What all men ought to do

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:27 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:What are the immutable laws of matter?


Well, given what may well be a staggering gap between what science knows about existence "here and now", and all that there still is to know about it, who is to say? Definitively, for example.

Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Why does this something exist instead of some other something?

There is the matter/energy nexus. There is time for it. There is space for it. There are stars that exploded way way way way back when producing all of the "stuff" embedded in all the renditions of "reality".

But with respect to mathematics, science, and all of the mindless empirical interactions of this "stuff", there seems to be a consensus "here and now" [in the scientific community] that it is all somehow intertwined in...

"The Laws of Nature: All interactions in the Universe are governed by four fundamental forces. On the large scale, the forces of Gravitation and Electromagetism rule, while the Strong and Weak Forces dominate the microscopic realm of the atomic nucleus."

But: Where the fuck [and how the fuck] do we fit the human brain into that? And how the fuck is "the mind" the same or different from "the brain"?

Then back again to the philosophical antinomies embedded in assessments like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

So, somehow over billions of years this "star stuff" evolved into the human brain. But what "on earth" does that actually mean "for all practical purposes"?

Me, I am officially going on the record here: "I'm really not sure."

And then this part: dasein. :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:38 pm

So you don't really know?
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:07 pm

Maybe I should have worded it what are "the immutable laws of matter?"
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:32 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:So you don't really know?


Nope.

On the other hand, if I can know only what I was ever going to know, perhaps the laws of matter will reconfigure and then one day I will know.

Unless of course I die first.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:So you don't really know?


Nope.

On the other hand, if I can know only what I was ever going to know, perhaps the laws of matter will reconfigure and then one day I will know.

Unless of course I die first.


Which doesn't bring us any closer to understanding this whole castle in the sky:

"It comes down to whether or not it can be demonstrated that human thought itself either is or is not wholly in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

After all, what has prompted philosophical discussions down through the ages regarding "dualism"?

And out of this flows discussions regarding the human "soul" in sync with one or another "will of God".

Or is "mind" just more matter? "Stuff" from the Big Bang that somehow managed to evolve into matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to speculate as to whether or not that speculation itself is within its own control autonomously.

I don't pretend to have figured it all out. 

How about you?"
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:20 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote: So you don't really know?


Nope.

On the other hand, if I can know only what I was ever going to know, perhaps the laws of matter will reconfigure and then one day I will know.

Unless of course I die first.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: Which doesn't bring us any closer to understanding this whole castle in the sky:


It comes down to whether or not it can be demonstrated that human thought itself either is or is not wholly in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

After all, what has prompted philosophical discussions down through the ages regarding "dualism"?

And out of this flows discussions regarding the human "soul" in sync with one or another "will of God".

Or is "mind" just more matter? "Stuff" from the Big Bang that somehow managed to evolve into matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to speculate as to whether or not that speculation itself is within its own control autonomously.

I don't pretend to have figured it all out.

How about you?"


That's the same fucking boat we're all in.

What differentiates most of us here though is that we are motivated do come into places like ILP. Why? Because questions of this sort became important to us. For whatever reason. It's all rooted existentially in dasein.

We wonder what the answers might possibly be. Or if the answers are even accessible to or assessable by the human mind.

I just focus on distinguishing between the either/or world and the is/ought world. Between what might be made demonstrably true for all rational men and women, and what may never be more than an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein.

As all of this may or may not be intertwined in what may or may not be a wholly determined universe going all the way back to figuring out why there is something and not nothing at all.

And why this something and not another.

Really, what is relevance of this particular exchange in a context that mind-boggling?
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:37 pm

I just think that if you applied the same rigor to your question that you apply to your contenders, you wouldn't be in a hole.
"I am not fazed by myself. I have dragged myself through too much of myself to be fazed. Others are disturbed by the slightes articulation of themselves. But they are unfazed by the machine."
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:56 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I just think that if you applied the same rigor to your question that you apply to your contenders, you wouldn't be in a hole.


Again: What on earth does this mean?

My question revolves first and foremost around this: How ought one to live?

In other words, morally and politically in a particular context out in a particular world construed from a particular point of view.

You choose the conflicting behaviors and the context.

Note the rigor to which you both describe and assess the conflict given the philosophical parameters of your own moral narrative.

Then we're back to an exchange of this sort:

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote: I have a friend. Jack. He is gay and doesn't want to be. Why? I think because a person in his life told him he better be and better be it in the way that person says. That's certainly a good reason not to want to be.

Jack is a good close friend of mine. Sometimes he makes passes at me. I think he thinks that if a straight man seduces a straight man in secret, then it is not gay. This causes him a fucking world of pain. Which, because I am his friend, causes me pain.

What would you have me do? Wonder about phenomenology or some bullshit? Fuck you.

I want my friend to be free.


From my frame of mind, it's not a question of what you wonder about phenomenology but the extent to which you are able discuss the phenomena that revolves around homosexuality; such that what you think is true regarding this particular context, is in fact true objectively for all sentient human beings.

