Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:14 am

Iamb - justify this assumption please. I realized that it has been as if I have an onus to demonstrate that there is no reason I should be in the hole. Or to prove somehow that I have no special contraptions that 'comfort me'. I would like the onus to shift to where it belongs. Demonstrate that I must either be in your hole OR have some kind of comforting contraption.

And answer the following two related moral questions:

1) is it wrong to be a non-objectivist who pursues what he wants and tries to make things better for what he or she cares about, even though he does not think there are objective values and does not have the argument that will convince everyone his values are correct?

2) is it wrong for a non-objectivist to pursue his goals, even though it is possible one day he or she may change his mind about what is important and/or what he cares about?

I can only assume that as a nihilist you cannot answer that these things ARE wrong, but I would like to see it in writing. And then whatever proof you have that I MUST have some comforting contraption.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:46 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Iamb - justify this assumption please. I realized that it has been as if I have an onus to demonstrate that there is no reason I should be in the hole. Or to prove somehow that I have no special contraptions that 'comfort me'. I would like the onus to shift to where it belongs. Demonstrate that I must either be in your hole OR have some kind of comforting contraption.


I'm not arguing that folks of your ilk ought to be down in the hole, only that I am unable to grasp how, when someone believes that objective morality does not exist, they are able to interact with others, come into conflict with others over value judgments and not be down in it. Why? Because folks of my ilk are unable to fathom how "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods, can be anything but fractured and fragmented.

Once you acknowledge that your moral narrative and political agenda [in a No God world] are largely subjective/subjunctive fabrications/contraptions rooted in your own particular accumulation of experiences and relationships and access to ideas, then it seems reasonable [to me] to acknowledge that had those components of "I" been very different, you might well be arguing from the other side.

If there is no objective font upon which one can embed "I", then it becomes a frame of mind shaped by historical, cultural and experiential variables instead. And in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. Such that you never really know what new experiences await you.

Being "practical" then would seem to be the only viable option. But that doesn't make the part about "I" out in the is/ought world any less fractured and fragmented. Not from my point of view. You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.

In other words, you've really, really, really thought things through. And that's enough.

And over and again I acknowledge in turn that this may well be a more reasonable frame of mind. But I can't just "will" myself into accepting it. I -- "I" -- have to be convinced somehow. Though even if I am that is not the same as making it true.

After all, how on earth could something like that ever really be demonstrated by mere mortals in a No God world?

But: If that argument exists I'm all ears. If I become convinced of it I'm less fractured and fragmented. And, thus, more comforted and consoled. And then, who knows, maybe someone like Phyllo can convince me in turn to reconfigure my thinking about God. Perhaps oblivion isn't the only possibility.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And answer the following two related moral questions:

1) is it wrong to be a non-objectivist who pursues what he wants and tries to make things better for what he or she cares about, even though he does not think there are objective values and does not have the argument that will convince everyone his values are correct?


How could it be either right or wrong? Why must it be one or the other? How could it be other than an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods and [ultimately] political economy?

That's the argument I'm most interested in.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: 2) is it wrong for a non-objectivist to pursue his goals, even though it is possible one day he or she may change his mind about what is important and/or what he cares about?


What becomes crucial here for me is the extent to which, having changed their mind, they think about this in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

This part in particular:

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

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

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.


That's the part where I suspect that philosophy reconfigures into psychology. Then it's only a matter of owning up to the existential implications of this for "I" out in the world with others.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I can only assume that as a nihilist you cannot answer that these things ARE wrong, but I would like to see it in writing. And then whatever proof you have that I MUST have some comforting contraption.


Again, this is far removed from my actual intentions. What I become here is your own rendition of what it means to be a nihilist. From my frame of mind, it's not a question of whether the answers are right or wrong, but why any particular individual would answer one way rather than another. The extent to which he or she is then able to demonstrate how and why all other rational men and women are obligated to agree. And then the extent to which [re folks like Kant and Rand] the rational becomes interchangeable with the virtuous.

Then all I request is that didactic discussions of this sort be taken out into the world of actual conflicting goods in actual existential contexts.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:59 am

iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that folks of your ilk ought to be down in the hole,
Just to be clear, I did not mean you thought they should be brought down into the hole, but rather that you thought being in the hole was an inevitable byproduct of non-objectivism UNLESS the person in question has some kind of comforting contraption. You've never made an argument showing that must be true, though you have repeatedly expressed confusion about how it is possible. And then gone on to simply conclude that I and others who are not in the hole must have a contraption. Perhaps we are not like you and since you would need a contraption to not be in the hole, you assume that we must also. But in any case, if you have an argument that demonstrates that we must be like you, share it.

only that I am unable to grasp how, when someone believes that objective morality does not exist, they are able to interact with others, come into conflict with others over value judgments and not be down in it. Why? Because folks of my ilk are unable to fathom how "I" as an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods, can be anything but fractured and fragmented.
OK. So, you don't know why. I also don't think you should refer to people of my ilk and people of your ilk. I don't think you represent or know a group that you can generalize about - unless you do have contact with many people who are down in a hole and couch that hole and its causes in similar terms. You are writing here about yourself, your thoughts about, in this specfic dialogue, why you are in a hole and how this relates to your beliefs. Bringing in some nebulous group seems highly speculative to me.

Once you acknowledge that your moral narrative and political agenda [in a No God world] are largely subjective/subjunctive fabrications/contraptions rooted in your own particular accumulation of experiences and relationships and access to ideas, then it seems reasonable [to me] to acknowledge that had those components of "I" been very different, you might well be arguing from the other side.
I might be striving for other preferences, yes. But I have these preferences, now at least, and so I strive for them.

If there is no objective font upon which one can embed "I", then it becomes a frame of mind shaped by historical, cultural and experiential variables instead. And in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. Such that you never really know what new experiences await you.

Being "practical" then would seem to be the only viable option. But that doesn't make the part about "I" out in the is/ought world any less fractured and fragmented.
Actually you just generalized. It made you fractured and fragmented, or at least you think so. But, I see no argument - convincing or otherwise - that it must make all people feel that way unless they have some contraption. IOW without some comforting contraption any non-objectivist will be in a hole. That everyone would react this way. It seems not to be the case with me or some other people I know. I see no argument supporting your conclusion. It seems you assumes that others must be like you, but that is merely an assumption.

If you can demonstrate that all rational people should believe that being a non-objectivist necessarily leads to being in a hole, especially the hole you are in, please do the demonstration. Otherwise, I acknowledge that you do not understand how it is the case, but see no reason to accept the generalization. And it is not accurate in my case.

Not from my point of view. You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.
No, I don't do that and I never think anything like the phrase best of all possible worlds morally. And since I am a non-objectivist I don't evaluate in such terms. I wouldn't know how to do it.

