obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:00 am

iambiguous wrote:who gets to decide when the greater harm is either in vaccinating or not vaccinating children against it?


obsrvr524 wrote:Again a change of topic and already addressed in another thread - to you specifically.


Okay, here's a thread in which you and I can explore particular topics that we both agree on.

Note where you addressed my point about vaccinating children in regard to who decides whether more harm is done in vaccinating or in not vaccinating them. In regard to covid-19. And in regard to these afflictions:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/di ... eases.html
https://www.who.int/teams/immunization- ... s/diseases

iambiguous wrote:Is there a frame of mind here that is not embedded in one or another "political prejudice"?


obsrvr524 wrote: How would you ever know? To you no matter what anyone says, you interpret into a bias and then go on and on about something off topic. Apparently you have no capacity to comprehend logic. So what's the point.


That's preposterous. In regard to all of the physical, biological, chemical, demographic etc., facts that can be accumulated pertaining to human interactions, there is no bias. There is either what can be or cannot be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us.

What the political objectivists here do, however, is to insist that in regard to things like masks, social distancing, lockdowns and vaccines only their facts and their assessment of the facts count.

Indeed, let's focus again on another point of contention between us: the 2nd amendment.

Here's where we left off on Pedro's thread:

iambiguous wrote: First of all, here are the points I raised with him above:

I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.

Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".


obsrvr524 wrote: That is NOT true.


iambiguous wrote:Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.


obsrvr524 wrote: What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.


iambiguous wrote:On the contrary, I'm not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.

In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I'm armed myself. It's just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.

And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of "well regulated" are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_States

Instead, I focus on the words "well regulated".


obsrvr524 wrote: As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.


iambiguous wrote:No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.

Consider:

How is this not applicable to you:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


iambiguous wrote:It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.


obsrvr524 wrote: Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.


iambiguous wrote:Again, that's just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn't important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


iambiguous wrote:And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?


obsrvr524 wrote: Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".


iambiguous wrote:Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.


iambiguous wrote:how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.


obsrvr524 wrote: Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.


iambiguous wrote:Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.


iambiguous wrote:Keep this in mind as you note the points he makes below:


iambiguous wrote:in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.


obsrvr524 wrote: You expect my foot to make such assessments? Better in "my head" than "out your ass". And it also has nothing at all to do with dogma (except perhaps "in your head" - which seems to be stuck in your dogma about dasein).


iambiguous wrote:His point here in regard to my point? You tell me.


iambiguous wrote: I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.


obsrvr524 wrote: Dog how could anyone with a whole human brain make over 38000 posts and never realize how utterly irrational that statement is. It reminds me of your "I'll examine the evidence AFTER you prove to me that it's true".


iambiguous wrote:Nothing at all related to the points I raised above about the 2nd amendment. Instead, he becomes just another Stooge making me the issue.


obsrvr524 wrote: Obsrvr: "I believe this ball is yellow"
Iambiguous: "You insist that only your own opinion is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with your own are necessarily irrational. What you claim is only true in your own objectivist head."

How can you keep spouting that bonkers nonsense? - for YEARS.


iambiguous wrote:As though the thread was about "the right bear a yellow ball".


iambiguous wrote:I'm armed myself.


obsrvr524 wrote: That's scary.

The rest of your post is all about the same nonsense. I believe in my objectivist head that there really is something wrong with your brain bloke - objectively. You never learn and it seems that experience indicates that discussion with you is just a waste. Your replies are always the same - anything you don't like is a matter of dasein and what is only true in the head of an objectivist who thinks his opinion is right - complete nonsensical waste.

I don't think anyone could make it clear to you how irrational you have been for years. So I guess you will never change.


iambiguous wrote:And, apparently, this intellectual drivel does not embarrass him in the slightest!

On the other hand, at least he wasn't reduced down to "you dirty commie bastard!!"
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:37 am

If those are the posts we "agree on" - zookers, I'd hate to see the ones we disagree on.

And despite your obvious love for attention -
    "Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it"

That goes for little yappy dogs, worms, and trolls as well. =;

Maybe you want to start a thread on logic? - not that you will stay on the subject for long. :-?

But that does seem to be an underlying issue with your disagreements with a lot of people.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 06, 2020 9:06 pm

obsrvr524 wrote: If those are the posts we "agree on" - zookers, I'd hate to see the ones we disagree on.


