Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, you can always comfort yourself with the knowledge that if it happens, you don't know if it's a good thing or not.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: But you want to know how one can live objectively correct. And unless someone here demonstrates how one does this before he takes over, you won't be sure it's a bad thing.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: And those who say it is will just be objectivists.
iambiguous wrote:Here being where I reside: the US of A.
Consider: https://www.thedailybeast.com/it-is-hap ... i?ref=home
Back in the Sixties [where I'm from] no one on the left ever really doubted it. Still, most called it "friendly fascism". Though they predicted it was literally right around the corner.
Nope. Didn't happen. At least for most of us.
Now though?
Well, a big enough chunk of the white working class certainly seems to be embracing the part that they are required to play.
Even got a few of them here I suspect.
What a fucking time for me to be down in that hole!
iambiguous wrote:Here being where I reside: the US of A.
Consider: https://www.thedailybeast.com/it-is-hap ... i?ref=home
Back in the Sixties [where I'm from] no one on the left ever really doubted it. Still, most called it "friendly fascism". Though they predicted it was literally right around the corner.
Nope. Didn't happen. At least for most of us.
Now though?
Well, a big enough chunk of the white working class certainly seems to be embracing the part that they are required to play.
Even got a few of them here I suspect.
What a fucking time for me to be down in that hole!
Precisely what I said though I said it in a less fancy way.iambiguous wrote:Actually, my argument revolves more around the conjecture -- just an assumption really -- that in a No God world there does not appear to be way in which, using the tools of philosophy, ethicists and/or political scientists are able to establish that fascism is -- is necessarily -- an irrational and immoral form of governing.
Or neither. But in any case, precisely what I was saying in my post above. You just (f***ing) explained to me exactly what I said to you, as if I said something else.In other words, fascism may well in fact be either good or bad.
You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.
Well, golly gosh. As said, I really do understand this, as I have said before. However, I would not like what you are calling a fascist takeover, my dislike being a existential contraption or not, does not matter, given my experience. I would find it unpleasant, precisely as I said, and contradicting nothing you have said here. Had my life been completely different is irrelevant to my feelings now, having had the life I had. So, I cannot be consoled by this non-existent past of mine. You however can be consoled since you focus on the epistemological issue and yearn for an objectivist position.On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you'd recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption.Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.
Totally irrelevent. I am not an objectivist. However I do have preferences. Nothing you say here contradicts what I wrote.It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things -- about "I" in the is/ought world -- that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.
Duh. You've never had my frame of mind. You used to be an objectivist. Now you are a nihilist thinking that it would be comforting to be an objectivist, who seeks to be convinced, if possible, that some form objectivism is true and this can be demonstrated. I am a non-objectivist who has no interest in that.Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: But you want to know how one can live objectively correct. And unless someone here demonstrates how one does this before he takes over, you won't be sure it's a bad thing.
Sure.Before one learns how to live objectively one needs to be convinced that one can.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: And those who say it is will just be objectivists.
[/quote]Yeah. I OBVIOUSLY understood all that. In fact that is basically what I said in my post about you. You can console yourself with the fact that if Trump takes over completely, for all you know this is good.Just to be clear, my own understanding of objectivism does not revolve around what others profess to believe is right or wrong but that they profess to believe this can be embodied by mere mortals in a No God world. That, in other words, particular individuals can in fact be in sync with the most rational way in which to resolve conflicting goods.
And, thus, historically, the invention of that rather ubiquitous "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.
Look, I often react to the Trump administration with as much outrage as Peter Kropotkin.
It's just that unlike him I recognize that my own reactions ["here and now" as opposed to "there and then"] are largely existential contraptions revolving around a particular set of political prejudices rooted in the manner in which my life has actually evolved existentially.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:iambiguous wrote: In other words, fascism may well in fact be either good or bad.
Or neither. But in any case, precisely what I was saying in my post above. You just (f***ing) explained to me exactly what I said to you, as if I said something else.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.
Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.
