the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

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]

iambiguous

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.

I agree with this. It is natural.

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.

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.

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.

Existence is messy and we don’t have all the answers. We have more questions but this doesn’t mean that for “THIS TIME” we have to question over and over again what we see especially if we understand the whys and wherefores of our new perspectives. But you don’t have to see it that way.

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.

Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.

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"?

As for your first point, I can in a way see it. 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.

As for the second, you don’t think that we still have the capacity to claim as our own our values? Does the fact that others may share them make them less our own if we’ve come to them honestly and do indeed live by them? We may be a part of the whole but separate individuals at the same time. I know that’s simplifying it. I think that when you use terms like “wholly” you’re dealing more in absolutes…where there are none.

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.

But my view above gives us more breathing room. I think that you thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability. Nothing wrong with that. Questions can be more exhilarating then solutions. They keep us open to more possibilities. Have you ever stopped to consider though that there may be a much deeper underlying reason for this in you. We all them you know. I certainly do.

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.

I don’t go along with the premise that might makes right nor that all arguments are or have to be rooted in Reason and Virtue and Nobility. What is virtue and what is nobility? They may also be rooted in what we subjectively see as moral so they’re capable of error. Everything though is capable of error since we can't see or know everything as it really is.

So what’s the answer to our dilemma?

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.

Now that can be considered as so much rationalization and even narcissism. Even the Pharisees saw things in that way standing in the corner whispering to self. “I am just and righteous. My thinking is flawless.” ...says the pharisees.

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.

Lol Oh poor Freddie. But was it really a “will to power” which Freddie exhorted or more so like Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, that inner strength which is a will of a kind toward struggling and becoming?
But let's not go and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I read more than a few of his books and they are so full of intelligence and wisdom and poetic beauty. You can't only see his life in terms of what you say above. His will to power was ALSO the determination to achieve through struggle and transcendence what his life did achieve. Depending on our personal psychology, we all see power differently.

[Arcturus Descending]

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]

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.

[Lev Muishkin]

. 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.

This is exactly the definition of sensitive. People who are capable of making good friends, living and contributing to the community and gaining the love and respect of others, have to have emotional sensitivity.
That fact that you cannot see that speaks volumes about the fact the you are failing as a human being.

[Magnus Anderson]

Lev, being a communist imbecile, conflates psychological sensitivity with social sensitivity.

Psychological sensitivity means being nice to yourself, being in touch with your needs, not ignoring, denying or overriding them.

Social sensitivity means being nice to others, being in touch with other people's needs, not ignoring, denying or overriding them.

Now depending on whether your psychology is self-assertive or self-denying, you may prioritize psychological over social (self-assertive) or social over psychological (self-denying.)

The first makes social sensitivity conditional, depending on whether others are sufficiently related to you.

The second makes psychological sensitivity conditional, depending on whether you are sufficiently related to others.

The self-denying communist retard such as Lev will not be able to see the difference between the two.

The retard is too stupid to understand that I am not rejecting communities in general, but only herd-like, egalitarian communities of self-denying self-loathing retards.

You cannot redirect a strong force of denial. He will never turn around and start moving in the right direction. Instead, he will simply find new "openings" in my posts to "exploit" them by increasing possibilities.

So what if I am simply wrong . . .
What if there is no such a difference between social and psychological sensitivity . . .
What if there is but I am mistaken about his sensitivity being social . . .
What if it is psychological sensitivity to be friends with everyone with as little discrimination as possible . . .
What if?

What kind of "what if" is Lev going to introduce to this topic?

My guess is none considering that his posts in general are nothing but pure knee-jerk reactions resembling premature ejaculations of microscopic drops of water of questionable existence . . .

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev, being a communist imbecile, conflates psychological sensitivity with social sensitivity.
. . .

I don't need to take lessons from an emotionally retarded child.

[Magnus Anderson]

How do you "win" against retards?

By reducing them to a simple algorithm which can be used to program bots that will mimic their behavior almost perfectly.

iambiguous is already predictable . . . He need not post at all, I will post instead of him.

iambiguous: What does this have to do with the particular way in which blah blah blah?

