The Grand Scheme

Huh?

John says incest can lead to birth defects. This is a biological fact. Nothing those who argue in favor of incest say can make that go away.

But:

Jane argues that, while this may be true, she is having a sexual relationship with her sister. They love each other dearly and have freely chosen to expand that love to include a physical intimacy. A sexual relationship that precludes the possibility of pregnancy.

That is also a fact.

So both sides express facts about incest that are true, pertaining to their own particular context. Facts the other side cannot make go away.

In other words, each particular sexual context involves any number of facts that can be twisted into either a pro-incest or an anti-incest moral narrative.

So how do philosophers, taking all of this into account, come up with an argument that establishes the optimal [most reasonable/rational] frame of mind? An argument that encompasses the moral obligation of all reasonable/rational men and women in regard to incest.

Where are the arguments from OH or Faust or others that make this go away?

In fact, regarding any moral conflict that we are familiar with there are similar sets of facts that can be configured into a pro or con political agenda.

Sure they can. Homosexuality is but one more example of facts on the ground that can be twisted into a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein and conflicting goods.

But: How does any so-called “preferred solution” not come down to subjective political prejudices rather than to one or another deontological “philosophical” argument in which one is obligated to interpret the facts as consistent with one or another rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Are not Jacob and Sauwelios and James Saint and all the other objectivists cut from the same cloth here? They might argue for different Kingdoms of Ends, but they all seem convinced that as “serious philosophers” these can in fact be derived in using the tools at their disposal.

In other words, they all hold particular personal opinions about particular behaviors and they try to stuff them into one or another scholastic analysis. Some with God, some without. But it always comes down to one or another set of so-called “natural” or “ideal” behaviors.

You may claim to have demonstrated “how philosophers would establish something ‘on earth’” here, but you and I are talking about two very different kinds of demonstrations.

Natural aversions? Says who? Both John and Jane above argue that it is “natural” to think about incest the way they do.

And “consequences” construed from what point of view regarding what particular context?

Again and again and again:

What I am looking for from moral objectivists [either sacred or secular] is something analogous to this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Thus when someone asks me to encompass my point of view regarding abortion as a moral issue, as a value judgment, I can situate my actual changing perspective over time: existentially, for all practical purposes.

And I can note how this particular trajectory culminates in my dilemma above.

But: What if someone asks you? You are either willing [and able] to do the same or you are not.

Either ironic or stupid based on what I posted:
" That is one of your strangest expectations … that an argument should make another argument go away. At least a half dozen posters have told you that arguments don’t work that way , including posters that you supposedly respect like OH and Faust. And still you repeat it."

As I said, your concept of demonstration is purely subjective and therefore nobody can demonstrate anything to you unless they completely agree with what you are saying.

Westermarck. But since you choose to completely ignore his research, then you can say that there is no natural aversion to incest. Except for the fact that it is a common aversion.

Got it. There is no way to define consequences. No wonder “the kids” have a field day with you.

Sure, post the same stuff over and over.

No, I refuse to post the same crap as you.

That you allow yourself to be reduced down to intellectual drivel like this does not bode well for the future of our exchanges.

After all, this is the philosophy forum.

Best perhaps to take the route that Turd, Jacob and Satyr have chosen: Ignore the bastard!! :wink:

I tell you that OH and Faust already told you that arguments don’t make other arguments go away and you respond with this:
“Where are the arguments from OH or Faust or others that make this go away?”

Do you even read the posts? Do you understand anything that people write?
FFS

My previous two posts were full of content and you were confused and responded with that kind of nonsense and your usual cut and paste GROOT. Then you have the gall to characterize my posts as drivel. No wonder that everyone is sick and tired of interacting with you.

You stated that, “[a]t least a half dozen posters have told you that arguments don’t work that way.” I took that to mean something entirely different. This: that arguments revolving around conflicting goods don’t work the way that I construe them: reasonable given a particular set of assumptions.

After all, if arguments can be said to be reasonable given conflicting sets of initial assumptions then we arrive at this:
[b][i]
John says incest can lead to birth defects. This is a biological fact. Nothing those who argue in favor of incest say can make that go away.

But:

Jane argues that, while this may be true, she is having a sexual relationship with her sister. They love each other dearly and have freely chosen to expand that love to include a physical intimacy. A sexual relationship that precludes the possibility of pregnancy.

That is also a fact.

So both sides express facts about incest that are true, pertaining to their own particular context. Facts the other side cannot make go away. [/i][/b]

How then do you [or them] respond to that?

Or, regarding abortion, where is the philosophical argument the makes the “good” revolving around the birth of the baby, or the “good” revolving around a pregnant woman’s right to kill it go away? We can’t live in a world where both goods prevail, right? Thus neither side’s agenda succeeds in making the arguments of the other side less true. It merely revolves around a different set of initial assumptions regarding whose life/good ought to prevail.

Back again to William Barrett’s “rival goods”.

I will let others decide for themselves which of us is inclined to respond more substantively to the points that we raise in our exchanges.

Indeed, perhaps even zinnat himself might be inclined to comment on that. I could at least always count on him to be substantive.

Well, up to a point.

This. Compare https://books.google.nl/books?id=ob5KBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq="leo+strauss"+"common+sense"&source=bl&ots=EFwSmGbAj6&sig=2RQE223v1pae7CXX0gWomRGafiE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixqbDt9NLPAhUDcBoKHUHOAZEQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q="leo%20strauss"%20"common%20sense"&f=false

No. The whole concept of “laws of matter” or “laws of nature” is already a common-sense induction

So, are you equating inner strength with a form of masochism?

