obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

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

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:21 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:Your words suggest:[/b]

There is no one thing that contains all things.

Not true. I have already said that the universe is a collection of ALL things - but NOT a set of identically replicated items - nothing in that collection is an exact duplicate in every way of anything else in that collection. And that the universe does not "contain" things. The universe IS those things. There is no container.


Actually, what would interest me more here is how he connects the dots between this "metaphysical" speculation about an omnipotent being and his political narrative in regard to the 2nd Amendment above.

In fact, this is something I could never pin James S. Saint down on either. He had this complex "theory of everything" regarding the laws of nature and the either/or world...and then this political agenda derived from the Real God and how he construed human interactions in the is/ought world.

But damned if he would really make any effort at all to connect these dots.

Now, with him, I argued that he did not because he could not. That, I suspected, his moral and political value judgments were no less rooted in my own arguments here as well.

Same with obsrvr524. He connects the dots here "in his head", but won't explore this with me given a particular set of circumstances.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:this political agenda derived from the Real God and how he construed human interactions in the is/ought world.

I would like to see where he did that. I don't think he did (not the way you mean it) but would be interesting to find out.

What I saw was that he worked out how things work in the universe and declared that to be what he called "The REAL God". He did not say, "The REAL God told me that this is how it all works!" I saw him often asked "how do you know this stuff" for about 12 years. I never saw him answer with - "God told me so".

How could someone who cannot "connect the dots" know whether someone else actually did connect the dots?

And that reminded me of PK's recent declaration that it is absolutely certain that nothing - nothing all can be absolutely certain.

When a dog can't see colors why argue with him about colors?
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: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:13 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:this political agenda derived from the Real God and how he construed human interactions in the is/ought world.

I would like to see where he did that. I don't think he did (not the way you mean it) but would be interesting to find out.


No way I'm going back through all of those exchanges. But, more to the point, how do you connect the dots between your speculations regarding an omnipotent being and your own political prejudices regarding the 2nd Amendment? You know, the whole point of my posting what I did.

Instead, as with James, it's straight back up into the stratosphere of intellectual gibberish.

obsrvr524 wrote: What I saw was that he worked out how things work in the universe and declared that to be what he called "The REAL God". He did not say, "The REAL God told me that this is how it all works!" I saw him often asked "how do you know this stuff" for about 12 years. I never saw him answer with - "God told me so".


Okay, but: however he construed the Real God, how did he connect the dots between this and his moral and political narrative.

Here, I challenge anyone to link me to his explanation such that it is relevant to the arguments I make regarding "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

obsrvr524 wrote: And that reminded me of PK's recent declaration that it is absolutely certain that nothing - nothing all can be absolutely certain.


Yeah, I read that. But what always boggles my mind about the relationship between objectivists and certainty is how they seem to insist that revolves as well around the is/ought world! If only "in their head".

The part that you, like James, avoid like the plague. At least in a discussion with me.

obsrvr524 wrote: When a dog can't see colors why argue with him about colors?


Come on, how idiotic is this? As though a dog could argue about colors. Let alone about 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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:38 pm

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but: however he construed the Real God, how did he connect the dots between this and his moral and political narrative.

Here, I challenge anyone to link me to his explanation such that it is relevant to the arguments I make regarding "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

I am confident that I can do that. I am NOT confident that YOU could connect the dots as I lay them out nor that you would accept any connections I showed to you - it doesn't matter how often you try to show a dog that one color is different than another.

But to that issue of James' REAL God connecting to morality-
Did you read his posts on MIJOT (I don't know why he didn't make a thread for that - or many other important topics)? MIJOT is that connection.

MIJOT requires some explanation as to why it is a fact rather than merely a proposal. I am sure you couldn't get through that part. But having that "dot" connected to fact, the next dot is about the purpose (or usefulness) of morality for an individuall - "morality" meaning rules that "should be followed" as an act of wisdom for your own sake (not necessarily to serve a church or God - but to serve yourself).

