Iambiguous self-talk

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:46 am

phyllo wrote:It's got to fit into either the "Abortion is good" box or the "Abortion is bad" box and it's got to be that way for all people and forever.

Otherwise, there is some sort of problem to tackle, which philosophy and philosophers can't manage to solve. Shouldn't it fit into one or the other box? Why not? God isn't around to tell us which is the right box. Now what?

I was thinking that one way to potentially ease this F & F stuff is to focus on issues where he is not F & F. For example the sexual trafficking of children. Now of course he can pull the whole 'prove to all rational people that children should not be sexually traficked' etc. but I truly doubt he himself is F & F on the issue. He may have some philosophical asterisk, but I doubt he would truly find himself split if he, for example, put in time fighting the sexual trafficking of children. Perhaps htere are even ways volunteers can, online, participate in investigations or reporting or man a hotline, online, for children who want out or whatever.

IOW the state of F & F must depend on his focus and the time he puts in thinking about an issue. He could prioritize moral issues where he is not F & F.

And yes, again, I get that even on issues that seem clear to many of us, this does not mean one can PROVE that sexual traficking of children is bad.

However we are dealing with a state of mind and this is not digital and not binary. If he focuses on issues that he himself is not so split over, he will experience less F & F.

And while this does not solve the problem of the afterlife, the two problems are not hinged to each other.

The issue I chose, I chose because I assume he is not split and torn and can see both sides in the way he can with abortion. It is however a charged issue and potentially depressing. However there would have to be less charged issues tht he is not F & F over that he could focus on. Helping the poor around literacy. Bringing food to the elderly. Whatever.

IOW reduce the stress around the F & F by shifting his focus from extremely complicated moral issues like abortion to issues where there is vastly less controversy. Of course, he can check in now and then to see if anyone can prove that abortion is OK; but on a pure self-care level, make his main focus issues where he is not F & F.

And, of course, being engaged with life might reduce feelings of F & F even if the entire issue is not resolved.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:53 pm

I already had those discussions with him. I focused on serial killers. He used the "blank slate" argument - "If my life had been different, if I had been raised in some other environment, then I could have been a serial killer".

So his F&F problem is there no matter what.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:49 pm

phyllo wrote:I already had those discussions with him. I focused on serial killers. He used the "blank slate" argument - "If my life had been different, if I had been raised in some other environment, then I could have been a serial killer".

So his F&F problem is there no matter what.
That's not really the same issue. Or to put it another way - if he couldn't find it in himself to help protect people from serial killers because he is so torn on the issue, then that's not a good activity for him.

NOTE: I am not saying that sexual trafficking of children in some way refutes conflicting goods problems.

I am talking about what he does with his time. I can see how abortion creates F & F for some people. They want to support the mothers who want abortions. They are not sure if the fetuses are already alive. They find both sides have potentially important points. With the traficking of children for sexual reasons, I really doubt he feels torn. NOTE again: this does nto mean that one can prove sexually trafficking children is bad. My point is that I doubt HE, Iamb, will feel torn on the issue.

Part of what he is doing is complaining about being F & F. His attempt to solve this is to get someone to prove one side of the abortion issue. That is how he spends his time here.

If he chose an issue to focus on - and even better act on in the world - where he, personally, does not feel very split, this is a step up. It is a reduction of F & F. Of course conflicting goods is not resolved, but he could decrease his own suffering.


This has nothing to do with whether he might have been a serial killer or even a trafficker of children. As long as he does not feel torn, trying to help children who have been trafficked, his possibly having turned out in an alternate universe into a child trafficker is a moot issue. He is not proclaiming his actions correct, just hoping to reduce suffering and spending his time on an issue that does fracture him.

If that is the wrong issue, then he could choose others.

Sort of like in CBT where you aim at reducing anxiety. The goal is nto to completely remove it.

And of course he could choose an issue on the side to occasionally focus on, here say, to deal with conflicting goods in general.

But if he has a goal to feel better, this is one way to approach it. Reduction not elimination (in the short term, he can keep his long term goals, but minimize his current F & F. )

And minimizing his current F&F might make it easier to notice/find/create solutions to more of his issues.

