These are not universal truths...

Well… I’m not coming back in a body anymore after this life. This world will miss my smile, my intellect, my handshakes… etc…

I’ve been here too many times now… when I die, I’ll actually really move on after this. Treasure it while you can.

Well, another thread hijacked by two of the usual suspects.

Back on track.
Truth. A word referring to perspective.
Any claim of an absolute truth can only refer to the perspective’s certainty.

Is there a ‘truth’. Only a dynamic one. To grasp it is to have it slip through your fingers. Like water. Like a flame.

Oh shit, I’m being infected by the atmosphere to prose and allegories.

Again, my objective is this:

You’ll either go there or you won’t. Though, sure, we may well be in dispute over what “there” means.

You either understand, or you don’t.

The objective establishes the standard by which an action a choice can be evaluated.

What is your objective, in regards to abortion or paedophilia, or consuming fasces as a solution to world poverty?

The objective determined good and bad.
I bet your objective is to reduce all to nil and then force all to negotiate and compromise to bring about the utopian future world of peace on earth.
Anything that diverts or challenges this goal is dismissed or negated.
No other anser will do. They’ve wasted their time taking you seriously for months. I will not make the same mistake.
Another clown in this circus.

I even know what you will respond.
Go ahead.

I specifically asked him to move all those comments to my thread. He refused.

You want to get back on topic?

Let’s get to the heart of the game here.

I state that consent violation is self evident. If your consent is being violated, then you can at that moment disprove every god or idol. That’s a powerful and true test.

To state this is like stating that a triangle has three sides.

What’s the game? “What if a very powerful ruler decided to state that a triangle has 4 sides and a square has 3 sides? That’s will to power”

All you are doing is changing the name, but NOT the eternal form. Nobody is powerful enough to change the eternal form!

Yes. Ethics is objective… why? everyone doesn’t want their consent violated. This makes this truth transcendent, eternal form style - objective for all possible beings.

I’m teaching you things you don’t want to hear, because it not only disproves all Gods, it disproves YOU as a god, objectively.

The thing that’s so beautiful about this eternal form, is that not even I (it’s discoverer) am able to be immune to this judgement. It’s an eternal form that applies to ALL beings. ANYONE can judge for themselves. That’s REAL POWER!!!

People who rely upon illusory power hate the eternal forms, because the eternal forms are a self evident democracy, not an illusion.

You folks are still attached to negative non-zero sum outcomes.

Like I stated before: If you actually ask a person what their best memories are, you’ll find a common thread: They are all negative non zero sum outcomes… they are sick!!! They are psychopathic!!! They are sick!!! Mental illness is just like having pancreatitis, except that since it is the mind itself, there is a stigma, not only by society, but by the individual “my MIND cannot be sick!” Well, yes, actually it is.

My point though is to assess the extent to which any particular individual’s objective is or is not largely an existential contraption. “I” here rooted in dasein rooted in the arguments I provide in my signature. Thus if we choose gun control [from above] as the focus of discussion, for some the objective is to expand the rights of citizens to manufacture, sell and use firearms. For others, however, it is to limit [or even eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosophy, is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Or, instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?

Given my own argument, there are no necessary standards able to be derived philosophically. Instead, the standards remain an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. In other words, the actual lives [experiences] of some predispose them to embrace one rather than another political agenda [set of prejuduces] in regard to this issue.

But not before the existential trajectory of our lives largely determine the objectives embraced by any particular “I” out in any particular world understood in any particular way.

Then it comes down to differentiating that which one is able to demonsttrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a “personal opinion”.

Yet more “general description” bullshit in which, as with other “serious philosophers” and/or Kids and/or objectivists here, the exchange configures [from their end] into huffing and puffing, retorts and making me the issue.

Again, in regard to gun control or to any other issue in which, from your perspective, “idiocy” becomes the narrative of choice, let’s see how far we can take an exchange.

This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn’t matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.

Really?
There are no standards?
Because you say so?
No way to ground language?

This is your wish. And nothing and nobody will take it away from you. It is how you want to “change the world”, and bring about peace.

So, rational men cannot achieve a consensus?
Are they all living in their private worlds, like you are?

When you get stressed you revert to the mantra…the poem you repeat. Like a child trying to comfort itself.

Nobody can help you. The problem is psychological.
My 80 IQ can barely process this level of insanity.

Note to others:

Nothing new here is there? Just one more Kid reconfiguring ILP into their own personal rendition of “social media”.

Sure, those of us who do take philosophy seriously may disagree regarding what that means. And, as well, some no doubt will point the finger at me in that regard. I’m part of the problem too.

But you either respect the intelligence of others or you don’t. And there was once a time when I had considerable respect for the intelligence of those who often disagreed with my own narrative here. In particular with respect to “I” in the is/ought world. But they’re all gone. von rivers, moreno, only_humean, statiktech, lizbethrose, volchok, omar etc.

Instead, in their place are the screeching Kids.

Though, sure, admittedly, that is no less an existential contraption all my own.

So, sure, my point will either resonate or it won’t.

See?
Back to the poem.
Predictable.

You were begging for Aegean to come here so that you could make a fool of him.

He’s here. You have your public.

Go ahead and begin.

I thought I already had. :wink:

That was it?

:handgestures-thumbdown:

That’s all he was worth. :wink:

A Kid has to earn my contempt. :laughing:

After all those years of talk. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE. #-o

On the other hand, I’m always disappointing you.

But, rest assured, your own intelligence is A-Okay in my book.

You know, if you’re willing to accept that as, say, a compliment. :wink:

He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.

He’s a troubled mind…waiting for Godot.
Like so many on ILP…a bit fucked-up in the head.
More annoying than anything.
It’s the repetition that can become tiresome…and his interpretation of this frustration as a ‘victory’. His effect.

But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
Here it’s practically the norm.

Oh, this’ll be good. So what’s sane? I know I’m sane. I’m curious with what and how you disagreeing with me and others in all that diversity makes you sane.

So what’s sane?

He’s the one who is constantly quoting you, “analyzing” your posts and begging for the opportunity to engage with you directly.

But of course. :-"