The Philosophers

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:08 am

iambiguous wrote:And then this becomes all entangled in value judgments that are equally out of whack.

How do you know they are equally out of whack?
"Your symbolical, lyrical and musical world can become an absolute standard. That is to say the highest on Earth." (Fixed Cross, "Re: A letter for the King" (return email to yours truly!), my translation.)
kali maa jaap mantra {om aim hreem kleem chamundaye vichaye}
"didja read that great wall of text he wrote? i'm tellin' you, ollie is the grand master of the esoteric and eclectic. if there IS something more to life, something extramundane or divine or whatever you wanna call it, ollie will figure it out" (Zoot Allures, to phoneutria, about yours truly.)
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: The Philosophers

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:47 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:
iambiguous wrote:And then this becomes all entangled in value judgments that are equally out of whack.

How do you know they are equally out of whack?


Well, for starters, if you don't share their own values, the objectivists will tell you.

But it's really more about a particular set of values generating a particular set of behaviors said to be either more or less in sync with an optimal set of values/behaviors. The optimal values/behaviors then said to be in sync with that which all rational men and women are obligated to embody.

Then it's just a matter [from my frame of mind] of bringing this "general description" of human interactions down out of the scholastic clouds and situating it in a particular context in which values are clearly in conflict.

How "in fact" is it demonstrated that one set of values/behaviors is out of sync with the optimal set?

In other words, is all of this situated historically, culturally and experientially [in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change], or are "serious philosophers" able to reconfigure all of this into a deontological analysis/assessment able to ascribe some measure of objectively to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments?

Or take a discussion here regarding Nietzsche's "will to power". There are folks who argue endlessly about what he actually meant by this. What, as a matter of fact, the "will to power" is.

On the other hand, I'm far more intrigued regarding the manner in which those who claim they do know what he meant by it, attempt to situate this meaning out in the world of actual moral/political conflagrations.

How are their arguments able to effectively challenge the components of my own moral narrative: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The same with such intellectual contraptions as VO or RM/AO or the Generic Problem Solving Technique or Framework and System of Morality and Ethics or Satyr's Genes/Memes dogma.

What on earth do they mean substantively when folks "out in a particular world" come to value opposite means and ends?

How do the objectivists come to illustrate their texts existentially?
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: 24301
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:14 am

Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: The Philosophers

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:12 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?


Okay, you are outside an abortion clinic where there is a gathering folks engaged in a heated debate regarding what is the "ultimate value" at stake here.

Bingo: fiercely entangled conflicting goods.

Indeed, try to imagine their reaction to this "philosophical" contraption of yours.

My point then is this:

To what extent are individual narratives here rooted in dasein or, instead, rooted in one or another "philosophy of life" said to reflect the optimal obligation of all rational human beings.

And once you introduce "happiness", you are broaching a first person subjunctive frame of mind. That's the part where reason intertwines with emotion intertwines with instinct intertwines with subconscious/unconscious awareness embedded existentially in any number of combinations of genes and memes.

Out in any particular world understood from any particular point of view.

Are "serious philosophers" then able to pin down the definition/meaning of such things as Values or Liberty or Justice or Happiness here?

All I can do is to invite those who claim to have accomplished this to integrate their technical/theoretical/conceptual assumptions into a context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

Can they impart an epistemologically sound argument true for all of us or, instead, as you do above, impart a "general description" of human interactions encompassed in Capital Letter Words defining and defending other words to impart what I would construe to be a particual political prejudice.

In other words, if you were charged with reconfiguring your "analysis/assessment" above into an actual set of laws in which certain behaviors are prescribed and certain behaviors are proscribed what would that consist of?

Go ahead, try it.

We can then take that to the fiercely entangled folks outside the abortion clinic.
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: 24301
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:50 pm

Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

You don't sound like you relate to Nietzsche.
Freedom from anything is a slave value. The mere wish of a bitch in chains.
Freedom to accomplish certain noble feats can be a master-value.

To be free from ones own progeny is the ugliest slavish value I can think of.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Happiness taken as a value is another slave-value.
Happiness is to be taken as a mere residual side product -- of the exertion of strength, which is a masters-value regardless of any results.

Fixed Cross wrote:URUZ
A Great Beast (dutch association: oer-os)

Image

Archetype: STRENGTH

Pure masculine power. Raw energy, completely unconditioned. Unacceptable standards of strength. A mans maximal capacity for lust. The drive that causes murder and war. Blindness of losing oneself in what one is without goals.

Digging downward-forward. Ploughing through life and leaving fertile chaos and upheaval as a trail. Mammoth strength. Marching barbarian army. The synchronized heartbeats of a million soldiers. Drums in the deep.

Roar of a monstrous predator already too close to see. Encroaching darkness. Male Earth. Pillars being drilled into the ground. Pillars being raised. Primordial phallic strength. Brute rhythms.

Excess force flows back into the Earth. The kundalini turned downward.

The need for resistance. Powerful jaw. Raging bull. Walking the Earth in search of pain to grow by. To know oneself the hard way.

