Making iambiguous's day

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:32 pm

phyllo wrote: What about these objectivist observations (or is it assumptions?? :-k ):

- The purpose of morality is to facilitate the life of humans together in a community. It's not about what one particular individual wants to do.


As a general description of human interaction this is easy enough to propose. Until one gets down to earth and this "moral philosophy" comes toe to toe with an issue like abortion. Does sanctioning abortion "facilitate the life of humans together in a community" more or less than sanctioning the right of the unborn to be brought into the world?

How are we not back again to William Barrett's "rival goods"?

And is there or is there not a rendition of this pertaining to all moral and political conflagrations?

How do we get around the assumptions that are made from folks in both camps? Or around the assumption that is made by the sociopath?

Encompass this in what you construe to be a "real philosophical argument".

phyllo wrote: There is a cost-benefit analysis when selecting any moral rule.

- Nobody in the group is going to get everything that he wants. He won't be able to everything/anything. Some things will be restricted.


True. But are there or are there not conflicting narratives [liberal vs. conservative, capitalist vs. socialist, Christian vs. Islamic etc.] when these things are finally "calculated" out in the world of actual human interactions?

phyllo wrote: So when we consider the self-gratification needs of a sociopath at the expense of a woman/child, then we see that it does not carry much weight.


It carries considerable weight for the sociopath. And he has in fact calculated that his own gratification is the default here; and that sans God his chief concern is in not getting caught by those who don't share his own frame of mind.

So, what do you do...grab him by the collar and start screaming, "that's just wrong, fellow!!!"

And how do you "prove" to him that it is? Aside from just believing that it is "in your head"? Aside from having it within your power [sans God] to impose a punishment on him?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:02 pm

Okay. Thanks for playing.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:40 pm

phyllo wrote:Okay. Thanks for playing.


Sure thing.

Oh, and better luck next time. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:48 pm

Oh, and better luck next time. :wink:
Oh yeah, I forgot. You win because you are not convinced by my posts.

Well, congrats on your self-declared victory. 8)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:12 pm

He's making himself the center of the world. Unless you can make him agree with you, it's all in your head.

He can evade this accusation by arguing that it is not him but humanity that he's placing at the center of the world. In other words, unless you can make 90% of humanity agree with you, it's all in your head.

He's an arrogant clown who does not want to accept that judgement is in the brain, not outside of it, and that the sole difference between good and bad judgments is the amount of experience that is processed.

Who the fuck gives a shit whether others agree with you or not when you can tell that they are not thinking at all?

Thinking is digestion. Not thinking is indigestion. These people are not digesting their experiences. Doesn't matter how much experienced they are.

He's an egalitarian who believes in "lowest common denominator judgment" that can be applied by anyone to perceive anything.

No such thing. True judgment is organic. Can't be separated from the individual.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:16 pm

phyllo wrote:
Oh, and better luck next time. :wink:
Oh yeah, I forgot. You win because you are not convinced by my posts.

Well, congrats on your self-declared victory. 8)


See this----> :wink:

That means my reaction is [by and large] tongue in cheek.

Though, sure, for you I will make an exception. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:07 pm

See this----> :wink:

That means my reaction is [by and large] tongue in cheek.

Though, sure, for you I will make an exception. :wink:
I know the wink. :wink:

But I honestly think that you believe that you are 'winning' these arguments. I see a lot of your ego. In fact, that's a large part of your dilemma.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Faust » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:13 pm

iam - does it ever occur to you that people sometimes change their minds, even about abortion, and that the arguments put forth by others sometimes have an influence on that decision?
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16890
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:28 pm

Faust wrote:iam - does it ever occur to you that people sometimes change their minds, even about abortion, and that the arguments put forth by others sometimes have an influence on that decision?


Sure, but what's that got to do with the points that Gib and I are exploring on this thread pertaining to prong #1 and prong #2?

Have you been following the discussion?

And how is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy any less relevant in such exchanges?

We change our minds precisely because we do encounter [existentially] new experiences, new relationships, new sources of knowledge and information. Otherwise I would still be condemning those who either recieve or perform abortions as Sinners in the eyes of God.

Also, changing your mind is one thing, arguing there is a direction one can go that brings them closer to the "whole truth" something entirely different.

