Objectivists?

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:00 pm

phyllo wrote:
Well, in that case, you would seem to embrace my own frame of mind. This: that, in the is/ought world, answers are rooted in one or another rendition of "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine".
Well, no. These are several cases that come to mind:
"I'm right and you're wrong."

"I'm right and you're right based on your assumptions which are right."

"I'm right and the situation is unclear so it's impossible or too difficult to determine whether you are right or wrong."

"I'm right and I don't care whether you are right or wrong."

One thing to note is that you don't need me to say that you are right. You can be wrong. It's "allowed".


Yes, clearly, given the numbing complexity of all the variables intertwined in any one particular context construed from any one particular point of view, there are any number of possible combinations of reactions.

But there are still those who insist there is only going to be one optimal reaction. Why? Well, because they already embody it!

But there is also still the part where any particular individual is able to demonstrate that this is in fact so for all rational human beings.

And right from the start I acknowledge that my own narrative [moral nihilism] is no less an existential contraption.

But, really, how much is accomplished when we throw these "general descriptions" at each other. How much more might be accomplished if we intertwined these words into a context "out in the world" that may well be familiar to most of us?

Though here we clearly disagree regarding what this encompasses.

Okay, I see what you mean. But my aim here is to shift the discussion from noting whatever it is that you do, to probing why you chose to do this and not something else. Is this predicated on a philosophically sound assessment of "how ought one to live?", or is rooted more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

phyllo wrote: I see you completely ignoring biology, instinct and common human needs as reasons for that "why?". Instead you focus on the very narrow "here and now" of dasein.


Doesn't that just muddy the water all the more? Once the "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is introduced here, we bump into the arguments that range from Satyr's "genes thumps memes" dogma to those who insist that in a wholly determined universe everything is nature.


When, in fact, the life that I actually do live is bursting at the seams with all manner of satisfaction and fulfilment.


phyllo wrote: Well, that's great but you seem to be asking for help with "your dilemma". When you are offered help, you ignore it.


Just out of curiosity, how would you encompass the help that you have provided me? How have you mangaged to describe your own conflicts with others such that I might clearly see how my own dilemma is baseless?

Your arguments either persuade me or they don't. My arguments either persuade you or they don't. But all I can do is to note the arguments of others and react to them.

Exactly like you.

For example, if I entirely shared your own reaction to Communism, then the next time I encountered a debate pertaining to political economy, I would no longer be drawn and quartered in confronting conflicting goods. Instead, like you, I would have at least some measure of comfort and consolation in knowing that in regard to this "issue" I am right from my side.

phyllo wrote: People tell you why they feel that they don't have a dilemma but you seem to reject it as "their answer", a product of their intellectual contraptions, which is not applicable or "satisfactory" for you. I don't see how it could ever be otherwise. That response is built-in to your dilemma. Asking other people for an argument to get you out of your dilemma will never be a solution to your dilemma.


Only when others are able to persuade me that their own "intellectual contraptions" reflect the optimal philosophical assessment -- one that transcends the points I raise regarding dasein -- is that likely to happen.

And all you are basically insisting is that others have already made this attempt and, over and again, I refused to just accept their own frame of mind.

It is like a theist arguing to an atheist that hundreds of folks have come forth to give arguments for the existence of God but the atheists simply refuse to become "one of them". To be, among other things, "saved".

phyllo wrote: I have no desire or reason to join you in the hole.


Desire isn't really factor. Why on earth would someone want to be down in it?!

As for reason, that is always subject to adjustment in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

After all, I spent the bulk of my own life staunchly convinced that the hole wasn't even there!
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: 26519
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby phyllo » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:02 pm

But, really, how much is accomplished when we throw these "general descriptions" at each other. How much more might be accomplished if we intertwined these words into a context "out in the world" that may well be familiar to most of us?

Though here we clearly disagree regarding what this encompasses.
Clearly
Doesn't that just muddy the water all the more? Once the "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is introduced here, we bump into the arguments that range from Satyr's "genes thumps memes" dogma to those who insist that in a wholly determined universe everything is nature.
No, it clears the water at least somewhat. Once you see, for example, that monkeys have a morality in which they share food even when it goes against their "selfish" self-interest, then some arguments that people make about human morality disappear or become suspect.

Human morality becomes more objective and biology based. Humans are not simply blank slates written on by religious and political ideologies. Humans are not driven primarily by selfishness and self-interest.
Just out of curiosity, how would you encompass the help that you have provided me?
I have said "look at this", "look at it from this direction", "consider it in this way".

And you respond like this :
How have you mangaged to describe your own conflicts with others such that I might clearly see how my own dilemma is baseless?
You insist that I present the answer in this particular way - "describe your conflicts" - as if you know that the answer must be in this form.
But all I can do is to note the arguments of others and react to them.

