the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

How do you “win” against retards?

By reducing them to a simple algorithm which can be used to program bots that will mimic their behavior almost perfectly.

iambiguous is already predictable . . . He need not post at all, I will post instead of him.

iambiguous: What does this have to do with the particular way in which blah blah blah?

Zero interaction, zero adaptation, nothing, nada, nula, nuletina.

You do not, you also do not have to respond. It’s just a waste of your time, Lev, you being an emotionally intellegent man in his 50’s or 60’s or whatever, has much better things to do in his spare time.

I am just a child, remember?

Another warning, another (4 day) ban for Magnus Anderson.

Well, my point revolves around clarity:

Clear to me [re the OP] is the extent to which the objectivists are able to translate their didactic intellectual contraptions into an argument that integrates their words and the world that we live in. At least as it relates to conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

Now, if one is asked to make a philosophical determination regarding the morality of abortion, one can claim an argument exists that encompasses all abortions universally, or one can claim [as folks like von rivers often did here] that, while a universal morality does not exist, it is still possible to attain an objective assessment pertaining to each particular abortion.

But consider:

In the United States, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Of all unintended pregnancies, 4 in 10 are aborted. There are approximately 1.21 million abortions in America each year.

So, per the von rivers perspective, there are approximately 1.2 million objective moral truths a year. And that’s just in the United States.

And what then are the “epistemological” parameters of all of this? What is the “serious philosopher” to make of it?

Yes, that’s true. And I have addressed this issue on other threads. For example, Mary might have in fact been pregnant and she might have in fact induced an abortion. But only Mary was ever aware of this. So, even here, God is necessary, isn’t He? Still, either Mary was pregnant or she was not, either she induced the abortion or she did not. How are we able in turn [philosophically] to determine if Mary’s abortion was or was not moral? I always come back to that distinction, right? The one that seems considerably more rooted in the objective truth rather than the subjective opinion.

Okay, I am still, technically, making this “category error”. My epistemology is still out of whack.

But let’s get back to this:

Some argue that abortion is immoral. The reason? We should not kill the unborn.
Some argue that abortion is moral. The reason? Women should not be forced to give birth.
But we can’t live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?

Now, how would a serious philosopher well-schooled in all branches of epistemolgy respond to that and not make a single solitary “category error” at all? That’s what I am after, of course.

As I note time and again, my chief aim here is to discover the extent to which the tools of philosophy are or are not applicable in making a moral determination when human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. And then the extend to which our individual value judgments might be embedded in the manner in which I construe dasein. And then, finally, the extent to which my “dasein dilemma” might be deemed unreasonable.

I welcome all epistemologists and serious philosophers in exploring this with me. But sooner or later they have to take their technical excellence down to earth. They can’t all be James S. Saint, right?

Yes, well this [to me] is precisely the sort of didactic rhetoric I have come to expect from the folks at KTS. What in the world does it have to do with discussions that revolve around conflicting value judgments in a world sans God?

And while in fact it may well have a great deal to do with them, when do we get to explore this pertaining to an issue like abortion “down here”? I’m still not really certain what your own ideas are here. What would the optimal argument sound like free of all category errors?

Obviously, given the number of times in the past that I have changed my mind regarding the relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, I am more than willing to acknowledge that I might change my mind again. That frame of mind is, after all, at the very heart and the very soul of my ever pointing out the extent to which dasein and conflicting goods are awash in contingency, chance and change.

Now, what exactly are your objections to the manner in which I construe dasein as it relates to the accumulation of value judgments “in the head” of any particular individual? How do you encompass your own value judgments here? How are they related to your philosophical precepts and your pantheistic religious framework?

What say you regarding the morality of abortion? Or, again, pick another issue altogether.

Come on, my friend, we have both gone down the polemical path here on this thread. And on other threads. Don’t put the burden all on me.

