Moderator: Carleas
phyllo wrote:You got plenty of attention before you started calling everyone 'psychopath' and 'rapist'.
Try toning it down a bit and maybe you will get it back.
What have you got to lose?
Zero_Sum wrote:I think the biggest takeaway from this thread is that an actual woman reproduced with Biggie and he had a daughter with her, I find that in of itself to be shockingly disturbing, I mean, when she was laying naked on the bed did he move up onto the pillows and whisper in her ear, "Hey Baby, let me tell you something about dasein." I mean, how does that even work exactly or come into play?![]()
I've now heard it all.Anyways, this is my final reflection upon this thread.
But there's still this part:1] there is a "real me" and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.
2] there is no "real me" and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". Instead "I" here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my si
gnature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .
And this part:Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.
And this part:So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.
And, most important of all, I'm less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.
And especially this part:You say that "here and now" you are a "polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism."
Okay, let's zero in on a particular context, a particular set of "conflicting goods" in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.
As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
And as it relates to your interests.
Zero_Sum wrote:