What all men ought to do

:laughing: That is what all of humanity needs to fish for in an ocean of oughts.
Perhaps one way in which to do this is to drop the ought from one’s vocabulary.

Yes, in relation to the reactions of others. In a No God world.

After all, in a God world there exists a transcending truth that mere mortals can turn to in Scripture.

On the other hand, suppose [in a No God world] someone was actually able to construct an argument about Graham making videotapes of women talking about sex. An argument such that she could demonstrate that in fact all rational men and women were obligated to share it.

In regard to human sexuality, different individuals may have had many different experiences precipitating many different moral narratives; but now there is an argument that is not just a subjective/subjunctive point of view. Now we can know for sure if what we think about Graham is in sync with what one ought to think if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.

I suspect that my answers “here and now” are rooted in dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a particular world such that political power will determine which set of behaviors will actually be enflorced in any given community.

But that answer is no less an existential contraption. I would never argue that it is the answer. Unless of course someone is able to persuade me that in fact their answer is the answer.

But even then we would have to come up with a methodology enabling us to demonstrate that this is so for all others.

So what?! For the life of me I am unable to grasp how on earth you [or anyone] can ask that.

Communities will reward or punish particular behaviors. And in communities that revolve around one or another objectivist font [religion: Christianity/Islam etc.; ideology: Communism/fascism etc.] the behaviors that you choose carry consequences.

Why one set of behaviors rather than another? And if it is seen as reasonable that morality is largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein then it might seem more reasonable [to some of us] that “moderation, negotiation and compromise” reflects the best of all posible governing agendas.

My point here [more or less] is this: To the extent to which you are able to tug me in the direction of your frame of mind, I will be more comfortable. And to the extent to which I am able to tug you in the direction of mine, you will feel less comfortable.

Then it’s just a matter of how this all actually plays out “for all practical purposes” into the future.

You have constructed your philosophy in a way which makes such an argument impossible. You have left no opening to let it in.

Same problem here. Your philosophy rejects all methodologies.

That sounds like moderation is objectively good, negotiation is objectively good, and compromise is objectively good.

But you can’t mean that because it contradicts your moral nihilism.

No compromise … no negotiation … extreme/violent opposition to fascism, communism, Christianity or Islam are just as reasonable for a moral nihilist. And reasonable in a world based on dasein.

So why aren’t you saying that??

My philosophy is based on the assumption that in a No God world, Graham was predisposed to behave as he did based largely on an accumulation of a particular set of experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge.

Others however are embedded existentially in an entirely different set of variables. So they react to Graham taping women talking about sex in entirely different ways.

Now, sure, its possible that the problem here is entirely me. Arguments made by the Platonists, the Kantians and all the other philosohers who have grappled with how mere mortals ought to behave in the world, may have succeeded in pinning this all down “deontologically”, “essentially”, “objectively”. With or without God.

But I won’t admit it. Or I am unable to admit it because I am unable to grasp it.

Yeah, you’ve got me there. I’ll always admit to the possibility of that.

But let’s hear these arguments. All of us can then judge for ourselves the extent to which Graham either ought or ought not to have made those tapes.

Their methodology will either succeed in demonstrating this or it won’t. In much the same manner it can be demonstrated that in fact Graham either did or did not make the videos themselves.

In other words, in the either/or world, we are often able to demonstrate that this happened rather than that. So, why, after thousands of years, are philosophers still no where near to being able to pin down any number of human behaviors as either moral or immoral?

I’ve got my reasons. But they are no less conjectures based on a particular set of assumptions.

They are construed by me to be good only because I have not come upon an argument of late that persuades me that an essential/objective good does in fact exist. It always revolves around what I think I know about human morality in a No God world. Here and now.

However: Convince me that what I think I know should instead be what you think you know; and I’m sure I’ll feel less fractured and fragmented than I am now.

All you are basically arguing here [from my frame of mind] is that this is bullshit. I am determined to reject all arguments from others that do not align themselves with my own set of assumptions. And even though my own frame of mind here does leave me fractured and fragmented [with little or no comfort and consolation and oblivion right around the corner] it’s all about me and my own psychological bent here.

It’s all about me and my willful obstinance. My need to defend moral nihilism even if it does make me feel broken, beaten and battered.

All I can do is to come back to this:

1] Here and now someone thinks they know that some particular behavior is rational/virtuous “inside their head”
2] Here and now someone thinks they know that this is not just based on the components of my own argument above
3] Here and now someone feels confident instead they can demonstrate why all rational/virtuous men and women ought to think the same

About Communism or abortion or any other set of conflicting goods.

