Making iambiguous's day

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. :smiley:

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?

Sometimes people talk a lot without saying much.
Probably more often than not actually.
But anyway, if we want or need to understand them for our own sake and if the conventional approach of projecting our qualities onto them as a template to begin understanding them repeatedly fails, then why not try ignoring what they talk and find out what they are saying between the lines.

To say it more straight-forward - To not care about the bullshit, to ignore it, to assume that they are by nature duplicitous and thus we have to look at the patterns of the interaction themselves.

Iambig does not actually care about resolving his ‘dilemma’ of conflicting goods. He does not care about exploring it. - No.
It’s whining, complaining, it’s yammering.
And yammering is not about seeking counsel of any sort, nor about argumentation. It’s a way of establishing a narrative. Thankfully he is not one of those nasty authoritarian objectivists who declare their worldview so that it is immediately obvious, straight-forward so to speak, what is happening.

With yammering it is not always obvious at the start. In some instances it’s similar to ‘concern trolling’.
“Look, I have this trouble with resolving conflicting goods…”

While the message between the lines, repeatedly, is a different one.
It is - Reality, nature, does not matter when it comes to morality.
Neither is there truth, there is popularity.

…and there are those who know how to impress those who are a bit slower than themselves.
That’s the brave old world 2.0.

Here I grapple with trying to understand the extent to which your “subjectivist” frame of mind is not in turn entangled [hopelessly? inherently?] in my dilemma above. “I” fragments only with respect to conflicting behaviors rooted in dasein rooted in conflicting value judgments rooted in conflicting goods rooted “out in a particular world” where what counts [ultimately] is the power one either has or does not have to enforce a particular moral/political agenda.

From my frame of mind it is as though you are saying, “yes, I understand what you are trying to convey [re prong #2] but my own fragmentation [re prong #1] is not nearly as crippling.”

We are just not in sync regarding what it means for the mind to be fragmented when it recognizes the manner in which values are existential fabrications/contraptions out in a world where there are no resolutions to the endless conflicts that beset us. Only political prejudices derived from any particular existential leap. Bumping into conflicting prejudices whereby a “consensus” may or may not be reached.

Unless of course I am wrong. And while I often note this, I don’t think many fully grasp the extent to which I recognize that I may well be. There were just too many times in the past when I was absolutely certain about one or another narrative. Only to have new experiences, new relationships, new sources of knowledge/information etc., bring the whole thing crumbling down.

It is about one’s capacity to show others that what they believe is true “in their head” is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn because it has been shown [scientifically or otherwise] to in fact be true.

We don’t need a team of scientists to show/demonstrate that it is in fact true that gun violence is rampant in America. But: Are there any scientists able to demonstrate what ought to be done about it? Are there scientists/philosophers around able to establish that private citizens either ought or ought not be permitted to own guns?

Yes. But then another paradox pops up. If God is said to be omniscient then morality would seem to be moot. Why? Because mere mortals can never choose to do anything that God is not already cognizant of. Similarly, if science proves beyond all doubt that human autonomy is an illusion – i.e. we “choose” only that which we could not not have chosen – than morality would seem to be moot here as well.

If, regarding the aborting of human babies, you are able to demonstrate the existence of an objective morality then the conflict is resolved in the sense that one side’s chosen behaviors are more or less in sync with it. The side less in sync with it might still choose to behave as they do, but it can at least be demonstrated that their behaviors are less reasonable. And for many objectivists, the less reasonable the less virtuous.

It would be as though a God is shown to exist objectively but some still refuse to obey His Commandments.

As for the “consensus”, sure, if, within any given community, an agreement results in a harmonious interact among all citizens, fine. “For all practical purposes” it is as though morality here is objective. My point though is that this does not make it so. Variables within the community can change, disturbing the consensus. Or this community can come into contact with another community that does not share their moral values. Then what?

That’s because as much as I do explore possible antidotes to my dilemma, I am also here to expose what I construe to be the dangers inherent in moral objectivism. For many objectivists the only “resolution” to the conflict revolves around the extent to which others are willing to become “one of us”.