Can we even agree that an individual can have a morality that at least serves his own deep down intentions in living? - a wise code to live by?
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: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:50 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, but: however he construed the Real God, how did he connect the dots between this and his moral and political narrative.

Here, I challenge anyone to link me to his explanation such that it is relevant to the arguments I make regarding "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then".

I am confident that I can do that. I am NOT confident that YOU could connect the dots as I lay them out nor that you would accept any connections I showed to you - it doesn't matter how often you try to show a dog that one color is different than another.

But to that issue of James' REAL God connecting to morality-
Did you read his posts on MIJOT (I don't know why he didn't make a thread for that - or many other important topics)?

MIJOT requires some explanation as to why it is a fact rather than merely a proposal. I am sure you couldn't get through that part. But having that "dot" connected to fact, the next dot is about the purpose (or usefulness) of morality for an individuall - "morality" meaning rules that "should be followed" as an act of wisdom for your own sake (not necessarily to serve a church or God - but to serve yourself).

Can we even agree that an individual can have a morality that at least serves his own deep down intentions in living? - a wise code to live by?


Note to others:

Notice [again] what he completely avoids:

But, more to the point, how do you connect the dots between your speculations regarding an omnipotent being and your own political prejudices regarding the 2nd Amendment? You know, the whole point of my posting what I did.


Okay, but: however he construed the Real God, how did he connect the dots between this and his moral and political narrative.


Again, my own interest in an omnipotent being/God, deep-down intentions, a wise code and the 2nd Amendment revolves around connecting the dots between the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave in regard to owning and using guns and how that impacts on the fate of "I" on the other side of the grave. The most important relationship of all it seems to me.

Which Saint, much like obsrvr, subsumed in a world of words defining and defending other words.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:03 am

So you don't want to discuss it.
That's ok.
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: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:35 am

obsrvr524 wrote:So you don't want to discuss it.
That's ok.


Again, absolutely shameless!!! :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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:45 am

It appears that due to some trauma you had earlier in life you cannot let yourself see what other people are saying. You end up (in almost every case - for years apparently) that whatever they say is "just an intellectual contraption" "in their heads".

So ok, let's say you are right (and I certainly don't actually give any real credit to your accusation). What you are claiming is that they cannot see the color of reality that you see.

Now after years you should know that they simply cannot see what you see. So why are YOU arguing color with dogs?
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: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:56 am

obsrvr524 wrote:It appears that due to some trauma you had earlier in life you cannot let yourself see what other people are saying. You end up (in almost every case - for years apparently) that whatever they say is "just an intellectual contraption" "in their heads".

So ok, let's say you are right (and I certainly don't actually give any real credit to your accusation). What you are claiming is that they cannot see the color of reality that you see.

Now after years you should know that they simply cannot see what you see. So why are YOU arguing color with dogs?


Yep, we've got another "condition" here. :lol:

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of any actual substantive discussion. Even James [to the best of my recollection] never allowed himself to stoop down to the level of this drivel.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:26 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:It is not up to science whether 1+1=2 or that a larger box can fit into a smaller box or whether a square can be a circle.

Logic establishes certainty - nothing else. Science merely allows for confirmation that the logic wasn't wrong - James S Saint

So for those who cannot think logically - nothing is certain.


And, yet, over and over and over again, when I challenge him to take thinking of this sort and apply it to such things as gun ownership, he balks.

As though his own views on it were in fact the moral and political equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2. As though anyone who does not share his own "logical conclusions" regarding it, is and must always remain necessarily wrong.

He would appear to be the very embodiment of the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Go ahead, ask him.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:32 pm

The 'essence' of logic precedes the 'facts' of existence: and this whole 'principle' revolves around universal considerations of what is, and/or what should be!

No doubt about it.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:37 pm

Meno_ wrote:The 'essence' of logic precedes the 'facts' of existence: and this whole 'principle' revolves around universal considerations of what is, and/or what should be!