In other words, you've really, really, really thought things through. And that's enough.
No, I have not evaluated my thinking things through and given it my approval. I am not sure most values come from thinking through, and while I certainly think about my preferences, I do it in practical terms. How can I make the changes I would like to make or prevent consequences that I do not want to happen to me or what I care about. I do evaluate my ability to problem solve. But I have not evaluated my thinking through of my values and decided that I have done this well enough or not well enough etc.. That may be something you think you would need to do to feel OK about trying to achieve your preferences. So you have made something up about me here.

And over and again I acknowledge in turn that this may well be a more reasonable frame of mind. But I can't just "will" myself into accepting it. I -- "I" -- have to be convinced somehow. Though even if I am that is not the same as making it true.
I am not arguing that my frame of mind is more reasonable. I don't reason my way to not having this hole. I am saying that I don't believe in objective values and I don't have a contraption that I need to or should. And I do not comfort myself in some way around this. It seems here like you are saying you would feel better if you could evaluate your efforts, decide you really, really thought things through and could for some reason accept your efforts as enough. You seem to be asserting you would need this to feel comfortable, and then you assume that since I am not in your hole, I must do this. That we must all be the same in this way. I do not see an argument, just the assumption. And it is not correct.

After all, how on earth could something like that ever really be demonstrated by mere mortals in a No God world?
Precisely. So it is not a criterion I hold myself to. Though it is not as if I decided not to for some reason. I just don't. I live my life and make choices based on my preferences, including those influenced by empathy. That's it. In a sense, like other mammals do. Though I have more tools to be a pragmatist then they do.

But: If that argument exists I'm all ears.

No, the onus is on you to show that I have convinced myself of something which let's me be comfortable as a non-objectivist. If you have that argument, present it and we can see if that argument holds. I have no argument that one should not be in the hole. It seems like you have extra criteria for participating in life, accepting that you can participate. But I could be wrong about that. But I do not have these extra criteria, which may or may not be contraptions you have. And I do not have an argument that you SHOULD be out of the hole. I am saying that I am not in it, and this is not the result of some 'argument' or 'contraption'.

I do see and truly understand that you do not know why I am not in your hole.

I have no problem with you not understanding. You don't understand that why I am not in your hole. Let's repeat and make clear: your not understanding it and being surprised by it is not evidence that I have a contraption or an argument that makes me comfortable. You are basing your assumption on yourself, it seems. You may be correct about yourself.

I do not consider that assumption or your surprise as evidence that I must have quality X. I do acknowledge that for you this is mysterious. I do not think you should be like me. I do not have an argument that demonstrates you should not be in the hole.

Since I know other people who are also non-objectivists and not in the hole and then there is my own experience, it does not seem odd. But I can understand how easy it is to think that everyone should react the same way to things as you do. But, again, this is also not an argument, let alone a sound one.

It is closely related to arguments based on incredulity.

You get that argument that demonstrates a non-objectivist will be in your hole unless he has some contraption to comfort him, you let me know.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:33 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I'm not arguing that folks of your ilk ought to be down in the hole,


Just to be clear, I did not mean you thought they should be brought down into the hole, but rather that you thought being in the hole was an inevitable byproduct of non-objectivism UNLESS the person in question has some kind of comforting contraption.


If I construe value judgments as [by and large] existential contraptions, why on earth would anyone imagine me using a word like "inevitable"? Only in a wholly determined universe would that be applicable.

There are things that are in fact inevitable about my life when they fall within the parameters of the either/or world. But when the discussion shifts to the is/ought world, that's when the existential fabrications and contraptions come up to the surface.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You've never made an argument showing that must be true, though you have repeatedly expressed confusion about how it is possible.


Why? Because I am viewing these relationships from the perspective of my "I", not yours or others. I'm looking for an argument able to convince me to reconfigure "me" here into a less fractured and fragmented frame of mind.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: And then gone on to simply conclude that I and others who are not in the hole must have a contraption. Perhaps we are not like you and since you would need a contraption to not be in the hole, you assume that we must also. But in any case, if you have an argument that demonstrates that we must be like you, share it.


For those not down in the is/ought hole, there is no contraption. Contraptions like pragmatism, moral nihilism, solipsism, narcissism, moderation-negotiation-compromise. There is only the objective truth: God, ideology, deontology, nature.

And, as with "inevitable", the word "must" is not in my vocabulary here. How on earth could I share an argument that I am not even convinced exists?

Thus..

Once you acknowledge that your moral narrative and political agenda [in a No God world] are largely subjective/subjunctive fabrications/contraptions rooted in your own particular accumulation of experiences and relationships and access to ideas, then it seems reasonable [to me] to acknowledge that had those components of "I" been very different, you might well be arguing from the other side.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I might be striving for other preferences, yes. But I have these preferences, now at least, and so I strive for them.


Okay, but how does that make my point go away?

Either your political preferences today are rooted in the most essential assessment of right and wrong behavior, or they really are more likely to be just "contraptions" rooted existentially in dasein.

The fractured and fragmented "I" here [mine] assumes the latter. Back then to this:

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

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

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.


If there is no objective font upon which one can embed "I", then it becomes a frame of mind shaped by historical, cultural and experiential variables instead. And in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. Such that you never really know what new experiences await you.

Being "practical" then would seem to be the only viable option. But that doesn't make the part about "I" out in the is/ought world any less fractured and fragmented.



Karpel Tunnel wrote: Actually you just generalized. It made you fractured and fragmented, or at least you think so. But, I see no argument - convincing or otherwise - that it must make all people feel that way unless they have some contraption.


Again and again and again: I'm not arguing that others "must" "inevitably" do anything. I'm merely trying to understand how those who do not believe in objective morality are able to engage conflicting goods with others and not be fractured and fragmented. Especially when they acknowledge [as you have] that their political "preferences" are basically just existential contraptions. That in fact had their life been very, very different, their preferences might be the otherwise. How, using the tools of philosophy, can this be most rationally addressed with respect to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: If you can demonstrate that all rational people should believe that being a non-objectivist necessarily leads to being in a hole, especially the hole you are in, please do the demonstration. Otherwise, I acknowledge that you do not understand how it is the case, but see no reason to accept the generalization. And it is not accurate in my case.


Note to others:

When have I ever suggested that all non-objectivists are either down in the hole with me or they are not thinking these relationships through clearly? "Generalizations" are the last thing I am interested in here. Instead, I want to explore how those mere mortals in a No God world who see no objective moral and political dictums into which they can embed "I", are able to keep their "self" together in a less deconstructed manner than "I" am.

The irony here being that my argument revolves far more around what I construe to be the limitations of rational thought re human interactions in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods.

The Brett Kavenaugh conflagration being just the latest example of political objectivists going at each other tooth and nail.

