Top Ten List

[barbarianhorde]

Hume, who the consensus thing is from was to science what the NYT is to Trumpian job growth.

[barbarianhorde]

Hume, man. Fuck him.
All he ever did was creating consensus that Newton's laws could be broken at any given moment because... um. .... "text".

[brevel_monkey]

10. Academia has all but killed jazz. Same with philosophy.

Most of your list looks boringly uncontraversial. Philosophy is only about language? Well, philosophy is about thought and we think in language, so...

This statement looks interesting though. Do you mean that academia killed philosophy, or philosophy killed jazz?

[Faust]

Academia has killed philosophy. In part by continuing to argue over boring and uncontroversial ideas.

[Chakra Superstar]

Academia has killed philosophy. In part by continuing to argue over boring and uncontroversial ideas.

"...You see, a philosopher is sort of intellectual yokel who gawks at things that sensible people take for granted. And sensible people say, existence, it’s nothing at all, just go on and do something. See, this is the current movement in philosophy, “logical analysis”, which says: you mustn’t think about existence, it’s a meaningless concept. Therefore, philosophy has become a discussion of trivia.

No good philosopher lies awake nights, worrying about the destiny of Man, and the nature of God, and that sort of thing because a philosopher today is a practical fellow who comes to the university with a briefcase at 9:00 and leaves at 5:00. He “does philosophy” during the day, which is discussing whether certain sentences have meaning and if so what, and – as William Earle said in a very funny essay – 'he would come to work in a white coat if he thought he could get away with it'.

The problem is: he’s lost his sense of wonder. Wonder is in modern philosophy something one mustn’t have… it’s like enthusiasm in 18th century England: very bad form..." Alan Watts

... always makes me laugh.
.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Ah, I didn't best them then. It was just intuition of the part I hadn't heard.

Unexpected knowledge from such a... Classical lefty... Come now...

They don't teach that in University, do they?

I'll give it to them though, that's pretty clever of them.

But wait actually. AS within SO without is not the same as what's on the inside is what's on the outside. I didn't say the same as. I said is.

There seems to me to be an important distinction there.

I wish, in a sense, I was a classic lefty. How simple and then I'd have a group. I do react to righties, sometimes, in ways that classic lefties do. On the other hand I react to lefties like a righty, often these days. (I mean, why trust corporations or governments, and conservatives and liberals both, whatever their supposed disagreements seem to trust these entities for the most part.) And liberals, I react to them from both sides (now). I think the wordings are the same, in this context. That what is without is within and vice versa. I don't think it is indicating process, like a flow chart or something. And what, lefties don't study the alchemists? Come now....Some large chunk must head through Jung to them. I got to them because they kept being denigrated by the scientism groupies. Gotta check out whatever is denigrated by a consensus.

[Meno_]

Nowadays, the political weatherforms are regulated by the fear of displacement, fearing one's own self interest above that of the common good, and usually with an eye to wether how much the winds of favorable high pressured winds on the horizon can be overcome by the low pressure weather coming in from over sees.

[Dan~]

Academia has killed philosophy. In part by continuing to argue over boring and uncontroversial ideas.

Sometimes boring things are the best things.
Excitation is imbalance, imbalance is decadent, and decadent things tend to eventually undo themselves,
by accepting failure.

[Dan~]

1. There are almost certainly events that cause other events, but there seem to be uncaused causes. Sometimes, things are the way they seem.

Cause is an illusion based on a distorting mirror effect. Like those big circus fun house mirrors.
It can make a skinny man appear fat.
You cannot derive new from old.
You can change the shape of matter, but the components are the same, even if their formation is different.
Therefor, sameness is the essential level of things,
and difference is the human appearance of change.
Nano is assential, a steak or a pencil is a formation.
Formations are made of essence.
It appears different, although it is made of the same components / things.

2. The distinction between events and objects is one of convenience and has mostly to do with the scale upon which humans live.

I've tried to explain form and essence, earlier.
Objects and events both have an essence and a form.

3. Morality is all about politics and power, but that doesn't make it useless or wrongheaded.

"Complementary" was discussed with my friend Jared today.
He said how his wife is good at what he is bad at, and he is good at what she is bad at.
When they team up, they are complementary.
I told him my statement about how diversity is good and compatability is an illusion.
He understood me right off the bat.
There are many forms of power. I prefer long lasting or eternal power.
There is short lived power as well. It starts out great then later you're left with nothing.
Morality is a form of strength, though.
People think of power like it is some kind of evil government.
Strength as a word has less stigma.
So, morality is all about strength. There are many kinds of strength, and it is up to us to realize which form of strength is the best.

