Do you tend to dislike people who step on bugs?

[Jakeyjake]

Here's a solution for you with your problem.

Think of the disliking of people who dislike people who step on bugs as being like your stepping on bugs. You step on bugs for no reason at all. They dislike you for as a spontaneous reaction. A tick.

So if you dislike them for disliking you, you're a hypocrite, but the great thing is you can change. They're being irrational and spontaneous in disliking you. Try to accept them as you expect them to accept you. You can be the Jesus of bug killers, actually accepting others for their irrational reactions just as YOU expect them to accept you for yours. Re-read your posts and find the whine in there. Then see if you are living up to your own whining about others.

Compared to those people, it took me alittle more time to dislike you. They saved time compared to me. They were spontaneous and irrational I came at my disliking you rationally. Through finding you to be a disingenous discussion partner. But you won't experience me anymore so, it won't be a problem for you.

I won't waste my time with you here.

There is something I should walk back. When I scuff out an anthill in my driveway, part of the reason I do it is to cause a bit of chaos down there. However, I wouldn't say it is due to sadism, but rather curiosity. Mostly I just like experimenting with their reactions.

[Zenester]

There is something I should walk back. When I scuff out an anthill in my driveway, part of the reason I do it is to cause a bit of chaos down there. However, I wouldn't say it is due to sadism, but rather curiosity. Mostly I just like experimenting with their reactions.

Questions for you:

How old are you?
What kind of shoes do you wear?
Do your feet smell?

You can claim whatever you want.

I read your posts and I have no interest in responding. For various reasons.

I gave you a short form explanation of why you should not be expecting a reply. I could have just gone silent but I decided to say something as an ending. It wasn't a retort.

So that's it.

It's been a slice.

Ciao

You need classes.

[Zenester]

There is something I should walk back. When I scuff out an anthill in my driveway, part of the reason I do it is to cause a bit of chaos down there. However, I wouldn't say it is due to sadism, but rather curiosity. Mostly I just like experimenting with their reactions.

Some sincere questions:

How old are you?
What sort of shoes do you wear when you step on bugs?
Do your feet smell?

[iambiguous]

If he stepped on a bug, he was able to change something .. and did.

If I dislike him for doing so, I am able to change something .. and do.

The inherent questions are only why either of us do so (either purpose or cause).

Note to others:

What important point is he making here that he thinks I keep missing?

If the laws of matter are applicable to the human brain then anything we "choose" to do and any "reactions" we have to the behaviors of others are but inherent, necessary components of the laws of matter.

If nothing was ever able to change, then the reason "why" things do change is because they were never able to not change into an altogether different reality. Which would be the case if we had to wait to see what did change given that we don't know what those who possess free will might in fact choose differently.

Because he doesn't want to work within the framework that you're using. It may be because he doesn't comprehend it, but I think it's because he just doesn't buy into it.

Then let him explain what goes through his head when he is confronted with a bug and a reason to either step or not to step on it.

Is he able to decide freely whether the reasons to step on it outweigh the reasons not to? Is the bug's fate dependent on the extent to which the biological evolution of life on Earth resulted in a species -- us -- that does possess a self-conscious "I" fitted with volition, autonomy, will etc.?

If he thinks that's the case, how would he go about demonstrating it? Other than, as with the rest of us, in a "world of words" that he has "thought up" in his head?

Then the part that most fascinates me: the assumption that we do have some measure of free will.

We can choose freely to step on the bug. We are able, of our own volition, to come up with reasons pro and con.

But: how much of this is rooted subjectively in dasein? And how much instead are scientists and philosophers able to conclude reflects that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated objectively to choose when confronted with bugs. Whether universally or going from context to context to context.

[iambiguous]

What important point is he making here that he thinks I keep missing?

As always it seems - the basic question that is the topic of the thread.

In other words, there is only one way in which to grasp the "basic question" here, and that is as you do.

