behaviors. Or…
2] the consequences embedded in establishing an argument that others accept as the most rational and/or virtuous. Or…
3] the consequences embedded in agreeing that neither might makes right nor right makes might is “for all practical purposes” the way to go – that instead moderation, negotiation and compromise [under the rule of law] is preferable.

I merely note that, historically, political economy [power] has almost always prevailed in most communities. And between communities.

Okay, fair enough. You prefer an understanding of “good” here that can be calculated. If your behavior enhances your ability to accumulate resources enabling you in turn “to reach a position of superiority and ability to influence the world” that’s the point. And if one family achieves this while allowing particular members of the family to embrace some level of drug use, prematital sex and homosexuality, and another family prohibits these behaviors in order to achieve this then it all comes down [in particular contexts] to “your right from your side and I’m right from mine”.

But: Within any particular modern community laws are enacted to regulate these behaviors. Therefore, moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy] would appear to be the best of all possible worlds. Would you agree?

If the discussion revolved around God and religion, there are families [in any particular community] able to achieve great material success and influence in embracing them while other families achieve the same while rejecting them. So, again, prescriptive and proscriptive laws would revolve around democracy in the best of all possible worlds.

My aim here is merely to note that I am unable to arrive at a frame of mind that either accepts or rejects God and religion as a good or bad thing because I recognize that my values here are just existential contraptions. That, in other words, there does not appear to be a way in which to establish whether believing or not believing is the optimal manner in which to construe “good” behavior here.

But then you argue that in making these decisions in any particular community, we must start with the assumption that people are not rational. For example, with respect to pregnancy you ask, “Are you asking me if some ways of dealing with the consequences of pregnancies are better than others? Well you know the reason I would think some ways are better (because it would be beneficial to the fitness of those parties being considered, parents and children…)”

How then is this not your own assessment of a reasonable frame of mind? And what of those who have conflicting reasons that take them in another direction when push comes to shove and laws have to be enacted regulating sexual behavior in any particular modern community?

I’m just not clear regarding 1] the role that reason does play here in your argument and 2] how you would yourself confront the manner in which I construe conflicting goods.

Embedded by and large in this from William Barrett:

For the choice in…human [conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us.

Can you cite examples from your own life where conflicting positions were examined while taking into account that we are not rational? I’m trying to imagine how that “works” in your head with respect to points that are said to have or not to have “merit”. For me the quandary revolves precisely around the fact that “in my head” I recognize that both sides accumulate meritorious assumptions that the other sides arguments don’t/can’t make go away.

In other words:

This just does not fully register when I attempt to understand what you mean here out in the world of actual conflicted behaviors.

Thus when you note…

…I note that here rationalization can be understood in two ways:

1] “the action of reorganizing a process or system so as to make it more logical and consistent”
2] “the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate”

So, those in power can sincerely believe that their own value judgments reflect “the good”; or, in order to acquire a measure of psychological equilibrium and equanimity, their beliefs become a defense mechanism allowing them to justify behaviors that others reject.

I’m trying to grasp how your own sense of the “good” fits in here when in fact your own behaviors do come into conflict with others with respect to “good” or “bad” behaviors.

I’m still entangled in my dilemma above. How are you entangled in it in turn? Or not entangled in it?

Those who own and operate the global economy face the same existential juncture in their lives. Some no doubt rationalize their behaviors by judging themselves to be the true “masters of the universe”. They get what they deserve to get because the strong always get what they deserve to. Or they embrace one or another Objectivist or Libertarian philosophy to defend their behaviors. Or they just strip away all of that “intellectual” pedantry and merely embody one or another rendition of “survival of the fittest”.

I may well be misunderstanding you here but you seem to be suggesting that while it is best not to have your actions dictated to by others, in this case you were willing to.

Everything then becomes entangled in all of the complexities embedded in any particular set of circumstances seen from any particular point of view. Morality and justice and fairness and all the rest get tossed aside and everything gets reduced down to the manner in which “there and then” you calculate the extent to which a particular behavior either does or does not enhance your own rendition of “good” behavior. Sometimes it is necessary to bow to the will of others in order to achieve this. Even if others might hold you in contempt for doing so.

