The Reasonable Standard

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:05 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:Like no one in this thread is claiming that there is an objective morality that dictates what the right decisions are for any given situation. But that's what he's talking about...how there isn't one in his view. That's fine. He can think that. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. That's not the point. The point is that the thread isn't about that and he's not going to stop until it either is, or until the thread is just dead.


Again, let's go back to the OP:

Fixed Cross wrote:An answer to a challenge made in jestful jest by Iambiguous.

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p2630835

I claim that mr Reasonable is a philosopher, and that his standard is as follows:

Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.


So, others might ask, how do we go about examining the gap between Fixed Cross's assessment of Mr Reasonable's subjective standard for living and that which an objectivist might take issue with?

Out in a particular world revolving around a particular context.

Given that, in FC's view, Mr Reasonable is a philosopher.

What then does that make those who don't share this standard?

As for Fixed Cross, I am curious to understand how, as someone who is not arguing for an objective morality [as Mr. R suggests], he squares this with the idea of "value ontology"

How does that actually work given his own conflicts with others pertaining to moral and political values?

My focus is always on reconfiguring general descriptions like...

Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that

...by situating it out in the world of actual human interactions. What of those who share Mr Reasonable's philosophical standard but insist that the pursuit of "money and hos and clothes" is not a reflection of the "good life" at all?
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: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:41 am

It's a standard, not the standard. So a discussion about whether there's an ultimate objective standard is off topic.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25351
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:07 pm

The whole point of this and any such standard is that it is better than average. An average person won't be able to live with such freedom, much less a subaverage person.

Envy is natural before such a standard and as the slaves of ancient times did then, the modern slave does now - lie to himself about the nature of this standard.

So let me be clear: this Reasonable standard is not for just anyone. It is perfectly partial, exclusive, privileged; yet not obscenely so. Reasonably so.

"One law for ox and lion is oppression"
-Blake

This R-standard is a standard for the more lion like. To demand such freedom of the ox-like is not something that would occur to me.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:43 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:It's a standard, not the standard. So a discussion about whether there's an ultimate objective standard is off topic.


Well, if that's that case, why bring me into it at all?

Sure, he could have noted that, as a philosopher, you have arrived at a standard for living that revolves around your own personal assumption that "life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that."

Bringing me into it however invites my reaction.

And he certainly knows that my reaction will revolve around bringing that assumption down out of the clouds of abstraction.

Again: any number of philosophers might argree with that standard. But any number of philosophers might balk at the suggestion that the good life revolves around the pursuit of "money and hos and clothes".
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: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:28 pm

Fixed Cross wrote: The whole point of this and any such standard is that it is better than average. An average person won't be able to live with such freedom, much less a subaverage person.


Okay, how, in a philosophy forum, can one make such a claim and then not expect others to react to it?

Do we or do we not need to connect the dots here between that claim and the life that Mr. Reasonable actually lives?

How philosophically do the choices that he makes actually come to reflect a "better than average" set of behaviors? And what if the freedom that he elects to embody comes into conflict with the freedom that others might choose instead to, say, "occupy Wall Street"?

Clearly you see Herr Nietzsche's uberman mentality here as a noble pursuit.

Though not as clearly perhaps as, say, Satyr?

On the other hand, I see it as just one more existential contraption rooted historically and culturally in dasein. And in conflicting goods. And in political economy.

And that will always be a numbingly complex entanglement of genes and memes.

Besides, would not philosophers be naturally inclined to probe the meaning of such a standard?

Fixed Cross wrote: Envy is natural before such a standard and as the slaves of ancient times did then, the modern slave does now - lie to himself about the nature of this standard.


Again, the assumption that the pursuit of "money, hos and clothes" will "naturally" engender envy in the weaker males. The effeminate slaves?

The irony here being that if you and Satyr and Mr. Reasonable were to explore the actual existential parameters of this standard you'd no doubt be pummelling each other with contempt.

You all embrace the same standard, sure. But it had better be understood in the right way. The way that only the truly rational and virtuous manly-men would embrace it.

Fixed Cross wrote: "One law for ox and lion is oppression"
-Blake

This R-standard is a standard for the more lion like. To demand such freedom of the ox-like is not something that would occur to me.



Yeah, Satyr likes to bring in the lions too. Only he prefers chimps to oxen.

But, in my view, it's the same existential contraption clothed in the garb of the noble savage.

Meanwhile out in the real world it is still the "show me the money" nihilists that own and operate the global economy that makes the world go around.

At least in his own teeny-tiny way Mr. Reasonable can make the claim to be one of them.

But what about you? How on earth is this standard defended as the embodiment of a "value ontology"?

That in particular is what I would like to explore with you.

A new thread perhaps?

