Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

One can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes physical pain to one or more persons and another behavior does not cause that pain.

Or one can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes painless death to someone and another behavior does not.

So it comes down to whether it can be called good or bad.

No, for me the question is still this:

In reacting to a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments out of sync, how are you able to sustain an “I” that is less fractured and fragmented than mine?

This gap will either be narrowed or it won’t.

But forget about “X”, I suggest. Let’s bring that down to earth by exploring our actual reactions to actual conflicting goods. Let’s try to describe the way “I” reacts to this or that context given the understanding that had “I’s” experiences been very different, “I” may well be reacting otherwise.

Whereas the objectivists will argue that dasein and conflicting goods and political economy are not relevant here. Neither is pragmatism. We do have access to an objective font [sacred or secular] allowing us to make that crucial distinction between how we either are or are not obligated to behave. If we wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.

Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing “general descriptions” of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.

That is precisely a Why are you not NOT like me question.

Why are you not like me regarding X?

I brought the issue of this Why are you not like me? questoin down to earth, with specific real case examples.

There were not contraptions involved. Just things I prefer and things I focus on and things I do not.

Why aren’t you here obsessing about how to be close to people? (a rhetorical question)

The fact is you are obsessed with someting else.

A person who is obsessed with not being able to find intimacy and the issues around ‘is it possible to really know another person’ might demand that you explain why you aren’t in their hole, might presume you have some contraption.

But it might just be that you and he are different. Different genes. Different experiences. Different current situation. Different approach to problem solving. Different skills. Different temperment.

There are so many possible factors in why one person obsesses over something and another does not.

You suffer one hole amongst many others. Or actually I would say two primary ones, if I have read right. Not being able to know how one ought to live and the fear of death. There are many people who suffer these holes. There are many who suffer other kind of existential pains that could be called holes.

YOu seem not to focus on those other existential crises. Does this mean you have contraptions? Maybe, maybe not. YOu are a particular organism.

Great, that’s clear. Nature and nurture. Same page on that, then.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs[/youtube]

The hole is just your soul. Its just you man.

Concision. Something for me to learn.

No, in the world of conflicting goods, it generally comes down to those folks who insist that particular behaviors cause more pain in the folks that they care about than in the folks that others care about.

Thus with respect to an issue like capital punishment, if you put a prisoner to death it can cause pain [even great pain] for those who love him. But if the decision is made not to execute him, it can cause pain [even great pain] for those who loved the person that he murdered.

What we call things here is in my view embedded [and then manifested] in the components of my own philosophy.

Behaviors are rationalized from a particular point of view.

And it does not appear [to me] that philosophers/ethicists/political scientists etc., are able to construct an argument such that the pain becomes part of one or another moral obligation in sync with that which all rational people are obligated to embrace in their actual existential interactions with others.

Hell, I was watching a true crime doc a few weeks ago in which one man argued that the execution of a particular prisoner didn’t go far enough. In his mind, the pain that the prisoner caused him was so great, he felt the man should be tortured instead.

So, is that necessarily a moral or an immoral point of view?

Again, I’m missing something here.

I want to take this discussion down to earth and explore our respective assumptions pertaining to a context most here will be familiar with.

Instead, you want me to explain why I am not like you regarding “X”.

Note to others:

What am I missing here?

Yes, you point this out from time to time.

But with respect to why you choose behaviors in sync with what you imagine are the most reasonable arguments pertaining to any particular conflicting goods, I am still not grasping how you are less fractured and fragmented than I am. Other than in assuming that while [up to a point] you recognize the implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the construction of any particular “self” here [existentially], it just doesn’t bother you as much as it does me.

In other words, while you could have had a different set of moral and political preferences had your life been different, your life was not different. And “here and now” how things turned out is good enough for you.

Though I assume in turn that you recognize how, given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, your preferences might shift again.

So, “I” here is always on the brink of thinking and feeling something else. In a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

And, in a world where it does not appear plausable that philosophers will come up with a moral narrative able be demonstrated as obligatory for all rational human beings.

Again, as though the manner in which I construe the meaning of the word “contraption” here [and on other threads] is necessarily less reasonable than your own take on it.

I have no inclination to be close to people. And what preoccupies me [the few hours a day I spend in philosophy venues] is the question “how ought one to live?”. As that relates to the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave; as that relates to the fate of “I” on the other side of it.

That’s true. Different genes, different memes, different circumstances, different preferences.

But what happens when these differences come into conflict?

What of “I” then?

That’s my thing in these exchanges. My “I” here is dangling by an existential thread. I have no capacity to put my own Humpty Dumpty back together again.

How then do others manage it while in turn eschewing objective moral narratives/political agendas in a No God world.

All I can do [for all practical purposes] is to grapple with their explanations. To see if what makes sense to them can possibly make sense to me.

After all, it appears that I have considerably more to gain here than to lose.

As you note, there’s the hole I am in that revolves around living and the hole I am in that revolves around dying.

So: Are there any “antidotes” out there? Here for example?

Sorry. The statement Why are you not like me regarding X? was the category of what you are asking me. I said it was a Why are you not like me? request. You disagreed. Then phrased a very clear version of Why are you not like me regarding X? You want to know why I do not react to non-objectivism and conflicting goods like you do. Why am I not suffering it like you do and obsessed with finding an answer. I explained in an earlier post here on this page, why that is actually a strange question. I gave concrete examples to try to demonstrate why.

No. Here I am referring to my examples with arachnids and then dogs and being in the forest. Not when I gave you an example of how I handle conflicting goods. I did that elsewhere but it is not relevent to this issue.