It all comes down to “whatever works” in accumulating the resources necessary to influence the world around you. Something, in other words, able to be calculated. An “amoral” calculation.

Thus…

Well, isn’t a professor handing out grades based on those willing to toe his or her own political line not also a form of dictatorship?
Again, there are autocracies based on might makes right and autocracies based on right makes might. The führer dictated to the citizens of Germany a frame of mind that he seemingly embraced as the optimal or most rational manner in which to construe human interactions. And a particular citizen may have chosen to reject this. But clearly those that accepted it were far more likely to achieve material success and influence had Germany won the war.

I’m trying to grasp the distinction that one would make between kowtowing to a Nazi professor who demands fascists answers and kowtowing to a führer who demands loyal citizens in order that they may achieve material success and influence.

You argue that…

So, would “good” behaviors here embody going along with the state even though the act of doing so is “bad” for them? Or, instead, would it embody organizing a resistance to the state [however dangerous that might be] in order that bringing the state down allows one to transcend the stagnation and to attain a possibility for growth.

Yet all of this would unfold among folks who are not “rational”. On what basis then would the negotiations and the compromises unfold?

In other words, I always come back to this:

Yes, but the merits that you arrive at “here and now” are [in my view] no less an existential contraption. Meaning that, given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge, they may not be seen as meritorious down the road. Then my point revolves around whether or not one can reach that frame of mind where the merits can be derived.

And if not rationally, than how?

Yes, and my answer then revolves around my dilemma above. The answer, in other worlds, does not appear to be anything other than an “existential contraption”

Here though I am back to being stumped regarding how you make the distinction [regarding your own conflicted behaviors] between might makes right and right makes might. While taking into account that rational human beings are not an option.

And the bottom line [out in the real world that we live in] is that the objectivists from all sides do insist that their own behaviors deserve to be emulated by all reasonable and virtuous men and women. It’s just a matter of the font that they choose in order to “prove” this: God, nature, ideology, deontology etc…

Jane answers yes to the questions posed to her. And she offers “positions” that seem reasonable to her. Joe answers no to the questions posed to him. And he offers “positions” that seem reasonable to him. The distinction that I am making revolves around whether it can be determined [by philosophers or others] which behaviors are in fact “good” and which are not. Can either Jane or Joe be convinced that either having or not having the baby is preferable?

And then any particular state/community must enact laws that “resolve” this such that particular behaviors here are either prescribed or proscribed.

And what if Jane wants to abort the baby but Joe sees this as murder? What of “good” and “bad” behaviors then?

Taking into account that there are any number of sets of circumstances [rooted historically, culturally and experientially] whereby assessments of “merit” become hopelessly entangled in sets of variables that are greatly at odds given the many different conflicting ways in which the “facts” can be assessed.

Yes, but they are noting precisely the same thing regarding what you say is so. Then it must come down to that which can be demonstrated to be so for all of us…or that which you believe “in your head” is so. But are unable to demonstrate is good or bad for all of us.

Someone is able to demonstrate possible adverse consequences of chopping off ones toes. And then to ask someone intent on doing so if they have taken that into account.

But with conflicting goods that revolve around issues like abortion, the consequences are seen in opposing ways. One party focuses on the “natural right” of the baby to be born, while the other side focuses on the “political right” of the woman to choose.

And, just as crucially, they give reasons for this. Without one or another attempt to be rational, how would these conflicts be approached at all? I tend to focus more on the limitations of reason here in the absence of God.

I merely note that both sides can make rational arguments. They simply start with conflicting sets of assumptions that neither side is able to effectively [wholly] parry.

The same with gun control. Both sides offer arguments that they construe to be rational. If rationality is excised from the discussion what would take its place in differentiating “good” from “bad” behaviors. Whose “facts” can be established as the ones to be used in writing either a state’s Constitution or a particular set of laws in any particular human community?

The pro and con arguments that you note are [to me] predicated more on particular political prejudices that favor one set of assumptions and one set of facts rather than another.

Which is then more conducive to moderation, negotiation and compromise when push comes to shove and legislation is needed either to prescribe or proscribe particular behaviors here.