Exactly like you.
I don't demand that the argument must take a particular form.
Only when others are able to persuade me that their own "intellectual contraptions" reflect the optimal philosophical assessment -- one that transcends the points I raise regarding dasein -- is that likely to happen.

And all you are basically insisting is that others have already made this attempt and, over and again, I refused to just accept their own frame of mind.

It is like a theist arguing to an atheist that hundreds of folks have come forth to give arguments for the existence of God but the atheists simply refuse to become "one of them". To be, among other things, "saved".
And then there is this problem where you are looking for other people's answers when you should be looking for answers from within yourself.

All others can do is to offer you food for thought ... you have to digest it.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:42 pm

phyllo wrote:
But, really, how much is accomplished when we throw these "general descriptions" at each other. How much more might be accomplished if we intertwined these words into a context "out in the world" that may well be familiar to most of us?

Though here we clearly disagree regarding what this encompasses.
Clearly


On the other hand, from the perspective of a moral nihilist entangled in my dilemma, clarity is riven with any number of disorienting ambiguities.

Though things do tend to become clearer when the abstractions embedded in the arguments of the "serious philosophers" here are taken down out of the didactic clouds [awash in definitions, deductions and "general descriptions"] and fleshed out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors.

Doesn't that just muddy the water all the more? Once the "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is introduced here, we bump into the arguments that range from Satyr's "genes thumps memes" dogma to those who insist that in a wholly determined universe everything is nature.


phyllo wrote:No, it clears the water at least somewhat. Once you see, for example, that monkeys have a morality in which they share food even when it goes against their "selfish" self-interest, then some arguments that people make about human morality disappear or become suspect.


With monkeys however this behavior would seem to be derived considerably more from genes than memes. They don't possess near the number of social cues embedded in human interaction historically and culturally. They don't interact in philosophy forums or enact legislation that revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise. There is generally a clear cut hierarchy in which everyone has a place and everyone knows their place.

Not much here in the way of "right makes might" interaction. At least not philosophically.

phyllo wrote: Human morality becomes more objective and biology based. Humans are not simply blank slates written on by religious and political ideologies. Humans are not driven primarily by selfishness and self-interest.


On the other hand, the closer one comes to embracing sociobiology, the closer one comes to the arguments of Satyr...or to the arguments of the determinists.

Well, okay, I then suggest, bring those arguments down to earth. With respect to issues like gender norms, abortion, animal rights, gun control and the role of government, where do the genes stop and the memes begin? What really does constitute "natural" human behavior?

Just out of curiosity, how would you encompass the help that you have provided me?


phyllo wrote: I have said "look at this", "look at it from this direction", "consider it in this way".

And you respond like this :


How have you mangaged to describe your own conflicts with others such that I might clearly see how my own dilemma is baseless?


My dilemma is either baseless regarding your own conflictied interactions with others or it is not. You'll either provide examples here or you will not.

I can then only react as I do. And the objectivists can then point out that my reaction is not their reaction. And since their reaction is the correct one, my reaction is not. Therefore my thinking is not rational. Rationality here revolves entirely around the moral and political narrative/agenda of the objectivists. Their God, their ideology, their deoontological intellectual contraption, their assessment of nature.

When has it ever not been that way going back centuries and centuries now? At least I'm willing to acknowledge that my own narrative is no less an existential contraption in turn.

phyllo wrote: You insist that I present the answer in this particular way - "describe your conflicts" - as if you know that the answer must be in this form.


Most of us have been embedded in conflicts with others. Most of us have perspectives on the conflicts that we encounter "in the news". And we have either come to the conclusion that the "answers"/"resolutions" can be known objectively or they can't.

All I can do is react to the descriptions that objectivists provide of their own conflicted interactions...of their own assessments of the news. There are not switches and dials in my brain that I can adjust to acquire the most rational assessment. It just doesn't work that way. Not in my head.

Thus, from my perspective:

Only when others are able to persuade me that their own "intellectual contraptions" reflect the optimal philosophical assessment -- one that transcends the points I raise regarding dasein -- is that likely to happen.

And all you are basically insisting is that others have already made this attempt and, over and again, I refused to just accept their own frame of mind.

It is like a theist arguing to an atheist that hundreds of folks have come forth to give arguments for the existence of God but the atheists simply refuse to become "one of them". To be, among other things, "saved".


phyllo wrote: And then there is this problem where you are looking for other people's answers when you should be looking for answers from within yourself.


But the manner in which I construe this is predicated on my current understanding of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. As this pertains to moral and political narratives/agendas out of sync.

