Mr Reasonable and iambiguous don't contend

[iambiguous]

From the poop thread:

there are some kinds of minds out there who believe that so long as there is ongoing debate, that neither argument is right, that nothing is true yet until one side concedes. that is not how things actually are. one person insisting that water isn't wet, and refusing to accept that it is, and going on forever about it doesn't make water not wet. it makes that person wrong.

Sure, if the context revolves around whether water is wet or whether steel is an alloy of iron or whether tornados produce powerful winds, then some people are right in noting this and other people are wrong if they insist that this is not true.

Let's call this the either/or world.

But suppose we shift gears. Suppose the discussion revolves instead around the role of government or gender or race or sexual preference.

Or the moral values and political prejudices of liberals and conservatives in reacting to the attack on the Capitol.

Let's call this the is/ought world.

Which side is right and which side is wrong here? And how is this demonstrated to the same degree that it is demonstrated that water is wet, steel is an alloy of iron and tornadoes produce powerful winds? And how are the arguments that I make not relevant to probing what might be called the least irrational point of view?

In fact, all this reminds me of my attempt to draw you into probing this distinction:

If you start with the assumption that capitalism is the right political economy and you set yourself a goal of becoming financially secure as a capitalist, then you either accomplish this by choosing the right behaviors or you don't by choosing the wrong behaviors.

But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?

fuck off

With Mr Reasonable, I am confronted with a frame of mind that interest me because, as with karpel tunnel, he does not seem to embrace either God or the sort of hardcore moral and political objectivism embedded in the minds of the "fulminating fanatics" here. And, by and large, he shares many of my own liberal/left wing political prejudices.

Yet we clearly have a "failure to communicate". I'm just curious as to the extent to which, if he is not in possession of karpel tunnel's "visceral, intuitive deep-down-inside-me" Self, on what basis is he not himself as fractured and fragmented as I am?

But all of my attempts to discuss this in regard to an issue like the capitalism vs. socialism conflagration have only prompted one or another rendition of the "fuck off" retort.

Again: Why?

What is it about my arguments that perturb him so? And why can't we explore this in a civil and intelligent manner?

[phoneutria]

petition for all replies to this thread to be "fuck off"

[iambiguous]

petition for all replies to this thread to be "fuck off"

Of course, I've made any number of attempts to explore the existential parameters of her own moral and political prejudices. Even created a thread to "entice" her: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196097

To, uh, no avail.

Now, it's only a matter of her persuading Mr. Reasonable that the most effective way in which to keep my disturbing ideas out of his head altogether is to "foe" me.

Like she did.

But, from my own frame of mind, that is just being chickenshit.

After all, if my mind is really as "broken" as she claims it is, how hard could it be to demonstrate that? Given a discussion revolving around a political conflagration we are all familiar with. We can compare and contrast our own moral and political philosophies.

I have even come up with an intellectual scaffold in which to pursue it:

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.

Or, sure, one of her own.

[phoneutria]

there's no enticing, shitface
i gave you specific requirements
until you meet them
you'll continue to be ignored
until then
fuck off

[iambiguous]

there's no enticing, shitface
i gave you specific requirements
until you meet them
you'll continue to be ignored
until then
fuck off

Oh, yeah, I forgot: her legendary "specific requirements"*.

On the other hand, how exactly does she go about ignoring me while noting my point about enticing her above? Is Satyr her go-between here? Or, perhaps, one of her many suitors? You know, being "young and beautiful".

And the sheer gall of ordering someone to "fuck off" on their own thread!!

Phoneutria? It starts with a C


*Does anyone here actually remember what they are?

[Mr Reasonable]

petition for all replies to this thread to be "fuck off"

seconded

[iambiguous]

petition for all replies to this thread to be "fuck off"

seconded

All I can note here is that, for whatever reason, both of them refuse to engage in a civil and intelligent exchange regarding the distinction I make between objective truth in the "water is wet" either/or world and the subjective perspectives rooted in the political prejudices of liberals and conservatives here rooted, in my view, in dasein. Prejudices exchanged [often fiercely] in the is/ought world.

Now, I have my own suspicions regarding the motivations for their refusal. As with so many others here who, in whatever manner, are convinced that they basically know "who they are" and that who they are is able to make the proper distinction between right and wrong, good and bad behavior, they are wary of putting all of that in jeopardy given the arguments I make.

In my view, it's only a matter of admitting it to themselves.

While, at the same time, an exchange would allow them to note specific instances of the accusations they level at me, there is a part of them that, given their intelligence, "senses" that I might be on to something that would put their own precious Self at risk.

All I would like of them is to note how, given a particular set of circumstances, their own sense of identity is not entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

[Mr Reasonable]

lol "intelligent exchange"

fuck off

[iambiguous]

yeah but wait until they start
cutting on your online shopping
mr. r. is going to lead the riot

Tell me that Tyler didn't nail him: https://youtu.be/exL51n3py6g

i watched this movie once when it first came out and didnt think much of it. then years later i found out that to a lot of kooks it was a big deal. its like the radiohead of movies. no one gives a shit about it and no one with any depth thinks that it is deep.

