The Reasonable Standard

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:02 pm

An answer to a challenge made in jestful jest by Iambiguous.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=191146&start=25#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.
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: 7620
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:54 pm

You guys debate it, and I'll be the judge.
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: 25353
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:47 pm

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 --- viewtopic.php?f=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!
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:51 pm

And the winner is....

Fixed Cross.
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: 25353
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:10 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:12 pm

Mr Reasonable wrote:And the winner is....

Fixed Cross.


You forgot these....

: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: :wink:

...right?
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:09 am

"Bitches, hoes, and blow followed by my get rich scheme." -Mr. Reasonable

"I don't understand you guys, you could all be successful internet day traders and drug dealers like me." -Mr. Reasonable

"Obama is a great president and if you don't think so you're a dumb racist." -Mr. Reasonable



I think that pretty much covers it all. Mr Reasonable, comments?
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby phyllo » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:18 pm

Iambig wrote :
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.
Full of philosophy. It's his description of (the good) life.

You are interested in how one ought to live ... here you have Mr R's answer.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10734
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:02 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.

No, I mean that he enjoys life.
Not that life is morally good! :lol:

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.

For starters, in knowing what he likes, and being able to organize his life so that he gets to do that.

With that, he is comfortably on the leaderboard of the power-to-value game.
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: 7620
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:50 am

There is no philosophy whatsoever in that quote. Fixed is merely practicing the art of pretending that there is something within nothing so that he can become better at presenting his own non-philosophical effort as being philosophical.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:01 am

Shut up Magnus. Everyone knows that you're a Nazi and a hater. My prescription for you is to masturbate repeatedly until you can settle down and think like a grown man.
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: 25353
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:11 pm

What does a manchild like you know about being a grown up?

That quote betrays you.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:48 pm

Magnus old flowerbulb. How is life man.

No Im not pretending.

Mr. R - this seems as good a place as any to ask, how are you buying stocks online? I need to be putting some euros in harder value.
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: 7620
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:01 pm

phyllo wrote:
Iambig wrote :
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.
Full of philosophy. It's his description of (the good) life.

You are interested in how one ought to live ... here you have Mr R's answer.


No, what I am interested in exploring is the extent to which mr reasonable's rendition of "the good life" is rooted existentially in the life that he lived [in dasein] or if it can in fact be argued [using the tools of philosophy] to be the sort of life that all rational men and women are obligated to conclude is in fact "a good life".

Now, wiggle out of taking the discussion there.

Also, in making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between the behaviors that he has chosen to acquire and then to sustain this life --- playing the stock market --- and an argument able to establish that this sort of behavior is essentially reasonable and moral.

My point is that mr reasonable either does or does not earn income playing the market. This is either a fact or it is not.

But some argue that playing the market exemplifies rational, virtuous behavior while others argue that, in being part and parcel of the capitalist political economy, it is not. That socialism [one or another rendition of it] is a more reasonable and ethical mode of human interaction.

Or there are even "scientific" Marxists who argue that historically this behavior may still prevail but given the extent to which "dialectical materialism" is a rational point of view, some day, down the road, "dog eat dog" capitalism will be replaced by "all for one and one for all" Communism.

Of course [here and now] that seems rather elusive. Perhaps even illusive.

But how is either side able to demonstrate that their own rendition of what constitutes "natural" or "ideal" behavior -- or "the good life" -- is in fact the case?

There are also folks here who claim that mr reasonable is a "drug dealer". Is this in fact true? I have no idea.

My argument is only that he is or he is not. There are either facts able to confirm it or facts able to expose it as a lie. I am only interested in exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to judge these behaviors [deontologically] as necessarily Right or Wrong, Good or Evil.

In a world without God.
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:18 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:No, I mean that he enjoys life.
Not that life is morally good! :lol:


Well, if you are convinced that the role of the serious philosopher is more to establish whether someone either does or does not enjoy life rather than in exploring the extent to which the life that he enjoys embodies "the good life", fine.

