Why don’t you just quote me. I said:
^ That’s prong #1.
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.
Fortunately [or unfortunately] I rarely engage with people anymore. Other than virtually. And even that has largely become just another distraction embedded in my own rendition of waiting for godot.
Mostly what I do here is to look for arguments that might poke a few holes in mine. I wonder: Have I finally talked myself into a philosophy of life that I can no longer talk myself out of?
After all, in the past I once subscribed to any number of philosophies that I [with the help of others] managed to talk myself out of. But this one has admittedly stuck around the longest.
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, but some arguments are more clearly applicable to all of us than others. That is always the distinction that I look for.
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).
The difficulty I have revolves more or less around this: How can one have a “theory of consciousness” without [eventually] connecting the dots between human consciousness itself and the behaviors chosen by individual minds out in a particular world bursting at the seams with conflicting value judgments? One way or the other “consciousness” is involved.
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?
Until I am able to get a better grip on how you situate/integrate dasein, conflicting goods and political economy into your “subjectivist” perspective, I can only note again that I don’t see your point here as anything other than another way of embracing what I do: moderation, negotiation and compromise in a democratic political context.
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).
But: whether one set of behaviors is “healthier” than another is true [from my point of view] only to the extent that particular people in a particular context [here and now] can agree that they are. Whatever “works” in other words. But that’s not the same as demonstrating that they are “in fact” healthier.
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.
There are still no moral values that can be demonstrated to reflect an optimal frame of mind.
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).
3] Finally, whatever I might personally believe about the morality of abortion, out in the world with others what counts is the extent to which I am able to enforce my own values if they do come into conflict with others.
^ 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).
Since my interactions with others has now more or less ground to a halt, I’m less concerned about these things than I am curious as to how others react to my dilemma. And thus in exploring how it is not deemed to be a dilemma in their own life.
Then I take it that, as a matter of mere curiosity, this isn’t really a dilemma for you (at least not one you lose sleep over); the real dilemma, I take it, is captured in what you said above: the fact that you live in a world in which your values must be enforced (despite having no firm grasp on a solid objective foundation for your values). And given that your interactions with others has (more or less) ground to a halt, I take it this dilemma is a thing of the past. Am I wrong?
And, yes, I is as substantial to me as it is to others. At least in the either/or world. Only with respect to my identity as a factor in the accumulation of value judgments — in the is/ought world — does “I” manifest itself.
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.
Again, less concerned than curious. Curious to find out if I ever will come upon an objectivist agenda that strikes me less as a psychological contraption and more as a philosophical argument that really does give me pause. A frame of mind that actually succeeds in challenging my assumptions above.
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).
Rationalizing a behavior because you believe that in a godless universe any behavior can be rationalized is a frame of mind that many, many, many individuals literally act out from day to day. And, in particular, when, first and foremost, you strive above all else to satisfy your own wants and needs.
How then does the philosopher come up with an argument able to demonstrate that this sort of reasoning is necessarily wrong?
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?
Any reason at all will do. Or no reason at all. You need God here or the sociopath’s frame of mind would seem to fit snuggly into this: “in the absense of God, all things are permitted”.
And are you seriously going to listen to that? In a dark grungy basement while he has you cornered with a knife?
Isn’t that why we invent Gods and all of the other secular objectivist contraptions: to make that go away?
I supposed it’s one of the reasons, sure.
If only “in your head”?
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.