back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:38 pm

phyllo wrote:
Well, I assume that even my own psychological defense mechanisms are largely existential contraptions...the embodiment of dasein.
You're using "existential contraption" like a "Get of jail free card". It seems to permit you to make contradictory and illogical statements with impunity. You can't be held accountable simply by calling everything that you write and think an "existential contraption".


With respect to the existential parameters of "I" out in the is/ought world, it reflects a "sense of self" that revolves largely around the manner in which I convey dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How is this the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card?

After all, I can't use the expression "existential contraption" with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of languages, or empirical facts able to be demonstrated as true for all of us.

Or, rather, I can, but others are going to be able to show that I am wrong to the extent what I believe does not fall within the bounds of that which is in fact true for all of us.

For example, now that it is becoming increasingly clear that Trump may well have in fact colluded with Putin to get him into office, his supporters are rationalizing this by insisting that, even if true, it's not a crime.


phyllo wrote: But we are actually talking about you ... a self-described "moral nihilist" with a university degree in philosophy.

Yet you post as someone who is not a "moral nihilist".


I addressed this in the post above. But what on earth does being or not being a moral nihilist have to do with the extent to which it can be demonstrated that Trump did in fact collude with Putin in the 2016 election? And the fact that where many of his supporters once insisted that in fact he did not collude with Putin, many are now arguing that even if in fact he did collude that is not in fact a crime?

Moral nihilsm doesn't change the facts able to be established here. Instead, it revolves around the extent to which our reaction to the facts can be assessed as right way to think about them. Or the virtuous way to think about them.

And, just to set the record straight, I never received a philosophy degree at TSU. I did major in it, but I had to drop out of college when my lower back reconfigured my life into a living hell.

Again, this is far too abstract. We need to name a particular game in a particular context. And then note the extent to which value judgments become applicable in discussing it. And then note the extent to which "I" here can be rooted in an assessment/analysis able to be demonstrated as applicable to all rational men and women.


phyllo wrote: Far too abstract???
I pulled it almost directly from your statement: "No one should be permitted to force others to play his or her game [using his or her rules] because that game is said to be the one that all rational and virtuous people ought to play."

It seems pretty clear what you are saying.


Let's just say that however abstract I may broach a particular point, it is understood that my intent is always to bring any "general descriptions" of human interactions out into a particular context out into a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

So:

We need to name a particular game in a particular context. And then note the extent to which value judgments become applicable in discussing it. And then note the extent to which "I" here can be rooted in an assessment/analysis able to be demonstrated as applicable to all rational men and women.

I'll let you choose to describe the particular context for us to discuss.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:47 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I suppose it is possible that it is all you can do as a moral nihilist, as long as you realize that doing that, what you describe above, is not remotely all a moral nihilist can do, and in fact it is rather odd for a moral nihilist to do.


Let's bring this down to earth. A context please.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: The context was this particular philosophical discussion, here one earth. A self-identified moral-nihilist made a general statement about what is moral.
I quoted that statement. We don't need any narratives beyond your identification as a moral nihilist and the very odd statement you made, odd given that you are a moral nihilist. Odder still that you saw it as the only possible way of reacting as a moral nihilist.


Well, then we understand the meaning of creating "a context" here differently.

From my perspective, we have to go here in order to explore it more substantively:

One in which we examine our respective narratives regarding what it is that we think a moral nihilist can and cannot do.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I'm a moral nihilist. I don't think I know what people should do. I don't think tolerance is good (or bad). I find it odd that your being a moral nihilist seems to necessarily entail believing what you wrote.

You could address that.


In other words, address it without actually taking our respective "moral nihilisms" out for a spin in the real world of actual conflicting goods more or less derived from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Besides, over and again I note that what I believe here and now about moral nihilism is in itself just another existential contraption.

I am always intent on exploring the extent to which non-objectivists either do or do not construe their behaviors as down in the hole that "I" am in.

You seem to fall back on something of a "pragmatic" rendering of conflicting goods that does not resonate with me. You seem less fractured and fragmented than I am, but I really don't grasp how that actually "works" for you [for all practical purposes] when your own values come into conflict with others.

My own understanding of dasein as an existential contraption here just doesn't seem to concern you.

As I pointed out to phyllo above, in noting the manner in which I have taken my own existential leap here to moderation, negotiation and compromise, that is no less an existential contraption in and of itself.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: And despite its being an existential contraption and you are aware of it, you state it as the only one you can have or make and present it as if it is inevitable given that you (one) is a moral nihilist.


Then you completely misunderstand me. From my frame of mind "here and now" this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...seems to be a reasonable manner in which to react to conflicting goods. But I would never argue that it is the only way to think about them. Let alone argue that thinking this way is "inevitable" [obligatory] for all rational men and women.

What makes it an existential contraption for me is the fact that I know that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas may well reconfigure "I" here once again --- as it has so many times in the past.

And even here I'm assuming that a wholly determined universe does not propel/compel "I" into a future that can only ever be.

Or that God does not exist.

And, really, come on, how would any us have a handle on that?

And now as a moral nihilist.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: A moral nihilist is a very odd source of that. That you think it necessarily follows from moral nihilism is confused.


All I can do here is attempt to communicate to others what moral nihilism means to me given the assumption that 1] human autonomy does in fact exist in some measure and 2] that God does not exist.

I would not however use the expression "necessarily follows" in examining this "out in the world".

To speak of what follows necessarily is to have access to that which encompasses an understanding of who or what is behind the existence of existence itself.

And that's not me.

But: as a profoundly fractured and fragmented moral nihilist.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Perhaps a better way to put it is a NOT INTEGRATED person. One who is sometimes a moral nihilist, sometimes not. Someone whose beliefs, reactions, morals and lack thereof shift over time.


Okay, but we will still need a context in which to examine either the existential or the essential parameters of whatever Reality may or may not be. And then to examine how Human Reality fits into that.