My argument is only to suggest that opinions about him are rooted more in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy than in anything that philosophers/ethicists/political scientists are able to adduce regarding "the right thing to do" here.


You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: No, I don't do that and I never think anything like the phrase best of all possible worlds morally. And since I am a non-objectivist I don't evaluate in such terms. I wouldn't know how to do it.


Okay, then bring this down to earth by noting what you do think when engaging others re conflicting goods. You claim that you alrerady have. Okay, but that still hasn't sunk in yet. I'm still unclear as to how your "I" is less in pieces than mine. All you can do is to try again using another context.

How is your "I" [in relationship to issues like abortion] not just the culmination of an existential sense of self that evolved over time given a particular sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in one rather than another direction? And how are your arguments/assumptions revolving around one rendition of the "good" here not matched by the arguments/assumptions of the other side?

And what of the narcissists/sociopaths who argue that in a No God world it is reasonable for morality to revolve around that which they construe to be in their own best interests. The irony here being that this too is embodied in dasein.

Then [in my view] straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

In other words, you've really, really, really thought things through. And that's enough.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: No, I have not evaluated my thinking things through and given it my approval. I am not sure most values come from thinking through, and while I certainly think about my preferences, I do it in practical terms. How can I make the changes I would like to make or prevent consequences that I do not want to happen to me or what I care about. I do evaluate my ability to problem solve. But I have not evaluated my thinking through of my values and decided that I have done this well enough or not well enough etc.. That may be something you think you would need to do to feel OK about trying to achieve your preferences. So you have made something up about me here.


Okay, there's this general description "assessment" here and there's trying to understand how exactly this all plays out in your head in an actual existential context.

And once you acknowledge that embodying moral values is not only about "thinking things through", the discussion can shift to more subjunctive reactions: emotional, psychological, instinctual, willful, the subconsious and the unconscious mind.

And over and again I acknowledge in turn that this may well be a more reasonable frame of mind. But I can't just "will" myself into accepting it. I -- "I" -- have to be convinced somehow. Though even if I am that is not the same as making it true.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am not arguing that my frame of mind is more reasonable. I don't reason my way to not having this hole. I am saying that I don't believe in objective values and I don't have a contraption that I need to or should. And I do not comfort myself in some way around this. It seems here like you are saying you would feel better if you could evaluate your efforts, decide you really, really thought things through and could for some reason accept your efforts as enough. You seem to be asserting you would need this to feel comfortable, and then you assume that since I am not in your hole, I must do this. That we must all be the same in this way. I do not see an argument, just the assumption. And it is not correct.


I don't really know how you put all of these variables together "in you head" so as to interact with others re conflicting goods in a less fractured and fragmented manner. All you seem able to offer me here [yet again] is more "analysis" of this sort.

So, in regard to a value judgment important to you, what is your equivalent of this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


How in particular have ideas and experiences intertwined in your life to predispose you to one point of view rather than another? And what do you imagine philosophers are able to conclude here regarding the least unreasonable assessment?

With reference to myself, I am down in my hole here. Recognizing my value judgments as the embodiment of dasein -- "I" tugged by a particular set of experiences in the direction of a particular set of political prejudices; and, then, re John and Mary and William Barrett, splintering into pieces over the years.

After all, how on earth could something like that ever really be demonstrated by mere mortals in a No God world?


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Precisely. So it is not a criterion I hold myself to. Though it is not as if I decided not to for some reason. I just don't. I live my life and make choices based on my preferences, including those influenced by empathy. That's it. In a sense, like other mammals do. Though I have more tools to be a pragmatist then they do.


Yes, but the objectivists do insist that their own "demonstration" is self-contained. Contained in accepting their own particular moral font of choice: God, political ideology, deontological contraptions, nature.

Folks like Sam Harris even go so far as to argue that science itself "can determine human values."

On the other hand, your own "preferences" are accepted by you as a "pragmatist". Once at that point however you are then able not to be bothered by the extent to which others [like me] root them more instead in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In existential contraptions out in a particular world construed historically, culturally and experiential by any one particular human being ensconced in any one particular set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

But: If that argument exists I'm all ears.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: No, the onus is on you to show that I have convinced myself of something which let's me be comfortable as a non-objectivist.


I can't be inside your head. I can't know of your experiences. I can't have lived your life. Only you can try to explain how in confronting others who do not share your values, you manage to keep "I" more contained in a "sense of self" less fractured and fragmented than mine.

Sure, maybe we will be more successful in bridging this gap, maybe not.

That's really all there is here: explaining to the best of our abilities how and why we have one set of moral and political "preferences" rather than another. And, then, how, "for all practical purposes", we are able to interact with others who may well not share our own values; or, in fact, may even attack them.

Me, I see your own rendition of pragmatism as just another existential/intellectual contraption that keeps your own "preferences" up out of the hole that I am in.

But, then, that's really all I do have access to here and now: my own frame of mind.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:50 pm

Iambiguous clearly hasn't been following my recent posts.

I solved good/evil.

Non consensual zero sum realities are evil.
Consensual non zero sum realities are good.

You understand this Karpel

We live in an evil reality.

Iambiguous hasn't stepped out of the box yet.
He's still attached to reconciling zero sum theory.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:58 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous clearly hasn't been following my recent posts.

I solved good/evil.

Non consensual zero sum realities are evil.
Consensual non zero sum realities are good.

You understand this Karpel

We live in an evil reality.

Iambiguous hasn't stepped out of the box yet.
He's still attached to reconciling zero sum theory.


Beat it, Kid! :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous clearly hasn't been following my recent posts.

I solved good/evil.

Non consensual zero sum realities are evil.
Consensual non zero sum realities are good.

You understand this Karpel

We live in an evil reality.

Iambiguous hasn't stepped out of the box yet.
He's still attached to reconciling zero sum theory.


Beat it, Kid! :lol:


And thus I won the debate.

Do you want to take this to debate iambiguous?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:10 am

Ecmandu wrote:And thus I won the debate.

Do you want to take this to debate iambiguous?


Since you've already won, what's left to debate? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:41 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:And thus I won the debate.

Do you want to take this to debate iambiguous?


Since you've already won, what's left to debate? :wink:


Just to prove that you're a troll? Yes I do
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:If I construe value judgments as [by and large] existential contraptions, why on earth would anyone imagine me using a word like "inevitable"?
Great, I agree that given many of the things you say, the word would be strange for you to use. It seemed implicit in statement you made to me, but now I know that
for you it is possible that I do not have existential contraptions that comfort me. That you do not know why I am not in your hole.
Why? Because I am viewing these relationships from the perspective of my "I", not yours or others. I'm looking for an argument able to convince me to reconfigure "me" here into a less fractured and fragmented frame of mind.
I got that. And now we know that you do not assume that my not being in the hole is based on an argument or contraption. I do not have an argument to get you out of your hole and I am not in a state of not being in that hole due to convincing myself of something. There is no contraption that keeps me out of the hole.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Actually you just generalized. It made you fractured and fragmented, or at least you think so. But, I see no argument - convincing or otherwise - that it must make all people feel that way unless they have some contraption.


