Joker Here.

Iambig, you don’t just over think fascism, you over think everything. That’s your biggest problem right there.

Nobody has any time for that shit.

I swear, if we were talking about the philosophical valuation of the utility of salt shakers in cooking you would still find some kind of fault with it.

“I’m using salt on my country fried chicken steak, how does this relate to me and dasein?”

You say that now, but if you ever found yourself in a kitchen awash with conflicting culinary spices, you might ask yourself why you chose salt instead of something else… or if you even had the freewill to choose.

Tell him about it, Biggs.

You see, that’s what I’m talking about right there, over thinking shit.

Sometimes a salt shaker is just a salt shaker and sometimes I just prefer pepper over my scrambled eggs or toast. =;

Gasp! Yet another “I am not an objectivist!” avoiding the arguments I made above by making me the issue.

Instead, what he should be doing is taking up my suggestion to bring fascism out into the world of human interactions, noting a particular context involving conflicting value judgments and behaviors – fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, nihilism etc. – and exploring the choices that individuals make given his own fascist view and my own take on moral nihilism.

That way he could expose in great detail the manner in which I “overthink” everything.

Instead, he attempts to reconfigure that into his own rendition of…wit?

Look, I respect the man’s intelligence. He is far, far removed from some of the godawful Kids here. But my main interest [as everyone knows] is in testing the intelligence of others to determine what they think about the components of my own moral and political philosophy. How is being a “modern radical pragmatic fascist” applicable to a discussion of human identity, conflicting goods and political economy. Given a particular context, involving conflicting value judgments.

He can go there on the philosophy board or he can continue to huff and puff about me here.

The fact is, I don’t argue that I am more intelligent than he is. I don’t argue that my frame of mind here is more reasonable than his is. My main interest lies less in what other philosophers think they know about good and bad or rational and irrational moral narratives configured into political agendas. I’m far more intrigued with how they have come to think as they do. Existentially.

This part:

This either interest him in turn or he continues to just shrug it all off as “overthinking everything”.

Society can’t function with moral nihilism because it’s impractical, not pragmatic, and serves no utilitarian purpose Iambig. Society or human civilization couldn’t exist in a morally nihilistic atmosphere which is why human morality or ethics was historically created to begin with. Is morality and ethics imperfect, flawed, or inconsistent? Of course it is just as human beings are also flawed, inconsistent, and imperfect.

Waving your hands up in the air saying it is imperfect, inconsistent, or flawed achieves nothing. So I see you wasting your time there with that.

There certainly is a lot of room in improving human morality or ethics because it’s clear the current set is failing horribly everywhere. I honestly don’t know what you and other moral nihilists are exactly trying to achieve anymore which is why I left moral nihilism altogether. Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, along with an assortment of pre-Confucian Chinese philosophers [Han Fei] helped me see why moral nihilism achieves nothing.

Come on, if any particular community took a leap of faith to No God, it would still continue to function “for all practical purposes”. There would still be a need to prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behaviors. As, for example, it set about the business of, in a Marxist sense, sustaining one or another means of production. It’s just that if everyone came to the conclusions that I do, they would likely opt more or less for either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Moral nihilism can be intertwined into either option. Or into a combination of both given particular contexts. It all depends on how the genes and the memes play out in any particular historical or cultural or interpersonal context.

But throughout human history there have been any number of moral objectivists that, through one or another God religiously or No God political agenda, have embraced the right makes might model of human interaction instead. For them there is one and only one way in which to construe race and gender and sexual orientation…and every and all other set of conflicting goods. As they do. You are “one of us” or “one of them”.

So, from my frame of mind, it comes down to how you construe your own “modern radical pragmatic fascism”. Are you convinced “here and now” that your moral values reflect the optimal way of thinking about the relationships above? The Satyr Syndrome.

Or are you willing to concede that my own frame of mind here is relevant to human interactions in the is/ought world. That is, that “I” the existential contraption in a world of contingency, chance and change, is always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new knowledge, information and ideas.