Titanic determination. All or death. The force that blindly enslaves. Strength that builds empires.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190163
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:00 pm

And now for something completely different.
This made me laugh so hard it hurt my ribs.



Ah fucking olden days. I love Montreal.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:09 pm



Toxic masculinity.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:15 pm



Not bad, not bad. So much Id forgotten.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:17 pm



"The first time I felt all sorts of things. Things I didn't want to feel again. Ill admit that. I didn't vomit. But its sort of the same thing. Feel, something inside you you wanna get out of there. In this case it wasn't poison but a kind of a blackness, and emptiness I wanted to puke out. But I didn't, because I knew I couldn't, so I just swallowed it. And well surprisingly enough, when I had a good steak dinner afterwards, I remember very clear, the taste of it was almost the best steak I ever had except one time in Argentina."

"You should be in prison if you're if you're a homosexual"

"Worst are pedophiles. You have a lot of people in prison who have fantasy about things you wouldn't think a man has fantasies about. And they tell you. They insist on telling you. Can you understand that? Can you explain to me why people try to confess their perversion in prison..."
"Yes, its about a sense of normalcy. A man cannot feel he is normal if - "
"He is - he isn't normal. He shouldn't be normal. What is it - I don't feel normal. Im fine with that."
"No but a man does not need to feel normal but at least he wants to be perceived as abnormal. It is not I a mans ability to feel himself simply separate"

"When I walk into a room, I can smell their opinions. I learned to not care for those things, because you know what, opinions don't cause what people do."

"What you should worry about is whether people feel fear about you. Thats not an opinion. If they do, thats important to take note of. And then there is some other stuff that they won't discuss among themselves, that you can see in peoples movements or in their eyes, if you look at them that are important - things like fear but that I won't mention."
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Mitra-Sauwelios » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:01 am

Jakob wrote:
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote:Optimal for what? A pro-lifer may say: "For Life." A pro-choicer may say: "For Liberty." You will see that these are themselves values. The question is then: what, if any, is the ultimate value?

Taken as ultimate, Life is a slave value. A foetus is alive but not at liberty. The pro-life movement is prepared to sacrifice the liberty of the mother for the life of the foetus, whereas the pro-choice movement is prepared to sacrifice the life of the foetus for the liberty of the mother. We see the same thing if we look at euthanasia instead.

You don't sound like you relate to Nietzsche.
Freedom from anything is a slave value. The mere wish of a bitch in chains.
Freedom to accomplish certain noble feats can be a master-value.

To be free from ones own progeny is the ugliest slavish value I can think of.

Though it's a higher value than Life, Liberty cannot be the ultimate value. Logically, the ultimate value is Happiness in some sense or another. Yet isn't happiness ultimately the feeling of freedom, and isn't this what we mean by "feeling truly alive"?

Happiness taken as a value is another slave-value.
Happiness is to be taken as a mere residual side product -- of the exertion of strength, which is a masters-value regardless of any results.


It's paradoxical. What most fundamentally distinguishes a master from a slave is that the former prefers death as a freeman over life as a slave.

To relate to Nietzsche: the terms "freedom from" and "freedom to/for" are not from Nietzsche; they are abstractions from something Zarathustra says:

"Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
[...]
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free for what?" ("The Way of the Creating One", Common trans.)

The thing is, it's the same freedom to and fro. One is free from certain things so one is free for other things. Strauss speaks of "freedom from" and "freedom for" in the context of Rousseau: if I remember correctly, he speaks of a freedom that is not a freedom for anything but only a freedom from (in Natural Right and History, "The Crisis of Modern Natural right"), meaning Rousseau advocated freedom without determining in advance what that freedom was to be used for. Strauss then adds that Rousseau was aware of this but considered it so much the better, because it meant complete freedom, without being already confined to certain uses. Still, Strauss suggests that Rousseau was also aware of the rightness of Nietzsche's and Strauss's criticism of this, longing back as he did for Plutarch's heroes.

As for happiness, I was careful to add "in some sense or another". Happiness in the sense I understand it is the feeling of freedom, and this feeling is indeed only a negative feeling--the feeling of an absence--without a "for". Freedom is power, the feeling of freedom is the will¹, and both are indeed nothing without a "to": the will to power (or might: Macht), and the strength to its own exertion or effusion:

"Willing: A pressing feeling, very agreeable! It is the accompaniment of every effusion of force [or strength: Kraft]." (Nietzsche, Nachlass Frühjahr-Sommer 1883 7 [225], my translation.)

I think our disagreement here again comes down to the consciousness question. I can see how VO can work without consciousness, but I can't see how there can be value without it. I mean, might a VO-system without consciousness not just as well not exist?

¹ Or at least the essence of will, the affect of command.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
religious philosopher
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:24 am
Location: Mad Master

Re: The Philosophers

Postby URUZ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:47 pm

Ahahahahaa
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: TrumpWorld

Re: The Philosophers

Postby URUZ » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:47 pm

Omfgggggggz
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: TrumpWorld

Re: The Philosophers

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:15 am



This Chekov improvisation method is the best thing ever.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5879
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users