Peter Kropotkin:
there are, so far, two ways to understand things, one is the universal to
the particulars and the other way is to go from the particular to the universal…
the misunderstanding in my case is although I do have a certain “political”
viewpoint and that I go from the universal to the particular there, this
is philosophy and I go from the particular to the universal in philosophy……
I: Okay, let’s bring this out into the world that we live in.
With America on the verge of sending abortion legislation back to the states [or straight back to the back alleys coast to coast] how is a universal/particular frame of mind applicable here?
K: ok…
I: Folks can “think up” – define, deduce – a universal morality into existence “in their heads”. They then cram all of the particular pregnant women into it; or they can note the particular contexts that pregnant women might find themselves in and then reason from that to a universal moral law.
Either way though from my frame of mind, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don’t go away.
K: Ok, here we have a distinction between you and me………………as a well known liberal,
I have well known idea’s about Abortion……… I see the matter of Abortion as being a
political or/a religious matter, but and this is important, not as a philosophical matter…….
as a political/religious matter we do run into dasein, conflicting goods and
political ecomony….but as a philosophical matter, we don’t…….
I have never actually done a philosophical “study” of abortion…I don’t
think it is possible because of the inherent conflict inside of the political/religious
mess in America……….but I don’t necessarily think that abortion for example,
must be done in a strict universal to particular or a particular to universal set…….
because of its nature, we simple take political/or religious understanding to
abortion………and you can run your usual arguments through the political/religious
context in regards to abortion… but not philosophical arguments…
I: I still construe both the “universal” assumptions and the assessments embedded in particular contexts as largely “existential contraptions”.
K: now lies the problem… at one time, you were an objectivist, you admit as much…
and you assume that people are “objectivist” because they don’t see the world as you do…
but that is really is the result of how you view people, as you see them, not
necessarily as they see themselves… if you start off thinking that everyone in
the world has sinned, then you will see everyone in the world sinning, but that
is not necessarily the truth, it is just you………your understanding of people dictates
your viewpoint of people…
Peter Kropotkin: now one method people use is to begin with a universal, I am a “Hindu”,
to use one of your examples, and argue from the universal, “Hindu”
to the particulars to promote or to encourage people to understand
what it means to be 'Hindu" or to even encourage people to become “Hindu”,
the universal to the particulars…but my “philosophical works” do not go
from the universal to the particular because I don’t have a universal
philosophical standpoint to engage from…I don’t have a universal
philosophical standpoint…….whereas I do have a political or religious
universal standpoint………I don’t argue philosophical that my position
is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same
because I don’t have a philosophical position to argue from…
I: I’m still unclear then as to how this is applicable with respect to your own personal views on abortion rights.
K: once again, I don’t view abortion philosophical, I view it politically/religiously……
I classify abortion by my political/religious views…… so I don’t attempt philosophy
in regards to abortion……………………
you have to understand this or the rest doesn’t matter…
I: When you note that…
K: “I don’t argue philosophical[ly] that my position is the correct one and here are my reasons why you should do the same because I don’t have a philosophical position to argue from.”
I: …my own reaction revolves around wanting to grasp the “position” from which you do come to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.
How do you not see your values here as just political prejudices [as “I” do] rooted in the manner in which I construe the nature of “self”/“identity” out in the is/ought world.
That’s the part I am always most curious about. What goes on inside the head of those who are not down in the hole that I’m in when confronting conflicting goods in social, political and economic interactions.
K: that idea conflicting goods in social, political and economics is not in my head,
it is your head… and it will help you understand things better if you can separate
out your thoughts from my thoughts… I don’t think like you do… I care little
about those competing goods or “existential contraptions”… it might work for
you, but it really doesn’t work for me… I work off of different idea’s and different
thoughts…… try to remember that……. to be honest, I think the whole
conflicting goods and “existential contraptions” is really much, too much work.
I like to keep things simple…… my motto is “keep it simple stupid” or known
as the “Kiss” theory…….
Peter Kropotkin: to call me an “objectivist” from a political or religious standpoint,
may or may not be correct, but I have no set philosophical standpoint
from which to call me an “objectivist”………….
I: Then I am still completely baffled as to how you make this distinction. From my frame of mind an objectivist is someone who argues [either from a philosophical, religious or political perspective] that their value judgments regarding an issue like abortion reflect the most reasonable and virtuous frame of mind; and that in the best of all possible worlds “right makes might” would prevail.