Whether that direction is derived from either God [and the tools of theologians] or Reason [and the tools of philosophers].

And isn't that basically what the moral and political objectivists [idealists] do?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Faust » Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:36 am

That is your answer? A yes or a no might have done well enough.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16890
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:14 am

Faust wrote:That is your answer? A yes or a no might have done well enough.


That's your answer to the points I raise?

Hmm. It must be one of those "serious philosophy" things.

You know, giving you the benefit of the doubt. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:44 am

phyllo wrote:
See this----> :wink:

That means my reaction is [by and large] tongue in cheek.

Though, sure, for you I will make an exception. :wink:
I know the wink. :wink:

But I honestly think that you believe that you are 'winning' these arguments. I see a lot of your ego. In fact, that's a large part of your dilemma.


A lot of that revolves around a fierce inclination on my part to embrace polemics. And that flows in large part from the many, many years I spent as a political activist. But, sure, some of it is ego. Still, I honestly do not believe that I or anyone is able to come up with an argument here said to reflect the optimal point of view.

After all, how could my own frame of mind not be but the embodiment of all the particular experiences that I have had? How is one able transcend that with respect to interactions that revolve around is/ought?

In other words, in noting the experiences that I have had, that's just another way of pointing out all of the many, many, many experiences that I have not had. And only a fool [in my opinion] would shrug that off with, "well, so what?"

You either "get" that part here as I do or you don't.

But: It is that part -- the part where, however different our experiences might be, some things are true for all of us -- where I always focus the beam.

Right?

Besides, as I noted on the God and religion thread, you still have your convictions regarding morality and God. I don't. So, you have got to be a lot closer to "peace of mind" than I am.

And, when push comes to shove, all the ego in the world is no match for that.

Wouldn't you say?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:24 pm

Still, I honestly do not believe that I or anyone is able to come up with an argument here said to reflect the optimal point of view.
"OPTIMAL point of view" ??? #-o

You don't even have an argument against a sociopath killer. Ninety-five percent of the population can dismiss him as immoral and insane with a long list of valid reasons. Not you.

You need to find a way to distinguish between insane, crappy, pathetic, fairly-decent, not-bad, pretty-good and excellent points of view before moving on to the OPTIMAL. :evilfun:
After all, how could my own frame of mind not be but the embodiment of all the particular experiences that I have had? How is one able transcend that with respect to interactions that revolve around is/ought?

In other words, in noting the experiences that I have had, that's just another way of pointing out all of the many, many, many experiences that I have not had. And only a fool [in my opinion] would shrug that off with, "well, so what?"
Some of those experiences increase your understanding of humanity and some are just gratuitous. Even with very limited experiences, one can understand the key points of the sociopath killer situation and the appropriate morality of the situation. If you don't understand it, then you have lost some aspect of your humanity.

To endlessly accumulate experiences in the belief that you don't have enough .. that's like endlessly accumulating money. Enough experiences for what? Enough money for what?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:38 pm

Besides, as I noted on the God and religion thread, you still have your convictions regarding morality and God. I don't. So, you have got to be a lot closer to "peace of mind" than I am.
But you dismiss convictions regarding morality which are based on reason and which explicitly exclude God.

In effect, you have thrown away both God(faith) and reason and you are left with nothing. All you have is your own personal intellectual contraptions which are completely self-referential. The dasein contraption has separated you from all external tools. You need those tools ... which is why you have to drop the dasein contraption.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:07 pm

phyllo wrote:
Still, I honestly do not believe that I or anyone is able to come up with an argument here said to reflect the optimal point of view.
"OPTIMAL point of view" ??? #-o


The most reasonable, okay?

And the distinction that I make here is this...

...between arguments made regarding the most reasonable manner in which to send astronauts to Mars [as an engineering feat] and the most reasonable manner in which to decide whether we ought to given all the problems right here on earth that those billions of dollars money might be used to help solve or mitigate [as a moral quandary].

phyllo wrote: You don't even have an argument against a sociopath killer. Ninety-five percent of the population can dismiss him as immoral and insane with a long list of valid reasons. Not you.


My argument however is that philosophers do not seem able to demonstrate that the sociopath is necessarily wrong [irrational] in choosing self-gratification as the moral font in a world without God.