There is what is in fact true here and what particular individuals think is in fact true here. Juxtaposed in turn with what they are convinced ought to be true instead. Is Jack a homosexual? Is how he feels about that a rational frame of mind? Is how you think that he thinks about it a rational frame of mind? Is there a moral narrative and a political agenda here that reflects the most [or the only] virtuous manner in which the phenomena revolving around human biology revolving around human sexuality ought to be embodied by all reasonable men and women?

What on earth does it mean for someone to be "free" here given the gap between what any particular one of us think we know about homosexuality and all that can be known about it as a phenomenon?

Fuck me? Is that a philosophically appropriate thing to express here? Or is that too just another manifestaton of your own partiular "I" as an "existential contraption"?

But I value him as a person more than I want him to stop hurting people. My objective is his health, not morality. Because he is my friend and I care about him.


Okay, but to what extent is your reaction to his reaction to your reaction to his pain embedded in the most rational assessment of the situation? To what extent might his pain be rooted instead in conservative political dogmas that construe homosexuality as, among other things a Sin against God or "unnatural" or a "perversion"?

How are all of these variables not embedded in a particular historical, cultural and experiential context? Ever evolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change?

What is the most philosophically astute reaction that all reasonable and ethical men and women are obligated to embody here?

The way he thinks about it? The way you think about it? The way I think about it? The way others do?

Pedro I Rengel wrote: I would like to tell my friend that he will be more powerful, not less, if he accepts his desires. I want to tell him that gayness is far from the only thing the fucking machine appropriates and makes shitty, and he should just deal with it regarding that person that tells him he shouldn't be.


So, is this the most phenomenologically sound assessment of these relationships? Should we poll all phenomenologists [and then all the ontologists] and see if we can construct the most rational consensus regarding same-sex relationships?

And, again, how is all of this related to the OP:

How do you know someone is a phenomenologist?
If you scratch under the surface, they believe in ideal forms.


Pedro I Rengel wrote: What would a lover of wisdom like me do in this situation? First of all, tell him that it's not abouy coming out of the closet or some faggety ass modernist shit like that. It is simply to accept his desires and build THEM into his conscious self rather than the goddamn soul eating machine.


In my view, this is basically just another "existential contraption". A particular political prejudice rooted more rather than less in dasein. In the actual sequence of your lived experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge --- as they relate to homosexuality.

Why don't you apprise us of this sequence. In the manner in which I describe my own existential trajectory with respect to abortion. How would you differentiate between philosophical realism and political idealism with respect to this issue?

Pedro I Rengel wrote: But here's the catch! I know there is a deep cruelty in me. So I hesitate to do anything about this because I fear it will wind up being a cruel thing somehow.


Okay, is this cruelty more the product of genes or of memes? In the manner in which some argue that homosexuality itself is more the product of genes than memes? How does the philosopher [as a moral objectivist] go about pinning this down? As either a phenomenologist or as an ontologist. With respect to human sexuality a priori and a posteriori.

And then of course a deep dive into the convoluted nature of human psychology:

Pedro I Rengel wrote: I have accepted this will to subjugate into my conscious self where care about other people also is. So I just turn it on myself. I subjugate ghosts in myself. It's been pretty fruitful. Sometimes people jump in while I do it and they have a choice: allow the ghost I am subjugating to be subjugated in him or protect the ghost.

If I see the person is in any actual danger, I hit the self immolate button and give him an exit. I figure, if he is brave, he will subjugate the ghost. If he is not brave, then he is of no interest to me and might as well leave.


We can take this assessment to folks that champion Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud or Wilhelm Reich. And then after they chip in we can take their insights to the phenomenologists and the ontologists.

Pin down once and for all Jack's actual objective situation. And then move on to yours and mine.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:18 pm

You know Iamb,
Peter I Rengel wrote what seems to be a very concrete, on the ground, description of a situation from his life. He was really very open, not being a 'serious' philosopher. It was open and human.

And you responded with a bunch of abstract emotionless garbage.

Whether he answered your question or not, you acted like you have no empathy at all.

How can one take your assertion that your goal is finding out how one ought to live seriously?

I don't believe in objective morals, but if by some chance they included being without empathy, I would ignore them.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You know Iamb,
Peter I Rengel wrote what seems to be a very concrete, on the ground, description of a situation from his life. He was really very open, not being a 'serious' philosopher. It was open and human.

And you responded with a bunch of abstract emotionless garbage.

Whether he answered your question or not, you acted like you have no empathy at all.

How can one take your assertion that your goal is finding out how one ought to live seriously?

I don't believe in objective morals, but if by some chance they included being without empathy, I would ignore them.


Okay, that's your reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual.

But my point revolves around the assumption that emotional and psychological reactions are no less existential contraptions emdedded and embodied in dasein.

We all come into world hard wired [biologically/genetically] to react to such things as we do. That's a manifestation of the evolution of life on earth.

Then the part about nurture -- historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts.

So basically what you accusing me of is not reacting to him as you would. Your reaction is, what, more reasonable? more virutous? more decent? more civilized?

On the other hand, there are those who despise homosexuality. Those folks who might react to both Peter and Jack with...revulsion? So at least my reaction is, what, more reasonable, more virtuous than theirs?

Besides, this is the philosophy forum. Here what would seem to matter most of all is the extent to which we either are or are not able to close the gap between what we think we know is true about things like homosexuality and what we either are or are not able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think in turn.