Again and again and again: I'm not arguing that others "must" "inevitably" do anything. I'm merely trying to understand how those who do not believe in objective morality are able to engage conflicting goods with others and not be fractured and fragmented.
Great. Those of us who are non-objectivists are not inevitably doing anything. You do not assume we have some contraption that lifts us out of your hole. Fine. We are in agreement. WE don't know why we are different, AND you are not assuminG you know.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: If you can demonstrate that all rational people should believe that being a non-objectivist necessarily leads to being in a hole, especially the hole you are in, please do the demonstration. Otherwise, I acknowledge that you do not understand how it is the case, but see no reason to accept the generalization. And it is not accurate in my case.


Note to others:

When have I ever suggested that all non-objectivists are either down in the hole with me or they are not thinking these relationships through clearly? "Generalizations" are the last thing I am interested in here. Instead, I want to explore how those mere mortals in a No God world who see no objective moral and political dictums into which they can embed "I", are able to keep their "self" together in a less deconstructed manner than "I" am.
It could have been a miscommunication problem. Now, here, in this thread, you have made very clear statements that you do not assume this.

I am glad I brought this out clearly in its own thread, and found a way to frame it so that you did in fact make a clear statement.

You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.


Oh look, here is one of those examples. Here you are telling me I have this contraption. This is one of the types of statements where it seems like you can simply assume I have a contraption that gets me out of your hole. Perhaps you can see how I drew the wrong conclusion, even if you never meant it the way I took it.

It seemed like you were saying I had some contraption that did those things. I don't, and in this post you have made it clear you do not assume I have these kinds of contraptoins.


How is your "I" [in relationship to issues like abortion] not just the culmination of an existential sense of self that evolved over time given a particular sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in one rather than another direction? And how are your arguments/assumptions revolving around one rendition of the "good" here not matched by the arguments/assumptions of the other side?
For you not having objective morals and being away that your position is based on dasein/inborn nature puts you in a hole. It doesn't do that to me.

Then [in my view] straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

I don't really know how you put all of these variables together "in you head" so as to interact with others re conflicting goods
I don't have an answer for you. I don't know what you need to not be in your hole or to feel better about dealing with others around conflicting values. A lot of my reactions to you are saying 'no, I don't do that' 'no, there is no special argument that...'. I am not in your hole. I can not explain why that is the case. Perhaps if I had been in that hole and pulled myself out with some mental process, then I could. But that is not the case.

You have made it clear above that you do not assume I have some comforting contraption that keeps me out of the hole. Great.

On the other hand, your own "preferences" are accepted by you as a "pragmatist". Once at that point however you are then able not to be bothered by the extent to which others [like me] root them more instead in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Oh, I can root them in those things also. Of course my preferences are influenced by what I have experienced and my genetics. I am very influenced by what I have gone through.


I can't be inside your head. I can't know of your experiences. I can't have lived your life. Only you can try to explain how in confronting others who do not share your values, you manage to keep "I" more contained in a "sense of self" less fractured and fragmented than mine.
It seems like I am less fragmented. I don't feel any urge to describe myself that way and I do not think I am in a hole. I have been, though not in the one you are in. It is very hard for me to know why I am not like you. Or why I am not reacting the same way you do to the lack of objective values.

Me, I see your own rendition of pragmatism as just another existential/intellectual contraption that keeps your own "preferences" up out of the hole that I am in.
[/quote]There, you said it. I have a contraption that keeps me out of the hole.

And you are making my pragmatism into something it is not. You are a pragmatist. You want an answer to your question. You have decided to use ILP as a way to reach out to people to get answers. You need food, you do whatever you do to determine that. I don't know the range of your activities but you are a pragmatist also. My pragmatism does not give me solace. I have goals and problems and I try to fix them.

STOP SAYING I HAVE A CONTRAPTION THAT KEEPS ME OUt OF YOU HOLE.

I certainly have never said that my pragmatism lifts me out of the hole. It seems like you do think you can get inside my mind.

I have preferences, I am practical in relation to them. My pragmatism does not justify them or make me feel ok. It is what I, and you for that matter, do. We try to figure out how to avoid X, get Y, etc. Objectivists are pragmatists, and then they also have additional stuff. All creatures are pragmatists. It has nothing to do with my not being in your hole.

SO STOP TELLING ME THAT A CONTRAPTION HAS LIFTED ME OUT OF YOUR HOLE. Since you acknowledge in this last post that people can react in different ways to things, given their particular dasein and in born natures, STOP ALWAYS ASSIGNING ME A CONTRAPTION.

Maybe it takes contraptions to get in the hole, I don't know. Animals seem not to get in this hole and pragmatically work for their preferences.

Maybe my genetics lead me not to be bothered by what you are bothered by.

I have no idea.

But since you claim above that you don't know...

STOP SAYING THAT THIS OR THAT IN ME IS SOME KIND OF CONTRAPTIONS THAT LIFTS ME OUT OF THE HOLE.

I think we need to pare down this discussion. Perhaps when I explain what I do, you take it as an argument or as 'this is why I don't feel bad or in a hole'. So I will keep this very simple from here on out.

My posts will likely be some form of: is it possible I do not have a contraption that soothes me and keeps me from your hole?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:38 am

Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous clearly hasn't been following my recent posts.

I solved good/evil.

Non consensual zero sum realities are evil.
Consensual non zero sum realities are good.

You understand this Karpel

We live in an evil reality.

Iambiguous hasn't stepped out of the box yet.
He's still attached to reconciling zero sum theory.
Please don't derail this thread. This is a tricky enough discussion already and you have threads with your topic.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:31 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:If I construe value judgments as [by and large] existential contraptions, why on earth would anyone imagine me using a word like "inevitable"?
Great, I agree that given many of the things you say, the word would be strange for you to use. It seemed implicit in statement you made to me, but now I know that
for you it is possible that I do not have existential contraptions that comfort me. That you do not know why I am not in your hole.


I do not believe in God. I do not believe that philosophers in a No God world are able to devise moral narratives/political agendas that, either universally or on a case by case basis, obligate rational men and women to choose particular sets of behaviors.

Instead, our "preferences" are [to me] embedded existentially in a particular sequence of experiences that predispose us to be more or less pro or more or less con any particular behaviors embedded in any particular context rife with conflicting goods.

The "hole" that I am in starts with three assumptions:

1] that had I lived my life differently, I may well have accumulated different preferences
2] that any one preference is no less able to be rationalized than any another
3] that ultimately what counts is who has the political power to enforce one set of values/behaviors over the others

And, thus, that philosophers appear unable to make these assumptions go away by in fact coming up with an argument able to be demonstrated as obligating rational men and women to behave in "the right way" in sync with "who they really are."

