No, he suggests that in regard to “I” in the is/ought world, an objectivist is someone who believes that his or her own value judgments reflect the most rational and the most virtuous manner in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from bad behaviors.
As for this…
It is [in my view] little more than intellectual gibberish in search of a context in which to connect the dots between the definition and meaning of the words used to defend other words, and actual behaviors in conflict out in the is/ought world.
See what I mean?
He is against objective morality, then demands that others defend it, because he needs to nullify it to feel he is making a difference.
The only correct answer is 'there is no morality, so why don’t we agree to disagree and then stop the bickering and come to a concession’.
The idea that morality does not require an absolute, like god, to be objective, independent from subjectivity, alludes him. He can only think in absolutes.
He is used to attacking the other absolutist side of the paradigm, and is helpless against this out of the nihilistic paradigm possibility.
The idea that abortion, thieving, adultery is neither good nor bad in any universal senses but only in reference to a ideal, a motive, an objective, alludes him.
He cannot process this, so he goes back to the poem and repeats it and each time he is convinced he is making a ‘good point’ and ‘destroying the opposition’ - the strawman he’s been burning as he waits for the end.
If you show any certainty, you are an evil objectivist.
The only correct attitude is humble subjectivity. An admission that we are all EQUALLY ignorant…equally sinners…equally proletariats…and morality is a social construct…in other words a meaningless human artifice.
You can’t reason with this.
This is gone…he’s waiting for the body to follow his mind into the nil.
In the past, you noted your own assessment of Communism. One which, in a manner that I have yet to grasp, is intertwined with your assessment of objective morality and God.
I then challenged that frame of mind with my own: that “I” here is embedded existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. And that depending on the unique set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas that one has, their understanding and assessment of Communism is rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the manner in which I have come to understand human identity in my signature threads.
How does that constitute proof that I have no interest in what you have to say about Communism?
Other then [given my own experience with objectivists over the years] to have an interest in what you say about it is to agree with what you say about it.
If god doesn’t say so, then it must be an us versus they say so.
So why not come to a compromise so that we all say so?
He cannot think outside this premise.
That something can be objectively probable and still not a product of subjective whimsy, is beyond his mind’s ability to process.
That’s where he’s trapped…in the hole in his own mind.
He wants to change the world, or pull it into his dilemma with him…as a final act of vengeance.
Nothing to work with here.
It’s already gone.
Very well said. But I think we are now preaching to the choir. It is also a victory for him, or a vengeance as you accurately put it, if the thread continues focused on him, because this allows him to ‘respond’ and potentially ‘play the victim’ or say we are focusing on him rather than his ideas, with some hint that it is because we have been triggered into terror.
I think it is useful to point out when he starts hijacking threads and to perhaps warn off people who start finding their shoes or feet sticking in his goo.
But then we gotta ignore him.
The body will form a cyst around cancerous tissue, to deny it nutrition, to wall it off. But if we keep building the wall, after the cancerous tissue is walled in, well, that causes other problems.
You proceeded to tell me what I think about Communism and Communists. It’s what you think that objectivists “of my ilk” think about Communism and Communists. It’s not what I think. You projected your beliefs on to me.
And you keep feeding that back to me. Over and over.
You do the same with respect to God. You insist that I must be concerned with salvation and the afterlife. Those are obsessions that you think theists must have.
It doesn’t matter if I correct you. You keep going back to it. It’s like you either don’t care what people say or you don’t remember what they say.
Let him cite a single post able to demonstrate that I am against objective morality.
Instead, over and again, I have noted that objective morality may well exist. If only because a God, the God may well exists. My point is that given the components of my own moral philosophy, “I” [here and now] do not believe that it exists.
If others, however, do, let them note this by encompassing their moral values in a description of an actual context in which conflicting goods have prevailed now for as many years as, say, philosophers themselves have been around?
What single righteous behavior has been demonstrated to be obligatory for all rational men and women. Just one.
Then where does he go? Ever and always back up into the clouds:
The closest he’ll come to the real world is this sort of thing…
What particular abortion, theft or adultery in what particular set of circumstances? Viewed from what particular frame of mind embodying what particular set of moral and political prejudices?
Again, let him choose a context and we can explore his accusations more specifically.
Or, sure, we can all note how he wiggles out of it this time.
Okay, did or did not the objectivists down through the ages [from Jesus Christ and Muhammad to Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin] manage to convince themselves that they embodied all three?
In other words, we’ll need a context. A set of circumstances and a point of view regarding how one either is or is not obligated as a rational human being to earn self-respect, integrity and honesty about one’s “self”.
Why don’t we start here with the components of “I” in a particular context. You can pick it.
And how do we determine to what degree they embodied these values?
Note to Other
The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative. Power of the Nil.
We are all poor - Marxism We are all sinners - Abrahamism
Yes…let’s democratically vote what ‘truth’ is.
There is no objectivity…all is subjective.
This is projection:
Objectivist:
Anyone who shows certainty that his opinion is superior to that of another. There is no way to objectively determine which subjective viewpoint is superior - if it ain’t absolute it is like everything else.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism corrupted, just like everything else.
The correct demeanour is uniform skepticism - Marxist distribution of error - to the level of being trapped in procrastination and uncertainty, where the only way out is communal agreement, or an egotistical declaration of will.
If you do not show the correct level of humility - in the form of a disclaimer - then you are an evil Objectivist.
To bring about the future, desired Utopia - Marxism/Abrahamism - we must level man down to uniform dust.
Ha!!
Hey Brian…this is what you are.
You are just more sly, cynical and clever - you self-deceive more convincingly. The Ego and His Own.…Ha!!!
A less stern Stirner.
Modern day Diogenes…self-pleasuring himself in the Agora, to be seen, to ‘make a point’ of his exclusivity; to spit ni the eye of authority - da paulice!!!
Selectively skeptical; selectively stringent; selectively aware - self-deceiving. Best lies are those that sample reality, not those that contradict it.
Forever innocent, victim of otherness…whatever be thy name oh lord of otherness.
