But this basically reflects the subjunctive reaction that most will have to behaviors that are deemed to be particularly ghastly. We ourselves simply cannot imagine not being appalled morally by those behaviors.
Yet had circumstances been such in my life that I came to embrace a sociopathic frame of mind, then any and all behaviors are sanctioned if 1] it gratifies me and 2] I am willing to accept the consequences of being caught by those who are in fact appalled by what I do.
And this all becomes entangled in a profoundly problematic intertwining of variables rooted in nature and variables rooted in nurture. Which in turn becomes embodied in any particular individual’s life.
But: What is the philosophical argument [in a world sans God] establishing that setting fire to the orphanage and blocking the exits is necessarily irrational and immoral?
Sure, subjectively, I can think of any number of arguments for not setting that fire. And it is true that, given the manner in which existentially I have become “me”, I can’t imagine doing it myself. But in my view that is not the same as establishing that those who do choose to do so [for whatever personal reason] are essentially, objectively, ontologically…Evil.
Isn’t that precisely why the Gods are invented? So that behaviors of this sort are not able to be rationalized by mere mortals?
Besides, you speak of setting fire to that orphanage as though there are not any number of folks in the pro-life movement who basically argue that the killing of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of unborn human babies each and every year is not in fact all that much more irrational and immoral.
iam - You have consistently failed to justify why anyone should consider a sociopath just as capable as you or me in making moral judgments. By definition, the sociopath is not as capable.
There is none and there are people who say there is one.
My friendly advice is to get over this. There is no conclusive argument against this act (outside of a specific context). No argument ever means anything at all outside of some context. No utterance means anything at all outside of some context. No political negotiation means anything outside of some context.
It is not productive to ask which philosophical argument accomplishes anything outside of a context. That context includes culture and it includes assumptions.
That’s just the way it is. Why can you not accept this? You ask the same question over and over - but there will still be people who think that Rationalism, or “objectivism” even means anything.
So what?
Yes, gods are invented to provide the ultimate appeal to authority. So what?
A baby died. These posts will not allow you to grieve or get over any guilt you feel. This line of (non)thinking won’t. It’s a dead end.
I’m not sure how you meant “#1 revolves around human consciousness itself [the nature of it]” but it definitely doesn’t requiring an understanding of my theory of consciousness (otherwise I’d be the only one who could potential be caught in prong #1). Again, though my theory is certainly my “ism”, these conflicts you’re talking about–whether prong #1 or prong #2–have nothing to do with it. I mean, I’m sure the nature of consciousness has a lot to do with it, but it doesn’t hinge on my “ism”–you could have an entirely different theory of consciousness, and you will still have prong #1 and prong #2 as “dilemmas” that we all have to deal with in this world, and if this other theory of consciousness turns out to be true, I’m sure you could draw some pretty substantial links between it and prongs #1 and #2. But even given that, prong #1 has way more to do with your theory than mine–it has to do with the self “fragmenting”–not consciousness being the foundation of being (<-- though that obviously has implications for everything ← Literally!).
IOW, I take your meaning of the self “fragmenting” as a “dilemma”. Wouldn’t you feel something like Sartre’s existential angst if you felt yourself “fragmenting”? Wouldn’t that be a “dilemma”? ← And can’t that be distinguished from the dilemma of being in conflict with other people? Does a pro-choice advocate feel herself “fragmenting” every time she disagrees with a pro-life advocate? I would think when it comes to conflict with others, we do everything in our power to keep ourselves together–we would need to in order to feel we are right (thereby allowing ourselves to argue our point). So in a sense, not only is there a distinction to be made between prong #1 and prong #2, but they might be polar opposites–prong #2 being the dilemma of how to win when pitted against the other, prong #1 being the dilemma of how to deal with one’s own self-destruction (i.e. fragmentation) when submitting to the other. ← I don’t think any one or other particular theory of consciousness has much to do with this–except in the trivial sense that this sometimes happens to people in virtue of being conscious human beings.
