MagsJ and iambiguous discuss...

[iambiguous]

...only as long as you don’t use the phrase “..interactions that revolve around conflicting goods in which we connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then”, or any variation or derivative there-of.. otherwise, sure.

Nope, no can do. My entire moral and political philosophy revolves around attempts to explain to others what "I" mean by that...given our interaction with others on this side of the grave as that is relevant to what we believe our fate to be on the other side of it.

Iam said: “As for a discussion of MagsJ's politics, I would very much like to commence a new thread with her. She can focus in on her own political values, and I can focus in on mine. And then in regard to one or another pressing political issue that has been in the news of late, we can compare and contrast our own political philosophies. Just say the word and I will start it. An entirely civil exchange in which we explore the components of our own thinking here.“

I say: Ok.

Wasn't sure whether to take our discussion to this board or to the philosophy board. In part because when it comes to the main components of my own philosophy -- identity, value judgments, political economy -- both are hopelessly entangled.

Entangled, in part, in the distinction I make between what we claim to know about ourselves in the world around us and what we are actually able to demonstrate to be true for all rational men and women.

So, I flipped a coin. Left it entirely to, well, whatever flipping a coin here leaves such things to.

Now all we need is "a context".

Me, I always come back to abortion. Why? Because 1] it literally involve matters of life and death, 2] almost everyone is familiar with it and 3] it is the issue that precipitated my own reconfiguration from a moral objectivist to a moral nihilist.

But any other "conflicting good" is okay by me. Why? Because in regard to all moral and political conflicts, I have become the embodiment of 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.

And I lug this around from thread to thread in order to garner the reactions of others to it. How do they not see themselves in this manner? Given a particular context.

[Meno_]

Forgive please for this interaction.

But I believe in essential explanations, which usually do not conflict value in or out of particular contexts.

They are by definition universal values applicable to anyone.

Now between morally significant universally accepted good values and their significant mortal connections, the question always revolve around the definition of Das Sein

That simplified way of putting it demands the oft irregular and variable use of that word: D as Sein.

It has been pointed out that it' s best to stick to the originally intended meaning of that word, and after all intentionality and Das Sein are connected not merely by phenomenal-posiitivist description but by authoritatorial identity.

That identity cancels the need for further contextual varience.

I g presumptions of misunderstood meaning can conjure up a denial of understanding, even within this analysud, then might as aell put out denials of access between primary forum participation.

But such claim is never supported in a quasi liberal environment.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianelli6 type manuved does not work, of solve shat is essentially a reductive endeavod, into the type MarsH uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

It's illustrative of the major political theater Coming to some what appears to be major political drama.

If such can be sustained until a desired synthetic compromise is reached, it will be on the basis of the lasyers'-senators realization that they exceeds their nominal 'professional' language.


This 'overstepping' of the context within which even Nietzsche is guilty, is the result of duscrepency between the optical-litetal expectation of awareness, and their underlying 'technical presentation.

This is so true today, as critics, unddrstandibly wring their hands over the prospects of 'modern democracy'

[iambiguous]

Forgive please for this interaction.

But I believe in essential explanations, which usually do not conflict value in or out of particular contexts.

They are by definition universal values applicable to anyone.

Now between morally significant universally accepted good values and their significant mortal connections, the question always revolve around the definition of Das Sein

That simplified way of putting it demands the oft irregular and variable use of that word: D as Sein.

It has been pointed out that it' s best to stick to the originally intended meaning of that word, and after all intentionality and Das Sein are connected not merely by phenomenal-posiitivist description but by authoritatorial identity.

That identity cancels the need for further contextual varience.

I g presumptions of misunderstood meaning can conjure up a denial of understanding, even within this analysud, then might as aell put out denials of access between primary forum participation.

But such claim is never supported in a quasi liberal environment.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianelli6 type manuved does not work, of solve shat is essentially a reductive endeavod, into the type MarsH uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

It's illustrative of the major political theater Coming to some what appears to be major political drama.

