iambiguous wrote:Does he or does he not completely avoid the discussion that I wish to have with him?
You gotta get a handle on other people having their own goals in discussions. There is every chance he focuses on what he wants to just as you focus on what you want to.
I don't think you understand how it comes off like you think other people either are here to serve your purposes or are afraid of doing what is right: iow what you want them to do.
True enough.
Seriously, that would have been an nice end to the response.
But I make no bones about my own goal here: to be yanked up out of the hole that I am. Pertaining both to this side of the grave [moral nihilism] and to the other side of it [oblivion].
Most folks here know that if they engage me in a discussion and/or a debate, the trajectory will sooner or later get around to "how ought one to live?" in a No God world? As that pertains to either the OP or to any other context in which values come into conflict.
None of this relates to you labeling people avoiding doing things when they may very well simply be participating according to their own desires and goals.
yes, we know what you want. And in a world of compromise, negotiation, moderation, one notices that other people have other watns, and we do not act superior, if those are our values, which you often express as being yours, and label people in ways that do not show THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING INTEREST in compromise negotiation or moderation in a context where participants have a variety of goals, some, obviously, not the same as yours.
Does this mean to be consistant with your values, you must engage in the discussion as they want to? Not necessarily.
But labeling other people's behavior that does not fit with your desires as avoidance is unnecessary and does not fit with your values.
Why not live it instead of repeating it without living it?
After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.
That's a weird way to couch that. I would not say I pulled away after my best shot. I pulled away because in that thread you had a goal and I was not the right interlocutor.
And I will be the first one to admit that the problem there revolved around my own failure to grasp that your "pragmatic" frame of mind was more reasonable than my own. It just didn't sink in. I -- "I" -- am still as "fractured and fragmented" as ever.
OK.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.
Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won't.
The "internal lives and goals" that particular individuals have here are in my view largely "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.
Sure, I know how you view it. But the point is you labeled their behavior as if all behavior was either aligned with your goals or in avoidance. When in fact their motivations - existential contraptions or not - obviously could be something else. That's all.
See how simply acknowledging that is a response to what I said. True enough. Period. But you bring up your view of existential contraptions as if that is relevent. It's not. It may be relevant elsewher ein the thread, in fact I am sure it is. And certainly in other threads. And it is a priority for you.
But everytime you use anything that happens near you as if its only value is as a jumping off point for you to repeat positions - that you claim here we are aware of already - you are not showing your own values of moderation, consideration and negotiation.
You are a discussion partner who cannot negotiate a social or discussion space. To the extent that you cannot, in the case above, even conceive that someone's motivation for not doing what you want must be fear and avoidance.
You cannot even really see them as something other than a tool that helps you or does not help you with your goal.
So, are they moral objectivists more or less than they are moral nihilists? That might be an interesting discussion.
[/quote]
Sure, it certainly might be. And each person will have interests or lacks therein related to that. Them being people with different motivations than you, going about their own lives, that may or may not satisfy your desires.
And sure, some way well be avoiding something. But in your binary world they either serve you or are not as brave as you around these issues.
If someone cannot really conceive of others as perhaps being beyond his immediate binary interpretative abilities how can that someone possibly negotiation, be moderate and make compromises.
Is it just lip service when you present these as values that you yes also say are existential contraptions?
That was a rhtorical question.