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.
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).
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.
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”.
But, knowingly or unknowingly, you gave a new definition to the objectivism.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
[b]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.[/b]
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.
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?
No, obviously, I cannot be trusted. Not with respect to my moral and political value judgments. And, more to the point, [u]I cannot even trust myself[/u].
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.
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.
