Karpel Tunnel wrote: A common practice of Iambs: strawman argument, shift context, and often in ways that imply that the other person is off in some way . And when it is pointed out, he'll deny he did anything wrong. In fact he'll just start asking questions because everyone has the onus, even for his acts, not him.
Right, as though a common practice of his isn't in making accusations of this sort about me as though in asserting them, it makes them so. Me, I'll let others decide for themselves if his points are applicable.
On the other hand, we hear accusations of this sort time and again here at ILP. In other words, whenever someone isn't able to convince someone else to think like they do. It more or less goes with the territory in discussion venues of this sort. It's just that the objectivists really do insist that all rational men and women must think like they do [here about the impossibility of god] or be charged with one or another of KTs allegations.
Again, my point about certainty here revolves around this:
It may be possible [philosophically or psychologically or otherwise] to determine which of us is closest to the actual objective truth. If, in regard to relationships of this sort, there even is an objective truth.
But I'm certainly not suggesting to others here that it is mine. My points make sense to me, but only given the manner in which I myself am able to distinguish between what I believe and what I am in fact able to demonstrate. For the objectivists, I have found from vast personal experience that this gap is considerably narrower. And, for some, doesn't exist at all.
And, in regard to this thread, my point is still this:
One of us here may be closer to the whole truth about Him [or No Him] than anyone else. Or maybe someone in another philosophy discussion on another website is. Or maybe someone around the globe that none of us have any access to is.
Or...someone from another planet? Or from an entirely separate universe?
Karpel Tunnel wrote: IOW he doesn't know his own self, he doesn't know how to find what is authentic in his own mind - he's said this - but he can still figure out what other people's minds are actually like inside, yes, without complete certainty.
That's his subjective take on me. My own subjective assumptions reflect more the points I made on another thread:
I am not arguing that how I see these relationships is the way they are. Only, that given the life that I have lived so far, this is what all of the variables in my life have existentially predisposed me to think about them "here and now".
And, in fact, the way I do see them precipitates a truly grim understanding of my current situation. Living in an essentially meaningless world that will soon topple over into oblivion. Of course I am looking for a more hopeful frame of mind.
And, I suspect, the reaction of some here to my argument is predictable: What if it is applicable to them too?!
This still seems reasonable to me given my ample experience with objectivists over the years. But it is certainly no less an existential contraption than his own is here. And in focusing in on my sense of certainty, he needs to be reminded of his own in regard to me.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Yes, he's not certain, that I am wrong or lying about why I react to his posts the way I do. LOL. IOW he doesn't know his own self, he doesn't know how to find what is authentic in his own mind - he's said this - but he can still figure out what other people's minds are actually like inside, yes, without complete certainty.
No, my point is that in regard to our thoughts and feelings about God, to what extent is the confidence one has in his or her own propositions, able to be reconfigured into demonstrable evidence that all rational people are obligated tlo believe the same.
To argue for the impossibility of God is not the same as demonstrating that God does not exist. That's always my point. Where's the actual evidence? And it is simply preposterous to argue that I can figure out what's going on in another's mind!!
All I do [can do] is to take an existential leap to one or another extrapolation based on my past experiences. After all, for any of us, what else is there?
I do wonder if implying shit about other people shows an epistemological caution or if it's just passive aggressive. But he is more consistant now. He doesn't just tell people what they feel and think and have as motivations. He implies and he suspects.
If only he could have acknowledged his previous more open hypocrisy. Heck, he'd solved the problem of other minds. Deny certainty in one post. Tell people what they really thought in another post.
The best way to explore these accusations is for him and I to focus in on a particular aspect of a belief in God or No God. Then agree on a context in which people hold conflicting assessments that then translate into conflicting behaviors.
We can discuss
this. Thus allowing him to point out in much greater detail why his assessment of me is more reasonable.
For example, my argument regarding a fractured and fragmented self embedded in the manner in which I construe "I" as the embodiment of dasein...re my own particular belief in God/No God.
Or let him choose his own context. Anything to get us down out of the clouds.