Making iambiguous's day

As long as spouts the dasein stuff, he is king of the mountain - unassailable. Only his thoughts about everything are right for him. He can accept or reject any argument on the basis of any whim. Total control.

I’m sure that he enjoys sitting in bed and passing judgement on the arguments :

“No.”
“You have not convinced me.”
“You have not demonstrated it to me.”
“Try again.”

And as long as he does it, people keep coming back and talking to him. If he was ever convinced by an argument, then the conversations might end and then what would he do.

He’s got a sweet situation here. :smiley:

No, my point is that it is unreasonable to argue that the Republicans in the Senate did not use the “nuclear option” to put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

This is either in fact true or it is in fact false.

My point further is that whether the nuclear option was reasonable here is rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of political economy rooted in conflicted goods rooted [largely] in dasein. And that there does not appear to be a way in which mere mortals can demonstrate that this is either in fact true or in fact false.

I certainly cannot. I acknowledge over and again that this is but one more existential contraption. No less so than yours.

Again, assuming of course that men and women have the capacity to make decisions like this with some measure of autonomy.

What the moral/political objectivists assume is that just as we can distinguish between rational and irrational with respect to the fact of the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation, we can, in turn, distinguish between fact and fiction with respect to the question “ought he have been nominated and confirmed”?

Go ahead, ask them.

Okay, choose a behavior in which actual flesh and blood human beings have [historically, culturally] been at odds, and note for us what it means to “improve” ones behavior.

Again…

1] What does it mean to be reasonable when someone asks you, “is Donald Trump the president of the United States”?

2] What does it mean to reasonable when someone asks you, “is Donald Trump’s presidency [so far] a success?”

For someone who understands me so well why do you always misunderstand me even more?

You know, with respect to all that prong #2 stuff.

You know, assuming some measure of autonomy. :wink:

Why did you bring up the subject of free-will versus determinism then?

You often do. I assume it’s because you think that if there is no free-will, understood as the ability to change past decisions, then there can be no distinction between reasonable and unreasonable.

Because I know he has no interest in philosophy, I know he won’t be tackling this question, so this question is meant for other people trying to interpret his behavior.

No, my point is this: What does it mean to speak of “just mindful matter”? Mindful matter is this absolutely extraordinary – astounding – thing. It is the first matter [going back billions of year] that we suspect is able to ponder itself as matter existing in a universe that may or may not be propelled by immutable material laws. And, if it is propelled by the very same immutable laws that propel mindless matter, what then does that mean?

What does it mean to be “responsible” for something in a wholly determined universe? What does it mean to speak of “obligation” in a wholly determined universe?

Yes, this may well be that important point I keep missing. But if I can only define “choice” here as I was ever going to define it, then that either is or is not in sync with the laws of nature.

That’s why I always focus the beam here on conflicts in which a “consensus” [the irresistible force in one community] makes contact with another “consensus” [the immovable object in another community].

Take for example the practice of clitorectomies. How do we determine objectively whether this practice is or is not in sync with that which all intelligent men and women are obligated to either embrace or eschew. How do we derive the essential argument that unequivocally transcends historical, cultural and experiential context?

But my point is that “is/ought” in a determined universe is but the illusion of “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “bad”. Imagine for example [in a multiverse], entities somehow detached from our own determined suniverse. One observes that some of us choose to eat chickens while others choose not to. But then the other quickly points out that this was never, ever able to be any other way.

All I can return to then is this: I am just not “getting” your point here.

Still, either way it was never going to be anything other than what, ontologically, per the laws of nature, it was always propelled/compelled to be.

And that is when we probe the extent to which there is a teleological element – which most call God – “behind” it. That’s when we reach the part where a real choice is being made – in the sense that another actual choice was able to be made instead.

Or so it seems to me.

This makes sense to you. But it makes sense to you only because there was never any possibility that it would not make sense to you. So, what does it mean for another to suggest that it is fallacious and delusional when there was never any possibility in turn that they would not say this?

What does that actually mean “in reality”?

Then we understand the meaning of “stuck” in different ways. My meaning revolves around a universe in which I was never, ever going to not be stuck in it. All I can then imagine is this universe unfolding in such a way that “in my head” I come to think/believe that I am not stuck in it. But even that is only as it ever could have been.

So, actually being “stuck” in a universe is just another frame of mind that matter has propelled me to ponder in different — but no less determined – ways.

But how is this perceived diversity – in either sense – any less entangled in what it/they was/were only ever going to be?

From my frame of mind, what I am doing [in a wholly determined universe] is disengaging from one point of view and then engaging another point of view while recognizing that I must recognize that both moments are ever in sync with the only way they ever could have been.