No doubt about it.


We'll need a context of course. Or are those things moot when you can encompass logic so succinctly in points like yours?
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:12 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The 'essence' of logic precedes the 'facts' of existence: and this whole 'principle' revolves around universal considerations of what is, and/or what should be!

No doubt about it.


We'll need a context of course. Or are those things moot when you can encompass logic so succinctly in points like yours?



Analogy.

Aesthetics: art for it's own sake because art precedes the intent of the evolution of perceptive objectivity.(coming to the con-text)

(The 'kids) have natural ability( -priori) to see aesthetic 'reality' without an intrinsic capability to organize the difference.(structural capacit)

We are kids . or at least some of us , are or, have been kids.

Context can be analogous to aesthetic background with a dominating text as foreground.

Fore means ahead, back behind, for evolution is forging ahead and not backwards, reacting to seemingly unforeseeable blocks.

So contextuality is analogous , or relatively to a backward reach for a test of reality, where textuality defines that reality.

There for; it is essentially imperative, (categorically)-KANT- that at least a synthesis be found. That is as down to earth as possible to rely on the logical mode.(for evolution to proceed)

That logical middle anthromorphicality predates the evolutionary idea over a revolutionary idea, because the two sided brain requires some third channels of communication, both intrinsically and extrinsically ; (for It's self and and in it's self)


Where is an application ?

Say in the two seemingly contradictory ideas/facts as the 'Sanctity of Life' and abortion.

Both stances are arguable, ( in themselves but non arguable for Themselves)

Therefore it becomes a nihilistic stalemate to assert one over the other, wherefore, both has to be instituded here, down to earth, to satisfy either one stance or the other.

How to achieve satisfaction of both parties then?

This method was implicit in Trump's quasi neo- Kantian interpretation of political reality, however misunderstood he was, except to one party. What does this say to those belonging to the contrary party field? That the assumed need to compromise, is the only method required to make sense to both parties.

The Catholic Church upends the morality issue by allowing natural forms of contraception, and allow abortion, [ both 'abortion and compromise ] have wider connotations , of the political sort, so the [ constuality] can apply to both real problems. This narrows down the ethically indefinite ( undifined) examples, of down to earth ethical examples to a narrowing unto the morally defined formula .

That reduction, has not occured because a willful poweplay, but of the reactive forces'effect on senation, or apprehension.

The aesthetic becomes viable because of that natural effect of reducing the existential unto the essential.

The universal polarity is reversed, and (what should be) edges out the (what is); and now people must see why Nietzche really spoke merely, (as is) with the hike that he will be interpreted as showing a reversal only in terms of desiring the essential status quo.

That lead to a gross misinterpretation, which ultimately will be cleared up.

In concluding, that is why the stalwart confusion about this matter, and how to clarify it. Finally, the Catholic Dogma is changing as well, by going beyond the structural contexts that dominated her textual categories up to the 2'nd Vatican Council.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:18 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:The 'essence' of logic precedes the 'facts' of existence: and this whole 'principle' revolves around universal considerations of what is, and/or what should be!

No doubt about it.


We'll need a context of course. Or are those things moot when you can encompass logic so succinctly in points like yours?



Analogy.

Aesthetics: art for it's own sake because art precedes the intent of the evolution of perceptive objectivity.(coming to the con-text)

The 'kids) have natural ability( -priori) to see aesthetic 'reality' without an intrinsic capability to organize the difference.(structural capacit)

We are . or at least some of us , are ore have been kids.

Context can be analogous to aesthetic backgnd, with a dominating text as foreground.

Fore means ahead, back behind, for evolution is forging ahead and not backwards, reacting to seemingly unforeseeable blocks.

So ckntextuality is analogous comperituvely, or relatively to a backward re a h for a test of reality, where textuality defines that reality

There for; it is essentially imperative, (categorically)-KANT- that at least a synthesis be found. That is as down to earth as possible to rely on the logical mode.

