phyllo wrote:If you tell Iambig that he is not responding to posts, he uses determinism to rationalize it as "he could not have responded in any other way".
phyllo wrote:He appears to want to remove power, control and responsibility from the individual and place it somewhere else.
phyllo wrote:If I see a complex machine making decisions, then I would tend to assign it agency. Iambig seems to see a reason to take away agency from humans.
Meno_ wrote:I don't "use" determinism. I grapple with trying to understand the extent to which the human mind may or may not be able to determine the extent to which we think, and feel and behave with some measure of "free choice".
phyllo wrote:Iambig wrote :
Instead, the point is that you have managed to convince yourself that there is a right answer to be had here. So, again, why not yours. It's the part about having an answer -- any answer -- that propels the objectivist mind.
The right answer is that there is no right answer. Right?
phyllo wrote: No wait a minute, the correct attitude would seem to be "I don't know whether there is a right answer or not". That would lead to a calm peaceful state of mind. There would be no reason to attack 'objectivists' for their beliefs since you don't know if they are right or wrong.
Not only do I not know the answer to this, I can't even imagine the minds of any mere mortals on this tiny little rock in the vastness of what may or may not be the multiverse, actually thinking that they have one!
The fucking answer!!!
phyllo wrote: You've convinced yourself that a right answer is impossible for "mere mortals". How dare they think that there is a "fucking answer".
No uncertainty there. Never : maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, maybe the concept of right and wrong is not applicable.
Over and over again with you ... can there be right and wrong answers in the general sense? You know, that there is an answer to at least one question in the field of identity, etc. One fucking right answer. And can there be wrong answers?Over and over and over again with you: The right answer pertaining to what particular context understood from what particular conflicting points of view?
You seem to insist that I seem to insist that how I view this is how I think that all rational men and women are obligated to view it. Whereas in reality -- remember that? -- I don't think that at all. Quite the opposite given the manner in which I keep pointing out over and over and over again the depth of the ambivalence I am embedded in when thinking about it at all.
Notice how the pile grows. Now you need "the only answer that could ever have been" instead of just "a fucking answer".I've convinced myself that I don't know if any answer is ever anything other than the only answer that could ever have been.
And here it has to "be demonstrated to actually be right or wrong for ALL RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS". Pile it on.As for the "concept" of right or wrong, how is that either in sync or not in sync with that which can be demonstrated to actually be right or wrong for all rational human beings. Out in the world of conflicting goods.
Mad Man P wrote:My point is, whatever that conception of self may or may not be, it has absolutely no bearing on the concept of determinism... it may be rendered impossible by determinism, it may be only possible given determinism... either way it does not constitute a change in the concept of determinism.
Mad Man P wrote:There is a HUGE difference between arguing over what the definition of "self" ought to be (semantics) and how best to model the phenomenon that we choose to call self.
We have made great strides toward understanding the workings of our brain and there's a lot left that we do not know... but whether any of that information pertains to understanding the nature of "self" depends entirely on how we define "self".
When someone says they define self as being a person's soul and you define it as being their brain... the disagreement can be about SEMANTICS (an absolute waste of everyone's time) or it can be about the existence of souls and what role they play.
phyllo wrote:How did the "concept of determinism" become so powerful that it drives the existence of "concept of self"? Why doesn't the "concept of self" maybe render the "concept of determinism" impossible/possible?My point is, whatever that conception of self may or may not be, it has absolutely no bearing on the concept of determinism... it may be rendered impossible by determinism, it may be only possible given determinism... either way it does not constitute a change in the concept of determinism.
gib wrote:Now, I would agree that not all such divisions are useful. Saying that there are two kinds of humans--those under 6 feet tall and those over 6 feet tall--is pretty useless (depending on the context); but saying there are two kinds of humans--males and females--can be a lot more useful. In the case of determinism and whether the self is a participant in the system or an outsider just watching from the sides, I think it can be very useful to make the distinction. It has implication for some of the most contentious topics the determinist likes to engage in: are we in control?
(what does finitely regressive mean?)
Still more bizarre [for me] is in imagining a universe where even our own conscious minds are only cognizant of that which they could only ever have been cognizant of. Our awareness of the universe, in other words, is not something that we choose autonomously to be cognizant of. It is just another manifestation of the immutable laws of matter.
iambiguous wrote:Exactly! Some think that their own attempts are freely chosen, while others think that, in thinking this, the attempts in and of themselves are just another manifestation of what we still don't know about how mindless matter could have evolved into brain matter evolving into human minds.gib wrote:Ah, but... are we attempting to come to grips with this because we are freely choosing to? Or is it because we could never have not attempted to come to grips with it?
iambiguous wrote:Agreeing with you about what?
iambiguous wrote:gib wrote:And BTW, why are you agreeing with me? What happened to the gap between what you think you know "in your head" and all that would be needed to know in order to say for sure what we are attempting to come to grips with?
But how would anything that we either agree or disagree about not still be embedded in the gap between what we think we know about these things here and now and all that can be known in about them in order to assess the reality of existence essentially, necessarily?
iambiguous wrote:I'm basically at a loss regarding why you can't own up to this profoundly significant chasm.
iambiguous wrote:But how does this not immediately take us on to the next question: do you think that what you do think here is something that you chose to think "of your own free will"?
Everything takes you to that question, Biggy.
