iambiguous wrote:gib wrote:So what is your approach if not the traditional objectivist's one? So far it seems to be an inquisitive one (to put it lightly); maybe an aggresively inquisitive one, aggressive because, I would think, one would have to be aggressive in forcing the typical objectivist to face up to the dilemma you pose--to admit to being in the same dasein boat as the rest of us, to seeing how his "I" fragments the minute he recognizes that he could have gone in the other direction, or might as well have.
All I can do is to live with the consequences of what I believe is true "in my head" here. "I" becomes hopelessly fragmented. "I" makes that existential leap to a particular set of political prejudices. All the while knowing that a new experience or a new relationship or a new source of information/knowledge might prompt me to change my mind. But, in turn, speculating that nothing is ever really resolved in the manner in which the moral objectivists are able to convince themselves that their own values are in sync -- naturally -- with the way the world [reality] is alleged to be.
That describes how you live your life, but I was asking about your approach to engaging with people, and objectivists in particular, in any attempts you might undertake towards resolving your dilemma. It seems, from my encounters with you in this thread, it's not the traditional objectivist one (arguing for why you're right), but rather an inquisitive one.
iambiguous wrote:My main contention is that the objectivist frame of mind is more a psychological contraption [a defense mechanism] than a philosophical argument.
Well, in my view, all philosophical arguments are defense mechanisms.
iambiguous wrote:No, not really. I'm still largely at a loss in understanding how "for all practical purposes" your understanding of consciousness [embedded in prong #1] has any "use value" or "exchange value" out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict.
I've been telling you that it doesn't. You seem to be stuck on the assumption that if I am to have an approach towards resolving conflict between myself and others, that approach
must involve my theory of consciousness somehow, as if the only way, even as an alternative to the objectivist approach, to approaching conflict with others is by bringing your "ism" to the table in one way or another. I'm telling you, I don't typically do that (not in "real world conflicts"). I feel my best chances at success would be to suggest new, healthier, more cooperation-inducing ideas that start with
the other person's beliefs and values. <-- You do understand, this is the key essential difference between the traditional objectivist approach (as I'm calling it) and the subjectivist approach, don't you?
iambiguous wrote:This seems to be another rendition of my own "moderation, negotiation and compromise" Probably. --- rooted in democracy and the rule of law. But: none of what I describe above relating to the existential consequences of my dilemma goes away. At least not for me.
I don't think it's meant to (TBH, at this point, I'm not entirely sure I know what your dilemma is); I'm just answering your questions at this point.
iambiguous wrote:Yes, but only pertaining to choosing sides morally and politically. Thus the preponderance of "who I am" is in fact rooted substantially, objectively, empirically, substantively etc., out in the world around me.
And by "who I am"--the 'I' there is you personally--Biggy--correct? You're saying that your sense of self is anchored, not in a moral "ism", but in the substantial, objective, empirical, substantive world around you?
iambiguous wrote:It is applicable to everyone. Well, if in fact it is. And, admittedly, I have no capacity to demonstrate that it is. Merely that, here and now, it seems reasonable to me that it is.
Ok, but this is why I'm getting confused about what your dilemma is. Sure, it's applicable to everyone, but what are you
more concerned with--how it applies to others or how it applies to you--this will tell me which is more of a dilemma to you. Based on your response just above, it seems I was right to second guess your concern over your own 'I' fragmenting as you seem, based on what you said, to have a relatively strong sense of self given that you identify it with the substantial, objective, etc., etc., etc., world around you (thus confirming what I said: the real empirical world has far more sway over one's beliefs than mere philosophical contemplations).
On that point, there's also a bit of confusion, on my part, over prong #2 of your dilemma. You talk about real-world consequences, but what are you more concerned with here--what's more of a dilemma to you: the fact that we have to deal with inter-personal conflict, or the fact that objectivists have not (or cannot) arrive at a demonstrably correct argument about all things moral?
iambiguous wrote:iambiguous wrote:True, but that does not make the sociopath's rationalization [self-gratification] any less persuasive to me.
gib wrote:Really???
Yes. It can be construed as a persuasive argument. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in a godless universe. Which is to suggest that philosophers are unable to demonstrate that it is instead necessarily irrational.
This can only be the case if you're actually
cooperating with the sociopath to establish reasons why he should kill you (agreeing to stick to reason is a form of cooperation with your contender), which tells me that you're interested in exploring the sociopath's justifications only to the extent that you're interested in a bit of armchair philosophy. But if a sociopath actually had you cornered in a dark grungy basement with a knife in his hand ready to kill you, and he took a moment out to justify why he was killing you (like the villains often do in the movies before they attempt to kill the good guy), I highly doubt that Biggy would sit there contemplating the sociopath's reasons: hmmm... well, let's think about this for a second; he does raise some interesting points. In a world sans God, what reason does he
not have to satisfy his own self-gratification...
iambiguous wrote:The sociopath is happy if he or she is able to gratify a perceived want or need. But this "resolution" may result in the unhappiness of others. My point is only that neither side seems able to demonstrate an objective manner in which to think about this.
Yep, I agree with this.
It seems you are interested only in an objectivist's approach to establishing a particular morality (which, as I pointed out before, might only intensify the conflict). <-- We'll call this prong #2a, prong #2b being how to
resolve conflict with others.
iambiguous wrote:We're still basically "stuck". Again, I read this and am unable to connect any dots between the points that you make and the manner in which I react myself to others who confront my own moral and political prejudices.
In other words, not much in the way of a more "solid understanding" comes to me.
Well, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to understand. I've just been giving you answers to your question--about what my approach, as a subjectivist, to resolving conflict between myself and others would be, an approach that differs from the "traditional objectivist approach", and why I think it would be more effective.
My point though is that more often than not we will be able to understand another's point of view -- at least to the extent that it can be demonstrated to in fact be in sync with the world around us objectively.
What do you mean by this? Obviously, we will sometimes be able to understand another's point of view. You must mean something more than this.
Also, I don't argue that one or another objectivist will never succeed in convincing others that her frame of mind is the most rational. I only note that no one has [of yet] been able to convince me of it.
^ This reinforces my suspicions about what you're most interested in--that you wish to see, for once, an objectivist's answer to the question "Who's right?"--an answer that actually works, in your view, such that it doesn't succumb to the same old "fragmentation" when thrown into the dasein mix of real-world conflicts, prejudices, and moral judgements, an answer whose objective integrity survives the fray.
I can see how my divorcing of my subjectivist "ism" from my approach to resolving conflict between myself and others would only work to frustrate this aim, and that if I
did offer the logic of my subjectivist "ism" (which I attempted to when I offered you a link to a free copy of my book in a PM), it wouldn't seem all that different from any other objectivist's existential contraption/fabrication. <-- This is why I've been up front about the fact that my theory can't help you in this regard. I've only been suggesting that it helps in regards to resolving conflict between one's self and others (as an alternative approach to the traditional objectivist approach), which, as I said above, is subtlely different from coughing up the kind of "objectivist demonstration" for why one's "ism" is right. (Furthermore, the subjectivist approach to resolving conflict that I've been trying to explain isn't exclusive to subjectivist's--it's perfectly usable by objectivists too--just that I think objectivists would have a rougher go at it because it would feel, at best, like temporarily putting aside their goal of proving their "ism" to others, and at worse, betraying their own values and integrity).
):