And then there are those who manage to convince themselves that in establishing a consensus my dilemma goes away. But that is true only to the extent that one is able to demonstrate that the components of my dilemma – dasein, conflicting goods, political economy – are no longer applicable pertaining to the consensus itself.

Maybe. Human psychology is hard to pin down: Why do we do what we do? How do we know for sure what motivates us?

I think my motivation revolves mostly around engaging objectivists in polemics. Wielding words as swords.

And then there’s the part about death. And the part about what’s on the other side. And the part about how one connects the dots between God on that side and morality on this side. The stuff I explore here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

But, sure, you might actually be closer to the “real reason” than I am.

The bottom line however is that for health reasons I am no longer “out in the world” interacting with others. I am just basically waiting to die. And in the interim needing distractions to fill up the hours: music, film, PBS, the Science Channel, philosophy. And other lesser things. “Strategy” no longer really enters into anymore. Here though we are always at the intersection of “my philosophy of life” and “my options”.

Well, if others wish to argue the fact that they believe or claim to know that God does exist [or that abortion is immoral or that modern art isn’t beautiful etc.], is as far as they need go, then, fine, that “works” for them.

Just not for me.

Sorry, still not quite sure what you mean here. The theist can always come up with a frame of mind that “answers” the objections of the atheist. For example, the theist might note that in bringing the atheist over to God she is practising the ultimate in love and compassion.

Yes, you work with others to form practical solutions “here and now” for any one particular community of men and women. But to the extent that you acknowledge the practical implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is the extent to which you recognize this consensus as just an existential contraption. Ever subject to change in world awash in contingency, chance and change.

In other words, there any number of actual new contexts that can unfold in which the idea becomes less and less simple. If the conflicting goods revolving around abortion was confined to just a small village isolated from the “modern world”, one might be more inclined to imagine your frame of mind. But in the modern industrial metropolis? Where customs and folkways and mores become the law of the land? What’s the consensus there? And how is it not always precarious?

I would agree that only to the extent that there does in fact exist a foundation upon which to establish an objective morality [rooted either in God or Reason] does it appear likely [to me] that my dilemma will ever go away.

In “resolving” conflicts. And, if my own frame of mind pertaining to moral nihilism is correct, that would revolve around moderation, negotiation and compromise: democracy and the rule of law. It’s just that I don’t have any illusions regarding the contributions here of folks like Marx [political economy] and Nietzsche [beyond good and evil].

But: How can my dilemma really be blunted in a world where any particular examples of moderation, negotiation and compromise are still embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? They don’t go away. “I” is still profoundly fragmented.

Note to others…

As you might well imagine, I have bumped into this sort of “rebuttal” time and again over the years.

Instead of actually engaging in depth the points that I raise – as Gib clearly is – he/she makes me the argument instead.

Yawn.

On the other hand, I am certainly willing to start anew. This poster seems to argue that I argue that “reality, nature does matter when it comes to morality.”

Now, I suspect he/she means this: “My own analysis of reality and nature is by definition the default in assessing any and all conflicting goods.”

Go ahead, ask him/her.

Or, okay, I will:

Is that what you mean?

And, whether you do or you don’t, choose a set of behaviors that we are all familiar with and we can discuss how all rational human beings are obligated to behave. Is this in whatever particular manner that you presume to be in sync with “reality and nature”.

Indeed, can you give us an example whereby your own value judgment is shown [demonstrated] to be in sync with the truth rather than in sync with that which is merely popular?

Note to others…
“Is there anybody out there?”
“Can you hear me?”


Well can you, can you show me what is not about popularity??

The points I raise… not that they are the truth… but anyway there is no truth, all argumentation is ultimately just a popularity contest, am I right??
I don’t mean right, I do mean do you like what I am saying, do you prefer what I am saying, does it make you feel good, better, the best you’ve come to know thus far??

