To iambiguous

[Meno_]

Observation: what makes sense between ideologies , is not based on an either/or plane of reference. Or does so retroactively, but that level mainly produce an optical effect- maybe an illusion and bottom line , the now famous delusion .

Perhaps that is the level that a neo-Kantian ism - Heiseggerinism , neo Platonism can land us, argued after the fact.

But to choose between the sensible and the nonsensible?
On what basis?

Obviously this major difference can not any longer be argued, so there goes the Vienna Circle Positivist argument. Mayne its time.


Its just as difficult to convince people to move on, in this case Sasseure and school, as it is those whose assumptions are retroactively based on opinions of others, (as opposed to outers)

[iambiguous]

More huffing and puffing about the problem being me.

Just describing how the threads progress. (or rather don't progress.)

Talking to you is like reading page 1 of a book over and over. It's impossible to get off page 1 because you keep bringing it back there.

If, on page one, I note the extent to which, morally and politically, "I" have, existentially, tumbled down in 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.

...I can only go in search of others who are not down there with respect to their own conflicted interactions with others out in the is/ought world.

The rest is just folks arguing that they have done this and the extent to which their arguments either do or do not resonant in some manner with me.

The point then being that if others see that I am just not getting their point, they can move on at any time.

[Karpel Tunnel]

More huffing and puffing about the problem being me.

Just describing how the threads progress. (or rather don't progress.)

Talking to you is like reading page 1 of a book over and over. It's impossible to get off page 1 because you keep bringing it back there.

So what I saw here in this thread was the possibility of him saying: That's not page 1. Page one is what I want to discuss. I will ignore everything else. I think that would be fine, since if one gets bogged, there were big signs that it would be a bog.


Think of it as someone coming to a forum looking for a specific better mouse trap design. Any post that is not that design, he will not respond to. Posts that appear as attempts to create the mouse trap, in the format he wants, he will respond to, no doubt arguing that it does not catch the mouse he wants caught.

You want to question his criteria, his behavior, his assumptions, his arguments?...that is not doing page 1.

IOW he is the critic of people's attempts to page 1. He does not care about their criticism of his page 1, his approach, his responses.

If he kept it clear like this. Not an interaction for all, but certainly one that a philosophy forum can encompass.

I am just trying to praise the approach taken in this thread where Ecmandu is not attempting to page one.

If iamb responded like this in general, I think it would lead to clarity. We would not confuse his participation with something more based on compromise and a mixing of goals and interests, nor would we confuse his participation as being part of a dialogue where both parties deal with critique, where both parties together determine the focus. I would be something simpler with one specific goal. Take it or leave it.

I see him as responsible for making it clear to people he is not interested in their goals or feedback or interests. From there, no problem.

[Ecmandu]

I'd also add, to the brainwashing system iambiguous uses, he does bible thumper reverse psychology =

If god doesn't exist, we have to be mortal and without morals!!

Then saying he doesn't believe in god to throw us off the scent.

Actually, I'll say this about iambiguous for fact, everything he writes is about trolling at its core that if god doesn't exist, people must be mortal and there must be no ethics...

The rest is just a cover.

Don't believe me? Pay attention to the only thing he asserts without cancelling itself out!

[James Kroeger]

If I am always of the opinion that...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.

Having just arrived here, I'm a bit late to this discussion but must admit that I'm finding it rather intriguing.

You say, Iambiguous, in the quote above, that IF "there are not objective values "I" can reach, then...."

Elsewhere, you mention that you would find improved certainty re: this topic to be a desirable thing.

I am tempted to offer the counter that there are 'objective' values you can reach, that you would be able to discern, if you viewed your subjective plight from the somewhat unique epistemological POV that I have come to embrace.

For centuries philosophers have obsessed about absolute certainty, climaxing with Hume's doubts about causation. I go a step beyond Hume's skeptical approach and declare that: (Virtually) ALL KNOWLEDGE IS GUESSWORK. When the test we want to subject our various examples of 'objective knowledge' to is that of absolute certainty, almost none of that which we call "knowledge" survives the test.

I know at this current moment that "I" exist. I know that I am currently experiencing various sights/sounds/feelings. I can 'remember' existing previous to this moment. I don't know when I close my eyes to sleep at night if there will be another day tomorrow. I don't know if I will continue to exist five minutes from now. When the ultimate test of our 'knowledge' is that of absolute certainty, the number of things we can cite which satisfy that condition can probably be counted on a single hand.
All else is guesswork.

BUT, we discover, our guesses are not without value. Every time I embrace the guess that there will be another day tomorrow, I am rewarded with yet another validation that my guess was a good one. As scientists are quite aware, we've discovered over time that there are a lot of guesses we've made and recorded re: the material world that have continually proven to be accurate, pretty much without fail. But in spite of our virtual certainty re: these guesses, we cannot---as Hume correctly pointed out---be absolutely certain that what we saw occur five minutes ago will occur again five minutes from now.

(So yes, most of our 'empirical' knowledge---guesses---are contingent upon continued validation. Karl Popper agrees with me )

In a sense, it is accurate to describe Minds as 'guessing machines.' That is what we do, make guesses and see if they hold up over time. My point is that that is good enough. We are in Plato's Cave and cannot perceive things 'as they are', as Kant pointed out, but so what? Our guesses are good enough.

It is much more difficult to achieve certainty (or rather high levels of confidence in our guesses) when our guesses are of the analytical a priori type, but still, we are able to eliminate certain of those guesses when we see that they contradict other metaphysical guesses that have been proposed by various thinkers.

I have come to assert certain guesses re: the Mind's mental experiences which focus on our experiences with pain & pleasure. These painful/pleasurable experience are caused by by a variety of 'Needs' that are externally imposed on Minds as a condition of their existence. Based on observation, to exist is to be in need.

I further assert that ALL values are traceable to these Needs, needs which were imposed on us as a condition of our very existence. So another guess we can embrace which seems to be confirmed by our experiences, is that these Needs are universally experienced, which of course would mean that all human beings have in fact the same ultimate values. But because our guesses about what precisely those needs are vary from one human to the next, the 'values' we Minds embrace are also going to vary from one human to the next.