If such can be sustained until a desired synthetic compromise is reached, it will be on the basis of the lasyers'-senators realization that they exceeds their nominal 'professional' language.


This 'overstepping' of the context within which even Nietzsche is guilty, is the result of duscrepency between the optical-litetal expectation of awareness, and their underlying 'technical presentation.

This is so true today, as critics, unddrstandibly wring their hands over the prospects of 'modern democracy'

Well, yeah, that too.

[Meno_]

Forgive please for this interaction.

But I believe in essential explanations, which usually do not conflict value in or out of particular contexts.

They are by definition universal values applicable to anyone.

Now between morally significant universally accepted good values and their significant mortal connections, the question always revolve around the definition of Das Sein

That simplified way of putting it demands the oft irregular and variable use of that word: D as Sein.

It has been pointed out that it' s best to stick to the originally intended meaning of that word, and after all intentionality and Das Sein are connected not merely by phenomenal-posiitivist description but by authoritatorial identity.

That identity cancels the need for further contextual varience.

I g presumptions of misunderstood meaning can conjure up a denial of understanding, even within this analysud, then might as aell put out denials of access between primary forum participation.

But such claim is never supported in a quasi liberal environment.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianelli6 type manuved does not work, of solve shat is essentially a reductive endeavod, into the type MarsH uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

It's illustrative of the major political theater Coming to some what appears to be major political drama.

If such can be sustained until a desired synthetic compromise is reached, it will be on the basis of the lasyers'-senators realization that they exceeds their nominal 'professional' language.


This 'overstepping' of the context within which even Nietzsche is guilty, is the result of duscrepency between the optical-litetal expectation of awareness, and their underlying 'technical presentation.

This is so true today, as critics, unddrstandibly wring their hands over the prospects of 'modern democracy'

Well, yeah, that too.

And that form of characterization via almost a caricature, IS the modus operans of today's primal authority.

[iambiguous]

And that form of characterization via almost a caricature, IS the modus operans of today's primal authority.

Okay, you can bring that to a new thread. Pick a particular set of circumstances and we can delve into it. In fact I dare you to.

But the subject this thread is "Magsj and iambiguous discuss..."

Though, sure, once the exchange commences, feel free to comment.

[Meno_]

Ambig:

But setting up newer and newer subtextual inferences is precisely the way to extract a totally reduced-redacted litany of an obscura camera type perception.

This is why most of us, including You and me, safe as fractured as can be

[MagsJ]

-
I am happy to go with this..

But any other "conflicting good" is okay by me. Why? Because in regard to all moral and political conflicts, I have become the embodiment of 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.

And I lug this around from thread to thread in order to garner the reactions of others to it. How do they not see themselves in this manner? Given a particular context.

Sure, we can touch on abortion.. as well as all-and-any-other (alleged) conflicting goods, so a multi-faceted exchange is going to be had.

I once said: “Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history”.

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

The humanities arena is fine, as I too can foresee the ensuing points being raised, revolving around that.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianelli6 type manuved does not work, of solve shat is essentially a reductive endeavod, into the type MarsH uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

Is that a compliment or a slur.. I can’t quite tell Meno_

Perhaps it is neither..

[Meno_]

-
I am happy to go with this..

But any other "conflicting good" is okay by me. Why? Because in regard to all moral and political conflicts, I have become the embodiment of 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.

And I lug this around from thread to thread in order to garner the reactions of others to it. How do they not see themselves in this manner? Given a particular context.

Sure, we can touch on abortion.. as well as all-and-any-other (alleged) conflicting goods, so a multi-faceted exchange is going to be had.

I once said: “Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history”.

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

The humanities arena is fine, as I too can foresee the ensuing points being raised, revolving around that.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianellitype maneuver does not work, of solve what is essentially a reductive endeavor into the type MagsJ uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

Is that a compliment or a slur.. I can’t quite tell Meno_

Perhaps it is neither..

It's beyond, way beyond such categories. , MarsH Came home late from trip and not aware of dire need to edit.