Thus:

In my view, it revolves more around what “society” will do [legislatively] when both Jim and Jack demand that the community’s laws reflect more their own rendition of “good” behavior. In America for example both Jim and Jack can successfully accumulate resources and have influence in the community either by owning or not owning guns. But that doesn’t change the fact that both of them give reasons [back to that again] why their own frame of mind [deemed rational] is a better one for the community as a whole.

Consequently…

If you lived alone on an island separated from all others, this question would never be asked. Why? Because whatever you choose to do with regards to arming yourself has consequences for no one but yourself.

But as soon as another man or woman washes up on shore, there is the possibility for conflict regarding the bearing of arms. You might decide that disarming the other is preferable for your own rendition of the good. Or he or she might decide that disarming you would be better for sustaining his or her own survival.

Or you both might decide to disarm. Or you can establish “rules of behavior” regarding the use of guns on the island so as to sustain [consensually] the least dysfunctional relationship between you.

Now, the objectivists here would argue that there is in fact an optimal point of view and that it is their own.

Whereas I would argue that there may well not be an optimal frame of mind; and that how you construe “good” behavior here is merely an existential contraption that [with respect to the future] will shift and evolve depending on any particular new variables that come into play. And depending on how “I” here [with respect to the past] has been shaped and molding existentially such that you are predisposed to go in one rather than another direction.

Here and now.

But there and then?

We’ll never really know until we get there. But: Is this something that can be calculated with any real precision? Assuming that actual autonomy is within our grasp?

22

iambiguous, I am now inclined to agree with others. There is no use even discussing with you because you would rather obfuscate the issues under discussion than actually consider them

I called the discussion regression because you asked me once again questions I had already answered and questions I had told you that I did not believe could be answered, so why would you ask them again?

And then your babbling about my use of the words “my own” as if I should therefore try to defend a positition I do not hold is ludicrous. Not to mention you then hypocritically use the same formulation of words below:

“And you speak of “my own” as though any particular individual can make a clear distinction between “I” and “we” and “them”. As this relates to all of the vast and varied [and ever shifting] historical, cultural and experiential contexts.”

You accuse me of attempting to go “in the clouds” yet you try to refute all positions based on nothing but these abstractions and accusations that your interlocutors “bend the facts” without even demonstrating that it is so. Link to me one place in our discussion above which I asserted either of these arguments in regard to abortion. “Thus it is said to be a fact that from the moment of conception the unborn is a human being. Or that with respect to the right of the unborn to live, this take precedence over a woman’s right to choose.” If you cannot, why even bring this up? It is completely irrelevant to our discussion and an attempt to smear all your interlocutors and particularly myself in regard to holding a position with straw man arguments.

I am not even going to read the rest of your response. Our discussion is done. I think there is a reason that so many intelligent thinking people think your writing is nonesense and we will let our respective responses speak for themselves.

23

Iambiguous will ignore arguments that work.

Arguments about eating meat or abortion or absolute morality are easy to make, when iambiguous gets really flustered, you’ll get an absurd wall of text, so that he can always feel like he won.

24

Now this will make Satyr’s day!!!

Right, Mr. Objectivist? =D>

Yes, you provide answers. But don’t assume that just because you do so this necessarily clears things up regarding the gap that I perceive between “good” behaviors as you construe them in your intellectual contraptions and “good” behaviors as I perceive them when entangled [existentially] in my dilemma above.

With respect to actual conflicted behaviors out in the world of human interactions.

My reaction here of course revolves more around that which prompted you to shift gears from discussing these relationships in a more or less civil and intelligent manner to “huffing and puffing”.

Making me the issue.

I am just groping to understand the distinction that we make here between “good” and “bad” behavior when we both acknowledge that “morality” is [basically] an existential, situated contraption that others use in a way that you and I in our own unique manner [basically] reject.

Only I assume in turn that just becasue I reject it, this does not necessarily make it something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to reject as well. Only here you point out that with respect to these human all too human interactions men and women are not rational at all.

But in providing us with reasons that you believe this you employ arguments that I presume that you presume are more rather than less rational than those of us who don’t share them.

I’m just confused regarding how this all plays out in your head [and then in your behaviors] when, in your interactions with others, conflicts do in fact unfold.