Subjectively, values are indeed guesses that individual Minds come up with, but the actual values that Minds should rationally embrace are those which are based on an accurate understanding of what our Needs are. And so, from this thread of reasoning, I assert that all humans have the same ultimate values because we all have the same needs (the sources of all experienced pain/pleasure).

What really starts to develop this conceptualization in a useful direction is when you take into consideration the specific mental needs that Minds must deal with which are responsible for all the forms of mental pain that humans experience (not associated with any incident of tissue damage to the corporeal host). As this is topic can get quite involved, I'll save it for later.

What I am suggesting to you is that Sartre' belief that we are 'condemned to be free' is ultimately based on a false assumption re: the imagined ability he believed The Will has to create/annihilate needs. I acknowledge that yes, The Will/Mind has the ability to intentionally deprive the host of need-satisfaction (e.g., hunger strikers) but there is absolutely nothing that the Will/Mind can do to avoid the consequences (pain) of need-deprivation. Nor can a need be created that does not already exist.

I further assert that because our needs are externally imposed on us, there is meaning and purpose in this life that has nothing whatsoever to do with our wishes/choices. Ultimate meaning/purpose can be deduced from an improved understanding of what precisely our clutch of purely mental externally imposed needs are, which is yet another topic to explore at another time.

So perhaps the conundrum you have been turning over in your mind is ultimately traceable to what I am describing as an inaccurate initial premise: that there are no 'objective' values...

Nice place you guys have here...

[Prismatic567]

All else is guesswork.

BUT, we discover, our guesses are not without value. Every time I embrace the guess that there will be another day tomorrow, I am rewarded with yet another validation that my guess was a good one. As scientists are quite aware, we've discovered over time that there are a lot of guesses we've made and recorded re: the material world that have continually proven to be accurate, pretty much without fail. But in spite of our virtual certainty re: these guesses, we cannot---as Hume correctly pointed out---be absolutely certain that what we saw occur five minutes ago will occur again five minutes from now.

(So yes, most of our 'empirical' knowledge---guesses---are contingent upon continued validation. Karl Popper agrees with me )

Agree with most of your points.

Popper stated, the best 'objective' knowledge we have, i.e. scientific theories are at best merely polished conjectures [by subjects].
As such objectivity is intersubjectivity [btw not Husserl's].

As re objectivity, I believe objectivity must be complemented with subjectivity to achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity.

Absolute objective morals do not exist but we need to establish objective moral laws by the most solid grounding to facilitate the application of moral laws to ethics for the well being of humanity.

[James Kroeger]

As such objectivity is intersubjectivity [btw not Husserl's]. As re objectivity, I believe objectivity must be complemented with subjectivity to achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity.

I like to approach this issue from a methodological solipsism starting point, where I observe that the only thing I know with absolute certainty is my own thoughts. But then, I observe that I have a portal to The Real World via my body's sensory organs and as I go about dealing with the needs that have been imposed on me by my existence, I notice from observing my reflection that my portal---my body---looks like the bodies of other humans, so I figure it is a pretty good guess that these other humans might "think" like I do, but without having much certainty at first.

But as I interact with the other humans, I discover that I can communicate with them re: the tasks of survival by using sounds that are associated with first particular objects, and then others that refer to various actions we all take. It is with language, in its advanced state, that we discover that these other human persons "think" like we do. It is a guess, but it is one that is continually rewarded with validation.

After a while, we don't entertain many active doubts about whether or not the other humans we interact with are Minds, like we are, that are able to control these bodies that existence has given us. We act on that guess and are continually rewarded with results that validate it, once again. So yeah, I guess this constitutes an "intersubjectivity" which we casually refer to as "objective truth", even though most of the 'knowledge' we share and have so much faith in is actually contingent upon continued validation from experience.

Without these corporeal portals to The Real World that existence has given us, and the opportunity they have given us to find a way to communicate with other human bodies, we might never have been able to arrive at the guess that there are indeed Other Minds that exist outside of our own minds. It's a guess, but it's one that really seems to work well, repeatedly justifying our faith in it.

Absolute objective morals do not exist but we need to establish objective moral laws by the most solid grounding to facilitate the application of moral laws to ethics for the well being of humanity.

I actually have something to say on this topic that you might find interesting:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194122

[iambiguous]

Think of it as someone coming to a forum looking for a specific better mouse trap design. Any post that is not that design, he will not respond to. Posts that appear as attempts to create the mouse trap, in the format he wants, he will respond to, no doubt arguing that it does not catch the mouse he wants caught.

My point revolves more around making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between those who either can or cannot design a better mousetrap and those who either can or cannot design an argument that would morally justify trapping a mouse [or a raccoon or a beaver or a fox] in the trap.

There is no page one regarding the former other than a demonstration that your trap is in fact the better [or even the best] design. Dasein here revolves solely around the existential variables in your life that would predispose you to want to design a better trap. Then you either can or you can't.

But what of the morality of it?

Just one more conflicting good:

https://digginginthedriftless.com/2013/ ... -trapping/

And how on earth would the values of any one particular "I" here not be profoundly implicated in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? Every individual has his or her own set of experiences that predispose him or her to a particular frame of mind -- a moral and political prejudice.

And when they come into conflict around a particular exchange in a forum like this one, who is to decide which argument reflects either the better or the best "design"?

What constitutes "clarity" here?

I see him as responsible for making it clear to people he is not interested in their goals or feedback or interests. From there, no problem.

Again: What particular goals regarding what particular contexts in which goals out of sync precipitate conflicts?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Think of it as someone coming to a forum looking for a specific better mouse trap design. Any post that is not that design, he will not respond to. Posts that appear as attempts to create the mouse trap, in the format he wants, he will respond to, no doubt arguing that it does not catch the mouse he wants caught.

My point revolves more around making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between those who either can or cannot design a better mousetrap and those who either can or cannot design an argument that would morally justify trapping a mouse [or a raccoon or a beaver or a fox] in the trap.

Oh, jeez, how to create a muddle about an analogy about goals. It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy for your goal.

And how on earth would the values of any one particular "I" here not be profoundly implicated in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? Every individual has his or her own set of experiences that predispose him or her to a particular frame of mind -- a moral and political prejudice.

Do you think anyone here other than the new guy is unfamiliar with your position?

And when they come into conflict around a particular exchange in a forum like this one, who is to decide which argument reflects either the better or the best "design"?

