iambiguous wrote:Well, if you say so. But there are still millions upon millions of actual flesh and blood human beings around the globe who see the behaviors they choose "here and now" and the fate of their soul "there and then" as anything but a game. And not just in the theocracies.
Sure. But since I'm not talking to them, that's irrelevant.
iambiguous wrote:Okay, whatever that means. Though what are the odds it will mean the same thing for both of us? For me, philosophy is as much about what we seem unable to understand as what we can and do. Mostly regarding "I" in the is/ought world. And "I" going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. Though for some here these seem to be trivial pursuits.
Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Given that description, you wouldn't call it a game. I do. I see philosophy, or at least debate, as competition--competition between two contenders over their conflicting views--each one making moves and counter-moves with the goal of "winning"--if not in the eyes of each other then in the eyes of other readers.
iambiguous wrote:What else could it mean given the gap between what any of us think we know about all of this and all that there is to be known? I mean, come on, please, what would a "sincere effort" consist of here?
For starters, stop being so resistant to the offers of help and suggested solutions to the gap problem that others here bring to the discussion. This is what I'm calling disingenuous. You
say you're trying to close the gap, but I think the impossibility of this task is precisely your point in all your posts, and you're trying to demonstrate this by challenging others to make the attempt--dressing it up as a plea for help--and then putting every effort into tearing apart and rejecting those attempts with response like "well, that to me is just another intellectual contraption".
iambiguous wrote:Given the fact that 1] we all have to confront conflicting goods on this side of the grave and 2] that the spiritual/religious among us connect the dots here to one or another ecclesiastical scripture anchored to one or another rendition of "I" on the other side, what would the least disingenuous approach to this be?
^ Similar response to this. A more "ingenuous" approach would be to be more honest about your true motives. I don't think you're simply trying to connect those dots the same as everyone else--as if once you've made the connection, you could save the world by offering it to all those seekers--but an attempt to prove that it cannot be done. I think your motive runs opposite to trying to connect the dots, but to dismantle any attempt by others to do so.
iambiguous wrote:What is your own? Given a particular context.
What? My least disingenuous approach to 1) and 2) above? I live a relatively peaceful lifestyle and engage with people with whom any "conflicting goods" (whatever that means) are minimal and trivial. (This is why I described your earlier statement on this front as hyperbolic--though I know for many others it's not.) I don't feel a pressing urgency to deal with 1) all that much. I feel like I'm lucky enough to have a life and live in a place in the world where 1) more or less deals with itself. As for 2), I have my beliefs about the afterlife, but again, I don't feel this is a pressing urgency that demands a kind of rigorous and serious approach. I don't even feel I have to justify it with flawless logic and objective demonstration. It just sort of sits there in my mind as what I currently believe for the moment.
I'll give you a particular context if you want, but we already tried that with my Buddhist persona, and that seemed to lead nowhere. I'd prefer to resume that than start a new one with respect to my approach to 1) and 2).
iambiguous wrote:iambiguous wrote:If your own focus here is not in the general vicinity of mine, I don't see the point.
gib wrote:But that's just the thing. My whole aim here is to try to align my interests squarely with yours. I'm trying to play your game. With anyone else on this board, I've never had any trouble staying on topic and making progress. Only with you have I repeatedly experienced minimal progress conforming to your own agenda before you bring the discussion back to vague generalities.
Again, this is an intellectual contraption.
So if my interests don't align with yours, you don't see the point in pursuing the discussion further, but if they do, it's just another intellectual contraption? Is there space here for a win?
iambiguous wrote:Choose a particular context that will be recognizable by most of us here. A set of circumstances in which mere mortals connect the dots between morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then.
What in this discussion would constitute "progress"?
Well, let's resume where we left off with the Buddhist scenario. You gave the context--a murderer on death row--how do I as a Buddhist alleviate the suffering involved in this scenario when it seems the alleviation of each party's suffering is mutually exclusive with the other's? My response wasn't so much to address how I would alleviate everyone involved's suffering but to do what I can (as a Buddhist) to offer a
bit of alleviation to whichever party is willing to lean on me for such alleviation--regardless of which party that is--the only caveat being I don't think it would be a good idea to engage both parties at the same time. I'm not a perfect person (whether as this phony Buddhist I'm pretending to be or IRL) and I can't resolve the grand scale problems you seem to be interested in--but I can do whatever's in my power to move a bit closer.
Admittedly, this focus on a particular scenario seems to
lose focus on the broader question you asked--morality/enlightenment here and now and one's fate there and then--but maybe that's the problem with particular contexts--being particular means coming down from the vagueries of abstract generalities. Nonetheless, I feel we can still connect this particular scenario with the other points you asked about if we give it a chance at least for a few iterations.
