You’re too afraid to say objective morality exists and that it disproves a good god right now.
You and iambiguous conflict on many levels …
But this is where you two come together …
Burying your heads in the sand.
Every post you make keeps getting refuted …
All you seem to have left is, “this isn’t philosophy”
My posts are the definition of true philosophy.
The light of truth scares you with its brilliance
…a fair exchange.
Ecmandu! does that work for you?
It’s kinda fair. I mean, I’m not offended by being called evil, or so ignorant about certain things that I may be unknowingly psychopathic.
Why should I coddle the reverse fantasy in others?
Is it your place to do otherwise? a healthy respect for others’ boundaries all round, goes a long way.
This is an interesting area.
It makes the species a better place for every person who names truth “existence is currently evil”
Just naming it, if nothing else, gives us more power for good, however slight it may be.
So the question here is “who is holding good boundaries?”
Me or the nay sayers?
I understand trying to please everyone, trust me, I do.
I’d be disrespecting phyllo and iambiguous to not teach this stuff, I’d be infantalizing them.
This is the most diplomatic way I can put it to phyllo and iambiguous…
I’m inviting you to a different dimension than you’re currently in: you refused the invitation
Just don’t pretend that you came to the party when you didn’t.
At first, heightened intelligence is crushingly horrendous… but as time transpires with it, you’ll find that obstacles wither away, and you enter a state of bliss that is rare … maybe it doesn’t more than make up for the struggle, but it is wonderful.
Those are my words to phyllo and iambiguous
All parties can be failing to hold good boundaries.
Are you respecting yourself and your own boundaries when you try to teach this stuff (to them, to various individuals)? Are there not people who should be infantalized? Or better put, since that sounds like you are making them, or the hypothetical people, infantile: are there not people who are infantile, and when one interacts with them as if they are not, you are not holding good boundaries?
And, of course, it need not be infantile persons. It could simply be people who will judge or attack or belittle you or whatever, but who are not, in general, infantile or defensive or in denial or whatever.
When does exposing yourself to the memes and judgments and aggression or engaging with false discussion become a boundary issue for you?
Between us I mean this as something to mull over. Not as an opportunity for you to state that all is well in the republic of your soul and that you got this.
The internet make confident statements and denial so potentially facile.
Oh, I have a very simple answer for this:
Just as existence is currently evil, and thus, we being subsets of existence are also evil, there are means of the lesser of two evils.
The same is true for infantilism.
Yes, in my own right, I’m an infant, I don’t deny this.
There is a vast chasm between people who name and people who sublimate and deny.
I gave the factual answer to the OP.
All iambiguous has done is complain about the factual answer to his question.
How are you going to make the cosmos a better place when everyone is continually having their consent violated
Do you not see that consent violation is a necessary condition for existence which is why it cannot be eliminated
Avoid it by all means but you cannot be rid of it entirely while you are still alive
The only way to eliminate it is through death and ultimately through extinction
I also avoid relationships regardless of whether they are yes - no or yes - yes relationships because I have precisely no interest in any of them
Mother Nature is working hard on trying to kill me on the physical plane of existence which is not only feasible but is actually going to happen
You may not have taken my post to mean you were infantile or an infant, but to be clear, that is NOT what I was suggesting.
Sure, though I was thinking more about ongoing interaction with people.
it seems like he has done more than that: mocked, insulted, pretend responded, and perhaps responded to some degree. But in context with my post to you, is it a good idea to interact with people who will do the former things? Is there a limit? If so, what is it? Can it be harmful to you to continue?
Stop calling others out and labelling us and repeat-posting your concept in irrelevant threads. Thank you.
Iambiguous is ten times worse at this than me. The only reason it seems that I post on this so much is because I’m following iambiguous around, who posts at least ten times more than me on this topic. If I had the time, I’d do this for every thread he enters. I happen to have chose this one instead.
I’ve had to acquire a very thick skin in a world where the mundanity of evil is so ever present.
My adaptive strategy? Live in truth.
You do not have a choice in the matter… if you cannot move a discussion along, then leave the discussion.
Why the double standard, for someone everyone on ILP considers a worse offender of your charge against me than me?
That’s moving a conversation along. I’m curious why the double standard.
Really? You really have to ask? Re-read yesterday’s posts… they hold the answer.
Well, as they say, don’t mess with moderators or bartenders.
I think the reason for the double standard is that I’m speaking the truth, truth is radical.
Nobody believes iambiguous, his posts aren’t radical
“Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible”
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.
Well, if you really want to know of one possible meaning for morality being thought of as relative, just follow the news from day to day.
For all practical purposes, conflicting goods come tumbling down out of every newscast. And while moral nihilists such as myself have concocted an intellectual contraption to explain one possible reason for this, where is the argument able to explain why none of this tumult is really necessary at all?
Even with regard to moral relativism itself different folks have different strokes. Philosophical, political, religious. What it “means” is merely another aspect of the fundamental problem embedded in a No God world.
My own point is precisely that existentially the evidence is all around us if one wishes to conclude that moral nihilism is a reasonable point of view.
All I have ever required here myself is that we settle on a particular context in which value judgments precipitate conflicting behaviors that precipitate all manner of consequences embraced by some and rejected by others.
Tell us your own rendition of the “moral truth” here and defend it by providing us with the evidence it takes to convince all rational men and women to embrace it in turn.
“Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible”
Julien Beillard argues that it makes no sense to say that morality is relatively true.
From Philosophy Now magazine.
Sure, going back to a definitive explanation for everything, conflciting goods may well be on par with physics and human biology.
No one is able to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Just as no one is able to demonstrate that conflicting goods are not merely the biological imperatives of a brain able to generate the illusion of free will.
But to equate the objective biological imperatives embedded in autism with an alleged objective argument that determines if autistic fetuses ought or ought not to be aborted is, in my view, the difference between a “truth value” in the either/or world and one in the is/ought world.
Exactly. Or has there been an argument constructed that does in fact pin down whether, given a diagnosis of autism in the unborn, rational parents are obligated either to abort it or give birth to it.
All this suggests is that while answers to questions like these are ever and always being debated, we should [in the interim] just take leap of faith to one side or the other. As though the leap itself need be as far as we go. We can’t definitively substantiate, prove and establish the answer, but, here and now, my answer is the one I am sticking with.
In other words, Beillard starts with one set of assumptions and claims them as a “truth value”, while Prinz starts with a conflicting set and claims them instead.
So, you tell me: what has actually been demonstrated here to be the truth value?
On the one hand, in relation to autism as a medical condition given a set of biological imperatives, and, on the other hand, in relation to aborting autistic fetuses given a set of moral imperatives.