[Faust]

Now all we need is an actual context. One in which to flesh out the meaning of those words.

You got me - all ten are really about abortion.

Okay, pick one. Let's flesh this thing out.

Iam - you are a master at changing the focus or scope of an argument (or even a mere claim). It's almost Bill O'Reilly-like. Albeit that O'Reilly uses it to win an argument, not to lose one.

[iambiguous]

Now all we need is an actual context. One in which to flesh out the meaning of those words.

You got me - all ten are really about abortion.

Okay, pick one. Let's flesh this thing out.

Iam - you are a master at changing the focus or scope of an argument (or even a mere claim). It's almost Bill O'Reilly-like. Albeit that O'Reilly uses it to win an argument, not to lose one.

Whatever you think of me, you will either focus in on a particular context in which to explore your top ten list or you won't. Abortion works for me because 1] it is an issue that most will be familiar with and 2] it literally revolves around the question of life and death.

If you'd like we can create a new thread for it.

If nothing else, I'm curious to see how you connect the dots between abortion and, "There are almost certainly events that cause other events, but there seem to be uncaused causes. Sometimes, things are the way they seem."

The evolution of life on earth [eventually] begets human beings. Human beings have sex and this can beget pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies can beget abortions. Abortions can beget conflicting goods. Conflicting goods can beget political narratives.

Where do "uncaused causes" fit in here? And, with respect to the moral and political parameters of abortion, when are things "the way they seem"?

Or was your intent here all basically just tongue in cheek?

[Faust]

I was joking. Not about the list, but that they were all about abortion. Morality belongs to political science. It always has. Since at least The Republic.

[iambiguous]

I was joking. Not about the list, but that they were all about abortion. Morality belongs to political science. It always has. Since at least The Republic.

Okay, let's take your list to the Society, Government, and Economics board then. And, sure, fuck abortion this time. You choose the conflicting moral narratives, you choose the context.

[Faust]

I see no reason to remove to any other board. Epistemology has always been used to justify morality, which has always been a component of politics. The Ten Commandments was a political statement. There was no distinction between morality and law - the TC was part of the law. Plato tried to establish that virtuous philosophers were the model for morality and went as far as to used the city of Athens as the model for virtue. The city that was run by virtuous people, if not always by philosophers.

It's all the same thing.

In modern america, there is disagreement about the morality of abortion, but the virtuous Supreme Court allows it, under certain circumstances, which is not a novel idea.

The question has rarely been "Is abortion wrong?" but "what kind of abortions are wrong and how wrong are they?"

God saw all of this, while he existed.

[iambiguous]

I see no reason to remove to any other board. Epistemology has always been used to justify morality, which has always been a component of politics. The Ten Commandments was a political statement. There was no distinction between morality and law - the TC was part of the law. Plato tried to establish that virtuous philosophers were the model for morality and went as far as to used the city of Athens as the model for virtue. The city that was run by virtuous people, if not always by philosophers.

Okay, but with respect to what moral issue in what political context? Trump's wall? Obamacare? The Second amendment? Conscription? The death penalty? Homosexuality? Animal rights? Gender roles?

Particular people claim to know particular things about particular moral and political issues. About what is or is not said to be virtuous. Where does philosophy fit in here? What are the practical limitations embedded in the tools epistemologists use to assess what either can or cannot be known about them?

In modern america, there is disagreement about the morality of abortion, but the virtuous Supreme Court allows it, under certain circumstances, which is not a novel idea.

And soon [perhaps] a new virtuous Supreme Court will not allow it here in America. Okay, Mr. Ethicist, some then interject, which virtue ought it to be?

Here of course I interject and note the components of my own frame of mind: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a No God world awash in contingency, chance and change. A world in which new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, can reconfigure "I" here into an "existential contraption".

The question has rarely been "Is abortion wrong?" but "what kind of abortions are wrong and how wrong are they?"

Depends on who you discuss this with. For some all abortions are wrong. For others it's abortion on demand. The objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum. Some re God, some re Reason [political ideology or deontological assessments], some re Nature.

And the more ambiguous it gets -- which abortions are wrong and when? -- the more the best of all possible worlds would seem to revolve around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Only here I have thought my way down into a hole. This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

My only recourse then being discussions like this one in which I encounter the narratives [behaviors] of those not down in that hole.

[Faust]

Where does philosophy fit in here? What are the practical limitations embedded in the tools epistemologists use to assess what either can or cannot be known about them?

Philosophy fits in exactly where i just said it does. The practical limitations on epistemologists are that what they are doing is impractical.

Depends on who you discuss this with.