As I was saying.
tsk tsk tsk…

You accept no arguments, you are not interested in any so why not make it about you?
That’s what is actually interesting about you - Your points aren’t. Or let’s say arguing about those points in particular with you (and the ‘with you’ is the emphasis here) isn’t interesting.

So what if your those points are not being popular (here), why keep repeating them? Unable to learn from a lack of popularity? Not capable of changing to a more popular way of seeing the world?
What keeps you coming back and resisting the resistance of those who reject your way of looking at reality? What fuels your agenda? It’s not the popularity which keeps you coming back.

So how do you actually know what is popular? Because you have heard it on TV? From the reporters? From the academics?
All those institutions which are across the board unpopular at the moment? As in below 50% popular.

Besides that, you do know that popularity can be manufactured by a small part of the society, right?
Not to an absolute degree but we won’t get into that, not with you anyway.

Maybe happiness is it. The more happier the better.
Happiness ratings are through the roof I hear, ever increasing in progressive wonderland.
Actually they are not but then they say that misery loves company so you won’t be dismayed about that.

Tyranny yes or no is not your concern.
Authoritarianism yes or no does not matter either.
What matters to you in that regard is who gets to be the one who tells everybody how it’s going to be. And that’s not about a particular person but about a quality. Truth is a big no no. Feelz is goood.

And what kind of Truth am I actually talking about in this case? Is it the truth as understood by an actual moral objectivist? No. I mean, that’s the puppet that iambig enjoys to attack but it’s just a ruse, maybe even unbeknownst to him himself. What is a big no no for iambig (and many others) is actual reality.
And now some will think, - “Well, it’s always just an interpretation of reality. What makes you think that you understand how things really are?”
To what I will say - Sure. But me knowing what it is, is not important in what I am saying here, because no matter what it is, what is essential, what is of utmost importance to iambig (and many like him in that regard) is that interpretation of reality is free to be whatever it pleases. We can say, reality might as well not even exist, it’s ideally of no consideration, not worthwhile to even attempt to understand what it really is.

See, it doesn’t matter what reality is. The critique and argumentation of iambig (and m…) is not aimed at criticising a particular view or argument of somebody, anybody. No. It’s saying that reality outside manmade interpretations ought not to matter. Ought not to matter. That’s the core ought imperative here which is conveyed with various rhetorical techniques.

All that furious huffing and puffing and Is_Yde_opN still doesn’t manage to get around to this:

[b][i]…choose a set of behaviors that we are all familiar with and we can discuss how all rational human beings are obligated to behave. Is this in whatever particular manner that you presume to be in sync with “reality and nature”?

Indeed, can you give us an example whereby your own value judgment is shown [demonstrated] to be in sync with the truth rather than in sync with that which is merely popular?[/i][/b]

Well, except in the most general sort of way. You know, like Satyr/Lyssa once did. Among others.

Prong #2 we call it here.

Besides, just as sheriff Jason McCullough was always only on his way to Australia, I am only always waiting here for godot.

You ain’t godot, are you? :-k

When would a value judgement be disengaged from reality?
Are those people disengaged from reality?

Apparently, according to Biggy they are in an alternate dimension he calls Dasein.
And in that dimension reality doesn’t matter.

Now Biggy’esque people would argue - “But you are telling everybody what reality is, what it means, what one ought to do!”
Really? You haven’t understood what people are saying when you ‘raise your points’.

Abortion - Yes or No?
Biggster would like to reduce all inquiry down to his level where the answer is reduced to either Yes or No or his enlightened “It’s all just an opinion, man”.
And after he has done so he will pat himself on the back for reducing it to the level of the moral objectivist thinking.

Because for Biggster the Yes or the No tells something about how much in touch with reality somebody is, or, he would like us all to believe that that’s the way how it would or could work and since that would be ridiculous, reality and truth is ridiculed.

Or to put it in a nutshell for the above average - The way how Biggy thinks of truth and reality and morality is how a moral objectivist thinks about those things.

The slow minded might protest at this, thinking - “Preposterous, ridiculous, me, thinking like a moral objectivist, the opposite is the case!”
The framework, the framework is the same, what is truth, what is reality, what is morality supposed to be - that’s adopted from the moral objectivist.
And no, that’s not the one and only framework. That’s the framework of somebody who wants to escape reality with sweet lies that they tell themselves, hopefully able to postpone the day of social failure till another generation.

Reminds me of teenagers learning the mysteries of “Nothing is true and everything is permitted.”
LOL

Hey Biggy,

Just wanted to say I haven’t forgotten about you. Been busy. This Friday I’m going to try to get my latest installment of the Rick and Morty thread posted, and if I have time after, I’ll respond to you. Otherwise, it may be another week. But I will reply.

Not only is it not as crippling, I don’t feel crippled at all. My identity will always be in flux, but right now, I’m definitely sure that I’m a subjectivist (and a relativist).

From what I understand, the crippling effect of recognizing the nature of prong #2, and drawing it to its logical conclusion vis-a-vis the groundlessness of all our values and “isms” (not just moral), is that when we recognize the groundlessness of our “ism”, we recognize the groundlessness of our “ist”–that is, if we identify ourselves with our “ism” we call ourselves an “ist” (for example, I believe in determinism, therefore I am a determinist), so if the “ism” crumbles, so does the “ist”–we end up in an existential crisis of sorts in which we no longer know who we are.

But there’s a hidden assumption in the above. It assumes all “isms” are subject to this–subject to crumbling at the realization of our position in the world as dasein-based creatures caught up in interpersonal conflicts with each other over moral value judgements and prejudices, and that our “isms” are latched onto or invented, bringing with them all the rationalizations and objectivist justifications that we can muster, as a means of standing our grounds in the midst of this conflict. But clearly, not all “isms” crumble at this realization. You yourself continue to believe in the reality of the physical world (you hold onto empiricism). You also admit to being a nihilist.

What I was trying to argue earlier in this thread is that it depends on the content and the logical structure of the “ism” in question. The realization that we are all dasein-based creatures caught up in conflict is a proposition. It has implications for other propositions. What those implications are depends on the logical structure, the internal content, of those other propositions.

In order to understand why my “ism”, and therefore my “ist”, doesn’t crumble at this realization, you have to understand what my “ism” is saying. Is it saying something that is in conflict with this realization? Is it unaffected? Are they codependent on each other? But you seemed not to want to go out on the metaphysical branch (which is what my theory is), so at this point, my subjectivism is rather black boxed for you. (Keep in mind that as much as metaphysical flights of fancy may be a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo, they are thought patterns with a certain logical structure, and that structure will still have implications for sudden realizations of all kinds; the effect of these implications on one’s sense of identity is unpredictable unless you thoroughly understand the structure itself).

Fair enough. Keep in mind, though, that showing something to be true is not always equivalent to convincing someone. Many people can be convinced by something that has been notably less than “shown” and there are those who will remain steadfastly ignorant in the face of being shown undeniable proof. In other words, even if one could demonstrate something that “shows” something to be a fact in reality (such that all rational men and women are obligated to concede), you may not see a difference in the patterns of behavior and/or reactions of others compared to any other instance of someone trying to argue their point to someone else.

Hmm, well, so much for morality requiring God.

This shows a concern on your part for an all-or-nothing solution to conflicts (which I questioned at the end of my last post to you). But supposing we had an all or nothing solution to the problem along the lines of community consensus–suppose the whole world was the “community” and everyone somehow agreed on a moral consensus–then your point still stands that it doesn’t make their consensus the objective moral truth. So I take it you would still have a qualm with this. I further take it, therefore, that your concern is indeed with finding an objective demonstration of the truth of such a consensus, a demonstration that all rational men and women would be obliged to agree with. But as I’ve been emphasizing throughout this thread, and as you seem to concur with now, this wouldn’t necessarily end the conflict–it would merely give us some guidance on which side to support and which side to resist. The side that we resist, however, will in all likelihood continue to stand up for the moral values they have held all along.