Until I can better understand how “for all practical purposes” this has relevance pertaining to “conflicting goods” out in the world of actual social, political and economic interactions, expect me to shy away from noting your “analysis” and thinking, “oh, so that is how it works”.

Note to others:

I get this a lot don’t I?

At least I get the final word. :wink:

25

This part always confuses me.

With regard to “judgment and action” there are those among us who, with respect to conflicting goods, have managed to think themselves into believing not only that they are wholly in sync with their one “true self”, but that this one true self is, in turn, wholly in sync with behaviors that can be construed [philosophically or otherwise] as “rational” or “good” or “moral” or “ideal” or natural" or “virtuous” or “noble”.

Whereas I have access to none of this. Instead, for me, “‘I’ begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together”.

“I” am hopelessly in pieces here.

Also, there are those able to think themselves into believing that their “judgments and actions” will continue on beyond the grave. They believe in one or another religious narrative.

Whereas, again, I have access to none of this.

So, please, tell me: How exactly do I “win” here?

26

Basically, this is you, day in and day out …

There are water mirages in heat, and there is actual water. If I walk to the mirage, I die eventually… the mirage can last days… if I walk towards actual water, I can survive. If someone wants me to die, the mirage is good, and that is a conflicting good to my good, which is to find actual water …

So who’s good is correct? YOURS!! Duh!

The reason I bring up illusions, is because illusions can be made in language … which, rather than being speech, is violence, just like the mirage. An example is “I don’t exist”…

What this factually does, is give the illusion that you are a conspicuously consumptive super human god…

Waste and violence as proof of your dominance.

You even went so far, even in the last post to assert that your I is so fractured that you don’t have one …

Which is violence in language … you’ve learned how to use contradiction to puff yourself up as a dominant animal who can waste, pollute, refute your own existence in speech (yet “miraculously” still exist) - you’re practicing basic mating behaviors that attract females in this species … your practicing your non speech algorithms on us… like sparring partners.

This is as objective as it is objective that mirages exist, not as actual water, but as mirages. In actuality, you have zero sincerity or credibility. You haven’t even begun the process of joining cognitive beings on earth yet. That’s objective. That’s all you are.

27

Hey, you can’t say I didn’t give the Kid a chance here.

So, I win again!! :laughing:

28

Short term gains in this world are hell in the hereafter … you’ll see. You do realize that even beating someone, winning, sends heterosexual sexual men to hell?

You want everyone to do all your work for you… good luck when they all drop your mean, lazy ass.

Being a non cognitive human causes people to scramble to clean up your waste… there will be a day, when they let you drown in it.

29

Read above post as well.

You like to talk about mutual goods.

Answer me this…

What value is a person who owns a working toilet, but only shits in other people’s houses, and not even in their working toilets.

People are being very kind to you…

There is no mutual good to it. Eventually they’ll stop…

And in the psychic world… word gets out to everyone.

What good do you offer ?

What exactly are you trying to trade?

You don’t have anything, you have no treasure, you have no dignity. And yes, you ad hom in every post, and complain about people doing it to you…

Your kid shit, your laugh and wink emoticons…

If you are an AI program, which wouldn’t surprise me, your programmers are going to hell

Edit: I meant opposing goods, you try to argue that opposing goods are all mutual, another cognitive trick you try to use. There is no good to you shitting on everyone’s carpet… except the shit in question is your entire cognition! You have no bargaining chip.

30

I’ll add: read above 2 posts…

I do have a bargaining chip.

I have a very valuable skill … I invested in content, and by doing this I know how to maneuver the various hells. I didn’t waste my time, or others time to this regard. I worked extremely hard on a very difficult skill, that has real content.

31

And the final post of this chain…

These are practical skills, necessary if the cosmic pz heaven option isn’t manifest…

My warnings about hell, are all in that context.

Hell is very real. I don’t plan going back. Not all plans come to fruition in time or at all, so I have fallback skills just in case.

32

I’m sure your true audience will not be able to decide whether this is a good or bad thing.

