These are not universal truths...

From Roe v Wade:

“Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See PLato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics VII 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma.”

Aquinas is in there, too.

But my case is that the cases themselves are constructed existentially given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy given the manner in which they are embedded/embodied historically, culturally and experientially given that which can or cannot be demonstrated as true or false for all of us. Here as close as as we are able to come for all practical purposes to an objective truth or an objective falsehood.

Arguing over what – technically, logically, epistemologically – constitutes an objective or universal truth may be a fascinating exercise among serious philosophers. But how important then are their conclusions when we get down to the nitty gritty of reacting [morally, politically, legally] to particular contexts relating to the conflicts that revolve around things like abortion or gun control.

I “advance my case” in the arguments made in my signature threads. Here, what else is there?

Yes, but the crucial distinction I make here are between arguments said to be derived from such disciplines as philosophy, science, sociology, political theory, psychology etc., and arguments derived more from the components of my own moral philosophy in a No God world.

In other words, the objectivists here among us have no qualms whatsoever in concluding that their own moral narrative and political agenda reflect that which, as far as they are concerned, are universal truths. And trust me: not just technically.

What I am in regard to issues like abortion and gun control re truth and falsehood in the is/ought world, is the embodiment of the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This either resonates with others or it does not.

And while one can shrug and say “so what?” to the fact that “people struggle”, – or call that a universal truth – I feel it is important to grapple with the components of that struggle existentially. For example, out in the world of actual human interactions.

Again, my point revolves less around what these men thought about abortion back then, and more around how they came to derive their individual conclusions. To what extent did they attribute their own political prejudices to “thinking through” the conflict using the tools of philosophy or theology? As opposed to how their own value judgments were no less the embodiment of dasein confronting conflicting goods in a particular political economy.

And that hasn’t changed since in my view.

Why are you arguing with me, who doesn’t have “objective truth” in his vocabulary? Your first post on this thread was sarcasm, aimed at anyone who actually wants to do some philosopy. Then you want to know if a statement I made is universal truth or just opinion.

You are a snarky troll. You repeatedly ask the same question like a rude seven year old.

You just argue with anyone. But your arguments suck. They are nonresponsive. You just want to fill space with your original position on life and how you’re in a complete panic over the loss of god. Or some loss you cannot get over. Ambiguous grief, they call it.

Why are you arguing with me, who is not an “objectivist”.

Your points do not resonate with me or anyone else. So why don’t you get the fuck off this thread?

I know I could just ignore you. But you are certainly not concerned with my arguments or your own. You’re just angry. You keep talking about universal truths. Why? They don’t exist.

I actually don’t care if you get off the thread. It wasn’t a rhetorical question, though.

I’m gonna start a thread about possible worlds. You won’t understand it, but I’m sure you’ll weigh in.

You are asking me to explain that which motivates my intentions in posting here when I am the first to acknowledge how the intertwining genetic/memetic variables that encompass my “lived life” were, are and will continue to be in so many crucial respects beyond either my complete understanding or control. After all, I have attempted to grope and grapple with this many times with others here.

I merely suggest in turn that this is almost certainly applicable to you [and to them] as well.

And, in part, it revolves around this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

This truly resonates with me, but how do I explain it definitively even to myself?

And then these parts:

I merely assume that folks like you want to steer clear of assumptions of this sort. After all, what do they tell us about the profound limitations imposed on anyone intent on becoming a “serious philosopher”?

Then the part that revolves around a deep-seated and genuine interest in morality on this side of the grave, and the fate of “I” on the other side of it.

And, finally, the part that revolves around “waiting for godot”. And in a mind that has always been prone to polemics.

Of course this doesn’t surprise me. Over the years, I have driven any number of Kids, objectivists, and serious philosophers to retorting, to huffing and puffing, to making me issue.

I can only leave it to others to determine for themselves why this is the case.

Right. As though I am not able to make the same points about you and your own “technical arguments”. My “thing” however is to take “world of words” accusations of this sort down off the skyhooks and note their relevancy in regard to actual human interactions.

No? You come here and, among other things, insist that “universal truths” are “complete nonsense”. You pin me to the mat with your psycho-babble assertions in order to expose the “real me” to everyone else. You seethe with this indignant self-righteous sense of certainty…but you’re not an objectivist.

For example:

Note to others:

By all means, decide for yourself what this tells you about him. It certainly speaks volumes about one of us.

That I am still able to bring otherwise intelligent and articulate philosophers to this state never ceases to amaze me. Or is it surprise me?

On the other hand, they’ve got a hell of a lot more to lose if my own assumptions about the human condition come closer to the mark.

Whatever that means.

Right?

Here’s your first post in the thread.

We know that for you ‘serious philosophers’ is pejorative. So, you started a thread with an insult. IOW you made the other participants in the thread the issue, right off the bat.

I know, you are too fragmented to notice anything you do or to take even the slightest responsibility for people thinking you are like lice.

No, what I posted was this: Caution: Serious philosophers at work! :wink:

In part, tongue in cheek, in part me just being myself, the provocative polemicist.

Since then I have attempted to grapple with “universal truth” more substantively as an existential rather than a technical contraption.

The rest is just you reducing the points I make above down to yet another huffing and puffing retort in which I myself become the problem:

Note to others: Yours to decide.

“in part me just being myself, the provocative polemicist”

We’re all 15 year old emo girls.

There is nothing provocative in grappling with universal truth
Because trying to understand our place in the grand scheme of things is a truly noble if ultimately superfluous thing to do
Should you want to then it will suck an awful lot of energy and time out of you but that still does not make it provocative

oh man goblin girls are my favorite. I had one once for a girlfriend in highscool. We used to have grunge sex to Danzig and Type O Negative…

Maybe that’s all iambiguous needs…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahshahahahahaha

No yo but listen, that’s good to hear. I’ve heard you describe girls like you are describing carpets. Not specific ones, I secretly suspect you to be a man of taste, but girls as a phenomenon.

This one is for the honest person inside all of that cover.

youtube.com/watch?v=_DkWBaukEPs

Nah can’t get into her. Went to her channel to check her out. My first impression; wealthy chick who fell into some money by no effort of her own needs a subject matter as an excuse to show off her ass on camera so she made a motorcycle vlog. no thanks. I mean she’s definitely fuckable, but not someone who’d keep my attention for too long.

A claim of “Universal” or “objective” truth is neither true nor false. It’s incoherent.

Now, that’s a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It’s really not necessarily a claim to “objective” truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I’m objecting on “technical grounds.” So what?

Encountering “2+2” as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

“In a world sans God” is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God’s “I” fracture?

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you’re a God where objective rules or laws don’t apply to you.

There’s no objectivity, right?

Language analysis is a cop-out.
Who needs cops anyway? They used to give tickets, raid adult films, etc.
Law? Well it’s ok as it is not black letter.(didn’t mean that figuratively)

In other words, as long as you can come to an agreement on how to define “universal” or “objective” or “true” or “false” or “incoherent” in a technically correct manner.

As, for example, he does.

Here though many make the distinction between those things that are said to be true beyond that which any particular individual subject thinks is true and those things that someone believes are true “in their head” but either are or are or are not able to demonstrate are in fact true for all rational men and women.

All I propose is that we take these intellectual “world of words” definitions and intertwine them in a particular context where behaviors are chosen based on what we think – subjectively/subjunctively – is true.

Faust defines the words, but then is reluctant to note how those definitions have any actual use or exchange value in a context in which conflicting goods revolving around issues like gun control are discussed and debated on other threads.

What I do is to explore the definition and meaning that we give to words like objective, universal, true, false and incoherent insofar as an astute technical understanding of them may well be of limited use or exchange value “for all practical purposes” out in a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

Yes, in the either/or world. But my interest here is in exploring those things and relationships deemed by some to be objective, universal, true and coherent in the is/ought world.

You can use words like “nonsense” here until you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t dissuade the objectivists/universalists among us from behaving as though all conflicting goods must be resolved in their favor. See how far these “technical” arguments go with them.

Except out in the real world that we do live and interact in it is anything but bullshit among those who have the actual power to reward or punish others for choosing or not choosing the right behaviors. And not just pertaining to God.

Let’s take them up into the hallowed halls and let Faust set them straight. First, of course, by defining “straight” for them.

Okay, your turn.

Define “universal truth”.

Bring this definition down out of the intellectual clouds and note for us the manner in which it has a particular use value and exchange value for you in a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

Or, sure, just stick with the glib retorts. :wink:

Exactly. However one defines “universal” or “objective” truth, there are certain behaviors clearly producing a result that comes as close as we are able to “here and now” to encompassing it “for all practical purposes”.

What I then do is to shift the discussion to a context that revolves around, say, waterboarding. Is it “objectively” or “universally” moral or immoral to practice this technique when interrogating an enemy combatant? Given that drowning and killing him/her is one possible outcome if you go too far.

No no iambiguous. It is not whether:

It is whether you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?