What constitutes "clarity" here?

Amazing. The only way I mentioned clarity in relation to you was regarding what you want to discuss and what you don't want to. Yet, this triggered you to repeat your core issues as if these are not already understood by everyone here, except the new guy. Blather to him. Thelovely trend you started in this thread is fading into the past.

I see him as responsible for making it clear to people he is not interested in their goals or feedback or interests. From there, no problem.

Again: What particular goals regarding what particular contexts in which goals out of sync precipitate conflicts?

Talk about obtuse. I was writing to other people. You did not understand or you don't care to. Just keep making your requests for the answer to conflicting goods and stick to that. You treat everything else as if it was a request for you to restate your request and explain why you are making that request. IOW your posts become noise or pop up advertising. They are not responses.

[iambiguous]

For centuries philosophers have obsessed about absolute certainty, climaxing with Hume's doubts about causation. I go a step beyond Hume's skeptical approach and declare that: (Virtually) ALL KNOWLEDGE IS GUESSWORK. When the test we want to subject our various examples of 'objective knowledge' to is that of absolute certainty, almost none of that which we call "knowledge" survives the test.

Well, if you need an abortion, there is the knowledge of who to go to in order to obtain one. And while it may not be an absolute certainty that a qualified doctor is the one to choose, it is, for all practical purposes, probably as close as mere mortals can come to it.

But if you are uncertain as to whether this abortion is moral or immoral, who would you go to here in order to come as close to absolute certainty as you can?

Yes, even the either/or world is subject to Hume's differentiation between empirical correlation and ontological cause and effect, but that is basically because there would appear to be a gap between what any one of us think we know [about anything] and all that would need to be known [about everything] in order to achieve absolute certainty.

I know at this current moment that "I" exist. I know that I am currently experiencing various sights/sounds/feelings. I can 'remember' existing previous to this moment. I don't know when I close my eyes to sleep at night if there will be another day tomorrow. I don't know if I will continue to exist five minutes from now. When the ultimate test of our 'knowledge' is that of absolute certainty, the number of things we can cite which satisfy that condition can probably be counted on a single hand.

Even here though we have no seeming capacity to be absolutely certain that "I" is not part of some Sim world, or a character in some demonic dream. Think of how absolutely certain we think we are in a dream. "In the moment" everything seems as real as when we are awake. Unless your dreams are different from mine.

I further assert that ALL values are traceable to these Needs, needs which were imposed on us as a condition of our very existence. So another guess we can embrace which seems to be confirmed by our experiences, is that these Needs are universally experienced, which of course would mean that all human beings have in fact the same ultimate values. But because our guesses about what precisely those needs are vary from one human to the next, the 'values' we Minds embrace are also going to vary from one human to the next.

Again, consider the distinction between needs in the either/or world applicable to all of us -- food, water, protection from the elements, defense from enemies -- and the conflicts embedded in the is/ought world regarding how best to procure them -- capitalism? socialism? fascism? anarchism? religion?

There are those things here able to be reasonably demonstrated as true for all of us, and those things that reflect more a subjective/subjunctive narrative embedded [in my view] in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least in regard to a particular context out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.

Then comes what I construe to be a "general description" of human interaction:

Subjectively, values are indeed guesses that individual Minds come up with, but the actual values that Minds should rationally embrace are those which are based on an accurate understanding of what our Needs are. And so, from this thread of reasoning, I assert that all humans have the same ultimate values because we all have the same needs (the sources of all experienced pain/pleasure).

With respect to an actual existential moral and political conflagration widely known, what constitutes "an accurate understanding of what our Needs are"? And what "ultimate values" can we ascertain when conflicting goods are defended?

What I am suggesting to you is that Sartre' belief that we are 'condemned to be free' is ultimately based on a false assumption re: the imagined ability he believed The Will has to create/annihilate needs. I acknowledge that yes, The Will/Mind has the ability to intentionally deprive the host of need-satisfaction (e.g., hunger strikers) but there is absolutely nothing that the Will/Mind can do to avoid the consequences (pain) of need-deprivation. Nor can a need be created that does not already exist.

For too abstract in my view. We need to reconfigure these words by situating them out in a particular world construed from conflicting value judgments.

For example, the "zero tolerance" policy that was embraced by the Trump administration down on the border with Mexico. How is your "analysis" applicable there?

So perhaps the conundrum you have been turning over in your mind is ultimately traceable to what I am describing as an inaccurate initial premise: that there are no 'objective' values...

Name one. And how do you differentiate 'objective' values from objective values?

Objective in what sense?

From my frame of mind, an objectivist is someone who believes that, with respect to an issue like immigration, there is a way to frame a value judgment in sync with the "real me" in sync with the manner in which all rational/virtuous men are obligated to think and feel.

Their way.

[iambiguous]

As re objectivity, I believe objectivity must be complemented with subjectivity to achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity.

Absolute objective morals do not exist but we need to establish objective moral laws by the most solid grounding to facilitate the application of moral laws to ethics for the well being of humanity.

I try to wrap my head around this as a "general description" of human interactions, and, sure, wouldn't it be nice if everyone felt the same way?

Then we get to the part where actual flesh and blood human beings -- religionists, atheists, capitalists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, liberals, conservatives, individualists, collectivists, libertarians, communitarians, etc., etc., etc., make actual attempts to reconfigure these lofty ideals into an extant political contraption best able to "achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity".

Yes, we can prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behaviors such that, objectively, the laws are applicable to everyone.

But then when the conversation flips instead to connecting the dots between the law and an ethical syllabus said to be most in sync with "the well being of humanity".....???

Here I contend that the moral/political objectivists among us are more in sync psychologically with this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

The rest -- literally -- is history.

[iambiguous]

My point revolves more around making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between those who either can or cannot design a better mousetrap and those who either can or cannot design an argument that would morally justify trapping a mouse [or a raccoon or a beaver or a fox] in the trap.

Oh, jeez, how to create a muddle about an analogy about goals. It wasn't meant to be a perfect analogy for your goal.

It's not a muddle, it's a rather clear distinction between a goal that revolves around one's capacity to build a better mousetrap [you either do or you don't] and a goal that revolves around one's capacity to morally justify capturing [and possibly killing] the mouse in the trap.