Summerily executed , not to induce any unworthy connotations other than my earnest willingness to get on the reductive discussion of subordinate contextual posts with X and lambiguous discuss.....i am on the bottom tier, and I presume all tiers interact one way or another.

[Meno_]

-
I am happy to go with this..

But any other "conflicting good" is okay by me. Why? Because in regard to all moral and political conflicts, I have become the embodiment of 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.

And I lug this around from thread to thread in order to garner the reactions of others to it. How do they not see themselves in this manner? Given a particular context.

Sure, we can touch on abortion.. as well as all-and-any-other (alleged) conflicting goods, so a multi-faceted exchange is going to be had.

I once said: “Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history”.

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

The humanities arena is fine, as I too can foresee the ensuing points being raised, revolving around that.

Sorry Biggs, in this cased a Machianelli6 type manuved does not work, of solve shat is essentially a reductive endeavod, into the type MarsH uses, as a representation, worth no more nor less than Your very own

Is that a compliment or a slur.. I can’t quite tell Meno_

Perhaps it is neither..

It's beyond, way beyond such categories. , MagsJ. Came home late from trip and not aware of dire need to edit.

Summerily executed , not to induce any unworthy connotations other than my earnest willingness to get on the reductive discussion of subordinate contextual posts with X and lambiguous discuss.....i am on the bottom tier, and I presume all tiers interact one way or another.

[iambiguous]

I am happy to go with this..

But any other "conflicting good" is okay by me. Why? Because in regard to all moral and political conflicts, I have become the embodiment of 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.

And I lug this around from thread to thread in order to garner the reactions of others to it. How do they not see themselves in this manner? Given a particular context.

Sure, we can touch on abortion.. as well as all-and-any-other (alleged) conflicting goods, so a multi-faceted exchange is going to be had.

I once said: “Politics.. fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation.. as seen throughout history”.

Okay, how then is this pertinent to the "abortion wars" as some call it? How are our individual thoughts configured into a moral narrative configured into political power configured into actual laws that reward or punish actual behaviors relating to abortion in any given human community.

For example, here is an assessment of it in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19856314

Again, however, my own assessment of my own individual views on abortion "here and now" is encompassed in the OP and in my posts on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

The part where my own unique set of experiences [no doubt very different from yours and others] becomes intertwined in my own attempts to think it through by way of an exploration of philosophy down through the ages. Which is as well rooted in dasein. There is all that is available from all philosophical sources and the tiny slice of it that I chose to ingest.

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

No, I don't think that politics influences all of the decisions that we make. A woman becoming pregnant with a baby she does not want can become entangled in any number of circumstantial contexts in which politics has little or no impact at all. In fact she may choose any number of things from the point of conception in which no one but herself is even aware of it. But when she does make the decision to abort the baby/clump of cells [this rooted itself in dasein], she is confronted with options. And here in any particular legal jurisdiction around the globe, politics becomes profoundly important.

What will the government [sustained through politics] allow her to do? Why this and not that? How are the laws related to the conflicting moral assessments of those on all sides of the "abortion wars"? What ought the laws be in order to be in sync with the most rational frame of mind regarding abortion?

[MagsJ]

I see the Meno_/Iam thread fell through, and abruptly ended.

You can expect a reply some time today.

[MagsJ]

Okay, how then is this pertinent to the "abortion wars" as some call it? How are our individual thoughts configured into a moral narrative configured into political power configured into actual laws that reward or punish actual behaviors relating to abortion in any given human community.

For example, here is an assessment of it in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19856314

Again, however, my own assessment of my own individual views on abortion "here and now" is encompassed in the OP and in my posts on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

The part where my own unique set of experiences [no doubt very different from yours and others] becomes intertwined in my own attempts to think it through by way of an exploration of philosophy down through the ages. Which is as well rooted in dasein. There is all that is available from all philosophical sources and the tiny slice of it that I chose to ingest.

It is not an issue I think about much, but I do think that a certain set of circumstances should allow for an easier access to facilities, but those that have abortion after abortion after abortion should take stock of their lives and love lives. I was brought up in an environment where abortion was a sin, but they were being utilised in that environment regardless.