What, in a wholly determined universe, does it mean – really mean – to start and to stop anything?

And if I know you’re right [here and now] then I could never have known anything other than that.

Even if, down the road, the lightbulb goes off, and I finally “get” you, it is only because I was never going to not get you.

Look, we can go into great “technical” depth here regarding what “philosophically” it means to “make the right decision”.

In other words, taking into account human sense perception and cognition. Taking into account nature and nurture. Taking into account the tools of logic and epistemology. Taking into account the role of language. Taking into account the speculations of ethicists down through the ages.

But sooner or later we have to take our conclusions about that out into the world and plug them into an actual context in which what we choose to do comes into conflict with what others choose to do instead.

And, thus, generate actual consequences which others will react to in terms of a particular set of customs and folkways and mores and laws. All of which are embedded out in a particular world rooted in a particular historical and cultural context.

Really, how difficult is it to understand the distinction between [b][u]discussing[/u][/b] choices here in a philosophy venue and [b]making[/b] choices out in a world where the consequences of what we do choose can be, among other things, profoundly problematic, precarious and [even] perilous.

It’s sad when I am able to reduce you down to this sort of Satyrean retort.

Or, sure, I can give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just poking me here with the irony stick. :wink:

Ironically, I may be describing your motivation perfectly … and you don’t even realize it.

Admittedly, this is the part that gets particularly tricky: What do I want?

And, more to the point, to what extent can I ever really know this?

For example, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of “I” here. The part embedded in nature and in nurture. The part embedded in a particular sequence of experiences over many, many years. The parts embedded in the subconscious and the unconscious mind.

Though [I think] if I had really “given up” I wouldn’t be wasting my time exploring the renditions of others. After all, there are plenty of other more gratifying [sure-fire] ways in which to wait for godot — music, film, feasting, imbibing.

And then there is the part where I am really, really curious to know if anyone actually can yank me up from my dilemma. In other words, before I drag them down into it instead.

But that of course is just my own rendition of this:

I still have no clear idea how “for all practical purposes” this might actually be useful. Pertaining to, among other things, human social, political and economic interactions.

If you come on a philosophy board in order to ask us to demonstrate that our decisions are “the right decisions” only to get a negative response in the form of “we don’t know what you want us to do” isn’t it natural, provided you still want us to do whatever you want us to do, to help us, and thus get closer to achieving your goal, by explaining in more detail what you want us to do?

I have absolutely no idea what you want me to do. As far as I am concerned, you are merely bombarding me with words.

He craves external stimulation. Instead of being in control of the environment, he wants to be controlled by the environment. But in a positive, i.e. pleasant, way. He wants someone to come along and to “take his breath away”. In plain terms, to be impressed. Because he’s impressionable. The only problem is he’s old and the old drugs no longer work on him. He needs something stronger.

I can assure you, I mean something by those words; there is definitely a thought in my mind which I’m trying to convey with those words. You might say I have the wrong thought, or that I’ve misread Biggy. You might say the thought I have in my head is incoherent or riddle with paradox, but there’s definitely something there.

It’s true that we learn the words from others–that’s how language is learned–but the phrase we are discussing–“choosing the morally correct side”–is a phrase I whipped up myself–I didn’t borrow it from anyone. That’s not to say I’m the first person to say it, but I can guarantee I didn’t go to them first to get the phrase–I just put a handful of words together in order to express what I wanted to say. ← That’s how speach works.

And let’s be honest: the phrase isn’t really that cryptic–“choosing the morally correct side”–is patently clear in its meaning. It’s not like learning a new expression in a foreign language. What I suspect you’re getting at is not whether I understand the meaning of the phrase but whether I understand the nature of morality. The phrase “choosing the morally correct side” does indeed hint at an objectivist point of view–as if there will always be a correct side, objectively, to any moral controversy–and that does seem naive to me, and I would expect others like yourself to question it. Again, however, I must stress that this is what Biggy seems to be after, not me–I’m a subjectivist, I don’t believe in an ultimate objectively correct moral position, but I can certainly understand the idea, and I can certainly convey the idea using a phrase such as “choosing the morally correct side”.

You could construe it that way, but it was intended to give a picture of what the “morally correct choice” looks like–it looks like the decision you’re compelled to make when one option out of many stands out as obviously the right choice. It doesn’t have to be the right choice objectively, but what Biggy is looking for is something that looks just like that coupled with a method for proving whether it really is objectively right or not.