They will always be of the opinion that 1] their own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “they” can reach, then every time they make one particular moral/political leap, they are admitting that they might have gone in the other direction…or that they might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then their “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

33

iambiguous is extremely easy to understand. He wants people to believe he has no “I”, and then he wants them to be in shock, that a person who doesn’t exist can actually post!! “It’s a miracle!! Iambiguous must be the creator! Let’s all worship him forever, wipe his ass, clean his fingernails, give him all our money… who amongst us can not exist and type posts… we’re just puny compared to the greatest being of all! You’re so great iambiguous, we. All love you!!” Blah, blah, blah… actually, iambiguous is one of the laziest fucks I’ve ever come across. This is literally how his mind works. He has nothing of substance to add to relationship on the cosmos, just good hell bait, ending up in a torture chamber for a trillion years. I wish I was actually kidding, but that’s the way the reality he’s denying actually works, and the only damn thing standing between that and heaven are the workers, the people he spends his whole life shitting on, day after day after day.

Iambiguous is a non cognitive human… textbook case

34

Just for the record, will someone here please note who does get “the final word”. :wink:

My true audience [here and now] is godot. And I have never suggested otherwise. But, really, what does “good” or “bad” mean to that dude?

But, sure, I’ll humor you.

The irony here being that, from my point of view, this is no less an existential contraption. In other words, for some this will be their own opinion of choice while for others it will not be. How then do “the philosophers” go about determining which one it ought to be for those who wish to be thought of by others as “reasonable” or “rational” human beings?

Which, for some [Ayn Rand and her ilk], is then construed as, in turn, synonymous with virtuous.

Though I am still rather confused regarding the manner in which you construe “good” here in a world in which men and women are not to be construed as rational.

And that for me always revolves around what others construe to be the limits of rational thought pertaining to their reaction to human interactions “out in the world” that we live in. In particular when those behaviors come into conflict over value judgments.

Yes, that is the distinction that I make. There are particular facts regarding your “self” that will always be true from the cradle to the grave. The day you where born, your genetic makeup, the family that raised you.

The historical and cultural contexts embedded in your own particular upbringing. The schools you attended. The experiences you had. The people you met. The books you read. The day you die.

Everything that can be clumped more or less clearly into the either/or world.

But what then of the world that encompasses the existential interactions between “value judgments”, “identity” and “power”?

The is/ought world. The parts most pertinent to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The parts that I encourage the objectivists among us to explore “down to earth”.

As that becomes pertinent in turn to any particular context out in any particular world in which any particular human community must go about establishing “for all practical purposes” rules of behavior by intertwining one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might, and moderation, negotiation and compromise.

So: Anyone else here wish to discuss “Judgment” and “Action” from within that particular frame of reference?

Existentially as it were.

35

Iambiguous doesn’t attemp to do thinking, because he doesn’t want to.

Basics:

If you die forever at some point, and existence is eternal, at some point, you will cease to suffer or enjoy, which means that no matter what you did, doesn’t matter… even if you lived a trillion years of intense suffering, the moment you lived and died compared to the eternity of the perpetual motion machine that existence is, is like a fraction of a second - it doesn’t matter, infinitely so.

If you do live forever in some form of consciousness continuity, then everything you do matters of infinite proportions.

In the absence of knowledge one way or the other, the one with infinite stakes of meaning is the choice that should be made, if you die, it doesn’t matter, and if you live, it matters infinitely. Good is not being in hell forever, from every subjects personal experience.

If every being goes to hell forever, that is bad, as hell is defined as the place you do not ever want to be, by definition.

If everyone is in heaven forever, that is the best, as heaven is defined as where you want to be forever. The more good in quantity is axiomatically better than less good.

If you have all the wealth in the universe, then nobody else will be good company to you, and by hoarding all that wealth just for yourself, you will be in a miserable hell. In order to get out of that hell, you have to translate the wealth of being good company to others. This is proof that might cannot make right.

Iambiguous decided to quit thinking years ago, decided it wasn’t worth it to work, to contribute or to be a social being. Because of that, iambiguous can’t formulate ethics with any precision and has no content to offer the species, and probably never will. He decided to retire and have all the workers wipe his ass for him, and wipe the drool off his face and go “gagaga” to everyone forever, and ride it as far as it gets him.