Zero interaction, zero adaptation, nothing, nada, nula, nuletina.

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't need to take lessons from an emotionally retarded child.

You do not, you also do not have to respond. It's just a waste of your time, Lev, you being an emotionally intellegent man in his 50's or 60's or whatever, has much better things to do in his spare time.

I am just a child, remember?

[MagsJ]

Another warning, another (4 day) ban for Magnus Anderson.

[iambiguous]

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.

Well, my point revolves around clarity:

Clear to me [re the OP] is the extent to which the objectivists are able to translate their didactic intellectual contraptions into an argument that integrates their words and the world that we live in. At least as it relates to conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

Now, if one is asked to make a philosophical determination regarding the morality of abortion, one can claim an argument exists that encompasses all abortions universally, or one can claim [as folks like von rivers often did here] that, while a universal morality does not exist, it is still possible to attain an objective assessment pertaining to each particular abortion.

But consider:

In the United States, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Of all unintended pregnancies, 4 in 10 are aborted. There are approximately 1.21 million abortions in America each year.

So, per the von rivers perspective, there are approximately 1.2 million objective moral truths a year. And that's just in the United States.

And what then are the "epistemological" parameters of all of this? What is the "serious philosopher" to make of it?

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.

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.

Yes, that's true. And I have addressed this issue on other threads. For example, Mary might have in fact been pregnant and she might have in fact induced an abortion. But only Mary was ever aware of this. So, even here, God is necessary, isn't He? Still, either Mary was pregnant or she was not, either she induced the abortion or she did not. How are we able in turn [philosophically] to determine if Mary's abortion was or was not moral? I always come back to that distinction, right? The one that seems considerably more rooted in the objective truth rather than the subjective opinion.

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?

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.

Okay, I am still, technically, making this "category error". My epistemology is still out of whack.

But let's get back to this:

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?

Now, how would a serious philosopher well-schooled in all branches of epistemolgy respond to that and not make a single solitary "category error" at all? That's what I am after, of course.

As I note time and again, my chief aim here is to discover the extent to which the tools of philosophy are or are not applicable in making a moral determination when human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. And then the extend to which our individual value judgments might be embedded in the manner in which I construe dasein. And then, finally, the extent to which my "dasein dilemma" might be deemed unreasonable.

I welcome all epistemologists and serious philosophers in exploring this with me. But sooner or later they have to take their technical excellence down to earth. They can't all be James S. Saint, right?

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.

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.

Yes, well this [to me] is precisely the sort of didactic rhetoric I have come to expect from the folks at KTS. What in the world does it have to do with discussions that revolve around conflicting value judgments in a world sans God?

And while in fact it may well have a great deal to do with them, when do we get to explore this pertaining to an issue like abortion "down here"? I'm still not really certain what your own ideas are here. What would the optimal argument sound like free of all category errors?

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.

Obviously, given the number of times in the past that I have changed my mind regarding the relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, I am more than willing to acknowledge that I might change my mind again. That frame of mind is, after all, at the very heart and the very soul of my ever pointing out the extent to which dasein and conflicting goods are awash in contingency, chance and change.

Now, what exactly are your objections to the manner in which I construe dasein as it relates to the accumulation of value judgments "in the head" of any particular individual? How do you encompass your own value judgments here? How are they related to your philosophical precepts and your pantheistic religious framework?

What say you regarding the morality of abortion? Or, again, pick another issue altogether.

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.

Come on, my friend, we have both gone down the polemical path here on this thread. And on other threads. Don't put the burden all on me.

In fact, I tend to engage polemics to the extent that it seems aimed at me. For example, in my exchange with Arcturus Descending here there is not a hint of polemics. The exchange is entirely civil.

As for "process", I try to make it as clear as I possibly can that this interest me only to the extent that it is integrated "out in the world" of actual conflicting goods. If others wish to explore it instead only with fellow "serious philosophers" let them go right ahead.

Anyway, thanks for this:

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.

Over there, it's all basically just entertainment. I think.

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.