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you missed the point. The agreeing part isn't in reference to the arguments we make about vaccination or the 2nd Amendment.

You were bitching on the other thread that I was being off-topic. Thus the agreement I am referring to here is that we both concur regarding what the topic actually is. Thus the creation of a new thread!

Then [once again] you refuse to respond to the points I raise above in regard to vaccination and the 2nd Amendment...and instead allow yourself to reduce yourself down to this:

obsrvr524 wrote: And despite your obvious love for attention -
    "Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it"

That goes for little yappy dogs, worms, and trolls as well. =;

Maybe you want to start a thread on logic? - not that you will stay on the subject for long. :-?

But that does seem to be an underlying issue with your disagreements with a lot of people.


On the philosophy board!

But, okay, logic and vaccination? Logic and the 2nd Amendment?

You first.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:19 pm

iambiguous wrote:On the philosophy board!

But, okay, logic and vaccination? Logic and the 2nd Amendment?

You first.

No. Just logic itself first. Simple examples that might later be exemplary on more current concerns would be good. But don't try to start out of your depth.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:33 pm

From the vaccine thread:

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote: On the other hand, this is, perhaps, why we have this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards 8)

And on the other other hand - It is also true that Man is the first animal that can intentionally alter his environment, evolution, and thus his destiny.

It isn't entirely up to Darwin or natural evolution. In fact - very little.

Protect the evolution of those who bow (socialism) and you create an authoritarian regime. Protect the evolution of fighters (capitalism) and you create an advancing unconquerable Mankind.

The fight is on.


iambiguous wrote: So, what are you arguing here, that someone who truly understands Charles Darwin's theory of evolution would either think or not think exactly like you do about vaccinations?

That when humankind "intentionally altered his environment, evolution, and thus his destiny" by creating vaccines for these afflictions...

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/di ... eases.html
https://www.who.int/teams/immunization- ... s/diseases

...it was going in the right or the wrong direction?

And the extent to which socialism is "authoritarian" is obviously open to debate among those who embody conflicting political prejudices.

But I have very little doubt that when it comes to encompassing all that rational men and women are obligated to think about in regard to socialism, you set yourself up here as the one and the only authority.

Right?

In my own personal opinion, you just do not grasp or refuse to accept how some of us see that dogmatic arrogance as a psychological manifestation of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life in regard to socialism.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on socialism expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about socialism; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this political and philosophical perspective on socialism with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about socialism with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own regarding socialism as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom about socialism has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Or should we take this here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196433



obsrvr524 wrote:I wonder if even one person here is going to read all of that (if any of it).

Even former socialist nations are backing away from socialism. Progress does not favor socialism any more - only in the young minds of the inexperienced thinking of themselves as "progressive". They don't even question to what is the destiny of "progress".


Members here can decide for themselves whether to read all of if. Or any of it. I certainly wouldn't make that mandatory.

But more to the point, I will remind them that yet again you refuse to actually address any of the points I make.

Instead, you provide us with but another general description intellectual contraption about socialism [three sentences long] in which others either accept your assumptions or they must be wrong.

Right?

After all, do you or do you not see yourself as an authority on all things socialism?

And you can't admit that maybe you are wrong about something here because once you do that you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong about something else too. And what kind of an authority would that be?

That's how the objectivist mind sustains itself. Many all the way to the grave. And we know that on the other end of the political spectrum are those who set themselves up as authorities on capitalism too.

Ideological matter and anti-matter. And curse the world for actually being far, far too complex...for ever and always evolving in a slew of contingency, chance and change...making it so damn hard to sustain that arrogance all the way to the grave.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:39 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:On the philosophy board!

But, okay, logic and vaccination? Logic and the 2nd Amendment?

You first.

No. Just logic itself first. Simple examples that might later be exemplary on more current concerns would be good. But don't try to start out of your depth.


Note to others:

What on earth is he trying to tell me here about "logic itself first"?

And why on earth doesn't he note some simple examples himself.

Or is this the part embedded in James Saint's and Fixed Jacob's "intellectual contraptions" here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... y#p2787283

With the "Real God" thrown in for good measure?

I dare him to bring that pedantic jargon to bear on vaccination or the 2nd Amendment.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Why not forget "others" for just a while. Try a little introspection. You have been arguing against yourself seemingly for years - and taking sides. That is not healthy (subjectively speaking).

iambiguous wrote:What on earth is he trying to tell me here about "logic itself first"?

