MagsJ just made the decision to validate his trolling of my threads and isolence about my work here. Apparently it is considered fit for comparisons with his. Lol. Okay.
After all this time that is the most nihilistic perspective Ive ever seen here.
Ill still be on beforethelight and reckon probably Jokers forum.
Ill make one more post later on to thank those that have practiced philosophy with me.
This is, of course, just the drop that spills the bucket. My work has been an uncommon blessing, I know you know this - I know the Iambiguous knows it as he goes into every sine one of my threads and posts - but I can also see this site will not grow up to explicitly stand honor and protect the work of its most productive members.
Its been fun. Thanks anyway MasJ - sure you meant it lightly. Standards are the only reality though.
As though over the years I have not encountered reactions of this sort from objectivists of all sorts.
Or reactions like this from the “serious philosophers”. Many of whom having spent literally years meticulously constructing one or another “scholastic contraption” — a “world of words” said to encompass a “general description” of the human condition. An “analysis” that is anchored to one or another epistemological font. An “argument” that does not fare all that well when it is not in the form of a didactic lecture to all those who are not “one of us”. A “frame of mind” that is hardly ever brought down to earth and situated in the sort of existential contexts that most intrigue me.
From my own frame of mind, it is my [at times] brutally pessimistic philosophy of life that most perturbs them. I know this because [at times] it brutally perturbs me. Only I have to actually live with it day in and day out.
But: now it is beginning to infect them. It is seeping into own particular theory of everything. Creating cracks. They are beginning to have doubts about “I” in the same manner in which I do. The part about dasein.
What if, pertaining to value judgments and political narratives, “I” is largely an existential fabrication/contraption?
What if they become entangled in my dilemma? And so, like Satyr/Lyssa, they dump me in the dungeon, or, like Turd, they put me on ignore, or like Fixed, they seek the “out of sight, out of mind” option.
The irony being that, polemics aside, I come into venues like this in search of any possible antidote!
In other words, I have managed to talk myself into a philosophy of life that for the life of me I can no longer talk myself out of.
This is philosophy, there are no winners and losers here,
just people who have learned something…
did you learn something? if so, then you gained something
a lot of people haven’t learned…
Nope, I’m far more interested in exploring the conflicts that arise when the behaviors that some deem to be fucked up are precisely those behaviors that others subscribe to as “natural”.
And show me someone who has managed to “restructure the entire cosmos” and I will show you someone who has [rather pathetically] taken up residence in one or another ivory tower.
A Kid? Anything but a robot drone. Yes, this is a formal challenge to sing a different tune.
Try pointing your persistence in multiple directions at the same time covering new territories. Engage in varying discussions about varying ideas, preferably your own. Please, pretty please…say yes!
Magsj, just take an hour and scroll through his posts. He’s been copying and pasting the same shit for a year at least and the only apparent purposes it serves are to disrupt threads and irritate everyone. Look for examples of people saying things like, “this isn’t about your dasein thing”, or “we would like to stay on topic”, or “maybe you could start another thread to discuss dasein”. He doesn’t give a shit. It’s not the fact that he’s got some intellectual contraption that people can’t deal with, it’s that each and every member has dealt with it and he just pretends that he can’t read and starts over from the beginning again. He has horrible manners, nothing to say, disrupts conversations about any and everything, stalks certain users with the intent to derail any conversation that they may participate in and is generally unintelligent and rude.
Why on earth should I [would I] sing a different tune when, philosophically, my interests have come to revolve around the relationship between…
1] identity [dasein]
2] value judgments [conflicting goods]
3] power [political economy]
…as this relates to the question, “how ought one to live?”
In other words, being entangled as I am in my dilemma, I have come to spend a lot of time thinking about this. And I have managed to chisel my thoughts down to particular arguments. These “Groots” as zinnat called them, succinctly express those things that are now most important to me. Why in the world would I then waste time trying to express them in different words? They already work effectively [for me] now in expressing my understanding of human interactions that come into conflict.
Instead, I am far more interested in exploring the moral narratives/political agendas of those who not entangled in any dilemma when their own values are challenged by others.
After all, if there is any possibility of yanking myself up out of it, it will come about in exchanges of this sort.
If someone here is not impressed with my contributions to ILP, they can just foe me. After all, to the best of my knowledge no one is actually required to read my numbingly repetitive posts.
Or, if any particular post offends a member, they can report it and a moderator can bring it to my attention.
Or, sure, as with Fixed Cross you can opt to move on.
Then eventually there will be no one here but the Kids.
Okay, choose a moral/political conflagration that we are all familiar with.
Note the manner in which your own values are reflected in a particular point of view. Then note the manner in which your values are not the embodiment of dasein. Or note the manner in which philosophically you are able to transcend dasein.
Then with respect to my dilemma…
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.
…note how, when your own point of view is challenged by another, you are not entangled in it yourself.
1] choose the issue
2] note your own moral/political narrative in regard to it
3] note instances in which others challenged your narrative
4] note the manner in which you were able to convey that your own values reflected that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to share
5] note how you were able to transcend my dilemma in accomplishing this
Indeed, this task/challenge is open to any others reading this in turn.
