Just for the record, anyone here can respond to me in any manner they see fit. If someone feels I deserve to be ashamed of my contributions here, shame away.
Still, my point regarding that which is of interest to me philosophically – how ought one to live in the is/ought world? – is basically that feeling shame doesn’t really make much sense. Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.
Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to “think up” a way to jettison all that.
Then I too might engender the sort of “comfort and consolation” that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.
Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe “in my head” that “I” live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.
And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who “wins” in the end here?
Me?!!!
Really, just out of curiosity, how might I manage to bring this particular forum down? The bulk of my contributions here revolve around those things that largely distract me from my “philosophy of life”. Mundane irony, song, film.
I think in part though I tend to discomfit the “serious philosophers” among us. And that is because my own philosophy of life revolves almost entirely around exposing the profound limitations of philosophy – at least with respect to that which I deem to be its most important function of all: probing the existential factors embedded in human social, political and economic interactions. The part where words meet worlds.
In my view, once Will Durant’s “epistemologists” among us get closer and closer to that, the more philosophy itself begins to seem less relevant to the actual interactions that we engage in from day to day.
Well, you ask for help with your dilemma, but never take any advice. You keep repeating the same ideas, using the same words and examples. There is no evidence of any progress, or even movement is a particular direction, in the discussions.
I do not wish to hijack this thread where I welcome your input of this conversation in the following threads where I will do my best to address all your points. Also, I’ve been on this forum under various guises and usernames since 2007.
What does it really mean to take someone’s advice with regard to the hole that I have dug myself into?
All I can do is to ask them to note the extent to which they are not down in the hole themselves.
And then to speculate as to the extent to which I might think or feel or behave in the same way.
Really, what else is there?
At least I’m not arguing that if they’re not down in the hole with me, they are wrong.
And they can always choose to stay exactly where they are: convinced that human interactions are not essentially meaningless and absurd in a No God world. Some even manage to conjure up one or another set of beliefs regarding immortality and salvation.
And, here, psychologically, something is almost always better than nothing.
A number of people have given you advice on how to deal with your dilemma ( Moreno for instance). Yet I don’t recall any posts which indicate that you took any action.
For example, someone might tell me that he has back pain and I suggest that he tries Yoga. If he comes back and says that he tried 4 classes over the span of a month it didn’t help, then I know he took some action. Unfortunately it did not work.
If he says that he has back pain but he makes no mention of my Yoga suggestion, then I would suspect that for some reason Yoga does not interest him. I might suggest something else like Pilates or Feldenkreis.
But if he keeps coming back with the same complaint of back pain and he gives no indication that he has tried doing anything at all, then I’m not going to waste time giving him advice. He obviously doesn’t want to get rid of his pain, he wants to talk about his pain.
And after a while, I get tired and bored of hearing about it. That’s especially true when it’s a one way discussion of his problems. I would probably like some advice and sympathy about my problems. But if we constantly have to talk about his back pain, I don’t get what I need out of the interaction.
This seems to be saying that nobody can give advice about getting out of the hole since everyone is in the hole. Nobody has a way out.
Asking for help would appear to be useless. Why keep asking? In the off chance that THE ONE who got out might answer? But you won’t try his advice anyways. Why would you?
Saying that feeling shame does not make any sense, does not make any sense, in the sense (ha, ha) that it is a category error. Shame is interpersonal - it may or may not come from objective values, but it certainly need not. It is about having done something that my community, including myself, has a problem with. They don’t like it, they think God forbids it, they think it leads to negative consequences, they think it smells aweful, whatever. It’s a social mammal thing, and whatever your epiphenies have accomplished, you are probably still a social mammal even if you are an anti-social one. If you are a psychopath, well, then it’s not a category error.
Honestly. Can’t you see how fucked up it is to repeat this here, again. It is not relevent to the topic. Is it masochism? Are you trying to upset people by repeating something I am pretty sure everyone in the thread has responded to elsewhere in threads where it belongs?
See above.
How can it bring things down: since you are not abusive - at least from what I have seen - can string together rational arguments. You can lock people on you. It can seem like an interactive dialogue will take place. But all discussions will end up with you repeating your assertions and focusing on what you think and what the other person’s statement did or did not do FOR YOU. Rather than some other options like seeing what you are doing does to others. When you comment on this, it is always the implicit smug: I seem to make objectivists angry, uncomfortable. Not being able to imagine that there are effects and problematics ones from your behavior that have nothing to do with other people’s weaknesses and your bravery for having shucked off objective values. Not being able to imagine how what makes you uncomfortable affects the dynamic and the content of your discussions and your inability to, ironically enough, see the discussions accurately from other viewpoints than your own - hence your repeated, I make you uncomfortable smugness. How convenient.