And why on earth doesn't he note some simple examples himself.

So you don't even know what logic is?

That would explain a lot.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:02 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Why not forget "others" for just a while. Try a little introspection. You have been arguing against yourself seemingly for years - and taking sides. That is not healthy (subjectively speaking).


The sides that I take today are no longer embedded in objectivism however. Christianity, Marxism etc.

I construe them to be political prejudices ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas. The same as you. Only you still cling to objectivism to keep fragmented "I" at bay. Trust me, I get that part.

iambiguous wrote:What on earth is he trying to tell me here about "logic itself first"?

And why on earth doesn't he note some simple examples himself.


obsrvr524 wrote:So you don't even know what logic is?

That would explain a lot.


What you want is a discussion of logic that is never out of sync with the words you use to anchor it to your own rendition of Saint's intellectual contraption. "Up there" how can accounts relating to vaccination and the 2nd Amendment really make any logical sense at all.

You have your sub-mental dogmatic political prejudices for that.

Oh, and I'll still need some examples from you of what logic is.

It wouldn't happen to be definitional logic, would it? :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:11 am

iambiguous wrote:I construe them to be political prejudices

That is the problem. It seems that you never learned that logic doesn't do that - any more than maths.

iambiguous wrote:What you want is a discussion of logic that is never out of sync with the words you use to anchor it to your own rendition

Proving my prior statement.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:23 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I construe them to be political prejudices

That is the problem. It seems that you never learned that logic doesn't do that - any more than maths.

iambiguous wrote:What you want is a discussion of logic that is never out of sync with the words you use to anchor it to your own rendition

Proving my prior statement.


https://www.google.com/search?source=un ... 42&bih=597

:lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:28 am

He's not too smart, obsrvr.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 9232
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:32 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:He's not too smart, obsrvr.

I have to object.
The word "too" is far too inappropriate and should be struck from the record.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:18 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I'm hesitant to ask this and I'm sure somewhere in your long tenure you have answered it but can you give a short explanation what your obsession with "conflicting goods" is about?


Huh?

How difficult is it to grasp that in regard to any number of social, political and economic contexts, there are those who insist that one set of behaviors are the good ones, while others insist that another, opposing set of behaviors, are the good ones.

Conflicting goods.

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should "good" revolve around the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or the part that says, "a well regulated Militia"?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being "well regulated" not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government's obligation to regulate against such behavior.

Again, conflicting goods.

Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen's "personal opinion" here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., "whole truth" that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own "whole truth".

Hope that helped.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:I'm hesitant to ask this and I'm sure somewhere in your long tenure you have answered it but can you give a short explanation what your obsession with "conflicting goods" is about?


Huh?

How difficult is it to grasp that in regard to any number of social, political and economic contexts, there are those who insist that one set of behaviors are the good ones, while others insist that another, opposing set of behaviors, are the good ones.

Conflicting goods.

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should "good" revolve around the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or the part that says, "a well regulated Militia"?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being "well regulated" not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government's obligation to regulate against such behavior.

Again, conflicting goods.

I had already worked out what you meant by it. That isn't what I asked. So - no help so far.

iambiguous wrote:Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen's "personal opinion" here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., "whole truth" that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own "whole truth".

I have seen you say that a lot too. It seems strange that you would think it an issue that people express their opinions and rationales. Then you make that accusing proclamation - "moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace" as if anytime anyone says anything they aren't doing exactly that same thing - including you.

But that wasn't exactly what I asked either.

iambiguous wrote:Hope that helped.

Don't get your hopes up so easily.

What I asked is why you are obsessed over the issue of people having different opinions and expressing them as if their opinions are right. What would you expect? What is the alternative? And seeing that it happens all the time, why are you constantly willing to derail discussions over it?

Can you perhaps give an example or two of how a discussion would go without your accusations being applicable?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen's "personal opinion" here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., "whole truth" that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own "whole truth".


obsrvr524 wrote:I have seen you say that a lot too. It seems strange that you would think it an issue that people express their opinions and rationales. Then you make that accusing proclamation - "moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace" as if anytime anyone says anything they aren't doing exactly that same thing - including you.


Again, however, what does any of this have to do with your own views on things like the 2nd Amendment? Are you acknowledging that your views on it are just an expression of your personal opinion "here and now"?

That, indeed, a new experience or new relationship or access to new information or knowledge might convince you to change your mind and focus, as the liberals do, more on the "well regulated Militia" portion of it?