Ok, so it seems like your approach–indeed, your “dilemma”–is an inquisitive one with an eye for persuasive objectivist arguments. ← You described this a few times in this threads as just a matter of curiosity… just wondering if you might be wrong after all, that there might be an objectivist argument that holds water even by your standards. It seems like you’ve encountered a dead-end of sorts (in something like a philosophical maze) and you’re looking for a reason to backtrack–but not so much to return to a previous point you were once at (at least, not as an end in itself) but just to give yourself the opportunity to try another path.
^ This may be why we’re having such difficulty understanding each other. I’m trying to suggest a different path but I’m failing to appreciate that I first need to help you backtrack and arrive where I’m currently at (it doesn’t do much good for one to tell another “go that way” when the one is no where near the spot where the other’s at).
You’ve rejected objectivism and arrived at nihilism. I’ve rejected objectivist and arrived at subjectivism. It seems that in order to backtrack, you have to embrace some form of objectivism once again just in order to attempt a different path–and you seem to realize this on a semi-conscious level which is why you’re always on the lookout for a convincing objectivist argument.
Unfortunately, I don’t seem to be able to convey to you the technique of going anywhere you want in the maze, going down any which path you want. And this difficulty is not just with you, but is typical of any objectivist (or anyone who is still clinging to a past objectivism). They say: what’s objectively real is just where I’m at. Anywhere else is not reality. I say: it’s all just one big frickin’ maze–it doesn’t matter where you’re at. This allows me to move about the maze freely–and in the end, find the exit; I like to delve into other people’s thoughts and perspectives which is the same as delving back into the maze, but I often make the mistake of aiming for a common “meeting place”–like a foyer (metaphorical for common/conventional, usually objectivist, perspectives on the world)–and with you I’ve been failing to appreciate you’re not there. I think I understand where you are though, so I’m not focused on trying to find the path to you, but rather to explain how to get back to the common foyer. But maybe this is my mistake: how well can I really understand the path you’ve walked if I keep failing to help you backtrack?
One question that arises in my mind at this thought is: you say your inquisition into objectivist perspectives is just a matter of curiosity. How serious are you then about backtracking? If it’s just a matter of curiosity (a little armchair philosophy) then that implies you don’t mind continually hitting your head against the brick walls that constitute the dead end you’ve found yourself in. But if you are serious, and you sincerely want to find a way out, then it has to be more than just a matter of curiosity. This really has to be a dilemma for you.
Yes, and those arguments are typically brought in to defend the ego against threats that are applicable to all of us–moral theories about why sociopaths are evil, for example–we are all threatened by the possibility of others wanting to harm or kill us (kind of leads us to the boundary between Freudian defense mechanisms and Jungian defense mechanisms).
Admittedly, everyone’s “ism” will have some impact, directly or indirectly, to a large extent or a small extent, on the way they approach conflict with others. But is it so inconceivable that when they connect the dots, the final dot (i.e. how to engage with others) isn’t just: I have to convince him of my point of view. Is it not conceivable, especially with a theory of consciousness, that the final dot you come to is more like: in order to convince this person not to enter into conflict with me, I have to reconfigure their consciousness (and not necessarily to be configured like mine).
What do you think would work better in a conflict between an atheist and a theist? Should the atheist attempt to convince the theist that God doesn’t exist? Or will he have more success if he convinced the theist not to cast the first stone?
It’s a lot like the relation between a scientific theory and the technology that is possible from that theory. If you want to convince another of your scientific theory, you could try arguing it until you run out of breath. But you’re much better off demonstrating it to them with whatever technology is possible given your theory. ← This is not to say that my approach is to demonstrate to others that my “ism” is correct, but more that there are alternatives to just arguing your case as a means of ending conflict (in effect, other people’s minds are my technology). Connecting the dots, in other words may just be: I believe X is true → X implies technology Y is possible → If I implement Y, that will end the conflict.
Now it’s true that this may sound like a form of manipulation and deception–brainwashing in effect–on par with what sleazy politicians, lawyers, and salesmen often do–but on this point, I always emphasize the difference between a tool we can use (like technology) and our intentions on what to use it for. It’s like a knife–morally neutral in and of itself–but put in the hands of a surgeon, it can be used to heal, yet if you put it in the hands of a murderer, it can be used to kill. It comes down to what you want to do with a technology of consciousness: help people or harm people.