Now there’s the morning after pill, and the week after pill..

“Week after pill:

The Abortion Pill AKA The 10-Week-After-Pill
Unlike emergency contraception, which can be used up to 120 hours after sex to PREVENT pregnancy, the abortion pill can be used to safely terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks”.

I think that quite inhumane, and that it should only be used in extreme cases of necessity, and not because you just don’t want a baby anymore or that you use it as a form of contraception. A case of fuck first, think of the repercussions later?

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

No, I don't think that politics influences all of the decisions that we make. A woman becoming pregnant with a baby she does not want can become entangled in any number of circumstantial contexts in which politics has little or no impact at all. In fact she may choose any number of things from the point of conception in which no one but herself is even aware of it. But when she does make the decision to abort the baby/clump of cells [this rooted itself in dasein], she is confronted with options. And here in any particular legal jurisdiction around the globe, politics becomes profoundly important.

What will the government [sustained through politics] allow her to do? Why this and not that? How are the laws related to the conflicting moral assessments of those on all sides of the "abortion wars"? What ought the laws be in order to be in sync with the most rational frame of mind regarding abortion?

The initial decision lays in the hands of the parent(s), on whether to abort or not.. for whatever reason or circumstance they found themselves in, that brought them to that point in time.

I think the worse thing a woman can do is to abort out of spite, and a male.. to force a female to have an abortion, and then I can foresee other parties being called upon to make the other see sense.

[iambiguous]

Okay, how then is this pertinent to the "abortion wars" as some call it? How are our individual thoughts configured into a moral narrative configured into political power configured into actual laws that reward or punish actual behaviors relating to abortion in any given human community.

For example, here is an assessment of it in the UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-19856314

Again, however, my own assessment of my own individual views on abortion "here and now" is encompassed in the OP and in my posts on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

The part where my own unique set of experiences [no doubt very different from yours and others] becomes intertwined in my own attempts to think it through by way of an exploration of philosophy down through the ages. Which is as well rooted in dasein. There is all that is available from all philosophical sources and the tiny slice of it that I chose to ingest.

It is not an issue I think about much, but I do think that a certain set of circumstances should allow for an easier access to facilities, but those that have abortion after abortion after abortion should take stock of their lives and love lives. I was brought up in an environment where abortion was a sin, but they were being utilised in that environment regardless.

Still, my point is that this too appears to be but another manifestation of dasein derived from the particular life that you lived. And that, using the tools of philosophy, we seem unable to pin down how much time rational men and women ought to spend thinking about it. Let alone that, after spending just the right amount of time doing it, they should think more like me instead of you.

What of all those who were "brought up" in very different sets of circumstances, resulting in very different points of view? Just as you may well have been brought up yourself in a very different set of circumstances had events in your own life gone in another direction.

In fact, I see this the way I do because, adventitiously, my birthday alone resulted in my being drafted into the Army and sent to Vietnam. There events in my life could not possibly have been further removed from the life I lived before the Army. It changed everything.

So, okay, I asked myself, how are events of this magnitude factored into the manner in which I came to see myself morally and politically? And how much of "I" went beyond them. Is there a "real me" still able to be in sync with the "right thing to do"? By, for example, reading the right philosophers some insist can provide us with an actual deontological foundation enabling us rationally to choose to do the right thing.

I think that quite inhumane, and that it should only be used in extreme cases of necessity, and not because you just don’t want a baby anymore or that you use it as a form of contraception. A case of fuck first, think of the repercussions later?

For me, it's not what you think here but how all of the existential variables in your life predisposed you to think this instead of that. And, then, given this, is there a way [philosophically or otherwise] to factor out "I" as an "existential contraption rooted in dasein" in order to arrive at an obligatory objective moral assessment.

I'm not arguing that there isn't, only that "here and now" no one has managed to convince me of late that I was wrong to abandon objectivism myself

As you know, I don’t think that politics influences all the decisions we make, whereas you do. That in itself could become a problematic furtherment hurdle.. for me at least.