And note when I have ever argued that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do? That's what the objectivists insist. "I" on the other hand, am "fractured and fragmented". I recognize that both sides can raise reasonable points that the other side can't just make go away.

Consider: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Pro 1: The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Con 1: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

I challenge either side to make their opponents argument go away.

And then right down the line to all of the other points.

And then the part where I suggest individual's derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives...more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to you?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:47 pm

Iambiguous,

Let’s take your own words and use them against you on gun rights.

Your personal philosophy is compromise (a middle ground) yet here you are contradicting yourself by making the choice binary.

What if I just wanted to use a gun to shoot my cat litter box open. Vs. someone who wants to shoot up a school.

Now, as humans, we keep trying to learn more about psychopaths... we gain new knowledge everyday. The more knowledge we gain, the more we learn about gun control.

It’s a process... so you contradict yourself once here with your binary option. You also are not even in reality when you think that if ANYONE makes a SINGLE mistake, that this means that EVERYONE is mistaken.

We learn you idiot! We learn. We do actually find proofs. It’s a real thing. We’ll find even more as we continue to learn. And iambiguous will be seen in future generations as a fossil that may be slightly curious to people who are interested in the past of false arguments.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11705
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Dec 23, 2020 12:38 am

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen's "personal opinion" here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., "whole truth" that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own "whole truth".

I have seen you say that a lot too. It seems strange that you would think it an issue that people express their opinions and rationales. Then you make that accusing proclamation - "moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace" as if anytime anyone says anything they aren't doing exactly that same thing - including you.

Again, however, what does any of this have to do with your own views on things like the 2nd Amendment? Are you acknowledging that your views on it are just an expression of your personal opinion "here and now"?

That, indeed, a new experience or new relationship or access to new information or knowledge might convince you to change your mind and focus, as the liberals do, more on the "well regulated Militia" portion of it?

And note when I have ever argued that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do? That's what the objectivists insist. "I" on the other hand, am "fractured and fragmented". I recognize that both sides can raise reasonable points that the other side can't just make go away.

Consider: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Pro 1: The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Con 1: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

I challenge either side to make their opponents argument go away.

And then right down the line to all of the other points.

I am not interested in derailing this discussion to a different discussion about my thoughts on the US 2nd Amendment and your endless objections to whatever I might say. Is it just that you are obsessed with derailing? With arguing? With putting others on the line? What?

iambiguous wrote:And then the part where I suggest individual's derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives...more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to you?

You are saying that you "suggest" that people think like you think. Isn't that exactly what you were just complaining about others doing? -
    Now, my point of course is that any particular American citizen's "personal opinion" here is rooted subjectively in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Rather than in some theological, ideological, deontological etc., "whole truth" that a moral and political objectivist will insist that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. In other words, his or her own "whole truth".

And as a part of that suggestion, you are telling people to ignore what other people say and just guess an opinion based on their own personal experiences rather than from the optimal (i.e. the best way) or rational (reasoned way). That seems untenable for several reasons. But that isn't my concern either - unless that is what is at the heart of your obsession. Is it?

My concern is about your obsession with conflict of opinion (while at the same time you seem to promote it).

Discussion is always about people giving their opinions (no matter how they derived them). Preferably they provide some kind of evidence so that others might be persuaded by that evidence such as rational reasoning, emotional appeal, videos, or whatever.

But it seems that every time anyone does that, you pop in with some barely intelligible rant about conflicting goods and evil objectivists insisting they are right about something. And at the same time insisting that your concern is somehow the only right way to think about things.

I understand that your position in these arguments is a bit senseless and hypocritical. All I am asking is why are you so obnoxiously obsessed with ranting on about it in almost every thread?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:11 am

Well... you don’t know every trick in iambiguous’s playbook yet.

Iambiguous often ends his posts with, “unless I am wrong”

But this doesn’t hold either...

“I’m right unless I’m wrong” is his ENTIRE argument in a phrase. This is why I call him a troll.

You can give the most cogent argument why “I’m right unless I’m wrong” is false, and he’ll just repeat himself.

Iambiguous would never pass a Turing test.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11705
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 23, 2020 1:17 am

obsrvr524 wrote: I am not interested in derailing this discussion to a different discussion about my thoughts on the US 2nd Amendment and your endless objections to whatever I might say. Is it just that you are obsessed with derailing? With arguing? With putting others on the line? What?