Pedro's example did not succeed in nudging me up out of the hole that I am in.

So [perhaps] my reaction to him was out of frustration. Or the polemicist in me went a bit too far.

But I will be the first to admit that my reaction to my own reactions here is embedded in the enormously problematic complexity of any particular individual's intentions and motivations.

That's what it comes down to when "I" is unable to be in sync with the "real me" in sync with the right thing to do.

And I'm still basically out of sync with understanding how as a "pragmatist" you are not in turn down in that hole with me.

Somehow you have managed to put together a frame of mind that seems to make your own "I" less fractured and fragmented than mine.

Affording you [it would seem] a more comforting and consoling way in which to negotiate conflicting goods at the intersection of dasein and political economy.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:50 pm

That's what it comes down to when "I" is unable to be in sync with the "real me" in sync with the right thing to do.
What is "I" and the "real me" in this particular context? What are the differences? What are the similarities?

What does it mean to be "in sync with the right thing to do" in this context?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:11 pm

phyllo wrote:
That's what it comes down to when "I" is unable to be in sync with the "real me" in sync with the right thing to do.
What is "I" and the "real me" in this particular context? What are the differences? What are the similarities?


The context here would seem to be Karpel's reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual. And now your reaction.

You tell me: Are there or are there not those convinced that how they think about homosexuality is in sync with who they think they really are in sync with what they think a rational/virtuous understanding of the right thing to do is? This may revolve around God or around a political ideology or around a deonotolgical philosophical contraption or around the insistence that only the correct understanding of nature allows for some to become ubermen while the rest become sheep.

Their arguments will intertwine a set of assumptions [political prejudices] that reflect any number of similarities or differences.

phyllo wrote: What does it mean to be "in sync with the right thing to do" in this context?


Ask them. They'll tell you. Then you either become "one of us" or "one of them".

Or, again, your point isn't about that. It's about something more important [to you] that I keep missing.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
That's what it comes down to when "I" is unable to be in sync with the "real me" in sync with the right thing to do.
What is "I" and the "real me" in this particular context? What are the differences? What are the similarities?


The context here would seem to be Karpel's reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual. And now your reaction.

You tell me: Are there or are there not those convinced that how they think about homosexuality is in sync with who they think they really are in sync with what they think a rational/virtuous understanding of the right thing to do is? This may revolve around God or around a political ideology or around a deonotolgical philosophical contraption or around the insistence that only the correct understanding of nature allows for some to become ubermen while the rest become sheep.

Their arguments will intertwine a set of assumptions [political prejudices] that reflect any number of similarities or differences.

phyllo wrote: What does it mean to be "in sync with the right thing to do" in this context?


Ask them. They'll tell you. Then you either become "one of us" or "one of them".

Or, again, your point isn't about that. It's about something more important [to you] that I keep missing.
You wrote a statement and put it in both bold and italics for emphasis, so it must be something important to you.

Yet when asked about it, you are unable to explain. Instead you write about other people.

Other people didn't write that statement ... you did. There is nothing for them to explain.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:04 pm

phyllo wrote:You wrote a statement and put it in both bold and italics for emphasis, so it must be something important to you.

Yet when asked about it, you are unable to explain. Instead you write about other people.

Other people didn't write that statement ... you did. There is nothing for them to explain.


Sorry, but I have no idea what it is that you are trying to communicate to me here about your reaction to my reaction to Karpel's reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual.

The context [of late] in other words.

I see these reactions as embedded existentially [subjectively/subjunctively] at the intersection of dasein, value judgments and political economy. How then do folks react to that?

Note to others:

What explanation from me do you imagine that he is looking for? Try to reconfigure his point into something that I might be more likely to actually understand.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:37 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:You wrote a statement and put it in both bold and italics for emphasis, so it must be something important to you.

Yet when asked about it, you are unable to explain. Instead you write about other people.

Other people didn't write that statement ... you did. There is nothing for them to explain.


Sorry, but I have no idea what it is that you are trying to communicate to me here about your reaction to my reaction to Karpel's reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual.

The context [of late] in other words.

I see these reactions as embedded existentially [subjectively/subjunctively] at the intersection of dasein, value judgments and political economy. How then do folks react to that?

Note to others:

What explanation from me do you imagine that he is looking for? Try to reconfigure his point into something that I might be more likely to actually understand.
Holy Shit.

I ask him to explain one fucking line from one of his posts and it's too much for him to handle. #-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:06 pm

phyllo wrote:Holy Shit.

I ask him to explain one fucking line from one of his posts and it's too much for him to handle. #-o


I attempted to explain my take on a particular series of reactions above. And I have been grappling with the existential implications of that line now for years.

And all you are doing here is insisting that the manner in which I handled it above is not to your liking.

And [I suspect] it will never be to your liking until I handle it in the only manner in which you construe it to have been handled.

In other words, in sync with the manner in which you "handle" things like Communism.

Beyond that it's just one more "failure to communicate" in a forum where that is not at all uncommon. At least at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political power.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:54 am

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Holy Shit.