Furthermore, I find that the best way to engage in the shared invention of new ideas with another is by applying the technology to myself simultaneously with the other–I must buy my own bullshit, at least temporarily–it’s sort of a way of testing my own merchandise–if I’m not convinced by it, why would the other person be?
Yes, and that’s pretty much all it is. I’m not saying it’s anything more than that–well, except that my subjectivism makes it a bit easier for me to do this (in my opinion).
I know, but most of the time, those who are in conflict would probably agree that resolving their issues and arriving at a peaceful settlement between them is “healthy”–or at least it’s something they most likely both want.
Admittedly, there will be some who want nothing but to go to war and “defeat” those they are in conflict with, but like I said, my approach wouldn’t always work with everyone.
Yes, but again, I’m not arguing that my approach will demonstrate the most optimal moral perspective to be had, just that it would be more effective (in my opinion) than the traditional objectivist approach at resolving conflict. Again, this raises the question of what is more of a dilemma for you: resolving conflict or proving who’s right (morally speaking) (<-- both of which are prong #2, keep in mind).
^ This seems to be the most telling of the nature of your dilemma. I’m guessing that by “enforce” you mean “convince”–to demonstrate objectively that your values are correct (and if that doesn’t work to convince the other, then at least you know you’re right). It would make sense, therefore, that you’re ever on the lookout for an objectivist argument to actually demonstrate a true morality, for in that case, you’d feel like you actually have something with which to enforce your values.
It may make no difference to you, but my values happen to be of such a nature that I feel they need only be “applied,” not “enforced”. Enforcement implies conflict, but upholding your values and applying them to the real world need not always involve conflict (think about feeding the homeless–will the homeless, or a homeless shelter, fight you in your attempts to live up to your moral codes of feeding the homeless?). If my moral values are to work with the other person to invent new shared truths starting from his/her point of view (even if the other person is not aware that this is my pursuit), there’s very little in the way of conflict standing between me and my moral goals (unless the person is a relentless contrarian by nature).
So I take it you’ve resolved the dilemma of prong #1–you have a strong sense of self grounded in the either/or world, a self that doesn’t fragment so easily.
And do you actually hope that this happens? Hope it doesn’t happen? Don’t care?
If it’s just a matter of curiosity, then I would think the answer is: if you find an objectivist answer that gives you pause, your curiosity will be satisfied (a good thing, I guess). If not, you will continue to be curious indefinitely (a bad thing, I guess).
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by reasoning here, or “rationalizing a behavior”? In a world sans God, if there really is no grounds for morality (as you say), what’s being rationalized? The sociopath can’t be arguing for the moral righteousness of his pursuit of self-gratification. What is he rationalizing then? The fact that it’s not immoral? The fact that he can’t help it? The fact that it could be beneficial to others as well? What?
Perhaps, but think about this: if it actually works (i.e. it convinces us not to slit each other’s throats), then it works in the real world. That means, thought–perspectives, opinions, even prejudices–can be useful, at least sometimes–at resolving conflict–and this remains true even when you don’t believe in said perspectives, opinions, prejudices; this is where my subjectivist approach comes in handy. You don’t have to presently believe. You just have to recognize the utility, the effect, of the belief–and if the objective truth of your beliefs matters less to you than your health and the health of your relation to others, then it becomes worthwhile to consider possibly adopting said healthy beliefs, even if you don’t presently have them, for the sake of living peacefully with others.
In other words, only your own assessment of this is fully in accordance with the manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think about it. It is the philosophical equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4.
Now, obviously, if we conclude that “by definition” a sociopath is “a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience”, and we assume that this involves a clinical condition “in the brain” then we would be punishing their anti-social behaviors as though it were within their capacity to control them.
And, perhaps, it is not. Indeed, perhaps, in a wholly determined world, it is not within the capacity of any of us to control our behaviors. Sure, there’s always that path to go down.
My conjecture however is that, assuming some level of autonomy, it is not necessarily irrational for a man or a woman to conclude that in a Godless universe self-gratification is a reasonable moral font. Thus their “extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience” is derived less from an abnormal or defective brain and more from a reasoned – reasonable? – point of view.
They just do not share your own sense of what it means to be reasonable in interacting socially, political and economically with others.