That logical middle anthromorphicallg predates the evolutionary idea iver anh revolutionary idea, because the two sided brain requires some third channels of communication


Nope, not this kind of context.

Instead, take all of that and, in a discussion with obsrvr, we can explore logic [and its possible limitations] in regard to gun ownership in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular.

Or is that too scary -- real? -- for you?

Really, just help me to pin down what on earth you are doing here?
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:07 pm

Instead, take all of that and, in a discussion with obsrvr, we can explore logic [and its possible limitations] in regard to gun ownership in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular.

"Or is that too scary -- real? -- for you?

Really, just help me to pin down what on earth you are doing here?"



This kind of moral/ethical distinction may be similarly handled.

The significance of gun ownership can be analogous , or set into a comparative frame of reference, by substituting an absolute authority (the God inspired Constitution,) ( note the significance of Con+Institution) , or the watered down referentiality of the representational body.[ course the 'no taxation without representation' is implicitly precedent, in a judicial theater that matters] The thing here with gun control, is, that we have lost the appeal to God, simply because god does no longer appeal to us. It appears that if there was a 'REAL Supreme Court', where even the absolute authority like GOD could appeal a judgment .It then it would conceivably possible to do away with him and compromise.

However God is a sticky wicket, and it is not so easy to get rid of him, so here is the beginnings of a constitutional problem that is becoming increasingly substantial.

Could we as representatives ( of the body of Christ) rely mostly on Hobbs measure of human social contract, it on the more sunny one representing man in more glowing terms?

The constitution lost the image of the SUN-KING( Louis XVI), so Hobbs became the pejorative winner in that contest upon the ascension of Brit wordily power over the French.

So it makes more sense a around to reaffirm the 2'nd amendment on that basis alone.

Is a neo-Kantian compromise then become necessary?

The answer becomes yes, if the politic would become contextually relevant to the described social processes the longstanding principles surrounding states'rights upheld.

States' Rights, alongside trickle down economic decontrol regulations , don't jive with free-market dynamics, hence the compromise that should rely with & on some judicial authority is at a cross road.

The Supreme Court itself , sans God, having lost it's supremacy , is becoming entangled in the political process, therefore becoming it's self compromised oddity.

The resolution in sight in the redefinition of the vested authority as it conflates into the context within it finds It's self, has increasingly assume it less neutral objective role.

Reduced to it's essential role, it can not but seek a more moral then a precedent more ethical principle to rely on. And this state is becoming increasing. & fractured, here the anamoly between the singular and social realms seemingly more with odds against each other, upset rather than uphold the capacity to balance power.

But as in Nietzche, appearances can be deceiving.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 04, 2021 3:02 am

Meno_ wrote: This kind of moral/ethical distinction may be similarly handled.

The significance of gun ownership can be analogous , or set into a comparative frame of reference, by substituting an absolute authority (the God inspired Constitution, ( note the significance of Con+Institution) , or the watered down referentialith of the representational body.[ course the n I taxation without representation is a precedent, in a judicial theater that mattets] The thing here with gun control, is, that we have lost the appeal to God, simply because god dies no longer appeal to us. At appears that if there was. REAL Supreme course , where even the absolute authority like GOD could appeal a judgment, it would be possible to do away with him and compromise.


Now that's more like it.

Sure, if you bring God into it, you're talking both omniscience and omnipotence. If someone argues that it is more logical to presume that God wanted citizens to be entirely free to purchase any and all weapons then, really, what's left to say?

But take God out of the picture and what exactly is the most logical manner in which, say, philosophers or ethicists or political scientists or the courts ought to construe the meaning of these words:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Are my arguments above more logical than obsrvr's? How about you? Assess those words given your own understanding of logical thinking.

Meno_ wrote: Could we as representatives ( of the body of Christ) rely mostly on Hobbs measure of human social contract, it on the mire sunny one representing man in more glowing terms?


