Surreptitious,
Umm… wow dude.
You’re off your game here.
I literally argued that people who’s job it is to send stuff to space have zero luxury to believe the earth is flat.
And your responses ???
Honestly! They’re almost gibberish.
You’re flinging mud only for the sake of flinging mud.
This is not a response to what I wrote
Hell does exist but only as a psychological or a philosophical aspect of the human condition
It does not therefore exist in a metaphysical sense - its a state of mind not an actual place
Yes. Here’s where we’re bumping heads. I 100% agree that it can be fully eliminated
How? By never letting it manifest? Cutting the snakes head before it becomes dangerous?
Human beings can very easily convince themselves of anything if they really want to
So they are under no obligation to accept anything if it contradicts their world view
Denying reality is very easy for some while for others like myself its really impossible
You guys,
This isn’t going anywhere.
I have two people arguing just to argue, that they have signed an agreed contract to have their consent violated —
Good luck with that shit
You cannot fully eliminate suffering in whatever form it takes
Suffering is part of existence and a fundamental law of Nature
The most obvious manifestation of this is that all living things eventually die
While it is impossible to avoid death it is however possible to avoid the suffering caused by fear of death
This is one way in which psychological / philosophical suffering can be reduced - although not eliminated
Controlling suffering - wherever possible - is how to contain it because it is going to be present in some form or another - always
You quoted me out of context.
Suffering cannot be eliminated in a reality where more than one person is sentient in that reality.
I signed no contract I was born into this reality and have no choice but to accept its rules
Whereas you introduce concepts that are not a part of this reality such as imaginary hells
They only exist within your mind and nowhere else as does your notion of consent violation
This is the reason why this isnt going anywhere because you are not making any sense at all
This is absolutely true but I would also say that it cannot be eliminated at all
The goal should be to accept it while trying to contain it as much as possible
I am leaving this thread Ecmandu as its too frustrating engaging you man
You make zero sense and its just not going anywhere so I am out of here
I wasn’t saying that you were, apologies for any lack of clarity on my part. I simply used a different example to show that it was a category error.
Let assume right here that this was suffering and that is was necessary. This does not preclude wanting suffering to end or entail that this is irrational or impossible.
Again, back to the slave child…
You gave reasons why you were leaving the thread. These reasons included blame aimed at Ecmandu. IOW you had a biased attribution of value aimed at his posts/behavior in the thread, and used this to justify leaving. And you are implicitly judging others who do not have an unbiased attribution of value. Those who see suffering, for example, as negative.
And this is a good metaphor for what I see in neo-Buddistish positions. They leave reality while staying in their bodies. Or to put it another way, instead of judging outwardly, they cut off portions of themselves and without openly saying they are negative, treat them that way. Then look at others and judge them for not doing the same, while denying that they attribute negativeness to anything.
Karpel, I did say this in the thread… you worded it better than me.
I was also making an additional point as well…
They are consenting to pain and suffering, they’re consenting to be kidnapped and tortured.
This is why I was using the rocket to space analogy.
In the absence of actually being kidnapped and tortured, and not believing it’s going to happen to them because they consented to it, they have the luxury to appear badass and wise with false beliefs.
I’m not judging anyone, I am stating the fact of the matter that suffering is attributed value by the individual who suffers.
Value changes, suffering doesn’t. So why would you /choose/ to be trapped in a cycle of determining higher value to suffering than of attributing value to growing and not giving the suffering power over you?
Are you arguing against common sense?
I stated I was leaving the thread because it’s a matter of perspective. You consent to being alive by being alive, if you don’t consent, suicide is an option. Therefore you consent compelled by a likely fear of death. So then right there you can see the value attribution of value upon ones life instead of suicide, which the attribution of value is the consent.
If you never knew there was bad and good in this world and don’t consent to such everyday walking out of your house then that would simply make you naive, ignorant… of which I would urge you to understand this world better before going out.
There is a reason for knowledge, to consent properly and attribute value reasonably/logically. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t blame anyone. I said the value of me leaving this thread is higher than not since I have other topics to focus on, it has no blame in or for Ec.
Also, I am not judging others for not killing suffering rather than let it fester, I am showing how the extra suffering and not finding a way out is an individuals fault, since they /let/ it fester rather than kill its value. There’s a difference.