Of course there are those who can draw a thick, impenetrable line between right and wrong, but they still lie along a spectrum. And they may still assess differing penalties for not following the rule, which modifies what would otherwise be an absolute position.

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

No one can "reach" objective values. That is a hoax. And you might have gone in another direction even if there were. You continually manufacture, out of whole cloth, a problem that does't exist. You simply are afraid of the freedom to choose that you have. Not that there aren't consequences for our actions. But these are societal. Don't ever confess to a murder. Unless they have you anyway.

[promethean75]

You simply are afraid of the freedom to choose that you have.

no it's not that. biggy got over that kierkegaardian anxiety and dizziness of freedom decades ago, so that's not the problem. i'll tell you what the problem is; biggy is suffering from PTFD (post traumatic forum disorder). i don't know if any of you folks know about his history, but biggy served two tours of duty at a yahoo group called 'the philosophy cafe' which was run by a mexican kantian objectivist defense attorney named friedrich. and this guy led a platoon of objectivists of all stripes... half of em had fucking philosophy degrees. you can't imagine the hell biggy was in, and why he had to become an animal to survive. i was there and saw the whole thing go down, man. it was vietnam all over again for this dude, and folks need to understand what that can do to a man. it's in his blood, he's a trained objectivist killer, and anyone who so much as whispers anything about an 'objective value' is in grave danger around this guy. this isn't something he can just choose to let go of. therapy? we tried that. guess what happened. he ruined the therapist. the guy quit his practice, sold the business, and moved to some convent in south america.

the only thing you can do is avoid engaging him and hope he doesn't hunt you down. since the objectivist slaughter of 2002 at the philosophy cafe, he's gone rogue like the others in his squad, and despite my attempts to bring him home, he refuses to cooperate. i tried my best to reassemble the team, to no avail. this was my last transmission with him.

[Faust]

Promethean, all well and good. It's abundantly clear that iam's problem is not philosophical.

[Jakob]

The question has rarely been "Is abortion wrong?" but "what kind of abortions are wrong and how wrong are they?"

God saw all of this, while he existed.

Maine Man

[iambiguous]

Where does philosophy fit in here? What are the practical limitations embedded in the tools epistemologists use to assess what either can or cannot be known about them?

Philosophy fits in exactly where i just said it does. The practical limitations on epistemologists are that what they are doing is impractical.

Yeah, this sounds "deep". But until we take these words down to earth and situate them in a particular context, we won't be able to grasp how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we actually live.

Did folks invent philosophy all those years ago so that flesh and blood human beings could grasp only the "technical" aspects of human language/communication: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

Or [sooner or later] would this technically correct knowledge have to confront those "strict principles of validity" that revolve [existentially] around assesments of "I" out in a world of conflicting goods rooted in one or another extant configuration of political economy.

Depends on who you discuss this with.

Of course there are those who can draw a thick, impenetrable line between right and wrong, but they still lie along a spectrum. And they may still assess differing penalties for not following the rule, which modifies what would otherwise be an absolute position.

Yes, but this spectrum is no less situated out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And the rules of behavior that are chosen are, in my view, no less the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

So, imagine then someone who professes to be a "serious philosopher". What "technically" can she tell us about these flesh and blood interactions when they come into conflict over value judgments? How would she assess each point on your list above as they are pertinent in a particular context?

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

No one can "reach" objective values. That is a hoax.

You can't possibly know this. Not until you are able to grasp an understanding of the existence of existence itself. There may well be a God. There may well be a correct deontological assessment of human interactions. There may well be an optimal political ideology. There may well be an entirely coherent assessment of Nature.

And you might have gone in another direction even if there were. You continually manufacture, out of whole cloth, a problem that does't exist.

I'm not arguing that the problem exists for all of us. Only that "here and now" it exists for "I" out in this particular world.

And to avoid this "whole cloth" I ask others to bring their own moral narratives out into a particular context in which we can explore the extent to which there might in fact exist a Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

They don't exist for me. But only "here and now".

You simply are afraid of the freedom to choose that you have. Not that there aren't consequences for our actions. But these are societal. Don't ever confess to a murder. Unless they have you anyway.

First, of course, we don't even know for certain if this freedom is not just a psychological illusion. This entire exchange may well be just a necessary component in/of a wholly determined universe.

And, sure, if you want to argue that this is all about me being afraid of freedom, so be it.

We simply construe the meaning of "I" as an "existential contraption" here in different ways. Trump isn't afraid to build his wall and others aren't afraid to oppose him.

But how on earth might that not still be understood given the components of own frame of mind -- as a moral nihilist.

Just because one is not afraid to choose does not make the choice itself able to be confirmed by "serious philosophers" as that which all rational men and women are obligated to choose in turn.