36

It’s just our luck that you will have the final word. :banana-linedance:

37

I want to re-articulate a section above that was worded poorly - it is the disproof that might makes right.

Being good company to be around is a form of wealth.

If you are the only person who has all the wealth, then you are the only person who exists who is good company. What this means is that everyone besides you is the worst possible company, everyone annoys you, because you’re hoarding (absolute might), all the good company for yourself.

In order to not be relentlessly tortured by an infinite number of spirits / beings that are the worst possible company, you have to translate your wealth to more beings than just yourself (right opposed to might).

Might makes right is demonstrably and inescapably false as a credo, hoarding all the wealth to yourself, necessarily places you in hell no matter how powerful you are. This is a cosmic law that supercedes power.

38

Good is not something created by human reason, it is a benefit received by the human. It is the same with the case of thinking an animal would eat because it is good and avoid predators because being eaten is bad.

I stated multiple times in my responses to you that I was not trying to create a political or moral doctrine but you repeatedly asked me to tell you how this works in moral contexts and I told you I could not because I would be defending positions which are not my own and you went on a rant:

“And you speak of “my own” as though any particular individual can make a clear distinction between “I” and “we” and “them”. As this relates to all of the vast and varied [and ever shifting] historical, cultural and experiential contexts.”

And I also said that I was not attempting to give everyone an ought. In the first example of this post I said we would say it is good for animals to eat and bad for them to be eaten, there is no sense in which that means that they ought to eat and that they ought not to be eaten.

In a previous post you said to me “But the bottom line [mine] is that for all practical purposes in any particular human community there must be rules of behavior established. Whether you call certain behaviors good or moral or politically correct or ideal or Godly or reasonble or virtuous or natural or ideological sound etc., there must be a way chosen in which to make distinctions.”

What would we do if we were to apply your perspective and make a response to that?

39

Yet when you bring this sort of thing down to earth it all gets, well, murky.

Consider:

With respect to judgment and action, is the Trump administration good for you? Well, for some it is and for some it isn’t. And most will give you reasons why it is one rather than another. But: to what extent can philosophers then apprise these reasons such that it might be determined if in fact the Trump administration either is or is not good for any particular one of us.

Sure, if you reduce it all down to whether or not during the Trump administration you are able to thrive in accumulating resources and influence, then that is certainly one way in which to calculate it. Either/or.

But, some will insist, there are other ways.

And how then is this sort of thing not instead embedded more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

“Here and now” that still seems more reasonable to me.

Of course, the overwhelming preponderance of animal species never ponder their interactions in this way. Why? Because, driven genetically by instinct, it never comes up.

Reasons have nothing to do with it for them.

The irony here then being that if we live in an entirely determined universe our own species is really no different. Except that we embody the illusion that our reasons really our own own because we think we freely chose them and not others.

Yes, but I keep reminding you that just because you don’t approach the relationship between “Judgment” and “Action” and “Good” in this manner, your own behaviors may well come into conflict with those who do. Then What? Then it is necessary for you to establish that they should approach this crucial relationship more like you do. How? Well, you will give them reasons why. And they will give you reasons why not. Then what?

Then [like me] you have to explore any possible limitations of reason in relationships between men and women who in some respects can be entirely rational regarding the facts of their conflicted interactions and in other respects can only embrace particular subjective/subjunctive “personal” reactions.

I’m either missing the distinction that you are making here or you are missing mine.

As with our own species, all other species must consume other life forms in order to subsist from day to day. It’s not whether they ought or ought not to. They do or they die. Just like us.

Now, some species eat plants and other species eat meat. But: They don’t choose to do so autonomously. Instead, they do so autonomically. It’s hard wired into them as a biological imperative.

Our species, however, is the only species [at least on this planet] able to imagine that they can choose to eat either plants or animals. Or both.

And that makes all the difference in the world. Why? Because given some degree of “free will”, it introduces the “is/ought” world into the equation.

And it is here that I surmise that limitiations are applicable regarding so-called “rational exchanges” in forums like this one.

But I am entangled in my dilemma. I acknowledge that I am no less obligated to respond to others who do not share my own value judgments. I take my political leaps to one or another set of behaviors.

