iam -
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.
Well, iam. You could answer my questions.
Or so it seems to me…
and
Learn from PK, Faust. [-o<
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”?
What would Faust ask me? 
What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Note to others:
Do “retorts” of this sort take us closer to or further away from “serious philosophy”?
Is it any wonder then that the Kids have practically taken over? 
Ooops, I forgot that I had logged on to ‘I Love Serious Philosophy’. My mistake. 
Carry on.
Note to others:
See if you can spot the irony here. 
What is the purpose of this forum except to shoot some shit back and forth and learn something in the process.
Nobody here is working on a scholarly paper.
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.
You know, like we are doing here. 
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.
I only ask that you answer as a reasonable adult. “Serious philosophy” is not even in question.
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.
Or so it seems to me…
Okay, in that case:
…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”.
You can choose the question.
"I think consciousness should be defined epistemically because…
…but the “I” should be defined scientifically because…
… and the reason why these entities are sensibly defined by very different standards is…
…and even though I don’t believe that philosophy is worth shit, I invoke ontology here because…
Is this of any help?
Right, like that never happens in exchanges here at ILP!
Any discussion that revolves around grappling with all the variables embedded in both nature and nurture — variables involved in exploring the relationship between human identity, human value judgments and human behaviors — is going to engender a complexity that is not at all easily communicated back and forth.
Unless, of course, you are an objectivist. Then you simply demand that everyone must intertwine the variables as you do — naturally, ideally, or by definition — or be wrong.
I don’t have any illusions however that my own understanding here reflects the optimal frame of mind. I merely note that given an aggregation of particular experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge, I have come “here and now” to think as I do.
And then I challenge those who insist philosophers are able to grapple with these intertwined variables to devise an argument that all rational men and women are obligated to espouse. And then to demonstrate this by reflecting on the manner in which their argument becomes intertwined existentially in their own conflicting behaviors with others.
Which you basically avoid like the plague.
Well, the sociopath, for whatever personal reason, can point a gun at Faust and Faust can try to explain to him/her why pulling the trigger is necessarily irrational and immoral.
Of course, Faust is a perspectivist. But: is he a perspectivist such that pertaining to conflicting goods and sociopathic behavior he is able to rank particular behaviors as more or less rational?
Sans God?
Of course with you God does seem to be in there…somewhere. Though you never really seem willing to discuss that “out in the world” that you actually live in from day to day.