Again, from my frame of mind, this is the objectivist frame of mind. There is no philosophical argument here because you have concluded that there is none. As though this in and of itself establishes that.
Now, I would agree that the fact of the fire – if in fact there was a fire – either can or cannot be established such that it is true for all of us. The fact of the fire [and the facts embedded in the consequence of the fire] transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
But once we leave the world of either/or and enter the world of is/ought, there will be those who argue that the fire can be rationalized [for whatever personal reason and no matter the context] or that the fire can never be rationalized and is essentially wrong, immoral, evil. In all contexts. That we can establish a deontological frame of mind here.
Well, the context that I have chosen is one in which a particular individual behaves in an extremely anti-social manner because she has come to conclude that her own self-gratification is the default when deciding whether to do or not to do something. And for whatever personal reasons [rooted in dasein] she has chosen to burn down the orphanage. What then is the most productive philosophical argument that she can be confronted with?
Unlike you, I do not just assume that because I believe this [here and now] that makes it so. I simply do not think about conflicting value judgments in this way. And in part this revolves around all of the times in my past when I always came up with the same answers to questions like this until one day the answers changed.
Or am I to just assume that this time the answers I propose [re moral nihilism] are in some Hegelian sense the embodiment of my one true self. Am I now the embodiment of the final synthesis?
I read all of this about prong#1 and I am still fuzzy – really fuzzy – regarding how the conclusions that you have come to [here and now] are relevant out in a particular world in which conflicting behaviors are precipitated by conflicting value judgments.
For me, the “self” fragments only to the extent that “I” becomes embedded in moral and political conflicts. It is more or less whole – intact – regarding those aspects of your life that are embedded/embodied in objective reality. For example, I at any given point in time is embedded in a body that, in accordance with biological laws embedded in the evolution of life on earth, is what it is. It may riddled with cancer, it may be on the brink of death. Those are facts about I the body – as regarding all other empirical facts about your existence – that [at any point in time] are substantially real.
Moral objectivists do not feel fragmented precisely because they have managed to convince themselves that 1] they are in touch with their true self and 2] that their true self is in sync with the objective reality of the world around them.
It is only when your own value judgments do come into conflict with others that prong#1 encounters the possibility of being fragmented. Or so it seems to me. You could live alone on an island totally apart from everyone else and come to encompass a wholly unfragmented sense of self. Why? Because it is just a mental contraption in your head that is never challenged regarding the things you choose to do.
Only if you believed in God, is there a possibility of fragmentation here.
I would have to be convince that when the behaviors of two or more individuals come into conflict over value judgments, there is a philosophical argument available to them such that they do not become entangled in my dilemma.
This will either happen or it will not. But there is little or no possibility of it occuring if I do not come into places like this and encounter the arguments.
With you, the quandary revolves more or less around my inability to understand how your “subjectivism” would be any more effective when your own value judgments come into conflict with others given the manner in which I construe these conflicts as – existentially – the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And yes, at this point in my life, being effectively cut off from others [other than virtually] my motivation does revolve more around curiosity: is there a way out of my labyrinthian dilemma – the maze – that I simply have not thought of yet?
Here, I always make the distinction between what someone believes is true “in their head” and what they are able to demonstrate as true for all rational human beings. And since it is the theist who believes in the existence of God, it is incumbent upon the theist to demonstrate that this is in fact true. Otherwise one can argue that God exists at the center of the universe and then challenge the atheist to prove that He does not.
Yes, it is embedded in the distinction between arguing about something [scientific or otherwise] and demonstrating it. It’s just that for scientists this is almost always relating to the world of either/or. What is the nature of reality? And not “ought it to have been something else instead”?
And yet among the objectivists, an issue is almost never resolved until you agree to become “one of us”. And that rarely revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise. Many here detest democracy precisely because it is said to be out of sync with the only “natural” way to behave. The way that they do.
There appear to be two ways in which to enforce your values in a non-democratic context:
1] via brute force [autocracy]
2] in sharing a conviction that right makes might [theocracy or one or another political/ideological “Ism”]
But: Is there one? And how exactly would they go about obviating conflicting goods? How, for example, can we live in a world where babies have the right to be born and women are not forced to give birth?