^ A few more iterations and a response from you that shows me you're sticking to your claimed agenda is what I would call progress.
iambiguous wrote:What are you and others saying about Buddhism in regard to the existential relationship between enlightenment, karma, reincarnation and Nirvana --- as this pertains to the lives that they live from day to day?
I actually answered this question in several places above. I prefer not to find the quotes and paste them here (I'm lazy) but you know we've gone into very specific details about what I'm saying about Buddhism in regards to [yada yada yada]. Not that you're obligated to understand them, but you could reference specific things I've said and ask what I meant by
those.
iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this "general description intellectual contraption" down to earth. You choose the context. Then with more specificity you can note all the instances in which the points you raise here about me become clearer.
I didn't raise any points about you. I asked a series of questions (which you're not answering <-- a lack of progress). I'm trying to understand what it means to you when you say things like "that's just another intellectual contraption" or "well, if that's what you believe in your head, I guess that works for you; as for me however [yada yada nihilism yada meaninglessness yada other side of the grave etc]." Does it meet your goals? Does it frustrate them? Does it confuse you? Is it just a comment on where we are in conversation? I don't even understand what it means to bring these questions into a particular context, especially given that they
come from a particular context--the discussion that invoked them--so why don't you look at that to understand their context?
iambiguous wrote:gib wrote:And what do you want people to do with this scenario? Are you trying to extract how they think they would handle such a situation? How they would resolve it once and for all? What they think is the "right" thing to do? What kind of a response would satisfy Biggy here?
The distinction I always come back to here is the manner in which "I" as a moral nihilist have come to understand human interactions when confronting conflicting goods as dasein out in a particular political economy, and the objectivists -- God or No God -- who insist that the manner in which they have come to understand it is in turn obligatory for all others who wish to think of themselves as rational and virtuous human beings. A further distinction here being those who insist that if one chooses to live one's life in accordance with rational and ethical and enlightened truths, they will be rewarded on the other side given one or another religious dogma.
Again, back to vague generalities. ^ I call this a lack of progress because it doesn't answer my question. You're pointing out a couple distinctions you focus on when you ask others for particular contexts, but I'm asking what a response from them would look like such that you get a clear picture of the distinctions you're looking for. You know what would help? If you gave a hypothetical example of what a discussion between you and an objectivist would look like. You pose your questions, and then write a response from a hypothetical objectivist that would satisfy your inquiries.
iambiguous wrote:What on earth are you talking about here? Note an example of what you construe to be behaviors in which moral and political value judgments come into conflict. Reconfigure your words into this discussion.
How 'bout the BLM movement? That's a prime example of moral/political value judgments coming into conflict if there ever was one. My point is that most people on this board (I could be terribly wrong here) typically aren't forced to engage in the thick of the conflicts surrounding the BLM movement on a regular basis (though this movement and others related to it seem to be picking up momentum pretty fast and I'm not sure how much longer most Americans, or even Canadians, can stay out of it).
iambiguous wrote:Just follow the news. You want conflicting goods? How about the coronavirus, the economic crisis, the social unrest? Hundreds and hundreds of issues in which both religious and nonreligious objectivists are hell bent on yanking everyone else onto their own "side". And then the nihilists who own and operate the global economy. What of their "convictions"?
What
of their convictions? I assume when you engage others on this board with your questions, the focus is on
their convictions. My point was that when you bring up the point about having sooner or later to engage with particular people out in a particular world over particular conflicts [yada yada Biggy-talk yada], you make it out to seem like unless we figure out how to connect the dots once and for all, we're all doomed--
doomed--to get pulled into these conflicts with such intensity that we'll have a major crisis on our hands--violence, war, oppression, death, you name it; again, I'm not saying this isn't commonplace throughout the world or throughout history, just not as commonplace amongst most of the members on this board with whom you engage (hence, my describing it as a hyperbole).
iambiguous wrote:Challenging others is all there is if I have any chance at all of being yanked up out of the brutally grim hole that I have thought myself down into.
Only I suspect the more others become queasy about me yanking them down into it instead, the more they react by making me the issue instead.
And rightfully so. When people recognize what you're trying to do (in addition to the points you're making), you
are an issue. Not that they have no choices, but they have options on how to react, and making you the issue is one of them. This is different from throwing ad homs when you don't like what another is saying, it's a response to your "disingenuous" posturing.
iambiguous wrote:Like, say, my "three stooges" here.
So, are you going to become the 4th?
Biggy, I would be honored.