To me, this is just more Kidstuff.

My “soul”?

My “soul” is “just me”?

What on earth does that mean?

Do you have a soul that is just you?

If so, bring it down to earth and situate it in a context. A context involving conflicting goods. Then relate this to the point that KT is making about me in the OP.

As for “For What It’s Worth”, here are the lyrics:

[b]There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It’s s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, now, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down[/b]

It seems to be suggesting precisely the point that I raise. That “I” is an existential contraption such how we view the world around us is basically a subjective point of view embedded in the very different lives that we live.

And that some – the objectivists – insist that, on the contrary, they’ll sing songs and carry signs mostly saying “hoorah for our side”.

And the part about political economy revovles around “the man” coming and taking away those who dare to challenge their power.

Then I’m even more out of sync with your intention here. Either that or simply unable to grasp it at all.

Our individual reactions to spiders and scorpions and dogs and forests is no less a complex intertwining of genes and memes.

But only when the discussion shifts from the either/or world to the is/ought world, are we likely to confront conflicts. Conflicts in which it might be argued that my intent here is to make non-objectivists feel bad.

Thus there is the fact of a particular forest existing or not existing. Then there are the facts embedded in the arguments of those who want to cut it down or to preserve it.

And my intent is not to make either the objectivists or the non-objectivists feel good or bad about their own moral/political narrative. My intent is to suggest that these narratives are embedded more in an existential contraption than in any argument that can resolve whether the forest should in fact be cut down or preserved.

I’ll give it a last try,then give up.
You were basically asking me ‘why are you not like me?’ That is 'Why KT, do you not obsess about conflicting goods and dasein and why do you not suffer fragmentation, like I, iambiguous, do?

I said that a question in the form of ‘why are you not like me?’ is, generally very hard to answer.

Person 1:Why are you not fascinated with arachnids?

Person 2: Well, gosh, I’m not sure, it just doesn’t come up…

Often these negative questions give us litte to work with. Why?

Because when we lack something, there is little in our experience to explore to find out why.

If you ask me, why do you like dogs and being in the woods? , a question about something I choose to do or find myself doing or likeing and experiencing, now suddenly I can explore my experiences to see what parts of this relation with dogs or my experience with ‘being in the woods’ appeals to me, fits with more specific things I like. Dogs cheer me up, they enjoy life so much and it is contagious. I love the quiet in the woods and the unplanned beauty of the trees.

ETC.

We have been exploring why I do not react to non-objectivism like you do. You are in a hole. I am not. I have been in holes, but not that one. WE try to figure out why not.

You have a tendency to assume Karpel MUST HAVE A CONTRAPTION.

I have explained why this is not the case. I have presented an array of other possible options.

You keep coming back to it must be a contraption, despite your own philosophy offering an array of other options.

And in that array is the possbility that you have a contraption that makes give the issue so much weight.
There are other options where contraptions are not involved in the difference between us on that issue.

I doubt we will find the reason we react differently. But it sure ain’t because I have some soothing contraption around it. Perhaps I am suffering less than you. That can be due to all sorts of things.

If you do not understand the point I am making here, nor my examples with dogs and arachnids, we just drop it.

“You are in a hole. I am not. I have been in holes, but not that one.”

Haha Karpel it sounds like you are standing over a grave.

Well, now I’m walking away.

No, I am basically asking of others [who are not objectivists] to describe how they have come to think of themselves as less fragmented than I am, given the following assumptions:

1] that their value judgments are derived existentially from the particular life that they lived
2] that, had their life been different, their values might be different
3] that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers/ethicists to provide an argument such that it can be determined which behaviors rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to choose
4] that new experiences, relationships and information/knowledge/ideas are always there with the potential to reconfigure their value judgments in the future.

“I” here is what I call an existential contraption. It is such that through the live we live we become predisposed toward particular political prejudices. Prejudices that revolve around sets of assumptions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

All of which unfolds through human interactions that revolve finally around those who actually have the power to enforce particular sets of behavior.

And that the particular behaviors that seem to prevail in the world today revolve around those who own and operate the global economy. Those that I construe to be “show me the money” moral nihilists.

But, no, I am not obsessed with this. I spend only a few hours a day on line in philosophy forums. Still, when doing philosophy, what is of fundamental importance to me is probing possible answers to the question “how ought one to live?”

In particular, in taking any answers that we might embody here and now down out of the “general description” scholastic clouds and situating them in actual existential contexts.

You claim to do this but not in the manner in which I am more inclined to prefer: through your own rendition of my abortion trajectory.

An attempt to intertwine experiences and ideas re the existential evolution of a value judgment that is of particular importance to you.

As for dogs and arachnids, preferences here are clearly rooted in the lives that we live. And almost no one will argue that one ought either be interested in them or to like them.

And your continuing obsession with my alleged obsession with fitting you into a contraption hardly interest me at. I have explained the reason why I think the word is appropriate. It fits snuggly into my own narrative.

If it bothers you it bothers you. But that’s your problem. After all, it’s not like I am calling you a fool for not thinking about it like I do.

All I have ever wanted of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] were descriptions of “I” that are smack dab in the middle of moral and political conflicts/contexts that we are all likely to be familiar with.

I certainly tell all rational and virtuous people what they should do, because I have defined good and evil in an objective way.

Join me in the debate section. I challenged you.

Here’s the challenge iambiguous!

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

If you don’t take it, you are a proven troll, if you take it and lose, you are a proven troll if you don’t change your words to match objective morality.