In fact, I tend to engage polemics to the extent that it seems aimed at me. For example, in my exchange with Arcturus Descending here there is not a hint of polemics. The exchange is entirely civil.

As for “process”, I try to make it as clear as I possibly can that this interest me only to the extent that it is integrated “out in the world” of actual conflicting goods. If others wish to explore it instead only with fellow “serious philosophers” let them go right ahead.

Anyway, thanks for this:

Over there, it’s all basically just entertainment. I think.

Probably because I am running out of time in which to integrate whatever philosophy might have to contribute to my life as it relates to the manner in which [here and now] I do understand the profoundly existential relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And if folks can’t or don’t or won’t bring their own understanding of it down to earth they can move on to the didactic abstractionists [Will Durants “epistemologists”] who are more than eager to explore all of this free of category errors.

“Up there”, as it were.

But, as I explained above to Arcturus Descending…

[b]…on other threads I have divulged an experience I had with “John” and “Mary”. John impregnated Mary. Mary chose to abort the baby. This led to the disintegration of their impending marriage. Why? Because John was infuriated that Mary would do this without first discussing it with him. And John was opposed to abortion.

John and Mary are not their real names. And the episode did not unfold on a college campus. I respected their privacy but choose to use this particular example as the manner in which I first came to piece together the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

It was a truly profound experience for me because up until then I had always viewed moral issues like this from the perspective of either/or. In other words, As a Christian, as an Objectivist, as a Marxist, as a Feminist. As an objectivist.
And it was around this time that I bumped into William Barrett’s The Irrational Man. And from that I bumped into this: [/b]

For the choice in…human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

And it was when I situated Barrett’s argument here in the experience I had with John and Mary, that I began to truly grasp what philosophers like Wittgenstein were suggesting: that there were profound limitations to language and logic pertaining to actual human interactions. Especially when they come into conflict over value judgments.

Over and again I make it clear that others can choose another issue of more interest to them. Hopefully however it will be one that most of us here will at least have some familiarity with.

When it comes to moral conflicts, there are always going to be those issues in which the consensus is either broad or narrow. With issues like abortion or capital punishment or the role of government or gun control or animal rights etc., there are generally large swaths of folks on both sides of the controversy.

But, as I explored recently with peacegirl on the determinism thread, even regarding a more extreme behavior like rape, in which the consensus is almost always overwhelmingly that such behavior is immoral, there is no way in which to establish philosophically that this is so objectively.

Or so it seems to me.

Here [in a world sans God] all any particular individual need do is to insist that morality revolves around that which he construes to self-fullilling or self-gratifying.

How then do the epistemologists or the serious philosophers demonstrate that this is necessarily false?

And while there are those, using that criteria, able to rationalize even sticking forks into the eyes of children, we have to remember there are those who view the killing of the unborn as far more egregious morally. And that’s before we get to those folks able to rationalize genocide or historical events like the Holocaust.

What then is chattel slavery or pedophilia or human sacrifice next to that? Again: In the absense of God all things can be rationalized. No less so than in the name of God all things can be.

But at least with God we have the [alleged] embodiment of omniscience and omnitpotence. Not so with mere mortals. Here [in my view] we are unable to extricate ourselves from the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Let me be specific about potential hypocrisy:
You say…

Now perhaps this was a point of information in an argument and did not include even a whiff of moral judgment. IOW since they respond this way, then this is the same as them thinking their argument will erase all objection. I don’t see it as the same since they assume that objectiion will continue. So I took this statement as at least in part moral judgment of their behavior.

Now the arguments I quickly tossed out for each side and not particularly the point. I just wanted to give examples and it does not really matter if the examples of the justifications fit you or KTS. Their certain are ones that do and they do not fit with eachother.

My point is that if you really want to put forward a position of moral relativism (epistemologically - iow one cannot determine), then you cannot then leap out of that position and make moral judgments and be consistant. You cannot even generalize and say that objectivists are causing problems, since we have no way TO AGREE ON what a problem is, since this will have value judgments in it.