Who decides then?

There are any number of contexts in which we might want to trap mice. But the better designed trap will do it better than all the rest.

Similarly, there are any number of contexts in which justifying it morally as "the right thing to do" might shift the arguments given the different sets of facts.

But, given each unique context, who gets to say which moral narrative is the better one -- or the best?

Or, instead, is there literally a "unversal" morality that covers all mice caught in all mousetraps in all contexts?

And how on earth would the values of any one particular "I" here not be profoundly implicated in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? Every individual has his or her own set of experiences that predispose him or her to a particular frame of mind -- a moral and political prejudice.

Do you think anyone here other than the new guy is unfamiliar with your position?

Perhaps, but sometimes it is necessary to make your point to the old guys over and over again, before something finally starts to sink in.

Also, what's great about ILP is that when you come upon someone who repeatedly makes points you are no longer interested in engaging, you stop reading them and move on to others.

Indeed, imagine if folks here were required to read my posts!!!

I see him as responsible for making it clear to people he is not interested in their goals or feedback or interests. From there, no problem.

Again: What particular goals regarding what particular contexts in which goals out of sync precipitate conflicts?

Talk about obtuse. I was writing to other people. You did not understand or you don't care to. Just keep making your requests for the answer to conflicting goods and stick to that. You treat everything else as if it was a request for you to restate your request and explain why you are making that request. IOW your posts become noise or pop up advertising. They are not responses.

Above [or on another post] you argued that, in fact, you have brought your moral philosophy down to earth. I noted that I must have missed it. I asked you to note it again. You either will or you won't.

For me discussing "conflicting goods" means focusing in on actual conflicting goods out in a particular context out in a particular world -- your own preferably.

Or, sure, you could just "foe" me.

[Prismatic567]

As re objectivity, I believe objectivity must be complemented with subjectivity to achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity.

Absolute objective morals do not exist but we need to establish objective moral laws by the most solid grounding to facilitate the application of moral laws to ethics for the well being of humanity.

I try to wrap my head around this as a "general description" of human interactions, and, sure, wouldn't it be nice if everyone felt the same way?

Then we get to the part where actual flesh and blood human beings -- religionists, atheists, capitalists, socialists, anarchists, fascists, liberals, conservatives, individualists, collectivists, libertarians, communitarians, etc., etc., etc., make actual attempts to reconfigure these lofty ideals into an extant political contraption best able to "achieve optimal results for the well being of humanity".

Yes, we can prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behaviors such that, objectively, the laws are applicable to everyone.

But then when the conversation flips instead to connecting the dots between the law and an ethical syllabus said to be most in sync with "the well being of humanity".....???

FYI, Morality and Ethics should be independent of enforceable Laws. There are two separate issues, i.e. one is Morality and Ethics while the other is politics - legislation, policing and judiciary. The two should be independent but work in parallel with each other.

Morality and Ethics is confined solely to the self and self-development & management within the brain/mind of the individual[s] with interaction with the community.

But because the self-development of the individuals are at different rates with the majority of people developing at a slower rate, there is a need for external enforcement of conduct via laws.

The internal development of moral and ethics of the individual flows with natural evolution as supported by the following'

1. An internal moral faculty

The Moral Life of Babies
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

2. The Development and Progress Evolution of Mirror Neurons

In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

3. Other Moral Features within the Brain
...

I suggest you research the above to update your knowledge on the concept of morality & ethics and the independent Legislation, Policing and Judiciary.

Point is humanity are already progressing in their Morality and Ethical developments by ignoring the fixed absolute moral laws of religions.
The next stage is how to expedite this inherent moral function and process that are already within the human brain.

[iambiguous]

FYI, Morality and Ethics should be independent of enforceable Laws. There are two separate issues, i.e. one is Morality and Ethics while the other is politics - legislation, policing and judiciary. The two should be independent but work in parallel with each other.

Right, like laws that either prescribe or proscribe certain behaviors are not generally in sync with what any particular community construes to be the "right thing" or the "wrong thing" to do.

Even traffic laws pertain to behaviors behind the wheel deemed to be either good or bad.

You might not argue that it is immoral to speed, but speeding can result in sets of circumstances where people are injured or killed. If nothing harmful ever happened when people broke the speed limit, would there be speeding laws?

Even laws that revolve around obtaining a driver's licence are passed based on the assumption that if anyone could drive anytime, anywhere for any reason without the need for all that is embedded in acquiring a license, the consequences would surely be dire.

Obviously, the relationship between the law and morality is jumbled up in a complex relationship that often evolves over time. Laws are basically just statutes that reflect a community consensus derived from customs and traditions and conventions and folkways and mores.

The internal development of moral and ethics of the individual flows with natural evolution as supported by the following'

1. An internal moral faculty

The Moral Life of Babies
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Okay, lets discuss the intersection here between genes and memes as any particular baby born and raised in any particular historical, cultural and experiential context, might come to construe particular behaviors as right or wrong?

What innate moral prescriptions are we all born to embody? Compassion for who in what set of circumstances?

After all, Nazis feel an empathetic tug around other Nazis. Slave owners feel an empathetic tug around other slave owners.

2. The Development and Progress Evolution of Mirror Neurons
In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Same here. What particular behaviors in what particular context?

3. Other Moral Features within the Brain

Here of course some will argue that, in a wholly determined universe, the brain is but more matter embedded in immutable laws.

I suggest you research the above to update your knowledge on the concept of morality & ethics and the independent Legislation, Policing and Judiciary.

And I suggest that you take what you have learned here and situate it out in the world of actual conflicting goods.

I'm more inclined to embrace Richard Rorty's own "existential contraption" here:

Patrícia Fernandes
"Richard Rorty On Rights"

Firstly, for Rorty, ‘foundationalist’ philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant tried to find premises about human beings capable of being known to be true independently of our moral intuitions and capable of justifying those moral intuitions. But as we saw, from Rorty’s perspective we cannot find such foundations; rather, our moral community determines what is morally good, and we can’t go beyond our language and our historical conditions to find moral Truth-In-Itself. In that sense,

“the most philosophy can hope to do is to summarize our culturally influenced intuitions about the right thing to do in various situations. The summary is effected by formulating a generalization from which these intuitions can be deduced… That generalization is not supposed to ground our intuitions, but rather to summarize them.” (Philosophical Papers III, p.171).