On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you'd recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption.Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, golly gosh. As said, I really do understand this, as I have said before. However, I would not like what you are calling a fascist takeover, my dislike being a existential contraption or not, does not matter, given my experience.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I would find it unpleasant, precisely as I said, and contradicting nothing you have said here. Had my life been completely different is irrelevant to my feelings now, having had the life I had. So, I cannot be consoled by this non-existent past of mine. You however can be consoled since you focus on the epistemological issue and yearn for an objectivist position.
It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things -- about "I" in the is/ought world -- that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Totally irrelevent. I am not an objectivist. However I do have preferences. Nothing you say here contradicts what I wrote.
Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: You used to be an objectivist. Now you are a nihilist thinking that it would be comforting to be an objectivist, who seeks to be convinced, if possible, that some form objectivism is true and this can be demonstrated. I am a non-objectivist who has no interest in that.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Could you please read my posts in the future, just try it out, on the assumption that I understand your position. I agree with you on one thread and get a correction where you confirm I agreed with you without realizing it. Here you correct me by saying what I said.
Sure, of course. I did not mean some perfect consolation, but that wasn't clear. I meant that you could remind yourself of this, leaving at least an intellectual asterisk - for all I know this isn't a bad thing. Of course, this is not going to completely console you.iambiguous wrote:IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.
It doesn't work that way of course. There is no way that I can just "click off" all that went into creating the particular political "I" that I have come to embody over many, many years.
Perhaps he does, perhaps he would say this. Perhaps on some level he does have a doubt. Another perhaps: if he is right, then perhaps it is good that he is convinced. Going into negotiations with one's intellect undercutting one's own desires can be problematical. And yes, I know that going in relentlessly convinced one is right can be a problem also.On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.
That's what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being "consoled" here you haven't a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.
We both bump into them. We both bump into those who believe they know the objective good and we both bump into those who think of this in terms of preferences.Okay, then you bump into all of those who don't care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.
Then what?
You can have objective morals and be inclined towards those processes. They can be considered the good. In fact I am quite sure many liberals,consider that attitude Good, and judge others as bad if they are not coming into the political arena or a negotiation with that attitude. They do not share your doubt that this is just another existential contraption, for all they know, but above, here, you make it seem like objective morals and those tactics are mutually exclusive. That is not the case.I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law.
I don't like Trump at all. But you seem to be ruling out some tools as immoral. Trump, being a big business guy, will use a full range of tools. I am not saying he uses they well, but also allow myself to not always go to the table being moderate and looking for compromise. My insurance company refuses to pay for a medical procedure. I will not go to a meeting with them necessarily at all looking for compromise. I may go into it slamming them with their own moral code from their website's version of the Mission Statement. I might threaten them,s aying I will go to the papers. I might find some connection I had to someone on the Board to pressure the specific bureaucrat in question to do what I want.Unlike, say, in the direction that Trump seems to be taking us?
Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general 'you'.
I don't believe in free will and I don't believe in determinism. I don't know. I see problems with believing in both and thinking one is correct. I black box it. That's different.If you don't believe in free will aren't you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? "I", "you"... what's the difference if that's true?
Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.
I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.
Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...
Marx... whaaaat a character. ...
Lefties can certainly be fascists, but I thought the current big demon of the Left was a billionaire with wealthy parents.Fixed Cross wrote:Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...
Fixed Cross wrote:That Trump saved America from Auschwitzforming would suggest that he is NOT a fascist.
But then for a leftie an apple falling to the ground would still be a racist, right?
Fixed Cross wrote:Anyone who does good is a thorn in the eye of the leftist.
The left itself is composed of Mark Zuckerberg and such vaguely humanoid billionaires along with anyone who believes what they tell them.
Yeah, it's his kindness. There are no disagreements about his policies or how he interacts with people. The Left sees kindness and they hate it. I personally see most of the Left and Right as fucked, but you are just saying random shit.It is not Trumps billion that is hated by the left, but his stark, heroic and compassionate humanity; all this is what makes the leftist angry.
Have you seriously not noted that most of the right has hated Trump all the way along?I dont know why the reduction of suffering in the Middle East, for example, is so unpalatable to the left, but it has made me lose all remaining faith in anyone on the left. The monstrous cruelty of them all, just completely inhuman.
Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.