Yeah the "fight club" bullshit that a psychotic Tyler was aiming for was largely a ridiculous la la land.

You know, if I do say so myself.

But that which he mocked in regard to the sterile, mass-consumption mentality of so many that I construe to be of the boiler room/Wall Street/corporate America type just, well, clicked with me: https://youtu.be/ArS16ZyOxLQ

And I figure Mr. Reasonable -- the man every woman wants, the man every other man wants to be -- is in the general vicinity of that.

[iambiguous]

lol "intelligent exchange"

fuck off

But he repeats himself.

You know, like me.

Only, for me, an intelligent exchange would revolve more around threads like these:


https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Whereas he is more content to just yak yak yak on the poop thread.

[Mr Reasonable]

who hurt u

[iambiguous]

who hurt u

By year or alphabetically?

[Mr Reasonable]

have some self respect bruh

[iambiguous]

have some self respect bruh

Oh, now I get it. Turn the thread into one of your typical yak, yak, yak "exchanges".

One "clever" line at a time.

Pedro think.

Note to others:

If you share Smears point of view from the OP...

there are some kinds of minds out there who believe that so long as there is ongoing debate, that neither argument is right, that nothing is true yet until one side concedes. that is not how things actually are. one person insisting that water isn't wet, and refusing to accept that it is, and going on forever about it doesn't make water not wet. it makes that person wrong.

...how would you defend him given the arguments that I propose above?

He won't pursue this himself, but don't let that stop you.

"Water is wet" vs. "'I' in the is/ought world"? What's the difference?

[phyllo]

...how would you defend him given the arguments that I propose above?

You don't actually propose any arguments.

You propose a situation and then you ask a bunch of questions. That's not an argument.

Situation :

Suppose the discussion revolves instead around the role of government or gender or race or sexual preference.

Or the moral values and political prejudices of liberals and conservatives in reacting to the attack on the Capitol.

Let's call this the is/ought world.

Questions:

Which side is right and which side is wrong here? And how is this demonstrated to the same degree that it is demonstrated that water is wet, steel is an alloy of iron and tornadoes produce powerful winds? And how are the arguments that I make not relevant to probing what might be called the least irrational point of view?

Situation:

If you start with the assumption that capitalism is the right political economy and you set yourself a goal of becoming financially secure as a capitalist, then you either accomplish this by choosing the right behaviors or you don't by choosing the wrong behaviors.

Questions:

But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?

As if the questions are arguments in themselves.

And if anyone takes the bait and answers the questions, you have your standard responses ... more questions, "No", "General", "Abstract", "In the Clouds", "In your head", "Existential contraption".

[iambiguous]

...how would you defend him given the arguments that I propose above?

You don't actually propose any arguments.

You propose a situation and then you ask a bunch of questions. That's not an argument.

Situation :

Suppose the discussion revolves instead around the role of government or gender or race or sexual preference.

Or the moral values and political prejudices of liberals and conservatives in reacting to the attack on the Capitol.

Let's call this the is/ought world.

Questions:

Which side is right and which side is wrong here? And how is this demonstrated to the same degree that it is demonstrated that water is wet, steel is an alloy of iron and tornadoes produce powerful winds? And how are the arguments that I make not relevant to probing what might be called the least irrational point of view?

Situation:

If you start with the assumption that capitalism is the right political economy and you set yourself a goal of becoming financially secure as a capitalist, then you either accomplish this by choosing the right behaviors or you don't by choosing the wrong behaviors.

Questions:

But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?

As if the questions are arguments in themselves.

And if anyone takes the bait and answers the questions, you have your standard responses ... more questions, "No", "General", "Abstract", "In the Clouds", "In your head", "Existential contraption".

Okay, given the distinction between establishing that water is wet or that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen or all that is noted here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water -- about water, how would you make a distinction between human knowledge pertaining to water and human knowledge pertaining to, say, the attack on the Capitol Building? Given that in regard to water the knowledge that we have is applicable to both liberals and conservatives, whereas the knowledge accumulated by many liberals and conservatives in regard to the political agenda of those who stormed the Capitol results in, let's call it, conflicting goods.

Now, in my signature threads, I make what I construe to be arguments that differentiate I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

Sure, you can make this all about me and the extent to which "technically" I am going about making this distinction in a manner that "serious philosophers" might object to. But what I am after is the argument of those "serious philosophers" in regard to the distinction that I make above.

So, if Smears defers in going there, how about you?

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle?

[phyllo]

You might want to change your approach because you seem to have reached the point where practically nobody wants to talk to you any more.

[iambiguous]

You might want to change your approach because you seem to have reached the point where practically nobody wants to talk to you any more.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle! Did I call it or not?!

As for how more and more less and less folks here want to discuss things with me, so true.

