Yes, but this “social mammal” construes “I” here in the is/ought world as revolving largely around this:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Here, shame/shaming is deemed to be an existential/political contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
In other words, while I come into this world with the genetic capacity to feel and/or inflict shame, that is always situated out in a particular world awash in any number of conflicting memetic narratives.
Consequently, to what extent can philosophers pin all of this down such that shame/shaming is understood wholly, essentially, objectively, naturally, deontologically.
Why? Because in recognizing that my views here are in turn [subjectively/subjunctively] just existential contraptions, I acknowledge right from the start that I once rejected them before and, given new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, I may well reject them again.
Indeed, with respect to identity, value judgments and political economy, and given how grim, how bleak and how utterly cynical my frame of mind is here and now, a part of me would very much like to “think up” a way to jettison all that.
Then I too might engender the sort of “comfort and consolation” that I construe to be embodied in the objectivists among us. I have access to none of that here and now.
Given the moral and political interactions of mere mortals in a No God world, I honestly do believe “in my head” that “I” live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that segues eventually into oblivion.
And if some are able to convince themselves that their own interactions with others revolve around an essentially meaningful world that segues eventually into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation then, hey, come in, who “wins” in the end here?
Honestly. Can’t you see how fucked up it is to repeat this here, again. It is not relevent to the topic. Is it masochism? Are you trying to upset people by repeating something I am pretty sure everyone in the thread has responded to elsewhere in threads where it belongs?
Note to others:
Is this actually true?!!
Still, let him bring this accusation down to earth by noting behaviors that often come into conflict over conflicting goods and we can broach the components of our respective philosophies more, say, substantively.
Really, just out of curiosity, how might I manage to bring this particular forum down?
See above.
How can it bring things down: since you are not abusive - at least from what I have seen - can string together rational arguments. You can lock people on you. It can seem like an interactive dialogue will take place. But all discussions will end up with you repeating your assertions and focusing on what you think and what the other person’s statement did or did not do FOR YOU. Rather than some other options like seeing what you are doing does to others. When you comment on this, it is always the implicit smug: I seem to make objectivists angry, uncomfortable. Not being able to imagine that there are effects and problematics ones from your behavior that have nothing to do with other people’s weaknesses and your bravery for having shucked off objective values. Not being able to imagine how what makes you uncomfortable affects the dynamic and the content of your discussions and your inability to, ironically enough, see the discussions accurately from other viewpoints than your own - hence your repeated, I make you uncomfortable smugness. How convenient.
Okay, all of that may well be true. But to the best of my knowledge no one here is required to read my repetitious groots. Let alone respond to them and be made fools of.
Not unlike, for example, you?