Making iambiguous's day

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:09 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:You won't be free of pain for the simple reason that noone has total control over the universe.

Pain is an unwanted consequence. It's what happens but what we never want to happen.

To tolerate pain, for example, does not mean to feel pain. It means to be comfortable with what used to be uncomfortable.


You mean, acceptance of pain.

Magnus Anderson wrote:When I put my hand in a tub full of hot water my aim isn't to feel pain -- what would be the point of that? -- but to make sure that I do not pull my hand out of it. In order to do so, I must desensitize myself, which is to say, I must switch off impulses that are unnecessary, that distract from what I want to do. This process makes the experience, not more uncomfortable, but less.


So you're talking about desensitzation to pain by acceptance. This is a real phenomenon. Acceptance of pain can have the effect of lessening the pain, at least psychologically, and maybe even physically.

So can listening to the voice of your conscience. The discomfort of doing what's right can be much less than it would if you were forced to do it. However, the most comfortable thing to do can often be to ignore your conscience--even if you have to endure the guilt, that pain can be less than the sacrifice you'd have to make if you followed through with your conscience.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Conscience is not about discomfort, I would agree with James, but what is often referred to as "intuitive right and wrong" is.


I don't understand the difference. In what sense is intuitive right and wrong about causing greater discomfort to one's self whereas conscience, in the same situation, would be about lessening discomfort (through desensitization <-- I presume that's what you're talking about).
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:56 pm

It's not accurate to say that you're accepting pain. What is accepted is the mediate cause of pain, such as contact between your hand and hot water, but the immediate cause of pain, which is hyper-activity that takes place within your nervous system, is actively rejected.

Both techniques can give you comfort. You can evade or destroy the mediate cause of pain (e.g. the man whipping you) or you can simply destroy hyper-activity within your nervous system (e.g. reactions that arise in response to whipping.) Both preserve or restore your comfort but there is a notable difference between the two. Namely, the former has an advantage of being able to preserve possessions other than comfort (e.g. your body and by extension your life) but it has a disadvantage in that it is a stress on your nervous system. This means it can create discomfort.

Thus, it often happens that a person, who attempts, and perhaps even manages, to evade or destroy the mediate cause of discomfort, ends up causing discomfort to himself with his own actions. This is, for example, what happens to people who over-work, over-exercise, over-think and otherwise over-act.

Discomfort makes you weak. It's a lot more difficult to concentrate when you're in pain than when you're not. It acts like a gravitational force that keeps pulling you down sabotaging any activity you might be trying to engage in.Thus, if you want to be strong, you must preserve your comfort above everything else.

There is no such a thing as “too much comfort”. The problem is that people confuse inner peace (what I refer to as comfort here) with outer peace (what I do not recognize as comfort here.) There is indeed such a thing as “too much outer peace” but there is no such a thing as “too much inner peace”. It's pretty evident that in times of great outer peace, when there are no external threats in the form of wars, that people start degenerating. But this is only because such a peace creates inner discomfort, in the form of boredom, that is very difficult to resolve.

It is my personal opinion that the fundamental decision making process of every organism with a nervous system consists in making sure that one's nervous activation remains within the limits of comfort. Good refers to actions that are within the comfort zone and bad refers to actions that are outside of it. It does not matter what these actions are. They can be anything.

When people speak of “conscience” I immediately think of “inner peace”. And when they speak of “intuition” I immediately think of “emotional regulation”. Not that the two are the same, mind you, but I think that these people, more than anything, are speaking of these phenomena rather than what they think they are speaking of.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:25 pm

gib wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Conscience is not about discomfort, I would agree with James, but what is often referred to as "intuitive right and wrong" is.


I don't understand the difference. In what sense is intuitive right and wrong about causing greater discomfort to one's self whereas conscience, in the same situation, would be about lessening discomfort (through desensitization <-- I presume that's what you're talking about).


I didn't say it's about causing discomfort.

My point is that "intuitive right and wrong" often refers to nothing other than right and wrong in terms of emotional quality. When emotions are regulated, then we say whatever we are doing is right. When they are not, then we say whatever we are doing is wrong.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Some Guy in History » Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:36 pm

Imabiguous is awesome and epic and great and has a major super big cock and is intellectual as hell!!!! I'm like uber-super fanboy of his! I shall now proceed to lick his ass crack and call him sugar!

Image
Image

"Everybody says ["I don't want to die alone"]. But in my experience, push comes to shove... it isn't the "alone" part people want to avoid. It's the dying."

--Cletus Kasady (Earth-616)
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:22 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:My point is that "intuitive right and wrong" often refers to nothing other than right and wrong in terms of emotional quality. When emotions are regulated, then we say whatever we are doing is right. When they are not, then we say whatever we are doing is wrong.