Again, I've narrowed it down to this:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

So, the objectivists and the fulminating fanatics steer clear of me because their precious Selves are on the line. And any number of "serious philosophers" have abandoned me because I insist that they take their "technical" expertise down out of the intellectual contraption clouds. At least in regard to "I" in the is/ought world.

[phoneutria]

fuck off

[iambiguous]

fuck off

Both phoney and shit smears share the conviction that I should "fuck off".

But one seems to embrace generally liberal political prejudices and the other generally conservative political prejudices.

So, ironically enough, if they were to engage in a discussion revolving around issues that precipitate the endless "fulminating fanatic" conflicts between liberals and conservatives here, how long would it be before they were telling each other to "fuck off".

And who do you suppose would be first?

Phoney. No doubt about it in my mind.

[phoneutria]

fuck off

[Peter Kropotkin]

I offer up my two cents of this......

the "KIDS" don't wish to engage with IAM for the simple reason,
that their beliefs, be it right or left, is entangled into their own
understanding of who they are..... and by an engagement into their thoughts,
they might discover that the beliefs they hold dear are really not even their
beliefs, but beliefs given to them by their family, the state, the church,
the society or the culture..... they hold other people's beliefs and think that
it is their beliefs... the don't have the imagination or courage to engage in
an attack upon their beliefs to see if they are actually their beliefs or
they are simply regurgitating other people's beliefs....

I hold that very people on this site actually have beliefs that they themselves don't
hold... the beliefs so strongly held by many, are simply the beliefs other people hold...

" it is not enough to have the courage of one's convictions, but
one should have the courage for an attack upon one's convictions"

the "KIDS" don't follow Socrates in any way, shape or form....
for they don't have any clue as to the maxim,
"know thyself' and they don't understand the maxim,
"the unexamined life isn't worth living".....

it isn't enough to say, I hold these beliefs, you have to
think about why, why do you hold these beliefs....

why is it so important that I believe that "IQ45 can walk on water",
as certain "KIDS" around believe... why do they hold IQ45 as the messiah..
but why do they think that? why do they hate liberals and democrats so much?

they don't have a clue... oh, they have their rationalizations, they have
their justifications, and their own story..... but is that really the truth?

I doubt it.....what is the real reason one holds the beliefs that one holds?

I suggest that it is as much cowardice that they hold their beliefs as it
is simply carrying on the beliefs of others.... others they can't even
identify....

that they cannot be honest is quite clear in their posts, whereas they
lie and lie and lie...and why the lies? because they can't even be
honest with themselves about their own beliefs.....

or perhaps, the easy way of cowardice is simply to tell someone to
"fuck off".. it saves one from actually dealing with their beliefs
and save them from the possibility that they might be wrong..
and since their own self worth is engaged with their beliefs,
having the "wrong" beliefs would bring one to an entire nervous breakdown
because they have based their entire self worth into their own belief systems....

Kropotkin

[iambiguous]

fuck off

You know, just in case you missed it the first second third time.

But what on earth would even possess her to click on a thread from someone that she has "foed"?!

Did she and Smears make a pact or something?

And though many of the points raised by PK about the Kids rings true, with Phoneutria and Mr Reasonable, my actual interest in an exchange with them revolves far more around the fact that I have a great respect for the intelligence of both of them.

I would genuinely welcome an "intelligent and civil" exchange with them regarding the arguments/questions I raised in the OP and in my signature threads.

I merely suspect that each of them in their own way feel their "sense of self" is threatened by the points I raise. In fact, I think that is why karpel tunnel and others have allowed themselves to configure into Stooges in reacting to me here. And why some of them left.

Trust me: "I" as a "fractured and fragmented" "existential contraption" rooted in "dasein" is a brutally grim way in which to imagine your interactions with others. It's not for nothing that most want to believe that who they think they are is who they ought to think they are.

I know I would like to go back to that.

[phoneutria]

no kropo
i engage literally everyone else on here
even people like you who just talk shit
and then cower away when asked to provide facts

i don't talk to biggie
because he doesn't argue in good faith
he doesn't even read what we write
he just copy and pastes the same shit
so if he wants to be disrespect people's time
like he does every day
while pretending to have a debate
he can fuck right off

and so can you

[Peter Kropotkin]

phoneutria: he can fuck right off
and so can you"

K: and this is what passes for "intelligent conversation" among the "Kids"

"fuck off"

well, it save time in pretending to think....it allows you to avoid
really engaging in why you believe in what you believe in, and more
importantly, why do you believe in what you believe?

what is the basis of your belief system? are they really your beliefs,
or are they simply beliefs you have regurgitated from your parents, church,
state, culture, society?

I hold that most people, in fact 99% of the people around here, have no idea why
they believe in the belief system they believe in... say that three times fast....

anyway, why do you hold the beliefs you hold to?

have you ever engaged in some attempt as to why you hold these beliefs?

I doubt it...

"it is not enough to have the courage of your convictions, you must
have the courage for an attack upon your convictions"

some German loser said that.....

Kropotkin