Thsi is all taking his F&F and presented goals at face value.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:06 pm

No, I think it is the issue.

Even if he is 100% against trafficking children, he still imagines an alternative 'trajectory' where he is in favor of it.

That's what produces the F&F on literally every moral choice.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:09 pm

phyllo wrote:
1] I think moral and political objectivism can be dangerous when those who embody it gain access to power and, as authoritarians, are hell bent on either rewarding those who are "one of us" or punishing those who are "one of them". The guy in the White House for example.
Raises the question : How would non-objectivists be different?


Well, if they were moral nihilists like me and had attained control of, say, the global economy...?

Yes, just as moral objectivists come in different flavors so to do moral nihilists.

On the other hand, if you were to come closer to my own frame of mind instead what do you have to lose? A whole lot, right?


phyllo wrote: Then why would I come closer to your frame of mind?

The answer can't be "because it's the real truth".


Look, just as you can only react to my posts here by extrapolating from the experiences you have had with other moral nihilists in the past, I can only react to your posts by extrapolating from the experiences I have had with other moral objectivists in the past.

And, in that regard, you are more or less par for the course.

And you don't react to my point of view based on how it would make you feel about yourself so much as the extent to which my frame of mind makes sense given the arguments I raise in my signature threads.

And, over and again, I can only point out that my own arguments in regard to "I" in the is/ought world are no less existential contraptions rooted in dasein.

So, is that the real truth? How would "I" know? I'm not even able to convince myself that "I" am in possession of free will, let alone that what "I" argue here is even remotely close to how it all fits into an understanding of existence itself.

Instead, it is when I suggest my frame of mind here may be applicable to you as well that, in my opinion, I get you in "retort" mode.

But the only way it makes sense to explore this is by focusing in on my own value judgments as an existential construct derived from the experiences in my life coupled with my attempt to understand those experiences through, among others things, the study of philosophy.


phyllo wrote: You believe that it's the only way. But you're and fragmented so how can you trust that belief?


Like you, I am only able to make a distinction between what I believe is true in my head here and now about my value judgments and what I am able to demonstrate to others that, if they wish to be construed as rational human beings, they are obligated to believe the same.

But I can't demonstrate my own vantage point about morality because it is that vantage point itself that fractured and fragmented "me". I can only come into places like this and peruse the vantage points of others.

And if you believe that...

...the only way it makes sense to explore this is by focusing in on my own value judgments as an existential construct derived from the experiences in my life coupled with my attempt to understand those experiences through, among others things, the study of philosophy.

...is not "the way to proceed", come up with another way. But I can't imagine an effective way that does not include these two components.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:41 pm

phyllo wrote:I already had those discussions with him. I focused on serial killers. He used the "blank slate" argument - "If my life had been different, if I had been raised in some other environment, then I could have been a serial killer".

So his F&F problem is there no matter what.


In fact I had just addressed this issue on my morality thread:

Ah, but here is an "amoralist" who argues that "it may be universal that, let us say, one should never torture a child..."

On the other hand, this becomes universal for him only in asserting that it is true. Whereas I have no way in which to think myself into believing it myself. On the contrary, given the perspective of a moral nihilist, I am not able myself to encompass an argument that makes...

"In the absense of God, all things are permitted".

...go away.

Now, I have never tortured a child. And I could never imagine myself ever doing something like that. In fact, my own existential self is embodied in a frame of mind that reflects fury at anyone who ever harms a child.

But since I recognize my frame of mind here as an existential contraption rooted in dasein, I can only presume that had my life been very, very different there is no way I can say that would ever have been the case.

And I have no categorical and imperative arguments in which to confront the sociopaths that do abuse children because the experiences embedded in their own lives predisposed them to want to. And they are able to rationalize this by arguing that, in a No God world, their own understanding of morality revolves solely around fulfilling their own wants and needs.


But you just know in your heart of hears that none of this is applicable to you.

Right?