But in recognizing these leaps as just “existential contraptions” I am unable [as are the objectivists] to convince myself that my behaviors do in fact reflect the “real me” in sync with the sort of behavior that can be construed as either “good” or “bad”.

For me both “Judgment” and “action” are just fabrications that I reconfigure existentially from the cradle to the grave.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

And, in that respect, all I can do is to consider the arguments of others who don’t think like me.

40

I suppose I should thank you for graciously resuming the conversation. So, thank you.

Because you haven’t yet responses, I’m going to take the opportunity to add a couple of things by edit which I will specify.

I happen to think that even our reasoning and our conscious thoughts are the result of instinct.

In the real world, insofar as my behaviours come into conflict with others such that I am to be put in a disadvantage, I do not enter discussion, and even if I did I would not discuss the matter in such a way as to try to convince others that what is good for them is not because it is bad for me, unless I was being deceptive, but the latter is not what I’m trying to do when I examine a position philosophically.

I don’t believe in free will. When I or you or anybody has a given idea, it doesn’t come from the will, the will itself, as far as I can see, simply arises from some unconscious part of ourselves. Even our arguments here are what occur to us but are not necessarily created by us consciously, which is to say that even our conscious thoughts are posterior to the unconscious process from which they arise.

Edit: I don’t think that what I said about free will negates the issue that you are raising however. Take for example veganism. We could become vegans because humans are omnivores and we are capable of producing enough food that we could survive off only vegetable product. Thus far, because we are capable of it, I don’t think is yet a reason. What I mean by that is, if someone could gain more benefits (nutritionally) from eating meat than a strictly vegan diet, what is the reason not to do so? We could say that it harms the animal, but why do we shrink from harming animals? Not necessarily all, but at least some humans are selfish (I mean this in a non-judgemental sense) to the point where they would prefer their own benefit to that of other creatures, and so for these humans, is there a reason for not eating meat? If we say it is wrong to harm animals, can we give a reason why it is wrong? As a sort of side note, if we made the same statement about harming humans when there are laws, the law could be used as an argument. Without laws, I wouldn’t be as sure if there was a reason why, perhaps because human friends and family might revenge, so there could be risks attached, etc.

I can at least begin to grasp why you would say that about judgement, but I cannot understand why you call action a fabrication. If us sitting at our computers and typing and the rest are our actions, in what way do you mean that they are fabrications?

I understand what you are saying but I just wonder if you understand a couple of things, for example why I made this thread to discuss judgement and action. If I recall correctly you, perhaps in a kind of jest, once said that objectivism is the nearest you can come to thinking something a sin. I have tried to tell you that I am not an objectivist but you seem to want to insist that I am.

The reason I made this thread and the reason I am concerned with discussing the concept of good (particularly in regards to judgement and action) is because when humans act we do so, generally (even if unconsciously), because we think there is something good in what we are going to do. I mean this even in the senses of the good that conflict with the definition I have given. In that sense, even if a philosopher, or anyone else, would have problems objectively arriving at a definition of the good, I still think it worth considering and examining because we are constantly making decisions which may be good or may be disasterous or whatever else, neutral and mundane. Again, that is why I began this thread. I wanted to discuss it particularly with you, not to convince you of my rendition of the good, it was because you are skeptical of the notion of finding a good. For that reason I thought there would be a way of testing my own perspective, the problem became that we simply reiterated our own positions and tossed them back at each other repeatedly rather than examining why other things might be good…

Of course, even that assumes an idea of the good (that examining the good would be beneficial)…

I am not sure if you understand that, as the reason I think you have misconstrued what I was trying to do with this thread which was not to thrust my own definition of the good upon you. The reason I put that in the opening post was actually because I saw the moderator once tell a poster that threads need a thesis otherwise they are not fit for the forum, so I picked one hoping to deconstruct it. Edit: Another reason I chose my definition of the good is because I can’t think of another way of examining whether something is good or not except by taking an example and examining whether the reasons for it are sound or not (end of edit). As I explained above all that ended up happening, so it seemed to me, is that we repeated out own preconceived perspectives back at each other. That is why I felt there was no progress, it had nothing to do with convincing you that I am right as I tried to explain.