Page 2 of 2

Re: MagsJ and iambiguous discuss...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:29 pm
by Dan~
MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Yo, Magsj! Yo, Wendy!

Is this going to be settled or not? 8)

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

Exciting times huh! :)


Near death experience?
What the heck happened?

Re: MagsJ and iambiguous discuss...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:47 pm
by iambiguous
MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote: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.


Okay, you asked for it: CHICKENSHIT!!

No, seriously, come on, if you are not concerned that I might do damage to your own "real me in sync with the right thing to do" objectivist Self, why wouldn't you explore your moral and political prejudices with me given the points I raise above?

On the philosophy board. Civilly and intelligently.

No C words, no personal attacks, no huffing and puffing.

Think about it, okay?

If nothing else, you can substantiate just what you mean by being my "boss".

Probably.

Re: MagsJ and iambiguous discuss...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 4:43 pm
by MagsJ
Dan~ wrote:Near death experience?
What the heck happened?

..anyone with a food allergy can relate, in the experience of an all-out assault on the nervous system, from whatever it was that caused said reaction.

I like to think of it as my own private kryptonite.. for that is the exact same effect that it has on a person.

Most I know react negatively to some thing or another these days.. it’s quite common you know.

Re: MagsJ and iambiguous discuss...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:14 pm
by iambiguous
Next up: Magsj and Wendy and iambiguous finally get around to tackling this:

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Deleted. Effort is wasted on the evil and retarded.

Agree..

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


MagsJ wrote:No, you avoid us.. always.

Bring an argument, or shut your mouth!


iambiguous wrote:I did bring an argument.

Here it is again:

iambiguous wrote:
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.


MagsJ wrote: 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?

MagsJ wrote: 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.

MagsJ wrote: 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: :lol:

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