Well, you're right that moral intuition (the way I'm defining it) is highly connected to emotion. I wouldn't say it requires emotion, but it's definitely there. For example, in the scenario above, the one where you find a child wounded in the ditch, I don't think it has to stir a lot of emotion just to intuit that the right thing to do is to help the child. But if you were there, if it were really happening, you might feel inspired to help or guilty if you just walk on by (I consider inspiration and guilt the two main emotions that are tied to moral intuition). But I don't think moral intuition is just the emotions we feel in that scenario, but a sense of knowing right and wrong which can trigger certain strong emotional reactions.

But I'd like to know what the "inner peace" of what you are calling the conscience is. It must have something to do with morality. Otherwise, why call it the conscience?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:11 pm

Inner peace means that whatever actions you're performing, if you're performing any at all, that they are within the limits of comfort.

In other words, it means that you're comfortable with what you're doing.

Inner peace is a necessary condition for good conscience but it is not a sufficient condition. This is because conscience refers to moral decisions whereas inner peace refers to actions of any kind. Thus, good conscience is not merely inner peace but inner peace in moral decisions.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby gib » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:35 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Inner peace means that whatever actions you're performing, if you're performing any at all, that they are within the limits of comfort.

In other words, it means that you're comfortable with what you're doing.

Inner peace is a necessary condition for good conscience but it is not a sufficient condition. This is because conscience refers to moral decisions whereas inner peace refers to actions of any kind. Thus, good conscience is not merely inner peace but inner peace in moral decisions.


Ah, then that would be like deciding to help the child in the ditch (at least for me). Bad conscience, I suppose, would be to endure the guilt from a decision to leave the child there. We could say then that good conscience is being inspired to do good, or feeling inspired that you have done good, and bad conscience would be to feel guilt.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

“Everyone is always like ‘how do you feel about feminism? how do you feel about feminism?’ and it’s like maybe I don’t wanna fucking talk about feminism, maybe I just wanna be a female producer, because it’s like even being a female producer is so rare it drives people fucking crazy. It’s like my sheer existence is like a political act, I think, to a lot of people. It’s not to me.”

- Claire Boucher
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8124
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:37 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Biggy wrote:Look, we can go into great "technical" depth here regarding what "philosophically" it means to "make the right decision".


If you come on a philosophy board in order to ask us to demonstrate that our decisions are "the right decisions" only to get a negative response in the form of "we don't know what you want us to do" isn't it natural, provided you still want us to do whatever you want us to do, to help us, and thus get closer to achieving your goal, by explaining in more detail what you want us to do?


Most of us no doubt have reached this point. For months [sometimes years] we make the attempt to explain to others how we think about things like human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

This particular thread also includes attempts to connect the dots between conflicting human behaviors [embedded in moral and political narratives/agendas] as this relates in turn to human consciousness itself.

Which inevitably will get around to the question of autonomy, volition, will.

Yet we all no doubt marvel at just how mangled our point can become in the minds of others. Still! Even after countless exchanges!!

Indeed, we can't help but ponder what that tells us about, among other things, the limitations of human language, logic, reason.

I'm not asking others to demonstrate that their behaviors are the right ones. I'm asking them to discuss the manner in which they have come to defend their own behaviors. Behaviors that engender conflicts with others relating precisely to the manner in which they have come to understand the relationship [out in the world existentially] between identity, values and political power

In other words...

1] what particular goals do they have?
2] how did they come to acquire them given the actual trajectory of their own unique life?
3] how have they come to deal with conflicting goods?
4] how are all of these interactions related historically, culturally and experientially to the manner in which Karl Marx and others coined the expression "political economy"?

All I then ask is that, in probing these relationships "out in the world", we focus the discussion on particular conflicts that we are all familiar with.

In other words, I focus the discussion not on what we want others to do, but on the extent to which this can actually be grasped [philosophically or otherwise] when in fact others want us to do something else instead.

Magnus Anderson wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you want me to do. As far as I am concerned, you are merely bombarding me with words.


No, I am proposing this: that to the extent it is possible [given the nature of internet exchanges], we connect the dots between our words and the worlds that we actually live in: insofar as the words attempt to describe the conflicts that we ourselves have with others.

My values [vis a vis others] are embedded in my dilemma above. So, how are the values of others [translated into behaviors] not?

They will either take their words there or they will not.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:18 pm

Chance, contingency and change . . . and yet, you are the most inflexible and repetitive person on this forum.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:40 pm

gib wrote:I'm arguing, among other things, that Biggy needs to at least understand what an "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do" is before he can expect to be persuaded by it should someone actually follow through with his challenge. Right now, it seems to me, the only thing one can offer Biggy in response to this challenge is something which would only qualify as what Biggy calls an "existential contraption".


Actually, my distinction [as always] is between ascribing a particular definition and meaning to the words "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do", and coming up with an actual experience embedded in a particular existential context whereby empirically "out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors" such a demonstration is wholly illustrated.

