Mr Reasonable and iambiguous don't contend

[iambiguous]

I mean just because I post pics of her ass, that doesn't mean that I don't hold her in high regard and respect her intelligence and accomplishments. She is truly brilliant.. Lets be real though. This girl is 40 yrs old. That ass is an accomplishment in and of itself. She bounced around in here for an hour today to make sure that her apple watch recorded her daily 15k steps. That's dedication and it should be respected.

yeah 40 year old chick
casually hooking up with a barely acquainted ex drug dealer
cuz she is strong and independent
and free spirited and can do what she want

Totally

The yak yak yak plot over on the Corner thickens!

Is Mr. R. a "sexist"?

Perhaps not. Perhaps [once again] these pics are only aimed at reminding us that he is the man every woman wants and the man every other man wants to be.

And let's not forget that phoneutria did prompt it all with this:

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

Of course with her we never really know what is either meant to be ironically literal or literally ironic.

Anyway, is Mr. R a sexist?

Well, let's start with his "signature" here:

"You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too."

Somewhere between, lets say, feminism and, let's say, misogyny?

Now, again, I'm stuck here because in regard to gender roles, I'm still no less fractured and fragmented.

But that has always been my point here in regard to the political prejudices of those like Mr. Reasonable and phoneutria.

In regard to sexism, are they or are they not closer to being what I construe to be objectivists or moral/political nihilists?

[Mr Reasonable]

I posted the yoga pants pics because there was a post about someone in yoga pants, and because everyone loves yoga pants. Some of us out here are trying to spread positive images of things that people love in order to make the world a little brighter. You might not understand that because you only spread negativity and stress. It doesn't have to be that way. You can do better.

[iambiguous]

I posted the yoga pants pics because there was a post about someone in yoga pants, and because everyone loves yoga pants. Some of us out here are trying to spread positive images of things that people love in order to make the world a little brighter. You might not understand that because you only spread negativity and stress. It doesn't have to be that way. You can do better.

Fair enough.

Well, as existential contraptions go.

But what does it really have to do with exploring the gap between 1] those objectivists on both sides of the political aisle who see the pics and his signature as either perpetuating sexist stereotypes or as bringing women into a new realm of liberation, and 2] those political nihilists who argue that all of this is rooted existentially in the subjective and subjunctive parameters of dasein.

How close can we come [philosophically or otherwise] to actually pinning down that which is the most rational and virtuous point of view here?

You know, in a No God world in which human autonomy is presumed to exist given the gap between what we think we know about ourselves and the world around us and all that would need to be known given a definitive understanding of existence itself.

What then of yoga pants?

Here is one politicized take them: https://www.macleans.ca/society/op-eds- ... for-women/

[Mr Reasonable]

It has literally nothing to do with any of that.

[iambiguous]

Is it fair to say that BLM and Antifa
are terrorist organizations
that conspire to destroy public and private property
and kill cops?

i wouldn't think so
i think they are a movement
speaking for what they believe
speaking their truth to power
as is their right to do
in a free fucking society

when a protest gets out of hand
and shit gets broken and people hurt
there has to be accountability for that

even more so
if it becomes proven
that people among them conspired ahead of time
by talking about committing those actions
by preparing explosive and inflammatory materials
and bringing them along to the protests

those people are subject to the law
but the group MUST NOT BE SILENCED

Hear! Hear!

No, really.

As existential contraptions rooted in dasein go, we are both basically on the same page. And in fact there are any number of what I call "fulminating fanatics" here who seem intent more on making a distinction between black and left wing violence and white and right wing violence. To the extent this reflects the fact that they are racists is for them to address.

Me? In regard to race and terrorism and violence and private property and everything else pertaining to conflicting goods, I am still no less "fractured and fragmented". I have my own political prejudices, just as does phoneutria. But in a No God world there does not appear [to me] to be a way in which mere mortals can go about demonstrating that their own value judgments do in fact reflect either the optimal or the only rational and virtuous assessment.

I'm just curious to explore this with those like phoneutria...those who seem considerably more adamant that their own frame of mind is "the right one".

[iambiguous]

It has literally nothing to do with any of that.

I understand that.

But that doesn't make my own interest in it waver given my particular philosophical propensity. And that revolves around moral and political value judgments grappled with from either the perspective of the objectivists or the perspective of the moral and political nihilists.

Sexism being just one of hundreds of conflicting goods here.

Don't go there if it doesn't interest you. Fine. No problem. I have no control over that.

Anymore than godot has.

[iambiguous]

when you talk about a woman in her 40s
like hey this girl still got it
that already says it
in between the lines
that this spent woman
well past her expiration date
can still be sqweezed a little more
before you can chuck her in the refuse pile

when in fact it's called midlife
because after a women gets thrown in the world's refuse pile
she still has half of her life to live

40 more years
of walking the world
as a living piece of refuse

because that's what women are to the world
an ass in a pair of yoga pants
that preferably lifts and separates

Of course this seems clearly to put all of the focus on girls/women in regard to their "looks", on whether or not they have "hot" bodies, on the extent to which they still possess "sex appeal" to men.

What about an "expiration date" in regard to her intelligence, her accomplishments, her emotional IQ, her sense of humor and all of the other qualities that make girls/women no less complex and attractive as men to others?

In other words, for some men, that's often what girls/women are reduced down to: "an ass in a pair of yoga pants that preferably lifts and separates"

Here though I am interested in exploring the extent to which Mr. Reasonable is one of them.

And the extent to which it can be demonstrated that rational men and women ought or ought not to think like that.

Edit:

In particular, I am curious as to the extent to which phoneutria reflects the point of view that those like Satyr assert over at KT.

In other words, here and now, most men still react to tits and ass as they do -- even 60 years after the last historical outcropping of feminism -- because biologically, genetically nothing has really changed going all the way back to the caves.

Feminism is basically just a memetic "social construct" that attempts to make "natural" male/female human behavior go away. Men seek out the most attractive and fit women in order to reproduce the species with their own offspring.

End of story. Yoga pants is just another manifestation of that.

[Mr Reasonable]

women care more about their own and other women's bodies than most men do. the majority of men will literally bang anything

[iambiguous]

women care more about their own and other women's bodies than most men do. the majority of men will literally bang anything

Some women.
Some men.

Of course, this being a philosophy venue, my aim is to explore what mr reasonable and phoneutria think that rational and virtuous men and women ought to do in regard to these things. Given the tools of philosophy available to them, how might they probe and grapple with all of the "conflicting goods" we encounter from political prejudices all up and down the left/right ideological spectrum.

Also to examine how their own points of view here are derived from the points of view that I make about human identity in regard to things such as this being embedded in an enormously complex intertwining of genes and memes. Out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

As philosophers, are we able to distill all of the opposing moral narratives and political agendas down to a frame of mind that can be embraced as wisdom.

Such that when mr reasonable advises Joker to "just dont [sic] put a seed in there and youre [sic] good", we can explore in more detail actual contexts in which this would be reasonable advice.

[Mr Reasonable]

The horse is dead. You're still beating it. The world doesn't revolve around the difference between right and wrong.

[iambiguous]

The horse is dead. You're still beating it. The world doesn't revolve around the difference between right and wrong.

He must have posted this "on his phone". Thus the absence of "whole paragraphs" that have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums.

Besides, think about just how absurd his point is!!!

The world that we encounter from day to day "on the news" often revolves precisely around the titanic clashes between right and wrong. And, as often as not, both sides insisting that the other side is evil -- villains! -- making the world such an awful place.

The objectivists in other words.

Of course for the yak yak yakkers [like him] it's one or two lines here, one or two lines there.

Who needs "whole paragraphs" when your main aim seems to revolve around using ILP as just another "social media" hub in order to make it crystal clear why you are still the man every woman wants and the man every other man wants to be.

And, come on, you don't have to be Tyler Durden to mock that part.

[Mr Reasonable]

lol u mad bruh

[iambiguous]

lol u mad bruh

lol u

Let's just leave it at that chump.

[Mr Reasonable]

u calling names because u r weak

[iambiguous]

u calling names because u r weak

lol u

[promethean75]

"Thus the absence of "whole paragraphs" that have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums"

Please demonstrate why all rational men and women should write whole paragraphs that have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums.

[iambiguous]

"Thus the absence of "whole paragraphs" that have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums"

Please demonstrate why all rational men and women should write whole paragraphs that have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums.