Probably because I am running out of time in which to integrate whatever philosophy might have to contribute to my life as it relates to the manner in which [here and now] I do understand the profoundly existential relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And if folks can't or don't or won't bring their own understanding of it down to earth they can move on to the didactic abstractionists [Will Durants "epistemologists"] who are more than eager to explore all of this free of category errors.

"Up there", as it were.

[iambiguous]

as far as this

My 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.

But, as I explained above to Arcturus Descending...

...on other threads I have divulged an experience I had with "John" and "Mary". John impregnated Mary. Mary chose to abort the baby. This led to the disintegration of their impending marriage. Why? Because John was infuriated that Mary would do this without first discussing it with him. And John was opposed to abortion.

John and Mary are not their real names. And the episode did not unfold on a college campus. I respected their privacy but choose to use this particular example as the manner in which I first came to piece together the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

It was a truly profound experience for me because up until then I had always viewed moral issues like this from the perspective of either/or. In other words, As a Christian, as an Objectivist, as a Marxist, as a Feminist. As an objectivist.
And it was around this time that I bumped into William Barrett's The Irrational Man. And from that I bumped into this:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.

And it was when I situated Barrett's argument here in the experience I had with John and Mary, that I began to truly grasp what philosophers like Wittgenstein were suggesting: that there were profound limitations to language and logic pertaining to actual human interactions. Especially when they come into conflict over value judgments.

Over and again I make it clear that others can choose another issue of more interest to them. Hopefully however it will be one that most of us here will at least have some familiarity with.

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.

When it comes to moral conflicts, there are always going to be those issues in which the consensus is either broad or narrow. With issues like abortion or capital punishment or the role of government or gun control or animal rights etc., there are generally large swaths of folks on both sides of the controversy.

But, as I explored recently with peacegirl on the determinism thread, even regarding a more extreme behavior like rape, in which the consensus is almost always overwhelmingly that such behavior is immoral, there is no way in which to establish philosophically that this is so objectively.

Or so it seems to me.

Here [in a world sans God] all any particular individual need do is to insist that morality revolves around that which he construes to self-fullilling or self-gratifying.

How then do the epistemologists or the serious philosophers demonstrate that this is necessarily false?

And while there are those, using that criteria, able to rationalize even sticking forks into the eyes of children, we have to remember there are those who view the killing of the unborn as far more egregious morally. And that's before we get to those folks able to rationalize genocide or historical events like the Holocaust.

What then is chattel slavery or pedophilia or human sacrifice next to that? Again: In the absense of God all things can be rationalized. No less so than in the name of God all things can be.

But at least with God we have the [alleged] embodiment of omniscience and omnitpotence. Not so with mere mortals. Here [in my view] we are unable to extricate ourselves from the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

[Moreno]

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.

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?

Now the arguments I quickly tossed out for each side and not particularly the point. I just wanted to give examples and it does not really matter if the examples of the justifications fit you or KTS. Their certain are ones that do and they do not fit with eachother.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

The realization for me is the manner in which I construe the relationship bewteen dasein and conflicting goods. However, for many who do not look at their own value judgments from that perspective, it becomes necessary to concoct an explanation that serves to keep their ego more or less intact. Rationalization is, after all, a psychological defense mechanism. You can still insist there is an objective right and wrong -- it simply took you longer to finally pin it down. And a lot of this of course unfolds on the subconscious level.

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.

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.

I was once a supporter of the death penalty. But then some years ago, DNA testing had advanced to the point that every other week it seemed a new prisoner on death row had been found to be innocent. That really jolted my frame of mind.

But, still, my basic point today remains the same: That how we feel about an issue like capital punishment is going to reflect all of the existential variables in our life that predispose us to go in a particular direction. And that there is no one direction that is necessarily/objectively more rational or ethical than any other. Both sides will always seem to have points that the other side's points don't make go away. Just watch a film like Dead Man Walking to see how existentially wrenching these things can be.

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.

Give me an example that more clearly points to that for me, please, aside from this thread.