The attribution of value to being correct instead of value attributed to trying to understand/humility. Is an act out of ego observable psychologically. Being correct is blinding because reality doesn’t focus based off our /want/ to be correct. That is why I stated I was leaving the thread. I don’t care to be “correct”, i only care to reveal reality for what it is.
The whole “you’re wrong I’m right” sounds like cognitive dissonance, even when I have demonstrated that the consent lies within the value and also consent being ones staying alive. How is that not true? Pain is forever no doubt but what one does with it is ultimately up to them. It isn’t good and it isn’t evil, that’s ones own misconception of their attributing value to it in their own manner they deem.
If I get my hand chopped off, sure it would fucking suck wouldn’t it? But my consent to that horror is despite being a now broken man, is the attribution of value upon my life which is the very consent of staying alive despite the pain of my hand now missing. Otherwise if one doesn’t value their life and doesn’t consent, what’s suicide? What’s death?
Every man has negative aspects and traits, don’t try to paint me in a light of where I am assuming I don’t, when I know and can openly state that I do. Do I let them have power over me and others? No and that comes with a sacrifice sure. But i can handle the pain, can others? I don’t know, let’s take a look at the world, what would you say?
If I also didn’t experience negativity or have negativity, how could I be unbiased when a state of being unbiased is through experience in or of both or all sides, understanding lies in the same path, a position of experience/observance of contrasts in a whole. Are you implying I have no positives?
Oh and by the way, the only way one can be unbiased is by a willing choice to experience both sides or observe both sides of bias. There is no unbiased without first experiencing bias. That’s the point. It doesn’t mean one has to /stay/ biased, therein is where the issue lies, /staying/ biased instead of seeing contrasts and understanding both.
I am saying to experience all sides just don’t bounce to the extreme. Which staying between is balance. After an understanding one can /choose/ to stay balanced.
Trust me: In the throes of waiting for godot, I’m called upon [by myself] to do any number of utterly futile tasks. In this case, setting the record straight regarding ecmandu’s la la land claims about me.
Like everyone else, I have a sense of self rooted in the hundreds and hundreds of factors that are embedded in my actual existence out in the either/or world. The things about me that are, in fact, true. True for everyone. Things able to be readly demonstrated and confirmed.
Only in regard to my value judgments out in the is/ought world am “I” down in my “hole” “fractured and fragmented”. And for all of the reasons I have noted here over and over and over and over and over again. Right?
And I have never argued that I cannot find moral answers. Instead, I make a distinction between having found them once as an objectivist in the past and not finding them here and now as a moral nihilist.
My argument is that any particular individual’s moral and political values are embedded existentially at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And, in turn, that the “consent” we embody in our interactions with others is, as well, largely an existential contraption; and, thus, beyond the reach of those who employ the tools of philosophy.
Unless of course I am wrong. In other words, that someone here is able to note how their own value judgments in a particular context are such that they are able to convince me that the components of my own argument are less reasonable.
I’m not arguing that my problem is impossible to solve. Instead I note two things that seem to be applicable to all of us:
1] that how we understand any of this is necessarily rooted in whatever explains the existence of existence itself
2] that we are unable to determine definitively whether this exchange itself is only as it ever could have been in a wholly determined universe
And, sure, short of that, there is still the possibility that someone is in fact able to solve problems like this. It’s just not me. Or [from my frame of mind here and now] any of you.
And, as well, we can “declare” reality as “inherently” anything that we are able to “think up” in our head. But asserting it and actually demonstrating it is a task that [in my view] minds like ecmandu seem not in the least bit concerned about.
They just blurt out any number of things that they insist are true by, among other things, definition.
And five will get you ten it’s their own.
I solved three of your common examples on this board.
Definition: words used to describe discoveries that are delineated in a self evident way.
Proof: that which has to be true, otherwise the self evident delineation must fail
The three proof I have in this manner:
Pro choice is the correct answer
Liberal democracy is the correct answer
Why existence exists instead of not existing
I fulfilled your request.
Debate me on my proofs instead of waving your hands and saying (I disagree, but I won’t tell you why)
Read the above post:
Also, iambiguous, I wanted to add:
Do it in formal debates.
I have no idea why you wouldn’t want to debate me on this… from your perspective it would be an unprecedented miracle if I won.
That’s making history iambiguous!
We can work out the details with carleas
Anyone else?
So, are you confessing to being a shameless troll of ILP here ?
I guarantee you, in debates, my debates won’t disappoint - think about it - unprecedented miracle if you lose - shaming me if I lose.
What do you have to lose?