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.
Me:!!
1.) One emotion is better than the other
2.) it is self evident
3.) the potential challenge is that there is no better -
4.) my reply to this is the insistence for people to defend this point is evidence that they believe in better (replying to this post refutes their argument)
5.) we know that someone uses contradiction frequency, (the ability to parrot words), so they can seem more fit. An example of this is saying “I don’t exist”:::: for humans they think if someone utters this phrase and is not instantly struck down by a bolt of lightning, they must be God… It’s called a conceptual illusion… It’s a cognitive algorithm people (like you) use to get attention
I think he’s just asking imabig to keep his drivel in one place instead of stalking members around and derailing threads with all the dasein speak. It really is pretty annoying. You can’t even talk about having a cup of tea without that asshole showing up and pasting his whole routine into the thread and being a dick to everyone. I think it’s the most agreed upon thing by pretty much everyone here. The sad thing is, Ec doesn’t know yet that no matter what he says, it’ll just be the same routine. Iambig won’t say anything different in this thread than he does when he’s trolling other threads. Ec, I assure you, he simply will not read anything you say and he’ll just keep posting the same thing. He’s mentally incapable of entertaining a view that isn’t exactly the one he already holds, and he’s incapable of seeing the problems with said view.
He will literally ask people to argue with him and point out what’s wrong with his theory, then when people do so, he just ignores them and moves on to another thread to derail with the same shit. It blows my mind.
He can’t do it, because he doesn’t exist, he is a computer program with a very narror set of parameters within which to fall back upon when questioned.
For this thread to be realistic, you don’t even need AImbigious to actually post in it, you could sit down days in advance, writing the six or seven replies he would give back, and post it completely oblivious to what is being said, accusing Ecmandu of being a objectivist, his dasein and conflicting goods, how he was a Vietcong guerilla fighting US troops, and aborting babies, finding out it wasn’t so bad. Then you would say stuff like this forum is going to waste with all these kiddies around here, Emily faces with glasses and chicken and nets.
Any one of us could write the replies, because we know the narror routine. I haven’t even looked at a thread of his in months,if not a year- I have no solid memory of when I put him on ignore, but I’m guessing his programmer only tweaked his programming to deny that he doewnt exist, but other than that, everything else is the same. That would be evidence of a update, not evidence if a soul.
Besides, Fixed is of the belief he won the debate when I talked to him, he is far more upset that Magsj was trolling the thread in question. I havent read that thread, but she does have a track record for trolling here unsurpassed. On par with the stunt Carleas pulled in the Prismatic situation of threatening and banning people who denies his bigotry.
1] huffing and puffing
2] making me the issue
3] refusing to focus the beam on this:
[b]
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.
[/b]
Below is the example I use to note how a value judgment is rooted in an actual existential trajectory. It is my way of conveying to others how dasein and conflicting goods are pertinent to the argument that I make here.
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.
How about you? Note a particular value judgment that is near and dear to you pertaining to, for example, a political issue that is being hotly debated on the campaign trail here in America.
Note to others:
Go ahead, give it a go yourself. Situate your values out in the world of actual human interaction. No huffing and puffing. No personal attacks. Just an exchange of ideas.
If nothing else we might persuade the moderator to move this back into the philosophy forum.
