Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:13 pm

Jakob wrote:In a world of conflicting goods the will to power prevails. That's why the world is will to power. All non-power-gathering drives lost out.

Meaning it is a contraption to make a problem of conflicting goods. A more honest and direct approach simply recognises all entities as mining the same pool of "goods" and it isn't the goods, but the entities that conflict.

Someone marked by "amor fati" ( a Latin "contraption") even considers this conflict a "good". So at that points goods only conflict on the lower tiers.


Note to others:

Is this not but another contribution in which words define and defend other words?

"Will to power".

Okay, let's consider that. Do these words reflect a reasonable assessment of human interactions when confronted with conflicted goods?

Or, instead, are they too just another "intellectual contraption" embedded historically, culturally and experientially in any number of vast and varied contexts.

Entangled in turn in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Let Jacob bring the discussion here down to earth. Let him note a particular context.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:22 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:if you're a therapist its easy, you must say its laziness

he spends 99 percent of the energy needed to go out of the hole on making the hole slippery. It is only 1 percent easier but it works super. He doesn't need to go beyond the hole and face the unexpected where he can't be lazy. Thats what one of 12 therapists I was into when some bad shit had freaked me out, told me. But then I realized the therapy was the Hole. I just got out of it and got my life in order like snap, really cool it worked.

Fuck the hole.

I-)


Beat it Kid!

Seriously though, reconfigure this blustering sub-mental Kiddish accusation into an assessment of your own moral philosophy when confronting conflictng goods. How are you not down in the hole as I describe it above?
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:25 pm

iambiguous wrote:I don't know either.
And from your perspective, as you have described it, saying you do not know, not as a mere disclaimer, but up front, makes sense. Since your philosophy allows for a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences, assuming I have a contraption and this is why I react differently does not make sense.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:42 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I don't know either.
And from your perspective, as you have described it, saying you do not know, not as a mere disclaimer, but up front, makes sense. Since your philosophy allows for a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences, assuming I have a contraption and this is why I react differently does not make sense.


Pragmatism in turn allows for "a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences".

My point then revolves around the extent to which these individual reactions are predicated more rather than less on the manner in which I encompass dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In other words, given the assumptions embedded in this intellectual contraption, what makes "sense" to any one particular individual is, in my view, also going to be embodied in dasein.

Out in the world of actual conflicting behaviors.

Then it comes down to others here noting the extent to which these assumptions are not applicable to them with respect to issues like abortion or Communism or the Kavanaugh confirmation.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:00 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I don't know either.
And from your perspective, as you have described it, saying you do not know, not as a mere disclaimer, but up front, makes sense. Since your philosophy allows for a wide variation of reactions, necessarily connected to experiences, assuming I have a contraption and this is why I react differently does not make sense.


In other words, given the assumptions embedded in this intellectual contraption, what makes "sense" to any one particular individual is, in my view, also going to be embodied in dasein.
Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:07 pm

Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.
Who is he arguing with?

Show of hands ... does anybody think that preferences are not the result of genetics and experience? Anybody?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.
Who is he arguing with?

Show of hands ... does anybody think that preferences are not the result of genetics and experience? Anybody?

He doesn't mention genetics much. When I started bringing it up, he seemed to agree, but reading most of his posts one could easily conclude he is a tabular rasa believer. That we are black slates and our preferences and morals ONLY come from our experiences.

So, we'll see if he raises his hand.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.


And thus...

Had those experiences been considerably different you might well be embracing considerably different preferences.

So: Any particular sequence of new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge might result in preferences that are actually the opposite of what you embrace now.

All I then ask of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] is to provide us with an argument [and a context] such that they are able to describe how their own reactions to conflicting goods embedded in their own chosen preferences results in them -- in their "I" -- not being fractured and fragmented.

Mine is. How are theirs not?

But: I don't argue that if their "I" is not also in pieces here, it ought to be. I'm just unable to reconfigure my own "I" back into something analogous to "the real me" in sync with the "right thing to do". Something that they [more or less] are still able to do.

So, let them encompass a value judgment near and dear to them in the manner in which I do in my abortion trajectory above. The part where experiences and ideas shape and mold each existentially into any one particular "I" here and now.

And, sure, call it a "contraption" or don't.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:42 pm

phyllo wrote:
Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.
Who is he arguing with?

Show of hands ... does anybody think that preferences are not the result of genetics and experience? Anybody?


First, of course, I am arguing with those who insist that, given any particular conflation of genes and memes, they have arrived at a frame of mind -- an alleged optimal frame of mind -- such that they are fiercely convinced that through God, ideology, deontology, nature etc., there are essential, objective distinctions to be made between good and bad behavior.

