Aegean
December 6, 2019, 7:55pm
284
iambiguous:
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 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 eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosopnhy is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Ot instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?
This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn’t matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.
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.
Really?
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.
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”.
So, rational men cannot achieve a consensus?
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.
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.
iambiguous
December 6, 2019, 8:25pm
285
Aegean:
iambiguous:
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 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 eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosopnhy is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Ot instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?
This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn’t matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.
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.
Really?
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.
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”.
So, rational men cannot achieve a consensus?
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.
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.
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.
Aegean
December 6, 2019, 8:28pm
286
See?
phyllo
December 6, 2019, 8:40pm
287
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.
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.
iambiguous
December 6, 2019, 10:03pm
290
phyllo:
iambiguous:
I thought I already had.
That was it?
That’s all he was worth.
A Kid has to earn my contempt.
phyllo
December 6, 2019, 10:11pm
291
After all those years of talk. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.
iambiguous
December 6, 2019, 10:16pm
292
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.
Aegean
December 6, 2019, 10:20pm
293
He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.
He’s a troubled mind…waiting for Godot.
But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
Ecmandu
December 6, 2019, 10:23pm
294
Aegean:
He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.
He’s a troubled mind…waiting for Godot.
But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
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?
phyllo
December 6, 2019, 10:26pm
295
He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.
He’s a troubled mind…waiting for Godot.
But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
He’s the one who is constantly quoting you, “analyzing” your posts and begging for the opportunity to engage with you directly.
Aegean
December 6, 2019, 10:32pm
297
Was he?
Let me see if I can recall one of his early work"
The only acceptable answer…all are equally ignorant…so why not compromise and reach some mutually beneficial agreement to live in peace with our lies.
Ecmandu
December 6, 2019, 10:32pm
298
phyllo:
But of course. :-"
I have a definition of sanity: Non contradiction. I’m less contradictory than others, which makes me MORE sane.
Everyone uses that definition of sanity… even this new dude. He’s trying to use the law of non-contradiction to establish his sanity.
You know… people on this board give me WAY to little credit.
Aegean
December 6, 2019, 10:36pm
299
phyllo:
But of course. :-"
Don’t all insane people think they are sane?
But, let’s be honest…how many sane people are on ILP?
This is more like an asylum of lost souls.
Aegean
December 6, 2019, 10:37pm
301
Ecmandu:
phyllo:
But of course. :-"
I have a definition of sanity: Non contradiction. I’m less contradictory than others, which makes me MORE sane.
Everyone uses that definition of sanity… even this new dude. He’s trying to use the law of non-contradiction to establish his sanity.
You know… people on this board give me WAY to little credit.
See?
Now try to talk sense to that.
Ecmandu
December 6, 2019, 10:45pm
302
You and ambiguous share too much in common. Make your argument. Are you scared? I make ALL of my arguments!!
phyllo
December 6, 2019, 10:49pm
303
Ecmandu is “special”.
Iambig doesn’t seem to have that specialness so something else is going on in him. I have my theories but I said that I wouldn’t psychoanalyze him again.