The latter however would seem to be quite a bit more challenging.

Fixed Cross wrote:For starters, in knowing what he likes, and being able to organize his life so that he gets to do that.

With that, he is comfortably on the leaderboard of the power-to-value game.


Ah, so that is what it means to be a "value ontologists".

If, say, someone like Adolph Hitler knows what he likes and is able to organize his life around attaining it, then...

Of course, this frame of mind can revolve around either might makes right or right makes might. Or, in the modern industrial state, around whatever behaviors you have the wealth and the power to enforce.

Against, among others, the sheep.

On the other hand, how does this frame of mind obviate the points I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Again, choose a value judgment of your own, bring it down to earth, put it in conflict with the values of others and note how you are not entangled in my dilemma.
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:30 pm

I wrote :
You are interested in how one ought to live ... here you have Mr R's answer.

Iambig replied :
No, what I am interested in exploring is the extent to which mr reasonable's rendition of "the good life" is rooted existentially in the life that he lived [in dasein] or if it can in fact be argued [using the tools of philosophy] to be the sort of life that all rational men and women are obligated to conclude is in fact "a good life".
A search of your posts and the phrase "how one ought to live" produces 512 hits. A brief reminder for you :
How ought one to live? That's my "thing" here.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&p=2629397&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2629397
I try to wrap my mind around what something like this might possibly mean pertaining to that which is of most interest to me: How ought one to live?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&p=2629034&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2629034
Me, my concern [as always] revolves around bringing that balance between reason and emotion down to earth; and pertaining to that which is of interest to me: How ought one to live?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=190366&p=2611113&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2611113

But it turns out that you are really interested in something else. :shock:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10734
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:30 am

Biguous is not interested in how this or that person chooses to live their life, but rather, whether their choices are subjective (mere opinions, or inclinations, rooted in dasein) or objective (choices that everyone should be making because they are objectively better for everyone.)

Is the choice of life over death objective or subjective?

Is it a mere habit (subjective) or is it a fact (objective)?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Pezerocles » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:46 pm

Taste is objective. That we all disagree on taste to different extents is proof: it is objectively formed out of only different circumstances.
Iambguous, do you have any thoughts or interest on Dawkin's idea of convergent evolution? The idea is that the same trait has been proven to evolve in two different species with different genealogies by simple environmental exchange.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:No, I mean that he enjoys life.
Not that life is morally good! :lol:


Well, if you are convinced that the role of the serious philosopher is more to establish whether someone either does or does not enjoy life rather than in exploring the extent to which the life that he enjoys embodies "the good life", fine.

The latter however would seem to be quite a bit more challenging.

Fixed Cross wrote:For starters, in knowing what he likes, and being able to organize his life so that he gets to do that.

With that, he is comfortably on the leaderboard of the power-to-value game.


Ah, so that is what it means to be a "value ontologists".

If, say, someone like Adolph Hitler knows what he likes and is able to organize his life around attaining it, then...

Of course, this frame of mind can revolve around either might makes right or right makes might. Or, in the modern industrial state, around whatever behaviors you have the wealth and the power to enforce.

Against, among others, the sheep.

On the other hand, how does this frame of mind obviate the points I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Again, choose a value judgment of your own, bring it down to earth, put it in conflict with the values of others and note how you are not entangled in my dilemma.

Nor am I entangled in Turds dilemma, or anyones. Im not in a dillemma. I solve dillemmas.

Do you deny that Hitler had power and set value standards and is still relevant precisely because of that? Or do you deny that relevance is relevant? In either case, you are wrong.

Beyond good and evil, or "beyond good" as Lacan simplified it. Live up to your claim of being a Nietzschean, my friend.
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: 7620
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:01 pm

phyllo wrote:
I wrote :
You are interested in how one ought to live ... here you have Mr R's answer.

