James S Saint

Still, let’s not lose sight of the fact [if it is a fact] that in so many predicable ways James was/is a run of the mill objectivist.

And that, indeed, some take this to the grave.

If it’s any consolation to them, though, I’ll be tumbling into my very own soon enough.

The Grim Reaper could not care less about objectivism. Much less nihilism.

This brings up a good question…
What kind of philosopher is the “grim reaper”?
Is he the devil or some other aspect of Satan?
And who would Satan admire as a philosopher?
From what I read, he seems to be a rather
Emotional kind of guy! He doesn’t seem to
Be into rational kind of thoughts…

Kropotkin

I agree, he was a dinosaur. A formidable dinosaur, though.

Logically, that either means He does care about objectivism, and possibly nihilism too, but just cannot care about it less than a certain positive amount. Unless you think He may care less than nothing… If not, then let us try and care a negative amount. Then if so after all, we may actually end up caring a positive amount?

Are you saying that death is objective? :-k

That surely doesn’t sound very dasein.

Zinnat would certainly disagree that James is dead.

Why is that? Did he take a prolonged trip to India that we don’t know about?

sigh …just when I came across this…
sciencealert.com/physicists … modynamics

He would tell us we can’t know whether James is dead or not because the procedure that we use to decide so does not apply to woodfrogs.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5#p2681525

Haha yeah I remember him.

Shit man that’s deep and hilarious also.

Zero_Sum

Death itself is I would say but who knows what else lurks within the Universe to affect a stay of execution so to speak…random or accidental?

Death was both subjective and objective in The Book Thief. Wonderful book. Death was the narrator and as such it was a wonderful medium in which to express both subjectively and objectively the characters portrayed. Many of Death’s lines were awe-inspiring and profound and sad.

Maybe. Technically as it were.

Still, what on earth does it mean to be logical about death? On the other hand, if James is dead he may well know more about the actual consequences of it than any of us here and now on this side of the grave.

For one thing, if there is an “afterlife” he may now grasp the extent to which it either is or is not in sync with the components of RM and the Real God. Or is it all just dasein, conflicting goods and political economy there too?!

Note to James:

Give us a sign.

All the signs/signals seem to point in the general direction of oblivion. And oblivion is either objective enough for you or it isn’t. James is still conscious of all this here and now or he will never be again.

Whatever that means.

As for dasein, that still revolves around this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Its relevance [for me] pertains to human interactions on this side of the grave. Interactions that revolve in turn around conflicting value judgments rooted in the philosophical components of a man still able to make a distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world.

Death itself would seem to be embedded in the former. We all do die. On the other hand, is it immoral that we all die? Ought this not to be the case?

Let’s ask James. In other words, if he is not dead and chooses to return to the forum.

Just don’t expect anything in the way of, say, specificity from him.

Pandora wrote:

The Genesis record implies that this is a young world, possibly less than 10,000. There is evidence that all life and non life processes obey the first and second laws of thermodynamics, therefore this world had a beginning and is “measurably” going downhill and there are other pieces of evidence to fit a young earth, such as the historical records and the population growth.

You just can’t be certain about anything, can you? :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m betting that you’re never a hit around parties either, just kidding of course and giving you a rough time. shakes head

Somehow if James was dead I think he would find it amusing that we’re all being philosophical about the meaning of death and life in what otherwise is a thread devoted to remembering him or finding about his whereabouts. This is all ingrained in ILP forum culture of course what we have here together being the odd bunch that we all are.

The last thing we need here is you starting a seance with the dearly departed. :-"

Are you kidding? Like most of us, I am reasonably certain the empirical world around me is in fact applicable to all of us. 24/7 as it were. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of our interactions with others [here or elsewhere] appear to clearly revolve around demonstrable truths.

After all, it would seem that since the Big Bang [whatever that means] a staggering proportion of material interactions happened only as they ever could have. Immutably some suggest.

Where things get mysterious however is when matter evolved into brains evolved into a consciousness able to grapple with the “philosophical” implications of it all.

Then the part where minds react to all the either/or stuff only to bump into other minds who react quite differently. Then what is the truth? Let’s call this the is/ought world.

Here James [among others] constructed a frame of mind that somehow linked the two “in his head”. The is/ought world as [somehow] an adjunct of the either/or world intertwined [somehow] through the manner in which he came to “think up” RM/AO and the Real God.

But now if James really is dead, I’ll never have another opportunity to probe how existentially that worked for him in his conflicted interactions with others.

On the other hand, there are still plenty of other objectivists around able perhaps to yank me up out of my own far more problematic understanding of normative interactions.

And not all of them are Kids. :wink:

James’s age says a lot about his posts and perspective… he’s always right. :laughing:

Pretty much like you do. Well, with the help of the stars. :wink: