Mr Reasonable and iambiguous don't contend

[Mr Reasonable]

that ego of his is something else

[phyllo]

Guess that his ego is not fractured and fragmented.

[iambiguous]

that ego of his is something else

How about this...

Let's explore the parameters -- and the limitations -- of the human id, ego and superego in the either/or world...juxtaposed to the same in the is/ought world.

We can flip a coin -- think Anton Chigurh -- in order to determine which of our egos is up first.

Unless you'd like to volunteer.

[iambiguous]

Guess that his ego is not fractured and fragmented.

My argument with Mr. Reasonable however is that in regard to playing the stock market, his ego is considerable less fractured and fragmented. Why? Because the goal is to make money. And here his ego is either able to devise rational choices or it is not.

Whereas in a discussion with a socialist regarding the capitalist political economy, the extent to which his frame of mind is not fractured and fragmented indicates [to me] that he is likely to be an objectivist. Why? Because in regard to conflicting goods here -- "I" in the is/ought world -- both sides are able to devise rational arguments.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5002 ... apitalism/
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1472 ... socialism/

Furthermore, I argue that his defense of capitalism is likely to be rooted far more in the arguments I make in my signature threads [in regard to dasein] than in anything philosophers, ethicists and political scientists are able to devise in the way of a deontological assessment.

Now, why won't he explore this with me in a civil and intelligent discussion? What are his "conditions"?

Anything more intelligent than "fuck off"?

[iambiguous]

Yo, MagsJ! You're up!!

What is your own reaction to the points I raised with Mr. Reasonable on this thread? Given a set of circumstances in which we compare and contrast the accumulation of human knowledge in the either/or world and the accumulation of personal opinions in reacting to that objective knowledge given the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages.

Minds and conversations evolve over the years, seeking different inputs to generate different outputs.. so why can’t yours’, when it comes to interacting with others?

Okay, let's bring this down to earth.

The role of government in the lives of citizens.

There is the classic conservative/capitalist frame of mind: the smaller the better. Then the reality: crony capitalism.

There is the classic liberal/socialist frame of mind: the bigger the better. Then the projected reality: it all withers away under Communism.

Now minds do change over time about this distinction. Marx rooted this "scientifically" in his assessment of the organic, historical evolution of the "means of production". Big governments are not even possible without the surplus labor around to occupy all the positions.

Now, in regard to our own individual reactions to government here at ILP, I suggest that is likely to be rooted in the arguments I make in my signature threads. We are all "thrown" -- thrown "adventitiously" -- at birth into a particular world. Utterly beyond our control. We are all indoctrinated for years to think this or that about socialism and capitalism. We all have different [sometimes very different] personal experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that shape and mold us into those who favor one political economy over the other.

There does not appear to be either a philosophical or a scientific argument that can take this diversity into account and establish the most rational or the only rational manner in which to think about it.

Right?

You read and post on a lot of diverse philosophical topics, and yet you want to drag everything back to the beginning of philosophy, for others. You rebuke responses with your own intangible ones, and never seek to reach any resolutions of truth or disagreement, but work on a cycle of rebuke and repeal.

The "beginning of philosophy"? Again, given what particular context? Over and again, I note that my main interest in philosophy [and science and religion] revolves around this: how ought one to live?

And, given that, subjectively, existentially, I am an atheist -- "here and now" -- in a No God world.

Again: you note these accusations about me. Okay, choose an issue and a context that revolves around a discussion that explores our respective views on identity, value judgments and political power. How existentially they become intertwined out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What can we agree is true objectively for both of us and what seems more rooted subjectively in my philosophical assumptions regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And in your philosophical assumptions regarding your own self.

Does a conceptualised thought have to be experienced, for it to ring true? as your real-world example requests, cannot always be fulfilled, due to that. Not every thought is actualised, and not every actualisation is necessarily just.. for thinking types.

Yes, but the "battles" that unfold between the liberals and the conservative here often do become actual behaviors chosen by flesh and blood men and women "out in the world". Resulting in "the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages."

[MagsJ]

_
Hey yea, I know.. give me 30 mins or so, when I’ll be able to get round to a reply.

[iambiguous]

_
Hey yea, I know.. give me 30 mins or so, when I’ll be able to get round to a reply.

Let's synchronize our watches.

[MagsJ]

Lol

[Mr Reasonable]

[promethean75]

Why do I suddenly have the desire to make a nice spinach casserole? Weird.

[iambiguous]

Let's try this...

Animals in zoos: pros and cons: https://www.procon.org/headlines/zoos-t ... -and-cons/

Again, as with the capitalism/socialism conflagration, there are arguments that support the existence of zoos and arguments that do not support them.

Conflicting goods let's call them.

And just as there are those who, in my opinion, live lives that existentially predispose them to embrace either capitalism or socialism, there are those who live lives that predispose them toward embracing or condemning the existence of zoos.

Perhaps Shit Smears might be willing to explore this controversy "civilly and intelligently".

And, along the way, we might even discover an explanation for his obsession with shit.

[iambiguous]

Why do I suddenly have the desire to make a nice spinach casserole? Weird.

Note to phoneutria:

Did you put him up to this?

I knew you could be cruel...but vicious?!

[phyllo]

Great. Another thread about food.

Next up existential condiments.

[promethean75]

Habermas Habanero Sauce; spice up you life

[promethean75]

Artificially flavored Beef Baudrillard cubes.

(artificially flavored. The simulacrum. Kay.)

[iambiguous]

Great. Another thread about food.

Next up existential condiments.

Food? Fine. As long as we don't yak yak yak about it.

[phyllo]

The dessert of the real is now being served.

[iambiguous]

The dessert of the real is now being served.

Or, for some, the desert.

Still, is capitalism or socialism closer to the real? Either as the dessert or the desert.

More to the point [mine], how "fractured and fragmented" are or are not those who do make a philosophical attempt to contemplate it.

[promethean75]

Pascal Peach herbal tea.

The fda hasn't approved of it and the data surrounding its efficacy is dubious. But it doesnt hurt to try it. If it works, great. If it doesn't, you've lost nothing (it's fairly inexpensive and it tastes delicious).

[Mr Reasonable]

Why do I suddenly have the desire to make a nice spinach casserole? Weird.

science

[iambiguous]

call me picky
but when it comes to tight pants
i want to see a clear division of the cheeks

This one shows a bit more definition. But not quite the best angle. I suppose I could just ask her to turn around and bend over.

Next up: a debate between us that attempts to pin down just how sexist [if not downright stupid] this particular yak yak yakking might be.

Oh, by the way: Pedro's back!

[Mr Reasonable]

Lol h8r

[obsrvr524]

Now even I would have to call that a definite "conflicting good".

[Mr Reasonable]

For the record the girl in the yoga pants does not think I am sexist.

[Mr Reasonable]

Also since this is a thread about food now, here is some avocado toast with crab meat and caviar. The girl in the yoga pants paid for it.