No, I don't think that politics influences all of the decisions that we make. A woman becoming pregnant with a baby she does not want can become entangled in any number of circumstantial contexts in which politics has little or no impact at all. In fact she may choose any number of things from the point of conception in which no one but herself is even aware of it. But when she does make the decision to abort the baby/clump of cells [this rooted itself in dasein], she is confronted with options. And here in any particular legal jurisdiction around the globe, politics becomes profoundly important.

What will the government [sustained through politics] allow her to do? Why this and not that? How are the laws related to the conflicting moral assessments of those on all sides of the "abortion wars"? What ought the laws be in order to be in sync with the most rational frame of mind regarding abortion?

The initial decision lays in the hands of the parent(s), on whether to abort or not.. for whatever reason or circumstance they found themselves in, that brought them to that point in time.

Yes, but these parents are no less embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. Their own frames of mind here are no less entangled in the manner in which I have come to conclude we acquire [and then sustain] an identity in my signature threads.

Different parents, different lives, different experiences, different relationships, different information, knowledge, ideas and ideals.

Then what? What can the philosophers and the ethicists and the political scientists come up with to guide them down the most rational and virtuous path when they find themselves confronted with an unwanted pregnancy?

I think the worse thing a woman can do is to abort out of spite, and a male.. to force a female to have an abortion, and then I can foresee other parties being called upon to make the other see sense.

And what might "seeing sense" entail for those who think differently? And how and why did they come to acquire one rendition of it rather than another? And how do they figure out the one and the only truly just path for both the pregnant woman and the unborn baby?

[MagsJ]

_
TBC

[MagsJ]

It is not an issue I think about much, but I do think that a certain set of circumstances should allow for an easier access to facilities, but those that have abortion after abortion after abortion should take stock of their lives and love lives. I was brought up in an environment where abortion was a sin, but they were being utilised in that environment regardless.

Still, my point is that this too appears to be but another manifestation of dasein derived from the particular life that you lived. And that, using the tools of philosophy, we seem unable to pin down how much time rational men and women ought to spend thinking about it. Let alone that, after spending just the right amount of time doing it, they should think more like me instead of you.

I think that’s called non-interdependent lives and minds, in that we all have our own to live and think about, and if you want to spend a sizeable portion of that time thinking about specific things that is your prerogative.. interdependent minds, being more of an extroverted attribute. Would you say that that is the case, with you?

What of all those who were "brought up" in very different sets of circumstances, resulting in very different points of view? Just as you may well have been brought up yourself in a very different set of circumstances had events in your own life gone in another direction.

Well quite, but the second the imminent wheels of one’s fate are set in motion, they are sealed.. I like to call them defining moments in time.

In fact, I see this the way I do because, adventitiously, my birthday alone resulted in my being drafted into the Army and sent to Vietnam. There events in my life could not possibly have been further removed from the life I lived before the Army. It changed everything.

A pivotal moment in time.. we all have them, they that shape our individual thoughts and feelings and make us who we are and who and what we shall become.

So, okay, I asked myself, how are events of this magnitude factored into the manner in which I came to see myself morally and politically? And how much of "I" went beyond them. Is there a "real me" still able to be in sync with the "right thing to do"? By, for example, reading the right philosophers some insist can provide us with an actual deontological foundation enabling us rationally to choose to do the right thing.

Read this, do that, go there, visit here.. to discern or not to discern, that is the self-questioning question.

I don’t like others telling me what to do, but I don’t mind suggestions on what to read, or where to visit, or sights to see, but not on things that one would come to rue.

For me, it's not what you think here but how all of the existential variables in your life predisposed you to think this instead of that. And, then, given this, is there a way [philosophically or otherwise] to factor out "I" as an "existential contraption rooted in dasein" in order to arrive at an obligatory objective moral assessment.