Me, I'm just trying to gauge the extent to which, as with James S. Saint, you subscribe to your own ontological/teleological "intellectual contraption" --- a TOE that you believe it is necessary for others to grasp if they want full access to the "human condition" in the context of "all there is".

So, do you?

Is there a way, epistemologically, to know whether our liking or disliking of those who step on bugs is of our own volition?

And, if so, is there a way to know what a rational and virtuous person's reaction ought to be to those that do? For whatever reason? Or for no reason at all?

[Jakeyjake]

There is something I should walk back. When I scuff out an anthill in my driveway, part of the reason I do it is to cause a bit of chaos down there. However, I wouldn't say it is due to sadism, but rather curiosity. Mostly I just like experimenting with their reactions.

Some sincere questions:

How old are you?
What sort of shoes do you wear when you step on bugs?
Do your feet smell?

Uhm...

1. Between 25-30.
2. The hell? I run and play tennis competitively. So if not working, then 95% of the day I'm wearing running shoes/sneakers. I don't wear them for the reason you're asking.
3. Uh, I guess? I'm a pretty active guy who runs competitively. So yeah, you probably wouldn't want to stick your nose near my feet. So what? The more they stink, the more manly I feel. Why are you asking this shit?

Is this karpal tunnel..?

[Jakeyjake]

Then there are the parts buried in his subconscious and unconscious mind. And who really knows how our genes predispose us to go in different directions.

And, in my view, it is precisely in order to avoid these profoundly problematic complexities that some become objectivists. They think themselves -- again, compelled by nature or not -- into believing that they are in sync with their own true self able to know all that needs to be known about stepping on bugs in order for them to judge the behaviors of others that either do or do not step on them and for whatever reason. Or for no reason at all.

Here, alas, my own "I" is "fractured and fragmented". Whereas for folks like Karpel Tunnel there seems to be this "deep down inside him" Self that just somehow knows whether and when to be revulsed in regard to stepping on bugs.

I have to ask, you weren't referring to Rand's objectivism in this quotation, were you? I'm no fan of her ideas, but it doesn't sound like you are either. If indeed you are talking about her ideas, it even sounds like you're prescribing them to some people (like Karpal) only because you think it will help them by giving them the illusion of knowing themselves and the illusion of being confidently understanding of motivations. It even sounds like you think it would be good for Karpal because then he can be more confident in thinking he understands why people do what they do and why he feels the way he does (revulsed) about guys like me, so that he can feel more secure about it.

If so, that is one of the weirdest (but creative) ways I've heard someone suggest that objectivism may somehow be useful. Or I may have not understood you at all.

[iambiguous]

I have to ask, you weren't referring to Rand's objectivism in this quotation, were you? I'm no fan of her ideas, but it doesn't sound like you are either. If indeed you are talking about her ideas, it even sounds like you're prescribing them to some people (like Karpal) only because you think it will help them by giving them the illusion of knowing themselves and the illusion of being confidently understanding of motivations.

Nope. Ayn Rand concocted an entire philosophy in which everything under the sun always and only came down to either agreeing or not agreeing with her. The bizarre spectacle of a "philosophy of life" dedicated to the individual...but in which each and every individual Objectivist dared not to suggest that she was ever wrong.

Whereas my own understanding of what an objectivist is -- here and now -- revolves around the assumption that this but my own subjective assessment rooted in dasein.

And that assumption is this: that in regard to moral, political, spiritual, aesthetic etc., value judgments, objectivists will see themselves as in sync with the "real me" able to grasp [philosophically or otherwise] the "right thing to do".

And, as a consequence of this, they will then proceed to divide up the world into "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

Which I then suggest reflects what I call the "psychology of objectivism" explored on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

It even sounds like you think it would be good for Karpal because then he can be more confident in thinking he understands why people do what they do and why he feels the way he does (revulsed) about guys like me, so that he can feel more secure about it.