What else is there here [for me] but to entertain the manner in which others construe these components pertinent to their own out of sync interactions with others.
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: 26519
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:34 pm

It sounds like you're asking someone to say a magic incantation which makes it through the defensive wall of your intellectual contraptions.

Only then, can you change.

Good luck with that.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:23 pm

phyllo wrote:It sounds like you're asking someone to say a magic incantation which makes it through the defensive wall of your intellectual contraptions.

Only then, can you change.

Good luck with that.


Well, maybe not reduced down to an actual retort here, but certainly right around the corner from one.

Magic incantation? Right.

Or should we just chalk this one up to the mood you're in? :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: 26519
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:21 pm

Magic incantation? Right.

Or should we just chalk this one up to the mood you're in? :wink:
If you don't let down your defenses then the likelihood that an argument will have an impact on you is small.

Right now, you seem to reject all of what is written as "in that poster's head" and "that poster's intellectual contraption". Can't argue with that ... every thought is in somebody's head and everything is an intellectual contraption if you think that it is.

If you were open to the possibility that a post is applicable to you as well as "to him", then you might make some headway.

Now your typical response to this suggestion is that "I am insisting that you accept what the other poster is saying". No, I'm saying that you can make it your own. But you won't do it, if you automatically reject it - if you are not open to it in the first place.

It reminds me of a common reaction to meditation. "I'm not going to do that, it sounds stupid". "What's the point of that?". "That's not going to do anything". "I already know how to breathe".

But if you try it, you're surprised by the results. It turns out not to be that stupid after all.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:31 pm

phyllo wrote:
Magic incantation? Right.

Or should we just chalk this one up to the mood you're in? :wink:
If you don't let down your defenses then the likelihood that an argument will have an impact on you is small.


But what on earth does it mean for someone to let down their defenses? And, in particular, in a context in which human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments?

Consider:

If someone like me defends the arguments of those who embrace the right of the fetus to be born, and then in turn defends the right of pregnant women to choose to abort the fetus, how on earth would he go about bringing those defenses down? In other words, he is drawn and quartered. He is hopelessly ambivalent. He is entangled in my dilemma.

What else is there but for him to go forth and consider the arguments of those who are not drawn and quartered here; those who are entangled in no dilemma at all. Instead, they are convinced that there is in fact an optimal, objective resolution to be had. You simply become "one of us".

phyllo wrote: Right now, you seem to reject all of what is written as "in that poster's head" and "that poster's intellectual contraption". Can't argue with that ... every thought is in somebody's head and everything is an intellectual contraption if you think that it is.


No, right now I go back to that distinction between what you are able to demonstrate as true for all rational men and women, and that which you are only able to demonstrate that you believe is true "in your head".

The distinction that we are simply out of sync regarding.

phyllo wrote: If you were open to the possibility that a post is applicable to you as well as "to him", then you might make some headway.


What particular post regarding what particular existential context?

Some can offer me reasonable arguments that provide "headway" in the direction of bringing the baby to term; while others are able to offer me reasonable arguments that provide "headway" in the direction of abortion.

Yet even here I construe this as embedded in dasein --- in the political prejudices that I have accumulated given the trajectory of my actual life.

This intellectual contraption:

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.


But: an intellectual contraption that is clearly entangled existentially in a particular set of experiences.

Again, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein this is ever and always the most important point:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of [childhood indoctrination]. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.


The objectivists of course will readily tell you what they anchor "I" to. And that if others don't do the same they will never become "one of us".

phyllo wrote: Now your typical response to this suggestion is that "I am insisting that you accept what the other poster is saying". No, I'm saying that you can make it your own. But you won't do it, if you automatically reject it - if you are not open to it in the first place.


Reactions like this just bring me back to me critique of "general descriptions". Until the objectivists are willing to flesh out assessments of this sort by situating them out in a particular context that most will be familiar with, how will I really grasp the points they are trying to make.

Then you come back with, for example, your anti-Communism narrative and I point out how we are out of sync in thinking about such things as or as not "existential contraptions" rooted in certain assumptions about the nature of human morality.

The bottom line for you is that your mind is made up: others either share your anti-Communist point of view or....or what? Are they necessarily wrong if they don't? Or, again, are you willing to concede that they can devise arguments based on differents sets of assumptions, embedded in different sets of circumstances in which it is capitalism instead that is inherently immoral.

Either/or, 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: 26519
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivists?

Postby phyllo » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:48 pm

As I said, good luck with that.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivists?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:56 pm

phyllo wrote:As I said, good luck with that.


Well, maybe not reduced down to an actual retort here, but certainly right around the corner from one.

Or should we just chalk this one up to the mood you're in? :wink:

it worrked before, 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: 26519
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]