And how [realistically] is a distinction to be made between “applying” one’s values and “enforcing” them? The law is going to have to draw the line somewhere, right? At some point, women are going to be forced to give birth or face the possibility of sanctions from the community. Otherwise, it becomes “abortion on demand”. And that will surely enrage those in the pro-life camp. Indeed, many want to charge women with murder once the point of conception itself is reached.
Indeed, some argue that rather than just feed and house them we should bring them into a political movement that brings down the capitalist political economy. And then embraces socialism instead. Then the conflicting arguments arise regarding the extent to which this can or ought to be accomplished through revolutionary stuggle. To use or not to use violence.
For many, many years I was active in the political struggle to change people’s minds. A veritable alphabet soup of organizations: CP, RCP, SWP, NAM, DSOC, DSA. Back then in other words I was still more or less an objectivist myself. There was no dilemma to contend with.
Now, due largely to health issues, I am no longer “out in the world” politically. But: As I disengaged from political activism, I came more and more to embrace moral and political nihilism.
So: Is that a fortunate or an unfortunate thing? Well, one would have to be inside my head and think about these things as I do now to grapple with that. And trust me: I do still grapple with it. If for no other reason that I still react subjunctively to the news from day to day to day.
I construe rationalization here more as a psychological defense mechanism. You come up with a reason for doing what you do that allows you to feel the least critical about yourself.
Again, as I noted to Faust on another thread, here the sociopath is either more or less self-conscious in choosing self-gratification as a moral font.
He is either a psychopath, someone way, way beyond reasoning with, or I can attempt to ferret out the reason if he is not. Then I am either able to convince him of a better reason not to or I can’t.
My point though is that I am not able to concoct an argument such that whatever he does I have at least established that which he is morally obligated to do.
And I suspect many react to my arguments here such that a concern begins to creep into their head. A concern that I might be right. And, if I am, what does that tell them about their own value judgments?
Here and now, I think it means this: that, aside from any philosophical argument that we might come up with pertaining to particular human behaviors we construe to be immoral, there is almost always an emotional and psychological reaction as well. Thus there are those that are appalled by the aborting of human babies, while others are appalled by the thought of forcing women to give birth.
Doesn’t this connote a subjunctive frame of mind? Is there a way [realistically] to separate out a purely intellectual – philosophical – reaction to human behaviors?
There are sociopaths who are more or less self-conscious about being called a sociopath. If you are convinced that, in a world sans God, acting out your own perceived self-interest is a rational frame of mind, what some will insist are immoral behaviors on your part, you will not. And, precisely because mere mortals are not able to circumscribe the world of is/ought as physicists are able to circumscribe the world of either/or, morality is only able to be stuffed into one or another deontological intellectual contraption.
Or [as always] so it seems to me. Though I am always open to being persuaded otherwise.
An argument able to demonstrate that the reasons someone might use to do this [rooted existentially in dasein] are necessarily irrational and immoral.
With God there is no question of this. God is said to be omniscient. There is no question of a behavior either being or not being a Sin. And He said to be everywhere. There is no question of not getting caught. And He is omnipotent. There is no question of not being punished.
Are you arguing that philosophers [using Reason] are able to concoct a frame of mind [or a legal system] anywhere near the equivalent of this? In fact, I have always seen this as the reason that folks like Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky took their leap to God. Because [as with Plato, Descartes and Kant] they recognize the need for a transcending frame of mind here.
Something would seem to be evil or not. And it is either evil universally or it can be established as being evil in each and every particular circumstantial context.
Please cite example of behaviors you deem to be immoral. And if this is not rooted in one or another ontological font [which most call God], how on earth do you establish that it is in fact immoral?