I ask him to explain one fucking line from one of his posts and it's too much for him to handle. #-o


I attempted to explain my take on a particular series of reactions above. And I have been grappling with the existential implications of that line now for years.

And all you are doing here is insisting that the manner in which I handled it above is not to your liking.

And [I suspect] it will never be to your liking until I handle it in the only manner in which you construe it to have been handled.

In other words, in sync with the manner in which you "handle" things like Communism.

Beyond that it's just one more "failure to communicate" in a forum where that is not at all uncommon. At least at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political power.
:lol:
You ignored what I actually asked.

You handled something completely different.

Don't blame that on dasein, conflicting goods and political power.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:02 am

phyllo wrote:You ignored what I actually asked.

You handled something completely different.

Don't blame that on dasein, conflicting goods and political power.


Back then to this:

Note to others:

What explanation from me do you imagine that he is looking for? Try to reconfigure his point [about "handling"] into something that I might be more likely to actually understand.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pneumatic-Coma » Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:13 am

I ought a save this historical thread for a rainy day.
(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.
User avatar
Pneumatic-Coma
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Purgatory

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:49 am

iambiguous wrote:Okay, that's your reaction to my reaction to Pedro's reaction to Jack's reaction to being a homosexual
Obviously.

But my point revolves around the assumption that emotional and psychological reactions are no less existential contraptions emdedded and embodied in dasein.
Sure, so what?

We all come into world hard wired [biologically/genetically] to react to such things as we do. That's a manifestation of the evolution of life on earth.
Sure. I've had to remind you of this on occasion.

Then the part about nurture -- historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts.
I don't think I've have given you the slightest indication I don't understand this.

So basically what you accusing me of is not reacting to him as you would. Your reaction is, what, more reasonable? more virutous? more decent? more civilized?
I drew attention to your reaction, not just your attention. But even you might notice my reaction and reevaluate how you responded. That is a possbility.

But for you it seems no on the table. It is not on the table that my reaction might affect you, nor, it seems, are you concerned about how your responses might affect other people.

I think that is worth pointing out in the case of someone whose drive is to find out how one ought to live. Why such a drive? It is not clear to me, given your solipsism, that this drive to find out how one ought to live comes from empathy or even includes empathy. It seems more like finding out what the rules are. Which for some might be a poor base for a morality, perhaps even you mght find it odd realizing that. Perhaps when faced with this you will change. I doubt it, but clearly you do not even consider this an issue.

That my reactions to you might make you reevaluate your reactions.

That is not even on the table.

You frame my response as

KT thinks he knows the right way to live. He is angry at me for not living the right, objectively moral, or civilized way, but this is all a contraption.

THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INTERACTION BETWEEN TWO HUMANS WHO MIGHT AFFECT ONE ANOTHER.

is not on the table.

It is only about proof of how one ought to live or lack thereof.

And while it is true that his post has not given you the answer to your hole, you could still notice how you responded and decide, yes, I don't really like how I responded. I cannot know if it was bad or not, but I would prefer, until I know the right way to live when it is demonstrated, to act differently.

Now this is not me saying you SHOULD have changed your mind, even slightly. It is me pointing out how you interact with people AND what you do not even consider possible.

And above, in this post to me, repeating things AS IF I need to hear, them again. IOW your communication is detached from your readers. It is as if you do not understand that you are interacting with specific people.

You ask above if I am trying to say X is the way you should have reacted. It is more like I am holding up a mirror and showing you how you interact. Perhaps, as a social mammal, there are parts of you, despite your lack of objective proof, might nevertheless dislike what you saw.

That you will actually mull over this, I doubt in the extreme. But others may read the interactoin and perhaps understand what is so offputting about you in a new way.

Pedro's example did not succeed in nudging me up out of the hole that I am in.

LOL. You are someone with a completely instrumental view of other human beings.

So [perhaps] my reaction to him was out of frustration. Or the polemicist in me went a bit too far.
It was not what was present that bothered me, it was what was absent.

But I will be the first to admit that my reaction to my own reactions here is embedded in the enormously problematic complexity of any particular individual's intentions and motivations.
But you do not react to individuals. You repeat your ideas, regardless of whether they have shown understanding. You do not for a moment consider that they have their own independent agendas. You psychoanalyze them en masse, knowing their motivations.

You do not seem to have grasped your own ideas, nor do you seem to care much for others, except to the degree they lead you to your goal.

And I'm still basically out of sync with understanding how as a "pragmatist" you are not in turn down in that hole with me.

Somehow you have managed to put together a frame of mind that seems to make your own "I" less fractured and fragmented than mine.

Affording you [it would seem] a more comforting and consoling way in which to negotiate conflicting goods at the intersection of dasein and political economy.
Sigh.

You do not negotiate conflicting goods. You write about the issue online. I probably suffer conflicting goods more than you do and deal actively with people opposed values than you do. That you are sick is certainly part of this, since you are, it seems, not out in active social interactions with others.

There are a number of reasons I am not in your particular hole: but here's the obvious one.

I am not looking for an objective answer to: How ought I live? I am pragmatic. You have an extra issue. You want to have this demonstrated to you. I don't think it can.