How "integrated" must prison officials be in order to successfully execute someone on death row? As opposed to how "integrated" ethicists must be in order to assess the morality of the state killing one of its citizens.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: In the end, given your sense of yourself as fractured and doubts about a unified self in anyone, identifying as a moral nihilist is a misrepresentation.


That you can imagine some truth in sync with "in the end" here, may well be what distinguishes our own respective narratives here. You've got this idea of what a moral nihilist is in your head. And I don't qualify. But my frame of mind suggests instead that this may well be beyond establishing philosophically/epistemologically.

Still, the only reason we don't subscribe to Wittgenstein's advice that, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", is that for all practical purposes we can't. No human community can get around the requirement that rules of behavior must be established. Then we are back to 1] might makes right more or less than 2] right makes might more or less than 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I would never argue of you as argue of me here:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But further to say that moral nihilists can only conclude what you concluded means that you do not understand moral nihilism. Or did not when you wrote that.


That you and only you get to decide what moral nihilism is, is precisely the sort of mentality that I construe as objectivism.

So, sure, if I would finally just agree that you are right about all of this, I'm sure you would "drop it in an instant."

And, I suspect, as a pragmatist?
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:36 pm

Do or do not the objectivists argue that the only reason that conflicting goods exist at all is because the folks in the "one of them" camp refuse to accept the moral narrative/political agenda subscribed to by those in the "one of us" camp?
That's very general ... which particular objectivists, arguing for which particular beliefs?

In general, I would say that objectivists don't believe that everyone can be convinced and that there are significant differences between individuals and that errors in judgements will persist. Therefore, conflicting goods don't go away, even for objectivists.
Yes, a moral nihilist who is adamently convinced that moral nihilism reflects the most rational understanding of the "human condition". But that's not me. Moral nihilism as "I" understand it is no less an existential contraption. Despite that fact that some insist that "in reality" I am no less the objectivist than those I accuse of it.
So after describing yourself as a "moral nihilist" hundreds of times, you're not actually a "moral nihilist"??

Doesn't your butt hurt from sitting on the fence?
Yes, but in any particular community, there will be those with conflicting assumptions. Then what?
Then there is a conflict between individuals and/or groups.
Then [in a venue such as this] are philosophers, ethicists, political scienctists etc., able to establish which set of assumptions are in fact the correct ones?

If so, then why shouldn't the philosopher-kings determine what the laws ought to be with respect to prescribing or proscribing particular behaviors here?

Why leave it up to "the voters" in elections who may or may not be in sync with the most rational assessment?
Why should it not be resolved by those who are experiencing the conflict? In fact, does it have to be resolved? Why does God or a philosopher-king have to provide THE ANSWER?

This is like the eternal search for the messiah. Why do you need a messiah?
Exactly! But that's my point. Unless of course philosophers are in fact able to establish what in fact is inherently right or wrong here.
That's your point?? How can it be?
You suggested there was something wrong with this assumption: "...objectivists cling [in my view] to is the assumption that what they do think and feel "here and now" is somehow in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do"."
And I pointed out : "And there is nothing inherently right or wrong with that assumption. :-"
:-? What the hell?
Isn't that what all us [objectivists or not] do? More or less. But what does that have to do with actually critiquing the components of my own arguments here? After tending their garden and after examining their lives why are they not down in the hole with me?
Looking to me to give you an answer for your life is not tending your garden.
Yeah, but then some of them are in positions of power such that they are able to enforce their own agenda [socially, politically, economically, legally] on others.
Yeah, life is unfair and there are things out of your control.
And you still haven't really addressed the manner in which I speculate that why they think what they do is embodied largely in dasein.
People are the product of their genetics and their environment. I never said that they were not. But I think that genetics is the larger chunk in ethics and morality.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:51 pm

With respect to the existential parameters of "I" out in the is/ought world, it reflects a "sense of self" that revolves largely around the manner in which I convey dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How is this the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card?
Somebody says "I think things are this way because blah blah." ... and you dismiss it as an existential contraption.

Somebody says that Iambig is making inconsistent statements and you justify it by calling your statements existential contraptions.

It's a universal answer to everything.
But what on earth does being or not being a moral nihilist have to do with the extent to which it can be demonstrated that Trump did in fact collude with Putin in the 2016 election?
We were discussing moral nihilism and you suddenly switched to Trump/Putin because that just seems to be your favorite topic of the month.
And, just to set the record straight, I never received a philosophy degree at TSU. I did major in it, but I had to drop out of college when my lower back reconfigured my life into a living hell.
That's unfortunate.
We need to name a particular game in a particular context. And then note the extent to which value judgments become applicable in discussing it. And then note the extent to which "I" here can be rooted in an assessment/analysis able to be demonstrated as applicable to all rational men and women.
We don't need that. It's really very simple.

Basically, you want to force your likes and dislikes on other people, but they are not to force their likes and dislikes on you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:33 pm

phyllo wrote:
Do or do not the objectivists argue that the only reason that conflicting goods exist at all is because the folks in the "one of them" camp refuse to accept the moral narrative/political agenda subscribed to by those in the "one of us" camp?
That's very general ... which particular objectivists, arguing for which particular beliefs?

In general, I would say that objectivists don't believe that everyone can be convinced and that there are significant differences between individuals and that errors in judgements will persist. Therefore, conflicting goods don't go away, even for objectivists.
Good point. Nearly always his version of objectivists is a straw man generalization. As if objectivists cannot have doubts. As if objectivists don't understand epistemological problems. And more sorts of very all or nothing, one type objectivist is the only that exists. Which is utterly unbelievable for someone who believes in dasein - which means that uniques experiences will create unique individuals, amongst other things - and who believes there is no self or may not be a self. Still he sees these monad monolith opponents.

