If constantly tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, “why? why? why? then why? why? why?”, until they are annoyed is somehow gratifying to you, then you are legitimately mentally ill. I’ve made no claim that the means by which I make moral decisions is objective or that anyone else is obligated to do anything at all. You’re arguing with the same strawman that you postulate onto everyone that you engage. You’re not even within the range of forcing some kind of existential crisis in anyone, which is what you seem to think you’re doing. It used to be funny, but it’s like watching the same show over and over and over again. Eventually, even the funniest episode just becomes annoying. Being an idiot and harassing people until they tell you to fuck off is not the same as forcing them to confront some flaw in their philosophy, it’s not the same as forcing them to confront nihilism or to go into some existential crisis. Most adults are so far past this sort of thing that I can’t even conceive how any of it could still be interesting to you. You’re an intellectual cripple who’s aptitude ends at the level of a sophomore existentialism class. The entirety of your set of thoughts is something that I passed in my first year of college almost 15 years ago. How you can’t grasp that I think you’re not only boring, but also confused, and unable or unwilling to learn how to get out of your crippled state at this point is beyond me. I’ve never met anyone so insistent on talking to people who don’t want to talk to them.
A start would be that no one be allowed to copy and paste long blocks of text more than 10 times in 10 threads in a year. This would stop 90 percent of everything he says. Just search, “belly of the working class beast”, or “skyhooks”, or “dasein kids” and you’ll see what I mean. There is literally no purpose that is served by reposting the same argument in 500 places.
If he actually wanted to defend or elucidate his position, then he would start a thread and do it there. Instead, since he just wants to go in a loop harassing people, he pops into unrelated threads and does it there so it’s harder to maintain a record of how many times and how many ways he’s been corrected. He can just walk away from a thread after he kills it with his copy and paste routine, and then go into another one and do it there. If he had to do it in one place, then he would be exposed within the first few pages and if it went on it would just become a monument to his stupidity.
Mr R has been very helpfull, explaining the problem with a lot of patience. Just upholding basic ethics, respect for posters and just humanity, the spirit, is a start. Meaning someone should tell the problem-poster to quit his harassing and derailing and lying or there will be some consequence. He has done such endless damage to our work here, terminating hundreds of potentially great discussions.
People mat sat to just ignore him, but invariably he draws some one in the threads away from the topic into his shallows and lies and lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies and just derails and discourages and chokes and terminates it whatever the OP tries.
Its not a very powerful guy but he’s been going at it unchecked for five years at least. Truly a debasing experience to constantly be confronted with his graceless and dehumanized nihilism.
I did respond… in the first DM I sent you, regarding this thread… happy to discuss it further, so will await a reply to respond to.
Responded without getting personal? he says ‘Kids’, you say ‘Your mom’… we can tighten the rules back up, but posters don’t like that either, so the options are: ignore posts, block that poster, report a post, and… ask a post to be deleted from your thread to un-derail it.
When people (including myself) respond to posts, I thought it was because they wanted to engage in that discussion, so do excuse us mods for thinking otherwise.
In the past, I have responded to reported posts, and resolved those situations, which Iam did not argue over.
I don’t mean selective enforcement of the name calling rules. I mean, why is that the only rule you’re enforcing. Why just select one rule and ignore the others?
Then why all this fuss? No one is required to read my posts. No one is required even to interact with me at all here at ILP.
You know what to do, right?
And your reaction to me on this thread sounds like anything but someone who doesn’t give a fuck about it.
And, given the threads of late addressed specifically to or about me, some folks certainly do seem interested in understanding and/or in challenging my point of view.
On this thread for example. There I am on the first line of the OP. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this exchange at all.
Utility? Sure, the aim of philosophy – of ethics – can revolve around dispensing useful information. On the other hand, from my point of view [down in the hole], it is always only useful from a subjective/subjunctive point of view rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
And that can be a truly grim and gruesome frame of mind. Consequently, if “I” am profoundly fractured and fragmented when confronting moral and political conflicts [and “I” am], what practical recourse is there other then to pursue those who are not.
