Public Information?

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:35 pm

Have you ever considered that the only people who challenge me and lead to those long threads are the one who happened to have been wrong about something that is easy to be wrong about?
You can say that they are wrong simply because you have set yourself up as the only authority. You are the judge, jury and only expert witness in these discussions.

In professional physics, scientists will do experiments to arrive at an understanding of what is happening. They make predictions based on theory and test the accuracy of the prediction. Not you. You base everything on your flawed logic. You predict nothing and you test nothing.

You do not take advantage of current experimental results to support your proposed theories. You deny the legitimacy of scientific research. You question the honesty, integrity and intelligence of scientists. That gives you permission to reject any existing theory or experiment with the wave of your hand.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
Have you ever considered that the only people who challenge me and lead to those long threads are the one who happened to have been wrong about something that is easy to be wrong about?
You can say that they are wrong simply because you have set yourself up as the only authority. You are the judge, jury and only expert witness in these discussions.

That is your strawman.
Logic is the judge.
Nullius in Verba - Science is not accepting whatever you are told that scientists have done. That's "Religion".

But regardless, you are still doing nothing but ad hom, character assassination tactics (and lying - the inevitable result).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:56 pm

But regardless, you are still doing nothing but ad hom, character assassination tactics.
I'm just describing your posting behavior.

It might be helpful information for someone.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:45 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.


imb, please do not twist the definitions.


Again: I'm less interested in exchanging definitions here then in exploring the extent to which anyone's particular definition of objectivism is [or can be] integrated into the world of human interactions that come into conflict.

Here the conflict revolves around exchanging public information. We all have different points of view [derived from dasein] and we all have different arguments regarding whether revealing Jakob's full name here [his "real identity" at ILP] was okay or not okay.

Now, can this be established objectively? Is there "one absolute perfect perception" of the truth here? Or, instead, will the arguments revolve more around the subjective assumptions of particular individuals? In my view, at best we can form an intersubjective consensus. And then the powers that be [the moderators and administrators] will weigh in and decide what the actual "rule" [ruling] here will be. Perhaps they might note this sort of thing in the forum rules.

Unless, of course, you [or another] are able to establish this "one absolute perfect perception" of the objective truth here.

And [for me] relativism revolves around the assumptions embedded in what I have come to call the "dasein dilemma". This:

If I am of the opinion that 1] my own moral/political values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective moral/political values "I" can reach [in a world of conflicting goods], then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am acknowledging that I might have -- or might just as well have -- gone in another direction instead.

Now, I'm not saying that this is true objectively. I'm merely pointing out it is how I think about these relationships in the here and now. But, sure, you or another might then offer me an argument that nudges [or propels] me into accepting another argument instead. After all, this has happened any number of times to me in the past.

In the interim though how do we establish once and for all whether James was right or wrong?

In other words, in the same way that we can establish that he did in fact reveal Jakob's full name.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:57 pm

phyllo wrote:If someone has a problem with James' logic, then that person must try again. He must try to follow.
If someone gets frustrated with James' inability to accept reasoning, then that person is going psycho.
If someone gets so feed up with James' stonewalling that he leaves the thread, then that person is running away because he is trapped by James' logic.


Again, in my view, this is spot on. I simply note that 1] it is more or less applicable to other moral and political objectivists and 2] that this frame of mind is derived less from a quest for the philosophical truth and more from one particular manifestation of human psychology. In other words, the manner in which we seem predisposed to anchor "I" [the ego] in one or another "whole truth".
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby zinnat » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:I'm less interested in exchanging definitions


But, knowingly or unknowingly, you gave a new definition to the objectivism.

iambiguous wrote:
But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.


Was that not a defination of for an objectivist? Objectivists never ever consider others more rational than themselves.

You are putting forth a wrong definition of objectivism by saying indirectly that Objectivists are some sort of egostic persons who do not like hear anyone else. That is what i am objecting.

An Objectivist claims that there can be one absolute perfection. But, this does not entail the claim that his version should be considered as an absolute. There is a huge difference between two mindsets. But, you are making a sweeping statement and painting everyone with a same brush.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:52 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I'm less interested in exchanging definitions


But, knowingly or unknowingly, you gave a new definition to the objectivism.


Yes, I have discussed this sort of thing with others here. For example, with respect to the manner in which I construe the meaning of "nihilism" or "dasein".

But they seem more intent on establishing the manner in which a serious philosopher would [must] define [objectively] the meaning of these terms. But, again, I tend to focus more on the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of words such as these in the context of identity, value judgments and political economy. The existential relationship between them.