Secondly we must keep in mind that Rorty is a pragmatist – his main concern is not with proving moral statements to be true, but about finding what works, and in this case about how best to fulfill the utopian vision sketched by the Enlightenment:

“If the activities of those who attempt to achieve this [foundationalist] sort of knowledge seem of little use in actualizing this utopia, that is a reason to think there is no such knowledge. If it seems that most of the work of changing moral intuitions is being done by manipulating our feelings rather than by increasing our knowledge, that is a reason to think there is no knowledge of the sort that philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant hoped to get.” [p. 172]

Appeals to reason and knowledge have little effect in Rorty’s thought. We have to concentrate on what works, he says, and his conclusion is that “the emergence of the human rights culture seems to owe nothing to increased moral knowledge, and everything to hearing sad and sentimental stories.

Point is humanity are already progressing in their Morality and Ethical developments by ignoring the fixed absolute moral laws of religions.
The next stage is how to expedite this inherent moral function and process that are already within the human brain.

So you keep assuring us. But [of course] this progress will almost certainly revolve around what you construe to be right rather than wrong behaviors.

And the last thing an objectivist of your ilk will ever admit to is that these "progressive behaviors" are largely existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above and elsewhere.

Psychologically, there is now just too much invested in your own particular consolidated "I", for that to ever sink in.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[Prismatic567]

Obviously, the relationship between the law and morality is jumbled up in a complex relationship that often evolves over time. Laws are basically just statutes that reflect a community consensus derived from customs and traditions and conventions and folkways and mores.

You agree laws and morality are independent and interdependent but you do not have a clue how to synchronize them for the well being of humanity. I won't go into the details on how?

The internal development of moral and ethics of the individual flows with natural evolution as supported by the following'

After all, Nazis feel an empathetic tug around other Nazis. Slave owners feel an empathetic tug around other slave owners.

Your knowledge is short on this, I suggested you researched on mirror neurons.
Nazis being buddy to each other in committing evil has nothing to do with empathy but the instinctual tribalism or the 'us versus them' impulse.

Empathy is a positive impulse toward another human being regardless of tribe, race or any make-up.

I suggest you research the above to update your knowledge on the concept of morality & ethics and the independent Legislation, Policing and Judiciary.

And I suggest that you take what you have learned here and situate it out in the world of actual conflicting goods.

Have done that in our previous discussion. You just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla in the room then. I will not go into details on this point again.

I'm more inclined to embrace Richard Rorty's own "existential contraption" here:

Patrícia Fernandes
"Richard Rorty On Rights"

Firstly, for Rorty, ‘foundationalist’ philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant tried to find premises about human beings capable of being known to be true independently of our moral intuitions and capable of justifying those moral intuitions. But as we saw, from Rorty’s perspective we cannot find such foundations; rather, our moral community determines what is morally good, and we can’t go beyond our language and our historical conditions to find moral Truth-In-Itself. In that sense,
...

“If the activities of those who attempt to achieve this [foundationalist] sort of knowledge seem of little use in actualizing this utopia, that is a reason to think there is no such knowledge. If it seems that most of the work of changing moral intuitions is being done by manipulating our feelings rather than by increasing our knowledge, that is a reason to think there is no knowledge of the sort that philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant hoped to get.” [p. 172]

...

After spending so many years researching on Kant, I dare say the above author is ignorant of Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Kant's view is very theoretical and very pragmatic in application at the same time.

Rorty's view is like catching and closing in on a school of tunas [fish] in the open ocean with holes in the his net, while Kant's net is 100% completeness without any holes.

Point is humanity are already progressing in their Morality and Ethical developments by ignoring the fixed absolute moral laws of religions.
The next stage is how to expedite this inherent moral function and process that are already within the human brain.

So you keep assuring us. But [of course] this progress will almost certainly revolve around what you construe to be right rather than wrong behaviors.

And the last thing an objectivist of your ilk will ever admit to is that these "progressive behaviors" are largely existential contraptions rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above and elsewhere.

Psychologically, there is now just too much invested in your own particular consolidated "I", for that to ever sink in.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[Ecmandu]

I'm thinking of prismatic's post when I reply.

If you truly love something, you never want it to perish. The same goes for if you are truly loved.

Once you get into the perishing game, you are an avatar of hate.

What I said in my videos is true. If you hate yourself, I have no magic wand for you.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Your knowledge is short on this, I suggested you researched on mirror neurons.
Nazis being buddy to each other in committing evil has nothing to do with empathy but the instinctual tribalism or the 'us versus them' impulse.

Empathy is a positive impulse toward another human being regardless of tribe, race or any make-up.

No, he's right. There is no evidence that Nazi parties members in general had no empathy for family members, neighbors,employees, etc. Ideology specifically dampened empathy in relation to Jews. That is the purpose propaganda and, for example, the way militaries put enemy soldiers outside the scope of humanity. Otherwise we are talking about a miraculous genetic event, where a large percentage of the German population had damaged mirror neurons. In fact your position here undermines the importance of your anti-religious campaign. It wouldn't matter that religions create inter-group lack of empathy. Muslims for example can obviously, even fanatic ones, be concerned about their families, neighbors, friends. Their mirror neurons function in relation to people considered not infidels. But ideology allows them to care less or not at all about people they are told God hates. The homophobe who beats the shit out of a gay person generally is not found to have some kind of genetic disorder where they have non-functioning mirror neurons or other brain damage. German society was not coming apart because there was no empathy between Aryans. And it would. If no one else's feelings and humanity matter on the scale of anti-semitism in that country, it would not have functioned. You can also read accounts of rabid anti-semites beginning to balk at actually shooting a jew or their 40th jew. Their mirror neurons kicking in despite the ideology when at close range and responsible for hte killing themselves. But even so, ideology - in this case often including a sense of duty - overrode empathy with Jews, but did not affect, because it was not applicable, relations with people who were not Jews. Even Hitler probably felt genuine affection for aryan children and dogs, and empathy for them when they suffered. To think that the Southern US back in sharecropper or slaveholding times IN GENERAL suffered from some sort of damage to their mirror systems, is like believing lightning struck the same spot every minute for years or some other statistically nearly impossible event. They were trained not to see blacks as human, and this overrode mirror neuron stimulated reactions in a large percentage of the white population, but only in relation to blacks. Of course class issues and other tpes of dehumanizing ideleologies may have affected other relationships, but the horror is in part that those people were capable of empathy but it was suppressed in relation to a specific group. To do this you have to 'change their minds' over time with propaganda. Which actually is an understanding you need in your campaign against, say, Islam. If there is just some weird genetic coincidence going on, it is less important that Islam exists. But precisely because Islam can dampen empathy in relation to women, infidels, atheists, etc., it is a problem. It is not that Muslims have non-functioning mirror neurons, even fanatics. It is that these neuron patterns are suppressed in relation to outgroup people and in certain ways women.

