Top Ten List

No. The commandments don’t “revolve around” rules of behavior. They are rules of behavior. You’re changing the scope of my statement to support your second sentence, which does not follow from the first, either way. My claim had nothing to do with metaphsyics. You introduced that. You do this all the time - you do not respond to my posts, or anyone’s post, because you address those posts from within a different paradigm. Any paradigm, as long as it’s a different one, so that you’re not expose to, or by, anything anyone else is saying.

That’s anti-communication.

My main aim here is to nudge – spin – the discussion in this direction:

How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?

Which is clearly not your aim.

And how are these “received [dictated] values” not in sync with their own understanding of how they are expected to behave on this side of the grave in order to be judged by God as worthy of both immortality and salvation on the other side of it? It is all about coordinating their existing life – the behaviors they choose – with their own particular religious assumptions about sin.

They are the particular factors in your life that predispose you to one rather than another set of value judgments. They range from the historical and cultural context in which you are born and raised to the actual personal experiences, relationships and access to ideas that shape and mold any particular “I” out in a particular world.

They are encompassed in more detail in my contributions on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

The difference clearly revolves around the precision. The language that the doctor uses in performing the abortion is wholly in sync with human biology, human sexuality and an unwanted pregnancy. What of the language that Rawls might use in describing the abortion wars in terms of “distributive justice”?

So you keep insisting. But from my frame of mind you are just one more didacticist aiming to steer the discussion up into the clouds of “analysis”. To address your points is basically to go there with you. And, to the extent that you are adament that your points reflect philosophy at its finest, one must also agree with your points.

I’ve adressed this before. Show me how Rawls’s “method” would be instructive in regard to the components of my own narrative here. And bring that “method” down to earth by focusing in on how “for all practical purposes” “distributive justice” is relevant to an issue like abortion or gun control or gender norms or the role of government. I don’t want a summary, I want the text to be illustrated.

Okay, so how does Rawls’s methods [and his conclusions] effectively work to resolve them? And my chief aim in discussions like this has always revolved around objectivism. And the hole that I am in given the manner in which I construe “I” at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

Aside from the thousands upon thousands of them out in the world that we actually live in? And who are we with respect to conflicting goods but two more of them. Your intellectual contraptions and “general descriptions” may be of no use to them, but this tells us more about you than them in my view.

As yet another general description of “serious philosophy”? No doubt nothing at all in the hallowed halls. But what on earth [aside from logic and rationality relating strictly to the rules of language] does that really have to do with a “sound argument” made to those outside the abortion clinic exchanging their own rendtions of “the good”?

Are you actually going to argue that any discussion/debate we have here is not profoundly embedded in a whole and complete understanding of existence itself?!

That Rumsfelds observation…

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

…is irrelevant to which of us comes closest here to pinning “the human condition” down?!!

I’m more than willing to leave that up to others. Let them make up their own mind regarding the best way to connect the dots between “I” and “all there is”. Or to simply dismiss it as…trivial?

Sure, maybe that will help. :wink:

There’s the general and there’s the specific. Sophisticated analysis of any idea requires facility with both. If you can’t manage that, you can’t really even think.

“Then your own behaviors [here and now] are deemed to be either more or less in sync with this frame of mind.”

By who iambiguous? By who?

Let’s bring this motherfucker down to Earth.

I agree, I’ve noticed a lack in ability to notice this distinction and shift one’s frame accordingly. Every thought or idea or problem has its proper contexts, so attempts to address it without those proper contexts will always skew something.

For all practical purposes, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And what supports my second statement is the fact that literally millions upon millions of people around the globe believe that God’s Commandments are a fundamental part of their own lives. Why? Because it is believed by them that their behaviors on this side of the grave will be judged by God. You may not believe this, I may not believe it, John Rawls may not have believed it, but “distributive justice” either takes this frame of mind into account or it doesn’t.

What on earth does noting this…

[i]My main aim here is to nudge – spin – the discussion in this direction:

How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

…have to do with metaphysics?!