And what’s the point you’re making here? What’s the relevance here to how we’re defining prong #1 and how that relates to prong #2? I would completely agree that one can identify the ‘I’ with something more substantial and enduring (like the body) and thereby obviate the fragmentation of the ‘I’. If this works for a particular individual, it would effectively solve the dilemma of prong #1. But obviously, prong #2 would remain. Having a strong, cohesive sense of self doesn’t make the world’s problems go away, let alone inter-group conflicts precipitated by dasein-based value judgements. I’m not saying it should. Rather, if anything, it would work the other way around–solve prong #2 first, then the resolution of prong #1 becomes simple if not automatic. Remember, prong #1 is a consequence of recognizing the existential implications of prong #2 (which not everyone does)–recognizing that if we live in a world in which our dasein nature results in conflicting values and beliefs and prejudices, etc., then it stands to question whether anyone’s values, beliefs, prejudices are grounded on anything solid (i.e. objectively real/demonstrable), including one’s own. This leads to the undermining of one’s own “ism”, and insofar as one identifies one’s self with one’s own “ism”, it undermine’s one’s sense of self–the ‘I’ fragments. ← Prong #1.
^ Well, that part I’m not so sure about. Surely one can believe in a particular moral “ism” without being a theist, can’t they? I mean, you might mean to say that you can’t imagine how an atheist could possibly believe in an objectivism moralism, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the real world. There are tons of atheists out there who firmly, objectively, believe in a certain moral “ism”. ← Their “ism” doesn’t have to be perfectly rational per se, they just have to believe in it. You may see the flaws in their reasoning, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to cling to an objectivist, atheistic morality as a means of identifying one’s sense of self with an “ism”.
What purpose do you think this curiosity is serving? If you believe that human beings are curious by nature, and that nature bestows us with the features and mechanism and propensities that we have for the purpose of survival, then what purpose do you think your curiosity in this matter is serving?
If just a bit of intellectual frivolity–just something to pass the time (which can serve a survival function: avoiding stagnation/atrophy from inactivity)–then what is the nature of your dilemma at this juncture in your life? Is it just that you need some kind of intellectual stimulation? Something to kill the boredom? Or is it to figure out a way to get back into the fray of engaging with others despite the conflict and aggravation that it causes–to get back into prong #2 and truly overcome it?
Hmm… then maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “demonstrate”. ← So far, I’ve been taking you to mean “prove” in the vein of the traditional objectivist approach (that term again), meaning to exhaustively and thoroughly illustrate an immaculate logical deduction from a set of premises you and your contender both agree upon and arriving at a conclusion that matches your objectivist beliefs and values. But when you say “it is embedded in the distinction between arguing about something [scientific or otherwise] and demonstrating it,” I’m not sure whether the traditional objectivist approach falls into the one category of the other. For a scientist, “demonstration” is certainly not the same as just “arguing”–to demonstrate, according to a scientist, doesn’t require uttering a single word, it just requires doing something out in the empirical world that, sans any contending theories, can only be explained by the theory the scientist is trying to convince his contender of (coupled with the assumption that his contender will consequently “connect the dots”–which of course won’t always happen even then).
So when you say you’re looking for a “demonstration” of one moral “ism” in contrast to another, what exactly do you mean?
Yes, but that’s because here at ILP, there is very little danger of blood being spilled over disagreements–even angry, obstinate, fanatical disagreements–and in some cases, it might even be “healthy” (i.e. venting, catharsis, getting it out); I’ll bet that if you took the members of ILP and had them argue with each other face-to-face, you’d see way less hostility and animosity arising amongst them–face-to-face confrontations work as a far stronger trigger for social instincts and impulses to arise within us, instincts and impulses that sway us more towards resolving conflict and less towards proving our point definitively–towards moderation, negotiation and compromise, and away from war and blood shed. Why? Because obviously, when the conflict becomes face-to-face, the risk of full fledged bloodshed and war breaking out becomes a lot more immanent, and we, on an unconscious level, are aware of this. ← In this situation, I’m sure people would be far more likely to agree with each other that they ought to aim towards a “healthy” resolution (however you want to define that) to their conflict.
Yes, you can take any set of moral values and conceive of certain hypothetical (or actual) scenarios in which one comes up against resistance in one’s efforts to practice them. But I’m just saying there exist people out their who hold certain moral values that don’t inevitably come up against resistance in their efforts to practice them. My point merely stems from my reply to you regard my own values and how I wouldn’t say I need to “enforce” them in order to practice them. True, I can imagine living an alternate life in an alternate world–a different time, a different culture, with a different historical background–one in which people not only recognize when I’m trying to practice my values but actively fight against me in those efforts. But this is not the world I’m living in, and it is not my experience. It is possible to practice your values without inevitably having to “enforce” them.