[Prismatic567]

Your knowledge is short on this, I suggested you researched on mirror neurons.
Nazis being buddy to each other in committing evil has nothing to do with empathy but the instinctual tribalism or the 'us versus them' impulse.

Empathy is a positive impulse toward another human being regardless of tribe, race or any make-up.

No, he's right. There is no evidence that Nazi parties members in general had no empathy for family members, neighbors,employees, etc. Ideology specifically dampened empathy in relation to Jews. That is the purpose propaganda and, for example, the way militaries put enemy soldiers outside the scope of humanity. Otherwise we are talking about a miraculous genetic event, where a large percentage of the German population had damaged mirror neurons.

In fact your position here undermines the importance of your anti-religious campaign. It wouldn't matter that religions create inter-group lack of empathy. Muslims for example can obviously, even fanatic ones, be concerned about their families, neighbors, friends. Their mirror neurons function in relation to people considered not infidels. But ideology allows them to care less or not at all about people they are told God hates.

The homophobe who beats the shit out of a gay person generally is not found to have some kind of genetic disorder where they have non-functioning mirror neurons or other brain damage.

German society was not coming apart because there was no empathy between Aryans. And it would. If no one else's feelings and humanity matter on the scale of anti-semitism in that country, it would not have functioned. You can also read accounts of rabid anti-semites beginning to balk at actually shooting a jew or their 40th jew. Their mirror neurons kicking in despite the ideology when at close range and responsible for hte killing themselves. But even so, ideology - in this case often including a sense of duty - overrode empathy with Jews, but did not affect, because it was not applicable, relations with people who were not Jews. Even Hitler probably felt genuine affection for aryan children and dogs, and empathy for them when they suffered. To think that the Southern US back in sharecropper or slaveholding times IN GENERAL suffered from some sort of damage to their mirror systems, is like believing lightning struck the same spot every minute for years or some other statistically nearly impossible event. They were trained not to see blacks as human, and this overrode mirror neuron stimulated reactions in a large percentage of the white population, but only in relation to blacks. Of course class issues and other tpes of dehumanizing ideleologies may have affected other relationships, but the horror is in part that those people were capable of empathy but it was suppressed in relation to a specific group. To do this you have to 'change their minds' over time with propaganda. Which actually is an understanding you need in your campaign against, say, Islam. If there is just some weird genetic coincidence going on, it is less important that Islam exists. But precisely because Islam can dampen empathy in relation to women, infidels, atheists, etc., it is a problem. It is not that Muslims have non-functioning mirror neurons, even fanatics. It is that these neuron patterns are suppressed in relation to outgroup people and in certain ways women.

You missed my point again and somehow do not want to think more seriously but rather conflating issues.

Note Iambigous was very specific, i.e.

After all, Nazis feel an empathetic tug around other Nazis. Slave owners feel an empathetic tug around other slave owners.

Above relate to Nazis with Nazis and doing their Nazi things, Slave Owners with Slave Owners, X with X, Y with Y, are like 'birds of feathers.' This is a clear case of the very domineering tribalism instinct, i.e. us versus them which easily overrides whatever empathic impulse there is within the majority.

Iambigous did not talk of relations with family members, neighbors,employees, etc. Good relations with family members who are also Nazis would entail bonding, i.e. ocytoxin - the love chemicals - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin.
Oxytocin is the chemical that drive crocodiles to 'love' and protect their babies against all threats when they are young, but the moment the oxytocin run out within months after hatching, even their young ones will be seen as meals to them. There is no question of mirror neurons and empathy in such caring and 'loving' acts by the female mother crocodiles. It is the same with most animals and humans.

Good relation with neighbors and employees who are Nazis also involved tribalism, i.e. us versus them. Empathy is out of the question here, if any it would be VERY insignificant and is overriden.

Note I did not mention damaged mirror neurons. DNA wise ALL humans inherently are born with some unactivated mirror neurons and activated by nurture circumstances. In the Nazis case where their ideology is dominant, their mirror neurons are suppressed by the more instinctual tribalistic impulses and not active. It is very normal that the tribalistic drives dominate one life when one adopt a significant ideology especially with Nazism [very tribalistic] and its daily brainwashing.
It is the same with Islam the ideology driven by a parasite zombie [of deeper primal instinctual drives] which dominate, easily inhibit and suppressed the [later evolved] mirror neurons.

I have always mentioned the Bell Curve and there will be some percentile whose mirror neurons are not totally inhibited but it is not likely they will express openly whatever little active mirror neurons they have to non-Nazis. But there were exceptions where some Nazi Germans helped Jews and others to escape Nazis' brutality.

Point is you have to exercise some degree of Principle of Charity and understand things in general as I cannot addressed related nuances and exceptions all the time.

[iambiguous]

Obviously, the relationship between the law and morality is jumbled up in a complex relationship that often evolves over time. Laws are basically just statutes that reflect a community consensus derived from customs and traditions and conventions and folkways and mores.

You agree laws and morality are independent and interdependent but you do not have a clue how to synchronize them for the well being of humanity. I won't go into the details on how?

Here we go again. You make the claim that this synchronization is possible for the "well being of humanity", but you don't bring it down to earth in order to demonstrate how one of your own "progressive behaviors" is in sync with it. Other than in piling up certain assumptions about things like slavery or smoking.

After all, Nazis feel an empathetic tug around other Nazis. Slave owners feel an empathetic tug around other slave owners.