Okay, I suggest, let them demonstrate this to us.

[Though I am still utterly at a loss here in understanding the extent to which that includes you.]

And then I note how, in intertwining my very own genetic and memetic "I" in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, "I" come apart at the seams down in my hole.

How, then, are others able to avoid this?
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:03 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.
Who is he arguing with?

Show of hands ... does anybody think that preferences are not the result of genetics and experience? Anybody?

He doesn't mention genetics much. When I started bringing it up, he seemed to agree, but reading most of his posts one could easily conclude he is a tabular rasa believer. That we are black slates and our preferences and morals ONLY come from our experiences.

So, we'll see if he raises his hand.


Actually, over the years, my thinking has come closer to those who focus the beam more on nature than nurture.

Grappling with racism and gender roles for example.

Thus, while I castigate folks like Satyr as but more renditions of my blockhead objectivists, I think their arguments are probably a lot closer to whatever the "whole truth" may be than those who actually do believe in a "blank slate" approach to human interactions.

It's just that, from my frame of mind, there appears to be no getting around the fact that the variables here are embedded in an enormously complex and [perhaps] hopelessly entangled "contraption" way, way, way beyond the capacity of any one particular "I" to untangle.

And that's before we get to the implications of all of this being embedded in a determined universe. Or the part that revolves around what may well be an enormous gap between what any particular one of us here think is true and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself in order to know something like this.

The sheer spectacle of the "infinitesimally small and insignificant specks of existence" that we are putting our foot down one way or another!

Let alone taking this preposterous arrogance out into the is/ought world.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.


And thus...

Had those experiences been considerably different you might well be embracing considerably different preferences.

So: Any particular sequence of new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge might result in preferences that are actually the opposite of what you embrace now.

All I then ask of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] is to provide us with an argument [and a context] such that they are able to describe how their own reactions to conflicting goods embedded in their own chosen preferences results in them -- in their "I" -- not being fractured and fragmented.

Mine is. How are theirs not?

The question boils down to: Why are you NOT like me?

And I think you know the range of possible reasons as well as I do.

Why are you not obsessed with X?

is actually rather odd question.

Why am I obsessed with what I am obsessed with? That is a question I can begin to look at. I might be wrong about my motivations, but at least there is something I can feel into. Experiences.

Why am I not obsessed with arachnids?
I don't know.

Why do I love, these days and for quite some time now, dogs or being in the forest?
Those are questions I can begin to answer.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby phyllo » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:11 pm

First, of course, I am arguing with those who insist that, given any particular conflation of genes and memes, they have arrived at a frame of mind -- an alleged optimal frame of mind -- such that they are fiercely convinced that through God, ideology, deontology, nature etc., there are essential, objective distinctions to be made between good and bad behavior.
One can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes physical pain to one or more persons and another behavior does not cause that pain.

Or one can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes painless death to someone and another behavior does not.

So it comes down to whether it can be called good or bad.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:32 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, of course, as I have repeatedly said, experiences affect how I think and what I prefer.


And thus...

Had those experiences been considerably different you might well be embracing considerably different preferences.

So: Any particular sequence of new experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge might result in preferences that are actually the opposite of what you embrace now.

All I then ask of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] is to provide us with an argument [and a context] such that they are able to describe how their own reactions to conflicting goods embedded in their own chosen preferences results in them -- in their "I" -- not being fractured and fragmented.

Mine is. How are theirs not?

The question boils down to: Why are you NOT like me?


No, for me the question is still this:

In reacting to a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments out of sync, how are you able to sustain an "I" that is less fractured and fragmented than mine?

This gap will either be narrowed or it won't.

But forget about "X", I suggest. Let's bring that down to earth by exploring our actual reactions to actual conflicting goods. Let's try to describe the way "I" reacts to this or that context given the understanding that had "I's" experiences been very different, "I" may well be reacting otherwise.

Whereas the objectivists will argue that dasein and conflicting goods and political economy are not relevant here. Neither is pragmatism. We do have access to an objective font [sacred or secular] allowing us to make that crucial distinction between how we either are or are not obligated to behave. If we wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Why am I obsessed with what I am obsessed with? That is a question I can begin to look at. I might be wrong about my motivations, but at least there is something I can feel into. Experiences.


Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing "general descriptions" of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
No, for me the question is still this:

In reacting to a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments out of sync, how are you able to sustain an "I" that is less fractured and fragmented than mine?

That is precisely a Why are you not NOT like me question.