I'm not arguing that there isn't, only that "here and now" no one has managed to convince me of late that I was wrong to abandon objectivism myself

That’s a lot of external input that you are alluding to there.. I prefer to run on wit and whim, not the suggestions and proddings of others. Fuck that! ..again, your extroverted-leanings are showing. Introverts rarely form opinions and ideals, based on the input and advice of others, sure.. they’ll entertain those ideas, but act upon that which they instinctually feel and know is best for them.

No, I don't think that politics influences all of the decisions that we make. A woman becoming pregnant with a baby she does not want can become entangled in any number of circumstantial contexts in which politics has little or no impact at all. In fact she may choose any number of things from the point of conception in which no one but herself is even aware of it. But when she does make the decision to abort the baby/clump of cells [this rooted itself in dasein], she is confronted with options. And here in any particular legal jurisdiction around the globe, politics becomes profoundly important.

What will the government [sustained through politics] allow her to do? Why this and not that? How are the laws related to the conflicting moral assessments of those on all sides of the "abortion wars"? What ought the laws be in order to be in sync with the most rational frame of mind regarding abortion?

I see this as concerning those involved.. I don’t see it as anything to do with me, commenting on a topic, that has been discussed to death, here there and everywhere, and still the debate goes on, and people demonstrate and lobby outside pertinent buildings, until the end of eternity.. which is then never..

Yes, but these parents are no less embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially. Their own frames of mind here are no less entangled in the manner in which I have come to conclude we acquire [and then sustain] an identity in my signature threads.

Different parents, different lives, different experiences, different relationships, different information, knowledge, ideas and ideals.

Then what? What can the philosophers and the ethicists and the political scientists come up with to guide them down the most rational and virtuous path when they find themselves confronted with an unwanted pregnancy?

Are they children? No! they are adults, so need to be much more discerning in their daily lives.. responsibility of one’s actions wouldn’t go amiss either.

Btw.. you concluding in the manner in which we acquire [and then sustain] an identity (as outlined in your signature threads), is objective. Welcome back to the world of ob-jec-tivity.

I think the worse thing a woman can do is to abort out of spite, and a male.. to force a female to have an abortion, and then I can foresee other parties being called upon to make the other see sense.

And what might "seeing sense" entail for those who think differently? And how and why did they come to acquire one rendition of it rather than another? And how do they figure out the one and the only truly just path for both the pregnant woman and the unborn baby?

In that, what is the reason for not coming to term.. and that, is all. To have or not to have the baby, that is the question.. bar the reason why.

[MagsJ]

MagsJ said: “..easily influenced, I see”.

Just out of curiosity, what do you know about it?

Apart from that, nothing.. I do know though, that in comparison to myself, you are.

It’s evident from what you’ve said, you see, in that you let people and events form who you are, as opposed to not.

But that's what I think we should explore. How can we go about comparing the things that we post about each other here unless we are willing to explore in more depth the points I raise in my signature threads in regard to what I construe to be a profound, problematic relationship between identity and value judgments out in a particular world historically and culturally.

Now, here, you are either more in sync with Pedro and phoneutria [an objectivist] or more in sync with me [a moral nihilist].

Or, as is far more likely, somewhere in the middle.

But, in order to examine this more substantively, we need to take our own respective "selves" and describe them in particular sets of circumstances. Why do we choose one thing and not another? Why do we choose this thing when others choose that thing instead?

It's what I've been asking of Pedro and phoneutria for weeks now. Why don't we pursue it ourselves on the philosophy board as an object lesson for them and others.

Do you want to approach this/go first, or shall I?

Am I an objectivist or a moral nihilist, or somewhere inbetween? I veer much more towards the former, than I ever will the latter, as I think that all actions and interactions underpin an overarching objectivity.

[MagsJ]

_
Had this thread moved to Philosophy..

[Meno_]

I see the Meno_/Iam thread fell through, and abruptly ended.

You can expect a reply some time today.

No, I dont believe that it has fallen apart, only, holding a distance to re-dre-dmgage at a later time. The reasons of specific relevance of the discussion are not resolvable on the level that signifies an ' in-it'self discussion, mot because of an overall disjunction with the accumulated and reified moral code, but because of this:


".. you concluding in the manner in which we acquire [and then sustain] an identity (as outlined in your signature threads), is objective. Welcome back to the world of ob-jec-tivity.