And the fact is that many construe the aborting of babies or the execution of prisoners or the slaughter of animals or the waging of war to be the equivalent of sociopathic behavior.

After all, how could my own frame of mind not be but the embodiment of all the particular experiences that I have had? How is one able transcend that with respect to interactions that revolve around is/ought?

In other words, in noting the experiences that I have had, that's just another way of pointing out all of the many, many, many experiences that I have not had. And only a fool [in my opinion] would shrug that off with, "well, so what?"


phyllo wrote: Some of those experiences increase your understanding of humanity and some are just gratuitous. Even with very limited experiences, one can understand the key points of the sociopath killer situation and the appropriate morality of the situation. If you don't understand it, then you have lost some aspect of your humanity.


There you go again, making the assumption that only those who think about these things as you do are able to "increase their understanding of humanity" in, say, the optimal way?

So, again, what is the "appropriate morality" with regard to the aborting of human babies? Which side has clearly "lost some aspect of their humanity"?

And how does one's belief in God factor in here?

phyllo wrote: To endlessly accumulate experiences in the belief that you don't have enough .. that's like endlessly accumulating money. Enough experiences for what? Enough money for what?


On the other hand, if your goal is to become an obstetrician, you need to accumulate the X amount of dollars necessary to acquire the education and degrees.

You will either reach that amount or you won't.

But how many experiences would you need to accumulate in order to achieve the goal of resolving whether or not aborting a human baby is moral or immoral?

And what precisely would those experiences have to be?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:22 pm

phyllo wrote:
Besides, as I noted on the God and religion thread, you still have your convictions regarding morality and God. I don't. So, you have got to be a lot closer to "peace of mind" than I am.
But you dismiss convictions regarding morality which are based on reason and which explicitly exclude God.


Are you arguing here that you explicitly exclude God? That's news to me.

On the other hand, I have never really been able to pin down how you actually view these relationships at the intersection of God and Reason.

And what I argue is that moral and political narratives are rooted in dasein -- daseins interacting in a world of conflicting goods; and in a world where what counts is the extent to which [through wealth and power] one is able to enforce their own narrative.

phyllo wrote: In effect, you have thrown away both God(faith) and reason and you are left with nothing. All you have is your own personal intellectual contraptions which are completely self-referential. The dasein contraption has separated you from all external tools. You need those tools ... which is why you have to drop the dasein contraption.


I never threw them away. Instead, re God and Reason, I situate my "self" existentially here:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

And, by all means, site a few examples of how you, in using these "external tools", are yourself able to integrate God and Reason into your interactions with others that come into conflict re the sort of things that Gib and I are discussing re prong #2 above.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32969
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:37 pm

Are you arguing here that you explicitly exclude God? That's news to me.
Practically every argument that I have presented to you, has excluded God. But you keep putting Him back in.
On the other hand, I have never really been able to pin down how you actually view these relationships at the intersection of God and Reason.
God gave people Reason so that they could solve their problems.
And, by all means, site a few examples of how you, in using these "external tools", are yourself able to integrate God and Reason into your interactions with others that come into conflict re the sort of things that Gib and I are discussing re prong #2 above.
I don't remember what prong2 means.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:51 pm

...between arguments made regarding the most reasonable manner in which to send astronauts to Mars [as an engineering feat] and the most reasonable manner in which to decide whether we ought to given all the problems right here on earth that those billions of dollars money might be used to help solve or mitigate [as a moral quandary].
And the decision is made in the same way by thinking and evaluating - risk/reward - cost/benefit -doable/nondoable.
My argument however is that philosophers do not seem able to demonstrate that the sociopath is necessarily wrong [irrational] in choosing self-gratification as the moral font in a world without God.

And the fact is that many construe the aborting of babies or the execution of prisoners or the slaughter of animals or the waging of war to be the equivalent of sociopathic behavior.
If you can't solve the problem of the sociopath raping and murdering women ... what's the point of moving on to abortion?
You are admitting that you have no method or technique for making decisions.
There you go again, making the assumption that only those who think about these things as you do are able to "increase their understanding of humanity" in, say, the optimal way?

So, again, what is the "appropriate morality" with regard to the aborting of human babies? Which side has clearly "lost some aspect of their humanity"?

