The Reasonable Standard

MagsJ · May 21, 2018, 6:44pm

So you are a qualia in this instance? how self-revering of you.

iambiguous · May 21, 2018, 6:56pm

Wow, I almost forgot: this is the actual philosophy forum here.

Let me think on that and get back to you.

Fixed_Cross · May 21, 2018, 9:37pm

Consistency is hard to beat, but not al consistency goes somewhere.
We all are compulsive in our consistencies, some more than others, but we all have our straight, unbreakable lines, which if they are bent or broken in some event, release tremendous amounts of energy to reshape out life.

Mr_Reasonable · May 22, 2018, 1:28am

I just googled Tyler Durden and it’s a character from a Brad Pitt movie. Weird.

iambiguous · May 22, 2018, 1:58am

I asked him to elaborate and he sent me here: youtu.be/mSe_t8HBDA4?t=56s

He sees you basically as the hard-wired personification of mass consumption.

And Marla basically agrees.

Not only that but he garnered all this from your posts here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879

Mr_Reasonable · May 22, 2018, 2:01am

Hey man, this is a philosophy forum. Why are you appealing to pop culture references?

iambiguous · May 22, 2018, 2:06am

Because I can?

Mr_Reasonable · May 22, 2018, 3:32am

But can you?

iambiguous · May 22, 2018, 4:01am

I just did.

Mr_Reasonable · May 22, 2018, 4:06am

How can you be sure enough that doing so was the right choice to feel comfortable doing anything at all?

iambiguous · May 22, 2018, 4:27pm

As the great philosopher Anton Chigurh would say, “call it”.

So, I did. It came up heads.

And here we are.

Mr_Reasonable · May 23, 2018, 6:19am

Then there’s the answer to the paradox that’s had you stumbling around here confused for so long. You’re welcome.

Fixed_Cross · May 23, 2018, 2:36pm

iambiguous · May 23, 2018, 4:37pm

Nope, doesn’t work down in the hole. I call it and the coin keeps landing on its edge.

What do you think, a VO thing?

Mr_Reasonable · May 24, 2018, 6:50am

I’m not playing the jargon game. You just answered your own question with what was, I would think, your best possible answer. If your own best answer isn’t good enough for you, then you should see it as a duty that you stop asking the question.

Fixed_Cross · May 24, 2018, 1:07pm

I like how VO comes up in conversations completely at random, like Tourette syndrome.

“So Jack how was your eve - VO! VO! - evening?”

iambiguous · May 24, 2018, 7:15pm

So, is our exchange of clever repartee over?
Do you want to go back to an exchange of, say, actual substance?

If so, let’s go back to our discussion above:

iambiguous:

Mr Reasonable:

Iambig, not everything that can be known can be taught. That’s why some people are smarter than others.

Note to others:

That is Mr Reasonable’s response to this:
[b]

Mr Reasonable:

iambiguous:

But that doesn’t change the fact that you want to be involved with someone who will not be involved with you unless you make that existential leap to her own point of view regarding what you do to earn a living.

And it doesn’t change the fact that those aspects of human interactions most likely to “make the news” are the ones that revolve precisely around that which philosophers may well be [in the end] impotent regarding.

The first example just isn’t a fact. You don’t have to make existential leaps to other’s points of view any reason. You can simply lie.

Sure, you can lie. Of course the Kantians might object.

Mr Reasonable:

The 2nd might not be a fact, but I don’t think something being newsworthy is cause for it to become a subject of philosophy.

Yes, that’s certainly one way to look at it. You can watch the news from day to day and argue that philosophy has no role to play in it. That when folks like Plato and Aristotle explored, among other things, ethics and politics it all revolved formally/epistemologically around philosophical realism.

But then…

Mr Reasonable:

You should be glad that my interest in this is so low. The reason that I know you are a troll is because your issue is a simple one that can be resolved plenty of ways. You just don’t want to hear it because you are mentally ill.

Note to others:

A Satyr by any other name?

Mr Reasonable:

If you understood philosophy and could grasp epistemology, then you wouldn’t be going around thinking that nothing can be known, and you wouldn’t be going around thinking that equivalent rhetoric = equivalent reality. Some things we can know based on the way we combine observations with a methodology that’s constructed to rule out certain possibilities and to guarantee certain necessities are accounted for.

When have I ever argued otherwise? Instead, my argument pertains more “for all practical purposes” to the “use value” and the “exchange value” of intellectual contraptions like this out in the world that we interact in. And, in particular, when those interactions come into conflict.

Again, you seem convinced that the role of the philosophers here is to just punt everything to the politicians.

And yet even here I agree. It’s just that some folks embrace a particular moral and political narrative/agenda that revolves around one or another rendition of “right makes might”. And while they may not justify being “one of us” by way of a philosophical argument, they still huff and puff at those they deem “one of them” as though there really was a way in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from evil.

Some do this “naturally” by way 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

But not you? You just somehow, what, “intuit” that you’re right?

Mr Reasonable:

You seem to want the difference between right and wrong to be constructed the same way as our knowledge that mixing certain chemicals yields certain results. That’s not how knowledge works. There are varying degrees of certainty that can be ascertained given the conditions under which we gain knowledge, and the kind of knowledge that we can gain under those conditions or another kind.

On the contrary, my reaction here is that this is, well, reasonable. I merely root it instead in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And then to folks like you I try to probe what unfolds “in your head” when your own values come into conflict with others. How are you not entangled in my dilemma?

After all, perhaps one day I will come upon a frame of mind that allows me to yank myself up out of it.

Mr Reasonable:

What’s so hard about this for you? You have to know that the world isn’t the way you claim it is. I don’t understand why you’re so deeply committed for seeing it the way that you do.

Again:

How do you claim that the world is when your own values do come in conflict with others? How are reasonable men and women able to make a proper distinction here when it comes to rewarding or punishing particular behaviors?

Cite some examples.[/b]

iambiguous · May 24, 2018, 7:19pm

At random?

You felt compelled to nudge Mr. Reasonable along with this:

So I felt compelled to retort in kind.

Mr_Reasonable · May 25, 2018, 7:18am

I think he’s autistic.

Fixed_Cross · May 25, 2018, 1:53pm

You could be on to something.

For sure there is an obsessiveness with known patterns and an absolute inability to deal with anything else. Humans are very rarely truly known patterns, except indeed Satyr, with whom he is obsessed, and who in turn is obsessive in entirely predicable patterns too.

Im sure a lot of autistic people (nothing against them!) are drawn to the idea of philosophizing, and do take offence when it turns out that it requires that one take a human position.

It is sublimely ironic that these people call Nietzsche an “objectivist”.