All that I am now interested in here at ILP is this: the manner in which, however someone defines the meaning of a particular word, they note the relevance of that definition in a particular context in which human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments.
Someone is either able to explain to me what they mean by “consciousness” here or they are not. But I am not arguing that if 1] I don’t understand them or 2] I don’t agree with them, the problem is with them. I readily acknowledge that the problem may well be with me.
All we can do here is to struggle [century after century after century] to pin these things down. But: Epistemologically and existentially.
For me, this all revolves around “demonstration”. The conscious “I” believes or claims to know particular things about its “self”, about its “self” out in a particular world.
But what can it demonstrate [empirically, scientifically, mathematically, logically etc.] as in fact true? One can believe that the state executes prisoners in Texas. And one can surely demonstrate it. One can believe as well that these executions are moral. But how can one demonstrate it? In other words, to demonstrate that in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that the executions occur.
Okay, but what is crucial is that, if you are alone, isolated from all other conscious entities, there is no one to judge you. But if you are alone and believe in God then your behaviors will be judged.
But, sure, the moral struggle may unfold inside your head alone. For example, you may have convinced yourself that it is unethical to consume animal flesh. But what if on this particular island you either consume the flesh of animals or you starve to death.
There are any number of “Humanisms” out there. On both sides of the political spectrum. And to each of them I note my dilemma above and then ask them how, when their own behaviors come into conflict with others, they are not entangled in it.
Can they demonstrate it?
Also, can they demonstrate how the narcissist or the sociopath, those who root morality in self-gratification, are necessarily irrational in their thinking…immoral in their behaviors?
Yes, of course, “for all practical purposes” a consensus can be formed between two or more people. But: An existential contraption if there ever was one. One group of people can agree that abortion is moral. Another group can agree that abortion is immoral. And as long as they never cross paths…
I’m looking for an argument that might convince me that the “objective truth” as it is applicable to “either/or” relationships is in turn applicable to “is/ought” relationships. An argument that can then be demonstrated “out in the world” and not just “up in the clouds” as intellectual contraptions.
I mean this: that your values and the values of those you come into conflict with do not seem able to be resolved using the tools of either philosophy or science. They are instead rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And calling yourself a “subjectivist” doesn’t make that any less applicable. Or so it seems to me. You might convince him to change his mind and come over to your side [or the other way around] but that doesn’t make my dilemma go away. Well, not if you’re me.
From my perspective, the most important philosophical question is this: How ought one to live? Is there a way in which to determine this deontolgically? Some conclude that there is. And that, indeed, they have already discovered or invented the actual agenda. Then their curiosity gets shrunk down to wondering why there are those who do not agree.
The rest [for me] is now more or less embedded in “waiting for godot”. Waiting to die. Finding distractions. One of which [ironically] is probing the extent to which my priorities now might possibly be nudged in another direction.
Not sure what you are suggesting here about leverage. But I’ll stick by the argument that those who argue that something does in fact exist bear the burden of demonstrating that this is true.
Someone argues that something either is or is not true. They argue, for example, that Hillary Clinton is campaigning to become president of the United States. Can they demonstrate that? Next they argue that Hillary Clinton ought to be elected to the office because her values are more rational and more ethical. Can they demonstrate that?
It seems rather clear to me: the first proposition can in fact be demonstrated to be true objectively for all of us. The second can only be construed [if I am right] to be a personal/subjective opinion rooted in dasein and in conflicting goods.
Yes, you may be successful in “convincing” others that her values are “in fact” the most rational and ethical. But is that then the same thing as demonstrating that they are?
And I am not arguing that “we absolutely must have in our philosophical tool belt a moral objectivism that is the demonstrably correct one and/or that can be brought to the table in the midst of conflict with others as a guaranteed solution by which all such conflicts will be resolved.”
On the contrary, my argument is that this almost certainly does not exist; and, if not, what then is our best hope to sutain the least dysfunctional social, political and economic interactions?
Well, my own “political leap” here is in the general direction of “moderation, negotiation and compromise”; embodied politically in one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law.