One way to sum up this post is:

how does your position eliminate the arguments?

And if it doesn’t, and it clearly has not, so far, at least, why should this be a valid critique of other systems of belief?

The difference between you and myself is that I would never call you a moron - neither of you, Tricksie.
I used to be one of those senstive kids …what I mean by that is taking too much to heart what others said and thought about me. That kind of sensitive. At times I still have to be aware of it and work on it. We are a process. I believe that you are too, Tricksie. I grew up in an orphanage - it wasn’t called Mo-ron - so I not only know the meaning of sensitive, I lived it everyday. I may have actually been the most sensitive one there but not sure. i used to go hide in a closet and cry when I felt/knew I was being misunderstood/unloved. So being sensitive flowed through me. So don’t presume to know me and you need to work on not being so flippant. It isn’t the answer to your boredom. And sometimes “trying to be cute” becomes beyond bothersome.

And if you want to call what I wrote above as being sensitive - go right ahead. Who knows. I’ll reflect on it later - maybe - if there is any worth to it or I’ll just move on.

The realization for me is the manner in which I construe the relationship bewteen dasein and conflicting goods. However, for many who do not look at their own value judgments from that perspective, it becomes necessary to concoct an explanation that serves to keep their ego more or less intact. Rationalization is, after all, a psychological defense mechanism. You can still insist there is an objective right and wrong – it simply took you longer to finally pin it down. And a lot of this of course unfolds on the subconscious level.

I was once a supporter of the death penalty. But then some years ago, DNA testing had advanced to the point that every other week it seemed a new prisoner on death row had been found to be innocent. That really jolted my frame of mind.

But, still, my basic point today remains the same: That how we feel about an issue like capital punishment is going to reflect all of the existential variables in our life that predispose us to go in a particular direction. And that there is no one direction that is necessarily/objectively more rational or ethical than any other. Both sides will always seem to have points that the other side’s points don’t make go away. Just watch a film like Dead Man Walking to see how existentially wrenching these things can be.

Every time I turn on the news I am confronted with folks embracing opposite ends of one or another moral divide. And, as I came to succumb more and more to reasoning embedded in my “dasein dilemma”, I came to see how each side was able to rationalize their point of view simply by making certain assumptions about what is true. Thus regarding the death penality one side makes the assumption that a man who takes the life of another forfeits his own right to live. He caused them to suffer, now it is his turn. But then the other side points out that when you execute the man you cause suffering for his family and friends, for his loved ones. And then they cite can factors like race and class and [again] the possibility the man was wrongfully accused.

The same with all the other moral conflicts.

But what of those who argue that, in a Godless universe [an assumption they make], morality revolves solely around that which brings the individual pleasure, satisfaction, fullfillment? Or what of those who rationalize any number of behaviors that you may deem to be immoral [even heinous] in the name of one or another God? or in the name of one or another political ideology?

I am still looking for a philosophical argument able to demonstrate that those who do such things are necessarily/objectively irrational/immoral. Again, this is one of the crucial reasons why folks invent Gods and Ideologies: to acquire a so-called transcendental truth that trumps dasein.

And I don’t see my “dasein dilemma” as something that allows me to “thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability”. Trust me: If you thought about or understood these relationships as I do, you would not find the experience all that pleasant at all. Bur it basically comes down to the extent to which I can make others undertand this part:

Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. [u]At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.[/u]

This is either something you come to grasp intuitively or you don’t. And once it becomes embedded in the subjunctive self, it is anything but enjoyable.

Yes, but the manner in which I frame my own “moral judgments” is always ensnared in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And that is very different from those who assume that while objections will come and go, the manner in which they construe their own judgment is said to reflect the objective [rational, virtuous, noble] truth.

Or so it seems to me.