Why are you not like me regarding X?
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:57 pm

iambiguous wrote:Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing "general descriptions" of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.
I brought the issue of this Why are you not like me? questoin down to earth, with specific real case examples.

There were not contraptions involved. Just things I prefer and things I focus on and things I do not.

Why aren't you here obsessing about how to be close to people? (a rhetorical question)

The fact is you are obsessed with someting else.

A person who is obsessed with not being able to find intimacy and the issues around 'is it possible to really know another person' might demand that you explain why you aren't in their hole, might presume you have some contraption.

But it might just be that you and he are different. Different genes. Different experiences. Different current situation. Different approach to problem solving. Different skills. Different temperment.

There are so many possible factors in why one person obsesses over something and another does not.

You suffer one hole amongst many others. Or actually I would say two primary ones, if I have read right. Not being able to know how one ought to live and the fear of death. There are many people who suffer these holes. There are many who suffer other kind of existential pains that could be called holes.

YOu seem not to focus on those other existential crises. Does this mean you have contraptions? Maybe, maybe not. YOu are a particular organism.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:01 pm

iambiguous wrote:Actually, over the years, my thinking has come closer to those who focus the beam more on nature than nurture.

Grappling with racism and gender roles for example.

Thus, while I castigate folks like Satyr as but more renditions of my blockhead objectivists, I think their arguments are probably a lot closer to whatever the "whole truth" may be than those who actually do believe in a "blank slate" approach to human interactions.
Great, that's clear. Nature and nurture. Same page on that, then.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:Beat it Kid!



Seriously though, reconfigure this blustering sub-mental Kiddish accusation into an assessment of your own moral philosophy when confronting conflictng goods. How are you not down in the hole as I describe it above?

The hole is just your soul. Its just you man.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: the ancient Egypt

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:23 am

barbarianhorde wrote:The hole is just your soul. Its just you man.

Concision. Something for me to learn.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
First, of course, I am arguing with those who insist that, given any particular conflation of genes and memes, they have arrived at a frame of mind -- an alleged optimal frame of mind -- such that they are fiercely convinced that through God, ideology, deontology, nature etc., there are essential, objective distinctions to be made between good and bad behavior.
One can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes physical pain to one or more persons and another behavior does not cause that pain.

Or one can make an objective distinction that one behavior causes painless death to someone and another behavior does not.

So it comes down to whether it can be called good or bad.


No, in the world of conflicting goods, it generally comes down to those folks who insist that particular behaviors cause more pain in the folks that they care about than in the folks that others care about.

Thus with respect to an issue like capital punishment, if you put a prisoner to death it can cause pain [even great pain] for those who love him. But if the decision is made not to execute him, it can cause pain [even great pain] for those who loved the person that he murdered.

What we call things here is in my view embedded [and then manifested] in the components of my own philosophy.

Behaviors are rationalized from a particular point of view.

And it does not appear [to me] that philosophers/ethicists/political scientists etc., are able to construct an argument such that the pain becomes part of one or another moral obligation in sync with that which all rational people are obligated to embrace in their actual existential interactions with others.

Hell, I was watching a true crime doc a few weeks ago in which one man argued that the execution of a particular prisoner didn't go far enough. In his mind, the pain that the prisoner caused him was so great, he felt the man should be tortured instead.

So, is that necessarily a moral or an immoral point of view?
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:08 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
No, for me the question is still this:

In reacting to a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments out of sync, how are you able to sustain an "I" that is less fractured and fragmented than mine?

That is precisely a Why are you not NOT like me question.

Why are you not like me regarding X?


Again, I'm missing something here.

I want to take this discussion down to earth and explore our respective assumptions pertaining to a context most here will be familiar with.

Instead, you want me to explain why I am not like you regarding "X".

Note to others:

What am I missing here?
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing "general descriptions" of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.
I brought the issue of this Why are you not like me? questoin down to earth, with specific real case examples.


Yes, you point this out from time to time.

But with respect to why you choose behaviors in sync with what you imagine are the most reasonable arguments pertaining to any particular conflicting goods, I am still not grasping how you are less fractured and fragmented than I am. Other than in assuming that while [up to a point] you recognize the implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the construction of any particular "self" here [existentially], it just doesn't bother you as much as it does me.

In other words, while you could have had a different set of moral and political preferences had your life been different, your life was not different. And "here and now" how things turned out is good enough for you.

Though I assume in turn that you recognize how, given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, your preferences might shift again.

So, "I" here is always on the brink of thinking and feeling something else. In a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

And, in a world where it does not appear plausable that philosophers will come up with a moral narrative able be demonstrated as obligatory for all rational human beings.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: There were not contraptions involved. Just things I prefer and things I focus on and things I do not.