I do not consider myself representative of the body of Christ? Do you? And, if so, in regard to gun ownership and logic, what on earth does that even mean?

The constitution lost the image of the SUN-KING( Louis XVI, so Hobbs became the pejorative winner in that contest upon the ascension of Brit wordily power over the French.

So it makes more sense a around to reaffirm the 2'nd amendment on that basis alone.


Again, this is intellectual gibberish to me.

Same here:

Meno_ wrote: Is a nei-Kantian compromise then become necessary?

The answer becomes yes, if the politic would become contextually relevant to the described social processes the longstanding principles surrounding states'rights.

States' Rights, alongside trickle down economic cdecintrol regulations , dont jive with free-market dgnamics, hence the compromise that should rely on some judicial authority is at a cross road.

The Supreme Court itself , sans God, having lost it's supremacy , is becoming entangled in the political process, therefore becoming it's self compromised.

The resolution is sight in the redefinition of the vested authority as it conflates intl the context within it finds It's self.

Reduced to it's essential role, it can not but seek a more moral then a precedent more ethical principle to rely on. And this state is becoming increasing. & fractured, here the anamofg between the singular and social realms seemingly more with odds against each other.

But as in Nietzche, appearances can be deceiving.


It's like a "stream of consciousness" "philosophy" in which the words in the sentences seem to make sense to you but they are only vaguely or barely intelligible to me.

Bottom line [mine]: I can only imagine blank stares on the faces of those debating the pros and cons of the issue after hearing this from you.

"Huh?", in other words.

But, okay, at least you made an attempt at it. I do appreciate that.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:11 pm

Stay tuned...on steroids.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/us/p ... e=Homepage


WASHINGTON — President Trump’s relentless effort to overturn the result of the election that he lost has become the most serious stress test of American democracy in generations, led not by outside revolutionaries intent on bringing down the system but by the very leader charged with defending it.

In the 220 years since a defeated John Adams turned over the White House to his rival, firmly establishing the peaceful transfer of power as a bedrock principle, no sitting president who lost an election has tried to hang onto power by rejecting the Electoral College and subverting the will of the voters — until now. It is a scenario at once utterly unthinkable and yet feared since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s tenure.

The president has gone well beyond simply venting his grievances or creating a face-saving narrative to explain away a loss, as advisers privately suggested he was doing in the days after the Nov. 3 vote, but instead has pressed the boundaries of tradition, propriety and the law to find any way he can to cling to office beyond his term that expires in two weeks. That he is almost certain to fail does not mitigate the damage he is doing to democracy by undermining public faith in the electoral system.


What to make of liberal reactions like this. On the one hand, we are always assured that all of this bluster on Trumps part is just that, a tempest in a teapot.

On the other hand, there seems to be a real concern brewing that anything is possible between now and January 20th.

Or, sure, just your typical inside the beltway crisis being built up to create new subscriptions.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:12 pm

wrong thread.
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:13 pm

wrong thread
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 09, 2021 7:05 pm

obsrvr524 wrote: I thought I would get this off my mind before the truth about anything becomes totally irrelevant.


Reminder:

You can stop reading right now if you refuse to accept that, in fact, the truth about everything must be perfectly aligned with his own authoritarian dogmas.

Sure, others might come in here and dispute his distinctions. Or they might critique capitalism from any number of conflicting political perspectives.

And, perhaps, he'd even welcome that.

But make no mistake: There is the one and the only rational distinction to make between them. And this must be true because in preaching to the choir here he confirms it.

Just another rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], some are taught or come into contact with [through their upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that embraces capitalism. Ayn Rand, as likely as not.

2] Over time, they become convinced that this perspective on capitalism 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 capitalism; 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 of capitalism 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 capitalism 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 capitalism 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 has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending capitalism has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

For others, it might be Communism instead.

That leads to debates like this: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5002 ... apitalism/

Debates where both sides can make reasonable arguments based on sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition" itself.