Especially when confronting serious philosophers who are as well conflicted regarding what is said to be the right thing to do.

[iambiguous]

You simply are afraid of the freedom to choose that you have.

no it's not that. biggy got over that kierkegaardian anxiety and dizziness of freedom decades ago, so that's not the problem. i'll tell you what the problem is; biggy is suffering from PTFD (post traumatic forum disorder). i don't know if any of you folks know about his history, but biggy served two tours of duty at a yahoo group called 'the philosophy cafe' which was run by a mexican kantian objectivist defense attorney named friedrich. and this guy led a platoon of objectivists of all stripes... half of em had fucking philosophy degrees. you can't imagine the hell biggy was in, and why he had to become an animal to survive. i was there and saw the whole thing go down, man. it was vietnam all over again for this dude, and folks need to understand what that can do to a man. it's in his blood, he's a trained objectivist killer, and anyone who so much as whispers anything about an 'objective value' is in grave danger around this guy. this isn't something he can just choose to let go of. therapy? we tried that. guess what happened. he ruined the therapist. the guy quit his practice, sold the business, and moved to some convent in south america.

the only thing you can do is avoid engaging him and hope he doesn't hunt you down. since the objectivist slaughter of 2002 at the philosophy cafe, he's gone rogue like the others in his squad, and despite my attempts to bring him home, he refuses to cooperate. i tried my best to reassemble the team, to no avail. this was my last transmission with him.

Wow, I almost believe this myself!

[iambiguous]

Promethean, all well and good. It's abundantly clear that iam's problem is not philosophical.

Just as it is abundantly clear [to me] that you are unwilling to take that which you construe to be "serious philosophy" down out of the technical clouds and situate it out in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of actual social, political and economic interactions.

And, in particular, at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

Starting with the points you raise on the list above.

It's just that even here I am willing to acknowledge this too as just another "existential contraption". I have no capacity [philosophical or otherwise] to demonstrate that others ought to think like this.

Again, going all the way back to a complete understanding of the existence of existence itself.

[Faust]

Yeah, this sounds "deep". But until we take these words down to earth and situate them in a particular context, we won't be able to grasp how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we actually live.

Who, in god's name, is "we"?

Did folks invent philosophy all those years ago so that flesh and blood human beings could grasp only the "technical" aspects of human language/communication: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

No, I don't think so. But what has any of that to do with what I am saying? You think it's all fucked up that we can't know whether or not abortion is wrong, ever since god died. I'm telling you that even when god was alive this was usually all fucked up. Even the catholics used to allow for grey areas. Read some history. Read Roe v. Wade, for that matter.

Or [sooner or later] would this technically correct knowledge have to confront those "strict principles of validity" that revolve [existentially] around assesments of "I" out in a world of conflicting goods rooted in one or another extant configuration of political economy.

No offense, brotherman, but this makes absolutely no sense. If there is no "I" there is no logic to begin with.

Yes, but this spectrum is no less situated out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And the rules of behavior that are chosen are, in my view, no less the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Of course it's situated in "a" particular world - the world itself. The only world there is. I don't know who you are arguing with here, but it is not me.

So, imagine then someone who professes to be a "serious philosopher". What "technically" can she tell us about these flesh and blood interactions when they come into conflict over value judgments? How would she assess each point on your list above as they are pertinent in a particular context?

This is about where you usually go off the rails. Philosophers use a "technique" in reasoning. So, a valid argument is "technical". So.... what can a philosopher "technically" tell us. You're confounding technique with substance, form and function. It's like you read what I write, what other people write, through Google Translate. You almost certainly are doing this deliberately. Ignoring an argument is not winning one.

You can't possibly know this.

I can if "to know objective values" makes no literal sense. That's the big secret that you and objectivists are equally unaware of.

[iambiguous]

Yeah, this sounds "deep". But until we take these words down to earth and situate them in a particular context, we won't be able to grasp how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we actually live.

Who, in god's name, is "we"?

You and I. Or any others here who wish to intertwine the words that serious philosophers use in their disciplined technical discussions with their actual experiences with others out in a world teeming with conflicting goods.

Did folks invent philosophy all those years ago so that flesh and blood human beings could grasp only the "technical" aspects of human language/communication: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity."

No, I don't think so. But what has any of that to do with what I am saying? You think it's all fucked up that we can't know whether or not abortion is wrong, ever since god died. I'm telling you that even when god was alive this was usually all fucked up. Even the catholics used to allow for grey areas. Read some history. Read Roe v. Wade, for that matter.