They may choose not to behave that way, but it is able to be demonstrated that all rational people ought to behave in that way.

Then it's just a matter of taking these abstractions out into the world of actual conflicting goods.

In a No God world.

To me, these are "existential contraptions" only in order to contrast them with the seemingly "essential truths" objectivists argue for: God, ideology, deontology, nature.

Why? Because I am viewing these relationships from the perspective of my "I", not yours or others. I'm looking for an argument able to convince me to reconfigure "me" here into a less fractured and fragmented frame of mind.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I got that. And now we know that you do not assume that my not being in the hole is based on an argument or contraption. I do not have an argument to get you out of your hole and I am not in a state of not being in that hole due to convincing myself of something. There is no contraption that keeps me out of the hole.


Now, whether or not your own rendition of pragmatism here is a "contraption" is in the mind of the beholder. To me -- for all practical purposes -- it is. Once you think yourself into believing that there are no objective moral narratives/political agendas, you need to come up with an argument that allows you to feel less rather than more fractured and fragmented.

To feel less, you need to pull back from the manner in which I construe "I" here as an existential contraption. But that capacity in my view is just another manifestation of dasein.

Though here again we can only take these assumptions out into world of actual conflicting goods. Try our best to describe what unfolds "in our head" when our values are challeged or attacked by others. Or when others attempt even to stop our behaviors.

Here and now I have thought myself into believing that...

You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Oh look, here is one of those examples. Here you are telling me I have this contraption. This is one of the types of statements where it seems like you can simply assume I have a contraption that gets me out of your hole. Perhaps you can see how I drew the wrong conclusion, even if you never meant it the way I took it.


What I want is to take an abstract exchange of this sort out into the world of actual conflicting goods that most here will be familiar with. That is the "example" that most intrigues me.

I acknowledge that my "hole" is just another intellectual/existential contraption. But I try to make others understand [re my abortion trajectory] how my thinking here came to evolve over time, given a particular set of experiences coming into contact with a partiuclar set of ideas.

Some objectivists, others not. Calling them "contraptions" is just something that makes sense to me given how they come to be and then evolve existentially.

Rather than essentially...derived from one or another set of assumptions embedded in religion or ideology or philosophy or assessments of nature.

In other words...

How is your "I" [in relationship to issues like abortion] not just the culmination of an existential sense of self that evolved over time given a particular sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in one rather than another direction? And how are your arguments/assumptions revolving around one rendition of the "good" here not matched by the arguments/assumptions of the other side?


Karpel Tunnel wrote: For you not having objective morals and being awa[re] that your position is based on dasein/inborn nature puts you in a hole. It doesn't do that to me.


Exactly! Now, why is that? Given that we both make the assumption that moral values "for all practical purposes" are derived from one or another rendition of humanism.

Then [for me] it comes down to how much weight you put on the manner in which I construe the existential intersection that encompasses/embodies identity, value judgments and political economy.

All we can really do [here] is [to the best of our ability] describe what unfolds "in our head" when we do come into conflict with others. And how that translates into choosing one set of behaviors rather than another.

On the other hand, your own "preferences" are accepted by you as a "pragmatist". Once at that point however you are then able not to be bothered by the extent to which others [like me] root them more instead in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Oh, I can root them in those things also. Of course my preferences are influenced by what I have experienced and my genetics. I am very influenced by what I have gone through.


Then we get stuck. We can only try to communicate to others how that "works" for us out in the world with others. Here and now.

How ought "I" to be factored in given the extent to which this...

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

...seems reasonable.

But I would never argue that others ought think about it in the manner in which I do today. I am, instead, far more interested in understanding how and why it seems less reasonable to them.

And, then, with folks like Phyllo, the manner in which they configure God and religion into it.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ...you are making my pragmatism into something it is not.


What I am doing is trying to understand how, since we are both pragmatists, you feel less fractured and fragmented then I am. Given that how I understand the "self" here puts considersbly more weight on the part where "I" is deemed to be largely an existential contraption in a world awash in conflicting goods.

I'm not able to feel less deconstructed, so how are those who eschew objective morality [like me] able not to feel that way?

Here I presume that in order to feel less broken psychologically you have thought yourself into a frame of mind [philosophically] that accomplished that. One that I am unable to think myself into accepting myself.

You say that your own rendition of pragmatism does not bring you solace. Okay, you believe that. But I don't know how one cannot feel something akin to solace given the extent to which one can distance himself from the manner in which I see these arguments as embedded in the components of my moral philosophy here and now.

You say...

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I have preferences, I am practical in relation to them. My pragmatism does not justify them or make me feel ok. It is what I, and you for that matter, do. We try to figure out how to avoid X, get Y, etc. Objectivists are pragmatists, and then they also have additional stuff. All creatures are pragmatists. It has nothing to do with my not being in your hole.


You do what you do. And that's enough. Well, it's not enough for me. Once I managed to convince myself of the extent to which "I" here is largely an existential fabrication/contraption from the cradle to the grave, everything that I do comes under the sort of scrutiny that you and other non-objectivists are able to avoid.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:50 pm

My challenge to iambiguous:

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:45 am

I realize now that I may have contributed to the problem by using the term pragmatism or pragmatist. I am not a follower of James or Dewey. I was using the term in its everyday sense of being practical, trying to get what I want. I mean this precisely in the sense that any mammal, for example, uses its skills to get what it wants and avoid what it doesn't want. It is not a believe about the nature of reality. It is not prescriptive. I simply not that that, like everyone, including you, I takes steps to get what I want. I have not decided that it is ok to try to get what I want, I simply note that I, like other animals, do this. Toward the end of this post I cite a number of you comments about me, assigning me types of evaluations and thinking I do not do, nor have I done. Perhaps this comes out of my using the term pragmatic and its other forms. I did not become a practical person because I read the little about Dewey I have, nor do wolves. My preferences are based I assume ONLY on my nature and nurture. That is genetics and experiences. Which fits with current scientific ideas about what gives us our tendencies and preferences. I have no contraptions to make me feel less fragmented. I do not know why you react to the degree you do to being a non-objectivist. Could be your experiences that are different from mine.


iambiguous wrote:Now, whether or not your own rendition of pragmatism here is a "contraption" is in the mind of the beholder. To me -- for all practical purposes -- it is. Once you think yourself into believing that there are no objective moral narratives/political agendas, you need to come up with an argument that allows you to feel less rather than more fractured and fragmented.