I think you’re thinking of this too narrowly–you’re thinking of this only in the context of the example I gave–it was meant to be generalized. I could come up with another scenario: a man is being attacked by a wild dog. You have a gun. What do you do? For any example I come up with, the answer to the question: what is the “morally correct thing to do” is what they all have in common. Which I’m saying is an intuitive feeling that X is the right thing to do rather than Y.

It’s true that different people may have different intuitive feelings on any moral scenario, but that, to me, is the nature of the beast–the nature of morality. I don’t think of morality as a set of overarching rules that all men and women are obliged to follow. I think of it as a personal calling, something one has to decide for one’s self, the voice of one’s inner conscience. What may be morally right for one person may be a terrible transgression for another.

Sure, and this is roughly the same criticism I’m leveling against Biggy. I’m arguing, among other things, that Biggy needs to at least understand what an “objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do” is before he can expect to be persuaded by it should someone actually follow through with his challenge. Right now, it seems to me, the only thing one can offer Biggy in response to this challenge is something which would only qualify as what Biggy calls an “existential contraption”.

In short: I know what I mean by the “morally correct choice” or the “morally correct side”, but I agree with you that such a notion is incoherent unless one is able to clearly define what it is for such a choice or such a side to be objectively correct (i.e. something above and beyond an existential contraption). ← But that’s something I’m charging Biggy with, not something I’m guilty of myself.

Well, not always. It sometimes feels comfortable, but other times it’s a really gruelling decision to make. For me, morality is always the voice of the conscience, which is to be distinguished from what feels good in the moment, and also from rationalizations (for example, the way a nihilist might rationalize that morality doesn’t exist though he might have to fight feelings of guilt and remorse over harming others).

Let me give you an example from my own life; I have a nephew who was born with a kidney defect. The doctor’s said his kidneys only had a 25% chance of developping normally, and that if they were not developping normally by age 2, he would need a transplant. Neither his mother nor his father could do it because they were too genetically similar. This got me thinking: the kid will need a kidney from someone not immediately related to him. I’m his uncle so maybe I’d be a better candidate. I don’t see anyone else stepping up to the plate. Therefore, I’m in a position to do the morally right thing. ← I felt I was faced with a choice, and I recognized it as one of those moments when one’s morality is put to the test. So I offered to donate one of my kidneys. It’s not something I wanted to do–I like my kidneys and I’d rather keep them–and I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable giving them up (although I guess I would feel comfortable knowing that I did the right thing, but that at an extremely high cost, a cost that does not make me feel comfortable). But I knew that if I wanted to consider myself a moral person, The choice was clear: offer to donate one of your kidneys. Luckily, my nephew grew to be 2 years old and his kedneys are doing surprisingly well. They aren’t 100% and he will always need medical attention, but the doctors finally said that he was not in need of a transplant. So I get to keep my kidneys! Yeay! :smiley: ← Getting off the hook is what feels most comfortable to me, but I know that at the time, I was committed. I was ready to give up one of my kidneys, and it was a decision I was not looking forward to.

^ The point is, that’s what morality is. It’s listening to your inner voice speak of “right” and “wrong”, not “comfort” or “discomfort”, not “I came up with a good argument” or “I failed to come up with a good argument”, but “right” and “wrong” whether you like it or not.

I think Biggy’s question is more of a rhetorical one. I think he knows that people can’t delivery on a demand for something that doesn’t make sense or is incoherent (what you’re probably calling “meaningless”), and hence his inquiries are more of a challenge than a genuine request for answers.

Biggy, I’ll respond to your post later…

Yep.

Good conscience is nothing other than absence of discomfort – tension, stiffness, etc – within the body.

Discomfort is created when some impulses are over-expressed and others are under-expressed. It is resolved by weakening the over-expressed impulses and strengthening the under-expressed ones.

The path towards good conscience can be uncomfortable – not because it is what we want, but quite simply because the path itself is rocky, making it very likely for us to stumble into discomfort – but the conscience itself when it is clean is comfortable, far more than bad conscience can ever be.

Also, when you “feel good” about something that does not mean there is no discomfort inside your body. Hedonism refers to this kind of pleasure. This is why it is considered “dirty” and “guilty”.

Do “intellectual contraptions” ever end?

Let’s say that a man is taken away in the middle of the night by the secret police. He is tortured, killed and his body is “dumped”.

Is it an intellectual contraption if he thinks that his treatment is immoral?

If he was a loyal “party member” would be believe that his torture and death are morally correct?

Ought he be concerned that he cannot demonstrate the immorality of his torture to the sociopath who is torturing him?