After all, back in Nietzsche’s day, I can well imagine those who might have confronted him with “no one has any desire to look at the world through the lens that you describe yourself as being stuck behind.”
Nietzsche however was stuck in a No God world only until he concocted the uberman. His uberman. Satyr’s uberman, Fixed Cross’s uberman. The ubermen who thrive on “money and hos and clothes”. Hell, there are lots and lots of hopelessly conflicting renditions of them, right? Indeed, didn’t Satyr once hold you in contempt – as shit-smears – because your own rendition of a “natural morality” was not in sync with his?
Well, I don’t have that to fall back on myself. The uberman is just one more existential contraption to me.
Here, once again, I reduce you down to Satyr’s mentality. Go ahead, see how closely his own reaction to me on the Chimp thread overlaps yours here.
Towards the end almost no real substantive points were made at all about human morality in a No God world. It was all just huffing and puffing.
His solution? He put me on ignore. He simply stopped responding to my posts.
Go ahead, try that yourself.
It’s sad though that I am able to reduce you down to pathetic retorts like this:
And all I can do is to ponder what is really going on here. What prompts you to take a dump on me like this? Why are you so contemptuous of the points I raise? Again, I have my own suspicions. And they basically revolve around the speculation that you feel yourself being tugged down into that hole. What if your “I” too is just an existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you have lived? What then of the rather smug lady’s man bravado that revolves around your persona here?
Okay, back again to the distinction I make between playing the stock market as a rational human being and defending capitalism as a moral pursuit to those who see it instead as the very embodiment of evil.
Why your answer here and not theirs? How can either argument not be predicated largely on a set of political assumptions [rooted in history, rooted in dasein] that revolve around the extent to which human interactions ought either to revolve more around “I” or more around “we”?
Then back up into the “general description” stratosphere of words merely defining and defending other words.
Bring this down to earth. Note how the manner in which you construe the meaning of this particular “world of words” is relevant when your own value judgments come into conflict with another.
Hell, anyone can give me arguments regarding what they construe to be the right and the wrong behaviors.
But how did they come to acquire those values over the course of their actual lived life? And why their own set of values and not the values of those who are in opposition?
Come on, how out in the real world, can this not come down to endless historical, cultural and experiential combinations of might makes right, right makes might and/or moderation, negotiation and compromise? In a world that clearly is racing pell-mell into a postmodern future awash as never before in contingency, chance and change?
Okay, I note, but embed the discussion here in an actual moral conflict. For example, with Kennedy retiring from the Supreme Court, there is a real possibilty that abortion might be made illegal in America.
If you are a serious philosopher in pursuit of an ethical narrative best suited for adjudicating the conflicting goods here, what might that argument sound like?
Would it [could it] be closer to an actual deontological assessment…or embedded more in a pragmatic contraption revolving around one or another rendition of “the greatest good for the greatest number”.
And what of those who argue that this is a religious issue, or a value judgment derived from the most rational ideological perspective, or that which can only be properly understood to the extent that one is in sync with Nature?
Oh, and I almost forgot:
What of those who construe morality here solely in terms of that which furthers their own self-interest? The narcissists, the sociopaths, the psychopaths.
Why on earth would they be?!!
If someone has managed [for whatever reason] to convince herself that there is in fact a “real me” – a “soul” – that they are “at one” with, why pursue philosophy in order to grapple with whether there might be narratives that challenge this?
After all, if they come into places like this, they take the chance they might bump into someone like me.
Right?
And, concomitantly, if this “real me” is, psychologically, able to provide them with the comfort and the consolation of grounding “I” in something substantive, doesn’t this enable them to, in turn, feel in sync with the “the right thing to do”?
What might prompt them then to seriously explore a frame of mind like moral nihilism?
What would they have gain as opposed to what they would have to lose?
On the other hand, philosophy wasn’t invented in order to sustain what people have come to think they know about the relationship between “I” and “out in the world”, but to provide the tools necessary to examine it more thoroughly. After all, it’s not for nothing that, back then, Socrates was known for rattling people’s cages.
And, as well, what prompted the powers that be to react to him as they did?
If folks don’t want their boats to be rocked existentially by people like me, they should certainly steer clear of places like this.