I still face all the practical issues of dealing with people with different preferences to mine. And conflicting goods with each other. And given that I am out there more than you, this is a real, daily struggle.

But I don't add on this task.

Basically you might as well be, in terms of life role, an objectivist. There is an answer and I must find it. Though for you it is There probably isn't an answer, but I will make it my everyday task to find it anyway.

What the fuck are you going to do if you find it?

Will you have the empathy or interest to apply it in ways that matter?

Or if it turns out that empathy is objectively a problem, what difference would it make? Is this a pascal's wager type thing? A just in case?

Do you really think you can be good if your heart's not in it? I can't see how it could be.

Let's say you find out God hates homosexuals. Will you be a good man and hate them?

Will you morality be alike a kind of court life, presenting yourself for God or Science as the good man?

If it turns out that morality fits more or less with your temperment, the objective morality, well, then you might as well have just done what you wanted.

it is very hard to believe you understand your own motivations for this quest given how you interact with other people.

But sure, I don't know, maybe you do understand them.

And yes, for a homosexual, the lack of homophobia in your response might very well seem better. But even homophobes can and in fact do have empathy, it's just they put homosexuals outside of this, often, or at least in many contexts. And their response is a human one with feeling.

Encountering you is like encountering an AI intent on solving a problem, but also one lacking the ability to respond to individuals.

I suppose it's good training for us, because that future is one of the likely ones.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:22 am

KP, I enjoyed your post, but Iamb will be here honing the same distractions ten years from now.

What is going on is, going by my twelve years of experience with him, that the possibility of decision-making is attacked by forcefully negating all human agency: everything that comes down to a human decision (all morality and ethics) is reduced to "an interesting question" which must at all cost remain a matter of detached reflection and never become a decisive reality.

I think this stone cold refusal of human activity is also what impresses some, who have been tempted to grow to distrust human agency by, as I see it, having other people's mistakes thrown their own conscience.

I suspect the hole Iamb is in is of a similar making.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:56 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
But my point revolves around the assumption that emotional and psychological reactions are no less existential contraptions emdedded and embodied in dasein.

Sure, so what?


Before addressing the rest of your points, I would like to focus in particular on this one.

So what?!

So what if the emotions that you feel in reacting to the world around you are not in sync with that which you construe to be who you really are? Someone for whom "I" is not fractured and fragmented?

And reactions that are in turn thought [by most] to reflect how a reasonable man or woman ought to react to particular human behaviors in a particular set of circumstances out in the world around them?

So what...?

Let's just say that "for all practical purposes" we think about the implications of this distinction in two very different ways.

If, out in the world of conflicting goods, someone becomes convinced that "I" here is largely the product of one particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas [rather than another] then he or she is acknowledging that a new set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas, might reconfigure "I" into embracing a whole new set of moral and political prejudices.

Unless of course they manage to convince themselves that is not going to happen? Why? Because they already believe that "I" here is the real deal in touch with "the right thing to do". Or as in sync with it as they need to be.

Then it comes down to the extent to which those using the tools of philosophy are able to address this issue in the most reasoable manner.

Like me, you don't believe in "objective morality". But, again, unlike me you don't see "I" here as I do: fractured and fragmented. Or not as much as I do.

And my aim has always been to grasp how "for all practical purposes" you are not down in the sort of existential crevice/hole that "I" am in.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:49 am

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
But my point revolves around the assumption that emotional and psychological reactions are no less existential contraptions emdedded and embodied in dasein.

Sure, so what?


Before addressing the rest of your points, I would like to focus in particular on this one.

So what?!

So what if the emotions that you feel in reacting to the world around you are not in sync with that which you construe to be who you really are? Someone for whom "I" is not fractured and fragmented?

And reactions that are in turn thought [by most] to reflect how a reasonable man or woman ought to react to particular human behaviors in a particular set of circumstances out in the world around them?

So what...?

Let's just say that "for all practical purposes" we think about the implications of this distinction in two very different ways.

If, out in the world of conflicting goods, someone becomes convinced that "I" here is largely the product of one particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to ideas [rather than another] then he or she is acknowledging that a new set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas, might reconfigure "I" into embracing a whole new set of moral and political prejudices.

Unless of course they manage to convince themselves that is not going to happen? Why? Because they already believe that "I" here is the real deal in touch with "the right thing to do". Or as in sync with it as they need to be.

Then it comes down to the extent to which those using the tools of philosophy are able to address this issue in the most reasoable manner.

Like me, you don't believe in "objective morality". But, again, unlike me you don't see "I" here as I do: fractured and fragmented. Or not as much as I do.

And my aim has always been to grasp how "for all practical purposes" you are not down in the sort of existential crevice/hole that "I" am in.

Look at you, repeating it yet again. You are so confused that you think repeating your position is a response that fits ANY POSSIBLE REACTION TO YOU or any thread or anything anyone says. It's like if someone says you forgot to buy milk and you think that talking for the millionth time about nested Russian dolls is a response to that.

1) I know your positions on all this 2) thus it is superfluous to my reaction to your reaction.3) and it is a category errror, yet again here. I responded to what you did, not your philosophy. I responded to an action. Repeating your philosophy is confused. Apart from my already knowing it, it is not a response to the type of post I posted. I did not post something that argued that X is the correct way to act, giving my arguments, then your response might have fit.