Iambig replied :
No, what I am interested in exploring is the extent to which mr reasonable's rendition of "the good life" is rooted existentially in the life that he lived [in dasein] or if it can in fact be argued [using the tools of philosophy] to be the sort of life that all rational men and women are obligated to conclude is in fact "a good life".
A search of your posts and the phrase "how one ought to live" produces 512 hits. A brief reminder for you :
How ought one to live? That's my "thing" here.


Yes, and how is noting this an effective response to the point I make regarding the role that existential variables play in his life -- re dasein -- predisposing him to choose this particular life; and then concluding that it is "the good life"?

And what of those who argue that his behaviors reflect an immoral lifestyle instead? Those who condemn capitalism and embrace socialism.

Obviously in today's world he is able to choose to sustain his behaviors. But that is not to say that will always be the case. What becomes crucial in human interactions [historically, culturally] is the extent to which particular behaviors are either rewarded or punished. And the extent to which the conflicting parities are able to effectively argue what it should be one and not the other.

That's the distinction that I am interested in.

If it is assumed that playing the stock market is virtuous behavior then mr reasonable might set himself the goal of becoming a millionaire by doing so. Then he can ask, "what ought I to do in order to achieve this?". And if he does become a millionaire he can argue that what he did is "good". And, if not...if instead he goes bankrupt...then in can be argued what he did was "bad".

But that does not resolve the conflict that revolves around whether one ought or ought not to embrace capitalism. And my point is that any particular individual will have any particular answer to that question based more on the individual experiences that he or she had rather than by, in using the tools of philosophy, being able to answer the question in the most rational and ethical manner.

Something that, for example, Ayn Rand and the Libertarians attempt to do.

And that, ultimately, philosophy aside, what counts out in the real world is political economy --- one's capacity [power] to enforce a particular narrative/agenda.
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:15 pm

Yes, and how is noting this an effective response to the point I make regarding the role that existential variables play in his life -- re dasein -- predisposing him to choose this particular life; and then concluding that it is "the good life"?

And what of those who argue that his behaviors reflect an immoral lifestyle instead? Those who condemn capitalism and embrace socialism.

Obviously in today's world he is able to choose to sustain his behaviors. But that is not to say that will always be the case. What becomes crucial in human interactions [historically, culturally] is the extent to which particular behaviors are either rewarded or punished. And the extent to which the conflicting parities are able to effectively argue what it should be one and not the other.

That's the distinction that I am interested in.

If it is assumed that playing the stock market is virtuous behavior then mr reasonable might set himself the goal of becoming a millionaire by doing so. Then he can ask, "what ought I to do in order to achieve this?". And if he does become a millionaire he can argue that what he did is "good". And, if not...if instead he goes bankrupt...then in can be argued what he did was "bad".

But that does not resolve the conflict that revolves around whether one ought or ought not to embrace capitalism. And my point is that any particular individual will have any particular answer to that question based more on the individual experiences that he or she had rather than by, in using the tools of philosophy, being able to answer the question in the most rational and ethical manner.

Something that, for example, Ayn Rand and the Libertarians attempt to do.

And that, ultimately, philosophy aside, what counts out in the real world is political economy --- one's capacity [power] to enforce a particular narrative/agenda.
Once again, no matter how people answer you ... you tell them that they should have said something different. Hilarious. :banana-dance:

At least we have established that you are not actually interested in "how one ought to live" or the "good life".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10734
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:28 pm

Pezerocles wrote: Taste is objective. That we all disagree on taste to different extents is proof: it is objectively formed out of only different circumstances.


Bob prefers the taste of chocolate ice cream. Bonnie prefers the taste of vanilla ice cream.

Well, "here and now".

From my perspective this is true objectively if in fact this is true.

Perhaps Bonnie had an terrible experience with chocolate in the past. The chocolate was bad and it made her sick.

Indeed, there might be any number of existential variables in her life that predisposed her to prefer vanilla.

But, however one comes to be predisposed to a particular taste, there does not appear to be a way to establish that either chocolate or vanilla ice cream ought to be the taste that all reasonable men and women prefer.

It is instead largely subjective.

