He wants us to have an argument. Then we can embody his conflicting goods, not find a resolution, and demonstrate that there is no argument, or at least neither you nor I have one, that will convince all rational people that X is moral or the best path or how one ought to live. That’s part one of the desire.
No, he wants us to mirror what he claims he has inside, the fracturing and fragmentation he experiences internally. We would have that fight outside him. We would disagree. We would not resolves all or even any of our differences. There would of course be points of common likes and dislikes, but his interest is in the areas we would disagree, and of course those areas exist.
The grammar in this sentence, I think, is messy. But it’s disingenous. He can see such discussions all around him, in threads on all sorts of forums, including philosophy forums. If he wants to learn, as the sentence claims, than he has a great wealth to work with regardless of whether we engage or not in that same dynamic. No, what he wants must be something else.
We have been his most steady critics, on and off, for a while. Let’s get them to fight. As if this would shed any light on the many areas where we agree in relation to him and his ideas. As if this would show that our critique is off, because, look, they didn’t come to agreement. Look, I Iambiguous was right, conflicting goods are a gnarly knot, those two can’t solve all the problems or create the arguments that all rational people can follow (or one or both of them is not rational).
Notice he says ‘without all the accusations’: but the truth is many of our posts are actually much more than accusations, they take his situation, as presented or implied or sometimes even what I think it is actually underneath, and try to resolve it. Point out the contradictions and assumptions and ways he may be 1) causing himself more pain 2) not allowing himself more fruitful approaches to feeling better and 3) trying to spread ideas that are just as unfounded if not more so than those many of his objectivist targets believe in. He frames it all as ‘accusations’. And, of course, there are accusations in there. But I, and I think you also, have moved from questioning to probing to pointing out, to critiquing and then also yes, to accusing and labeling negatively and more. Once he refused to consider any of these critiques or disagreements (often as even valid or on topic), we certainly aimed more accusatory posts. We got a kind of dynamic with him, at least I did. But I still discuss the ideas, still over solutions, still critique specific points made, still try to lift out assumptions in his posts. He frames it as just accusations. And I can imagine it feels that way. But it’s not. And it ends up being facile and binary. They just accuse me, they make me the topic (a topic that generally is presented as to do with his fractured mind and his particular dasein) when in fact our responses are much more complicated and cannot be dismissed as just accusations.
But it serves his position of IGNORING everything that might shift anything that potentially be inspiration for reevalutation of his assumptions, methods and assertions.
To get us to fight. There’s a simple psychological, let’s get my ‘enemies’ to fight thing playing in here, I would guess, but I also think it is to generate what he thinks is evidence that our critiques are not well grounded. He is confused about what evidence our disagreements would be.
I admit directly that I know Phyllo and I will have differences of opinion about a number of things - some of which we be ‘things’ that some call morals and I would call preferences, and even this framing is something we would likely disagree on. I am sure there are others. I am quite positive that I do not have the perfect argument to convince Phyllo that he is wrong or should live like I live (and there are assumptions in there that I am just too tired to go into, but since I am not an objectivist in part his desire is even sillier).
None of this would take away the tiniest little nano-kilo from any argument I have made. In fact it supports many statements I have made. And then the fact that we have differences that we are not likely to resolve through rational discussion
does
not
say
a
damn
thing
about
the
assumptions I have critiqued in Iamb’s positions
nor
does
it
refute
what i have pointed out are the problems in the way he relates to other people.
So, on the level of it as ‘hey, let’s get you guys to fight’ childishness, while I understand the urge and I have had it myself in life many times, it’s nothing to respect.
And on the level of this somehow being evidence of anything relevent to points I have made, such a discussion would not be evidence any assertion I have ever made in relation to Iamb is incorrect. I don’t have the answer to solving conflicting goods or conflicting metaphysics. I know that. I am not looking for one.
He is. I don’t think there are such things. Experiences can shift such things, but words on a screen, nah. And even with experiences there is no guarantee and often time and curiosity and intention and more are necessary.
He uses the verb ‘avoid’. Coming from him that’s a joke. Critiques of him and his assumptions and actions is not an issue. Only what he wants to see happen is an issue. The King of avoiders. The King of not reassessing anything in his latest - and seemingly rather permanent - belief system - nihilism and the only possible resolution of it in his mind.
We have disagreed here in ILP and may yet again. But there is absolutely no reason, in the context of our criticism of him, to dance when he says dance.
And he can’t even be honest about why he wants it - to learn, lol.
And he doesn’t have, I am finally going to say it, the analytical skills to realize that it would not indicate, remotely, what he thinks it would.
A kid gets caught taking money from his father’s wallet.
Both parents get angry.
The kid says ‘Mom says you spend too much time with your friends on the weekend.’
Yeah, mommy and daddy have issues, but we’ve been talking about what you are doing and what you are assuming around honesty and property and respect and so on. Nice try Jimmy, sit back down.
And since I know Mommy and Daddy have issues and make no claim to an ability to resolve conflicting goods or metaphysics between all rational people or even consider finding such a thing a rational quest, us having such a disagreement in front of him demonstrates nothing relevent to my criticisms of his ideas, implicit and explicit, nor of his behavior.
He’s a deflector and, ironically, an avoider.