Yes, a moral nihilist who is adamently convinced that moral nihilism reflects the most rational understanding of the "human condition". But that's not me. Moral nihilism as "I" understand it is no less an existential contraption. Despite that fact that some insist that "in reality" I am no less the objectivist than those I accuse of it.
So after describing yourself as a "moral nihilist" hundreds of times, you're not actually a "moral nihilist"??
I would say that he alternately identifies with the I that doubts everything and the I that is a leftist moral nihilist.


Isn't that what all us [objectivists or not] do? More or less. But what does that have to do with actually critiquing the components of my own arguments here? After tending their garden and after examining their lives why are they not down in the hole with me?
Looking to me to give you an answer for your life is not tending your garden.
Yeah, but then some of them are in positions of power such that they are able to enforce their own agenda [socially, politically, economically, legally] on others.
Yeah, life is unfair and there are things out of your control. [/quote]The irony in your correctly interpreting him as saying this is unfair (read: bad, evil, immoral] will be lost on him. He will simply saying that his calling this ap roblem is just another existential contraption. Of course if he actually believed that he would stop bemoaning the unfairness.
And you still haven't really addressed the manner in which I speculate that why they think what they do is embodied largely in dasein.
People are the product of their genetics and their environment. I never said that they were not. But I think that genetics is the larger chunk in ethics and morality.[/quote]He does not really want to include nature. He is implicitly a tabula rasa philosopher. It is nurture, period. Hence all his gibberish about 'I'. When I call it gibberish, I am not dismissing the complexity of knowing oneself, let alone having anything like unity. But he sees himself as a sort of holding tank for memes. And there is no possible way for him to determine, for example, what he really feels or thinks, because he is just a holding tank for the memes he has been exposed to. He cannot even determine his wants and desires. I have tried to point out that he has not tried to find out what is nature in him, but rather focuses on a third person view of himself and what ONE should do.

Pardon my messing up the quotes.

I feel sympathy for his existential crises. These are not easy issues. But since he does not meet his discussion partners as equals, but rather as tools or avoiders of his goals, cannot admit that he contradicts himself often rather terrible, uses his cake and eat too existential contraption excuse whenever cornered, and does not live up to his own values of moderation, negotiation and compromise - which he hates the objectivists for not using even though may do, and do much more that he does (again, some of them) - I get impatient.

He is hurting himself, it seems to me, with the same kind of indifference he makes it frustrating trying to have an honest discussion with him.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:03 pm

phyllo wrote:
Do or do not the objectivists argue that the only reason that conflicting goods exist at all is because the folks in the "one of them" camp refuse to accept the moral narrative/political agenda subscribed to by those in the "one of us" camp?
That's very general ... which particular objectivists, arguing for which particular beliefs?


Start with any particular orthodox religious denomination. Then, on the secular side, the Communists, the fascists, the anarchists, the libertarians, the globalists, the hardcore liberals and conservatives, etc etc etc

Or, as I often point out, it's not so much what they believe that matters [psychologically] as that they are able to embody "I" in one or another existential contraption such that "I" is in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do". Some are just more fierce about this than others.

phyllo wrote: In general, I would say that objectivists don't believe that everyone can be convinced and that there are significant differences between individuals and that errors in judgements will persist. Therefore, conflicting goods don't go away, even for objectivists.


Then your understanding of "objectivists" is different from mine. Mine revolves around this -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And the extent to which someone divides the world up between "one of us" and "one of them".

Though I would never argue that my take on all this is more reasonable than yours. That's reflected in the part about dasein.

Yes, a moral nihilist who is adamently convinced that moral nihilism reflects the most rational understanding of the "human condition". But that's not me. Moral nihilism as "I" understand it is no less an existential contraption. Despite that fact that some insist that "in reality" I am no less the objectivist than those I accuse of it.

phyllo wrote: So after describing yourself as a "moral nihilist" hundreds of times, you're not actually a "moral nihilist"??

Doesn't your butt hurt from sitting on the fence?


Look, only to the extent that "in your head" you are able to grasp the manner in which "I" construe "moral nihilism" as no less an "existential contraption" "in my head" are we likely to close the gap here. Or, of course, the other way around: me coming closer to your point of view.

But that too is reflected in the part about dasein. Unless and until philosophers -- ethicists, political scientists -- are able to grapple with these conflicting assessments and arrive at the one understanding that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace. Out in the is/ought world. In what I presume to be in turn a No God world.

Yes, but in any particular community, there will be those with conflicting assumptions. Then what?


phyllo wrote: Then there is a conflict between individuals and/or groups.


Then around and around we go: grappling with the implications of this given the components of our respective moral philosophies. And our respective understanding of God and religion.

But: Only here and now. My frame of mind is particularly keen on noting how in world hip deep in contingency, chance and change, "I" never stops being an existential contraption from the cradle to the grave.

And then oblivion.

Then [in a venue such as this] are philosophers, ethicists, political scienctists etc., able to establish which set of assumptions are in fact the correct ones?

If so, then why shouldn't the philosopher-kings determine what the laws ought to be with respect to prescribing or proscribing particular behaviors here?

Why leave it up to "the voters" in elections who may or may not be in sync with the most rational assessment?


phyllo wrote: Why should it not be resolved by those who are experiencing the conflict? In fact, does it have to be resolved? Why does God or a philosopher-king have to provide THE ANSWER?


Well, my focus here on this thread revolves more around those who insist that 1] it can be resolved 2] that they have already resolved it and 3] that human social, political and economic interactions should/must revolve around their own resolutions.

After all, given that, isn't the rest history?

I merely suggest that in the absense of either a God or a philospher-king, the "resolutions" revolve existentially around ever evolving historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

phyllo wrote: This is like the eternal search for the messiah. Why do you need a messiah?


Come on, either a God, the God, my God does in fact exist or He doesn't. Either flesh and blood philosophers-kings do in fact exist or they do not. If either can be demonstrated to in fact exist why on earth would mere mortals settle for moderation, negotiation and compromise?