No, everything takes me to the question of how it can be determined that "everything" -- "anything" -- here was or was not ever within my capacity to have chosen otherwise.
iambiguous wrote:Note to others:
What sort of answer is he after here? Please provide me with the manner in which you would answer him instead. So that I can make comparisons.
iambiguous wrote:Sure, maybe. But all I can do here is to respond to the best of my ability. That's the best of your ability? For me, Thank you!!! --> there is no question that we choose our subjective experiences. <-- Thank you!!! Instead, the question is the extent to which it is possible that "I" could have freely chosen another experience instead. Or that I could have freely chosen to react to the experiences of others otherwise.
iambiguous wrote:But I'm the one who has to live from day to day with what I have "here and now" thought myself into believing is true about these things. And, your own contentions to the contrary, it is a really, really, really grim point of view.
iambiguous wrote:Bingo. You admit that your own answers here may be right, may be wrong. But [from my frame of mind] that's not the point. Instead, the point is that you have managed to convince yourself that there is a right answer to be had here. So, again, why not yours. It's the part about having an answer -- any answer -- that propels the objectivist mind.
iambiguous wrote:The fucking answer!!!
To me, that's analogous to insisting that you believe in the existence of the fucking God! And then demonstrating that He does in fact fucking exist!!
iambiguous wrote:gib wrote:You phrase it: "I could have chosen different, if I wanted to."--the catch being that your wanting to is the determining force that decides your choosing one way or another. That we were destined to choose one way over another is neither here nor there with compatibilism.
But my wanting to is or is not no less entangled in my having to want to.
This seems to be based on the idea that there is an "orthodox" determinism which is ... static? agreed on? understood? exactly reflecting reality?Someone saying "I'm a determinist" and then denying there is any agency within this model is either denying the existence of complex organisms or more likely playing a language game where those organisms do not qualify as "agents" because of how that term is defined.
If it's a language game... it's a waste of everyone's time to argue about it... a rose by any other name and all that jazz.
I don't even agree with this because the definitions of the concepts are going to be based on how you approach it. They could be connected. One notices it when digging deeper into the meaning of the words "absolute", "darkness" and "light".The same way the concept of absolute darkness is utterly unaffected by the concept of absolute light... forming one concept does not alter the other...
Mad Man P wrote:phyllo wrote:But the discussion is really about why Iambig doesn't see a door where others do see a door.
It's not that he is saying there is no door in the picture... he just won't call it a "door", he thinks the word "door" means something else, something that does not exist in the picture... but he is very much looking at the same picture.
phyllo wrote:Over and over again with you ... can there be right and wrong answers in the general sense? You know, that there is an answer to at least one question in the field of identity, etc. One fucking right answer. And can there be wrong answers?Over and over and over again with you: The right answer pertaining to what particular context understood from what particular conflicting points of view?
phyllo wrote: You say that you are ambivalent but you don't sound like it. I think an ambivalent person would tend to shut up or at least phrase his posts very differently.
I've convinced myself that I don't know if any answer is ever anything other than the only answer that could ever have been.
phyllo wrote: Notice how the pile grows. Now you need "the only answer that could ever have been" instead of just "a fucking answer".
As for the "concept" of right or wrong, how is that either in sync or not in sync with that which can be demonstrated to actually be right or wrong for all rational human beings. Out in the world of conflicting goods.
phyllo wrote: And here it has to "be demonstrated to actually be right or wrong for ALL RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS". Pile it on.
phyllo wrote: What about one rational human being? For a start.
phyllo wrote:You keep refering to "rational human beings" but you never establish what that actually means. Given your philosophy, it seems unlikely that you can make a distinction between rational and irrational.
Now you want me to do it for you.
For one thing, you repeat yourself. It's like I'm reading the same things over and over. If I try to shift to something new, then you either don't understand, or you ignore it completely or you ignore it by shifting to something you prefer to talk about.Here we go again...
1] first you seem willing to exchange substantive posts regarding one or another philosophical issue
2] then over time something analogous to contempt seems to creep into your posts...I become the issue
3] then you abandon the exchange -- actually responding to the points I raised above -- for a "retort" like this one
4] then you steer clear of me altogether until the next "round"
Or, rather, so it seems to me.
If you can't distinguish good and bad in general (or in a context), then how can you possibly distinguish rational and irrational in general (or in a context)???As for the part about "rational human beings", my aim is always to zero in on an actual contexts in which behaviors come into conflict. And then to explore the extent to which any particular behavior might be called rational or irrational. And then in exploring how that might be demonstrated beyond "general description" arguments embedded in intellectual contraptions.
Sure. One can start there.Meno_ wrote:Would you guys settle on the legal definition ?
This hypothetical person referred to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests.
iambiguous wrote:If there is an actual door, I will see it just as you two do. Instead, my focus is on the extent to which I am choosing to see it given that I could have freely chosen not to see it. Or given that this choice -- all of our choices -- are really only as they ever could have been.
Right: Repetition if it applies or not. And as if one has not understood what is repeated.phyllo wrote: For one thing, you repeat yourself. It's like I'm reading the same things over and over. If I try to shift to something new, then you either don't understand, or you ignore it completely or you ignore it by shifting to something you prefer to talk about.
Right: does not really notice his discussion partners.And then there is the fact that you don't seem to remember anything that I have written. I wrote several times about my ideas of self which seem to be completely lost on you. What you remember seems to be mostly a stereotype person - not me. This is particularly evident when you bring up my 'supposed' thoughts about God, religion and communism.
It feels like you have known me for a week instead of the years that I have been posting.
And when you get irritated, he interprets this as his discussion partner feels threatened. Not once can he consider that it might be for the reasons given. He certainly leaves open that his interpretation might be incorrect, but cannot manage to actually consider ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION for why others get angry. And despite his own philosophy he will happily tell someone else what they believe and what their minds are like. Through the mists of dasein he only finds one thing, every time.Yeah, after a while I get enough of it
Users browsing this forum: No registered users