It seems that at some point the “intellectual contraptions” are no longer just “intellectual contraptions”.

Huh? So if I do what’s right according to my conscience, I will be free of bodily pain? If I take a bullet in a war, feeling that I’m serving my country, the wound won’t hurt? If I’m dying of cancer and I bequeath my estate to my children in my will, the pain from the cancer will no longer hurt?

I can buy that. A good conscience comes with the feeling of “I’m a good person” or “everything is right with the world”, and it’s true that the road there can be painful, but I don’t think the good feeling that comes from a clean conscience wipes away all pain a person could feel. Doing the right thing often requires sacrifice, and that sacrifice doesn’t always go away once you’re satisfied that you’ve done the right thing.

Conscience” is the sense of (whether delusion or not) innocence or guilt (aka “right or wrong”).

The sense of guilt can, and often does, bring with it a feeling of discomfort (threat of retribution). But “conscience” is not about the discomfort but rather about the awareness of innocence or guilt.

You won’t be free of pain for the simple reason that noone has total control over the universe.

Pain is an unwanted consequence. It’s what happens but what we never want to happen.

To tolerate pain, for example, does not mean to feel pain. It means to be comfortable with what used to be uncomfortable.

When I put my hand in a tub full of hot water my aim isn’t to feel pain – what would be the point of that? – but to make sure that I do not pull my hand out of it. In order to do so, I must desensitize myself, which is to say, I must switch off impulses that are unnecessary, that distract from what I want to do. This process makes the experience, not more uncomfortable, but less.

Pain is always avoided. The only question is how. You can avoid it by evading the external stimulus (e.g. pulling your hand out of hot water) or by desensitizing yourself (e.g. restraining your impulses.)

Conscience is not about discomfort, I would agree with James, but what is often referred to as “intuitive right and wrong” is.

You mean, acceptance of pain.

So you’re talking about desensitzation to pain by acceptance. This is a real phenomenon. Acceptance of pain can have the effect of lessening the pain, at least psychologically, and maybe even physically.

So can listening to the voice of your conscience. The discomfort of doing what’s right can be much less than it would if you were forced to do it. However, the most comfortable thing to do can often be to ignore your conscience–even if you have to endure the guilt, that pain can be less than the sacrifice you’d have to make if you followed through with your conscience.

I don’t understand the difference. In what sense is intuitive right and wrong about causing greater discomfort to one’s self whereas conscience, in the same situation, would be about lessening discomfort (through desensitization ← I presume that’s what you’re talking about).

It’s not accurate to say that you’re accepting pain. What is accepted is the mediate cause of pain, such as contact between your hand and hot water, but the immediate cause of pain, which is hyper-activity that takes place within your nervous system, is actively rejected.

Both techniques can give you comfort. You can evade or destroy the mediate cause of pain (e.g. the man whipping you) or you can simply destroy hyper-activity within your nervous system (e.g. reactions that arise in response to whipping.) Both preserve or restore your comfort but there is a notable difference between the two. Namely, the former has an advantage of being able to preserve possessions other than comfort (e.g. your body and by extension your life) but it has a disadvantage in that it is a stress on your nervous system. This means it can create discomfort.

Thus, it often happens that a person, who attempts, and perhaps even manages, to evade or destroy the mediate cause of discomfort, ends up causing discomfort to himself with his own actions. This is, for example, what happens to people who over-work, over-exercise, over-think and otherwise over-act.

Discomfort makes you weak. It’s a lot more difficult to concentrate when you’re in pain than when you’re not. It acts like a gravitational force that keeps pulling you down sabotaging any activity you might be trying to engage in.Thus, if you want to be strong, you must preserve your comfort above everything else.

There is no such a thing as “too much comfort”. The problem is that people confuse inner peace (what I refer to as comfort here) with outer peace (what I do not recognize as comfort here.) There is indeed such a thing as “too much outer peace” but there is no such a thing as “too much inner peace”. It’s pretty evident that in times of great outer peace, when there are no external threats in the form of wars, that people start degenerating. But this is only because such a peace creates inner discomfort, in the form of boredom, that is very difficult to resolve.

It is my personal opinion that the fundamental decision making process of every organism with a nervous system consists in making sure that one’s nervous activation remains within the limits of comfort. Good refers to actions that are within the comfort zone and bad refers to actions that are outside of it. It does not matter what these actions are. They can be anything.

When people speak of “conscience” I immediately think of “inner peace”. And when they speak of “intuition” I immediately think of “emotional regulation”. Not that the two are the same, mind you, but I think that these people, more than anything, are speaking of these phenomena rather than what they think they are speaking of.