Note to others:

Decide for yourselves if this is not but another example of him wiggling out of actually responding to the points I raise above.


He asked me to explain my own rendition of "conflicting goods". I did. And then I noted the debate about the 2nd Amendment as an example of this.

So, he will either respond in some detail to the points I raised here...

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should "good" revolve around the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or the part that says, "a well regulated Militia"?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being "well regulated" not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government's obligation to regulate against such behavior.


...or he won't.

iambiguous wrote:And then the part where I suggest individual's derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives...more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to him?


obsrvr524 wrote: You are saying that you "suggest" that people think like you think. Isn't that exactly what you were just complaining about others doing?


No, I am making the distinction between "I" as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein suggesting that moral and political value judgments revolving around the 2nd Amendment are rooted existentially in dasein and I as an objectivist insisting that those who who not share my own doctrinaire, authoritarian assessment of it are necessarily wrong.

I'm just trying to determine where he fits in here.

obsrvr524 wrote:And as a part of that suggestion, you are telling people to ignore what other people say and just guess an opinion based on their own personal experiences rather than from the optimal (i.e. the best way). That seems untenable for several reasons. But that isn't my concern either - unless that is what is at the heart of your obsession. Is it?


No, I'm asking those who think as objectivists -- left or right -- to demonstrate why others are obligated to think as they do given this:

Consider: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Pro 1: The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Con 1: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

I challenge either side to make their opponents argument go away.

And then right down the line to all of the other points.

And then the part where I suggest individual's derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives...more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to you?


But then he reconfigures into just another Stooge here:

obsrvr524 wrote: ...it seems that every time anyone does that, you pop in with some barely intelligible rant about conflicting goods and evil objectivists insisting they are right about something. And at the same time insisting that your concern is somehow the only right way to think about things.

I understand that your position in these arguments is a bit senseless and hypocritical. All I am asking is why are you so obnoxiously obsessed with ranting on about it?


Make it all about me rather than responding substantively to the points I raised above.

Let him note where my arguments in regard to the 2nd Amendment above reflect these accusations that he is hurling at me. In fact I dare him to.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:15 am

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: I am not interested in derailing this discussion to a different discussion about my thoughts on the US 2nd Amendment and your endless objections to whatever I might say. Is it just that you are obsessed with derailing? With arguing? With putting others on the line? What?


Note to others:

Decide for yourselves if this is not but another example of him wiggling out of actually responding to the points I raise above.


He asked me to explain my own rendition of "conflicting goods". I did. And then I noted the debate about the 2nd Amendment as an example of this.

So, he will either respond in some detail to the points I raised here...

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should "good" revolve around the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or the part that says, "a well regulated Militia"?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being "well regulated" not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government's obligation to regulate against such behavior.


...or he won't.

Did you perhaps misunderstand that I asked for an example of your version of a good and proper discussion instead of an example of what you see as a bad conflict of opinions? - just a fictitious discussion between John and Mary over some issue - anything - your abortion issue perhaps. What SHOULD such a discussion look like?

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: You are saying that you "suggest" that people think like you think. Isn't that exactly what you were just complaining about others doing?

No,
  • I am making the distinction between "I" as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein suggesting that moral and political value judgments revolving around the 2nd Amendment are rooted existentially in dasein and
  • I as an objectivist insisting that those who not share my own doctrinaire, authoritarian assessment of it are necessarily wrong.

But can't you see that the only distinction between those is -
  • "There isn't any right or wrong. There is only opinion"
  • "I think I figured out what is right"
And then you claim that the second person is "wrong". Why is his opinion about having figured it out necessarily wrong in your opinion when your opinion is that it is all just about opinions and there is no right or wrong?

That is the hypocrisy issue that I was referring to. You seem to be saying that the person who believes that there is a right and wrong is actually/objectively wrong. :-?

Again that is separate from my question but since you brought it up.

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:And as a part of that suggestion, you are telling people to ignore what other people say and just guess an opinion based on their own personal experiences rather than from the optimal (i.e. the best way). That seems untenable for several reasons. But that isn't my concern either - unless that is what is at the heart of your obsession. Is it?