Then it depends on how far down into the “hole” you go as a “fractured and fragmented” person-ality. But that often revolves more around your set of circumstances, doesn’t it?

I’m only wasting my time around those who insist that fascism, communism, liberalism, conservativism, etc., are predicated on one or another objectivist font. Those who insist that perfection, consistency and flawlessness is within our grasp. It must be because they already embody it.

Well, the moral nihilist would suggest that “improving human morality” is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world understood in a particular manner. And, on the contrary, for those who own and operate the global economy [ironically enough, nihilists by and large] things are succeeding fabulously.

Well, sure, until they’re not. After all, you keep predicting the collapse of their empires year in and year out.

Welcome back. Another infinity confined to the present.

For the record Iambig, I believe the current model of society politically, socially, economically, sexually, and racially is unsustainable where it is on the verge of collapse. I of course want it to collapse because I understand nobody in positions of power currently have any political will or real solutions of reforming it better in improvement.

That doesn’t mean however that I resort to moral nihilism because of all that.

I believe that once the dust and fire settles the collapse of our current societies we have the opportunity to build better ones from the ground up out of the old ruins. From the ashes out with the old and in with the new.

I also believe we can create better moral and ethical social systems as well.

Still nonetheless, I believe there will be a violent devastating cataclysmic event that will transpire with this current society or civilization that will naturally have to sort itself out in a purely chaotic fashion before any of that is remotely possible in implementing. Our current societies will die viciously, violently, chaotically, brutally, and within a horrendous destructive manner because those that currently control the reins of power will not give it up willing.

Like all cycles or that which is cyclical concerning human behavioral social interaction change doesn’t happen without some type event of conflict.

Again, the gist of my argument here revolves less around what you think you believe and more around how I think you have come to believe it given the assumptions I make here:

And from this frame of mind the conclusions I arrived at here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

So…

Mostly I am interested in the extent to which the political prejudices of others are derived either from “thought out” philosophical/political/sociological/psychological/economic etc., assessments of the human condition, or are more the embodiment of the components of my own moral/political narrative: dasein/identity, conflicting goods/value judgments, political economy/power of enforcement.

Then taking intellectual contraptions of this sort out into the world of actual conflicting behaviors in actual sets of circumstances.

Though, sure, if this does not interest someone, it is their prerogative to eschew exchanges with me here and move on to others.

Okay, but I can’t avoid it because “here and now” I have thought myself into believing that it is a reasonable point of view given the manner in which I have come to assess my experiences over the years. And all I can do is to explore the manner in which others have come to choose the behaviors that seem most rational to them. How are they not “fractured and fragmented” in a No God world? How do they not see “I” in the is/ought world as a profoundly problematic existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change?

From my frame of mind, this “new” political reality is no less entangled in the assumptions I make about “I” and “we” and “them” out in a particular world, viewed from a particular point of view derived from dasein.

Cite an example of this then. What would constitute a better moral and ethical system in regard to the conflicting goods embedded in abortion or race or homosexuality or the role of government or immigration? How would your own values here not just be political prejudices derived existentially from the particular life that you lived?

In fact, I suspect that people react negatively to my arguments here precisely because it disturbs them to imagine their own particular “I” as an existential contraption. Instead, one way or another, and all along the moral and political spectrum, they need the psychological assurance that there is in fact a “real me” able to be in sync with “the right thing to do”.

Maybe. But wait until you have the responsibility of, say, raising children in this world. When their lives too are at stake. Will you indoctrinate them to believe that only your own “new world” values count? Will they become chips off the old block…or else?

One of us until death do you part?

You’re caught up on the internalizations of the self so much that you almost seem to postulate there is no course of action for anybody to take because everything will only result in error and therefore there are no actions that can be justifiable to do much of anything which is of course the very reason I keep reasserting my characterization of your beliefs as one of philosophical inaction. Rather than take a leap of faith irrationally or rationally dealing with endless possibilities of random chance you would rather just deliberate doing nothing at all. Unlike you I don’t suffer from these mental disabilities you possess.