Then around and around and around we’ll go.

But: this is something that I would expect to be the case in a No God world. In other words, given the manner in which I construe the actual existential interaction of the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism.

Out in a particular context, out in a particular world.

Every argument that you hear will fall into the category of “existential contraption”. You’re philosophy defines it that way.

Thus the futility of repeatedly asking people for an argument.

What are the characteristics of a “non-contraption”?

What is a “demonstration”?

Think about that.

All I’m basically arguing is that what you call “more reasonable” is in fact not “more reasonable” than something else within the context of nihilism. It’s just that one thing makes you feel better than something else. Why call it “reasonable”?

You can’t even figure out what is reasonable or rational beyond some personal tastes and preferences. Right?

They are construed by you to be good.

You have reached a conclusion.

He points out you reached this conclusion that they are good. Why you reached this decision DOES NOT MATTER in the context of IS THERE A CONTRADICTON IN A NIHILIST CONCLUDING THAT THESE THINGS ARE GOOD. Here you admit that you concluded that they were good. Of course we all know you are not sure, but as you say here, you conclude they are good. This is not what a nihilist CAN POSSIBLY do.

Once you have reached a conclusion that X is good, you are no longer a nihilist. And that is still the case even if you say you are not sure. Even if you qualify it with the idea that you might be wrong.

Phyllo was pointing out that you think some things are good. You are not sure, but you think so. That means you are not a nihilist. One does not have to be 100% sure something is good to no longer be a nihilist. That’s not psychology, that deduction from what you say in two different instances.

I think what Phyllo and I react to is that you contradict yourself. You never admit this. You never, as you put it, wobble.

And here you do not respond at all to the contradiction. YOu again put down the gauntlet for others as if your own behavior and beliefs cannot be the issue.

Iambiguous,

Is it really important that God know everything? How would your life change, your behavior change, if you could find out, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God was omniscient?

Is THIS the way that you see it also? One can seek answers to the hard problems while at the same time striving to find balance between the two.

I think that one could but I also intuit that that would depend on the individual him/her -self. Some find meaning and joy in asking these questions albeit they may at times be a struggle. We all have our holy grail that we go in search of.

I am not so sure. Perhaps it took root in something which happened within our life that we are still learning to come to grips with, have not as yet resolved.
Perhaps for some it comes from a human being who has both a moral and ethical heart and mind who cares about others and who’s focus is “to do no harm”, someone who sees and understands the inter-connectedness and the entanglement of us all. Perhaps it comes from someone who has an unquenchable thirst to seek and find the wisdom and truth of things.

I suppose that what is at the bottom of it is human evolution.

I am not so sure that these people who as you say sink down into themselves will necessarily find their answers within like that but I may be wrong. I think many of the answers are to be find without, while looking, listening, reflecting on everything which they see.

So, is this question about God being a puppeteer and we the puppets, that no matter what we chose, after much reflection and struggling, let us say after having chosen one intelligent and reasonable option out of five different ways we could have gone, our choice is not based on self-determination and freedom because we would have ultimately made that choice anyway?

Did you mean to say my (as in your) own motivation, etc.?
What is that thick fog - you standing in your own way?

This is true and I think partly because we do not always remember our past as it actually was. We like to fill in some gaps to suit our purpose or just to have no empty unresolved spaces.

True too but at the same time an intelligent, reflective and reasonable person will know how to maneuver his or her way through it - just as an expert at darts will be able to find that bulls-eye or at least come pretty close to it. It takes practice and discipline.

Well then, is that not why we have ILP? lol

This is true. If we see ourselves as being fixed in time in a manner of speaking in a wholly-determined universe, how could there possibly be any other way for us to see ourselves except as puppets who have no real choice or freedom - so then what does it matter how we live our life? “What all men ought to do” then becomes kind of a moot issue, no?

It seems to me that that belief system paves the way for one to disallow any sense of responsibility toward himself and his fellow creatures unless one chooses to see his life choices as having meaning and real truth to them.

So just what is it that you are expecting consciousness to do if it is indeed some form of matter? What would it have to do with answering your question?

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physi … of-matter/

That was an interesting read.

Dreams are part of a process. Your consciousness, for whatever reason you needed, had already been in the process of creating that letter for some time. It was just the right time for the mailman lol to deliver it.