Exactly! But that's my point. Unless of course philosophers are in fact able to establish what in fact is inherently right or wrong here.


phyllo wrote: That's your point?? How can it be?
You suggested there was something wrong with this assumption: "...objectivists cling [in my view] to is the assumption that what they do think and feel "here and now" is somehow in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do"."
And I pointed out : "And there is nothing inherently right or wrong with that assumption. :-"
:-? What the hell?


Again: my speculation here about objectivists is merely another manifestation of dasein -- another existential contraption.

Whatever "here and now" I presume to be right or wrong [in the is/ought world] is always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and/or information/knowledge. I don't exclude myself from my own of view.

On the other hand, what if there is something inherently wrong with my assumptions here? What if right and wrong do in fact exist? Either universally for all of us, or related to each and every particular context.

Note to others: what crucial point is he making here that ever eludes me?

I would never doubt that there may well be one.

Isn't that what all us [objectivists or not] do? More or less. But what does that have to do with actually critiquing the components of my own arguments here? After tending their garden and after examining their lives why are they not down in the hole with me?


phyllo wrote: Looking to me to give you an answer for your life is not tending your garden.


Yes, that's how you and others sometimes like to portray me here: "Help me somebody! Tell me how I ought to live here and now!! Tell me about immortality and salvation after I die"!!!

But from my frame of mind that tells us more about you [and them] than me.

Morally and politically, I am down in a hole on this side of grave. And I do believe that oblivion is the fate of "I" on the other side of.

So, for a few hours a day, I come into places like this in order to probe the narratives of those who do not think like this. After all, what have I really got to lose? And I can put on my polemicist hat and [in part] make a game out of it. Just one more manifestation of what someone once called "waiting for godot".

Yeah, but then some of them are in positions of power such that they are able to enforce their own agenda [socially, politically, economically, legally] on others.


phyllo wrote: Yeah, life is unfair and there are things out of your control.


But to the extent that I might convince some that this can take the form of either the sacred/secular objectivists or the "show me the money" moral nihilists, I put my own teeny tiny dent into...what exactly?

Then it's back to 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

Just don't ask me to explain [fully] why the hell that is. It is somehow buried -- deep -- in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein. It's what "I" do "here and now". And only an extant God might actually be able to clear it all up. Or, perhaps, a philosopher-king?

But: the objectivists will hardly ever be all that concerned about this, will they? Especially those who somehow manage to link all this to a God, the God, my God.

Which with respect to you I am still entirely baffled regarding.

And you still haven't really addressed the manner in which I speculate that why they think what they do is embodied largely in dasein.


phyllo wrote: People are the product of their genetics and their environment. I never said that they were not. But I think that genetics is the larger chunk in ethics and morality.


Okay, let's bring that back to our discussion of Communism or abortion. In particular, the parts that might be clearly shown to not be the embodiment of dasein.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:44 am

I like roller coasters and merry-go-rounds, but I've been on this ride for way too long. Somebody else can have my seat for a while.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:44 pm

phyllo wrote:I like roller coasters and merry-go-rounds, but I've been on this ride for way too long. Somebody else can have my seat for a while.
There There should be a ceremony with a watch
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:00 pm

From "Morality: The Final Delusion?" by Richard Garner in Philosophy Now magazine

Richard Dawkins’s ‘logic’ is the logic of evolution which, he has long insisted, can provide a far better explanation of life, the universe, and everything than can any account that appeals to supernatural beings or miracles. One of his favored explanations for the ubiquity and variety of religious beliefs, in spite of the suffering they have caused and their manifest implausibility, is that they are byproducts of our genetic inheritance of credulity. There will, he says, “be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you.” If this makes sense, and I think it does, then we can easily extend the point to help explain why we cling so firmly to our less exotic but still erroneous moral beliefs.


Clearly, a discussion of morality will almost always get us around to a discussion of God and religion. I come back to them myself over and over again. And that is because God is one possible explanation for why our brains are hard-wired to reduce human interactions down to a frame of mind that eventually ties everything together "in our head" teleologically.

And we always get around to that, right?

We can discuss morality as a "thing" that exists both historically and culturally. And we can note the part where the evolution of the species permitted philosophy to be born. That point where human interactions could be examined "technically" in terms of all the components that revolve around 1] genes and memes 2] the id, the ego and the superego 3] deduction and induction 4] that which we perceive with our senses and then reconfigure into that which we conceive that it means.

And surely as a child it is vital that we not spend all our days questioning everything that we are told about the right thing and the wrong thing to do. There has got to be one or another foundation into which we embody "I": Reality.

But the crucial thing about God and religion here is that they offer us the reason why. In other words, why it is important to do the right thing. Human existence, we are told as children, has meaning and purpose. And, just as crucially, there is a teleological component into which we can dump all of the unending pain and suffering. One or another rendition of God's "mysterious ways".

Take God out of the picture and the best we can come up with among mere mortals are all of the components I explored above with respect to morality and "humanism".
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:15 pm

phyllo wrote:
With respect to the existential parameters of "I" out in the is/ought world, it reflects a "sense of self" that revolves largely around the manner in which I convey dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How is this the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card?
Somebody says "I think things are this way because blah blah." ... and you dismiss it as an existential contraption.


How can you not be aware that this is bullshit? You know I make what I construe to be a critical distinction between the things we think that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us [Trump is attempting to build a wall on the border with Mexico] and the things we think that [to me] seem embedded more in existential contraptions [we ought to build a wall on the border with Mexico].

phyllo wrote: Somebody says that Iambig is making inconsistent statements and you justify it by calling your statements existential contraptions.

It's a universal answer to everything.


Wow, this is the sort of thing that I would expect from the Kids here. Let's chalk it up to a shitty mood, okay?