No huffing and puffing, just a straight up exchange of philosophical speculations, brought out into the world of actual conflicting goods.
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: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Pneumatic-Coma » Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
I claim that mr Reasonable is a philosopher, and that his standard is as follows:

Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.


Obviously: Whatever that means.

Besides, life is said to be good or bad only from a particular subjective point of view rooted existentially in dasein.

Also, to the extent that he embraces a particular behavior as good [playing the stock market say] others will insist that it is bad.

And the role that power plays historically in a particular political economy will decide which behaviors either are or are not, among other things, legal.

And that's before we get to the brutally cynical rationalizations of the sociopaths. :shock:

On the other hand, if we peruse mr reasonable's "signature thread" here --- http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 2&t=179879 --- we encounter that side of him which has got to be down near the bottom of the philosophy barrel. If not underneath it.

Indeed, you tell me...

Where's the philosophy here:

I'm sitting on my couch, watching a video of the alabama/lsu game while smoking a bong and waiting for chinese food to be delivered. I was thinking of getting someone over here to clean the place. This is usually what I'm doing, I've seen this game about 130-140 times now. Or I'm in the bathroom someplace, bored and using my phone to post on message boards while I poop.

Seriously though:

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

On the other other hand, however, at least he is not one of the fucking KIDS!


No. What? I favor iambiguous.

???

Is this challenge still even relevant?
(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.
User avatar
Pneumatic-Coma
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Purgatory

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Jul 29, 2018 1:56 pm

Does mr R shit in the woods?


There, kids.


Life is good. Sorry for any of your missing out on this but that doesn't disprove the R standard.
On the contrary -- it shows that it is a meaningful standard.


No pity on the weak.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Pneumatic-Coma » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:09 am

As far as lil' ol' Penuamtic-coma over there is concerned. I believe this contravention of this 'lion' dancing with 'gazelle' is, how you say, erroneous?
Had not the lion danced with the gazelle out in some Savannah? Singing old McDonald together for many, a many, of many of plenty of centuries?

One figure of speech I've come across, and wish to share is, in my living this 25 years. It's actually a parable I believe. It goes something like, well if you trusted Jesus enough, (I'm not speaking religiously here) but say for i.e.'s sake. The apostles wished to convey their total devotion towards Jesus. Accordingly at that point to where Peter didn't involve himself though, exemplified with Jesus's cruel fate. Regarded that Determinism is totally evident. And that total Fatalism is apparent. At which juncture...We all know what happen. He comes back to life. Resurrected and thereafter being entombed even vanished off the face of Earth. Even though..

For whatever reason somebody has, that believe in the whole apparition-al thought, being that oh, well Jesus either died for something, or for another cause, or that how we feel Jesus shouldn't have suffered the way he should have, wasn't in any way, shape, or form, the suitable answer. Never would have not anything else arose later, for whatever eventful action had not transpired. Progressed passed being applied. Have not everybody known that expression? To each their VERY own? Yet MAN, Man was reasonable for MAN. Not one intervening supreme dignitary displayed action among the MEN.

Had not any type of Historical event been added to the Chronicles of Earth. Happening, or is going having to happen already been done? Than the obvious sense of concluding an alibi or to testify with ultimate testimony, relies wholly on oneself instead of an astal-projecting subject convoluting streams of apprehension. Just as much as we can conclude that objects like stuffed animals or plushies could have conversations with human.
Neither was this ultimate Existence ever at the beckoning of a pre-determined will at any standard of being involved in post-determinism. We understood, what we could understand.

Hadn't humans never broke down an already unstable environmental ecosystem, or cause an already dysfunctional law and order to form lines of discourse, Man as we know it would have no order into absolutely any justice and peace. No existence into the absolute. No reason if you will.
Than it's for them to ultimately choose?
Whoever be that decider.
Am I wrong in this? (Don't answer that) I was testing us.
I don't ask like this very often though. Lmao.

Had not once a mouse stirred into the vicinity of a cheese factory? And had not it caused this whole entire system to view itself in a way that oh, well if we didn't make the cheese, THIS WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED?
(It's own opposing subjection of adversarial 'oppression'.)

For that One gazelle having found the One lion to sing the song along with or whatever man...Reason being, that reason stood and meant something, for someone, if not an entire everything and everyone, in ONE own mind. It plays out the same consequences. The co-existing bonds of total concern like, equilibrium, or chaos. There are always relevant accounts discord or discourse, or love without hate, or justice without the unjust?? ? ? ? And on views when involving that of this, or our EARTH, OUR own Earth. .? Ha. Whoa. Break-through? :o Things needed to happen for a reason. Reason being, is still that in order for stuff to happen, things needed, things wanted, if it breathed, if it even thought, it needed or wanted something.
(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.
User avatar
Pneumatic-Coma
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Purgatory

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users