In fact, this sort of discussion takes me back some years to a class I attended at Essex Community College. Right after being discharged from the Army. The class was called "Abnormal Psychology", taught by Ms. Vanetta Burkhardt.

She had just asked the class if they could kill someone. And, of course, the overwhelming majority of them [who were just out of high school], in touch with their "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" insisted that course they could not, would not.

Then it was my turn. I had not just come out of high school. I had just come out of the Army, a Vietnam vet. And I told the class that, in many remarkable ways, the gap between the man I was before being drafted and the man I had become with his DD214, was such that I didn't think the two of them could ever reconcile each other's frame of mind after hours of discussion. Maybe not, in some respects, even recognize them.

What I would do/could do before the Army and what I would do/could do after it...?

All I do is to suggest in turn that had my experiences been very, very different from the cradle to the man I was before the Army, who could really say how wide that gap might be?

I just speculate further on why the objectivists here won't go down that path with me by subjecting their own value judgments to the arguments I make.

Out in a particular world, given a particular set of circumstances, given a particular point of view derived existentially from the manner in which I construe the juncture of identity, conflicting goods and political economy.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:44 pm

Well, if they were moral nihilists like me and had attained control of, say, the global economy...?

Yes, just as moral objectivists come in different flavors so to do moral nihilists.
That doesn't not explain why non-objectivism ought to be considered less dangerous than objectivism. (In fact, it hints that non-objectivism could be more dangerous.)
Look, just as you can only react to my posts here by extrapolating from the experiences you have had with other moral nihilists in the past, I can only react to your posts by extrapolating from the experiences I have had with other moral objectivists in the past.
You're selling a worldview and I'm a potential buyer.

You're not telling me why I ought to be buying it. Your presentation makes it look unattractive from the start. There's nothing there than makes me say "I need this", "I want this" or "I have to have this".

If you were an objectivist, then you would be selling me THE TRUTH. And I would feel some compulsion to buy THE TRUTH.
Instead, it is when I suggest my frame of mind here may be applicable to you as well that, in my opinion, I get you in "retort" mode.
I think that most of the time, you don't get why people "retort". It's almost never about the contents of your philosophy,
And if you believe that...

...the only way it makes sense to explore this is by focusing in on my own value judgments as an existential construct derived from the experiences in my life coupled with my attempt to understand those experiences through, among others things, the study of philosophy.

...is not "the way to proceed", come up with another way. But I can't imagine an effective way that does not include these two components.
What kind of results have gotten from these explorations? Anything useful?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:56 pm

But you just know in your heart of hears that none of this is applicable to you.

Right?

In fact, this sort of discussion takes me back some years to a class I attended at Essex Community College. Right after being discharged from the Army. The class was called "Abnormal Psychology", taught by Ms. Vanetta Burkhardt.

She had just asked the class if they could kill someone. And, of course, the overwhelming majority of them [who were just out of high school], in touch with their "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" insisted that course they could not, would not.

Then it was my turn. I had not just come out of high school. I had just come out of the Army, a Vietnam vet. And I told the class that, in many remarkable ways, the gap between the man I was before being drafted and the man I had become with his DD214, was such that I didn't think the two of them could ever reconcile each other's frame of mind after hours of discussion. Maybe not, in some respects, even recognize them.

What I would do/could do before the Army and what I would do/could do after it...?

All I do is to suggest in turn that had my experiences been very, very different from the cradle to the man I was before the Army, who could really say how wide that gap might be?

I just speculate further on why the objectivists here won't go down that path with me by subjecting their own value judgments to the arguments I make.

Out in a particular world, given a particular set of circumstances, given a particular point of view derived existentially from the manner in which I construe the juncture of identity, conflicting goods and political economy.
Whatever I am is what I am now.

I'm not something else just because I can imagine an alternative past or a possible future.

Therefore, I do not feel fractured or fragmented.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:50 am

phyllo wrote:No, I think it is the issue.

Even if he is 100% against trafficking children, he still imagines an alternative 'trajectory' where he is in favor of it.