I ask them to implicate [situate] their own definitions "down here", i.e. out in the world where actual individual daseins come into conflict over behaviors alleged to be either right and wrong.

Can this be done?

iambiguous wrote:
But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.


zinnat13 wrote:Was that not a defination of for an objectivist? Objectivists never ever consider others more rational than themselves.


Have you ever come across one here that did? But you are right: I should not have used the words "never ever". I should have pointed out that, from my own many, many, many experiences with moral and political objectivists in forums such as this, I cannot recall a single one who was willing to acknowledge that their own argument might not be the most rational [objective] description of reality. Or at least the part they focused on.

And my focus is less on objectivists being "egotistic" and more on the manner in which their convictions might revolve around this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

zinnat13 wrote:An Objectivist claims that there can be one absolute perfection. But, this does not entail the claim that his version should be considered as an absolute. There is a huge difference between two mindsets. But, you are making a sweeping statement and painting everyone with a same brush.


Again, with regard to my own experiences with moral and political objectivists, there was not a whole lot of room between them arguing for an absolute objective truth and them arguing that they have found it. But, true, that isn't always neccessarily the case.
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby zinnat » Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I'm less interested in exchanging definitions


But, knowingly or unknowingly, you gave a new definition to the objectivism.


Yes, I have discussed this sort of thing with others here. For example, with respect to the manner in which I construe the meaning of "nihilism" or "dasein".

But they seem more intent on establishing the manner in which a serious philosopher would [must] define [objectively] the meaning of these terms. But, again, I tend to focus more on the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of words such as these in the context of identity, value judgments and political economy. The existential relationship between them.

I ask them to implicate [situate] their own definitions "down here", i.e. out in the world where actual individual daseins come into conflict over behaviors alleged to be either right and wrong.

Can this be done?

iambiguous wrote:
But James, as with all objectivists, will never, ever concede that any argument other than his own is the most rational.


zinnat13 wrote:Was that not a defination of for an objectivist? Objectivists never ever consider others more rational than themselves.


Have you ever come across one here that did? But you are right: I should not have used the words "never ever". I should have pointed out that, from my own many, many, many experiences with moral and political objectivists in forums such as this, I cannot recall a single one who was willing to acknowledge that their own argument might not be the most rational [objective] description of reality. Or at least the part they focused on.

And my focus is less on objectivists being "egotistic" and more on the manner in which their convictions might revolve around this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

zinnat13 wrote:An Objectivist claims that there can be one absolute perfection. But, this does not entail the claim that his version should be considered as an absolute. There is a huge difference between two mindsets. But, you are making a sweeping statement and painting everyone with a same brush.


Again, with regard to my own experiences with moral and political objectivists, there was not a whole lot of room between them arguing for an absolute objective truth and them arguing that they have found it. But, true, that isn't always neccessarily the case.


It seems to me that you understood my point and why i objected. That is all i wanted.

By the way, by broder definition and mindset too, i am also an objectivist but i listen and value others perceptions and even amend my previous perceptions if i ever find any more appropriate new one in others.

And, i am not an exception but there are many other people like me. Forget about philosophy and philosophical forums, my guess is that a good majority of the people follow that practice in the real world in their lives. They use to have a particular POV of any issue but keep altering and amending with more rational newer versions.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
But regardless, you are still doing nothing but ad hom, character assassination tactics.
I'm just describing your posting behavior.

It might be helpful information for someone.

No. It is called slander when you lie about someone else in public.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby phoneutria » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:03 pm

Image
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:21 pm

phoneutria wrote:Image


Hmm. Let's ask Erik and Lys if they agree.

And, sure, why not, Satyr.
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:14 am

phoneutria wrote:Image

One must wonder who proposed that argument ... on the internet.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby phoneutria » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:45 pm

Probably someone watching a debate from the sidelines while doing a lot of facepalms.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:23 pm

zinnat13 wrote:...by broder definition and mindset too, i am also an objectivist but i listen and value others perceptions and even amend my previous perceptions if i ever find any more appropriate new one in others.


Yes, but based on my own experience with moral and political objectivists, you are the rare exception.

And while many do change their mind about right and wrong over the years, they still hold to the belief that there is in fact a clear distinction to be made between moral and immoral behavior. They were simply wrong before but now they are right.

Anyway, can you give us some examples of what you once believed was true objectively...but then changed your mind based on new experiences or sources of information?

And, if you can, aren't you then acknowledging that this may well happen again?