But what on earth does being or not being a moral nihilist have to do with the extent to which it can be demonstrated that Trump did in fact collude with Putin in the 2016 election?

phyllo wrote: We were discussing moral nihilism and you suddenly switched to Trump/Putin because that just seems to be your favorite topic of the month.


Come on, the point here [once again] is to distinguish between what can in fact be shown as true for all of us, and our reaction to the facts as that is reflected in one or another political agenda.

Instead, objectivists switch to a frame of mind that starts with their political prejudices and then hammers the facts into that.

Like you do with Communism.

But that, for me, down in the hole, I am unable to manage regarding anything. At least not with respect to conflicting goods.

We need to name a particular game in a particular context. And then note the extent to which value judgments become applicable in discussing it. And then note the extent to which "I" here can be rooted in an assessment/analysis able to be demonstrated as applicable to all rational men and women.


phyllo wrote: We don't need that. It's really very simple.


Yeah, I get this from folks like Mr Reasonable and Fixed Cross too. How "simple" things are when you finally get around to thinking about them like they do.

Of course for those who get around to thinking about them as "I" do, things can become considerably more...ambiguous?

phyllo wrote: Basically, you want to force your likes and dislikes on other people, but they are not to force their likes and dislikes on you.


Polemics aside, quite the opposite. My "likes and dislikes" here revolve around thinking that "I" [as an existential contraption] live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

If there is "comfort and consolation" to be found in that, it continues to elude me.

But they're still sticking around for you, aren't they?

Me, I just can't figure out exactly how it actually does work for you when confronted with conflicts with others.

In particular, the part about God and religion.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:38 pm

Come on, the point here [once again] is to distinguish between what can in fact be shown as true for all of us, and our reaction to the facts as that is reflected in one or another political agenda.

Instead, objectivists switch to a frame of mind that starts with their political prejudices and then hammers the facts into that.

Like you do with Communism.
I think that this is the critical point at which Iambig's argument unravels, because it shows that he believes that even facts which "are shown to be true for all of us" are molded to suit value judgements.
For example, one could show that communist countries have/had elaborate secret police which jailed, tortured and killed dissidents. But apparently it doesn't count towards an evaluation of communism because it's a fact that can be "hammered" into anything that one wants for either side - communist and anti-communist.

Subjective judgements trump all.

What then is the use of a "fact that can be shown to be true for all of us"? :confusion-shrug:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:28 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Do or do not the objectivists argue that the only reason that conflicting goods exist at all is because the folks in the "one of them" camp refuse to accept the moral narrative/political agenda subscribed to by those in the "one of us" camp?
That's very general ... which particular objectivists, arguing for which particular beliefs?

In general, I would say that objectivists don't believe that everyone can be convinced and that there are significant differences between individuals and that errors in judgements will persist. Therefore, conflicting goods don't go away, even for objectivists.
Good point. Nearly always his version of objectivists is a straw man generalization. As if objectivists cannot have doubts. As if objectivists don't understand epistemological problems. And more sorts of very all or nothing, one type objectivist is the only that exists. Which is utterly unbelievable for someone who believes in dasein - which means that uniques experiences will create unique individuals, amongst other things - and who believes there is no self or may not be a self. Still he sees these monad monolith opponents.


Sure, that is a good point. After all, I went through my own rather grueling existential "crisis". One in which I was both tugged in the general direction of Marxism/Feminism and in the general direction of existentialism/rival goods.

Still, the folks I've aimed my arguments at here over the years are basically those who do embrace a hardcore objectivist frame of mind intertwined in a hardcore authoritarian personality.

And they're not all just Kids either.

Only my aim here is deflected by the realization that even my arguments here are no less the embodiment of "I" as an existential contraption.

This part of dasein:

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:


In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

Yeah, some have a more sophisticated grip on this than others. And some are considerably more wobbly here than others.

So, in exposing my straw man arguments, it becomes necessary for you to impose your own straw man arguments in turn.

Yeah, but then some of them are in positions of power such that they are able to enforce their own agenda [socially, politically, economically, legally] on others.


phyllo wrote: Yeah, life is unfair and there are things out of your control.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: The irony in your correctly interpreting him as saying this is unfair (read: bad, evil, immoral] will be lost on him. He will simply saying that his calling this ap roblem is just another existential contraption. Of course if he actually believed that he would stop bemoaning the unfairness.


What's lost on you is my assumption that what you think is lost on me is no less an existential contraption embedded in the assumptions you make about the assumptions you accuse me of making about you.

All I can do here then is to bring these assumptions down to earth and shift the discussion toward a description of our reaction to others who embody conflicting value judgments. And then challange our own. What are we actually able to demonstrate to others is "bad, evil, immoral"

Over and again I point to that which I construe to be "unfair" in the world. Only, unlike most others, I have come to recognize these reactions as political prejudices rooted in "I" as an existential contraption.

But: What if I am wrong? What if one or another rendition of moral and political objectivism is fact reflective of "the right thing to do"?

But: How can I know this?

Other than in coming into places like this and hearing the arguments [and descriptions of experiences] of those who clearly do believe that I am "down in a hole" for nothing.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: He does not really want to include nature. He is implicitly a tabula rasa philosopher. It is nurture, period. Hence all his gibberish about 'I'. When I call it gibberish, I am not dismissing the complexity of knowing oneself, let alone having anything like unity.


Quite the contrary. Over the years I have become increasingly more sympathetic to those that argue that "I" is more the product of those "selfish" genes than those "civilized" memes. Just look at the world around us and tell me the "id" is not holding the reins.

And not just the part about testosterone.

It's just that "I" here is still able to go in any number directions given any number of particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. To speak of one tug and pull here without the other is ludicrous in my view.