And no one that I have ever come across would argue that liking chocolate over vanilla or vanilla over chocolate can be judge morally. That, in other words, one ought to be punished for liking the "wrong" flavor.

Pezerocles wrote: Iambguous, do you have any thoughts or interest on Dawkin's idea of convergent evolution? The idea is that the same trait has been proven to evolve in two different species with different genealogies by simple environmental exchange.


More to the point [mine] how is an accurate understanding of "Dawkin's idea of convergent evolution" applicable in discussing the behaviors that mr reasonable chose in playing the stock market?

How would Dawkins response to the points I raise here regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy given a particular context in which individual value judgments come into conflict?

And then there is this part:

https://youtu.be/anBxaOcZnGk

In other words, this entire exchange that we are having here may well be the only possible exchange that there could ever have been.

That way we are both off the hook, right? :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby Pezerocles » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:58 pm

Hahaha, but if we are off the hook, what will attract Godot??

There is an objective world truth, with or without a human to interact with. This truth is unknowable to humans, but it affects everything human. Thus, with philosophy, we approach it.

Mary had to decide about her developping chemestry set in her belly. She gathered from all that her human had been, beeing at that moment also the gathering and deciding, and then subjectively could be said in some parts of the world in veeery short and specific times of history to have aborted her unborn fetus.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:04 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:No, I mean that he enjoys life.
Not that life is morally good! :lol:


Well, if you are convinced that the role of the serious philosopher is more to establish whether someone either does or does not enjoy life rather than in exploring the extent to which the life that he enjoys embodies "the good life", fine.

The latter however would seem to be quite a bit more challenging.

Fixed Cross wrote:For starters, in knowing what he likes, and being able to organize his life so that he gets to do that.

With that, he is comfortably on the leaderboard of the power-to-value game.


Ah, so that is what it means to be a "value ontologists".

If, say, someone like Adolph Hitler knows what he likes and is able to organize his life around attaining it, then...

Of course, this frame of mind can revolve around either might makes right or right makes might. Or, in the modern industrial state, around whatever behaviors you have the wealth and the power to enforce.

Against, among others, the sheep.

On the other hand, how does this frame of mind obviate the points I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Again, choose a value judgment of your own, bring it down to earth, put it in conflict with the values of others and note how you are not entangled in my dilemma.


Nor am I entangled in Turds dilemma, or anyones. Im not in a dillemma. I solve dillemmas.


Again:

....choose a value judgment of your own, bring it down to earth, put it in conflict with the values of others and note how you are not entangled in my dilemma.

I'm not arguing that you or Turd or others are in a dilemma. I am pointing out that, with respect to conflicting goods embedded in all of the various moral/political conflagrations that have divided us down through the ages, I am.

And then I am asking you to note how you are not entangled in it yourself.

You either will or you won't.

Fixed Cross wrote: Do you deny that Hitler had power and set value standards and is still relevant precisely because of that? Or do you deny that relevance is relevant? In either case, you are wrong.


No, he certainly acquired the power necessary to enforce a particular set of values. My point however revolves around the extent to which the behaviors that he chose are rooted more existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein...or if these existential variables can be subsumed in a philosophical argument able to establish that his behaviors reflect that which all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to emulate.

Fixed Cross wrote: Beyond good and evil, or "beyond good" as Lacan simplified it. Live up to your claim of being a Nietzschean, my friend.


How is this...

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

...not a reflection of a moral/political narrative/agenda that for all practical purposes is "beyond good and evil"?

How is moral nihilism [in a world sans God] not the embodiment of it?

How is Nietzsche's own "will to power" embodied in the Uberman not just one more attempt by a humanist to replace God with Reason?

He takes a political leap of faith to the Uberman as coming closest to reflecting what is "natural" in a Godless universe.
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: 26024
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Reasonable Standard

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:22 pm

This truth is unknowable to humans, but it affects everything human. Thus, with philosophy, we approach it.
If that truth is unknowable to humans, then how can humans know that they approach it with philosophy?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10734
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users