You would probably have to answer this question yourself based on the content of the dream, which is really something that you yourself conjured up from a combination of your desires and needs and thoughts about your relationship with your wife and daughter and all of the materials used from your conscious waking life and the world around you which you see.

That being the case, what would the next step for the philosopher be? What would his next question be?

You kind of remind me of the character, Quentin Clark, in Matthew Pearl’s book, The Poe Shadow. You came to mind as I was reading it the other day. I intuitively felt that you and he had something in common.

The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. When he is discussing how we should interact, then compromise, negotiation and moderation are what he concludes are good. Why? because since we cannot know what is good, we should have these attitudes. When he is focused on the mind or we point out something in his behavior, then he will say - but I always say my ideas are also contraptions.

But the odd thing is: he does not seem to believe it himself. IOW if he think it is all contraptions he would never say C N and M are good. He would simply be this fragmented, confused person who cannot draw conclusions.

And further it does not make sense for a nihilist to conclude, however tentatively, that something is good. A nihilist does not believe there is a good or a bad and, yes, as you point out thinks there are only preferences.

And he claims not to even know his preferences, since he only seems to have an ‘I’.

And yet, despite his not having an I, being a nihilist, being fragmented,

he manages to post the exact same thing for years.

How does a fragmented nihilist with no sense of consistent self manage to assert for years and years in a row that compromise, negotiation and moderation are better, iow more good, than other approaches to politics and human relations?

How does this broken being with no sense of a consistent self manage to write in exactly the same way, often with the same phrases in the same sequence with the same opinions, maintaining the same position for years, and without ever presenting specific doubts about any of his beliefs?

It’s all fine and dandy to make disclaimers: I know this might be an existential contraption on my part. But never once does one of his various fragments actually express an option about how his beliefs might be bad, how his logic might be off, in specific. Never does he present the belief that moderation might be a problematic thing for people to have as a guideline, with a specific argument or example.

I know that regarding abortion, in the abstract, he can express being pulled towards differing positions - but even objectivists can react that way. Even objectivists can be torn on some or many issues.

But in relation to his own behavior and his own beliefs of what is good, he never reacts with ‘on the other hand moderation might be a bad guideline because saying this to people could lead to X’ or ‘no you seem correct, when I, in that post you responded to, judged his position by not my own with specific bad consequences, I was not being consistant’ or ‘you’re right a nihilist would not conclude, even tentatively that X is good.’ This fragmented ‘I’ always manages to be amazed that anyone is questioning what he wrote as a possible contradiction with his major beliefs. He is always shocked that anyone might think that he is being hypocritical in specific communicative acts here. This fragmented ‘I’ always draws the same conclusion that his behavior here, in any specific example we bring up, is consistant with his philosophy. His fragments either all have the same evaluation of everything he does- God I wish my parts always did - or he is hiding hiding what thes other fragments think about, for example, moderation and compromise.

This fragmented unsure non-I seems utterly consistant and sure.

I think maybe its not so unnihilistic to say something and then not take responsibility for it and ignore when it is disproven and then say it again as if it was never even discussed upon, as if he just told you. No matter if a dude believes some thing is maybe good if he doesn’t have heart to stick by it when some other dude says no to it, he’s still a nilly no? You can say you have values but that doesn’t make it so.

You gotta be compassionated. It succs to know nothing not even have the luck to know what you like, didn’t it make of Socrate a happy dying camper? Life succs if you don’t know how to choose from its goodies. All in a pile it looks grey but the colours only come out when you jump in and pick your cherries. Then they’ll be red I can promise.

Well, from my frame of mind, all arguments revolve around things that either do in fact exist or do not in fact exist.

Donald Trump is the president of the United States. That’s an existential contraption in a very real sense. He does exist, the USA does exist, presidents are in fact elected in the Unitied States, Donald Trump was elected in November of 2016.

On the other hand, was he elected only because Putin and his henchmen in Russia helped to orchestrate it for him? And with his and his own henchmen’s help?

Is that existential contraption in fact based in an objective truth?

Well, we’ll see.

Then this part:

Sean Hannity thinks that Trump is doing great job in the White House. Rachel Maddow thinks that Trump is doing a terrible job. Two more existential contraptions in that they both exist and it can be demonsttrated how they feel about Trump.

Now, how would one go about demonstrating whether Trump is in fact doing a great job or a terrible job in the White House?

How might these subjective/subjunctive existential contraptions possibly be out of sync with that which can be established to exist objectively?

I think about this one way, others think about it differently.