Though this too is no less a manifestation of "I" as an existential contraption.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But he sees himself as a sort of holding tank for memes. And there is no possible way for him to determine, for example, what he really feels or thinks, because he is just a holding tank for the memes he has been exposed to. He cannot even determine his wants and desires. I have tried to point out that he has not tried to find out what is nature in him, but rather focuses on a third person view of himself and what ONE should do.


Again and again: What on earth do you mean by this?

Let's try again take the components of our respective philosophies out for a test drive in which we explore our own reactions to those who embrace "political prejudices" at odds with our own.

What are the limits of philosophy here? Beyond what understanding are we likely not able to go?

You can start with that which you construe to be the most significant "contradiction" that I make in presenting my point of view.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:32 pm

phyllo wrote:I like roller coasters and merry-go-rounds, but I've been on this ride for way too long. Somebody else can have my seat for a while.


Fair enough. Besides, whatever is left of your own "comfort and consolation" here is still no doubt relatively intact. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
phyllo wrote:I like roller coasters and merry-go-rounds, but I've been on this ride for way too long. Somebody else can have my seat for a while.
There There should be a ceremony with a watch


Not to worry. The abyss will [soon enough] do its thing. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
Come on, the point here [once again] is to distinguish between what can in fact be shown as true for all of us, and our reaction to the facts as that is reflected in one or another political agenda.

Instead, objectivists switch to a frame of mind that starts with their political prejudices and then hammers the facts into that.

Like you do with Communism.


I think that this is the critical point at which Iambig's argument unravels, because it shows that he believes that even facts which "are shown to be true for all of us" are molded to suit value judgements.


No, I'm just noting how psychological defense mechanisms are powerful tools enabling some to rationalize almost any set of actual facts to suit the moral and political assumptions they make about "I" in the world around them.

Thus there are still no doubt any number of fervent Marxists around convinced that "next time" they will do the revolution right.

Just as there are still no doubt any number of fervent Randroid Objectivisits around convinced that "next time" they will do their revolution right.

phyllo wrote: For example, one could show that communist countries have/had elaborate secret police which jailed, tortured and killed dissidents. But apparently it doesn't count towards an evaluation of communism because it's a fact that can be "hammered" into anything that one wants for either side - communist and anti-communist.


We've been back and forth about all this on other threads. You have your set of political prejudices, the other side has theirs. Repression it is argued by them was forced on the Soviet and the Chinese ubermen given all that was being done to destroy their regimes.

But: What always counts [in the end] is their own subjective qua objective judgments.

On the other hand, I'm still forced to admit that these points of mine are largely just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Whereas phyllo is still able to harbor some level of conviction that his own point of view really is the most rational and virtuous way to look at things.

But that's the whole point [psychologically] when sustaining some measure of "comfort and consolation" is really at the heart of your convictions.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:21 pm

But for those of us who hold to that such contraptions are to some degree effective from the point of view of retaining some measure ofmthe beginning, would it not argue more than an affect as consolation?

Or, do You also discredit such on dubious grounds such as lack of clear rhetoric, but silently admitting that there is more to this argument then meets the eye? And skipping this argument tantamount to some thing other then mere dismissal on any basis, which may signal some measure denial?

Or.is not brusque-ness on my part try to cut to the chase?

Either way my psych prof had manifold statements attributed to disassociate political, psychological and philosophical parts , so as to find some measure of intent. (at a reasonably arguable level of discussion relating to Dasein)

Otherwise affective response may indeed throw psychological consideration into a tailspin.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:06 pm

.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:23 am

iambiguous wrote:1) On the other hand, I'm still forced to admit that these points of mine are largely just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

2) Whereas phyllo is still able to harbor some level of conviction that his own point of view really is the most rational and virtuous way to look at things.

3) But that's the whole point [psychologically] when sustaining some measure of "comfort and consolation" is really at the heart of your convictions.
[numbers added by me]

Sentence one. A seeming concession. A hey, I can't know statement. A seemingly epistemological humility. He doesn't know.
Sentence two. A description of this opponent. Could be neutral, who knows. My opponent thinks he is rational, whereas I, myself do not. Could be just a description. Perhaps, but there are warning signs: 'harbor' for example with implications of security and safety. Let's see what happens in three.
Sentence three. An explanation of Phyllo's psychology. He believes what he believes motivated by comfort and consolation. I am not, since in sentence one I mentioned that my ideas are contraptions.

Cake and eat it too.

I believe that my beliefs are contraptions allows me to conclude that I am superior to Phyllo who believes what he believes because he cannot go without his meme medication. I know his motivations and I know mine. I compare and conclude mine are superior because I get no consolation from mine.

Now there are many, many assumptions and confusions in this.

1) the obvious one: his idea that he does not have the same or worse motivations than Phyllo would also be a contraption
2) you don't get to draw conclusions after undermining all your own thinking. Which is what he has done in sentence one. One is silent after Sentence one. Sentence one does not allow one to draw conclusions, let alone psychic ones.
3) Comfort and consolation are not the only motivations that can underine conclusions.
4) Teenagers, for example, can be skeptical about anyone knowing more than them, and this can be based on anger, on wanting to have control, on being cool and more. Iamb is basically being ad hom above, AND THIS IS MORE RIDICULOUS than it would be for others, because he has just said that he cannot trust his own mind. How the fuck can someone who has told us his conclusions are based on contraptions and dasein, then think it makes sense to go on and draw conclusions about other minds. He clearly does not believe Sentence one because it does not affect his actions.

He is a defacto moralist who judges others, but this is OK because he intersperses disclaimers, and yet somehow these disclaimers

function as premises
which lead to conclusions judging other inferior.

Amazing.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby phyllo » Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:42 pm

There is the question of what is wrong with comfort and consolation?

He treats them as artificial states produced by psychological defense mechanisms rather than as normal products of life and thought.

One is supposed to be miserable?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:22 pm

phyllo wrote:There is the question of what is wrong with comfort and consolation?