Well, we’ll see how bored folks are if Trump manages to garner that crucial fifth vote on the Supreme Court. The one that makes abortion and/or gay marriages illegal in America. My dilemma assumes that the choice faced by women saddled with an unwanted pregnancy may well soon be either 1] forced motherhood 2] a back alley abortion or 3] jail
My point then revolves not around vacuums but around contexts in which objectivists from both sides will insist that only their own political agenda reflects the one true moral obligation of all rational and virtuous people.
On the other hand, moral nihilism suggests that both sides are able to embrace reasonable arguments based on conflicting sets of assumptions; and that, in a No God world, the best of all possible worlds when engaging conflicting goods is still moderation, negotiation and compromise.
Again, I can only picture you in a context – at, say, a clash of demonstrations – in which folks on both sides of an issue like abortion are confronted with this point of view. What on earth are they to make of it? How “for all practical purposes” would it be useful to them when either the baby is killed or the woman is forced to give birth?
Where does the “simple” part come in?
Instead, we get the exhaustively opaque “general description” from you.
Note to others:
How do you imagine folks from the pro-life and the pro-chioce camps reacting to something like this?
Then this:
I am really getting to you, aren’t I? Only now you need to ask yourself why.
If you’re rubbing your hands together and giggling about the idea of “getting to someone” on a forum, then you’re an idiot.
Read back up there and try and understand that there’s a difference between annoying someone and causing them to have an existential crisis.
You are annoying. I don’t find you to be intellectually stimulating. I think that you are borderline autistic and socially awkward. I do not want to be your friend or a partner in a conversation with you. I don’t think that the subject of inquiry which you’ve centered your life around is relevant to any part of philosophy that I am interested in. I do not know how to be any clearer about the fact that I find your trolling, baiting and stalking to be obnoxious.
If you convincing yourself that you’ve somehow made me analyze my point of view, or that you’ve somehow caused me to question anything at all about myself or the world is important to you, then I’m flattered.
If I tell you that you’ve convinced me of your position and that I’m in agreement with you…would you fuck off and stop harassing me?
MagsJ you’re full of shit, sad to say.
You’ve obviously not done any off the work you’re supposed to do.
Go back and read iamfucksticks last 50 responses to me. If youve got some spine, make that the last 100. Do it, and then you’ll want to apologize for the games youve been playing with ILP.
Shame on you for getting in here and using your authority AGAINST the people who give the site substance.
I just talked to Carleas about the nazis, he has given me some confidence in his intentions. But now with you jumping in to defend the one who ruins the most discussions of everyone, I have no idea what the hell we are supposed to be on here for anymore.
Thanks a lot.
Think of it like this:
What’s more pathetic, someone who “copies and pastes shit a million times” here or someone or who trudges along behind him from thread to thread in order to note that he does this?
Still, I will make a more concerted effort to avoid rankling you.
You know, whatever that means.
Really, I don’t know what to say. Sure, given that part of what motivates me to post here revolves around…
…he was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest…
…it’s possible that on some complex, deep-seated psychological level I go after you.
In the future, please note when you think this might be applicable.
Same thing. Here is a link to your posts: search.php?author_id=37292&sr=posts
Note how I have “constantly” followed you around from thread to thread. And note for us just, say, the three biggest idiotic lies about you that I have concocted so far.
Or is this all just an exercise in irony?
In other words, the mods refuse to react to my words in precisely the same manner that you do.
A classic symptom of, oh, I don’t know, the objectivist mind?
In my own opinion of course.
Still, as with Mr. R., I’m curious to explore what actually might be motivating these tirades of late. Rather than in considering what you claim it’s all about. Which appears patently preposterous to me.
You’re pranking me, right? Or is it punking these days?
Next time, I’ll simply give you a warning, and not allow you to entangle me in your web of…?
Neither Iam nor I are pawns, and I have seen the build-up to your game/this moment evolving… your end goal being? a win? payback? destroying reputations? Step back! 
You verbally abused another member!
He annoys you and others with his viewpoints, but that does not justify that post. There is no more to this than that! Stop making this into something more than it is.