Perfect example.
Nothing that can get a ban or even a warning from most moderators, unfortunately. An appearance of an open mind. And actually not that much appearance of being able to respond to specifics in other people’s responses. You are not the only one. Prismatic is like this also. A facade of responding to what you wrote. He’s not as smart as you are - and/or his not having English as mother tongue is a problem - but in any case it creates a morass. A bog.
You think this bog is because no one can face the horror that there may be no ground to their objective values. This may be a factor in some dialogues. But it is not the rule, however appealing that interpretation may be to you.
These kinds of patterns where a person cannot learn or shift interpretations but there is a facade of ‘rational’ dialogue destroys forums. Of course, as I said earlier, the community is ultimately responsible. We need to undo the training that allows us to conflate apparant rational dialogue from rational dialogue where both parties can learn. That is, the community after responding to these patterns and not seeing any change, could ignore/shun that person. BEcause in the end it is a form of trolling, just a subtler one and one that Carleas will never, ever intervene in.
I will do my best to live up to this shunning since shaming is not effective. The interesting development with the internet is that I can shun even if others do not. To be effective for the forum, it would need to be a majority shunning. But to be effective for me, it need not be. Of course if the general level of the dialogue is affected by those I shun, I may have to move on, but it’s not like the Amish. I can’t see you at the barn raising, even if the rest of the community still can.
Do you think it is right that you could be compelled to sign away your rights to your half of the conversation in order to participate on a public forum?
Aren’t both parts of the conversation “public”? Obviously, there is no expectation of privacy, so isn’t it public? Once it’s on social media, it’s out there and there’s no taking that back. So if the conversation is public, how can you sign away rights to something that you don’t own?
Not necessarily. A couple guys may be giving each other a friendly hard time. The meaning would be in the context.
The insult is in the context. I’m still not sure I understand how you don’t see it as an insult.
Oh, so it’s unanswerable and because of that you blow it off?
Depends if something can be gained or established by pressing the issue. I’m interested in the differentiation between implied and direct insult as I think they’re both open to interpretation and insult is implied within the context regardless if it appear direct on the surface. For instance the guy named “idiotsavant” being called “idiot” isn’t necessarily an insult, but insult is discerned from the context.
I can’t argue with a preference, but why on earth would you rather be banned than scolded?
After seeing a roman chariot race on documentary it dawned on me that the reason we need referees is for an objective view of the situation because each driver can’t see the whole race. But in some games the players may be able to have an objective view; like monopoly, the 3rd person could be objective and has access to no more or less information than anyone else playing if an issue between 2 players arose that needed moderating. Or like ILP where each player has access to a full view of the playing field and 3rd parties are objective because none of us are really allied (except in kissing the butt of the boss… I see that a lot on forums. Whatever the boss says is supported by virtue of people looking to support whatever leader there is. Loyalty is a virtue, et al.). No boss = no loyalty and that guarantees objectivity on the field.
I suppose an objection could be that morality is up for vote and determined by democracy as opposed to dictation by the boss. Honestly, I can’t say which is better from a philosophical perspective, but people tend to vote for democracy as if it were a virtue.
For instance if we put the issue of potential insult up for vote by the members of the board because it cannot otherwise be resolved between the two members, then whoever decides to chime in with a vote helps determine what is decreed to be right and wrong. This is opposed to the appointment of an agent who can dictate the rules and avoid the argumentum ad populum issue, assuming it is even a valid objection because:
Morality only exists relative to other people since one cannot be immoral to himself. Therefore, the bigger the sample size of people offended, the better the picture of generalized morality one can paint. For instance, would it bother you if I punched you in the nose? If the question is put to a vote and the answer a resounding yes, then we consider it immoral to punch someone in the nose. That seems to work.
Now, morality dictated by an agent presupposes the agent is capable of knowing what offends everyone and to what degree in order to consider what is moral and not, which is a very slippery slope to tread and it supposes that one knows more than many. It seems unlikely that any such person could exist and then the moral obligation to the people that the person would hold seems insurmountable. That is, can you find someone that smart and that conscientious and how are you qualified to recognize such a person?
One of those guys Stefan had on said if you think you can rule the people in a moral and benevolent way, then that is evidence that you wouldn’t. It’s always the ones with good intentions who causes the most havoc. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. “Kindly let me help you or you’ll drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. How do you know what is good for others? How do you know what is good for you?