1) No. Perhaps you do. The general You, as in one, does not. This is your reaction to non-objectivity. You are universalizing. Please demonstrate that one must do this.
2) Pragmatism means only that I take practical measures to achieve my goals. LIke any mammal does, for example.
1) Tell me what you have seen (re: eye of beholder) that indicates that my pragmatism, which you share by the way, minimizes my fragmentation. What have you seen to indicate this? Be specific about what facets of my pragmatism lead to minimizing the default fragmentation.
2) How does trying to figure out how to accomplish one's goals lead to minimizing fragmentation? And since you do this also, why does it not minimize your fragmentation?
3) Why did you react with amazement when I said you considered it inevitable that one must have a contraption if one is a non-objectivist who is not in a hole? You clearly believe it is inevitable.
4) Why is it not possible that the degree of your fragmentation has to do with your history, which is not mine, your parenting, perhaps, and what you were born with genetically? Why is your level of fragmentation the default that must be the case unless there is a contraption?

Here are a couple of things your eye of the beholder 'saw'....

I'm in pieces here more so than you are. Why? Because I recognize the extent to which my own "preferences" are derived more from the actual trajectory of my life than from anything that philosophers or objectivists are able to propose.
This is just making up stuff. I have never said that my preferences are derived from objectivists and philosophers.

Your "pragmatism", in my view, is just a frame of mind that puts less weight on the part where had you lived a very different life you would embody very different values.

Nope. This is making stuff up. I make no judgments on the weight of that based on pragmatism or ANYTHING ELSE. It sure seems like you put a lot of weight on that and you suffer it. I do not suffer it. I do not believe in pragmatism and therefore experience less of a hole. I just notice that sans objectivism, I head out not trying to satisfy objective morals, but just trying to achieve things based on my preferences. I note that. I call that pragmatism, because that is what is left without objectivism. Just as you takes steps to achieve your goals. Just as any mammal does, for example. Wolves do not have a contraption that keeps them from the hole. They apply the skills they have to achieve what they want, and to avoid what they do not want to experience. That is all I mean by pragmatism. You are adding in some stuff that is not in there. Perhaps I contributed to your confusion by using the term pragmatism. All I meant was that given a lack of objective morals, I am left with trying to make things more like I prefer them and less like I do not. It is not a philosophical position. It is a given for any animal. Even you. Even you takes steps to find an answer to something you want. You try to solve the problem. Even you order food or shop. Even you go to the doctor when you need to. We are all pragmatists, all of us mammals. Even the objectivists, though they are also other things, and those things fall under the category of objectivism.

And, you are treating your reaction to non-objectivism as the default.
In other words, you've really, really, really thought things through. And that's enough.
NO, I never said anything like that nor done that kind of evaluation. You make things up.

I may have contributed in some way in not being clear. But I do not react to the absence of objective morals nor to my own potential and past changes in my preferences like you do. It does not create a crisis in me.

You are assuming that all people are alike at base, so If I am not in crisis because of this I have a contraption.

You cannot entertain the possibility that your crisis may be caused by a contraption.

You cannot entertain the possiblity that other people might react differently when faced with a lack of objective morals.

So you behold contraptions where there are none, and you tell me what is going on inside me with no basis.

Can you stop this?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:49 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I realize now that I may have contributed to the problem by using the term pragmatism or pragmatist. I am not a follower of James or Dewey. I was using the term in its everyday sense of being practical, trying to get what I want.


Okay, but here's the problem with this from my frame of mind.

Any number of folks can claim to be pragmatists. They generally eschew "might makes right"/"survival of the fittest" political contraptions. They generally eschew "right makes might"/"kingdom of ends" political [and religious] contraptions.

Instead, most tend toward "moderation, negotiation and compromise"/"democracy and the rule of law" contraptions.

Like me. But, unlike most pragmatists, I am not able to think myself into believing that my own value judgments are not hopelessly entangled in dasein and conflicting goods. "I" am instead bascially drawn and quartered in confronting my "self" in confronting issues like abortion or Communism.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I mean this precisely in the sense that any mammal, for example, uses its skills to get what it wants and avoid what it doesn't want.


But no other mammal comes even close to grappling with their day to day interactions as does the human species. Instead, for them, it is almost always bahavior rooted far more in biological imperatives.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It is not a believe about the nature of reality. It is not prescriptive. I simply not that that, like everyone, including you, I takes steps to get what I want. I have not decided that it is ok to try to get what I want, I simply note that I, like other animals, do this.


Yeah, but you have managed to think yourself into believing that "I" here, in taking steps to accumulate "preferences", need not be concerned with the parts about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least not to the extent that my "I" recognizes them as crucial in coming to grips with understanding why "I" want ths instead of that.

They are simply less construed as "fabrications" and "contraptions" to you.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I did not become a practical person because I read the little about Dewey I have, nor do wolves. My preferences are based I assume ONLY on my nature and nurture.


And how is this not an assumption that deep down inside lurks this "real me" such that even had your life been "very, very different" you would still be pursuing the same "preferences".

But the only way to test this at all is to find your life being upended by an avalance of new experiences that takes "I" into new contexts like never before. Does "I" stay the same?

So, has that been the case with you?

For me there are two contexts in particular that are applicable:

1] being drafted into the Army as a staunch conservative Christian and coming out of the Army as a radical Marxist atheist
2] the Mary/John/William Barrett experience which precipitated the deconstruction of my own objectivist frame on mind

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Tell me what you have seen (re: eye of beholder) that indicates that my pragmatism, which you share by the way, minimizes my fragmentation. What have you seen to indicate this? Be specific about what facets of my pragmatism lead to minimizing the default fragmentation.


My point though is this: only to the extent that you illustrate the text by situating your preferences "out in a particular context" am I likely to understand how "for all practical purposes" your "I" here remains less fragmented than mine. And that entails noting specifically how in a particular conflict with someone [or regarding a value judgment pertaining to an issue "in the news"] you manage to keep "I" more rather than less intact.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: How does trying to figure out how to accomplish one's goals lead to minimizing fragmentation? And since you do this also, why does it not minimize your fragmentation?


Because, sooner or later, despite recognizing that had your life actually been very, very different, you might be championing a conflicting value judgments, you settle for one moral and political narrative rather than another. Precisely because you have not allowed the parts about dasein and conflicting goods to rend your own "I" as mine has been.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Why did you react with amazement when I said you considered it inevitable that one must have a contraption if one is a non-objectivist who is not in a hole? You clearly believe it is inevitable.


That [again] is your rendition of my reaction. I steer clear of words like "must" or "inevitable" when confronting these problematic relationships. All I can do here is to note my own understanding of what I construe to be the profoundly existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political power.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Why is it not possible that the degree of your fragmentation has to do with your history, which is not mine, your parenting, perhaps, and what you were born with genetically? Why is your level of fragmentation the default that must be the case unless there is a contraption?