Let's up the ante with a harsher example. I am walking down the street and see you push an old lady to the ground. I run up and hear you explaining to her that her outrage is [fill in the blank with Iamb's contraptions, dasein, etc.and that for you it is important to find out how one ought to live] I realize you are some kind of nihilist and one seeking to find objective morality. I express my feelings about seeing you push some old lady to the ground for not getting out of your way fast enough. I have heard this person, you, say that you are trying to find out how you ought to live. So I hold a mirror up and say what I just saw happen.

Does this mean that I think you were objectively immoral? No.

What it means is I think there is a chance, given your stated goal, that you yourself might realize that you also dislike your behavior. I disliked it. We are both social mammals or were born that way anyway. It is possible you might re-evaluate (and also that others might get something from the response, and then it was expressive)

It is not a foregone conclusion, but a possibility that reacting to what you did in a simple emotional way, summing it up, might cut through a fog, and you might re-evaluate it. Might decide you don't really want to act like that.

I also consider it possible you are so depressed or afraid of death or whatever that you do not realize how you are behaving and in fact on some level you would prefer not to.

When I say this to you, you rehash the lecture on dasein, contraptions, etc.

So what? This is irrelevant. I did not come to you saying that I know the objective good and here it is.

I responded to someone who lacked empathy in a certain situation.

A response on your part that would make sense:

I don't care about him as a person. I just want my answer.

or

I have only one purpose here and people are at their own risk when they deal with me. If they find this unpleasant or rude, it is heir own fault.

IOW owning what I see as your callousness.

Or you could say 'HM, I don't know if it is actually bad, lacking empathy, but when I look at how I responded, I guess I don't like it. I might not act like that in the future.'

There are many more possible responses that would be responses to what I wrote. And note that I said 'make sense'. I am not saying those (contradictory) responses are the right ones. I am saying they indicate that you read my post and understood it. If I tell someone they should leave a burning building and they lecture me on Dasein as a response to my warning, they are making a category error. No, I'll stay, I want to burn. Or, I think the firemen have got it under control. It's steam from the showers, there's no fire. Thank you, let's get out of here. Those responses are responses to what I said. They show an understanding of the message.

But your behavior and its effects are so not on the table that you cannot see anything as not part of your issue. It is inconceivable that you would be affected by someone pointing something out, so in fact I was trying to prove how one should live. You only see nails, as a hammer.

And you deal with all human intereraction AS getting or not getting information that you want, their wants or goals do not exist.

It seems to me this does not matter to you and holding up the mirror will not have an effect. But I do not write instrumentally (just). I also write to express my reactions. And then perhaps someone else will notice the pattern I am pointing out and find that useful.

People seeing others in just intrumental terms is increasing in society, and seeing themselves that way - re:social media. It is a good pattern to notice. Some people may not like it. For those who do not like being treated AS ONLY A MEANS TO AN END might benefit from having examples laid out. I would prefer a society that is less solipsistic, includes more empathy and does not have a purely instrumental view of self and others. So here I reacted to one example of that kind of stuff.

While you are off in the clouds trying to figure out how one ought to live, I am here on the ground trying to affect things. It is vastly less cluttered.

You are searching for how one ought to live. If you find that out, get your rules, you will still need to navigate responses other people have to your actions. No set of rules will cover all situations. And it would seem at least possible that empathy will be one of the guides. But since I do not believe there is objective morality, or perhaps I should say, despite the fact that I don't, I find it odd that someone is seeking how one ought to live but cannot even grasp that the way they interact with other people might be important, rather than just the solving of the question or not. Call me mad but it seems, even, ironic. I mean, I assume you can be kind and would help someone who fell down, call the police if you saw a rape outside your window. We are not talking about sociopathic behavior, but there seems to me to be a fundamental not much interest in the goals, wants, expression of people here. And yet this powerful drive to find out how you ought to live.

NOTE TO OTHERS; I am sure PIR is fine. It is not that I saw him as a victim. I just watched someone respond to what seemed like an emotional openness in an extremely callous and confused fashion and called it out.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
So basically what you accusing me of is not reacting to him as you would. Your reaction is, what, more reasonable? more virutous? more decent? more civilized?


It is not on the table that my reaction might affect you, nor, it seems, are you concerned about how your responses might affect other people.


No, the point on my table is twofold:

1] to the extent such reactions are embedded subjectively in the existential contraption that is dasein, communication here is going to be problematic. Why? Because...

2] given the extent to which your own sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge relating to homosexuality is different from mine, there is only so far that either of us can go in communicating what we think and feel about Pedro and Jack above.

This is in fact the fundamental assumption that I make in encompassing my own understanding of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And yet [of course] even in communicating this frame of mind [set of assumptions] I bump into the same existential gaps in our narratives.

And that, in my view, is precisely why others will insist that there is a way around this. Objectively as it were. In other words, re God and religion, a rational assessment of moral obligation, political dogma and/or a take on "human nature".

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think that is worth pointing out in the case of someone whose drive is to find out how one ought to live. Why such a drive? It is not clear to me, given your solipsism, that this drive to find out how one ought to live comes from empathy or even includes empathy.


