MagsJ wrote:
Why do others have a problem with You?
What is it about You, that causes a problem, in Others? You don’t in me, but why, in Them/Others.
iambiguous wrote:Actually, I have since encompassed that in what zinnat calls one of my "groots":
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 more and more 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.
But, in regard to the moral and political objectivists among us, this one in particular:
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.
The part, in other words, encompassed in my signature threads.
And, for some in particular, it pisses them off that I won't allow them to sustain their arguments up in the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions. Worlds of words intent on generating "general descriptions" of human interactions in what I construe to be "serious philosopher" mode.
MagsJ wrote:So.. does the above points always dictate how you interpret, and reply, to others? so a filtering process of data received, which generates a generic output every time.. or so it sounds like.
Well, if the first point is true, I have no way of definitively determining if I have any choice in the matter. As in being able to freely interpret and reply other than as nature compels me to.
Just like you and everyone else here.
And how can anyone doubt that the second point is true? Do you?
On the other hand, assuming some measure of human autonomy, and living with the gap between "I" and all there is, it's the third point that generates reactions to me of folks like Saytr, phoneutria and Pedro.
With regard to their precious moral and political values, they refuse to even consider the possibility that the arguments I make in my signature threads are applicable to them. I know because I was once them myself.
Really, for each of us, in my view, it all basically revolves around the extent to which we have managed to think ourselves into believing that there is in in fact a real me able to be in sync with the right thing to do.
Otherwise it's 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.Now, in regard to desperate degenerates or to human sexuality or to abortion or to Brexit or to any other context in which values/behaviors come into conflict, you either think like this or you don't.
And, if you don't, I invite you to explore such conflicts given the components of my own moral philosophy: identity, conflicting goods and political economy.
And I
always let the objectivists choose the context. Which almost invariably they avoid like the plague.