That's what produces the F&F on literally every moral choice.
Though he has no qualms about participating online, attacking objectivists, telling people why they believe what they believe and hijacking threads.
Why does this never cause F&F?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:52 am

phyllo wrote:Whatever I am is what I am now.

I'm not something else just because I can imagine an alternative past or a possible future.

Therefore, I do not feel fractured or fragmented.
And see how he manages to shift any discussion to the psychology, dasein and mental state of other people. They must justify why he is not suffering, even though their life/genetics/experiences have no causal relation with his. It is as if others are responsible for this state of being.

IOW some actions seem to give him less F&F. It's not that everything gives him F&F, at least not to the same degree. Whatever he says when an individual example comes up. It's not a coincidence that the abortion issue comes up the most. 1) he had some past incident related to the issue and 2) it is more charged. I mean, we almost have a situation where every rational adult believes that sexually trafficking children is wrong. Of course there are a few exceptions, but it is not a coincidence that he uses abortion which has many strong advocates for both main positions, but also has important arguments on both sides. There are very few arguments out there for the sexual trafficking of children. There is no philosopher like a Sam Harris advocating for this.

If he simply lay on his bed, well, Ok all actions are the same to him. But he doesn't. He acts in the world and he focuses on a few issues and as far as morals, his go to is abortion.

This obviously causes him more F&F. If we are to take his complaining about F&F seriously, then focusing on it is not good for him.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

He tends to keep at a safe distance in these discussions. He doesn't actually reveal much in his personal accounts and nothing that makes him appear in a bad light.

As for picking abortion as the subject for discussion, I suppose it gets more bites than trafficking. (And again, it's not something that makes him "look bad". )
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:16 pm

phyllo wrote:He tends to keep at a safe distance in these discussions. He doesn't actually reveal much in his personal accounts and nothing that makes him appear in a bad light.
That certainly might be a motivation, but he's not succeeding. I think he refused to answer the question in this thread because he knows that what he puts forward as his goals and reactions doesn't really hold. I am not saying he had that thought, but to actually make clear what it means when he is F & F and how this arises - sandwiched between what thoughts? for how long? and so on - is likely something he can feel will sound even fishier that it does at this abstract unexplained level.

As for picking abortion as the subject for discussion, I suppose it gets more bites than trafficking.
Trafficking could potentially look solvable according to his criteria. Yes, an occasional person will come along to defend it, but one can come a lot closer to 'all rational people agreeing' on trafficking children for sex. Abortion on the other hand is much more intractable.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:29 pm

But he doesn't want to solve it.

Every time that one seems to be making progress in some direction, he introduces more details, more complications. Or he ignores it and restates his original position. I think that is intentional.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:43 pm

phyllo wrote:But he doesn't want to solve it.

Every time that one seems to be making progress in some direction, he introduces more details, more complications. Or he ignores it and restates his original position. I think that is intentional.
Yes, I tend to assume that. I think that is part of the reason he will not look at himelf closely. Other people need to make concrete their abstractions. Other people should go into what is happening now in their lives. Other people should unpack stuff. But not him. If he did, he might notice an/or reveal to us more clearly that his purported motivations are not what they are claimed to be.

Here I just wanted to see if he would unpack his own abstract contraption about his state of mind. And I think it was wise of him, given his goals, to avoid doing what he asks of others. Cause the BS is not far under the surface of the F&F stuff.

How could someone who is F&F present himself, his ideas, his motivations, his goals, his assessment of his own behavior here, in such a consistant way for a decade. Utterly consistant. Utterly incredulous that anyone could notice anything about him that he didn't realize.

Now how could an F&F person NOT miss things about himself? Not reveal stuff he is not aware of? Not find some value in what other people say here about him? Not once in ten years has he ever said: that's a good point. I am doing that. Or even, hm, that might be a good idea for me to try.

An F&F person might then change his or her mind, but never once????? never once none of these fragmented parts has found any suggestion about what he is doing or might do potentially interesting? Never.

That's not an F&F person. That's a very unified person. Or someone who simply cannot concede anything.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:13 pm

phyllo wrote:
Well, if they were moral nihilists like me and had attained control of, say, the global economy...?