In other words, this frame of mind transcends the perspective of either the utilitarians or the deontologists. And that is before we get to the arguments of those who root morality instead in either purely narcissistic or purely religious assumptions.

To insult or to not insult is neither here nor there from the perspective of the moral nihilist. At least this one.

What I can do though is to focus the beam on an issue like abortion and flesh out the manner in which I construe this moral conflict as it relates in turn to the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Then for those who are in fact more sophisticated in their understanding of the tools of philosophy, they can then attempt an explanation of how my argument is not “technically” correct. Fine. I welcome that. But sooner or later using the tools of philosophy correctly they are going to have to utilize them to ascribe their own moral and political agenda “down here” in a world where actual abortions spark actual existential controversy.

My point is that, by the very nature of conflicting goods in a godless universe, the arguments of both sides will always prevail in some capacity. Why? Because re abortion we cannot live in a world where both the “good” associated with the birth of the unborn and the “good” associated with pregnant women having the right to choose prevail.

Instead, we must choose a world where those in power are able to dictate and then enforce their own value judgments or a world in which moderation, negotiation and compromise are able to sustain a political reconciliation.

Are you aware of a concept called “Flux”? If a sensitive kid grows up, overcomes his sensitivity, and is no longer sensitive, and he goes to groups and enjoys them, well then, boy, we don’t draw the conclusion that groups attract sensitive kids, because it’s not anyone sensitive, nor it is a kid, drawn to the group, boy, its an entirely different flux of personality.

Trixie,

I can almost laugh at that Trixie. Flux is one of my favorite words in the English language - it’s practically my middle name. Aside from the fact that there is flux, there is also ebbing, which of course flows within the same wave. As i said, life is a process. You know this.

There are sometimes “residuals” Trixie. We are not finished entities. I flow and ebb. I myself sometimes like groups but not often- I like ilp but for the most part I would prefer to be one and one or sit in the present of those little creatures or critters or sit in the presence of a tree. Beautiful introjection going on there. lol

Aside from that, I can’t quite grasp the second half of what you said above. And there are groups which attract sensitive kids - they’re called terrorist groups, and some religious organizations too.

And look again ‘we must choose’…
and then you go on an express what you clearly think is a self evident good. You are an objectivist, except when you this is pointed out to you and then you add a disclaimer.

How could you possibly know, given your own epistemology/nihilism, that this is something we must do?

For all you know that might make the world worse.

I know you can say what you say about dasein and where you come from. I am saying that this ability you have on occasion to do this does not preclude your being an objectivist, and you are one. You can choose to accept that you are one and see why you do in fact think it is alright to draw objective and certain conclusions or you can pretend you are one thing while being another. Since it has seemed like part of the intent of publically discussing this issue to is resolve, if it were possible, something, to me one must start where one is and resolve it from there. Many people confuse what they think makes sense with what they believe and you seem to be one of them. (and this is not an odd fringe idea, that one can be like this. Much of modern cognitive science supports the idea that people can be confused about their own beliefs, epistemology, motivations and so on)

Hey Morono, I have a question, Morono, are you following me, Morono, I have a question for you, Morono, and this text here, Morono, quoting your own text, Morono, yes I am talking to you, Morono, I want some further clarification on it, Morono, can you please, Morono, explain it, Morono, to me, Morono, will you, Morono, this is the text, Morono:

What did he live through, Morono, can you explain to us little armchair ubermenschen, Morono, what did he live through, Morono, I would be glad to hear that, Morono, don’t make me beg, Morono.

If you are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy how are you not going to choose to either abort it or not abort it?

And if abortion is construed to be a capital crime in your own political jurisdiction and a woman you know has had an abortion how are you not going to choose to either inform the authorities or not?

As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and econonomically there are going to be moral and political conflicts. Right? Now, you can of course choose to go off on your own and live isolated from the rest of humanity. Then morality is moot, isn’t it? Unless, of course, you believe in God.

