Phyllo and iambiguous continued

This is taken from the “Iambiguous and ecmandu - dasein” thread.
The thread was locked.

No, that is your own subjective rendition of my point. My own subjective rendition is more along these lines…

John can grow up under Communism then socialism then capitalism. Based on his own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas/information, this can either have been a good or a bad experience. Jane can grow up under capitalism then socialism then Communism. Based on her unique unique sets of experiences, relationships and access to ideas/information, this can either have been a good or a bad experience.

Now, how do the political philosophers, after taking these existential variables into account – the part about dasein – come to conclude which particular political economy reflects that which all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to embrace?

In other words, when confronted with this historical debate, I have become entangled in this…

If, with respect to capitalism and socialism, I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values here 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.

How then are you not entangled in it?

From my perspective, there is no essential truth here. There are only particular existential points of view rooted politically – historically, culturally, experientially – in conflicting goods.

In these:

economicshelp.org/blog/5002/ … apitalism/

greengarageblog.org/10-biggest-p … -socialism

Obviously, both sides are able to raise points that the other side is not able to just make go away. And both sets of arguments are said to be reasonable given the assumptions/premises that the conclusions are predicated on.

Then what?

Then there are arguments of those who insist that socialists states devolved into dictatorships precisely because the capitalist forces around the globe were hell bent on destroying them. Socialism, they insist, was never really able to get off the ground. The state had to focus instead on preparing for war and with dealing with those inside the motherland who were acting in the interests of the capitalistic imperialists.

So, again, philosophically, what is the one and the only – the optimal – “rational” “ideal” “natural” argument to make here? Is there an “objective truth” to be found? Or, instead, does that come to reflect particular political prejudices revolving around particular economic agendas?

That’s preposterous. Again, my point is only to suggest that “learning and improving” are intertwined in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. It all unfolds out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.

In other words, here you are claiming to have learned this rather than that. Than someone else comes along claiming to have learned that rather than this.

It’s like on the locked thread…

While you seemingly learned that…

People want self-autonomy and self-determination.
The ‘rights’ of the living take precedence over the ‘rights’ of the dead or unborn.
An unwanted child will be more likely to be abused and neglected than a wanted child.
Unsafe, illegal abortions endanger the life of the woman.
No religious woman is forced to have an abortion.

Ecmandu seemingly has learned that…

That’s not quite the argument that works…
People can say the fetus wants self autonomy too…
The main problem (that you touched upon) is that non consensual birth from the mother, positively reinforces non consent in life.
The child WILL grow up in consent violation mentality globally!
And yes, that’s objectively what nobody wants!

And then: what of those on the other side who seem to have learned something entirely at odds from this?

You tell me: Who gets to decide which frame of mind reflects an “improvement” in thinking here?

In other words, demonstrate to me how your own frame of mind here is not just a political prejudice rooted in dasein rooted in one rather than another set of assumptions.

Instead, as a moral nihilist, I propose that the “best of all possible words” is reflected not in either might makes right or right makes might but in democracy and the rule of law.

I merely point out that even here I am no less entangled in my dilemma.

Whereas when you go about the business of “thinking”, you are able to learn from your mistakes because, either through God or through Reason or [somehow] through both, you are able to make the proper distinctions between good and evil. And all of the other objectivists who share this frame of mind about “thinking” but who have come to embrace a conflicting “kingdom of ends” are, well, just plain wrong.

Right?

You don’t even thank me for ‘solving’ abortion for you.

Your dasein/nihilist philosophy is clearly inadequate for dealing with the problems of living. You should abandon it.

I don’t want to invest any more of my time into discussions with you.

I reserve the right to frivolously mock you in the future.

Note to others:

Oh well… :-"

It’s the best for both of us.

Besides, you won, right?

He won.

If socialism and communism don’t work in an imperfect world, then they simply don’t work. Period.

If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union, one can’t explain the centralization of power, the mass murder, the forced starvation, the food and product shortages simply in terms of external pressures.

The advocates of communism always seem to ignore these lessons of history and they claim that there has never been ‘real’ communism. Yet, they also refer to the lessons learned about capitalism - the problems of capitalism.

Not that the communists are the only ones. Neo-nazis also ignore the lessons of Nazi Germany. Eugenics and genocide are a direct result of the racial philosophy. Some people were labelled as subhuman from the beginning and they were disposable. This is to be expected in every nazi society.

And laissez faire capitalism has also been tried.

If you take biology in high school, you might learn that dissecting frogs is gross or you might learn that it’s cool. But if that’s all you learn, then you have missed the point entirely. Some chemistry and physics experiments are tedious and boring. Some experiments are exciting. The purpose of the experiments is to learn something about the outside world.
There are things to be learned about capitalism, socialism and communism. There is an outside world of people, objects, interactions and consequences.

Come on, look at the gap between the Ayn Randroids and the Libertarians. And the gap between them and crony capitalism. And the gap between that and state capitalism.