Every time I turn on the news I am confronted with folks embracing opposite ends of one or another moral divide. And, as I came to succumb more and more to reasoning embedded in my "dasein dilemma", I came to see how each side was able to rationalize their point of view simply by making certain assumptions about what is true. Thus regarding the death penality one side makes the assumption that a man who takes the life of another forfeits his own right to live. He caused them to suffer, now it is his turn. But then the other side points out that when you execute the man you cause suffering for his family and friends, for his loved ones. And then they cite can factors like race and class and [again] the possibility the man was wrongfully accused.

The same with all the other moral conflicts.

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.

But what of those who argue that, in a Godless universe [an assumption they make], morality revolves solely around that which brings the individual pleasure, satisfaction, fullfillment? Or what of those who rationalize any number of behaviors that you may deem to be immoral [even heinous] in the name of one or another God? or in the name of one or another political ideology?

I am still looking for a philosophical argument able to demonstrate that those who do such things are necessarily/objectively irrational/immoral. Again, this is one of the crucial reasons why folks invent Gods and Ideologies: to acquire a so-called transcendental truth that trumps dasein.

And I don't see my "dasein dilemma" as something that allows me to "thoroughly enjoy living in negative capability". Trust me: If you thought about or understood these relationships as I do, you would not find the experience all that pleasant at all. Bur it basically comes down to the extent to which I can make others undertand this part:

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.

This is either something you come to grasp intuitively or you don't. And once it becomes embedded in the subjunctive self, it is anything but enjoyable.

[iambiguous]

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.

Yes, but the manner in which I frame my own "moral judgments" is always ensnared 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.

And that is very different from those who assume that while objections will come and go, the manner in which they construe their own judgment is said to reflect the objective [rational, virtuous, noble] truth.

Or so it seems to me.

In other words, this frame of mind transcends the perspective of either the utilitarians or the deontologists. And that is before we get to the arguments of those who root morality instead in either purely narcissistic or purely religious assumptions.

To insult or to not insult is neither here nor there from the perspective of the moral nihilist. At least this one.

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.

What I can do though is to focus the beam on an issue like abortion and flesh out the manner in which I construe this moral conflict as it relates in turn to the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Then for those who are in fact more sophisticated in their understanding of the tools of philosophy, they can then attempt an explanation of how my argument is not "technically" correct. Fine. I welcome that. But sooner or later using the tools of philosophy correctly they are going to have to utilize them to ascribe their own moral and political agenda "down here" in a world where actual abortions spark actual existential controversy.

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?

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.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

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.

[Arcturus Descending]

Trixie,

Are you aware of a concept called "Flux"?

I can almost laugh at that Trixie. Flux is one of my favorite words in the English language - it's practically my middle name. Aside from the fact that there is flux, there is also ebbing, which of course flows within the same wave. As i said, life is a process. You know this.

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.

There are sometimes "residuals" Trixie. We are not finished entities. I flow and ebb. I myself sometimes like groups but not often- I like ilp but for the most part I would prefer to be one and one or sit in the present of those little creatures or critters or sit in the presence of a tree. Beautiful introjection going on there. lol

Aside from that, I can't quite grasp the second half of what you said above. And there are groups which attract sensitive kids - they're called terrorist groups, and some religious organizations too.

[Moreno]

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?

For all you know that might make the world worse.

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. Since it has seemed like part of the intent of publically discussing this issue to is resolve, if it were possible, something, to me one must start where one is and resolve it from there. Many people confuse what they think makes sense with what they believe and you seem to be one of them. (and this is not an odd fringe idea, that one can be like this. Much of modern cognitive science supports the idea that people can be confused about their own beliefs, epistemology, motivations and so on)

[Magnus Anderson]

Hey Morono, I have a question, Morono, are you following me, Morono, I have a question for you, Morono, and this text here, Morono, quoting your own text, Morono, yes I am talking to you, Morono, I want some further clarification on it, Morono, can you please, Morono, explain it, Morono, to me, Morono, will you, Morono, this is the text, Morono:

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.

What did he live through, Morono, can you explain to us little armchair ubermenschen, Morono, what did he live through, Morono, I would be glad to hear that, Morono, don't make me beg, Morono.