What is the methodology by which we can take those words out into the world and test them?

Here of course that can only be described with words. But the words are either able to be illustrated "out in the world" such that all rational men and women are obligated to share their definition and meaning or they are not.

After all, if the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy," one is either talking about an abortion or one is not.

Similarly regarding the definition of morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

One is either discussing the morality of abortion or one is not.

Indeed, how difficult is it to wholly illustrate that?

But then after we all agree on that, we reach the part where it is to be decided if the morality of this particular abortion encompasses/embodies a right behavior or a wrong behavior.

All I ask here is for an argument that would in fact be able to establish this in the same manner in which it can in fact be established that we are discussing the morality of this particular abortion.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist, only that from my own frame of mind [here and now] such an argument is entangled in my dilemma.

Then: How are you not entangled in it yourself?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Some Guy in History » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I'm arguing, among other things, that Biggy needs to at least understand what an "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do" is before he can expect to be persuaded by it should someone actually follow through with his challenge. Right now, it seems to me, the only thing one can offer Biggy in response to this challenge is something which would only qualify as what Biggy calls an "existential contraption".


Actually, my distinction [as always] is between ascribing a particular definition and meaning to the words "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do", and coming up with an actual experience embedded in a particular existential context whereby empirically "out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors" such a demonstration is wholly illustrated.

What is the methodology by which we can take those words out into the world and test them?

Here of course that can only be described with words. But the words are either able to be illustrated "out in the world" such that all rational men and women are obligated to share their definition and meaning or they are not.

After all, if the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy," one is either talking about an abortion or one is not.

Similarly regarding the definition of morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

One is either discussing the morality of abortion or one is not.

Indeed, how difficult is it to wholly illustrate that?

But then after we all agree on that, we reach the part where it is to be decided if the morality of this particular abortion encompasses/embodies a right behavior or a wrong behavior.

All I ask here is for an argument that would in fact be able to establish this in the same manner in which it can in fact be established that we are discussing the morality of this particular abortion.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist, only that from my own frame of mind [here and now] such an argument is entangled in my dilemma.

Then: How are you not entangled in it yourself?



I'd buy you a prostitute, but I can't even afford one myself. I can sense your sexual frustration from here.
Image

"Everybody says ["I don't want to die alone"]. But in my experience, push comes to shove... it isn't the "alone" part people want to avoid. It's the dying."

--Cletus Kasady (Earth-616)
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2219
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:50 pm

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Once again: what does Biguous really want?
He wants confirmation that he did nothing wrong in his life, that he made no mistakes and that he could not have done anything in any other way. He wants to feel that he cannot be criticized by others and he need not criticize himself. That is what brings him peace.

Yep.



Nope.

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.

Anyway [as always] thanks for the contribution, James.

Oh, and that reminds me... :banana-linedance:
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:13 pm

phyllo wrote:Do "intellectual contraptions" ever end?

Let's say that a man is taken away in the middle of the night by the secret police. He is tortured, killed and his body is "dumped".

Is it an intellectual contraption if he thinks that his treatment is immoral?


From my frame of mind, an intellectual contraption relating to the components of my own argument -- identity, value judgments and political power -- is one in which actual behaviors such as this do not even make an appearance.

Instead, they are encompassed in conflicting reactions to human behaviors such as this by way of scholastic assessments --- "general descriptions" of human interactions in one or another academic, didactic lecture. Think Satyr at KT and James S. Saint here. **

My point is that individual reactions to this sort of behavior will be embedded largely in the actual existential trajectory of any particular life. That, give a unique and particular sequence of experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., one is predisposed to react one way rather than another. That, in other words, there does not appear to be an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that can in fact establish how all rational men and women are obligated to react.

And, in part, because there are arguments that can be made to rationalize such behavior from both sides. From many conflicting sides. Embedded [politically] in conflicting goods.

And [again] that's before we get to the arguments posed by the sociopaths.

** Consider this "observation":

James S Saint wrote:"Conscience" is the sense of (whether delusion or not) innocence or guilt (aka "right or wrong").

The sense of guilt can, and often does, bring with it a feeling of discomfort (threat of retribution). But "conscience" is not about the discomfort but rather about the awareness of innocence or guilt.


You tell me: What on earth are we to make of this pertaining to our individual reactions to the methods used by the secret police above?

They either tortured and killed the man or they did not.

Now, what are philosophers [ethicists] to make of it if they did? Is there a deontological assessment here that all reasonable/rational folks are obligated to embrace?

Or does it instead depend on the particular context seen from particular [and conflicting] points of view. Political points of view. Or religious points of view. Or ideological points of view. Or points of view said to be most in sync with "nature"?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:53 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Chance, contingency and change . . . and yet, you are the most inflexible and repetitive person on this forum.