And here there is really no room for the objectivist mentality. In fact, moral objectivists ever and always pose the danger of forming or becoming a part of an autocratic, authoritarian polity. A regime hell-bent on imposing their own dogmas on everyone else. Or in eliminating those not perceived to be “one of us”.
I just recognize in turn that moral nihilism can be equally dangerous and destructive. I have absolutely no illusions about that.
iam - I am puzzled as to why you want consciousness defined epistemically or ontologically but “I” defined scientifically. Science is attempting to define consciousness. We know that science exists - that scientists, following the scientific method (which is simply controlled observation). But how do we know that epistemology or ontology is anything but pie-in-the-sky ancient “philosophy”? These fields are outmoded, part of a mystical and metaphysical past. Why the double standard?
Why must this be truth-based? Why isn’t the way one ought to live to believe the lies of the objectivists? Why is the criterion not objectively demonstrable proof of truth (whatever the fuck that is)?
I try to wrap my mind around what something like this might possibly mean pertaining to that which is of most interest to me: How ought one to live?
How ought one to live in the world of “is/ought”. As opposed to how one must live in the world [re the laws of nature] of “either/or”.
More than just define, science is attempting to discover what consciousness actually is. And if they succeed will it be only as it ever could have been or they will discover an element of human autonomy in there somewhere.
All that I suggest is that if there is some capacity to choose freely on our part, that is clearly circumscribed by the manner in which [here and now] I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. As this pertains to contexts that are perceived to be one way but are argued ought to be another way instead. A way that is said to be more rational or more ethical.
And there are still those who argue that we can subsume what we think we ought to do into one or another intellectual contraption that is said to encompass in turn all that we either can or cannot know.
For me it’s always the same:
Tell me what you think you know [scientifically, philosophically, theologically etc] and note the manner in which this gets translated into a particular context “out in the world with others” in which the behaviors that you choose come into conflict with the behaviors that others choose as a result of conflicted value judgments, conflicted goods.
What unfolds in their conscious mind such that they are not in turn inextricably entangled [as I am] 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.
Well, my point is that it does not appear to be so that it can be. Either scientifically or philosophy.
Unless, of course, it turns out that human autonomy is in fact wholly an illusion. In the sense that, while, unlike with mindless matter, we do choose our behaviors, we could not have chosen in a way that is not wholly in sync with the laws of matter.
But: Are the narratives/agendas proposed by one or another moral/political objectivist lies? How would we go about demonstrating that to them?
The problem here is that all one need but do is to believe that something is true to make it true “in their head”.
And thus we live in a world where over the course of human history one or another objectivist [re either God or Reason] has manage to ascend to one or another throne of power. And the rest as they say really is history.
In turn, my problem here is that my own narrative [moral nihilism] is no less capable of being destructive. Indeed, the “show me the money” mentality of those who own and operate the global economy has managed to make life a living hell for untold hundreds of millions of men, women and children. Well, according to the political narrative of some.
And are they not basically nihilistic in their thinking? Are they not basically folks who live their lives as though everything revolves around me, myself and I? Somewhere perhaps between a narcissistic and a sociopathic agenda? If only “for all practical purposes?”
What “on earth” does that mean though? Pick a moral conflagration that we are all familiar with and note the “objectively demonstrable proofs of truth.”
See if the other side can’t come up with a few of their own.
Come on, you claim to be interested in discussing these relationships as a “serious philosopher”…and this is all you have by way of responding to the points I raised?
But, okay, note how the manner in which I did respond to your questions above does not constitute a legitimate answer. Give us an example of that which would be deemed a legitimate answer by a “serious philosopher”.
For example, perhaps you might ask a few questions of Phyllo. Let him become the template here for how Q and A ought to unfold at ILP.
What could be sillier in a philosophy venue than a debate about which came first, the question or the answer?
Besides, my point is always in making the distinction between questions that, in using the tools of philosophy [or science], we may or may not be able to answer.
Fully, example.
What are the limits of rational thought pertaining to the conflicts that unfold between mere mortals as this relates to the manner in which Goods/Kingdoms of ends are perceived to be conflicted?
How is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and political economy either relevant or irrelevant to this among alleged “serious philosophers”?
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Why don’t you just quote me. I said:
