Arcturus Descending wrote: Why do you think that is? I think that it may be because within our own minds we have everything figured out but when in relation to the outside world, which includes the environment and the minds of others, they fail because we see only with a limited perspective, our own, and the same goes for others.
When we are 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years old etc., we think about moral issues like abortion in particular ways. And, for some, it's the same way. But, for many of us, our point of view will evolve. At times into its opposite. Why? Because [again, for most of us] we come upon new experiences and/or new relationships and/or new ideas that prompt us to change our minds. And in a world [especially the modern world] bursting at the seams with contingency and chance and change, this becomes more and more common.
Then it comes down to rationalizing our new point of view. Again, most of us will tell ourselves that even though we did change our minds [meaning that we might well change our minds again], that's okay because we have simply become more sophisticated [or progressive] in our capactity to think things like this through.
But we are still convinced that what we do think [here and now] corresponds to the most rational and ethical manner in which to think about it.
Well, that doesn't work for me. Why? Because contingency, chance and change are at the very heart and the very soul of dasein. And because my new point of view is no less entangled in the manner in which I construe conflicting goods.
Arcturus Descending"] Hopelessly entangled? But do you actually feel hopeless about it?
Yes. I am not able to imagine an argument [here and now] that would allow me to extricate myself from either dasein or conflicting goods. Such an argument may in fact exist. But that is for all practical purposes irrelevant if I am not able to come across it.
If this frame of mind works for you, I'm glad that it does. If you are able to convince yourself that objective moral values are within your reach, okay. But it does not work that way for me. And that is because it changes nothing about the dilemma as I perceive it to be.
And we do not really have personal values that are "thoroughly subjective". Rather, in living in a particular community [rooted in historical and cultural parameters], our values are always intersubjective. After all, who really has the capacity wholly extricate "I" from "we"?
Arcturus Descending wrote: We just need to remember that we are all fallible creatures.
But, given the manner in which I construe our value judgments as being profoundly and problematically intertwined in dasein and conflicting goods, this too can only be particular point of view -- one ever subject to change in a world of contingency chance and change.
I just think about these relationships in a considerably more precarious manner than most others seem to.
Arcturus Descending wrote: Transcending in such a way as Nietzsche meant - beyond good and evil. I think within a harmony of right reason and heart. Not necessary to bring a god into it.
With Nietzsche [who views these things in a world where "God is dead"], one can embrace the brute facticity of might makes right or [as many of his champions/sycophants seem inclined] concoct an elaborate philosophical matrix for behaving in a manner which, through one or another rendition of "will to power", the strong are able to devise arguments that are said to be rooted in Reason and Virtue and Nobility. Call it the Know Thyself Syndrome.
Thus you rise above the herd not only because you are stronger, but because your behaviors are Just and Righteous. By definition as it were.
On the other hand, to what extent did Nietzsche himself embody the "will to power". He spent much of his life stumbling into one or another psycho-somatic abyss...and he died insane.
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Why would a sensitive child thrive in a group? That's retarded, most sensitive kids get bullied all the time and avoid groups.
Arcturus Descending wrote:GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Why would a sensitive child thrive in a group? That's retarded, most sensitive kids get bullied all the time and avoid groups.
Now I know Tricksie that you are not speaking to me here with reference to what I wrote above - not to Iambiguous - but to you. I would give you credit for more intelligence and reading comprehension than that.
Carry on.
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:. Mo-ron where you believe sensitive kids lead happy lives and have large circles of friends. I suppose your next step is to say the sky is red and autistic people don't keep to themselves.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Lev, being a communist imbecile, conflates psychological sensitivity with social sensitivity.
. . .
Lev Muishkin wrote:I don't need to take lessons from an emotionally retarded child.
Moreno wrote:iambiguous wrote:Moreno wrote:I think that is a strange implicit critique. People agreeing, in my experience, is not controlled by the validity, soundness, truth values, rhetorical ability, truth value (as far as I judge this). In fact an argument that eliminated argument might be incorrect - an idea I tried to get across by raising issues of power in my previous post.
Again: What in the world does this have to do with the point I just made?
Your point is confusing universal with objective. A practical issue with an epistemological one.
They may be relations between the practical/universal issue and the epistemological/objective one, but you are confusing them.
iambiguous wrote:There are things that we can all agree on with respect to conflciting value judgments because they revolve around actual empirical facts, or logical truths, or demonstratable propositions.
Moreno wrote: But we do not all agree even in those cases. I stated this clearly and it is the case. This is not only in philosophical discussions.
Moreno wrote:Makes it go away. I think that is a very odd formulation. I have no idea if this is the case, but it sounds like your political hopes are being brought into a philosophical discussion. There is some kind of conflation: political or interpersonal effectiveness is being conflated with truth value.
Bring it down to earth and [in my view] it becomes considerably less confusing.
Some argue that abortion is immoral. The reason? We should not kill the unborn.
Some argue that abortion is moral. The reason? Women should not be forced to give birth.
But we can't live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?
How does one side here make the point that the other side raises go away?
Moreno wrote: Iamb, I don't know how I could possibly be more clear in the two posts I wrote about this. Yes, you are making a category error. You've heard of solipsism, idealism, Zeno and Parmenidies thought motion was not real, some physicists think there is no universe but rather a hologram on the outside of an empty sphere, Feyarabend and others are very critical of scientific empiricism, some people think they are Jesus or inanimate objects and so on. GEtting arguments to go away is a practical interpersonal perhaps rhetoric/power focused issue. And a radically utopian one, though it is the category issue I am focused on.
Discussions are useful [in a world sans God] because mere mortals have no choice but to pursue them. At least if they choose in to interact socially, politically and economically around others.
Moreno wrote: Discussions like this, especially in the way they are prioritized by most modern educated people are not a good way to arrive at new positions. One can see this in the repetition of statements over what I would guess is approaching a decade of online stating. I have made suggestions for how one might approach learning in other ways.
You are a postmodernist - as far as epistemology. You are using a modernist, logocentric approach in the use of language and learning. You state that this way of learning is inevitable. This idea that the process you are engaging in is a useful one or the only potential useful one is a product of your dasein. I have tried to give you an experience, via my posts, of another way of looking at learning and interacting - likely too much on my side in a modernist format - and you keep presenting your process as, essentially, the closest to objective we have. I disagree. You are not will to focus your postmodern nihilism at the processes you use to learn. You take this as given, just as much as other people take their modes of learning and interacting as given. There is no scientific consensus to support your position on the best way to learn/interact with others, and in fact most cognitive science related to learning speaks against the way you approach learning. That we must have new experiences to change our minds and this must prioritize new experiences beyond new words and new orders of words. (not that there has been much change in the order of words you use and given that most of the minds you will encounter (and the format of an online forum) will be modernist, logocentric, beliefs are changed via rational argument types you are not even getting new logocentric experiences.
Moreno wrote: Get the irony. I keep trying to get you to look at the possible assumptions coming from your dasein as it relates to the way you approach things here and you come back as if it is the only way to do things.
Moreno wrote: I understand that you cannot imagine how some other process might resolve an issue, including moral ones, but isn't that the case with any culturally embedded belief, that it seems inevitable and all others a waste of time or worse. I am focused on process. You want me to give you an answer and then prove it regarding specific content (and choose a worst case example, abortionists, as if a worst case example disproves the objectivists). If I do that it would affirm your choice around process and all the assumptions there.
When I do this you turn my post into an ad hom insult, that I am merely making some technical philosophical point rather than taking your own goals seriously.
Moreno wrote: But I do want to emphasize that this has been useful for me and while you likely don't give a shit, however much I can find this process irritating at times, I like you and respect you and my frustration comes, likely because in the complicated mish mash of epistemologies and positions inside me (no one else seems to admit this since they are all monads) I have these patterns myself. I saw how some of the people over at KTS reacted to you. And they have no idea what you have lived and how stupid some of their assumptions about you are, I might add, the pussies, little armchair ubermenshen.
Moreno wrote: I won't claim it is always in this spirit but it is a part of my motivation: you seem to be hitting your head against a wall and react to suggestions there might be a problem in your approach by saying there is no other possible way to reach your goal, even if you consider reaching your goal unlikely, so I feel the urge to say that this process and your sense of its inevitability is a dasein contruction and you don't need to bang your head against a wall. And mulling on this has helped me bang my head on the same wall in the same way less.
Moreno wrote: as far as thisMy point revolves instead around the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, we can bring the discussions to an end by demonstrating why all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational and moral and just, must subscribe to one particular argument as reflective of the whole objective truth.
then you should shift away from abortion or at least mix it up with other issues. Why? Well, it functions as a kind of cherry picking.
Moreno wrote: Understand, even if some issues are resistant (potentially merely so far) to meeting the criteria you put forward, there are many that are not resistant.
If some morals do meet your criteria, then there is a weakness in your dasein based position, even if some do not (yet).
I feel I have to repeat that this does not mean that the conclusion that footbinding is wrong is objectively correct, but as an example it meets your criteria.
Yes, but you forgot to mention that if you don't come to share their own didactic/scholastic point of view about all of this you are [axiomatically?] one of the sheep, a retard, an imbecile, a cunt. Or, in my case, a tyrannical turkey and/or a moronic chimpanzee.
Utilitarian focus
Some argue that abrasive, insulting and character focused arguments are morally acceptable in philosophical discussion. The reason? Character is at issue, honesty will further the debate, the struggle between ideas is not separate from the struggle between people and thus the debate is on the full range of issues.
Some argue that abrasive, insulting and character focused arguments are morally unacceptable. The reason? It interferes with the truth seeking aspects of the discussion, brings an unwanted struggle between persons instead of issues and makes the debate unpleasant - reducing the greater good.
But we can't live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?
Deontogolical focus
Some argue that abrasive, insulting and character focused arguments are morally acceptable in philosophical discussion. The reason? Honesty, will and strong character and the direct expression of these are ends in themselves.
Some argue that abrasive, insulting and character focused arguments are morally unacceptable. The reason? You should engage with others from a perspective of charitable interpretation and compassion.
But we can't live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Arcturus Descending wrote:GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Why would a sensitive child thrive in a group? That's retarded, most sensitive kids get bullied all the time and avoid groups.
Now I know Tricksie that you are not speaking to me here with reference to what I wrote above - not to Iambiguous - but to you. I would give you credit for more intelligence and reading comprehension than that.
Carry on.
Wasn't talking to you but
I guess you are from the planet Mo-ron where you believe sensitive kids lead happy lives and have large circles of friends. I suppose your next step is to say the sky is red and autistic people don't keep to themselves.
Arcturus Descending wrote:Then it comes down to rationalizing our new point of view. Again, most of us will tell ourselves that even though we did change our minds [meaning that we might well change our minds again], that's okay because we have simply become more sophisticated [or progressive] in our capactity to think things like this through.
But why do you call it rationalizing? Our perspectives and selves are not set in stone or at least ought not to be except for those which we still hold as having value and meaning for us. An honest realization is not rationalization. Rationalizing happens when we don’t feel secure in our thinking – we need to convince ourselves/justify ourselves. Then we need to take another look.
But we are still convinced that what we do think [here and now] corresponds to the most rational and ethical manner in which to think about it.
Arcturus Descending wrote:True. At one time, I did not “see” capital punishment. Some would say if you’re pro-life you cannot believe in capital punishment. But I accept both and there is no contradiction there for me. At one time there was. Our views do change because we see further and we begin to see more. It is just what it is.
Yes. I am not able to imagine an argument [here and now] that would allow me to extricate myself from either dasein or conflicting goods. Such an argument may in fact exist. But that is for all practical purposes irrelevant if I am not able to come across it.
Arcturus Descending wrote:Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.
Arcturus Descending wrote:At the same time, at some point I have to take that giant leap and decide for myself what can be seen as objective – since for many others, it is seen in the same way. For instance – doing no deliberate harm to a child – can be logically and reasonably seen as an objective ethical value for one who is naturally sane.