Intellectual contraptions don’t get much more preposterous than this.

And of course it completely avoids responding to the points I raise above. Let alone in responding to them by reconfiguring this exchange into a discussion of modern fascism as it relates to a particular context involving conflicting value judgments.

Again, you are missing a golden opportunity to expose exactly what you mean when you accuse me of “internalizing the self”. How exactly does one go about doing that when discussing such things race and gender and homosexuality.

And my point does not revolve around doing nothing at all. If one interacts with others in any human community, rules of behavior are required. Folks like you merely insist these rules should revolve entirely around their own understanding of the human condition. The Satyr Syndrome let’s call it. The frame of mind encompassed in my speculations regarding the “psychology of objectivism” in my signature.

Sure, go back to insisting your own political prejudices are necessarily right and that if others don’t share them then theirs are necessarily wrong. Back to what I construe to be the “I am not an objectivist!” objectivist.

Unless, of course, you are just playing a character here. Provoking for its own sake?

Iambiguous- “Water has spilled out of a cup and hit me on my hand. I wonder how this relates to dasein, is the water or cup even real? Am I even real with my sense of self? Is dasein even real? When I take a shit on a toilet, is that real? Nothing is real!”

Wow man, deep thoughts there guy. :sunglasses:

Note to others:

How truly pathetic is this? What do you think, have I got him on the ropes? :laughing:

Besides, few things are more insufferable than an “I am not an objectivist!” objectivist trying to sound clever. :wink:

Hi Zero_Sum / Joker.

National socialism is about a strong government.
The national interests are put above the individual.
Capitalists would probably hate a NS, because the NS is more powerful than money.
Money is this massive fantasy of nonsense.
The NS alternative to global money is laws.
Laws can take the place of money.
Democratic capitalists try to use laws to control the economy.
Take that one step farther and the dollar looses some of its meaning.

This may not be quite true,
but as far as i know,
it is close to the truth.

Also nice to see you again.

Actually I do describe myself as an objectivist these days but not in an annoying manner as some in that I understand with it there are several complex nuances or variables attached to it. It’s not enough to just say reality is objective, there are several other factors that go along with it.

Got me on the ropes? That will never happen Biggie, but I give you props for your over enthusiasm nonetheless.

For me national socialism is the best kind of government that exists, it is for me ideal. Unfortunately these days a majority of the population prefers global communism which is depressing, yet here we are.

What makes national socialism great?
Can you describe the main points that you favor?

I’m really far less interested in what you believe or claim to know about yourself as an objectivist.

What I would prefer instead is that you describe the behaviors you’d choose in regard to your interactions with others in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. How would you go about demonstrating that your own values and behaviors are those that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to emulate?

In other words, back to the bottom line [mine]: How are you able to avoid feeling “fractured and fragmented” in the manner in which my own moral philosophy is rooted in this:

Rooted in turn in the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Now: How deep are you willing to go in exploring this with me?

See, this is the big difference between us. I would not say “never happen” in regard to your own point of view. Why? Because, given human autonomy, how on earth could I possibly know what new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas might unfold in the future to change my mind?

You can say “never happen” because you are just one more fierce objectivist in regard to “I” in the is/ought world.

Well, sure, you did come to different conclusions about the world around us before but…but this time – this time – you really, really, really are in sync with the Real Me in sync with The Right Thing to Believe, to Know, to Describe.

Right?

I’m trying to save you from yourSelf. Only, admittedly, the cure – “I” – night be described as worse than the disease.

Biggie, your philosophical mark is objectively…most annoying. Proud?

Hey Joker, glad you’re back!

I thought you were Joker. Or at least lovebirds.

After all, for all practical purposes, you might as well be. :laughing: