The Reasonable Standard

An answer to a challenge made in jestful jest by Iambiguous.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=191146&start=25#p2630835

I claim that mr Reasonable is a philosopher, and that his standard is as follows:

Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.

You guys debate it, and I’ll be the judge.

Obviously: Whatever that means.

Besides, life is said to be good or bad only from a particular subjective point of view rooted existentially in dasein.

Also, to the extent that he embraces a particular behavior as good [playing the stock market say] others will insist that it is bad.

And the role that power plays historically in a particular political economy will decide which behaviors either are or are not, among other things, legal.

And that’s before we get to the brutally cynical rationalizations of the sociopaths.

On the other hand, if we peruse mr reasonable’s “signature thread” here — viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879 — we encounter that side of him which has got to be down near the bottom of the philosophy barrel. If not underneath it.

Indeed, you tell me…

Where’s the philosophy here:

I’m sitting on my couch, watching a video of the alabama/lsu game while smoking a bong and waiting for chinese food to be delivered. I was thinking of getting someone over here to clean the place. This is usually what I’m doing, I’ve seen this game about 130-140 times now. Or I’m in the bathroom someplace, bored and using my phone to post on message boards while I poop.

Seriously though:

On the other other hand, however, at least he is not one of the fucking KIDS!

And the winner is…

Fixed Cross.

You forgot these…

…right?

“Bitches, hoes, and blow followed by my get rich scheme.” -Mr. Reasonable

“I don’t understand you guys, you could all be successful internet day traders and drug dealers like me.” -Mr. Reasonable

“Obama is a great president and if you don’t think so you’re a dumb racist.” -Mr. Reasonable

I think that pretty much covers it all. Mr Reasonable, comments?

Full of philosophy. It’s his description of (the good) life.

You are interested in how one ought to live … here you have Mr R’s answer.

No, I mean that he enjoys life.
Not that life is morally good!

For starters, in knowing what he likes, and being able to organize his life so that he gets to do that.

With that, he is comfortably on the leaderboard of the power-to-value game.

There is no philosophy whatsoever in that quote. Fixed is merely practicing the art of pretending that there is something within nothing so that he can become better at presenting his own non-philosophical effort as being philosophical.

Shut up Magnus. Everyone knows that you’re a Nazi and a hater. My prescription for you is to masturbate repeatedly until you can settle down and think like a grown man.

What does a manchild like you know about being a grown up?

That quote betrays you.

Magnus old flowerbulb. How is life man.

No Im not pretending.

Mr. R - this seems as good a place as any to ask, how are you buying stocks online? I need to be putting some euros in harder value.

No, what I am interested in exploring is the extent to which mr reasonable’s rendition of “the good life” is rooted existentially in the life that he lived [in dasein] or if it can in fact be argued [using the tools of philosophy] to be the sort of life that all rational men and women are obligated to conclude is in fact “a good life”.

Now, wiggle out of taking the discussion there.

Also, in making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between the behaviors that he has chosen to acquire and then to sustain this life — playing the stock market — and an argument able to establish that this sort of behavior is essentially reasonable and moral.

My point is that mr reasonable either does or does not earn income playing the market. This is either a fact or it is not.

But some argue that playing the market exemplifies rational, virtuous behavior while others argue that, in being part and parcel of the capitalist political economy, it is not. That socialism [one or another rendition of it] is a more reasonable and ethical mode of human interaction.

Or there are even “scientific” Marxists who argue that historically this behavior may still prevail but given the extent to which “dialectical materialism” is a rational point of view, some day, down the road, “dog eat dog” capitalism will be replaced by “all for one and one for all” Communism.

Of course [here and now] that seems rather elusive. Perhaps even illusive.

But how is either side able to demonstrate that their own rendition of what constitutes “natural” or “ideal” behavior – or “the good life” – is in fact the case?

There are also folks here who claim that mr reasonable is a “drug dealer”. Is this in fact true? I have no idea.

My argument is only that he is or he is not. There are either facts able to confirm it or facts able to expose it as a lie. I am only interested in exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to judge these behaviors [deontologically] as necessarily Right or Wrong, Good or Evil.

In a world without God.

Well, if you are convinced that the role of the serious philosopher is more to establish whether someone either does or does not enjoy life rather than in exploring the extent to which the life that he enjoys embodies “the good life”, fine.

The latter however would seem to be quite a bit more challenging.

Ah, so that is what it means to be a “value ontologists”.

If, say, someone like Adolph Hitler knows what he likes and is able to organize his life around attaining it, then…

Of course, this frame of mind can revolve around either might makes right or right makes might. Or, in the modern industrial state, around whatever behaviors you have the wealth and the power to enforce.

Against, among others, the sheep.

On the other hand, how does this frame of mind obviate the points I raise regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Again, choose a value judgment of your own, bring it down to earth, put it in conflict with the values of others and note how you are not entangled in my dilemma.

A search of your posts and the phrase “how one ought to live” produces 512 hits. A brief reminder for you :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&p=2629397&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2629397

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&p=2629034&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2629034

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=190366&p=2611113&hilit=how+one+ought+to+live#p2611113

But it turns out that you are really interested in something else.

Biguous is not interested in how this or that person chooses to live their life, but rather, whether their choices are subjective (mere opinions, or inclinations, rooted in dasein) or objective (choices that everyone should be making because they are objectively better for everyone.)

Is the choice of life over death objective or subjective?

Is it a mere habit (subjective) or is it a fact (objective)?

Taste is objective. That we all disagree on taste to different extents is proof: it is objectively formed out of only different circumstances.
Iambguous, do you have any thoughts or interest on Dawkin’s idea of convergent evolution? The idea is that the same trait has been proven to evolve in two different species with different genealogies by simple environmental exchange.

Nor am I entangled in Turds dilemma, or anyones. Im not in a dillemma. I solve dillemmas.

Do you deny that Hitler had power and set value standards and is still relevant precisely because of that? Or do you deny that relevance is relevant? In either case, you are wrong.

Beyond good and evil, or “beyond good” as Lacan simplified it. Live up to your claim of being a Nietzschean, my friend.

Yes, and how is noting this an effective response to the point I make regarding the role that existential variables play in his life – re dasein – predisposing him to choose this particular life; and then concluding that it is “the good life”?

And what of those who argue that his behaviors reflect an immoral lifestyle instead? Those who condemn capitalism and embrace socialism.

Obviously in today’s world he is able to choose to sustain his behaviors. But that is not to say that will always be the case. What becomes crucial in human interactions [historically, culturally] is the extent to which particular behaviors are either rewarded or punished. And the extent to which the conflicting parities are able to effectively argue what it should be one and not the other.

That’s the distinction that I am interested in.

If it is assumed that playing the stock market is virtuous behavior then mr reasonable might set himself the goal of becoming a millionaire by doing so. Then he can ask, “what ought I to do in order to achieve this?”. And if he does become a millionaire he can argue that what he did is “good”. And, if not…if instead he goes bankrupt…then in can be argued what he did was “bad”.

But that does not resolve the conflict that revolves around whether one ought or ought not to embrace capitalism. And my point is that any particular individual will have any particular answer to that question based more on the individual experiences that he or she had rather than by, in using the tools of philosophy, being able to answer the question in the most rational and ethical manner.

Something that, for example, Ayn Rand and the Libertarians attempt to do.

And that, ultimately, philosophy aside, what counts out in the real world is political economy — one’s capacity [power] to enforce a particular narrative/agenda.