Nihilism as I understand it revolves around the assumption that in a No God world, mere mortals don’t have access to a font able to reconcile or to resolve conflicting goods. But that doesn’t make the conflicts go away. If nihilists choose to live with and interact among others, they too will eventually find themselves in situations where the others will expect them say “good” or “bad”.

And, as with others, they can think the situation through to the best of their ability; and then come down one way rather than another. But nihilists as I understand them recognize that had they experienced very different lives and/or construed the situation given very different set of assumptions, they might come down in a very different way. And that sans God there does not appear to be an argument available that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embody.

What I am arguing is that “here and now” I have not come upon an argument I deem reasonable enough to enable me to transcend dasein, conflicting goods and political economy as the most crucial variables when confronting moral and political confrontations.

And certainly not that such an argument doesn’t exist.

If ur a nazi you think Trump is bad, or that the People are so weak that Putin can just decide who is president. #-o

if you have compassion (and a brain :sunglasses: ) you think he is good.

No “contraptions” here :laughing:

That’s about the extent of your thinking and analysis.

To me this is no different from coming to the conclusion that Judge Brett Kavenaugh either ought or not not be to confimed as a Supreme Court Justice.

You can come to a particular conclusion here because you believe it is the most rational conclusion that can be reached. Or you can be for or against it recognizing that your conclusion is just a political contraption that, given the life that you have lived and the extent to which you have thought about it, seems most reasonable to you here and now.

Then it comes down to the extent to which, given your current set of circumstances, others expect you [or even pressure you] to take a stand. Their own for example.

Or you may not give a damn about it one way or the other. Then others can argue about whether, in using the tools of philosophy, rational men and women are oblgated to give a damn.

A conclusion here is either predicated on 1] an objectivist frame of mind or 2] on a pragmatic leap of faith embedded in moderation, negotiation and compromise or 3] is deemed to be of no importance to someone. In any event, dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don’t go away.

Here we get down to defining/describing precisely what it means to be a nihilist. But I prefer to describe myself as a moral nihilist. I’m not arguing that meaning derived from mathematics or the laws of nature or empirical fact or the rules of language is subjective. After all, here, where does nihilism end and solipsism begin? Or, for that matter, determinism.

For me the distinction always revolves around what we think we know is true in our head, and what we are able to demonstrate to others is true for all rational men and women.

Besides, over and again I point out that my own arguments here are no less existential contraptions. There may well be an objective morality that I am just not privy to here and now.

And psychological defense mechanisms are recognized by many as fundamental in understanding human interactions.

We need to take accusations of this sort out into the world of actual conflicting goods. For example, where are my contradictions in reacting to Phyllo reacting to Communism?

The contradiction relating to what particular argument that I make pertaining to what particular behaviors in conflict out in the world.

Whether one embraces “no compromise … no negotiation … [or] extreme/violent opposition to fascism, communism, Christianity or Islam” they are deemed “just as reasonable for [any particular] moral nihilist. And reasonable in a world based on dasein.”

Only in pointing this out I can’t exclude my own argument here. It may well be possible that this is wrong…that, in fact, it can be determined deontologically how all rational and virtuous men and women are obligation to react to these things.

Or, once again, I am failing to grasp your point here.

If God does not know everything that would seem to open up the possibility of committing a sin that escapes God’s notice. And how is that different from breaking the law and no one ever finding out? And if I could find out that God was omniscient, an omniscient God would already be privy to this. Just as He would be privy to any and all behaviors that I have deluded myself into thinking that I am making autonomously.

That was basically my argument to her. Back then though she was in the process of becoming a “radical feminist”. And a lesbian. Nothing was more important to her than her political commitment. And that was around the time my own political commitment as a fellow objectivist had already begun to crumble.

From my own frame of mind here and now, “a human being who has both a moral and ethical heart and mind who cares about others and who’s focus is ‘to do no harm’,” is just another existential contraption. It is embodied in a particular “I” out in a particular world. The parts about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are everywhere here.

Just imagine for example pinning down what it means to have “an ethical heart and mind” re the abortion wars. Or in putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

There are those who propose arguments that they claim reconcile an omniscient God and the “free will” of mere mortals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

Arguments of this sort however become entangled in “worlds of words”. Words going around and around in circles chasing each other. The assumption always being that there is a God.

Here I come back to connecting the dots between what I think I know about all of this here and now and all of Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”. The knowledge gaps that stand between what I believe is true and everything that one would need to know about the existence of existence itself. And then [somehow] fitting God into that.