Again, as though the manner in which I construe the meaning of the word "contraption" here [and on other threads] is necessarily less reasonable than your own take on it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Why aren't you here obsessing about how to be close to people? (a rhetorical question)

The fact is you are obsessed with someting else.


I have no inclination to be close to people. And what preoccupies me [the few hours a day I spend in philosophy venues] is the question "how ought one to live?". As that relates to the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave; as that relates to the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: A person who is obsessed with not being able to find intimacy and the issues around 'is it possible to really know another person' might demand that you explain why you aren't in their hole, might presume you have some contraption.

But it might just be that you and he are different. Different genes. Different experiences. Different current situation. Different approach to problem solving. Different skills. Different temperment.


That's true. Different genes, different memes, different circumstances, different preferences.

But what happens when these differences come into conflict?

What of "I" then?

That's my thing in these exchanges. My "I" here is dangling by an existential thread. I have no capacity to put my own Humpty Dumpty back together again.

How then do others manage it while in turn eschewing objective moral narratives/political agendas in a No God world.

All I can do [for all practical purposes] is to grapple with their explanations. To see if what makes sense to them can possibly make sense to me.

After all, it appears that I have considerably more to gain here than to lose.

As you note, there's the hole I am in that revolves around living and the hole I am in that revolves around dying.

So: Are there any "antidotes" out there? Here for example?
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
No, for me the question is still this:

In reacting to a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over value judgments out of sync, how are you able to sustain an "I" that is less fractured and fragmented than mine?

That is precisely a Why are you not NOT like me question.

Why are you not like me regarding X?


Again, I'm missing something here.

I want to take this discussion down to earth and explore our respective assumptions pertaining to a context most here will be familiar with.

Instead, you want me to explain why I am not like you regarding "X".

Note to others:

What am I missing here?
Sorry. The statement Why are you not like me regarding X? was the category of what you are asking me. I said it was a Why are you not like me? request. You disagreed. Then phrased a very clear version of Why are you not like me regarding X? You want to know why I do not react to non-objectivism and conflicting goods like you do. Why am I not suffering it like you do and obsessed with finding an answer. I explained in an earlier post here on this page, why that is actually a strange question. I gave concrete examples to try to demonstrate why.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:05 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing "general descriptions" of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.
I brought the issue of this Why are you not like me? questoin down to earth, with specific real case examples.


Yes, you point this out from time to time.
No. Here I am referring to my examples with arachnids and then dogs and being in the forest. Not when I gave you an example of how I handle conflicting goods. I did that elsewhere but it is not relevent to this issue.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:08 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:The hole is just your soul. Its just you man.


To me, this is just more Kidstuff.

My "soul"?

My "soul" is "just me"?

What on earth does that mean?

Do you have a soul that is just you?

If so, bring it down to earth and situate it in a context. A context involving conflicting goods. Then relate this to the point that KT is making about me in the OP.

As for "For What It's Worth", here are the lyrics:

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down


It seems to be suggesting precisely the point that I raise. That "I" is an existential contraption such how we view the world around us is basically a subjective point of view embedded in the very different lives that we live.

And that some -- the objectivists -- insist that, on the contrary, they'll sing songs and carry signs mostly saying "hoorah for our side".

And the part about political economy revovles around "the man" coming and taking away those who dare to challenge their power.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then we are back to the extent which, in bringing "general descriptions" of this sort down to earth, existential contraptions rear their [to some] ugly heads.


I brought the issue of this Why are you not like me? questoin down to earth, with specific real case examples.


Yes, you point this out from time to time.

No. Here I am referring to my examples with arachnids and then dogs and being in the forest. Not when I gave you an example of how I handle conflicting goods. I did that elsewhere but it is not relevent to this issue.


Then I'm even more out of sync with your intention here. Either that or simply unable to grasp it at all.

Our individual reactions to spiders and scorpions and dogs and forests is no less a complex intertwining of genes and memes.

But only when the discussion shifts from the either/or world to the is/ought world, are we likely to confront conflicts. Conflicts in which it might be argued that my intent here is to make non-objectivists feel bad.

Thus there is the fact of a particular forest existing or not existing. Then there are the facts embedded in the arguments of those who want to cut it down or to preserve it.

And my intent is not to make either the objectivists or the non-objectivists feel good or bad about their own moral/political narrative. My intent is to suggest that these narratives are embedded more in an existential contraption than in any argument that can resolve whether the forest should in fact be cut down or preserved.
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. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26923
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users