Yes, just as moral objectivists come in different flavors so to do moral nihilists.
That doesn't not explain why non-objectivism ought to be considered less dangerous than objectivism. (In fact, it hints that non-objectivism could be more dangerous.)


Where have I ever argued that? Instead, I note the inherent dangers embedded in both "world views". After all, It's not like philosophers or ethicists can concoct an epistemological algorithm that decides which approach is more dangerous once and for all.

And, over and again, I note the considerable human pain and suffering the moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy inject into the "human condition" year in and year out. And you can bet that with the coronavirus this is only going to get all that much worse.

Look, just as you can only react to my posts here by extrapolating from the experiences you have had with other moral nihilists in the past, I can only react to your posts by extrapolating from the experiences I have had with other moral objectivists in the past.


phyllo wrote: You're selling a worldview and I'm a potential buyer.

You're not telling me why I ought to be buying it. Your presentation makes it look unattractive from the start. There's nothing there than makes me say "I need this", "I want this" or "I have to have this".

If you were an objectivist, then you would be selling me THE TRUTH. And I would feel some compulsion to buy THE TRUTH.


Again [as usual] huh?!

Buying and selling?

I'm making the arguments that I do in my signature threads. And these arguments [to me] are not about how they make me feel [grim] but the extent to which they still seem to be reasonable arguments to make given the manner in which I have attempted to think through [philosophically and otherwise] the actual experiences I have had in my life.

And in regard to the morality of abortion or any other conflicting goods, I'm curious as to how you comingle both yourself in explaining your own point of view. To yourself for example. Which to me seems considerably less fractured and fragmented than mine. Precipitating considerably more comfort and consolation. With or without God. Which I have never been able to figure out with you.

You don't/won't go there. Fine. But that doesn't change my own reaction to that choice.

Instead, it is when I suggest my frame of mind here may be applicable to you as well that, in my opinion, I get you in "retort" mode.


phyllo wrote: I think that most of the time, you don't get why people "retort". It's almost never about the contents of your philosophy,


So you keep telling me. And so the actual reason still eludes me. Again, I can only react to those retorts based on all of the similar retorts I have received from objectivists down through the years. And, in fact, the part where they seem to cringe at the prospect of thinking like me, is the one thing that always seems to stand out.

After all, I remember cringing myself back in the day when my own objectivism was under assault. Just not in places like this. They didn't exist. Instead it was more from the arguments I was encountering in philosophy books! And from authors like Beckett, Ionescu, Vonnegut, Cioran, Pessoa. Or filmmakers like Bergman and Bunuel and Kurosawa.

And if you believe that...

...the only way it makes sense to explore this is by focusing in on my own value judgments as an existential construct derived from the experiences in my life coupled with my attempt to understand those experiences through, among others things, the study of philosophy.

...is not "the way to proceed", come up with another way. But I can't imagine an effective way that does not include these two components.


phyllo wrote: What kind of results have gotten from these explorations? Anything useful?


Results? I made an honest attempt to probe my life introspectively, and now I have managed to think myself into the conclusions I have reached in my signature threads here. The results were what they were. And whatever the results, they don't stop me from living my life in a manner such that I still have any number of "distractions" that bring me considerable satisfaction and fulfillment. The parts where being fractured and fragmented hardly ever enter into my disposition at all.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:38 pm

phyllo wrote:Whatever I am is what I am now.


Right.

On the other hand, there are now billions of us around the globe who can make that claim. As though everything should just revolve around what has become reality now without taking into account the components of my own frame of mind.

When those on either side of any particular conflicting good confront each other they should just insist "well, this is who I am!"

That'll settle it!

Especially in a might makes right world?

phyllo wrote: I'm not something else just because I can imagine an alternative past or a possible future.


But my point is not about imagining yourself in an alternative past, but in actually having lived a very, very different past in which an entirely conflicting set of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas configured your "I" into, say, something like mine?

That's why over and again, we can only try to imagine the extent to which philosophers and ethicists, taking that into account, attempt to come up with the most rational and virtuous way in which to behave in any particular context.

phyllo wrote:Therefore, I do not feel fractured or fragmented.