So: How “intelligent, reflective and reasonable” are any of us “mere mortals” in the face of a connundrum that gigantic?

Then the part about calibrating just how “fixed in time” we are in the pursuit of this. Given either an omniscient God or laws of matter that are both immutable and applicable to the “dualism” embodied by human brain/mind.

Yes, but these extraordinary dreams are a process such that neurologically and chemically the matter in my brain was able to create a world that I imagined was real. In the moment of “living” in it.

In other words [perhaps] just as in my waking hours I imagine that the world is real. That I am choosing my behaviors with some measure of freedom.

And, indeed, this being the case, “what would the next step for the philosopher be? What would his next question be?”

The one I asked was, “how is this even possible?”

I think you are, maybe Phyllo will have some luck with you on that one. I’ll stick to the waiting for the argument all rational people should accept that every non-objectivist must be in your hole OR they have some contraption that comforts them. Bring it into the other thread when and if it arises.

I don’t think that I would have any luck with it.

Over the years, I have tried many approaches and many arguments. I never got anywhere.

I can’t think of anything new which has any potential for success.

I see no reason to continue.

I’ve reached that place a few times. I recently realized something, at least in a more general way, that he is very focused on shifting the onus away from himself. This will likely be something you alread realized, but I’ll write it just to flesh it out. There are a variety of ways this happens, but I think it underlies a great deal of his behavior. He makes assertions and if you point out problems in these he tells you that he has said he is filled with exitential contraptions, and then asks you to show that you are not the same. If you point out he has made claims about you, he will ask for the argument that shows you are not the same as him or demonstrate that you do not have any contraptions. IOW he can say that objectivists have contraptions that comfort them, but never is there any onus on him to defend this (or any other position) since he can then say that he has always said he also has contraptions. And then he will present something he claims is present in your position and ask for an argument that will convince all rational people.

Any contact with him will lead the dicussion partner to where their ideas all need incredibly powerful (all rational people) justification, while his assertions do not need any. And all posts will be foggy, filled with repeats of his positions and a challenge to prove him wrong.

Lovely. Someone who can say whatever he likes about other people or the is/ought distinction or dasein and does not need to justify it because he also has existential contraptions, but other people are expected to come up with powerful arguments that he must also accept, and he never does.

Now I understand. He doesn’t leave the apartment. So his influence face to face is extremely limited. But here he is making statements, accusing, labeling people, mind reading, assigning who has onus - and it is never him. Yet, it ends up, since his behavior can always be excused given he has said he has contraption, he has a get out of jail free card. He can never be wrong. Even though acts are still acts. He never seems to be concerned that his acts, here, might be problematic, though he does believe that other peoples immorderate, not compromising acts can be. I suppose he thinks he exibits compromise, negotiation and moderation here. I would love to see him justify that such that all rational people would have to agree, but I am sure in his post he would shift the onus to me.

Either of you…

1] Note a particular example of conflicting goods embedded in human interactions
2] Note that which you have determined “is reasonable or rational beyond some personal tastes and preferences”
3] Note how this is predicated on that which can be demonstrated to be true for all rational men and women more so than embodied existentially in “I” as an existential contraption derived from dasein.

Phyllo, you might also want to explain to KT how God and religion are factored into your conclusions here. He might be able to understand it better than I ever have.

And “moderation, negotiation and compromise” don’t make the hole go away. They are simply the embodiment of a particular set of political prejudices that here and now one takes an existential leap toward.

It’s not a question of them being good or bad. Instead, it recognizes them as tools that can be used once “might makes right” and “right makes might” are construed to be less palatable.

What is unfolding here [in my view] is you stuffing me into your own “intellectual contraption” nihilist and then judging me based on your own understanding of the word.

Similarly, with the word “preferences”. I understand the meaning of that word as the existential embodiment of dasein, whereas your own pragmatic rendition allows for your preferences to be seen as solid enough to support a substantially less fractured and fragmented “I” out in the is/ought world.

And thus sustaining this psychological cushion such that you feel considerably less uncertain about the choices that you make than someone like me.

Or, again, so that seems to me “here and now” based on how I have come to understand these enormously complex and ever fluid relationships.

Explain why I should or even could do this, given that I have said
I base my actions and choices on my preferences and that I do not think there are objective values, nor do I think there are arguments that will convince all rational people?
How would it be possible for me to do this? How could you not realize how confused it is to ask me to do this?