Your knowledge is short on this, I suggested you researched on mirror neurons.
Nazis being buddy to each other in committing evil has nothing to do with empathy but the instinctual tribalism or the 'us versus them' impulse.

Empathy is a positive impulse toward another human being regardless of tribe, race or any make-up.

Here we go again. Only the manner in which you construe the historical relationship between Nazis and empathy and evil is -- axiomatically? -- how all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel.

But of course in no way shape or form does this make you an objectivist. Technically, for example. Just ask any serious philosopher.

Then back again to this:

I suggest you research the above to update your knowledge on the concept of morality & ethics and the independent Legislation, Policing and Judiciary.

And I suggest that you take what you have learned here and situate it out in the world of actual conflicting goods.

Have done that in our previous discussion. You just cannot see that 500 pound gorilla in the room then. I will not go into details on this point again.

Note to others:

Is this the case? Would anyone here be willing to link me to the "details" that Prismatic has provided previously.

Would you agree that he sufficiently addresses the points that I make in regards to the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power?

I'm more inclined to embrace Richard Rorty's own "existential contraption" here:

Patrícia Fernandes
"Richard Rorty On Rights"

Firstly, for Rorty, ‘foundationalist’ philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant tried to find premises about human beings capable of being known to be true independently of our moral intuitions and capable of justifying those moral intuitions. But as we saw, from Rorty’s perspective we cannot find such foundations; rather, our moral community determines what is morally good, and we can’t go beyond our language and our historical conditions to find moral Truth-In-Itself. In that sense,
...

“If the activities of those who attempt to achieve this [foundationalist] sort of knowledge seem of little use in actualizing this utopia, that is a reason to think there is no such knowledge. If it seems that most of the work of changing moral intuitions is being done by manipulating our feelings rather than by increasing our knowledge, that is a reason to think there is no knowledge of the sort that philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant hoped to get.” [p. 172]

...

After spending so many years researching on Kant, I dare say the above author is ignorant of Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Kant's view is very theoretical and very pragmatic in application at the same time.

Rorty's view is like catching and closing in on a school of tunas [fish] in the open ocean with holes in the his net, while Kant's net is 100% completeness without any holes.

Once again: How dare anyone not entirely agree with the point you make here!!

You know, whatever that point actually is.

[iambiguous]

Note Iambigous was very specific, i.e.

After all, Nazis feel an empathetic tug around other Nazis. Slave owners feel an empathetic tug around other slave owners.

Above relate to Nazis with Nazis and doing their Nazi things, Slave Owners with Slave Owners, X with X, Y with Y, are like 'birds of feathers.' This is a clear case of the very domineering tribalism instinct, i.e. us versus them which easily overrides whatever empathic impulse there is within the majority.

Again, this seems more in sync with Satyr's argument over at KT. These instincts [and "chemicals"] reflect that which it is natural to do. It's "nature's way". Thus things like racism and sexism and waging war are nothing more than inherent manifestations of the evolution of life itself being played out on planet earth.

Sure, they concede, over the years any number of cultural "memes" might have acted to blunt this in particular communities; but, sooner or later, nature reconfigures these folks back to the way things are "naturally" embedded in our very genetic code.

And, obviously, it's not like their arguments are completely irrational. It's just that the variables embedded in nature and the variables embedded in nurture combine to produce a vast, vast number of actual complex and convoluted human interactions reconfiguring over time in a profoundly problematic world where contingency, chance and change are ever and always right around the corner.

And then the various objectivists come along over the centuries to insist that only their own assessment -- re God, Reason, Ideology etc. -- is the most rational manner in which to understand these relationships.

It's just that their assessments are often propagated in the form of "general descriptions" of right and wrong behaviors. Or up in the scholastic clouds where words only have to be in sync with other words.

On the other hand, my bottom line here is always basically the same:

When the Nazis pursued their "final solution" against the Jews it all unfolded in a particular historical and cultural context in which particular genes and memes intertwined "in the head" of particular men and women, such that some chose to do one thing and others chose to do something else.

Why?

Now, can philosophers pin down what all rational and virtuous human beings ought to do in particular sets of circumstances like these? Are they able to unravel all of these genes and memes in order to assess that frame of mind which it is obligatory to embody by men and women who want to be thought of as reasonable and ethical?

Sure, maybe.

All I am pointing out is that "here and now" no one has of late managed to convince "me" that they have accomplished this.

Instead, I keep bumping into objectivists of your ilk who basically insist that, if I think of things like "progressive behaviors" as they do, then everything will finally become clear. Like it is to them. And then like them I can sink back down into the comfort and consolation of an objectivist frame of mind.

Like I once did.

[Meno_]

Morality is really, essentialism , grounded in the aesthetic, whereas the goal can only be gathered in the uncertainty of post modernism, where pleasure seeking is not a direct cause
This idea is.propagated not merely by Kant and Kierkegaard, but structuralists who blame current uncertainty on the very conflicting/conflation of both: the contraption we have built and the life through which it was built.

Nihilism reduced to a singular goal, fails as manifest. (Sartre's abjective reticence , post .ca. 1956)



As it is, they can not be separated, and this far, deconstruction causes more problems than gains

[iambiguous]

Morality is really, essentialism , grounded in the aesthetic, whereas the goal can only be gathered in the uncertainty of post modernism, where pleasure seeking is not a direct cause
This idea is.propagated not merely by Kant and Kierkegaard, but structuralists who blame current uncertainty on the very conflicting/conflation of both: the contraption we have built and the life through which it was built.

Okay, let's take this "general description" assessment out into the world of moral conflicts most here will be familiar with.

How might those on either side of the conflict [immigration, abortion, animal rights, drug use, gun control etc] react to this argument insofar as they might find it useful in furthering their own political agenda?

[Meno_]

Morality is really, essentialism , grounded in the aesthetic, whereas the goal can only be gathered in the uncertainty of post modernism, where pleasure seeking is not a direct cause
This idea is.propagated not merely by Kant and Kierkegaard, but structuralists who blame current uncertainty on the very conflicting/conflation of both: the contraption we have built and the life through which it was built.

Okay, let's take this "general description" assessment out into the world of moral conflicts most here will be familiar with.

How might those on either side of the conflict [immigration, abortion, animal rights, drug use, gun control etc] react to this argument insofar as they might find it useful in furthering their own political agenda?