He treats them as artificial states produced by psychological defense mechanisms rather than as normal products of life and thought.

One is supposed to be miserable?
Yes, there's that also. It is tough to argue that being in the hole is better, since better would be a value judgment, and those are merely contraptions.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:04 pm

From "Morality: The Final Delusion?" by Richard Garner in Philosophy Now magazine

Here again is Dawkins: “Just as we asked: What is the Darwinian survival value of religion? so we can ask the same question of morality.” His answer is that morality too may be a byproduct of something else that offered “Darwinian survival value”. Kin altruism and reciprocal altruism can explain why we help relatives and those in our small circle; but why do we still have “feelings of morality, decency, empathy, and pity” for utter strangers? One answer is that natural selection favors “rules of thumb, which work in practice to promote the genes that built them”. But rules of thumb are imprecise and often insensitive to new circumstances. Consider the cuckoo’s exploitation of other birds’ rules of thumb (or claw) to feed any squawking chick in their nests. Like the instincts of the cuckoo’s dupes, our own impulses to altruism, generosity, empathy, and pity persist “even when circumstances make them inappropriate to their original functions” . Our daily kindnesses to strangers are rarely returned, nor do we expect them to be; nevertheless we continue.


What this seems to clearly indicate [to me] is how enormously complex the interaction between genes and memes, between nature and nurture must be in grappling with human morality. In other words, as it is embedded both biologically in the evolution of life on Earth, and philosophically in "frames of mind" that we were able to aggregate as a species over the centuries allowing us to be aware of these relationships.

And then to make more or less educated arguments regarding any particular context in which we are challenged to answer the question "how ought one to live"?

What is the "right thing to do" here? And how, given the extent to which there must be a gap between what we think we know the answer is "in the moment", and all that we have no understanding of at all, are we to actually know everything that would need to be known in order to answer the question objectively. We don't even really know if the "objective truth" here even exists. Or, if it does, whether we have the capacity as autonomous human beings to effectuate changes in our lives other than as we were always only ever going to.

And yet the extent to which assertions like "our daily kindnesses to strangers are rarely returned, nor do we expect them to be" are true, it's still all basically rooted in dasein and conflicting goods.

Everyone reading this has had different experiences with things of this sort. And what exactly are we to be kind about? And why would we expect others to reciprocate the kindness?

In what context? With respect to what behaviors deemed to be "good" rather than "bad"?

Some things seem to be applicable to all of our species. But other things seem instead to ever and always be hopelessly contextual and problematic.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:32 pm

Meno_ wrote:But for those of us who hold to that such contraptions are to some degree effective from the point of view of retaining some measure ofmthe beginning, would it not argue more than an affect as consolation?

Or, do You also discredit such on dubious grounds such as lack of clear rhetoric, but silently admitting that there is more to this argument then meets the eye? And skipping this argument tantamount to some thing other then mere dismissal on any basis, which may signal some measure denial?

Or.is not brusque-ness on my part try to cut to the chase?

Either way my psych prof had manifold statements attributed to disassociate political, psychological and philosophical parts , so as to find some measure of intent. (at a reasonably arguable level of discussion relating to Dasein)

Otherwise affective response may indeed throw psychological consideration into a tailspin.


Once again, this may contain an important insight regarding the moral narrative that I have come to embody "down in the hole" that "I" am.

But in no way, shape or form [that I can discern] are these words connected to any actual social, political or economic context in which particular value judgments do in fact come into conflict with other particular value judgments.

Now, why do you suppose that is?

P.S.

.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:But for those of us who hold to that such contraptions are to some degree effective from the point of view of retaining some measure of the beginning, would it not argue more than an affect as consolation?

Or, do You also discredit such on dubious grounds such as lack of clear rhetoric, but silently admitting that there is more to this argument then meets the eye? And skipping this argument tantamount to some thing other then mere dismissal on any basis, which may signal some measure denial?

Or.is not brusque-ness on my part try to cut to the chase?

Either way my psych prof had manifold statements attributed to disassociate political, psychological and philosophical parts , so as to find some measure of intent. (at a reasonably arguable level of discussion relating to Dasein)

Otherwise affective response may indeed throw psychological consideration into a tailspin.


Once again, this may contain an important insight regarding the moral narrative that I have come to embody "down in the hole" that "I" am.

But in no way, shape or form [that I can discern] are these words connected to any actual social, political or economic context in which particular value judgments do in fact come into conflict with other particular value judgments.

Now, why do you suppose that is?

P.S.

.








Ok. To clarify

The hole as You express is very understandable from the point of view
that has generally been expressed all through out our / Your experience .

But that hole is not a singular manifestation of being (there), but a built (here) , where it (the experience)
of Being having a beginning.

The point Heidegger makes is that the Being can not be approached as if, through It's self, the whole self, as a composite of psychological , philosophical, metapsychologocal, political origin, because it has to be looked at from the different vantage points.

But we can't because trying to find it is only possible by going back and finding the original experience of the hole.

The 'hole' , , has manyform derivations. of mostly symbolic forms taken , would You go along with that?
That the Platonic Cave, and Nietzsche's Abyss have some semblance relevant to experience in general. Then the the hole You inhabit share somewhat of a re-semblance.

The etymology of the word between semblance and resemblance occasions two different forms of 'appearing different'. Not that I'm into with this kind of analysis for my basic effort of proof, only to dole out defenses toward such people who find such proof definitive. (And you know whom I'm referring), but merely stating that that view is not substantially definitive, only literally.

That connecting types of holes by virtue of an imposed temporal referentially is am arduous and nay oft impossible task, and it is not based simply on current, not exclusive definition.

It is alive, in the sense temporality more in line with what Augustine defines time as being transcendence.

,It's is an existential contraption , but one with transcendental undertones of time as understood to before, bound to a backward understanding rather than a forward look.(which causes stasis)

So the contraption is there and it isn't.
The duality has disappeared but understandably so, because of the inherent duality within time itself.