Well, given what we seem to have established just now (i.e. in regards to what is more of a dilemma to you: demonstrating who’s right or ending conflict), I can see why my approach, though an alternative to the tradition objectivist approach (as I’m calling it), wouldn’t resolve your dilemma. It wouldn’t be a “demonstration” of objective truth (not necessarily) except in the relativistic sense that it would be the truth to those involved. (Keep in mind, however, that even if there were a demonstration of objective truth to be had, my approach might still be useful in uncovering it.)

You might just have an abrasive personality–a drive to enter into conflict with others–and this just doesn’t work out in the world where people will retaliate and there will be consequences. Here on the internet, however, you have a kind of “safe haven” from which to challenge and argue with people without risking any serious consequence to yourself (except that you will sometimes piss people off and get on their bad side). I imagine that if in your past, you’ve actively participated in activist movements (Marxism, feminism, etc.) then you’re not adverse to engaging with people out in the world. But I imagine that, by the same token, your experiences with this have been less than satisfying. I can see how, after a while, one who participates in socially active lifestyles such as this might become, not only exhausted by the unfavorable reactions and animosity one would receive from the opposition, but disillusioned to the inefficacy of trying to convince others of the validity of one’s own moral position, at least via the traditional objectivist approach (and then your nihilist/existential philosophy comes in). This disillusioning would certainly kill any motivation to continue trying, which may be when you decided to seclude yourself from the world (but you tell me).

Yes, if what’s ultimately driving the theist is to convert the atheist. Keep in mind my example was really a Mickey Mouse example–I don’t think that would actually work in the real world (unless the theist was an absolute push over)–but it’s the kind of approach one might take that would play on what the opposition already believes, not on what one’s self believes in an attempt to push it on the opposition as a replacement for what the opposition believes (which is why I was saying that arguing for proof of God’s existence would work against this approach). In the real world, an atheist who decides to use this approach would have to come up with something a lot more sophisticated than “conflicting with me isn’t very loving” but it would be in the same vein of utilizing what the theist already believes.

But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the theist was hellbent on converting the atheist (probably not the most appropriate choice of words). I think my approach would still work but you’d really have to embrace a subjectivist frame of mind in this case. In other words, you would have to allow yourself to be convert (at least temporarily) and then begin work on utilizing the theist’s beliefs (which you now also believe) to accomplish your goal (if the goal is not accomplished already–i.e. the conflict is ended now that you’ve been converted). The reason this requires being a thorough going subjectivist is that, for the subjectivist, there is no absolute truth, and therefore one wouldn’t feel he is going against the truth, or his values, by switching over to another’s view (it would be like an Einsteinian relativist, who begins by saying that it is we who are moving when we walk down the street, deciding to switch perspectives in the middle of a conflict with someone who insists that it’s really the street moving backwards; the Einsteinian should have no problem with this since his own beliefs say that either perspective is valid). Of course, there may still be more work to be done after this point (if the conflict is really serious, then it’s most likely over something of far more reaching consequence than whether or not God exists, most likely over moral obligations to do something in the world), but in getting over the conflict of conversion, the (former) atheist can now work with the theist to arrive at a conclusion about how to act in the world that works more smoothly with his original goals (it’s easier to reason with someone who believes you are on their side rather than in conflict with them).

And yes, there is the possibility that the conversion itself may change the former atheist’s ultimate objective, but this shouldn’t be taken for a foregone conclusion; and furthermore, the subjectivist approach that I’m imagining would allow for an active process of submitting to conversion–by which I mean a psychological process that the subjectivist can control and customize (thought systems are very much like computer programs–they are incredibly versatile); the subjectivist, in other words, can adapt his beliefs in such a way that it satisfies the opposition’s need to have him converted while at the same time maintaining the feasibility of attaining his original goal.

Keep in mind, this is in response to your point that “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?” If you agree that we cannot establish a universally applicable demonstration of the objectively correct morality, then this is the next best hope (as far as I’m concerned). The fact that whatever consensus we come to as a community is subject to change or to challenge by another community is merely a few of the imperfections of “the next best thing” ← It’s the “next” best thing because it isn’t perfect.