Argumentum ad populum has its downsides, but I vote that it’s preferable to dictatorial rule.
The reason you think that you have addressed my question and I don’t, is that we have different perspectives on the situation.
I specifically mentioned an agreement or set of rules posted by the pub owner. I see an obligation on the patrons, to abide by the rules. You see no such obligation.
I see a social obligation on the patrons when they are in the pub - an unwritten obligation - to behave in a proper way (I’m not going to define proper because it would take too long.). You don’t see it.
I see a similar obligation when I go to a Jew’s lamb roast. As a guest, I have an obligation to be polite, respectful and grateful. I’m certainly not going to spit on him and call him names.
As for my last post, you have no evidence that I consider your action “immoral” or that I’m being “malicious”. Those are ridiculous claims.
I don’t think that it’s unreasonable. I have a choice of agree or not agreeing. I can choose not to participate under those conditions. I can go to other forums with other policies. I can choose to use other mediums of expression.
The availability of other options is an important aspect here. If I was both required to sign and required to participate under some sort of threat … I would have a problem with that.
I think that creates a conflict with creators of content - patent and copyright protection of work. You seem to be saying that if a singer performs in a public venue, then the performance becomes public property and anyone can distribute it. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Similarly when an invention is sold to the public, then anyone can copy it. Again, I don’t think that is right.
I think that you are mixing up inventing the rules of a game, enforcing the established rules and changing rules during a game.
Someone can invent a game with specific rules. Nobody compels you to play the game if you don’t like the rules.
When you agree to play, then you are agreeing to the rules. An “authority” can then enforce the rules. And this is much more efficient than relying on some sort of general vote.
A really problematic issue arises when there is no authority enforcing the rules and there is a dispute on what the rules are, how they should be interpreted, which rules to add and which to drop. The game become unplayable because there are essentially no fixed rules.
Disputes like that can be settled by a vote between games. Then potential players can decide whether they want to play under those rules in the next game.
That’s not excuse for you to assert that I have not addressed your question.
Yes but the agreement may not be legal (or moral) which depends on who is invited in and who is audience of the webcam.
Behavior is different from speech.
Spitting is action and behavior which is assault. Calling of names falls under speech which is protected if the roast was public. Of course, calling of names could be slander if the names called imply falsity, which is illegal. If I call you a filthy jew and you’re neither dirty nor jewish, then that could be slander. But if you are dirty and jewish, then it’s a statement of fact.
To avoid your question would be immoral and your assertion then was accusing me of being immoral. That’s substantiated and not ridiculous. I can’t prove malicious intent, which is why I said it “smells of” malicious intent, but if you’re accusing me of being immoral when I have not, then it very well could be malicious unless it was an honest mistake.
So we’re back to lack of scarcity undermining the need for the fairness doctrine. Because other forums exist, then no one forum need be fair.
It’s purely theoretical because in reality, there are only so many financial shows. CNBC, Fox business, and RT. The commie Russians don’t mind Peter sharing his videos while the capitalist CNBC does. Interesting
And there are only so many philosophy forums and while it’s true I could start another, I couldn’t start one that said “provoking thought since 2001”. The field is not level. What domain names are left? Philosophy1014U? The field is not level and scarcity does exist.
That’s why we have concert filmings on youtube.
Why isn’t it right to copy it? What is not right is selling the copy for profit. But I can copy anything I see for my own use.
I can’t copy music and sell it, but I can copy and listen and even let other people listen.
Rules should be determined by the players of the game, not those who do not play. Why take the power from your own hands in determining what is right for you and place it into someone else’s hands? You said you do not want to be a daddy on here, but why do you need a daddy to tell you what is right and wrong? Simply because it’s more efficient???
So because it’s more efficient and faster to shoot someone in the head rather than argue with them, we should implement that policy?
Oh really? Can you name a game that has not had its rules determined by the players?
The rules of chess were designed by the players of the game. Each card game was designed by those who were playing the card game. A group of guys playing with a ball decided they should have some rules to define a game… and then appointed someone to be a referee who could take an objective view and be impartial judge to enforce the rules they made.
I shoot billiards with random fellas and we make the rules up as we go along. “Ball in hand or let it slide?” “Is the break a called-shot or does the ball pocketed determine who is solids?” How we want to play the game is our business to decide.
Rules of games are whatever the players decide them to be and aren’t dictated by those who don’t play. You can play by dictation if you choose to, but ultimately it is by your choice to let someone else tell you what to do.
Why would you?