This is the conflict which binds us onto a hole from which we are trying to escape.

We would like to get away from time, as some modern historians claim unsuccessfully so, that we are living , having passed the age of history.

But it may not be so simple to escape it, nonetheless, the constraints, which the totality of the darkness of the hole(whole) has imprinted.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:1) On the other hand, I'm still forced to admit that these points of mine are largely just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

2) Whereas phyllo is still able to harbor some level of conviction that his own point of view really is the most rational and virtuous way to look at things.

3) But that's the whole point [psychologically] when sustaining some measure of "comfort and consolation" is really at the heart of your convictions.
[numbers added by me]

Sentence one. A seeming concession. A hey, I can't know statement. A seemingly epistemological humility. He doesn't know.


True, but I speculate that there are any number of variables embedded in our lives that do seem true for all of us: mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical facts, the logical rules of language.

But [as I always note in turn]: Even the either/or world is still embedded in this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Embedded in [among other things] the extent to which determinism or sollipsism or sim worlds are or are not applicable to the "human condition". Given the gap that would seem to exist between what any particular "I" claims to know here and now and all that would need to be known about the very ontological nature of existence itself.

The parts that any number of "serious philosophers" [not to mention astrophysicists] seem to just shrug off.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Sentence two. A description of this opponent. Could be neutral, who knows. My opponent thinks he is rational, whereas I, myself do not. Could be just a description. Perhaps, but there are warning signs: 'harbor' for example with implications of security and safety.


Look, either Phyllo is still able to sustain some measure of "comfort and consolation" regarding the relationship between morality on this side of the grave and his fate on the other side or he is not.

And that is either embedded in the assumptions he makes about how rational his thinking is "here and now" or it is not. Only he can aprise us of that. And I have reacted to the assumptions [political prejudices] he makes about things like Communism with certain assumptions [political prejudices] of my own. Then it is up to others to react to our arguments as they do. I merely note that such reactions seem to me to be embodied in political prejudices rooted in the existential contraption that is his "lived life" rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Let's see what happens in three.
Sentence three. An explanation of Phyllo's psychology. He believes what he believes motivated by comfort and consolation. I am not, since in sentence one I mentioned that my ideas are contraptions.


But that explanation is acknolwedged by me [over and again] to be no less an existential contraption. Given that I know very, very little about the life that he has lived, I can only react to his points by extrapolating from arguments that I have come across many, many, many times from those that I -- "I" -- deem to be objectivists.

But even here given only the extent to which my own understanding of objectivism is, in and of itself, just another existential contraption. The product of "I" embedded in my own actual "lived life".

The comfort and consolation is either there for him [or you] or it is not. It is no longer there for me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I believe that my beliefs are contraptions allows me to conclude that I am superior to Phyllo who believes what he believes because he cannot go without his meme medication. I know his motivations and I know mine. I compare and conclude mine are superior because I get no consolation from mine.


Huh?

If I believe that my beliefs here [re the is/ought world and oblivion] are just existential contraptions then I am acknowledging right from the start that assesments deemed to be either "superior" or "inferior" here are no less existential contraptions.

Also, to the extent that subjunctively I seem to be more certain of this, is only the extent to which the subjunctive "I" too is an existential contraption.

And the only thing I can "know" about his motivation and intentions is that which "I" have managed to scrape together given my own profoundly problematic reaction to what he has told me about his life so far. And what are the odds that is anything other than me barely scratching the surface of what makes him tick?

As for all this...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Now there are many, many assumptions and confusions in this...

1) the obvious one: his idea that he does not have the same or worse motivations than Phyllo would also be a contraption
2) you don't get to draw conclusions after undermining all your own thinking. Which is what he has done in sentence one. One is silent after Sentence one. Sentence one does not allow one to draw conclusions, let alone psychic ones.
3) Comfort and consolation are not the only motivations that can underine conclusions.
4) Teenagers, for example, can be skeptical about anyone knowing more than them, and this can be based on anger, on wanting to have control, on being cool and more. Iamb is basically being ad hom above, AND THIS IS MORE RIDICULOUS than it would be for others, because he has just said that he cannot trust his own mind. How the fuck can someone who has told us his conclusions are based on contraptions and dasein, then think it makes sense to go on and draw conclusions about other minds. He clearly does not believe Sentence one because it does not affect his actions.


...we would have to bring this "general description" down to earth. To focus this "wall of words" on a particular context in which we attempt to describe what unfolds "inside out head" when confronting conflicting goods at the existential juncture that is 1] identity 2] value judgments and 3] political economy.

He can choose it.

Then it will come down [once again] to the extent to which we might perhaps become clearer to each other regarding the arguments we made here and elsewhere about things like Communism.

As for this...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: He is a defacto moralist who judges others, but this is OK because he intersperses disclaimers, and yet somehow these disclaimers

function as premises
which lead to conclusions judging other inferior.

Amazing.


you pick the context, the conflicting goods, and the extent to which "I" can articulate a point of view here that is able to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above.

Show us how "pragmatic" you can be in exposing me as just another "moralist".

Or maybe it's time [once again] for you to be "moving on" to others. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27707
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:58 pm

The abortion issue can be approached logically.

If giving birth makes the planet worse for all including the child in question, then abortion is prudent. What better generation than this to make this argument?

If there is some kind of "cosmic savior", this baby would be impossible to abort.

Since we know in fantasy (by definition) that the second one is true, it's up to us to handle the justice of the situation, and abortion is a matter of justice.

I've often said that if people are really concerned about "be fruitful and multiply", we'd have 3.7 billion women strapped down on beds and inseminate them every 9 months - leaving us with a world where each women has an average of 52 offspring - real lives that we know for a fact can be here, to the extent we don't do this - it also is abortion.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7445
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users