But this is precisely my point in connecting the dots here between "I" as the embodiment of dasein and particular preferences out in the is/ought world. Whether one refers to things like "religion" or "ideology" or "deolotology" or "pragmatism" or "nature" etc., as "contraptions" or not doesn't make them any more or less effective in providing "I" with a font able make one's psychological predisposition more or less comforting and consoling.

Whatever works I always say.

I'm in pieces here more so than you are. Why? Because I recognize the extent to which my own "preferences" are derived more from the actual trajectory of my life than from anything that philosophers or objectivists are able to propose.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: This is just making up stuff. I have never said that my preferences are derived from objectivists and philosophers.


My point here is that I recognize my own value judgments as more in pieces because I recognize that "I" itself here as more an existential contraption than your "I" does.

Thus...

Your "pragmatism", in my view, is just a frame of mind that puts less weight on the part where had you lived a very different life you would embody very different values.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Nope. This is making stuff up. I make no judgments on the weight of that based on pragmatism or ANYTHING ELSE.


First of all, I acknowledge right from the start that my reaction to you here is no less an existential contraption enbedded in "in my view".

As for, "I make no judgments on the weight of that based on pragmatism or ANYTHING ELSE", what on earth does this mean?

Take us out into your world, note a particular context, and actually illustrate your point here. Judgments about what particular behaviors that have come into conflict?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Instead, in my view, you stay up in the stratosphere of the "general description" rooted in a "world of words":

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It sure seems like you put a lot of weight on that and you suffer it. I do not suffer it. I do not believe in pragmatism and therefore experience less of a hole. I just notice that sans objectivism, I head out not trying to satisfy objective morals, but just trying to achieve things based on my preferences. I note that. I call that pragmatism, because that is what is left without objectivism.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Wolves do not have a contraption that keeps them from the hole. They apply the skills they have to achieve what they want, and to avoid what they do not want to experience. That is all I mean by pragmatism.


Wolves?!!!

How close is that to the argumnts that Satyr and his clique/claque over at KT would make when in describing the nature of human interactions they come back time and and again to lions and zebras.

For wolves, the "contraption" is almost entirely instinctual. Genes with only the slimmest connection to memes. Given the extent to which they can learn new ways in which to susrvive. But none of them to my knowledge would describe their behaviors as either more or less deonotological, or more or less practical. The "stuff" that I am adding here revolves around a species of mammal able to actually ponder why one individual has one set of preferences while another has an entirely different set?

What, epistemologically, can we know about this? How is the manner in which I construe these conflicted interactions at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy more or less reasonable than the manner in which you construe them given the manner in which you describe yourself as a pragmatist?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:40 am

iambiguous wrote:[
Okay, but here's the problem with this from my frame of mind.

Any number of folks can claim to be pragmatists. They generally eschew "might makes right"/"survival of the fittest" political contraptions. They generally eschew "right makes might"/"kingdom of ends" political [and religious] contraptions.

Instead, most tend toward "moderation, negotiation and compromise"/"democracy and the rule of law" contraptions.

Like me. But, unlike most pragmatists, I am not able to think myself into believing that my own value judgments are not hopelessly entangled in dasein and conflicting goods. "I" am instead bascially drawn and quartered in confronting my "self" in confronting issues like abortion or Communism.
I am not able to think that my own value judgments are not inevitably entangled in dasein. Again you tell me that I think myself out of something. But I have not done that. I am not unlike you there. You just, again, said I am something but it is not true. I think it is inevitable that those things are entangled. I took out the word 'hopelessly' since this implies an emotional reaction I do not have, but which you do. We are unlike in our emotional reaction to this. We are unlike in that you spend a very large part of you communication and time on this issue. We are unlike in that you are seeking to solve this, but giving every chance for some objectivist to demonstrate their values are correct. But I have no contraption that MAKES me different from you there. Perhaps you have a contraption makes you put so much weight on the issue. Perhaps you do not. Perhaps dasein has made it that you put much more weight on it than I do, or mine such that I do not. Perhaps it is your temperment, coming from dasein and genetics. I don't know.

But no other mammal comes even close to grappling with their day to day interactions as does the human species. Instead, for them, it is almost always bahavior rooted far more in biological imperatives.
Yes, we are more complicated. But I have no contraption. I try, like mammals, to solve problems related to my preferences. I have more preferences than a garden mole. I have more ways to solve problems or fail to. There are more factors, but there is no value contraption associated with it. I don't find myself obsessing about the lack of objective morals. Consider that your reaction my be your particular, individual reaction based on dasein, etc, to the absence of objective morals. I mention mammals because it seems to me it offers the opportunity to consider what the default is. And to consider if the weight you put on the issue might itself be based on a contraption and/or based on dasein.

One huge thing that separates us from mammals, who are not in your hole, are contraptions. It takes a number of contraptions to give all that weight to the issues around your hole.

You assume a non-objectivist not in the hole must have a contraption.
I am pointing out that it may very well take a contraption to put a lot of weight on the issue in the way you do.
Or it may be due to your particular temperment, at this time in your life, and your experiences.
And, in any case, when you try to lay out how my contraptions work and what they are, they have nothing to do with me.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It is not a believe about the nature of reality. It is not prescriptive. I simply not that that, like everyone, including you, I takes steps to get what I want. I have not decided that it is ok to try to get what I want, I simply note that I, like other animals, do this.


Yeah, but you have managed to think yourself into believing that "I" here, in taking steps to accumulate "preferences", need not be concerned with the parts about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least not to the extent that my "I" recognizes them as crucial in coming to grips with understanding why "I" want ths instead of that.
Nope. I have never decided not to be concerned about it. This is you making up some kind of process in me, presumably based on yourself.

I think, but I am not sure, that you use yourself as the default. Since you react to non-objectivism the way you do, if someone else does not they must have a contraption. And repeatedly over and over, you tell me what I have done, like in the quote above, and it is not something I have done.

Apart from differences in our pasts, our current lives could also affect how much weight we put on things. Our social lives, intimate connections, work or lack of and how well that fits with our skills and preferences and in general do we get to do things that we care about with people we care about. All that would also affect the amount of weight, time and energy one would put into ANY existential hole.

I no doubt contributed to this confusion by using a philosophical term pragmatism when I meant in the way I have now described.

I realize I have only partially responded. But I keep thinking this dialogue needs to be very focused. I mess this up by trying a dozen angles and then regretting it. Consider me a 'bulimic' interlocutor.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:11 pm

In a world of conflicting goods the will to power prevails. That's why the world is will to power. All non-power-gathering drives lost out.

Meaning it is a contraption to make a problem of conflicting goods. A more honest and direct approach simply recognises all entities as mining the same pool of "goods" and it isn't the goods, but the entities that conflict.