Again, I noted above the manner in which the subjunctive "I" is seen by me to be no less an existential contraption. After all, why, for all practical purposes, do different people either have or not have empathy for some things and not for others?

Is there a way in which to know this epistemologically? Is there a way in which to grasp empathy rationally such that any particular individual's level of empathy for any particular thing can be reasonably calculated and evaluated?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems more like finding out what the rules are. Which for some might be a poor base for a morality, perhaps even you mght find it odd realizing that. Perhaps when faced with this you will change. I doubt it, but clearly you do not even consider this an issue.


What I don't do is to consider it in the manner in which you do. Here and now. What I can't predict in turn is how I will feel about it a year from now. What I do surmise though is that "I" here is ever and always refabricated [as an existential contraption] in a world of contingency, chance and change. A world in which most of us never really know with any degree of certainty exaclty what new exoeriences, relationships and ideas await us down the road.

I think about that and feel considerably more "fractured and fragmented" than you do. Than most others here.

That part in fact is definitely "on the table".

As for this:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You frame my response as

KT thinks he knows the right way to live. He is angry at me for not living the right, objectively moral, or civilized way, but this is all a contraption.

THE FACT THAT IT IS AN INTERACTION BETWEEN TWO HUMANS WHO MIGHT AFFECT ONE ANOTHER.

is not on the table.


As I noted previously with you, I accept that you reject [as I do here and now] the idea of an objective morality. So morality would seem to be an "existential contraption" for mere mortals in a No God world.

But, in reacting to the world around me, "I" think about this -- mentally, emotionally and psychologically -- in a way that is different than you do. But I would never argue that one of is closer to the truth than the other. If for no other reason I am not convinced that such a truth even exists.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And while it is true that his post has not given you the answer to your hole, you could still notice how you responded and decide, yes, I don't really like how I responded. I cannot know if it was bad or not, but I would prefer, until I know the right way to live when it is demonstrated, to act differently.


From my point of view, his point of view was bursting at the seams with a particular set of political prejudices. And yet it is precisely such beliefs that allow most objectivists to avoid the hole I'm in altogether.

He is able to sustain what is no longer within reach for me: a foundation upon which to anchor "I" when the discussions or the behaviors revolve around homosexuality. So, sure, part of my reaction reflects that. Just as another part reflects 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


But how on earth could I ever possibly get to the bottom of what makes me "tick" here in terms of my intentions and motivation? We simply think about this is very different ways.

Or so it seems to me. I would need to go back to the day that I was born. I would need to note the sequence of literally thousands upon thousand upon thousand of existential variables and then put them all together into a definitive assessment of "I" and homosexuality.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:And above, in this post to me, repeating things AS IF I need to hear, them again. IOW your communication is detached from your readers. It is as if you do not understand that you are interacting with specific people.


I explained this to you before. This thread has garnered over 3,100 views in less than a month. It's not like it's only you and me here. Others our reading the stuff I post. And maybe, just maybe, one of them, by "mulling over" the points I make, will come closer to understanding my take on these relationships better than you do.

Pedro's example did not succeed in nudging me up out of the hole that I am in.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:LOL. You are someone with a completely instrumental view of other human beings.


Again, let's bring this accusation down to earth. Choose a set of conflicting behaviors revolving around conflicting value judgments. And a context. We can exchange moral narratives. And then you can point out specifically actual examples of what you mean by this.

You seem to embody pragmatism in a way that I am not able to grasp. So all we can really do [in my view] is to keep the exchange focused on actual behaviors in conflict. Actual contexts that most here will be familiar with. Seek to describe to each other what unfolds inside our heads as we react to the behaviors of others that are not in sync with our own. Given the manner in which we have come to understand why and how we do choose one set of behaviors rather than another.

You can point out to me with is "absent" in my own reactions.

And then we can take things like this...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: But you do not react to individuals. You repeat your ideas, regardless of whether they have shown understanding. You do not for a moment consider that they have their own independent agendas. You psychoanalyze them en masse, knowing their motivations.

You do not seem to have grasped your own ideas, nor do you seem to care much for others, except to the degree they lead you to your goal.


...out for a spin in discussing particular behaviors in particular contexts.

I'm more than willing to concede that you are telling me something important here. But I need the text illustrated.

And then what is of particular interest to me:

And I'm still basically out of sync with understanding how as a "pragmatist" you are not in turn down in that hole with me.

Somehow you have managed to put together a frame of mind that seems to make your own "I" less fractured and fragmented than mine.

Affording you [it would seem] a more comforting and consoling way in which to negotiate conflicting goods at the intersection of dasein and political economy.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Sigh.

You do not negotiate conflicting goods. You write about the issue online. I probably suffer conflicting goods more than you do and deal actively with people opposed values than you do. That you are sick is certainly part of this, since you are, it seems, not out in active social interactions with others.


Consider:

If Trump gets Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court here in America, there's a very real possibility that the abortion issue could be sent back to the States. What else is there here but for those on both sides of this wrenching moral and political divide to exchange arguments and behaviors that will come into conflict. What does it mean for you to be a "pragmatist" here such that you avoid the hole that "I" am in given the manner in which I construe identity and conflicting goods in a No God world?

