Iamdickuous, spell my name right you turd.
No, I didn’t share my standards, here, you turd-in-the-eyes. I am now sure you never read the posts you respond to.
This is about the Reasonable standard named after Mr Reasonable. Your idiotic refusal to take a perspective as a human being does not count as a standard. Cowardice and hypocrisy aren’t standards, turd-in-the-eyes.
Aside from my film, music and mudane irony threads, I respond only to a teeny, tiny percentage of the threads/posts created here at ILP.
In other words, I respond by and large only to those threads that are oriented toward that which interest me the most philosophically: the extant relationship between identity, personal values and political power out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. As that seems relevant regarding the question, “how ought one to live”?
As that might be considered in either a God or a No God world.
I deconstruct that relationship by exposing the extent to which, in my view, our subjective opinions in the is/ought world are largely existential contraptions. Political prejudices.
But some begin to ponder the implications of this given the extent to which that might also be applicable to them. And it bothers them. It troubles them. It upsets them.
Or, rather, that has been my experience over the years.
Next thing you know they are completely ignoring the actual content expressed in my posts; they start in instead on retorting, huffing and puffing, making me the issue.
Come on, Fixed Cross created this thread in order to embrace Smears philosophy: “Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that.”
Okay, but what on earth does that mean? And what happens when, given any particular context, two or more people come into conflict regarding the actual behaviors that they choose?
Which shall it be?
1] might makes right?
2] right makes might?
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise?
Or any particular combination given a particular context?
My hunch is that my own assessment of “I” here is starting to sink in with some. The way it once sunk in when I first stumbled into it with John and Mary and Barrett’s “rival goods”.
The psychologically comforting and consoling foundation upon which their “self” had been laid over the years is starting to crack a bit. And boy have “I” been there!
You can sense this in the anger and the aggitation on display when they react to me now. Zoots Allure once pointed out this effect I have had on the objectivists over in the philosophy cafe forum.
Me? Well, aside from the occasional shitty mood, I almost never get all riled up in these exchanges. If for no other reason that I recognize my own frame of mind as in turn just another existential contraption. How can I get pissed off when others challenge me knowing that there is almost no way in hell that how I understand these relationships is in fact the way they actually are.