I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.
Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...
Marx... whaaaat a character. ...
Karpel Tunnel wrote:IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don't know if it is a bad thing or not.
It doesn't work that way of course. There is no way that I can just "click off" all that went into creating the particular political "I" that I have come to embody over many, many years.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, of course. I did not mean some perfect consolation, but that wasn't clear. I meant that you could remind yourself of this, leaving at least an intellectual asterisk - for all I know this isn't a bad thing. Of course, this is not going to completely console you.
On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Perhaps he does, perhaps he would say this. Perhaps on some level he does have a doubt. Another perhaps: if he is right, then perhaps it is good that he is convinced. Going into negotiations with one's intellect undercutting one's own desires can be problematical. And yes, I know that going in relentlessly convinced one is right can be a problem also.
Once one has the position that one does not know the right thing to do, this entails also not judging Peter K. even if he seems not to realize this.
That's what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being "consoled" here you haven't a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure. But I was making a point about the distinction. The way you maintain the issue as a lack of access to objective morals, which you would like to have, but right now find no convincing argument, allows some degree of consolation when Trump takes over.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Since I do not yearn for objective morals and respond to things in terms of what I want, I do not have this option of consolation - however ineffective it would be as you accurately point out.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: This does not work for me, since I don't care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn't like that if it happened.
Okay, then you bump into all of those who don't care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.
Then what?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: We both bump into them. We both bump into those who believe they know the objective good and we both bump into those who think of this in terms of preferences.
I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:You can have objective morals and be inclined towards those processes. They can be considered the good.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Me personally, I would never limit myself to those tools. I will use any tools - note, that is not the same as 'any means' - to get what I want or avoid what I don't. The list of tools I gave your elsewhere.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you start convincing people that the best thing is that we aim for moderation and compromise, let me tell you what will happen. People with less power and more empathetic inclinations will be the ones who listen to you most. People with more power and/or less empathy will listen to you less.
If you don't believe in free will aren't you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? "I", "you"... what's the difference if that's true?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't believe in free will and I don't believe in determinism. I don't know. I see problems with believing in both and thinking one is correct. I black box it. That's different.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It amazes me how little even people with dasein noting philosophies like your do not remain agnostic about such things. But in any case, I am agnostic. I see no advantage to trying to convince myself either one must be true. I still face the same day and issues getting up from bed in the morning. Neither one makes my life easier or gives me new tools.
Fixed Cross wrote:Did logic ever play a role in leftist politics, or is leftist politics quite simply that which must escape logic to survive?
Peter Kropotkin wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.
I'd say today's left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.
Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left...
Marx... whaaaat a character. ...
K: learn a little history... Fascism is a right wing ideology.... Hitler hated
communists and communism and sent to concentration camps "leftist" and "communist"....
as far as the "far left being more "fascist" then Communist, I don't suppose
you could give us an example of this, especally since you don't seem
to have any understanding at all, what fascism is...
Kropotkin
I can certainly feel uncertain about the choices made and choices I need to make. It just doesn't involve objective morals. I am not omnicient, life is complicated, mistakes can have disastrous results.iambiguous wrote:Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your "self" without enduring "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" can, for some, be consolation enough.
Again, thisOkay, again, if this "works" for you [for all practical purposes] who am I to suggests that it ought not to work for you?
I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:iambiguous wrote:Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your "self" without enduring "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" can, for some, be consolation enough.
I can certainly feel uncertain about the choices made and choices I need to make. It just doesn't involve objective morals. I am not omnicient, life is complicated, mistakes can have disastrous results.
I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) define 'works' 2) does whatever you do 'work' 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find 'works' and 'exists'
I believe I said a couple of times that I understand the Is/ought distinction and also asked you not to keep explaining it to me.iambiguous wrote:In other words, there are choices that we make in which we are able to calculate if they were in fact mistakes. Or certainly if they led to disaster.
But how do we determine if in fact morally we ought to have chosen other behaviors instead?
I can only note that it does not work for "me" out in the world of conflicting goods.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) define 'works' 2) does whatever you do 'work' 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find 'works' and 'exists'
Users browsing this forum: No registered users