It’s as if you acknowledge that the ideal solution (i.e. establishing a universally demonstrable objective morality) is impossible yet you cannot accept this fact.

Ok, so the elusiveness of this ideal solution (to wit, what I mentioned above) more or less is your dilemma.

Yes, so it seems like, despite being disillusioned to its impossibility, you still need a demonstration of a particular objectivist morality in order to get out of your dilemma.

Well, here, in my view, a frame of mind like this is sustained to the extent to which it is not put to the test out in the world of actual moral/political conflicts. Conflicts in which there are actual existential consequences that you have to live with. Or endure.

Which is why [in my view] more folks are not subjectivists/relativists/moral nihilists. They need to believe [psychologically] that their value judgments are not just leaps of faith, political prejudices, existential fabrications/contraptions rooted in dasein.

They need to believe that when goods come into conflict, their own values reflect the most rational and virtuous manner in which to embrace an issue. As a “cause” for example.

They need to believe that “right makes might” reflects the noblest approach to political economy.

So, to what extent are your own values put to the test in conflicts with others? To what extent are you forced to live with consequences that trouble you, impale you, enrage you?

That’s why I always focus the beam here on exploring actual reactions that we experience in particular contexts in which our values are challenged by others.

I ask folks to note these particular contexts in which conflicts occur and then the extent to which they are not entangled in my dilemma above.

Or are they as entangled as I am but have come to embody a frame of mind that enables them to just shrug it off more effectively than I am able to?

Again: I ask them to note an example of a particular conflict that they have encountered. In other words, in the manner in which my experience with John and Mary and Mary’s abortion set the stage for upending my own objectivist frame of mind.

Yes, I recognize that in calling myself a moral nihilist, I am creating a frame of mind in which I too am making a distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”. But I also recognize that this too is rooted in dasein. And that moral nihilism may in fact not be the most reasonable frame of mind here. But all I can do then is seek out the narratives of others. In search of one able to convince me to change my mind. After all, lots of folks in the past have succeeded in doing just that.

Yes, but empirical truths/facts are intertwined in the world of either/or. The world that physicists and chemists and astronomers and mathematicians etc. explore and decypher. The world in which engineers are able to reconfigure the scholastic/theoretical stuff into actual technologies that work precisely because they are predicated on a world that [so far] seems entirely embedded in either/or.

You can be a hardcore moral objectivist or a hardcore moral nihilist and that stuff doesn’t change. Dasein [as I understand it here – viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 – is basically moot.

This however is the sort of “analysis” which [over and again] I have the most difficulty grappling with as it relates to actual contexts in which value judgments come into conflict. Conflicts that precipitate actual existential confrontations – as small as a fist fight or as consequential as a world war.

And out on the metaphysical branch we come to grapple with such imponderables as determinism. If we live in a wholly determined world this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been. Out towards the very end of that metaphysical branch, all of us are forced to acknowledge this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

Only this: Things become all that more problematic once we shift gears from either/or to is/ought.

The problem here [from my perspective] is that I have not encountered such a demonstration. We would need to have a context in which either a God, the God, my God was shown to exist or, sans God, an argument rooted in Reason emerged able to demonstrate that either aborting an unborn baby was more rational/virtuous or protecting the right of women to choose abortion was more rational/virtuous.

Until then, yeah, my qualms remain. I just don’t equate my own qualms with the objective truth.

And, sure, in a world that is not entirely determined, the measure of human autonomy that might exist would still be more or less able to choose to be sync with either God or Reason.

What I often ponder here is this: What if I had come to embrace moral nihilism right from the start? Could I have managed then to take that political trajectory from the RCP and the SWP, to NAM, DSOC and finally DSA?

Existentialism was always there percolating in the back of my mind. I was fascinated with the Camus/Sartre “split”. It’s just that I was always able [back then] to take that leap to Marx. Until I bumped into Mary’s abortion and William Barrett. Then slowly over time I became less and less of an objectivist. Finally, I met a Thai woman who introduced me to folks like Derrida. Then I really began to question all the more the relationship between words and worlds.