And how does one's belief in God factor in here?
I know. Your position is that there are no better or worse way of thinking about these things. In effect, you have turned off your brain. How can it be described in any other way??
On the other hand, if your goal is to become an obstetrician, you need to accumulate the X amount of dollars necessary to acquire the education and degrees.

You will either reach that amount or you won't.

But how many experiences would you need to accumulate in order to achieve the goal of resolving whether or not aborting a human baby is moral or immoral?

And what precisely would those experiences have to be?
Again, you turned off your brain and you cannot differentiate between useful and useless knowledge ... new experiences and repeat experiences.

What can one say to a person who has done that?
Last edited by phyllo on Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:25 am

Sorry everyone,

Have not been able to reply. Proly won't for the next few days. Too busy.

I'll have a quick read through all the replies when I find time.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:58 pm

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So what is your approach if not the traditional objectivist's one? So far it seems to be an inquisitive one (to put it lightly); maybe an aggresively inquisitive one, aggressive because, I would think, one would have to be aggressive in forcing the typical objectivist to face up to the dilemma you pose--to admit to being in the same dasein boat as the rest of us, to seeing how his "I" fragments the minute he recognizes that he could have gone in the other direction, or might as well have.


All I can do is to live with the consequences of what I believe is true "in my head" here. "I" becomes hopelessly fragmented. "I" makes that existential leap to a particular set of political prejudices. All the while knowing that a new experience or a new relationship or a new source of information/knowledge might prompt me to change my mind. But, in turn, speculating that nothing is ever really resolved in the manner in which the moral objectivists are able to convince themselves that their own values are in sync -- naturally -- with the way the world [reality] is alleged to be.


That describes how you live your life, but I was asking about your approach to engaging with people, and objectivists in particular, in any attempts you might undertake towards resolving your dilemma. It seems, from my encounters with you in this thread, it's not the traditional objectivist one (arguing for why you're right), but rather an inquisitive one.

iambiguous wrote:My main contention is that the objectivist frame of mind is more a psychological contraption [a defense mechanism] than a philosophical argument.


Well, in my view, all philosophical arguments are defense mechanisms.

iambiguous wrote:No, not really. I'm still largely at a loss in understanding how "for all practical purposes" your understanding of consciousness [embedded in prong #1] has any "use value" or "exchange value" out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict.


I've been telling you that it doesn't. You seem to be stuck on the assumption that if I am to have an approach towards resolving conflict between myself and others, that approach must involve my theory of consciousness somehow, as if the only way, even as an alternative to the objectivist approach, to approaching conflict with others is by bringing your "ism" to the table in one way or another. I'm telling you, I don't typically do that (not in "real world conflicts"). I feel my best chances at success would be to suggest new, healthier, more cooperation-inducing ideas that start with the other person's beliefs and values. <-- You do understand, this is the key essential difference between the traditional objectivist approach (as I'm calling it) and the subjectivist approach, don't you?

iambiguous wrote:This seems to be another rendition of my own "moderation, negotiation and compromise" Probably. --- rooted in democracy and the rule of law. But: none of what I describe above relating to the existential consequences of my dilemma goes away. At least not for me.


I don't think it's meant to (TBH, at this point, I'm not entirely sure I know what your dilemma is); I'm just answering your questions at this point.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, but only pertaining to choosing sides morally and politically. Thus the preponderance of "who I am" is in fact rooted substantially, objectively, empirically, substantively etc., out in the world around me.


And by "who I am"--the 'I' there is you personally--Biggy--correct? You're saying that your sense of self is anchored, not in a moral "ism", but in the substantial, objective, empirical, substantive world around you?

iambiguous wrote:It is applicable to everyone. Well, if in fact it is. And, admittedly, I have no capacity to demonstrate that it is. Merely that, here and now, it seems reasonable to me that it is.


Ok, but this is why I'm getting confused about what your dilemma is. Sure, it's applicable to everyone, but what are you more concerned with--how it applies to others or how it applies to you--this will tell me which is more of a dilemma to you. Based on your response just above, it seems I was right to second guess your concern over your own 'I' fragmenting as you seem, based on what you said, to have a relatively strong sense of self given that you identify it with the substantial, objective, etc., etc., etc., world around you (thus confirming what I said: the real empirical world has far more sway over one's beliefs than mere philosophical contemplations).