Nope. KT is truly a rare bird in my book. In many ways we are on the same page here. In regard to such things as religion and objective morality and the "deep state" rooted in political economy. But whether it is stepping on bugs or any other moral and political context in which there are "conflicting goods", he has thought himself into believing there is this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that is somehow immune to being "fractured and fragmented" in the manner in which I construe my own "self" out in the is/ought world.

But, alas, he now has me on ignore. Maybe even "foed" me. Take it up with him yourself and see what unfolds.

[Jakeyjake]

Nope. KT is truly a rare bird in my book. In many ways we are on the same page here. In regard to such things as religion and objective morality and the "deep state" rooted in political economy. But whether it is stepping on bugs or any other moral and political context in which there are "conflicting goods", he has thought himself into believing there is this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that is somehow immune to being "fractured and fragmented" in the manner in which I construe my own "self" out in the is/ought world.

But, alas, he now has me on ignore. Maybe even "foed" me. Take it up with him yourself and see what unfolds.

After he got annoyed and I answered his question more completely, I sent him a message inviting him back to the thread. I even told him that I saw his perspective on why he might have thought my questions seemed disingenuous at first, but that I didn't see the unifying theme to them which he noticed which was that each binary question I was asking in that one post led to the same outcome. To me it just didn't stand it out. But, he immediately thought it was disingenuous arguing, without doing any probing see if I even saw the same theme he noticed, which I didn't. Then he just became totally reactionary.

That's fine if he doesn't to drop out of the conversation, but what was very uncool was him calling others bad faith actors after exhibiting what I just described. He probably has me on ignore too, which is too bad because at some points he made for a good conversationalist. I'm going to read your thread now.

[phyllo]

What do people do in a philosophy forum?

They talk about their ideas and their reasoning. Right?

If somebody comes in and says he is doing something and has no reason for doing it. That makes for a short discussion. What's to talk about?

I thought that KT gave you lots of opportunities to talk.

Not surprising that he left.

[obsrvr524]

What do people do in a philosophy forum?

They talk about their ideas and their reasoning. Right?

I think they mostly come in to bolster what they want other people to think (often egotistically around here). They only use some form of partial reasoning to excuse their desire to maintain their own bubble of belief.

[iambiguous]

Nope. KT is truly a rare bird in my book. In many ways we are on the same page here. In regard to such things as religion and objective morality and the "deep state" rooted in political economy. But whether it is stepping on bugs or any other moral and political context in which there are "conflicting goods", he has thought himself into believing there is this "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self that is somehow immune to being "fractured and fragmented" in the manner in which I construe my own "self" out in the is/ought world.

But, alas, he now has me on ignore. Maybe even "foed" me. Take it up with him yourself and see what unfolds.

After he got annoyed and I answered his question more completely, I sent him a message inviting him back to the thread. I even told him that I saw his perspective on why he might have thought my questions seemed disingenuous at first, but that I didn't see the unifying theme to them which he noticed which was that each binary question I was asking in that one post led to the same outcome. To me it just didn't stand it out. But, he immediately thought it was disingenuous arguing, without doing any probing see if I even saw the same theme he noticed, which I didn't. Then he just became totally reactionary.

That's fine if he doesn't to drop out of the conversation, but what was very uncool was him calling others bad faith actors after exhibiting what I just described. He probably has me on ignore too, which is too bad because at some points he made for a good conversationalist. I'm going to read your thread now.

Binary thinking is something he comes back to time and again. And that in my view is what the moral and political objectivists fall back on as well. Right or wrong. Good or evil. One of us or one of them.

Only, as I now construe it, he has is own rendition of this. There is what God or, philosophically, the deontologists can tell us about things like the morality of stepping on bugs or pedophilia...and there is what his own "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self tells him instead. Either/or.

Also the binary thinking he exhibits when others don't eventually come around to agreeing with him. That "reactionary" persona that really seems to get pissed off at those he decides are fools.