Unbelievable. Is it even possible to take philosophy further away from the world that we actually live in?

What in general? What specifically?

Bring Rawls’s “method” and his “conclusions” down to earth with respect to a particular set of conflicting goods that most here will be familiar with.

We can explore the extent to which the components of his own moral narrative are more or less relevant to such things as “the abortion wars” than the components of mine.

Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.

Again, what on earth does this mean?

One’s “frame of mind” in regard to what set of conflicting goods?

Or, as I suggested to Pedro above:

[i]Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.[/i]

I will if you promise to tell me how

Gets

On my honor.

Note to others:

Kidstuff. About what you figured, right?

In context, no.

The topic was Nietsche. He asked a for specifics from you…

and here, in response to your response to Faust.

Without responding to his requests for specifics or concrete examples, you throw the onus over to him…

IOW you just ignored explaining your conclusions about N and ignore his second request regarding whoever is using or misusing N’s ideas.

You make claims. When asked for concrete examples of claims you make, you ignore them. You ask him to now answer your age old question - as if this had relevence regarding your position on N and also yours on those who use his ideas.

IOW you 1) shift the context.
2)Do not consider you own assertions in need of any support
3) Find a way, relevent or not, to challenge other people with your habitual issue, even though this is not your thread, as if it was a response to what they wrote.

When, in your estimation, not adequately responded to, you insult him, despite not even managing a childish response to his requests, you simply ignore them.

Pedro, stop responding to this retarded troll and start making beats.

Look, it shouldn’t take a genius to understand that “iamgbiguous” means literally nothing of what he writes, that the only thing that is sincere is the nausea that is conveyed in all his debilitated, and debilitating posts. But apparently it does. So in my capacity as apparently the only remotely qualified psychologist on this site, I suggest you stop wasting, nay, soiling your time and commit to get some fucking work done.

Already.

I mean it man. If you can’t see that this dude doesn’t read 90 percent of what he responds to you’re really not paying attention. If you can’t see he truly hates life and is only here to make it run out in a least resistance kind of way, you’re just not very smart.

Lets have a really difficult question instead.

Who is the most dishonest poster, Iambiguous or Sauwelios?

Yes, philosophy is largely the art of consciously dealing with the difference between the particular and the general.

This should be pretty obvious, it is in everything from Heraclitus to us here at the present moment, the village idiot himself included. Only this record-retard has the fucking negative IQ to not even know that.

Well except, he doesn’t really think or know. He is literally just wasting his time and that of as many idiots as he can get to believe he is actually trying to ask a question. The painful thing is that this makes him, in all his reeking debility, smarter than you lot. He is smarter by successfully taking your hearts out of philosophy.

Dumbasses.
Jesus.

but fragmented Mcees will at some point be forced to examine the manner in which their “I” is in sync with the role that rappers, conflicting beats and hiphop economy play in conflicts like this. the question ‘how ought one to beat’ is no less an existential hip-hop contraption rooted in historical, cultural and interpersonal interactions inexplicably embedded in the studio, than anything else.

how on earth might a ‘serious Mcee’ bring his own rendition down ‘out of the clouds’ and provide a particular context in which we can explore the manner in which pedro construes the beat?

Socrates, maybe. Trolling for its own sake.

Speaking of psychology, it’s quite the psychological phenomenon to see people trolling their own lives, wrapping others into that in order to cast a cloak of legitimacy around what they are doing which makes the joke even funnier, if only to themselves.

Too bad they are always the butt of their own jokes. “Depression is rage turned inward” lol.

Making beats… now that does sound interesting.

Dang.

Interaction: worth it.

Please.

The aim of my discussion with Faust here is to bring the exchange around to this:

[i]How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

And, with Pedro, around to this:

[i]Choose a set of conflicting goods. Note your own moral narrative at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

I’ll respond to that.[/i]

If, instead, your own aim here is to focus in on all of these accusations that you level against me, let’s take it to a new thread.

In the Rant forum if you prefer.