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out that people communicating in whole paragraphs, "have been known to unfold in exchanges revolving around differences between right and wrong in most philosophy forums."

You know, like you used to.

[promethean75]

Well you know how it is, dude. He wanted to change the world but burned with impotence (how does it go again?). I'm like that dude. I wanna change the world, but end up only changing the oil in my car.

[MagsJ]

Lol

[iambiguous]

Well you know how it is, dude. He wanted to change the world but burned with impotence (how does it go again?). I'm like that dude. I wanna change the world, but end up only changing the oil in my car.

Sure, you -- you -- can turn just about anything into a joke. That still doesn't make the things that men and women squabble about [in or out of philosophy venues] go away. For example, some really fierce squabbles right here over behaviors said to be right and behaviors said to be wrong.

And all the actual consequences that result when those who embrace, say, capitalism come into conflict with those who embrace, say, Marxism.

Only my aim is to explore not what people think they know about these things but why some think that what they do know about them is better than what anybody else thinks that they know about them. And how that is all rooted not in what they do think they know but how their actual lived life predisposed them existentially to embody one set of political prejudices instead of another.

Objectivists I call them.

How about you? What do you call them?

[iambiguous]

Lol

True enough.

Nobody does repartee here quite like he does. Well, with the possible exception of phoneutria.








Or me.

[iambiguous]

Bottom line here [mine]: I miss Zoots Allure: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=189516

Nah, he just over-does it. His actual position, his philosophical approach (and it is) is legitimate and he does well at articulating it... though with very rigid and defined, repetitious formula. If you are familiar with rorty's attitude you'd see better the nuance and idiosyncrasy.

Instead of disagreeing with iambiguous I rather find myself thinking some of the points could be better made, in fact. The repetitious formulaic style of his posting makes one thing certain; he certainly isn't misundertood. Rather nobody seems able to offer a satisfactory answer to his fundamental question [ cue dasein corollaries ]. I'm not even sure what he wants anymore. Like I've tried to provide an alternative perspective on the subject of values and goods and how these can be justified even on a relativistic basis. He just doesn't take, man. He just repeats the same formula, as it were. I don't know what to do other than seriously commit to discussion with him... and I can't do that. Oh he'll no.

I can't really disagree with this. For example, I still follow "the news" and over and over and over and over again it seems to revolve around folks embracing conflicting sets of behaviors construed from conflicting points of view.

I just intertwine this in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of a particular "self" ever clamoring for a world in which particular political values [his or her own] become the "law of the land".

And I use the same arguments because they succinctly encompass the point that I am trying to make. Why on earth then would I attempt to reconfigure them?

As for Rorty, I focus the beam here:

1] He has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary he currently uses, because he has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books he has encountered;
2] He realizes that argument phrased in his present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
3] Insofar as he philosophizes about his situation, he does not think that his vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not himself.
— Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

And then I ask myself: What is this applicable to in a world teeming with conflicting goods?

[phyllo]

. And I use the same arguments because they succinctly encompass the point that I am trying to make. Why on earth then would I attempt to reconfigure them?

Because it's not getting you anywhere.

If what you're doing isn't working, then do something different.

Reconfiguring could produce a breakthrough.

[MagsJ]

Lol

True enough.

Nobody does repartee here quite like he does. Well, with the possible exception of phoneutria.

Or me.

I quite like my own repartee.. how very arrogant of me I know, but I’d say that repartee is made.. to amuse the self first-and-foremost, so perhaps not very arrogant of me after-all. Oh, and you guys’ ain’t half bad either..

[iambiguous]

. And I use the same arguments because they succinctly encompass the point that I am trying to make. Why on earth then would I attempt to reconfigure them?

Because it's not getting you anywhere.

If what you're doing isn't working, then do something different.

Reconfiguring could produce a breakthrough.

Perhaps.

But I still believe it's not the way I word the arguments but the arguments themselves.

Back again 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.

For the objectivists, the third point in particular.

Many insist that this is not the case. But all I can do is extrapolate from my past experiences with objectivists.

They simply do not want to believe that the arguments I make regarding my own "sense of identity" out in the is/ought world could possibly be applicable to them.