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.
It would be pretty strange if he could not do such a ranking.
You can stop repeating this. I don’t intend to discuss any of it with you. 
Again, if we accept the dictionary definition of a sociopath as “characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals”, we can then ask: To what extent is any one particular individual more or less self-conscious of behaving in this manner?
After all, some folks are more or less on automatic pilot here. They behave in this manner towards others but they really don’t give it a whole lot of thought. It is basically the way their life has become shaped and molded by all the variables [experiences, relationships] that have become intertwined in any one particular “I”.
Others, however, do think about human behavior more in depth. And they might decide that if there is no God, self-gratification is not necessarily an irrational frame of mind around which to choose ones behaviors. So they act as they do because they are able to rationalize what they do. Indeed, the “show me the money” mentality of those on display in films like Boiler Room and Wall Street are prime examples of this.
It is in fact the moral and political objectivists who insist the factors that I focus in on [dasein, conflicting goods, political economy] are largely moot. Why? Because the rational mind is able to concoct one or another deontological agenda around which the “virtuous” man and woman strives.
And the fact that these “Kingdoms of Ends” are themselves often hopelessly at odds with each other?
Well, go ahead, ask them about that.
Note to others:
Why do you suppose this is?
I can provide you with an answer.
It’s because I don’t believe that you have any interest in what I have to say. Every time that I have opened up about something, you proceeded to try to fit me into your stereotype of an objectivist. You just want to repeat your established argument. You don’t really care about my unique experiences or thoughts. Therefore, I do not care to share them any longer.
What I am curious about is the extent to which either “serious philosophers” or “reasonable adults” have come to particular conclusions regarding human “consciousness” — insofar as those conclusions are then made applicable when their actual behaviors come into conflict over value judgments.
How ought one to live? That’s my “thing” here. So, if your own conclusions regarding your own conscious mind is not inclined to go there then you should move on to others. That’s the only place left that I am inclined to go to.
But, sure, if the 3 or 4 points that I raise are raised in such a manner that they are not technically correct, by all means, point that out. But only to the extent that the points made are then able to be embedded in particular contexts that involve the components of my own argument: identity, value judgments and political power.
A false dichotomy pertaining to what particular context? Either one or another rendition of might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise prevails in any particular circumstantial context.
Choose one among the many conflicts available “in the news” and let’s discuss it more substantively.
More to the point: are the negotiations only as they ever could have been?
Cite points I raised above that indicate this. I’m not at all sure what you mean here.
My argument clearly revolves around keeping an open mind regarding the world of “is/ought”. Even pertaining to the conclusions that I have come to “here and now”. After all, am I not myself someone who, through new experiences, relationships and sources of information, might come to change my mind yet again about these things. As I have so many times in the past.
Hardly obsessed.
But what I am most curious to explore is how “one may recognize a set of psychological truths, biological mandates and physical limitations and make the best of it” , is or is not a reasonable reflection on or reaction to either 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.
Or this:
* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
*Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.
Richard Rorty
Yes, and I think this is just human nature manifesting itself–it will always be thus; I don’t think this struggle is leading to any resolution.
So a way of making it undeniable?
Then you either accept hypocrisy or you change your ethics (or die ← ethics has always been about challenging one’s will).
Well, this comes back to my question: what’s more of a dilemma to you? Are you more interested with finding an objectively demonstrable morality in order to decide who’s right and who’s wrong? Or are you more interested in resolving conflict. If the latter, it doesn’t matter that the consensus two or more people come to is an existential contraption–so long as it brings peace between them. But if the former, then I don’t think you’ll ever get what you’re looking for, even if it was the whole world.
Yes, and it would seem to me that such a demonstration would qualify as establishing the “objective truth”.
If your dilemma revolves around finding a demonstration of a truly objective morality, then I agree. If on the other hand, your dilemma revolves around finding ways to resolve conflict, then frankly I’m surprised at this point why you don’t see how an approach like mine might be a feasible alternative to the traditional objectivist’s approach.
This is why I find it hard to believe that your inquiry into the question of how an objective moralism can be demonstrated is nothing more than a matter of curiosity. I mean, you put way too much energy and thought into these discussions for it to be just a matter of trivial curiosity. Your writing betrays a level of seriousness on par with the seriousness of one’s day job, one’s way of making a living in order to survive, a pet project that consumes you. This pursuit of looking for a demonstration of an convincing objective morality seems more like a stepping stone that you, consciously or otherwise, know you need to take in order to move back into the world of conflicts and value judgements. It’s like you feel the only way to deal with others in such a world is to be able to demonstrate definitively–once and for all–that you’re right and others are wrong.
If I can suggest, I’d like to say to you that this is not a very effective strategy, that in the social world, there’s a whole swack of different strategies for getting by and dealing with people, more than just a rigorous application of the traditional objectivist approach.
Ok, but that’s a rule you can impose on others. It doesn’t mean everyone’s automatically going to feel compelled to follow that rule (whether at their own hands or those of another).
By “leverage” I mean the belief in God can be used by the atheist to convince the theist to do certain things (possibly to end the conflict). For example, he can say: God would want you to practice love and compassion. This insistence on conflicting with me isn’t very loving and compassionate. ← He can do this before demanding a proof of God’s existence.
You see why I’m confused here, don’t you? Any time I propose an approach towards resolving conflict between people (other than by way of the traditional objectivist approach) you tell me: this doesn’t resolve my dilemma. I am therefore left to presume your dilemma is that of trying to find a objectively demonstrable moralism that will decide, once and for all, who’s right and who’s wrong. But here you seem, once again, very interested in resolving conflict between people. You seemingly put your dilemma of trying to find an objectively demonstrable moralism aside–settling on the conclusion that it just can’t be done–and move onto “moderation, negotiation and compromise” (which you said a few times is not all that different from the approach I’m proposing). Does this still not resolve your dilemma? What does moderation, negotiation and compromise need to do that it isn’t doing already? Will you really not be satisfied until all conflict and all prejudicial value judgements cease and the world finally lives in harmony and peace?