K: at the point of sounding repetitive, I think the problem lies with your thought
about “objectivist”, it is a label and labels are rarely ever completely accurate or honest…
a label is really nothing more then a prejudice or a habit to put upon people…….
remove the label, “objectivist” and try to see people another way…… but Kropotkin,
that is easier said then done…… yep………
I: And even to the extent they accept moderation, negotiation and compromise as the best of all possible worlds, they are still of the opinion that the world is divided between those who are “one of us” and those who are “one of them”.
K: as a political/religious thought, yes, but not as a philosophical thought…….
and even as a political/religious thought, it is not very accurate… who today believes
in moderation/negotiation, compromise? might as well be Diogenes………
Peter Kropotkin: I am simply trying to gather the evidence to make some sort of
judgement about the human condition… to try to discover
what is the human problem and how do we solve this
problem of existence……………and I am now leaning toward
some sort of embrace with art as a means toward our understanding
the problem of human existence……………but I could easily be wrong…….
or not…………………
I: Yet any number of the objectivists above make the same claim. Except for the part where they might possibly be wrong.
And [from my frame of mind] once you go down this path you are basically embracing the idea that “we’re right from our side and they’re right from theirs”.
K: and once again to be boring, the problem lies with your thought about objectivists…
I am talking about the matter philosophical, not politically or religious… the problem of
existence is not a political or a religious matter, but a human matter… I don’t care what
your political or religious thoughts are in regards to the question of the human problem,
that of human existence… it doesn’t matter what your political or religious feelings
are… the question/problem of human existence is not a day to day matter of politics
or religion, but of existence…it is a metaphysical matter which I am investigating
right now and will be posting once I get a handle on it…….
I: But only as a particular political prejudice that “here and now” you are most comfortable with.
In other words, even though you think that your value judgments relating to an issue like abortion are probably the right ones, you admit that they may not be. And it is this assumption that makes is easier for you to accept that, with regard to democracy and the rule of law, “one of theirs” is acceptable. For now.
K: ok…
I: Someone like Trump becomes the problem here only to the extent that his followers are convinced that his own value judgments [re an issue like abortion] are objectivist [like theirs]. And not just part of the political game that he plays to stay in power.
K: I object to IQ45 on political/ religious idea’s, not necessarily philosophical ones…
I could object to him based on values, but I really think he is a danger to America
based on facts……… as far as I can tell, he is completely wrong about every single
issue and wrong being from my understanding of competing goods, existential contraption,
political economy… the whole nine yards… he is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong…
but that is from a political/religious standpoint………like an good “objectivist”
Peter Kropotkin: my positions are simply just questions attempting to create some meaning
in my life and perhaps, perhaps in yours or someone else life… I simply report
my finding about the human condition… I state the problem of existence
and I try to understand the solution, if any, to this vexing problem……….
[/quote]
I: As I see it though, a frame of mind like this may well be more in search of a psychological foundation upon which to anchor “I”. Political values here then become more in sync with a psychological defense mechanism disguised as a moral or political commitment.
But I readily acknowledge that these relationships are [existentially] profoundly complex. I would never presume to suggest that “I” understand “you” here better than “you” understand “me”. I just appear to be considerably more “fractured and fragmented”. As I was with folks like karpel tunnel, phyllo, von rivers, gib, moreno, zinnat…
K: I am not a fan of trying to turn political/religious/ philosophical thought into psychological
thought…it just isn’t a very good fit…….
Peter Kropotkin: I am, in the worn out cliché, attempting to “think outside of the box”………
I may succeed or I may fail………. but I don’t believe that taking a set
philosophical position will allow me to solve the question of human existence……
I: Again, from my frame of mind, inside or outside the box, the search for solutions to “the problem of human existence” remains “for all practical purposes” an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least until someone is able to convince me that it doesn’t have to be.
K: and that is where we part company, because I don’t believe the search for the problem
of human existence must travel through dasein or conflicting goods or political economy…
there are other journeys to be made that don’t require those “traits”
and to think that “for all practical purposes” the search for the solution to the human problem
must travel through those issues is to be as much an “objectivist” as anyone…
we travel the path we travel, but we don’t need to bring along the crap…
we can travel light and I like to travel light… so I try not to bring along
the crap of myths, habits, prejudices and superstitions that we either
are indoctrinated with or we create along the way… sometimes I fail…
I believe your path of finding the truth through dasein, conflicting goods or political economy
or “existential contraption” is your way, your method of being an “objectivist”…
and from where I sit, I really, really, really don’t care… its your way, not mine…
I believe that many of the problem I find are really creations of my issues…
and I believe that finding the truth through these values of dasein, conflicting goods,
political economy and existential contraption is just not traveling light…
but hay, what do I know? I am just muddling through this human existence…
Kropotkin