You explain it thusly:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:There are a number of reasons I am not in your particular hole: but here's the obvious one.

I am not looking for an objective answer to: How ought I live? I am pragmatic. You have an extra issue. You want to have this demonstrated to you. I don't think it can.


So, when you confront others who don't share your own values on things like abortion, you figure, what, "well, I've thought it through to the best of my ability and here and now this is what I think. It just doesn't concern me all that much that had my life been very different I might be arguing for the other side. And even though both sides have rational arguments pro and con here, I've taken a leap to one side over the other and I'll settle for that".

Something like that? Well, that's not an option for me. Years ago I would have been morally outraged at the possibility of overturning Roe V. Wade. As an objectivist [Marxist/feminist] I was convinced that "the right thing to do" was to allow women the right to choose. Then that all began to fall apart with John and Mary and William Barrett. Now I recognize my value judgments as more in sync with a particular existential assessment/contraption/trajectory embedded in "I" "here and now".

I am "fractured and fragmented" in a way now that I never was before. So, in a No God world where morality is "situational" and "relative", why aren't you?

You say:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I still face all the practical issues of dealing with people with different preferences to mine. And conflicting goods with each other. And given that I am out there more than you, this is a real, daily struggle.


A struggle. Just as with me. But in not as nearly a fractured and fragmented way as "I" am. Only for me this is just another manifestation of dasein as an "existential contraption". You took your "pragmatism" in one direction, I took my "moral nihilism" in another.

And we may or may not be able to bridge this gap. But, again, given the extent to which our lives -- our experiences -- were/are no doubt very, very different, why on earth would I expect us to?

The rest is just circumstances. And options. You are able to continue the "struggle", I am not. My health confines me to this particular platform "here and now". I am only able to go in search of narratives that are in sync with a No God/no objective morality world, but are not in sync with the manner in which I construe my "self" here as embedded 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.

It's just that I recognize how this too is no less an existential fabrication/contraption that "here and now" makes sense to me.

There is empathy as I understand it, empathy as you understand it, empathy as others understand it. The empathy that is felt and that which one feels empathetic about. Embedded subjectively/subjunctively in "I".

The options: a Kierkegaardian leap or a Pascalian wager. But it still comes down to how "fractured and fragmented" "I" feels to you "here and now". We can exchange points of view, and, in particular contexts, judge each others behaviors. But only more or less down in the hole that I am in.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Do you really think you can be good if your heart's not in it? I can't see how it could be.


From my perspective, the "heart" here is no less a subjective contraption. Those on both sides of the abortion wars throw their "heart and soul" into the political struggle. But how many of them think that "had my life been different, I might well be on the other side" or "the arguments of the other side are predicated on reasonable assumptions as well. Nothing I say makes them go away."

So, basically, you become entangled in the belief that "they're right from their side, we're right from ours".

For the objectivists, however, how often is that an option?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Let's say you find out God hates homosexuals. Will you be a good man and hate them?


That's my point. If it turns out that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist, that's a whole other frame of mind. And, in turn, if it turns out that He is omniscient and omnipotent, He knows about these things. As close to objectively as we're likely ever to get. And if it turns out that He can condemn to Hell for all of eternity those who don't share His own value judgments....?

Either/or. From a "transcending" point of view homosexuality is either this or it's that. And we now have access to a frame of mind that really, really knows. You either obey God's will and opt for Salvation or you challenge it and opt for the fire and brimstone.

But at least you know.

And, as I see it, the whole point of one or another rendition of a secular objectivism revolves around one or another psychological rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Encountering you is like encountering an AI intent on solving a problem, but also one lacking the ability to respond to individuals.


But, of course, for the objectivists, the problem is solved. "In their head" anyway. Either a chosen behavior is deemed the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. And the people that I respond to best are those that "here and now" experience a sense of fragmentation when confronting conflicting goods; in understanding the extent to which "I" here is just an existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration in a world of contingency, chance and change.

There may well be a "foundation" out there they can sink "I" down into. But I am certainly not able to embody it myself here and now. And it appears that the manner in which you have managed to think about all of this "here and now" affords more [perhaps a lot more] "comfort and consolation" than "I" am able to garner.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:KP, I enjoyed your post, but Iamb will be here honing the same distractions ten years from now.

What is going on is, going by my twelve years of experience with him, that the possibility of decision-making is attacked by forcefully negating all human agency: everything that comes down to a human decision (all morality and ethics) is reduced to "an interesting question" which must at all cost remain a matter of detached reflection and never become a decisive reality.

I think this stone cold refusal of human activity is also what impresses some, who have been tempted to grow to distrust human agency by, as I see it, having other people's mistakes thrown their own conscience.

I suspect the hole Iamb is in is of a similar making.


Typical. You offer no actual arguments regarding your own reaction to such things as abortion or homosexuality. Let alone inform us as to how "value ontology" is embodied by you when confronted with those who do not share your own moral and political narrative.

Instead, it is an assessment of me. What you think that others should think about the manner in which I think about the components of my own moral philosophy out in a particular context in which conflicting goods are clearly present.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26553
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users