What “works” and what does not is always going to be construed from within the parameters of a particular set of political prejudices. When has it ever not been that way going all the way back to the hunters and gatherers?

Sure, in any particular “world of worlds”, folks – political idealists – from Plato to Marx will always embrace one or another rendition of right makes might.

You know, “in their head”. Or in the books they write.

But: Seen any of these actual idealities around?

The problem here though [the apologists argue] is that we will never know. We never lived in a world where these external forces weren’t hell bent on destabilizing and overthrowing any and all polities not in tune with the needs of the global capitalism.

Besides, re Marx, Communism wasn’t suppose to evolve historically from relatively underdeveloped nations like Russia and China. So the Commies had to rationalize what was unfolding there. They had to hammer the conditions on the ground into the ideology.

Besides, the conflicting goods I noted above don’t go away, right?

Nor does the relationship between any particular individual’s reaction to all of this and the life that he or she lived. The part about dasein.

Unless of course you are willing to note how your own reaction here has less to do with your own personal experiences and more to do with a political philosophy said to be that which all rational folks are obligated to share

The advocates of any idealistic/objectivist political narrative will always cling to that. Just as in any particular theocracy there are those who blame any problems the state might endure on the fact that some are not practicing the one true faith.

So, if you’re not partial to might makes right and you have no illusions regarding right makes might, what’s left? Of course: One or another rendition of democracy and the rules of law.

Here the idealists compete for political power and are willing to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise, and/or the nihilist who own and operate the global economy hold sway regarding both the economy and foreign policy.

Still, one suspects that if all phyllo kept posting was “iambiguous is a spastic chimpanzee”, he would still have won.

One thing though: we can count on you not actually participating in the exchange.

On the other hand, it’s only 10 days now until Alabama takes on LSU. Why don’t you start a thread here so that we can discuss this historic event.

What is the point “entirely”?

And how is your point really pertinent to the point that I raise?

Basically you are back to arguing that if others have not learned what you have learned about capitalism, socialism and communism than they have not learned the right things.

Right?

Though, sure, I may be missing your own point “entirely”. Try again.

It’s possible to go to school and learn about the motion of objects in a gravitational field but it’s impossible to learn about the consequences of giving absolute power to Hitler or Stalin. You also can’t learn how the soviets lost control within a short time to the Bolshevik leadership. Or how the media can keep totalitarianism in check. Or the impact of economic policies.

Notice that I don’t refer to my personal feelings or a direct benefit to me. The cause and effect is separate from my own interests.

… and some people actually learn when to use the word “then” rather than “than”.

… but then again, some people can … learn.

I once posted that one can learn a great deal from Hitler. He was a very skillful politician. I got criticized for “supporting Hitler”. Only Kriswest seemed to understand what I was saying.

One must not blur the technical with the ethical. Can one kill with Zyklon B? Ought one kill with Zyklon B?

The Nazi propaganda system was very effective. Ought one use their techniques?

Again: “In your head” you may see this as an adequate rejoinder to the point I raise but, “in my head”, it is not even close.

We are…stuck.

Bottom line [mine]:

To what extent are you arguing that “if others have not learned what you have learned about capitalism, socialism and communism [u][b]then[/u][/b] they have not learned the right things.”

I would never argue that is the case regarding what I have learned. After all, what I have learned is clearly rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In other words, I patiently await an argument from you [or James or others] that demonstrates how one can think about these things and actually transcend the components of my own argument.

Which, as you know, is embedded in my dilemma.

How is your argument not?

Here you are again popping into a thread that I participate in and “retorting” about something trivial.

Instead of, for example, actually contributing something more 1] substantive and 2] substantial to the exchange.

Next thing you know, you’ll become another mr reasonable.

You know, from the right.

Yes, I understand completely. You cannot conceive of anything beyond your own personal thoughts about the thing. There is nothing separate from your thoughts. You create your own reality. Right is whatever you think. Everything is “in your head” and therefore, everyone else must be thinking the same way.

Personally, I think that there is stuff outside of me and my thoughts. Shit will go on without me.

What would be the point of that?

I fully endorse your decision to not discuss with him anymore, but what would be the point in mocking him?

To a large extent he is here playing a game.

I have generally taken his dilemma seriously and I responded to his question with the intent to get at an understanding and resolution. That has been a waste of my time. I’m not doing that any more.

If I respond to something that he writes, then it is because I feel like thinking out loud about a problem … for my own benefit.

I might feel like playing a game at times.

I think that mocking is meaningless. There is no final state against which you can measure your progress. Or is there? Perhaps this final state is him suffering. But then, can you measure this state? How do you determine when he suffers and when he doesn’t? I take it you determine whether he suffers or not based on his posts. But is there a forum behavior that is clearly indicative of suffering? And even if you did have a clearly defined final state you want to realize and even if this state was measurable, how would you benefit? How would you benefit by mocking someone? Is it simply mocking mastery you are after?

I think that in most cases mocking is a sign of impatience, of inability not to act, more than anything else.

The reasons people give tend to be fake ones no matter how legitimate they appear.