On that point, there's also a bit of confusion, on my part, over prong #2 of your dilemma. You talk about real-world consequences, but what are you more concerned with here--what's more of a dilemma to you: the fact that we have to deal with inter-personal conflict, or the fact that objectivists have not (or cannot) arrive at a demonstrably correct argument about all things moral?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:True, but that does not make the sociopath's rationalization [self-gratification] any less persuasive to me.


gib wrote:Really???


Yes. It can be construed as a persuasive argument. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in a godless universe. Which is to suggest that philosophers are unable to demonstrate that it is instead necessarily irrational.


This can only be the case if you're actually cooperating with the sociopath to establish reasons why he should kill you (agreeing to stick to reason is a form of cooperation with your contender), which tells me that you're interested in exploring the sociopath's justifications only to the extent that you're interested in a bit of armchair philosophy. But if a sociopath actually had you cornered in a dark grungy basement with a knife in his hand ready to kill you, and he took a moment out to justify why he was killing you (like the villains often do in the movies before they attempt to kill the good guy), I highly doubt that Biggy would sit there contemplating the sociopath's reasons: hmmm... well, let's think about this for a second; he does raise some interesting points. In a world sans God, what reason does he not have to satisfy his own self-gratification...

iambiguous wrote:The sociopath is happy if he or she is able to gratify a perceived want or need. But this "resolution" may result in the unhappiness of others. My point is only that neither side seems able to demonstrate an objective manner in which to think about this.


Yep, I agree with this.

It seems you are interested only in an objectivist's approach to establishing a particular morality (which, as I pointed out before, might only intensify the conflict). <-- We'll call this prong #2a, prong #2b being how to resolve conflict with others. :lol:

iambiguous wrote:We're still basically "stuck". Again, I read this and am unable to connect any dots between the points that you make and the manner in which I react myself to others who confront my own moral and political prejudices.

In other words, not much in the way of a more "solid understanding" comes to me.

Well, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to understand. I've just been giving you answers to your question--about what my approach, as a subjectivist, to resolving conflict between myself and others would be, an approach that differs from the "traditional objectivist approach", and why I think it would be more effective.

My point though is that more often than not we will be able to understand another's point of view -- at least to the extent that it can be demonstrated to in fact be in sync with the world around us objectively.

What do you mean by this? Obviously, we will sometimes be able to understand another's point of view. You must mean something more than this.

Also, I don't argue that one or another objectivist will never succeed in convincing others that her frame of mind is the most rational. I only note that no one has [of yet] been able to convince me of it.


^ This reinforces my suspicions about what you're most interested in--that you wish to see, for once, an objectivist's answer to the question "Who's right?"--an answer that actually works, in your view, such that it doesn't succumb to the same old "fragmentation" when thrown into the dasein mix of real-world conflicts, prejudices, and moral judgements, an answer whose objective integrity survives the fray.

I can see how my divorcing of my subjectivist "ism" from my approach to resolving conflict between myself and others would only work to frustrate this aim, and that if I did offer the logic of my subjectivist "ism" (which I attempted to when I offered you a link to a free copy of my book in a PM), it wouldn't seem all that different from any other objectivist's existential contraption/fabrication. <-- This is why I've been up front about the fact that my theory can't help you in this regard. I've only been suggesting that it helps in regards to resolving conflict between one's self and others (as an alternative approach to the traditional objectivist approach), which, as I said above, is subtlely different from coughing up the kind of "objectivist demonstration" for why one's "ism" is right. (Furthermore, the subjectivist approach to resolving conflict that I've been trying to explain isn't exclusive to subjectivist's--it's perfectly usable by objectivists too--just that I think objectivists would have a rougher go at it because it would feel, at best, like temporarily putting aside their goal of proving their "ism" to others, and at worse, betraying their own values and integrity).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:49 pm

How can you agree with this? ...
iambiguous wrote:
The sociopath is happy if he or she is able to gratify a perceived want or need. But this "resolution" may result in the unhappiness of others. My point is only that neither side seems able to demonstrate an objective manner in which to think about this.


gib replied:
Yep, I agree with this.