No, I'm asking those who think as objectivists -- left or right -- to demonstrate why others are obligated to think as they do

You didn't actually demonstrate disagreement with what I said you were suggesting. But ok you want others to demonstrate why you should agree with them - "think as they do". Isn't that actually what they are doing all the time when they present argument? What did you think their argument was for if not to try to demonstrate that you should agree?

iambiguous wrote:Make it all about me rather than responding substantively to the points I raised above.

I am not "making it about" you. My only question was about you to start with. You are obviously and hypocritically trying to make it about me. Look at my first question - "What is this obsession YOU have about conflicting goods?"

And every response you have given has been directing the discussion toward talking about me and whatever I might think about guns. How did guns even get into this let alone any thoughts I might have about them?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:18 am

As in regard to the 2nd amendment above. Should "good" revolve around the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or the part that says, "a well regulated Militia"?

Does someone have to be in this well regulated Militia, to qualify for this right?

And how could the part about the right to bears Arms being "well regulated" not involve the government?

So, as I noted above, if a citizen accumulates military grade chemical and biological weapons to protect himself from enemies, some will insist that the good here revolves around his constitutional right to do so, while others will insist that the good revolves instead around the government's obligation to regulate against such behavior.

...or he won't.


obsrvr524 wrote: Did you perhaps misunderstand that I asked for an example of your version of a good and proper discussion instead of an example of what you see as a bad conflict of opinions? - just a fictitious discussion between John and Mary over some issue - anything - your abortion issue perhaps. What SHOULD such a discussion look like?


Note to others:

Again, notice how he completely avoids responding to the example that I gave him in regard to the question that he asked about "conflicting goods".

He notes:

obsrvr524 wrote: Look at my first question - "What is this obsession YOU have about conflicting goods?"

And every response you have given has been directing the discussion toward talking about me and whatever I might think about guns. How did guns even get into this let alone any thoughts I might have about them?


So, he expects me to discuss my "obsession" with conflicting goods without note an example of what I mean by it? What, does he want this exchange to remain up in the intellectual contraption clouds like the "serious philosophers" here prefer?

In regard to conflicting goods that have rent the species now for thousands of years and have brought about everything from barroom brawls to world wars?!

In my view, a good and proper discussion in regard to value judgments that are at odds precipitating behaviors that come into conflict precipitating actual consequences in regard to interpretations of things like the the 2nd Amendment are the stuff of newspaper headlines and broadcast segments.

I explained the manner in which my own point of view is "fractured and fragmented" as a result of the arguments I make in my signature threads. I simply want to explore the extent to which he sees his own perspective as otherwise.

obsrvr524 wrote: You are saying that you "suggest" that people think like you think. Isn't that exactly what you were just complaining about others doing?

iambiguous wrote: No,
  • I am making the distinction between "I" as an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein suggesting that moral and political value judgments revolving around the 2nd Amendment are rooted existentially in dasein and
  • I as an objectivist insisting that those who not share my own doctrinaire, authoritarian assessment of it are necessarily wrong.


obsrvr524 wrote: But can't you see that the only distinction between those is -
  • "There isn't any right or wrong. There is only opinion"
  • "I think I figured out what is right"


And that's where this part of my argument comes in:

Consider: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Pro 1: The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.
Con 1: The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

I challenge either side to make their opponents argument go away.

And then right down the line to all of the other points.

And then the part where I suggest individual's derive their own personal opinions about guns subjectively from political prejudices derived from the actual experiences in their lives...more so than from the optimal or only rational assessment of the conflict.

How is that not applicable to you?


I'm not arguing that there isn't any right or wrong answer here, only that here and now "I" recognize that both sides are able to make rational arguments based, in part, on whether they focus more on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" or on "A well regulated Militia".

Again, if the amendment had read, "Given that citizens have an inherent right to bear arms they feel are necessary to defend themselves, the government shall have no power to infringe upon this right or to regulate it", one could be rather more insistent as an objectivist...at least in regard to the law.

Clearly, the more fanatical objectivists on both sides "figure they are right". But, again, that doesn't make the arguments of the other side go away.

obsrvr524 wrote: And then you claim that the second person is "wrong". Why is his opinion about having figured it out necessarily wrong in your opinion when your opinion is that it is all just about opinions and there is no right or wrong?


Where have I ever argued that either the first, the second or the ninety-ninth person is "wrong" in regard to the 2nd Amendment as a moral and political value judgments? Or in regard to any conflicting goods.

The irony being that my point "here and now" is actually just the opposite.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:25 am

So like Sil, you are just going to divert and never answer my actual question or even give an example of what you think is the proper way to discuss issues.