I kind of felt You will modify a general descriptive construction , into which we have been dropped, and out of which we will try to navigate out of.

The aesthetic ground, serves as guidelines to do both: deconstruct and reconstruct in terms of satisfactory acceptance
The modus operandi of moral judgements (Kant) and the utalitarianism of Mill, can be handled in terms of the former,(in terms of duty and obligation to certain. Innate ideas/ideals, having predictable consequences , based on PLEASURE of varying kinds, moast notably of the kind Kant had in mind: of the spirit: of the Good, the Kind. the symmetrical and the proportional, those which result in equilibrium. They do not beg specific moral problems per application, they merely guide lines along critical and reasonable judgements.

There is foreseeability with Kant , but only drawn with broad brushstrokes.

I don't think Kant would venture into absolute categorization as it strays away from a reasonable standard, or be unaware of the naturalistic fallacy.

Mills, on the other hand would need to seek relative pleasure as the motive of action, where the value of (good/evil) may not be exactly defined as an outcome. Some would consider abortion to be good if the nervous system and temporality of the mother would not be outweighed by the feeling of pain and temporality of the fetus.

I feel a little of both are needed to overcome this conflict even if they are of varied opinions , or they lean to disagree on definitions of Good, as an absolute or, the value of maximum number of people are to be considered. This is the ground here, because an aesthetic judgement is primary here.

No a problem particular: Take a man, wealthy, successful, healthy , physically in good shape , and an asset to society. Then take the lowdown immigrant , having nothing, in ill health, no job, etc. Absolute ethical standards would dictate that one of the former would be seen more worth more then scores of the latter.

Neither utilitarianism nor transcendental idealism serves its reasonable practical solution individually, or socially.

If some medic were to come out and say humanity would not survive if everyone over 30 would be left unelimimated, based on the theory that medical science, by extending life by better health care - did humanity a dis service, because it raised population to unmanageable levels , thereby lowering the quality of life- would that not be a reasonable basis for the argument? Would either such ethically absolute serve mankind better then a social morality based on a reasonable prediction as to what constitutes most pleasure to the most people?

Would either, both, or none could serve best, as being the maximal
ethical guideline or the most applicable moral tool?

I think better, the utilization of existing social programs are not less worthy then pragmatic consideration, for with a pragmatism puts all things may be taken into consideration , irrespective of any particular factor. What's good does not necessarily value quantitative nor qualificational criteria one in front of the other, but neither does conditional or inherent values place unnecessary burdens of judgement on people or personages ,. It can, if the criteria change in an existentially reduced context.

So its a case by case situational ethics, which links to individually perceived morality. The link is there, potentially raised if it became necessary.

Lets say the mother rather risk her life then weigh in to the possibility that her fetus may not come out normal, based on religious notions. Could a medical expert come in with a judgement? He should when others are not willing or come in with their own opinion.

I think mind games such as the Prisoner's dilemma are much more down to earth, if You want to get a more objective judgement, and still hold such objectivity in suspense, while one's own predicament becomes linked to such a dilemma.For instance , lets say some one weren't walk down a riverbank and notice a child struggling to stay afloat. Such a person has no legal duty to preform the action of saving that child, but what if that child should be closely related, does the ethical duty change? No, but the failure to save your own child would be mostly considered highly immoral, while to save the life of another child not, particularly if, such action would not include knowledge. of special circumstances unknown - such as the proximity of the real parent, or other such unknowns.

On ground of pragmatic ethical theory, most moral problems would be solved case by case, with the aid of immediate intuition coupled with reasonable assessment of the situation.

There may be certain deontological unalterable and sensibly rational methods by which most conflicting values can be solved.or.at least.mitigated to a desirably satisfactory definitive level, and such even come to become of universal applicability.

If one cannot come to terms , in near term , AI may help, or even constrain to come to such . The less freedom is afforded, the more such functions are taken over by artificially induced short cuts.

I fear the pleasures of authentic nihilism are going the way of romanticism a century ago, except the interval is becoming shorter.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous is not a complicated person to me.

This sums up iambiguous:

"Everyone! I don't exist! BUT I feel like I'm not being heard or understood by anyone!"

Seriously, it's like, iambiguous, they were able to make someone in 1984 say 2+2=6, as the ultimate assertion of dominance, and why do men use contradictions (self refutations) as ornaments? Because that's the ONLY thing women will have sex with. Iambiguous is not in some great existential crisis ... he's trying to use his ego to assert social dominance through contradiction, to get laid, which requires zero intellectual work!! He's like a guy who sweeps everything under the rug, and someone's like "wow, you did all that work in 2 seconds?!"

I'm on to you iambiguous.

Wait, it gets even better!!

"I don't exist!! But everyone listen to me, unless I agree with an argument about morality, it's not reasonable"

Says the guy who says he doesn't exist as a preface to everything!!!

Ha!

Seriously?!

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous is not a complicated person to me.

This sums up iambiguous:

"Everyone! I don't exist! BUT I feel like I'm not being heard or understood by anyone!"

Seriously, it's like, iambiguous, they were able to make someone in 1984 say 2+2=6, as the ultimate assertion of dominance, and why do men use contradictions (self refutations) as ornaments? Because that's the ONLY thing women will have sex with. Iambiguous is not in some great existential crisis ... he's trying to use his ego to assert social dominance through contradiction, to get laid, which requires zero intellectual work!! He's like a guy who sweeps everything under the rug, and someone's like "wow, you did all that work in 2 seconds?!"

I'm on to you iambiguous.

Wait, it gets even better!!

"I don't exist!! But everyone listen to me, unless I agree with an argument about morality, it's not reasonable"

Says the guy who says he doesn't exist as a preface to everything!!!

Ha!

Seriously?!

Oh, and iambiguous....

In case you haven't figured it out, none of this shit we see around us would exist if people were moral, including us ... people don't like that thought, so they disagree...

Who here can argue that it's moral to have a child without prior building another house they can live in and own and provide their food for life? Nobody. It's perfectly logical. That's just one example.

Iambiguous is appealing morally to peoples ego that they should have been born, that they should be who they are, butterfly effect and all... and then calling everything good!

I hear this shit everyday!

"Nice day huh?" Operant conditioning. Psychoneurolinguistic programming.