... and (apparently) disagree with this ? ...
Iambig wrote :
Yes. It can be construed as a persuasive argument. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in a godless universe. Which is to suggest that philosophers are unable to demonstrate that it is instead necessarily irrational.


gib replied:
This can only be the case if you're actually cooperating with the sociopath to establish reasons why he should kill you (agreeing to stick to reason is a form of cooperation with your contender), which tells me that you're interested in exploring the sociopath's justifications only to the extent that you're interested in a bit of armchair philosophy. But if a sociopath actually had you cornered in a dark grungy basement with a knife in his hand ready to kill you, and he took a moment out to justify why he was killing you (like the villains often do in the movies before they attempt to kill the good guy), I highly doubt that Biggy would sit there contemplating the sociopath's reasons: hmmm... well, let's think about this for a second; he does raise some interesting points. In a world sans God, what reason does he not have to satisfy his own self-gratification...

When he is using different words to say the same thing??
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Sat Aug 27, 2016 7:59 pm

phyllo wrote:How can you agree with this? ...
iambiguous wrote:
The sociopath is happy if he or she is able to gratify a perceived want or need. But this "resolution" may result in the unhappiness of others. My point is only that neither side seems able to demonstrate an objective manner in which to think about this.


gib replied:
Yep, I agree with this.


I take Biggy's meaning to be: a decisive demonstration of an objective argument--you know, an argument that finally convinces everybody, even the sociopath (or visa-versa with the sociopath convincing everybody).

phyllo wrote:... and (apparently) disagree with this ? ...
Iambig wrote :
Yes. It can be construed as a persuasive argument. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in a godless universe. Which is to suggest that philosophers are unable to demonstrate that it is instead necessarily irrational.


gib replied:
This can only be the case if you're actually cooperating with the sociopath to establish reasons why he should kill you (agreeing to stick to reason is a form of cooperation with your contender), which tells me that you're interested in exploring the sociopath's justifications only to the extent that you're interested in a bit of armchair philosophy. But if a sociopath actually had you cornered in a dark grungy basement with a knife in his hand ready to kill you, and he took a moment out to justify why he was killing you (like the villains often do in the movies before they attempt to kill the good guy), I highly doubt that Biggy would sit there contemplating the sociopath's reasons: hmmm... well, let's think about this for a second; he does raise some interesting points. In a world sans God, what reason does he not have to satisfy his own self-gratification...


This one I'll stick to.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:07 pm

I take Biggy's meaning to be: a decisive demonstration of an objective argument--you know, an argument that finally convinces everybody, even the sociopath (or visa-versa with the sociopath convincing everybody).
You need a decisive demonstration for someone who feels no empathy for anyone and is only concerned about himself?
If you need to decisively convince the sociopath then that means that your entire morality is founded on the beliefs of sociopaths.

Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:41 am

phyllo wrote:You need a decisive demonstration for someone who feels no empathy for anyone and is only concerned about himself?


I don't, but that's what Biggy's looking for. I agree with him that it can't be dished up. Doesn't mean it's the only thing I rely on.

phyllo wrote:If you need to decisively convince the sociopath then that means that your entire morality is founded on the beliefs of sociopaths.


I don't get it.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

I don't care about income inequality, I care about the idea that there are people who have actual obstacles to success.
-Ben Shapiro

...we hear about the wage gap, the idea that women are paid significantly less than men--seventy two cents on the dollar--that's absolute shear nonesense--it is absolute nonesense--in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in America, women make 8% more money than men do in their peer group. That wage gap is growing, not shrinking.
-Ben Shapiro

We're in a situation now where students can go to university and come out dumber than when they went in. They are infantalized by safe space and trigger warning culture, the idea that interogating a new idea, coming into contact with a school of thought or a person that doesn't conform to your prejudices is somehow problematic, that it gives rise to trauma.
-Milo Yiannopoulus

Fuck your feelings, snowflake
-Milo Yiannopoulos
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8817
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
If you need to decisively convince the sociopath then that means that your entire morality is founded on the beliefs of sociopaths.


gib replied:
I don't get it.
Well, you're asking for the morality to be approved by sociopaths. That's giving them control over the contents of the morality.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aegean