Quote
MagsJ wrote;


"And what might "seeing sense" entail for those who think differently?

In that, what is the reason for not coming to term.. "


The above point mag signify some slant, be it hidden in the shrouds of contextual conflation, directly attributable to the issue with intensionality, where this plays a very patent description to latent causes which exhibit no visual effects to any description.

It is, as if the thoughts become hidden, in the words, that may, pray not be originally been hidden from the author speaking them.

[iambiguous]

Deleted. Effort is wasted on the evil and retarded.

Agree..

I don't argue with minds like these, I mock them.

No, you avoid us.. always.

Bring an argument, or shut your mouth!

I did bring an argument.

Here it is again:

What is your own reaction to the points I raised with Mr. Reasonable on this thread? Given a set of circumstances in which we compare and contrast the accumulation of human knowledge in the either/or world and the accumulation of personal opinions in reacting to that objective knowledge given the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages.

Minds and conversations evolve over the years, seeking different inputs to generate different outputs.. so why can’t yours’, when it comes to interacting with others?

Okay, let's bring this down to earth.

The role of government in the lives of citizens.

There is the classic conservative/capitalist frame of mind: the smaller the better. Then the reality: crony capitalism.

There is the classic liberal/socialist frame of mind: the bigger the better. Then the projected reality: it all withers away under Communism.

Now minds do change over time about this distinction. Marx rooted this "scientifically" in his assessment of the organic, historical evolution of the "means of production". Big governments are not even possible without the surplus labor around to occupy all the positions.

Now, in regard to our own individual reactions to government here at ILP, I suggest that is likely to be rooted in the arguments I make in my signature threads. We are all "thrown" -- thrown "adventitiously" -- at birth into a particular world. Utterly beyond our control. We are all indoctrinated for years to think this or that about socialism and capitalism. We all have different [sometimes very different] personal experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that shape and mold us into those who favor one political economy over the other.

There does not appear to be either a philosophical or a scientific argument that can take this diversity into account and establish the most rational or the only rational manner in which to think about it.

Right?

You read and post on a lot of diverse philosophical topics, and yet you want to drag everything back to the beginning of philosophy, for others. You rebuke responses with your own intangible ones, and never seek to reach any resolutions of truth or disagreement, but work on a cycle of rebuke and repeal.

The "beginning of philosophy"? Again, given what particular context? Over and again, I note that my main interest in philosophy [and science and religion] revolves around this: how ought one to live?

And, given that, subjectively, existentially, I am an atheist -- "here and now" -- in a No God world.

Again: you note these accusations about me. Okay, choose an issue and a context that revolves around a discussion that explores our respective views on identity, value judgments and political power. How existentially they become intertwined out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What can we agree is true objectively for both of us and what seems more rooted subjectively in my philosophical assumptions regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And in your philosophical assumptions regarding your own self.

Does a conceptualised thought have to be experienced, for it to ring true? as your real-world example requests, cannot always be fulfilled, due to that. Not every thought is actualised, and not every actualisation is necessarily just.. for thinking types.

Yes, but the "battles" that unfold between the liberals and the conservative here often do become actual behaviors chosen by flesh and blood men and women "out in the world". Resulting in "the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages."

We synchronized our watches in order to resume it.

Note to Wendy:

By all means respond to my points above yourself.

Besides, I put this at the end of my "retort" above:

In other words, I was only in a joking frame of mind. Well, mostly.

[MagsJ]

_
Noted.. thanks.

Hopefully will reply tomorrow.. been quite busy and therefore inundated, with things to do.
I’m sure it’ll be thrilling to read and so worth the wait.. I’m so sure, I’m certain.

[MagsJ]

".. you concluding in the manner in which we acquire [and then sustain] an identity (as outlined in your signature threads), is objective. Welcome back to the world of ob-jec-tivity.

