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

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:39 am

iambiguous wrote:Then I'm even more out of sync with your intention here. Either that or simply unable to grasp it at all.


I'll give it a last try,then give up.
You were basically asking me 'why are you not like me?' That is 'Why KT, do you not obsess about conflicting goods and dasein and why do you not suffer fragmentation, like I, iambiguous, do?

I said that a question in the form of 'why are you not like me?' is, generally very hard to answer.

Person 1:Why are you not fascinated with arachnids?

Person 2: Well, gosh, I'm not sure, it just doesn't come up.....

Often these negative questions give us litte to work with. Why?

Because when we lack something, there is little in our experience to explore to find out why.

If you ask me, why do you like dogs and being in the woods? , a question about something I choose to do or find myself doing or likeing and experiencing, now suddenly I can explore my experiences to see what parts of this relation with dogs or my experience with 'being in the woods' appeals to me, fits with more specific things I like. Dogs cheer me up, they enjoy life so much and it is contagious. I love the quiet in the woods and the unplanned beauty of the trees.

ETC.

We have been exploring why I do not react to non-objectivism like you do. You are in a hole. I am not. I have been in holes, but not that one. WE try to figure out why not.

You have a tendency to assume Karpel MUST HAVE A CONTRAPTION.

I have explained why this is not the case. I have presented an array of other possible options.

You keep coming back to it must be a contraption, despite your own philosophy offering an array of other options.

And in that array is the possbility that you have a contraption that makes give the issue so much weight.
There are other options where contraptions are not involved in the difference between us on that issue.

I doubt we will find the reason we react differently. But it sure ain't because I have some soothing contraption around it. Perhaps I am suffering less than you. That can be due to all sorts of things.

If you do not understand the point I am making here, nor my examples with dogs and arachnids, we just drop it.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sat Oct 13, 2018 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:29 pm

"You are in a hole. I am not. I have been in holes, but not that one."

Haha Karpel it sounds like you are standing over a grave.
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: 1336
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: in the cupboard by your kn knees

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:03 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:"You are in a hole. I am not. I have been in holes, but not that one."

Haha Karpel it sounds like you are standing over a grave.

Well, now I'm walking away.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:22 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then I'm even more out of sync with your intention here. Either that or simply unable to grasp it at all.


I'll give it a last try,then give up.
You were basically asking me 'why are you not like me?' That is 'Why KT, do you not obsess about conflicting goods and dasein and why do you not suffer fragmentation, like I, iambiguous, do?


No, I am basically asking of others [who are not objectivists] to describe how they have come to think of themselves as less fragmented than I am, given the following assumptions:

1] that their value judgments are derived existentially from the particular life that they lived
2] that, had their life been different, their values might be different
3] that there does not appear to be a way for philosophers/ethicists to provide an argument such that it can be determined which behaviors rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to choose
4] that new experiences, relationships and information/knowledge/ideas are always there with the potential to reconfigure their value judgments in the future.

"I" here is what I call an existential contraption. It is such that through the live we live we become predisposed toward particular political prejudices. Prejudices that revolve around sets of assumptions that revolve around conflicting goods.

Out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

All of which unfolds through human interactions that revolve finally around those who actually have the power to enforce particular sets of behavior.

And that the particular behaviors that seem to prevail in the world today revolve around those who own and operate the global economy. Those that I construe to be "show me the money" moral nihilists.

But, no, I am not obsessed with this. I spend only a few hours a day on line in philosophy forums. Still, when doing philosophy, what is of fundamental importance to me is probing possible answers to the question "how ought one to live?"

In particular, in taking any answers that we might embody here and now down out of the "general description" scholastic clouds and situating them in actual existential contexts.

You claim to do this but not in the manner in which I am more inclined to prefer: through your own rendition of my abortion trajectory.

An attempt to intertwine experiences and ideas re the existential evolution of a value judgment that is of particular importance to you.

As for dogs and arachnids, preferences here are clearly rooted in the lives that we live. And almost no one will argue that one ought either be interested in them or to like them.

And your continuing obsession with my alleged obsession with fitting you into a contraption hardly interest me at. I have explained the reason why I think the word is appropriate. It fits snuggly into my own narrative.

If it bothers you it bothers you. But that's your problem. After all, it's not like I am calling you a fool for not thinking about it like I do.

All I have ever wanted of others here [objectivists and non-objectivists alike] were descriptions of "I" that are smack dab in the middle of moral and political conflicts/contexts that we are all likely to be familiar with.
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: 27337
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:40 pm

I certainly tell all rational and virtuous people what they should do, because I have defined good and evil in an objective way.

Join me in the debate section. I challenged you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7352
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Iambiguous: non-objectivists should feel bad

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:33 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I certainly tell all rational and virtuous people what they should do, because I have defined good and evil in an objective way.

Join me in the debate section. I challenged you.


Here's the challenge iambiguous!

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

If you don't take it, you are a proven troll, if you take it and lose, you are a proven troll if you don't change your words to match objective morality.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7352
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users