It’s not his viewpoint that’s annoying. It’s that he derails every conversation that he joins by copying and pasting the same thing and drowning out any conversation that’s not about the same thing he’s copied and pasted 1000 times.
Like no one in this thread is claiming that there is an objective morality that dictates what the right decisions are for any given situation. But that’s what he’s talking about…how there isn’t one in his view. That’s fine. He can think that. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong. That’s not the point. The point is that the thread isn’t about that and he’s not going to stop until it either is, or until the thread is just dead.
Outlook… viewpoint… call it what you will, but in such similar situations as this… report it.
Magsj: Agreed! Can any one after this, sit down and call this philosophy? Best thing, would be to see how it strayed from rapport and empathy, from properly distanced ‘objective’ conversation.
Course, I am at a point for the opposing reason, of be of being a Kantian, prone to the weakness of being attacked by Humians, a conflict so old, but one that is always able to set the tone and death, over a struggle, which even Marx noted, and eventually cost the lives of countless souls.
Who ever would think that such landscape is not one which would incite feverish and often unmanagmeble debate, as this is?
At times we only appeal to a rhetorical battle on the surface of a tidal wave, and forgetting that Trumpism and all its intricate deep seated, deep state concerns may at some point cause an unpredictable result?
That he, Trump repeats things on a daily basis, has no parallel prohibitive agency with which to appeal to reason!
We often forget that the framework, : set down by Kant, Mills, with such constructs like hidden objectives, predictability, maximum pleasure were set in a time when they appeared as objective measures by which to evaluate and make reasonable assessments , however that time of certainty has been eclipsed , and there is nothing to return to, except return must eternally, into a void, where only fragments remain: fragments of our self, which we can only recapture through broken images of ourselves, images that only an objective reality can try to put together, the ‘look’ or an ‘eye’ a visual search for clues, to try to reconstruct the self.
Who are we, after all, but a collection of clues of signs leading to, or away from who we are or think we are, or should be?
No wonder we have become reticent to look into the mirror, and hide behind masks in changeable circumstances? Surely we did not do this to ourselves , others brought it upon us.
At time like these, the mirror changes as in fun houses all over the world, and often the straight and narrow, becoming flat and one dimensional becomes of more concern then the utilitarian subtle change of images from convex to concave and that con-cave that the mini abyss as the huge Black Holes of cosmological understanding, fears the numerous small black holes of our existence and being, noting that the scholastic had indeed a simple vision of that of illumination through the essential:: the essence. I think it was a Persian philosopher, Avicenna , who saw the real Reason behind the facade.
That’s certainly a reasonable standard. My point is that if you want to enjoy particular things you had best prepare properly to attain them.
For example, Mr. Reasonable apparently wants to attain these things: “money and hos and clothes”.
So he properly prepares each day to make the rational choices necessary to achieve this.
But what if he comes upon folks who prepared an argument that capitalism is in fact the embodiment of evil. That trading in the stock market has to be stopped in order to attain the far more ideal socialist alternative.
Conflicting goods. Are philosophers able to arrive at the most rational answer here? If so, how would they go about preparing to construct it?
Or consider all of the demonstrations today in opposition to the Trump immigration policy. There are all of those rational choices that need to be made in order to make the demonstrations the most effective.
But how does one prepare an argument that effectively establishes the moral foundation of the protestors as in fact “the right thing to do”?
That’s the hole that I am in.
How then are others not in it? How and why are they able to convince themselves that their own point of view is not just an existential contraption rooted in dasein? That it is instead rooted in the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”?
That’s why I prefer democracy and the rule of law as the “best of all possible worlds”. Let’s face it, however folks acquire a particular set of value judgments, they are inevitably going to clash. Then what?
From my frame of mind, there is no “best way”. There is only what works and what doesn’t work. And even the “ridiculous” values are just existential contraptions to me.
After all, in the abortion wars, one side sees the killing of babies as a ridiculous thing to justify, while the other side claims it’s ridiculous to force women to give birth.
That revolves precisely around the distinction I make between preparations that can be calculated with some measure of objectivity and preparations that appear rooted only in personal opinions rooted in dasein.