Me, I hold the particular views that I do now pertaining to the issue at hand -- revealing public information about a member in a venue such as this one. But I have no illusions that my views reflect a moral obligation for all rational men and women. And I know that the very next post might contain an argument that nudges me in the other direction.
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:26 pm

And while many do change their mind about right and wrong over the years, they still hold to the belief that there is in fact a clear distinction to be made between moral and immoral behavior.
And the subjectivist believes that there is no clear distinction between moral and immoral behavior?
Ouch.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:34 pm

Me, I hold the particular views that I do now pertaining to the issue at hand -- revealing public information about a member in a venue such as this one. But I have no illusions that my views reflect a moral obligation for all rational men and women. And I know that the very next post might contain an argument that nudges me in the other direction.
And the post after that may again change your mind.

How can you be trusted?

At any moment you may hear an argument which convinces you that slitting throats is appropriate. You instantly become a bloodthirsty murderer.

Are you not a puppet to any charismatic leader with the gift of rhetoric?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:31 pm

phyllo wrote:
Me, I hold the particular views that I do now pertaining to the issue at hand -- revealing public information about a member in a venue such as this one. But I have no illusions that my views reflect a moral obligation for all rational men and women. And I know that the very next post might contain an argument that nudges me in the other direction.
And the post after that may again change your mind.

How can you be trusted?


I addressed this above:

And [for me] relativism revolves around the assumptions embedded in what I have come to call the "dasein dilemma". This:

If I am of the opinion that 1] my own moral/political values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective moral/political values "I" can reach [in a world of conflicting goods], then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am acknowledging that I might have -- or might just as well have -- gone in another direction instead.


What I am waiting for is an argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate to me why this is not a reasonable way in which to construe the relationship between 1] the manner in which we come to acquire an identity and 2] the manner in which one might approach opposing moral/political agendas in a world of conflicting goods.

phyllo wrote:At any moment you may hear an argument which convinces you that slitting throats is appropriate. You instantly become a bloodthirsty murderer.


Any number of folks have already rationalized this behavior. Perhaps in the name of God [ridding the world of infidels] or perhaps because they have come to conclude that in a world without God fulfilling their own wants and needs is all the justification they need to do anything.

So, where is the philosophical argument from an objectivist able to demonstrate that either of these moral agendas is necessarily irrational?

Do you have one? One that isn't based on whatever it is you happen to believe [here and now] "in your head" is moral or immoral?
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:40 pm

Please answer the question:

How can you be trusted?

Your actions are based on how convincing the latest argument was ... your behavior is built on shifting sand.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:09 pm

phyllo wrote:Please answer the question:

How can you be trusted?

Your actions are based on how convincing the latest argument was ... your behavior is built on shifting sand.


No, obviously, I cannot be trusted. Not with respect to my moral and political value judgments. And, more to the point, I cannot even trust myself.

And for all of the reasons I have expressed above with respect to what I construe to be the dilemma inherent in dasein.

Consider:

Suppose Bob gets a call from Sally asking if he would be willing to drive her to a Planned Parenthood clinic next week. She is scheduled to get an abortion.

He's pro-choice, so he says that he will.

Well, suppose in the interim, he does have a new experience or he does come into contact with a new argument that convinces him that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

My point is that trust with respect to value judgments will always be problematic because we never really know what might happen to change our minds. Also, that there is no way in which we can be certain objectively which behaviors are necessarily right and wrong. Or, rather, I have not come across a way.

Shit, I still remember the enormous gap between my moral and political value judgments before and after I spent a year as a soldier in Vietnam. Before I was absolutely certain about the morality of many things [and rooted it in God]. After I was just as certain that those things were immoral [and rooted it in Reason].

But at least back then I still believed that there was a way to make an objective distinction.
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: 27784
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:35 pm

It seems that your only stability comes from inertia. You heard some arguments and these form your beliefs. If someone comes along with another argument then you will hang on to your previous belief because of inertia. If the argument is strong enough to overcome your inertia, then you will adopt the new belief.
An objectivist would change if a new belief seemed to be closer to some objective truth. A subjectivist changes because of the quality of the argument and not some reference to objective reality. For him, there is no objectively better POV - all are equal.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby phoneutria » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:05 am

phyllo, would you not be persuaded by a strong argument?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Public Information?

Postby Ben JS » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:12 am

phyllo wrote:How can you be trusted?

Trust is at the discretion of the person allocating trust.

The living can't be trusted to stay the same, but they can be trusted to change in predictable fashions.

One can predict the odds, and go from there.

-

I think it's only fair to expect us to act to the best of our knowledge. Ignorance is a fundamental aspect of existence, and it's only expected we make mistakes - but inaction can just as easily be a mistake.

We're thrown into an environment where we're forced to make choices - to place bets, even if it's the choice to resist making other choices.

phyllo wrote:Are you not a puppet to any charismatic leader with the gift of rhetoric?

