Making iambiguous's day

For example, he’s the kind of person who will lie to you that there is something wrong with your behavior so as to paralyze you in your attempt to punish his behavior. He’s going to tell you that you are “losing it” or that you are “getting worked up” not because that’s what’s really going on but quite simply because it’s useful to him to think that such is true (because then it would be better for me to cease to be angry with him.) That’s the core of victim mentality. Maniputaing others by confusing them into thinking that what is better for you is also what is better for them.

I wouldn’t word it that way, but sure.

Here’s the deal with him:

He’s terrified of being judged

He’s trying to get lots of friends because he’s terrified of making hard decisions

And if you’re telling him that this dilemma doesn’t exist at all, he’ll just tell you that you don’t understand him and call you a little kid …

He’s extremely insecure, you’re correct about this

Okay then, we’re stuck. How about a game of checkers instead? Or, if we include ecmandu, tic tac toe. :wink:

How about a game of Magnus hitting you in your head until you bleed to death, what do you think, I think it’s more fun, don’t you think?

Note to others:

Have we finally resolved this? :wink:

Who are these particular others, Biggy?
Who are you talking to?
Or are you talking to yourself?

The others? Oh, I just make them up as I go along. On some threads, it even includes you. :banana-linedance:

It’s a very weak strategy. It requires far more intelligence than most of these people have. If you ask a Christian to prove to you that God exists, he’s not going to come to a realization that he cannot do so. Instead, he will simply give you what he thinks is a proof.

A better approach would be to ask them to define their words in order to prove that they know what they are talking about.

Note that Biggy does not understand the purpose of definitions. He looks down upon them as being merely inside your head. Not descriptions of reality that can be more or less accurate but just words without any reference point in the real.

I don’t think Biggy’s question is rhetorical. I don’t think he understands that the idea of “what is true independently of anyone’s opinion” is without a reference point in reality.

No, he’s a fence sitter. He can’t decide.

He can’t decide between reality and fantasy. He doesn’t like reality. He wants to believe in a fantasy. The problem is he no longer can.

Sorry to see you go. But we did manage to sustain a discussion here that is all too infrequent of late at ILP: an actual exchange of substantive opinion. And in the philosophy forum no less.

Before the Kids more or less took over, it wasn’t always like this.

1] If what you say here is true then I am back to this: that, in a wholly determined universe, I could never have not been the way that I am. My “certainty” then is merely another domino toppling over in my brain.
2] To the extent that my dilemma is not a reasonable frame of mind, others are invited to note the manner in which it is not applicable to them in their own conflicted interactions with others.

They will either go there or they will not. And, if they do, I will either grasp their point or I will not. That’s simply how these exchanges work here.

Right?

But I repeat myself: All I can do is to note the narratives of others that are at odds with my own; and then to weigh them as either more or less reasonable than the manner in which I have come to think about these relationships myself here and now.

Seriously, what else is there in a venue like this? The only alternative would seem to be this:

1] the belief that there is in fact an optimal manner in which to assess my dilemma
2] that I am refusing to grasp it…or I am unable to grasp it

Indeed, the same thing could be said of the manner in which you convey the nature of prong #1 interactions. You think as you do about “consciousness” [here and now] and others either share your assumptions about it or they do not. From your frame of mind it is the optimal assessment; but you have not been able to convey it such that the philosophy community [even here] embraces it in turn.

It’s not the “standard model” among philosophers. Anymore than my own narrative is.

More to the point though [mine] in a universe where human interactions are embedded in some measure of “free will”, dasein [as I understand it] is applicable only pertaining to conflicting value judgments and the manner in “I” is largely subjective in the is/ought world. Dasein would not be applicable regarding the preponderence of human interactions that are embedded instead in the either/or world.

Yes, and I have had any number of additional “default positions” in the past: Christianity, Unitarianism, Objectivism, Marxism, feminism, Trotskyism, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, liberalism, Existentialism…nihilism.

But I recognize this: given that I live in a world of contingency, chance and change, there is always the possibility that through new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., the part of “I” embodied in dasein is ever problematic – an existential contraption – from the cradle to the grave.

It’s just when I suggest “the same with you” to the moral objectivists that the more contentious reactions are leveled at me.

My nihilism is embedded in the is/ought world. In the either/or world there are any number of things that we can believe to be true for all of us: mathematics, the laws of nature, the rules of logic, the extant empirical world.

And I am more than willing to concede that someday I may well look back on this frame of mind and ponder, “what was I thinking?”