The laws “insist” that you stop doing something or you will be punished. Or, in particular communities like the Amish, you either stop doing something or you will be “shunned”.
But who gets to “insist” on one set of behaviors rather than another? And to what extent are philosophers/ethicists able to construct one or another deontological assessment of any particular context out in any particular world when points of view/behaviors come into conflict?
Where are the lines to be drawn then between existential contraptions here and actual moral obligations?
Where do you draw it yourself with respect to the animal rights wars? Other than as a set of political prejudices rooted in a set of assumptions about what “here and now” you deem the most reasonable relationship ought to be.
Clearly it would be absurd to argue against the killing of animals among those native communities up North who could not survive without doing so.
And what of things like disease bearing fleas and mosquitos? Is it wrong to kill these animals too?
Doesn’t “situational ethics” seem a more reasonable manner in which to approach these things?
Note to others:
Please take note of the two posts that I addressed to Mr Reasonable above this latest tirade aimed instead at making me the issue here.
Over and again I attempted to make actual substantive [philosophical] arguments relating to the points he raised. For example:
[b]Utility? Sure, the aim of philosophy – of ethics – can revolve around dispensing useful information. On the other hand, from my point of view [down in the hole], it is always only useful from a subjective/subjunctive point of view rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
And that can be a truly grim and gruesome frame of mind. Consequently, if “I” am profoundly fractured and fragmented when confronting moral and political conflicts [and “I” am], what practical recourse is there other then to pursue those who are not. [/b]
And:
[b]Okay, back again to the distinction I make between playing the stock market as a rational human being and defending capitalism as a moral pursuit to those who see it instead as the very embodiment of evil.
Why your answer here and not theirs? How can either argument not be predicated largely on a set of political assumptions [rooted in history, rooted in dasein] that revolve around the extent to which human interactions ought either to revolve more around “I” or more around “we”?[/b]
And:
[b]If someone has managed [for whatever reason] to convince herself that there is in fact a “real me” – a “soul” – that they are “at one” with, why pursue philosophy in order to grapple with whether there might be narratives that challenge this?
After all, if they come into places like this, they take the chance they might bump into someone like me.
Right?
And, concomitantly, if this “real me” is, psychologically, able to provide them with the comfort and the consolation of grounding “I” in something substantive, doesn’t this enable them to, in turn, feel in sync with the “the right thing to do”?
What might prompt them then to seriously explore a frame of mind like moral nihilism?[/b]
And:
[b]Well, we’ll see how bored folks are if Trump manages to garner that crucial fifth vote on the Supreme Court. The one that makes abortion and/or gay marriages illegal in America. My dilemma assumes that the choice faced by women saddled with an unwanted pregnancy may well soon be either 1] forced motherhood 2] a back alley abortion or 3] jail
My point then revolves not around vacuums but around contexts in which objectivists from both sides will insist that only their own political agenda reflects the one true moral obligation of all rational and virtuous people.
On the other hand, moral nihilism suggests that both sides are able to embrace reasonable arguments based on conflicting sets of assumptions; and that, in a No God world, the best of all possible worlds when engaging conflicting goods is still moderation, negotiation and compromise. [/b]
This is the philosophy forum after all.
Let him pick just one and we can start a new thread in which we both make a concerted effort to sustain a civil and intelligent exchange.
Again, let’s go back to the OP:
So, others might ask, how do we go about examining the gap between Fixed Cross’s assessment of Mr Reasonable’s subjective standard for living and that which an objectivist might take issue with?
Out in a particular world revolving around a particular context.
Given that, in FC’s view, Mr Reasonable is a philosopher.
What then does that make those who don’t share this standard?
As for Fixed Cross, I am curious to understand how, as someone who is not arguing for an objective morality [as Mr. R suggests], he squares this with the idea of “value ontology”
How does that actually work given his own conflicts with others pertaining to moral and political values?
My focus is always on reconfiguring general descriptions like…
Life is good and you need to be powerful to handle that
…by situating it out in the world of actual human interactions. What of those who share Mr Reasonable’s philosophical standard but insist that the pursuit of “money and hos and clothes” is not a reflection of the “good life” at all?