I'm not surprised.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:57 am

obsrvr524 wrote:So like Sil, you are just going to divert and never answer my actual question or even give an example of what you think is the proper way to discuss issues.

I'm not surprised.


No, I'm not surprised.

Over the years, I have reduced any number minds like yours down to "retorts" such as this.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, I'm curious if you might be willing to go where urwrongx1000 refuses to go.

Here:

"In regard to a really important political issue, have you ever been wrong about something?
Note some important issues where you had to admit that you were wrong and then changed your mind."
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:13 am

This issue has reminded me of a woman I knew who for the year I saw her regularly always talked about only two things –
  • An issue she had with a long past boyfriend (suggesting that all men are that way)
  • Why can't things just move on! Her suggestion was that others prevent her from moving on.

It seemed to me that there was a casual relation between those two obsessions she had. My suspicion was that her life couldn't "move on" because she had a traumatic incident in her past that she wouldn't move on from. I understand that traumas do that.

And being a traumatic affair, her subconscious was actually just trying to express to herself to move on while never allowing herself to see the trauma by blame-shifting to others their unwillingness to move on. A type of fight to bring conscious attention to her problem without triggering the traumatic personal experience.

She also seemed to literally run and hide from any kind of conflict between people. Any kind of argument and she literally had to leave the room and even her home sometimes for a day or so.


Now I'm thinking that you seem to be very similar.

You seem to also have two basic obsessions –
  • People insisting their opinions and calculations are the rational best.
  • Why can't people just accept personally subjective conclusions without rational calculation.
And you also seem to "run out of the room" as you invariably want to shift/derail the discussion elsewhere.

Is it possible that you had some traumatic event in your past that keeps you from moving on by accepting and constructively participating in rational debate? Are conflicts and rational argumentation a trigger reminder of some long past traumatic event?

That would explain your obsession with "conflicting goods" while at the same time shifting the blame to others.

The analogy between you and her seems perfect.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2386
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 24, 2020 7:59 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
You seem to also have two basic obsessions –
  • People insisting their opinions and calculations are the rational best.
  • Why can't people just accept personally subjective conclusions without rational calculation.


Not quite.

We live in a world where in regard to any number of human interactions, conflicts can occur as a result of moral and political value judgments that are at odds. Often enough here, at ILP, in the Society, Government, and Economics forum, between those embraced by liberals and those embraced by conservatives.

Now, do or do not the objectivists among us -- those I note as convinced they are in sync with a core self in sync with one or another rendition of objective morality -- insist that their own moral and political convictions allow them to divide the world up between those who are "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. It's just that for some particularly rabid objectivists among us, those who are "one of them" become, among other things, "scumbags".

And my argument is not that people should reject rational calculations and rely solely on "personally subjective conclusions". Instead, my argument is that both sides -- in, say, the debate over the 2nd Amendment -- are able to make rational arguments. But that the reasons and the conclusions they come to are derived in large part from the manner in which I construe human identity in the is/ought world as derived from the arguments I make in the OP of my signature threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

All I can then do in regard to a particular context, is to explore with others why they reject those reasons and conclusions...what reasons and conclusions they abide by instead.

obsrvr524 wrote:Is it possible that you had some traumatic event in your past that keeps you from moving on by accepting and constructively participating in rational debate? Are conflicts and rational argumentation a trigger reminder of some long past traumatic event?


Again, I explored all of that on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Which, again, brings me back to this:

"In regard to a really important political issue, have you ever been wrong about something?
Note some important issues where you had to admit that you were wrong and then changed your mind."


You see, I was embedded in any number of "traumatic events" that prompted me to admit I was wrong about important political issues. I call this the Song Be Syndrome:

"I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam, I happened upon politically radical folks [at the Song Be MACV] who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things."

Eventually, I had to admit I was "wrong" about Christianity, Unitarianism, Objectivism, Marxism, Communism, socialism, democratic socialism, social democracy, liberalism.

"Wrong" because now as a moral nihilist my "fractured and fragmented" "I" is convinced that there are no essential right or wrong answers in regard to conflicting goods; only subjective existential contraptions rooted in dasein rooted out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

"I" no longer have access to the comforting and consoling fonts -- God, ideology, deontology etc. -- that the objectivists anchor their own precious Self to.

Like you, right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40748
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Parodites