[iambiguous]

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?

If you are a woman with an unwanted pregnancy how are you not going to choose to either abort it or not abort it?

And if abortion is construed to be a capital crime in your own political jurisdiction and a woman you know has had an abortion how are you not going to choose to either inform the authorities or not?

As long as we choose to interact with others socially, politically and econonomically there are going to be moral and political conflicts. Right? Now, you can of course choose to go off on your own and live isolated from the rest of humanity. Then morality is moot, isn't it? Unless, of course, you believe in God.

But most us [for whatever personal reasons] are basically obligated to interact with others such that [eventually] what we want to do will clash with what others want us to do instead. And often over value judgments derived from the actual life that we have lived.

I am simply noting here that when these inevitable conflicts occur, power can dictate the outcome or moderation, negotiation and compromise can be opted for.

Now, pertaining to abortion [or any other moral impasse], what is this "self-evident" good that I am noting? How are my options here not clearly rooted instead in my "dasein dilemma"?

For all you know that might make the world worse.

Do you even grasp the point I am trying to make regarding this frame of mind:

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.

My whole point here is that making the world better or worse by forcing women to give birth or allowing the unborn to die in granting women the right to choose, is ever embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. There is no objective better or worse.

Or, rather, where is the philosophical argument that would suggest otherwise?

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.

Again, if you wish to ascribe my point of view here as just another example of objectivism, fine. But [as I see it] that is just to say that anytime anyone believes a particular argument that they make is a reasonable one, that makes them an objectivist. Yet I clearly note [over and again] how often in the past I have embraced a particular moral/political agenda only to have a new set of experiences, relationships, ideas etc. come along and upend it. And I certainly don't exclude moral nihilism here.

But where is the argument now that convinces me to move on? Yet no matter what I might move on to I will still have folks like you claiming that I am an objectivist. As though there is absolutely no distinction to be made between the inherent ambiguity embedded in my views on the morality of abortion and those on either side of the issue who insist that [re either God or Reason] their agenda reflects the one true objective good.

[Lev Muishkin]

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.
And since Dasein is a significantly contested concept, it's appearance in your posts act more like the appearance of a shibboleth.

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

On the contrary, over and again, I make it abundantly clear that with respect to dasein [small d] I am actually excluding the preponderence of components that constitute our interactions with others.

Also, dasein is irrelevant with respect to the laws of science, the logical rules of language, the actual empirical reality that encompasses the world that we live in.

Think about what transpires in the course of going about your day. These are experiences in which dasein is seamlessly intermeshed in the multitude of facts that have come to be your life. Most times, you don't really think about what you are doing [at home, on the job, being around others etc.] in terms of your "identity" at all.

Instead, it is only when what you are doing comes into conflict with another that you may be forced to think about how you might be doing something else instead. Why do you believe particular behaviors are right that others believe are wrong? How do we actually come to these very personal conclusions? I merely suggest that in large part with respect to "conflicting goods" identity is rooted largely in this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Of course, the reason dasein appears so frequently in my posts is that I also make it abundantly clear that philosophy is interesting to me only insofar as it is useful in answering the question, "how ought one to live?"

Which sooner or later brings me back to 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.

The irony then being that I come into places like this looking for arguments that might actually extricate me from this truly godawful "dilemma".

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.

Maybe, but the points that I raise regarding the relationship between dasein, conflicting goods and political economy either are or are not reasonable.

And folks either are or are not able to demonstrate to me that how they construe them instead is more reasonable still.

But I suspect [and this is purely conjectural] that many folks abandon exchanges with me because they sense that maybe I am on to something here. And if I am then maybe, just maybe, what I am on to is also applicable to them. But thinking like me is the last thing most folks want to be burdoned with. Instead, they find it more comforting and consoling living in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Or so it seems to me.

Besides, as most well know from viewing my religion, determinism, film, song and mundane ironists threads, it's not like the only thing I contribute here is reduced down to dasein.

[Magnus Anderson]

Look what I found:

[Magnus Anderson]

Dude, you don't even know what objectivism is lol.