I’m not really sure how to react to this because my own focus is always on the extent to which an analysis [a set of assumptions] of this sort is applicable to prong #2.

With God you have that crucial transcendental font that [ultimately] renders subjectivism either moot or enables subjectivists to defer to God when their value judgments come to clash.

My problem with God though remains the same: the extent to which He is said to be omniscient. Once you go there, how can you speak realistically of human autonomy? And once that goes how can you speak realistically of dasein/conflicting goods/political economy at all?

Of course this might fall into that category we call “the best of all possible worlds”. Acknowledging that this is always expressed “here and now” and as a political prejudice.

What I cannot accept [so far] is any argument that might possibly resolve this. This in my view is right around the corner from, “why does anything exist at all?”, or, “why is existence this way and not some other way”?

Except that once you interject “is/ought” into the mix, it only becomes all the more mind-boggling still.

And I don’t argue that ideal/natural solutions don’t exist, only that “here and now” I don’t believe that they do. But that in itself is still just a frame of mind “in my head”.

In other words:

Sure, that comes a lot closer than arguing that it does not exist.

Period.

Really, how the hell would/could “I” possibly know that?!! It’s just that many an objectivist over the years has gotten pissed off at me because I dared to suggest that this might be true of them too.

They simply have too much invested psychologically in their “one of us” mentality. The Good Guys. The Only Ones Who Really Have It All Figured Out.

Sure. If it does exist then it either is or is not able to be demonstrated sans God.

The problem with objectivists however [Satyr/Lyssa there, Turd, Jacob, James S. Saint here] is this: As soon as you reject their own narrative/solution [almost always encompassed in one or another Intellectual Contraption] you become “one of them”. You get on their shit list. Then they either ban you to the dungeons, put you on ignore, or shift gears to huffing and puffing.

Or so it certainly seems to me.

And you see that your moral nihilism doesn’t fragment nearly as easily. Some philosophies, in virtue of what they say, are affected differently by special facts and propositions (such as the realization of prong #2) that are brought into the mix.

Sure, I understand that, but what I’m saying is that in order to understand how the practices of a particular “ism” pan out in such conflicts, you first need to understand what such “isms” are saying (in general, apart from context)–otherwise, there’s no way of knowing what behaviors a particular “ism” will prescribe–if religion A says “defeat your enemies” while religion B says “submit to your enemies”–knowing this makes the behaviors of adherents to each religion very predictable–but if you want to jump straight to the context of conflict, without understanding what the “isms” involved are saying, you will be missing vital pieces of information that won’t allow you to make such predictions nearly as easily.

Yes, I can see how that would heighten the imperative to be sure we know what the moral facts of life are (and even when we feel we know them all, the question remains whether there are any moral secrets hidden in the unknown unknowns). But before we go there, please run by me once more how going to the extreme ends of metaphysics leads to knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns?

But they do seem to be correlated. Objective demonstration, no qualms; less than an objective demonstrations, qualms.

This all sounds very interesting, but I have to confess I’m not all that familiar with the Camus/Sartre split, or Mary’s abortion and how that relates to William Barrett, or the intricacies of Derrida’s philosophy (although I think he’s the father of desconstructionism, isn’t he?). But I guess you’re relaying to me the path you’ve walked to get where you are now.

As I said above, my conception of God is more a consequence of my subjectivism than a foundation, and therefore the way my God is conceptualized depends not on tradition or religious orthodoxy, but on what my subjectivism actually says. Without going into that, I will say that the closest my God comes to being omniscient is to say that all knowledge that happens to exist (in the minds of intelligent beings) is had by it. But does my God know everything? To me, that’s an incoherent notion. (I do believe that this God feels everything, but I draw a sharp distinction between feeling and knowing.

Are you saying that it is reasonable to hold out for the hope that, one day, we will have a universally applicable moral standard that can be absolutely and objectively demonstrable?

Possibly, this could have to do with their penchant for drawing boundaries or distinctions. You know–us vs. them, fact vs. falsehood.