Someone marked by "amor fati" ( a Latin "contraption") even considers this conflict a "good". So at that points goods only conflict on the lower tiers.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:20 pm

For example, the fight against leftists is excruciating because of their profoundly ugly souls bit deep down it gives me absolute satisfaction to be made so aware that I am not them, nothing like them, they will never value my values and thus I can completely dismiss them as less than worthless. This places me at the heart of nature, away from all contrived "peace" and in a genuine calm, a steady flame.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:29 pm

It surely occurred to you all here that any intellectual question is a contraption.
The uncontrived mind simply observes, weighs and decides.

Iambs core question is a contraption contrived to invite contraptions, presumably to avoid knowledge.

Knowledge is decisive in its influence. Iamb contrives to be free of this influence much like Sokrates, who also was in a deep hole he could only escape through "suicide by trial".
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:37 pm

In the last analysis there is only one question, Hamlet asks it.

From the answer to this question all the rest follows.

Sokrtes answered negatively, and all his "philosophy" (contraption) is to be derived from that answer.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:41 pm

Hamlet is a good character to bring up. He is in a kind of a hole and in his ‘to be or not to be’ he discusses the issue. Imagine he discussed the issue, using the same terms, the same lines, over and over hundreds of times. He is a member of ILP and he comes here, in the hopes of finding an objective answer to whether he should choose to continue living despite the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or whether it is logical, objectively smart to end his suffering and die.
This is not Iamb’s hole. He seems to have chosen to live. Suicide is not on the table.
He has a different existential crisis.
But if we imagine this ILP Hamlet coming back again and again to post on his hole and this choice, we might find it odd if he thought everyone else should have his particular focus give it the same weight. That the amount of weight Hamlet gives, the ILP Hamlet, to this hole, should be the weight every person gives to that hole.
If they don’t, he tells them they have a soothing contraption.
One should be able to conclude that Iamb must have a contraption regarding the suicide issue. He’s not a mammal driven by just biological needs.
One should be able to conclude that since Iamb does not bemoan external transience and contingency, he must have a contraption there also.
The people we know, the places we live often shift as we age. Many people find this outer transience depressing, that It makes their lives meaningless and random.
But Iamb is focused on the inner transience, that his morals have changed over time and may again. He does not focus much on that other hole. Fine.
But when he encounters a non-objectivist who is not in hole about the contingency and transience of morals, their lack of objectivity…and they are not troubled by this like he is, he then starts telling them they have a contraption that makes them not worry so much.
As if we must all be like him. Because he would need a contraption to not give it the incredible weight he gives it, I assume.
What contraption keeps him out of focusing on Hamlet’s hole? Or Siddhartha’s hole that he suffered before he invented Buddhism?
There’s the hole about the gap between men and women or between people in general: the one where one cannot find way to think the intimacy one yearns for is possible or how to get it or how to know it is real. He’s not in that hole. What contraption keeps him from that?
What contraptions might be involved in the amount of weight he gives his hole?
What secondary gain might be gotten from focusing only there?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:10 pm

if you're a therapist its easy, you must say its laziness

he spends 99 percent of the energy needed to go out of the hole on making the hole slippery. It is only 1 percent easier but it works super. He doesn't need to go beyond the hole and face the unexpected where he can't be lazy. Thats what one of 12 therapists I was into when some bad shit had freaked me out, told me. But then I realized the therapy was the Hole. I just got out of it and got my life in order like snap, really cool it worked.

Fuck the hole.

I-)
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: under your pillow

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Jakob » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:13 pm

No its will to power. He does make the hole slippery and tries for others to fall into it, and it works, we are talking to him in his hole about his hole.

He is just having fun, posting music and keeping people obsessed with him. That is a good routine to have on a forum.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:25 pm

:D
gotcha
Be the flame, not the moth that is his motto.

Image
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: under your pillow

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:02 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I am not able to think that my own value judgments are not inevitably entangled in dasein. Again you tell me that I think myself out of something. But I have not done that. I am not unlike you there. You just, again, said I am something but it is not true. I think it is inevitable that those things are entangled. I took out the word 'hopelessly' since this implies an emotional reaction I do not have, but which you do. We are unlike in our emotional reaction to this. We are unlike in that you spend a very large part of you communication and time on this issue. We are unlike in that you are seeking to solve this, but giving every chance for some objectivist to demonstrate their values are correct. But I have no contraption that MAKES me different from you there. Perhaps you have a contraption makes you put so much weight on the issue. Perhaps you do not. Perhaps dasein has made it that you put much more weight on it than I do, or mine such that I do not. Perhaps it is your temperment, coming from dasein and genetics. I don't know.


I don't know either. But that is largely my point. In trying to understand how and why we come to react [as particular individuals] to conflicting goods at the intersection of "I" and political power, our intentions and motivations become entangled in the gap between what we think we know is true here and now and what is in fact true given a frame of that actually can know this.

Here of course most folks assign that task to God. But others, in rejecting religion, assign it instead to one or another political ideology or intellectual contraption [RM/AO, Value Ontology etc.] or assessment of nature.

As for the "hole", my argument is certainly not that your argument is less reasonable than mine. It is only an attempt to describe it here at ILP; and then to note the assumptions and the components it is based on; and then to elicit reactions. Reactions from the objectivists, reactions from the non-objectivists.

And then [from time to time] to speculate on the extent to which some folks here become rather hostile to my point of view. Entire threads are created to expose me as a fool. Why? Well, perhaps because some sense the possibility that the components of my own argument here may well be applicable to their own "I" too.

What do you think?

Or, perhaps, we should invite the "serious philosophers" here to pin down once and for all the epistemological parameters of the word "contraption".

They could react to the manner in which I construe your own rendition of pragmatism as just another existential/intellectual contraption; and then the manner in which you insist that it is not a contraption at all.

Let's make the attempt to take this to the either/or world: Is it or not?

Then we could invite in other members of the mammal community to weigh in on it. :-k

And then, in my view, it's straight back up into the stratosphere:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I think, but I am not sure, that you use yourself as the default. Since you react to non-objectivism the way you do, if someone else does not they must have a contraption. And repeatedly over and over, you tell me what I have done, like in the quote above, and it is not something I have done.

Apart from differences in our pasts, our current lives could also affect how much weight we put on things. Our social lives, intimate connections, work or lack of and how well that fits with our skills and preferences and in general do we get to do things that we care about with people we care about. All that would also affect the amount of weight, time and energy one would put into ANY existential hole.

I no doubt contributed to this confusion by using a philosophical term pragmatism when I meant in the way I have now described.

I realize I have only partially responded. But I keep thinking this dialogue needs to be very focused. I mess this up by trying a dozen angles and then regretting it. Consider me a 'bulimic' interlocutor.


Indeed, the dialogue needs to focus in on a particular context. One involving conflicting goods that we are all familiar with. We can explore the actual existential, "for all practical purposes" implications of the words that we choose in our "general descriptions" above.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26981
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users