Indeed, it is the objectivists who embed their own moral and political narratives in one or other psychological rendition of this:

[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
[/b]
My point on this thread is that to the extent determinism is true is the extent to which the manner in which we construe “good” and “evil” in the is/ought world is just an illusion. There is no actual good and evil in the manner in which we have come to think of that as “autonomous human beings”; only the way in which things can only ever have been.

But how exactly would we go about demonstrating that [one way or the other] beyond all doubt?

What “on earth” does this mean though? Do or do not folks on both sides of any particular moral and political conflict have narratives that they construe to be the most [or the only] rational frame of mind?

Or can you note a particular conflict [one of your own] in which there actually is an argument that can be demonstrated to be the most or the only rational frame of mind.

And what of the sociopath who argues that, sans God, the most or the only reasonable point of view is that morality revolves around their own self-gratification? How do philosophers – ethicists – demonstrate that this argument is necessarily without merit?

Again, bring this assessment down to earth. Choose a particular context in which human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. Come back into the exchange and defend your own reaction to those who dispute your own value judgments embedded in your own behaviors.

[b][Note to others:

I acknowledge time and again how my own assessment of dasein is no less an existential contraption. That in fact I may well be wrong. And, thus, all I can do [here] is to broach my own frame of mind, ask others to critique it and then ask them to bring their own moral narrative out into the world of actual human behaviors – their own for example – in conflict with others. ][/b]

With you it all gets tangled up further in the manner in which you construe the nature of consciousness itself. And my problem with that is this: I have no real understanding of how “for all practical purposes” you do intertwine the Prong # 1 and Prong #2 components of human interaction out in the “real world”. And in particular when your own values come into conflict with others.

It’s as much a blur here with you as it has been with James Saint and RM/AO, or Jacob and VO.

I have no illusions about ever really grasping the nature of my own psychological intentions and motivations. So, sure, you may well be right here.

All I know is how much I miss the days when as an objectivist myself I was in turn able to convince myself that we lived in a world of Right and Wrong, of Good and Evil, of Justice and Injustice. First with God, then with one or another political ideology.

Now I am hopelessly drawn and quartered, hopelessly fractured and fragmented, hopelessly tugged in conflicting directions.

So, no, I am far, far, far from feeling “comfortable in my dead end”. Especially now that I am running out of time and the narrative shifts to the things I become preoccupied with here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

From my frame of this is all embedded in an intellectual contraption that you have managed to think yourself into believing. How it actually “works” for you out in the world of conflicting human behaviors – your own – is just not something I really have a clear understanding of. How in any particular context do you manage to just let your brain “will fall back on whatever ‘truth’ seems most objective to you.”

I’d have to be with you when a conflict with another actually broke out. You’d have to walk me through what was unfolding in your brain as the conflict either was or was not resolved.

We’d have to explore the actual assumptions [then behaviors] being defended by both sides; and then figure out how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy was less applicable to you.

In other words, what on earth do you mean by “[the] brain’s natural objectivist mode of thinking” when it is not just an intellectual contraption being explained and defended here.

How is it intertwined in your interactions with others?

The definition of abortion: “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

Is the meaning of this word not in fact “true by definition”? And is it not in fact true for all of us?

Shift gears…

Abortion is immoral.
Define these words and tell us if they are in fact true.

Abortion is moral.
Define these words and tell us if they are in fact true.

Here we tend to come upon two species of objectivists:

1] those who argue these words can be understood objectively and then applied universally to all abortions
2] those who argue these words can be understood objectively but are apllicable only to each particular abortion in each particular context

That’s the distinction I always come back to regarding the utility of definitions in philosophical exchanges that revolve around conflicting value judgments.

I can’t decide because I have not come upon an argument of late able to convince me that a particular abortion in a particular context is [b]either[/b] good/right [b]or[/b] evil/wrong. I don’t argue that this can’t be known only that I am not able to know this myself here and now.

The objectivists then argue not only that this can be known but that you either know what they know about it or you are wrong.

Then right and wrong are defined religiously or ideologically or deontologically.

Note to others:

Allow me please to “define” [or to make a distinction between] reality and fantasy here: Whatever he says it is.

Go ahead, ask him. :laughing:

Noone asked you to define abortion. Noone is disputing the meaning of the term “abortion”. In other words, we all know what that term means. The question then is: why did you proceed to define it? What is the point? Isn’t the point of communication to understand what others are saying in order to be able to respond to them with maximum precision?

What has to be defined is “true for all of us”. You didn’t do this. You ignored it. Instead, you defined something noone asked you to define it. That’s an example of evasion. It’s one of the reasons why the so-called Kids treat you the way that they do.

You are stuck in your imaginary world in which you pretend to understand what others are doing. You are so self-absorbed that when you see others you always see yourself.