All this demonstrates [to me] is that with respect to morality, you and I are both inclined to focus in on those grey areas. But they can be grappled with either intellectually or existentially. Though most are still inclined to embrace morality objectively. With or without God.

And even "fucked up" is an existential contraption. For some it is precisely those grey areas that allow them considerably more options in choosing behaviors. The objectivists either do the right thing or they don't.

But few folks here are inclined to explore the possibility that, with regard to conflicting goods, being down in a "hole" is actually a reasonable frame of mind. Let alone that in examining them it is analogous to "ever-changing NFL rules".

Or that construing "I" as "fractured and fragmented" may in turn be a reasonable perspective given the manner in which I have come to understand the "self" in the is/ought world.

But: Only when language like this is embodied existentially [contextually] are we likely to sustain exchanges that have any practical usefulness in our lives. And this is either important to us or it's not.

Or [sooner or later] would this technically correct knowledge have to confront those "strict principles of validity" that revolve [existentially] around assessments of "I" out in a world of conflicting goods rooted in one or another extant configuration of political economy.

No offense, brotherman, but this makes absolutely no sense. If there is no "I" there is no logic to begin with.

I'm making a distinction between I in the either/or world in which "strict principles of validity" are anchored to, among other things, mathematics, the laws of nature and objective empirical facts, and "I" in the is/ought world where countless objectivists have insisted that their own moral and political narratives are, in turn, anchored to "strict principles of validity".

Those "strict principles of validity" begin to crumble and "I" as an existential contraption is more readily appreciated. Well, by some of us.

Logic is applicable to all of us. But there are any number of human interactions in which logic is only useful up to a point.

Yes, but this spectrum is no less situated out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And the rules of behavior that are chosen are, in my view, no less the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Of course it's situated in "a" particular world - the world itself. The only world there is. I don't know who you are arguing with here, but it is not me.

Come on, we all live in a particular world called planet Earth. But each and everyone of us experience this world such that there are endless conflicts regarding what is said to be or not to be true about it.

My own assessment of it revolves the components I note above. And, so, what I deem to be a reasonable set of behaviors [here and now] is derived from them. But what about others? Do they take into account those components themselves. Yes? No? Okay, let's shift the discussion to a particular context. Let's take the words out into the world.

So, imagine then someone who professes to be a "serious philosopher". What "technically" can she tell us about these flesh and blood interactions when they come into conflict over value judgments? How would she assess each point on your list above as they are pertinent in a particular context?

This is about where you usually go off the rails. Philosophers use a "technique" in reasoning. So, a valid argument is "technical". So.... what can a philosopher "technically" tell us. You're confounding technique with substance, form and function. It's like you read what I write, what other people write, through Google Translate. You almost certainly are doing this deliberately. Ignoring an argument is not winning one.

Okay, but there is still that gap between what serious philosophers tell us about logic, rational thought, epistemologically sound assessments etc., and the extent to which they can show why/how all of this is relevant to human interactions that, in regard to what is of interest to me, come into conflict over value judgments.

Technique and substance, form and function in regard to what particular set of circumstances?

And the arguments I tend to ignore are those that stay up in the clouds. And, by and large, in my own opinion, yours certainly do.

You can't possibly know this.

I can if "to know objective values" makes no literal sense. That's the big secret that you and objectivists are equally unaware of.

Again: What on earth does something like this mean? No "literal sense" in regard to what?

[Faust]

What does it mean to grapple existentially? You seem to be saying that moral judgements cannot be generalized. They certainly can, but one can go too far with that. But no amount of generalization produces an absolute truth. Generalization is something we can do, but not something the world does.

The laws of nature are just as human as any other idea. There are no objective empirical facts, because the idea of objectivity is a stupidity. What would an objective fact be? Something we observe with our human senses or identify with our human brains?

"Principles of validity" which means rules of logic or it doesn't mean anything, do not crumble. These are simply a method to remain consistent in our claims. Those claims take a certain form and it is this form that "validity" applies to. The validity is baked into the language cake. They concern what we can say and cannot say, that is all. The world at large has no effect on them, nor the other way 'round. It's just language. Logic is relevant to a certain kind of human actions - claims to truth. Nothing else. It's pretty simple.

Objectivists, if I understand the term, are merely lost in the shadow of the Ontological Argument, are merely making an appeal to authority.

"to know objective values" makes no sense. To make that claim, to know objective anything, is neither true nor false. It is not a claim at all. It's nonsense. The term "Objective truth" is likewise nonsense. No one would know an "objective truth" if it bit them in the ass. What form would this truth take and how would we know?

"Truth" is the most abused word in philosophy. Everyone knows what it means, until they read a philosopher. When they stop reading, they know again. That should tell philosophers something.