But most us [for whatever personal reasons] are basically obligated to interact with others such that [eventually] what we want to do will clash with what others want us to do instead. And often over value judgments derived from the actual life that we have lived.

I am simply noting here that when these inevitable conflicts occur, power can dictate the outcome or moderation, negotiation and compromise can be opted for.

Now, pertaining to abortion [or any other moral impasse], what is this “self-evident” good that I am noting? How are my options here not clearly rooted instead in my “dasein dilemma”?

Do you even grasp the point I am trying to make regarding this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

My whole point here is that making the world better or worse by forcing women to give birth or allowing the unborn to die in granting women the right to choose, is ever embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. There is no objective better or worse.

Or, rather, where is the philosophical argument that would suggest otherwise?

Again, if you wish to ascribe my point of view here as just another example of objectivism, fine. But [as I see it] that is just to say that anytime anyone believes a particular argument that they make is a reasonable one, that makes them an objectivist. Yet I clearly note [over and again] how often in the past I have embraced a particular moral/political agenda only to have a new set of experiences, relationships, ideas etc. come along and upend it. And I certainly don’t exclude moral nihilism here.

But where is the argument now that convinces me to move on? Yet no matter what I might move on to I will still have folks like you claiming that I am an objectivist. As though there is absolutely no distinction to be made between the inherent ambiguity embedded in my views on the morality of abortion and those on either side of the issue who insist that [re either God or Reason] their agenda reflects the one true objective good.

You arguments are interesting but you seem obsessed with channelling them all through “Dasein”. This obsessive reductionism does not work, as the term is incapable of accommodating all that traffic.
And since Dasein is a significantly contested concept, it’s appearance in your posts act more like the appearance of a shibboleth.

If you want to have a self referring “dialogue”, you can only expect it always to descend into a monologue in which you learn nothing, and teach less.

On the contrary, over and again, I make it abundantly clear that with respect to dasein [small d] I am actually excluding the preponderence of components that constitute our interactions with others.

Also, dasein is irrelevant with respect to the laws of science, the logical rules of language, the actual empirical reality that encompasses the world that we live in.

Think about what transpires in the course of going about your day. These are experiences in which dasein is seamlessly intermeshed in the multitude of facts that have come to be your life. Most times, you don’t really think about what you are doing [at home, on the job, being around others etc.] in terms of your “identity” at all.

Instead, it is only when what you are doing comes into conflict with another that you may be forced to think about how you might be doing something else instead. Why do you believe particular behaviors are right that others believe are wrong? How do we actually come to these very personal conclusions? I merely suggest that in large part with respect to “conflicting goods” identity is rooted largely in this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Of course, the reason dasein appears so frequently in my posts is that I also make it abundantly clear that philosophy is interesting to me only insofar as it is useful in answering the question, “how ought one to live?”

Which sooner or later brings me back to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The irony then being that I come into places like this looking for arguments that might actually extricate me from this truly godawful “dilemma”.

Maybe, but the points that I raise regarding the relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy either are or are not reasonable.

And folks either are or are not able to demonstrate to me that how they construe them instead is more reasonable still.

But I suspect [and this is purely conjectural] that many folks abandon exchanges with me because they sense that maybe I am on to something here. And if I am then maybe, just maybe, what I am on to is also applicable to them. But thinking like me is the last thing most folks want to be burdoned with. Instead, they find it more comforting and consoling living in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Or so it seems to me.

Besides, as most well know from viewing my religion, determinism, film, song and mundane ironists threads, it’s not like the only thing I contribute here is reduced down to dasein.

Look what I found:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSMA19xJGLA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mox_1rozE-A[/youtube]

Dude, you don’t even know what objectivism is lol.

You’re not being ironic, are you? :astonished:

She’s like a caricature of a cartoon character Randroid.

Oh, and [of course] she’s a Kid. :wink:

So, have you nailed her yet?

But isn’t objectivist someone who thinks he’s better than everyone else?