Fantasy in the above case refers to something that has no reference point in reality.

For example, we all know what a red apple is because we have experienced it in the past. We also know what a unicorn is even though we have never experienced one before. This is because we have experienced every single one of its festures albeit not in the arrangement that defines unicorns.

“True for all of us” is either a poetic expression for something that has been experienced in the past or it is simply an empty signifier (i.e. it means nothing.)

In your case, I am pretty damn sure it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

That is why I am asking you to define it. Which you won’t do because your entire business will be brought down to its knees.

Note to others:

How long before I bring him back to this: “How about a game of Magnus hitting you in your head until you bleed to death, what do you think, I think it’s more fun, don’t you think?” :open_mouth:

Seriously though, I’ll give it another go.

Someone tells you that Mary had an abortion. You’ve never heard of an abortion. You go to the dictionary and look the word up. It tells you that an abortion is, “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.”

Someone then tells you that this definition is true for all of us. So, you go to a dictionary and look up the words “true” “for” “all” “of” “us”.

You study in depth the biological imperatives embedded in human sexuality and pregnancy.

You conclude that if men and women engage in sexual intercourse one of the possibilities is a pregnancy. And if a woman gets pregnant she can either choose to bring it to term or to abort it. Depending on her legal options at any particular time and in any particular place.

And all of this does in fact seem to be true objectively for each and everyone of us.

Then someone tells you that Mary’s abortion is moral. Someone else tells you that her abortion was immoral. You go back to the dictionary to make sure you understand the meaning of these two words.

But while the dictionary definition will tell us precisely what it means [for all of us] that Mary had an abortion, will the definition of “moral” and “immoral” tells us whether her abortion was in fact either one of the other?

Thus, in my own opinion, our value judgments here revolve more around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, than in the manner in which we might attempt to resolve this political conflict by going to the dictionary.

Or reading Kant.

If you want me to do X you must know what X is otherwise how can you judge whether I did X or not?

Thus, if you want me to demonstrate that an opinion is “true for all of us” you must already know what “true for all of us” means otherwise you cannot measure my performance.

Because what you’re doing here is asking me to demonstrate that some moral opinion of mine is “true for all of us” you must already know what “true for all of us” means.

What does it mean? What does “true for all of us” mean? You keep evading this question.

And yes, I do honestly think you are severely retarded. The very fact that I have so much trouble explaining this very basic stuff to you is a proof.

Note that telling others lies about me while speaking to me is a rude gesture one worthy of a very aggressive retort. Your preemptive measures against my aggression are funny (and pathetic.)

What makes you think that your passive-aggressive behavior, which is the product of your meeknees, which you share with Gib, and which is why the two of you get along, is better than my aggressive stance?

Nothing other than your emotions.

You must demonize that which makes you insecure.

viewtopic.php?p=2666147#p2666147

What does it mean to be closed-minded other than to hold onto an opinion for an infinitely long period of time?

Isn’t that what Biguous the objectivist used to do in the past? Isn’t that what he still wants to do but for some reason can’t?

This alone betrays how rigid, how emotionally inflexible, he is. For he is fine with any option so as long he can hold onto it for an infinitely long period of time. If he cannot have his mind closed for an infinitely long period of time then at least he can have it open for an infinitely long period of time. From one extreme to another. So as long it’s an extreme, it’s good.

How does a normal person organize his periods of openness to new information (exploration, perception) and closedness (direction, judgment)? Does he not switch between the two periodically? Does he not keep his mind open for a period of time before closing it? And does he not keep his mind closed for a period of time before opening it once again? And how does he determine how long he should keep his mind open before closing it and how long he should keep his mind closed before opening it? Is that not determined by one’s nature, by the type of person one has evolved to be, rather than by something external, such as some kind of authority, be it in the human or abstract form?

He considers himself to be the pillar of flexibility but that’s only because he exaggerates the significance of his deeds, namely, that of changing his mind from being infinitely closed to being infinitely open. This must be seen in the context of his extreme inflexibility. It must be really impressive for such a rigid man to be able to exercise such a tiny, nearly insignificant, degree of flexibility.

I’m sure going to miss gib… :wink:

Well, guess what, I’m back! :laughing:

Gib? Yeah, that name does sound familiar. :wink:

How are things?

Well, regarding prong #1, I’m still largely, uh, “uninformed”. And, regarding prong #2, I’m still grimly hoisted on my own petard.

On the other hand, given that I am increasingly tugged in the direction of a wholly determined universe, it’s not like it could have ever been any other way.

Right? :wink:

Hmmm… how 'bout other than in terms of your dilemma? How’s work?