In other words, if you are able to think yourself into examining and assessing your own identity as you do above, you don't feel fractured and fragmented.

And, trust me, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, you win.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:56 pm

Where have I ever argued that? Instead, I note the inherent dangers embedded in both "world views". After all, It's not like philosophers or ethicists can concoct an epistemological algorithm that decides which approach is more dangerous once and for all.
You're pushing one world view in preference to the other. You're railing against objectivists and not against non-objectivists/nihilists.
Again [as usual] huh?!

Buying and selling?
I'm representing it as "buying and selling" in order to get you to think about the motivations of people in an interaction.
And in regard to the morality of abortion or any other conflicting goods, I'm curious as to how you comingle both yourself in explaining your own point of view. To yourself for example. Which to me seems considerably less fractured and fragmented than mine. Precipitating considerably more comfort and consolation. With or without God. Which I have never been able to figure out with you.

You don't/won't go there. Fine. But that doesn't change my own reaction to that choice.
When I say something, you don't listen. You just keep talking about yourself.
Results?
What kind of results have you had from almost 10 years of posting on ILP?

You seems to be at exactly the same place that you were then. Except that most people here won't even talk to you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 5:59 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Whatever I am is what I am now.


Right.

On the other hand, there are now billions of us around the globe who can make that claim. As though everything should just revolve around what has become reality now without taking into account the components of my own frame of mind.

When those on either side of any particular conflicting good confront each other they should just insist "well, this is who I am!"

That'll settle it!

Especially in a might makes right world?

phyllo wrote: I'm not something else just because I can imagine an alternative past or a possible future.


But my point is not about imagining yourself in an alternative past, but in actually having lived a very, very different past in which an entirely conflicting set of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas configured your "I" into, say, something like mine?

That's why over and again, we can only try to imagine the extent to which philosophers and ethicists, taking that into account, attempt to come up with the most rational and virtuous way in which to behave in any particular context.

phyllo wrote:Therefore, I do not feel fractured or fragmented.


In other words, if you are able to think yourself into examining and assessing your own identity as you do above, you don't feel fractured and fragmented.

And, trust me, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, you win.
There you go.

You discounted everything that I posted.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Whatever I am is what I am now.


Right.

On the other hand, there are now billions of us around the globe who can make that claim. As though everything should just revolve around what has become reality now without taking into account the components of my own frame of mind.

When those on either side of any particular conflicting good confront each other they should just insist "well, this is who I am!"

That'll settle it!

Especially in a might makes right world?

phyllo wrote: I'm not something else just because I can imagine an alternative past or a possible future.


But my point is not about imagining yourself in an alternative past, but in actually having lived a very, very different past in which an entirely conflicting set of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas configured your "I" into, say, something like mine?

That's why over and again, we can only try to imagine the extent to which philosophers and ethicists, taking that into account, attempt to come up with the most rational and virtuous way in which to behave in any particular context.

phyllo wrote:Therefore, I do not feel fractured or fragmented.


In other words, if you are able to think yourself into examining and assessing your own identity as you do above, you don't feel fractured and fragmented.

And, trust me, given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, you win.
There you go.

You discounted everything that I posted.


Note to others:

What, in your opinion, is the most egregious thing that I discounted?

And, just out of curiosity, was there perhaps anything of mine that he discounted?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:08 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:But he doesn't want to solve it.

Every time that one seems to be making progress in some direction, he introduces more details, more complications. Or he ignores it and restates his original position. I think that is intentional.
Yes, I tend to assume that. I think that is part of the reason he will not look at himelf closely. Other people need to make concrete their abstractions. Other people should go into what is happening now in their lives. Other people should unpack stuff. But not him. If he did, he might notice an/or reveal to us more clearly that his purported motivations are not what they are claimed to be.

Here I just wanted to see if he would unpack his own abstract contraption about his state of mind. And I think it was wise of him, given his goals, to avoid doing what he asks of others. Cause the BS is not far under the surface of the F&F stuff.