In what way are freedom and necessity the same thing? :-k

I don’t quite know what you mean by “knowledge can’t be first” BUT as for

Don’t we ultimately base our sense of “value[s]” on what we have observed and experienced both in the positive and the negative - so value can stem from “empirical” knowledge as long as it stems from right and true vision.

Yes.
And what srill went wrong with Husserl is that he still sough for a primordial intelligence, or sense, whereas all that too is first of all a result of a taste.
no one really managed to pick that up from Nietzsche in an Analytic context. Understandable, as it causes the whole Analytic paradigm to evaporate; “A” now doesn’t equal itself, as it has no itself; “A” = q? - that is to say it asks a question beyond analysis; it questions man into the world. No longer is the question “does this exist objectively?” but “is this good enough to be recognized into the world?” And this is the question science always already answers before it offers space to think about it.

Nothing is important anymore except the power to attribute importance; Kingmakers are higher than Kings.

Do your questions place you deeper into the world, or do they make you stand outside of it, looking in - or trying - through a glass darkly perhaps?

Rhetorical question.

It just seems obvious to me:

What particular question in what particular context pertaining to what particular world: historically, culturally, experientially.

Deeper compared to what? And from what particular point of view?

Is it a point of view able to be demonstrated as in sync with that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?

I merely shift the focus here to that which is of interest to me: conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

What on earth does this mean? And what does it portend regarding any particular experience that you have had?

Also, as this relates to the Grand Scheme – To ‘problematize’ “value” – what does it mean [existentially, to you] to embody this frame of mind?

Can you relate it all to a particular experience of yours?

Fixed asks if you dont experience your valuing? Rhetorical question also I hope, otherwise I have more running to do.

:confused:

This is why I have always thought in some cases it is illegitimate to call reading backwards from the last post with only cursory glance into the substance of it - trolling. This last post explaining Cross’s comment is right on the money, the outside-inside predicament is
at the crux of all the portensions of identity, power and conflicting value, because that position is the last de-ontological stand, from which there is no escape.

You’re out that’s it, were it not for the will’s inescapable urge to have a scintilla of a view through the darkness. That is, the grace which saves Plato and Nietzche, the point of invaluable touching, if by a mere point. That point, even if superfluous, or vanished, into supposed nothingness, still exists, in the grand view of things.

That point, really, includes the whole universe, proving the simplicity and negative consequence into whose absurdity, total reduction can deliver. Here the identity is resolved totally, and only the grand design of which can ever glimpse into. Reality is an objective pointilistic absurdum, where the absolute power dissolves into the most subtlest of hints.

Nothing to prove, or disprove, sorrily nothing to argue about, either.

I saw Fixed nodding solemnly when he read this. He muttered also “but there is structure, it is just asymmetrical”.

Unfortunately i am here to deliver a less lofty package.

"It is my belief that the left has degenerated so far and modern/radical islam is just leftism, that it would not be productive now to reason wth them; the best thing is to demonstrate oneself. The best outcome is for the left to go to war with itself. The mass import of medieval people into recently liberated lands acts on a chemical level, it reduces the structural integrity of most entities in that continent. It is like emptying a sewage tank over a bed of sleeping children. Its going to condition for the worse the generation now growing up, and philosophy will eventually have to be re invented there, and rebuilt from the ground up.

Its been a while now that “quality papers”, equivalents of the NY Times and Washington Post, have been hiring from these new pools of islamized/socialized education, resulting in a constant stream of grammatical errors. So you’ll be reading about the racism of those that try to fight against islamization in the language of a person who has apparently not gone to grade school. For all the depravity of the new york times now, it still has plenty of intellectual savvy, it is a paper run by people that can appreciate a sentence. One the one hand this would seem to make it more dangerous - on the other, the debilitating effect of actual morons running the Intelligentsia-sphere is almost absolute.

So what we have in Europe is a couple of hundred millions of cows grazing on increasingly poisonous ground, and stampeding upon anyone who tries to improve that ground.

By far the best prospects are for a phase of nationalist-conservative parties to be elected into command - Geert Wilders can not lead in in the Netherlands, he is no Trump and he is even more hated, but LePen might pull it off in France. That would cause despair among the establishment and imams (i really do think Saudi Arabia is consciously taking over: they would be ‘infidels’ if they didnt) even beyond what we see in the US now. Far beyond. It would likely result in a lot of armed conflict. But that would in turn lead to islam being revealed for what it is. And that is the aim. Just like it was the major aim of the Trumpen to reveal the inhumanity of the media, and thus cure the US of its most dreadful disease, an aim for Europe would always have to involve exposing the vileness at the core of the religious beliefs that now claim decency."

Hell, if he ever chooses to come down out of the clouds, we can discuss this ourselves. :wink:

Fixed Cross say he appreciates the reference to Aristophanes. ALso he say you are welcome on his place but just abide the rules and dont get impatient, guys are writing theirs ass off for many hours a day there, had a hand in Trump victory though meming on all sort sof plaforms, reddit, all very serious.

My knight barbarianhorde has been banished from here, in his words for repeating moderators words verbatim. I assume that isnt the only issue.

In any case, I, Fixed Cross, come back here now, to say that I pull Barbarianhorde from ILP. He is like Pezer, trying his best to take every single nazi and troll seriously. He also thinks turd ferguson wants me to drop a turd in his mouth as a sexual favor. Wherever that comes from it must be from here, no good, so Im pulling bbhorde.

I’ll see about sending another ambassador here, maybe a woman.

Yiu have stupid knights.

It’s “Yiu has stupid knights”.

Im sorry to hear it. I assume he is your boss/owner, and his knights are tearing you apart.

Maybe their issue is just bad taste.

Anyway, give my sympathies to Yiu.

You have stupid knights.