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”?
Well, one would hope that the shit that is shot on the philosophy board would be more along the lines of the exchange that Gib and I are having.
Sure, we can go back and forth regarding the extent to which it reflects a serious discussion of philosophy, but it is clearly rather far removed from merely an exchange of retorts.
Last time I checked, Gib wasn’t sure what you are talking about and you were not sure what he is talking about. Now on page 6, you two seem to be more confused about each other’s positions than you were on page 1.
But maybe I’m mistaken.
In any case, Faust came into the discussion when the sociopath problem came up. Is there any progress on that?
Is the sociopath living ‘the good life’? Yes, if it’s self-defined.
If ‘the good life’ is self-defined, then who is not living ‘the good life’? I guess that would be anyone who is doing something other than what he chose.
iam - you are raising the same three to four points that you always have. I am merely asking that you explain why you claim that consciousness should be demonstrated epistemically/ontologically and the “I” scientifically.
For that matter, I am at a loss as to why how we ought to live is mutually exclusive to how we must live. Everything has limits.
But when I suggest that you have established a false dichotomy, you will ask what on earth I mean. Or you will wonder what it means in a world of negotiation and compromise.
What is there to negotiate in a pre-determined world?
What happened to you that you are so afraid of mere ideas?
One may live with a closed mind, or an open one. Or is that too much “serious” philosophy?
One may live obsessed with the evils of objectivism or one may recognize a set of psychological truths, biological mandates and physical limitations and make the best of it.
…note the manner in which I did respond to your questions above does not constitute the answer of a “reasonable adult”. Give us an example of that which would be deemed a legitimate answer by a “reasonable adult”.