How could someone who is F&F present himself, his ideas, his motivations, his goals, his assessment of his own behavior here, in such a consistant way for a decade. Utterly consistant. Utterly incredulous that anyone could notice anything about him that he didn't realize.

Now how could an F&F person NOT miss things about himself? Not reveal stuff he is not aware of? Not find some value in what other people say here about him? Not once in ten years has he ever said: that's a good point. I am doing that. Or even, hm, that might be a good idea for me to try.

An F&F person might then change his or her mind, but never once????? never once none of these fragmented parts has found any suggestion about what he is doing or might do potentially interesting? Never.

That's not an F&F person. That's a very unified person. Or someone who simply cannot concede anything.
I'm not going discuss him any longer.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
Where have I ever argued that? Instead, I note the inherent dangers embedded in both "world views". After all, It's not like philosophers or ethicists can concoct an epistemological algorithm that decides which approach is more dangerous once and for all.


You're pushing one world view in preference to the other. You're railing against objectivists and not against non-objectivists/nihilists.


Okay, but, in doing so, how does that not reflect my own "I" here as just another existential contraption? After all, had my life been otherwise I might be railing against the nihilists more.

Instead, the point [in a philosophy venue] is to explore the extent to which, in using its tools, philosophers can actually come up with the most rational point of view here.

But, more to the point [and often in polemicist mode], I provoke the objectivists in order to prod them into explaining themselves in such a way that I might actually begin to see their point. I too might become less fractured and fragmented myself again. As you keep reminding me, I have everything to gain and very little left to lose. Especially given my current proximity to the abyss.

And in regard to the morality of abortion or any other conflicting goods, I'm curious as to how you comingle both yourself in explaining your own point of view. To yourself for example. Which to me seems considerably less fractured and fragmented than mine. Precipitating considerably more comfort and consolation. With or without God. Which I have never been able to figure out with you.

You don't/won't go there. Fine. But that doesn't change my own reaction to that choice.


phyllo wrote: When I say something, you don't listen. You just keep talking about yourself.


But you won't/don't go there. Here I am asking you to tell me about yourself! How have your experiences in life and your treks to the philosophers come together in regard to explaining your value judgments?

Now, if you do decide to go there and all I do is babble on and on about myself instead, then you will have confirmed your point.

Results?


phyllo wrote: What kind of results have you had from almost 10 years of posting on ILP?

You seems to be at exactly the same place that you were then. Except that most people here won't even talk to you.


As I have noted any number of times, I only "do" philosophy a few hours a day. And, even then, I focus my attention almost entirely on morality here and now and immortality there and then. And not counting my quotes, music and abandoned film threads.

And, no, after 10 years my frame of mind has not changed much at all. And, yes, that might be more because of all the complaints you level at me or more because of all the complaints I level at you.

But, again, I'm not going lose any sleep, or actually get all pissed off as a result of anything that we exchange. Well, sans the occasional foul mood. And, who knows, one of us might actually have a breakthrough moment with the other.

Besides, when you're waiting for godot, almost anything goes.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 6:52 pm

But you won't/don't go there. Here I am asking you to tell me about yourself! How have your experiences in life and your treks to the philosophers come together in regard to explaining your value judgments?
I just told you why I don't feel fractured and fragmented and all I got in response was some contemptuous comments.

Fuck you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:06 pm

phyllo wrote:
But you won't/don't go there. Here I am asking you to tell me about yourself! How have your experiences in life and your treks to the philosophers come together in regard to explaining your value judgments?
I just told you why I don't feel fractured and fragmented and all I got in response was some contemptuous comments.

Fuck you.


Fuck me. Fine.

I'll see you in the next round. :wink:
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby phyllo » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:08 pm

Toxic waste.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous self-talk

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:16 pm

phyllo wrote:Toxic waste.


Tell me about it! That's more or less how being me feels when the discussions get around to morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side of it!!

Trust me: If I have not succeeded in tugging you closer to my own frame of mind, you really, really have won here.

Now it's just a matter of sustaining that victory all the way to the grave.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 35771
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users