We're all puppets.

It goes way deeper than just to other people.

==
==

iam wrote:every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am acknowledging that I might have -- or might just as well have -- gone in another direction instead.

You are something. You are many things.

All these things influence you.

Everything you do is true, but not everything is ideal for you.

To act in a way that harms you - undermines that which you are, your highest priorities - to act this way is not neutral to you. You could act this way, but there's clear reason why you wouldn't. It's not all 'just as well' to the bias living organism.

iam wrote:Do you have one? One that isn't based on whatever it is you happen to believe [here and now] "in your head" is moral or immoral?

Your body. Your mind. Your environment.

These are - they're beyond moral and immoral.

They create moral and immoral. They create the interest to differentiate between the two. They're the source of all questioning.

To ignore them, is to self-sabotage.
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

ben wrote:I think it is eloquently fitting that my farewell thread should be so graciously hijacked by such blatant penis waving. It condenses my entire ILP experience into one very manageable metaphor.
User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Public Information?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:21 am

You were born into a war, a victim before you could even speak.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby zinnat » Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:18 am

iambiguous wrote:Yes, but based on my own experience with moral and political objectivists, you are the rare exception.


I do not think that i am an exception. On the contrary, i think a majority of people follow that methodology, may be not in the anonymity on internet forums but certainly in the real world.

A very common example is voting pattern. People keep changing their preferences with time and circumstances for candidates and parties too. Is it not the change of objective judgments by millions of people continuously? And also, do people marry, divorce and marry with other partners again and again? Is that also not another example of changing objective opinion by millions of people on regular basis?

iambiguous wrote:And while many do change their mind about right and wrong over the years, they still hold to the belief that there is in fact a clear distinction to be made between moral and immoral behavior. They were simply wrong before but now they are right.


That is true. And, that will always be the difference between objectivist and relativist. A true Objectivist will always keep looking for better alternatives. He will judge those of the benchmark of rationality and logic and will amending himself for the better. And, i do not see anything wrong in it.

On the other hand, a relativist will never able to decide what is wrong or right, thus there is no scope of betterment. I do not see it as a better alternative for objectivism.

iambiguous wrote:Anyway, can you give us some examples of what you once believed was true objectively...but then changed your mind based on new experiences or sources of information?


There are many. Firstly, i became complete theist from agnostic or soft atheist about 20 years back. But, i cannot give you proof of that to you here. Thus, i am providing something that happened at ILP itself.

Re: Adages & Proverbs
by zinnat13 » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:02 am

Something is possible because something is impossible. James S. saint.

My first impression was that it must be wrong but when i thought over it, i found it true
.

with love,
sanjay


And, you can see that i accepted without any hesitation that i was wrong. My ego cannot stop me for to change for the better, if i ever find any.

iambiguous wrote:And, if you can, aren't you then acknowledging that this may well happen again?


Yes, that may happen again. So what? What is a big deal in it? I will opt for better alternative again. But, i will not keep judgment pending if i think that i have enough to take a call. Of course, i may be wrong. But, as i am open to challenge and change, my wrong perceptions would be challenged and corrected too with the time. Thus, with every amendment, i will move one step closer to pure objectivity. That is precisely what science does. The science also follows objectivism, not relativism. Otherwise, it would never able to progress.

imb, the the problem comes when someone thinks that no one but he can be right only and stop listening others. That is what stops improvement.

iambiguous wrote:Me, I hold the particular views that I do now pertaining to the issue at hand -- revealing public information about a member in a venue such as this one. But I have no illusions that my views reflect a moral obligation for all rational men and women. And I know that the very next post might contain an argument that nudges me in the other direction.


In that case, by definition, you are an objectivist, not relativist. As soon as you form as opinion, you become objectivist by default. It does not matter whether you are open for the change or not.

If you are open to change, you are a good objectivist, otherwise a bad one, but objectivist in either case. I true relativist will never form an opinion, whether temporary or permanent. Relativism simply means no objective opinion can be formed ever.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Public Information?

Postby phyllo » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:30 pm

Trust is at the discretion of the person allocating trust.
Yes but the trust is based on the consistent behavior of the other person. You don't trust someone who does change or could change unpredictably.
The living can't be trusted to stay the same, but they can be trusted to change in predictable fashions.
The way Iambig was posted makes me question why we should believe that would change in a predictable fashion. I mean if, as he says, there is 'no clear distinction between moral and immoral' , then he could easily switch.
We're all puppets.
That's not really true, is it? There is a great deal of personal choice and autonomous behavior.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users