Moreno wrote: Let me be specific about potential hypocrisy:
You say...Yes, but you forgot to mention that if you don't come to share their own didactic/scholastic point of view about all of this you are [axiomatically?] one of the sheep, a retard, an imbecile, a cunt. Or, in my case, a tyrannical turkey and/or a moronic chimpanzee.
Now perhaps this was a point of information in an argument and did not include even a whiff of moral judgment. IOW since they respond this way, then this is the same as them thinking their argument will erase all objection. I don't see it as the same since they assume that objectiion will continue. So I took this statement as at least in part moral judgment of their behavior.
Moreno wrote: My point is that if you really want to put forward a position of moral relativism (epistemologically - iow one cannot determine), then you cannot then leap out of that position and make moral judgments and be consistant. You cannot even generalize and say that objectivists are causing problems, since we have no way TO AGREE ON what a problem is, since this will have value judgments in it.
Moreno wrote: One way to sum up this post is:
how does your position eliminate the arguments?
And if it doesn't, and it clearly has not, so far, at least, why should this be a valid critique of other systems of belief?
Arcturus Descending wrote:The difference between you and myself is that I would never call you a moron - neither of you, Tricksie.
I used to be one of those senstive kids ...what I mean by that is taking too much to heart what others said and thought about me. That kind of sensitive. At times I still have to be aware of it and work on it. We are a process. I believe that you are too, Tricksie. I grew up in an orphanage - it wasn't called Mo-ron - so I not only know the meaning of sensitive, I lived it everyday. I may have actually been the most sensitive one there but not sure. i used to go hide in a closet and cry when I felt/knew I was being misunderstood/unloved. So being sensitive flowed through me. So don't presume to know me and you need to work on not being so flippant. It isn't the answer to your boredom. And sometimes "trying to be cute" becomes beyond bothersome.
And if you want to call what I wrote above as being sensitive - go right ahead. Who knows. I'll reflect on it later - maybe - if there is any worth to it or I'll just move on.
Are you aware of a concept called "Flux"?
If a sensitive kid grows up, overcomes his sensitivity, and is no longer sensitive, and he goes to groups and enjoys them, well then, boy, we don't draw the conclusion that groups attract sensitive kids, because it's not anyone sensitive, nor it is a kid, drawn to the group, boy, its an entirely different flux of personality.
iambiguous wrote:My point is that, by the very nature of conflicting goods in a godless universe, the arguments of both sides will always prevail in some capacity. Why? Because re abortion we cannot live in a world where both the "good" associated with the birth of the unborn and the "good" associated with pregnant women having the right to choose prevail.
Instead, we must choose a world where those in power are able to dictate and then enforce their own value judgments or a world in which moderation, negotiation and compromise are able to sustain a political reconciliation.
Morono wrote:they have no idea what you have lived and how stupid some of their assumptions about you are, I might add, the pussies, little armchair ubermenshen.
Moreno wrote:iambiguous wrote:My point is that, by the very nature of conflicting goods in a godless universe, the arguments of both sides will always prevail in some capacity. Why? Because re abortion we cannot live in a world where both the "good" associated with the birth of the unborn and the "good" associated with pregnant women having the right to choose prevail.
Instead, we must choose a world where those in power are able to dictate and then enforce their own value judgments or a world in which moderation, negotiation and compromise are able to sustain a political reconciliation.
And look again 'we must choose'...
and then you go on an express what you clearly think is a self evident good. You are an objectivist, except when you this is pointed out to you and then you add a disclaimer.
How could you possibly know, given your own epistemology/nihilism, that this is something we must do?
Moreno wrote: For all you know that might make the world worse.
Moreno wrote: I know you can say what you say about dasein and where you come from. I am saying that this ability you have on occasion to do this does not preclude your being an objectivist, and you are one. You can choose to accept that you are one and see why you do in fact think it is alright to draw objective and certain conclusions or you can pretend you are one thing while being another.
Lev Muishkin wrote: You arguments are interesting but you seem obsessed with channelling them all through "Dasein". This obsessive reductionism does not work, as the term is incapable of accommodating all that traffic.
Lev Muishkin wrote: If you want to have a self referring "dialogue", you can only expect it always to descend into a monologue in which you learn nothing, and teach less.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users