Quote
MagsJ wrote:
"And what might "seeing sense" entail for those who think differently?

In that, what is the reason for not coming to term.. "

Meno wrote:
The above point mag signify some slant, be it hidden in the shrouds of contextual conflation, directly attributable to the issue with intensionality, where this plays a very patent description to latent causes which exhibit no visual effects to any description.

It is, as if the thoughts become hidden, in the words, that may, pray not be originally been hidden from the author speaking them.

Can you expand on this.. for clarity, in that how does your reply pertain to mine.

[iambiguous]

Yo, Magsj! Yo, Wendy!

Is this going to be settled or not?

Deleted. Effort is wasted on the evil and retarded.

Agree..

I don't argue with minds like these, I mock them.

No, you avoid us.. always.

Bring an argument, or shut your mouth!

I did bring an argument.

Here it is again:

What is your own reaction to the points I raised with Mr. Reasonable on this thread? Given a set of circumstances in which we compare and contrast the accumulation of human knowledge in the either/or world and the accumulation of personal opinions in reacting to that objective knowledge given the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages.

Minds and conversations evolve over the years, seeking different inputs to generate different outputs.. so why can’t yours’, when it comes to interacting with others?

Okay, let's bring this down to earth.

The role of government in the lives of citizens.

There is the classic conservative/capitalist frame of mind: the smaller the better. Then the reality: crony capitalism.

There is the classic liberal/socialist frame of mind: the bigger the better. Then the projected reality: it all withers away under Communism.

Now minds do change over time about this distinction. Marx rooted this "scientifically" in his assessment of the organic, historical evolution of the "means of production". Big governments are not even possible without the surplus labor around to occupy all the positions.

Now, in regard to our own individual reactions to government here at ILP, I suggest that is likely to be rooted in the arguments I make in my signature threads. We are all "thrown" -- thrown "adventitiously" -- at birth into a particular world. Utterly beyond our control. We are all indoctrinated for years to think this or that about socialism and capitalism. We all have different [sometimes very different] personal experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that shape and mold us into those who favor one political economy over the other.

There does not appear to be either a philosophical or a scientific argument that can take this diversity into account and establish the most rational or the only rational manner in which to think about it.

Right?

You read and post on a lot of diverse philosophical topics, and yet you want to drag everything back to the beginning of philosophy, for others. You rebuke responses with your own intangible ones, and never seek to reach any resolutions of truth or disagreement, but work on a cycle of rebuke and repeal.

The "beginning of philosophy"? Again, given what particular context? Over and again, I note that my main interest in philosophy [and science and religion] revolves around this: how ought one to live?

And, given that, subjectively, existentially, I am an atheist -- "here and now" -- in a No God world.

Again: you note these accusations about me. Okay, choose an issue and a context that revolves around a discussion that explores our respective views on identity, value judgments and political power. How existentially they become intertwined out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What can we agree is true objectively for both of us and what seems more rooted subjectively in my philosophical assumptions regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And in your philosophical assumptions regarding your own self.

Does a conceptualised thought have to be experienced, for it to ring true? as your real-world example requests, cannot always be fulfilled, due to that. Not every thought is actualised, and not every actualisation is necessarily just.. for thinking types.

Yes, but the "battles" that unfold between the liberals and the conservative here often do become actual behaviors chosen by flesh and blood men and women "out in the world". Resulting in "the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages."

We synchronized our watches in order to resume it.

Note to Wendy:

By all means respond to my points above yourself.

Besides, I put this at the end of my "retort" above:

In other words, I was only in a joking frame of mind. Well, mostly.

[MagsJ]

Yo, Magsj! Yo, Wendy!

Is this going to be settled or not?

Yea yea! ..just recovering from (yet another)/a near death experience, and I’ll be right with you any day now.

Exciting times huh!

[iambiguous]

Don't make me use the C word...

[MagsJ]

Don't make me use the C word...

Please do.. so that I can then tell you about yourself, in kind ; )

I’m not no chicken, but I’m probably the boss.. of you.