Again, there are those things that we claim to know or to believe are true "in our head" that are able to be demonstrated as in fact true objectively "for all of us". Sure, there may well be contingency, chance and change embedded in these phenomena "over time" but the reprecussions of this are no less true for all of us.

We remain inflexible and repetitive regarding these truths because it is reasonable to do so.

But with respect to our prong #2 interactions those aren't the things [the relationships, the consequences] that I focus on pertaining to my dilemma above.

Are they?

Let's go there then and explore the extent to which it is not applicable to you when your own behaviors come into conflict with others.

What are we able to establish as in fact true for all of us and what, instead, becomes entangled in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

You choose the context.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:27 pm

You are inflexible and repetitive not because it's reasonable to do so but quite simply because you have no respect for the consequences of your actions. You don't want to admit to yourself that what you're doing is unreasonable because then you would have to make a drastic change in your behavior something for which you simply have no patience at all. And this is evident in the manner you interact with people on this forum such as for example me.

You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.

Narcissists have no interest in measuring the performance of their actions. Instead, they simply act and then override the consequences of their actions by imagining they are doing well. You try to hide this and make yourself appear credible by adding an entirely valueless "I might be wrong".
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:07 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: You are inflexible and repetitive not because it's reasonable to do so but quite simply because you have no respect for the consequences of your actions.


My point however is that different folks have different reactions to the consequences of any particular set of actions.

And then the objectivists come along and refuse to respect the reactions of anyone who does not share their own.

How is that not reasonable?

Magnus Anderson wrote: You don't want to admit to yourself that what you're doing is unreasonable because then you would have to make a drastic change in your behavior something for which you simply have no patience at all. And this is evident in the manner you interact with people on this forum such as for example me.


Again, let's explore my own reaction to the question that revolves around the behavior we call abortion: "is aborting a human fetus rational...is it moral?"

My answer is embedded existentially in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
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.


Which then precipitates [philosophically and otherwise] this frame of mind:

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.

In other words, I am inhibited from making any "drastic change" in my behavior because I have come to conclude that any change at all is merely embedded in an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods.

And then I ask folks like you: How is this not applicable to your own behaviors?

Thus when you level this accusation at me:

Magnus Anderson wrote: You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.


That is precisely what I am inclined to think about you. And many other objectivists.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Narcissists have no interest in measuring the performance of their actions. Instead, they simply act and then override the consequences of their actions by imagining they are doing well. You try to hide this and make yourself appear credible by adding an entirely valueless "I might be wrong".


Narcissists [like many sociopaths] are interested only in behaving in a manner that it reinforces their own sense of self-gratification. Sometimes they will agree that there is a right and a wrong behavior, but they just don't care. Other times they will insist that in the absence of God right and wrong can only be understood from the perspective of any particular mere mortal in any particular context viewing the world around them from the perspective of "what's in it for me?"

Personally, I do try to live my own life embodying the perspective embedded in the Golden Rule: would I want others to do this to me?

I merely have no illusions but that this is just one more existential contraption rooted by and large in the particular sequence of experiences that have encompassed my life. So far.

Though even here I have no way of demonstrating to others that all reasonable men and women are obligated to think like this. So I am always acknowledging here that I may well be wrong.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 19808
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:26 am

Narcissism is about falsifying the evident in order to protect oneself from the unpleasant emotional reactions.

Narcissists have no emotional resilience -- their nervous system is inflexible -- so instead of slowing down their densely packed emotional reactions they are protecting themselves from them by telling themselves all sorts of lies.

The event that triggers unpleasant emotions, in other words, is discredited.

Like a fox that can't reach the grapes. The observation of failure -- that the fox couldn't reach the grapes -- triggers certain very unpleasant emotional reactions. The brain automatically starts making certain attempts to remedy the situation but because everything happens all at once it becomes counter-productive. Instead of slowing its emotions down, by having patience, the fox falsifies its past, i.e. it adds a layer of imagination on the path to memory, by telling itself that it never wanted to reach these grapes (because they are supposedly sour.) This means the fox didn't fail, because its goal wasn't to reach the grapes, but perhaps merely to try to reach them, and so the brain of the fox no longer reacts and the fox is happy.

Narcissism is self-gratifying in this particular sense.

Narcissists are quite simply reality falsifiers. They bury unwanted aspects of their past deep beneath dense layers of imagination in order to protect themselves from their own emotional reactions.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Making iambiguous's day

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:46 am

Biggy wrote:Thus when you level this accusation at me:

Magnus Anderson wrote:You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.


That is precisely what I am inclined to think about you. And many other objectivists.


I am not evading anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am asking you to tell me what you want me to do so that I can do it. But you never respond to my questions. Instead, you just bombard me with words and declare a victory when you see me walk away. Cool stuff, bro.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2912
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users