But for the objectivists among us, acknowledging this is taboo. After all, the whole point of being an authoritarian defender of one or the other is to have this Whole Truth in which to anchor the Real Me.

And ILP is bursting at the seams with them, isn't it?
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:24 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:The Relevance of Truth

I thought it best to address this before continuing with the thread The New Dark Age Philosophy

Now that the greatest single experiment in all of mankind has come to a close – that of the global contest between truth of reality and public deception – and we see now that across the world in the final battle it is deception that reigns supreme, we have to give credit and consideration as to whether actual truth should ever be of concern.

Knowing that the victor will most often be the liar (proven world over by politics), is it properly loving of parents to teach their children to try to be honest? If we know that such a philosophy as "honesty is the best policy" will cause our children to be losers and possibly crushed by their competition in life should we, with their best interest at heart, teach such a failed life policy?

When we think about it, among the trillions of living creatures on the planet, not one ever actually knows the real truth of their situation. Humans come closer than other creatures, but after thousands of years struggling with trying to know and promote truth only to have it revealed as the weaker position to take, why continue to promote it as a philosophy?

Now world over there will be a "truth narrative" spread that is to be adhered to along with dire consequences for any who attempt to reveal or even privately believe any actual truth. So why fight it?

And additionally what if the real truth is that it isn't even wise to know the real truth at all? That has been often proposed throughout history it seems.

  • In the long run actual truth fails to protect against competition
  • Teaching our children to be honest ensures their weakness
  • The world governance demands compliance with a preferred truth narrative
  • Perhaps knowing actual truth is not healthy or wise
  • Deception seems to be the basis of all life from birth to death

Those sound like good reasons to wisely choose to ignore actual truth and accept whatever lie best suits the situation – to be willing to tell one lie and then the very next day alter to another, possibly even the opposite of the first, and simply deny any wrong doing at all times. Is lying to even be considered "wrong doing"? Many on this board and throughout politics don't seem to think so.

Is it wiser to just accept and promote with just a sprinkle of truth whatever lie seems to be the need at the time even while believing that the apparent "need at the time" is probably itself a lie? Possibly "just go along to get along" is the wiser choice?

Is the real truth that the real truth is irrelevant and its pursuit unwise?

My god I have been suckered into becoming a philosopher – my wife's going to kill me.


What particular "real truth" in regard to what particular set of circumstances when, say, liberals and conservatives [and parents] come to conflicting conclusions regarding what the truth is?

You know, given the historical evolution of vast and varied cultures precipitating even more vast and varied human communities squabbling over which behaviors to reward and which to punish.

Incredibly enough, however, he doesn't think it is important to go there. Merely encompassing the truth in yet another "intellectual contraption" suffices.

I have even invented a new groot -- right Wendy? -- in which to explore his own so-called Truths:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a "real me" in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively "the right thing to do", and "I" embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I'm less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.


Maybe this time...
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:40 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Sil forgive me I hadn't caught on to the fact that you really are very much like iambiguous - constantly and consistently throwing in wild strawman assertions to supplement your distractions from the actual discussion and rational process.


On the other hand, Sil isn't challenging you to note these "wild strawmen assertions" in an exchange that revolves around comparing and contrasting our moral and political philosophies in regard to a set of circumstances of your own choosing.

Right?

The 2nd Amendment and capitalism [above] are just two possible issues.

The point is this: why do you keep avoiding an actual substantive exchange with me?

Let's be blunt: Do you possess either the intellectual honesty or the intellectual integrity to confront that yourself?
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 18, 2021 2:58 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Therefore -
Lying and censoring opposition on a public platform is a good thing.
- Got it.

And if that is the case then what the US Constitution really says or doesn't is irrelevant. So why even bring it up?


Allow me to translate this for those not familiar with the objectivist mind:

"Truth and lies here are what I say they are. So, if social media choose to censor those who don't agree with everything that I think is true about, say, Trump, Biden, the Communists and China, that's not censoring. That's more in the way of common sense."
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: 39787
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users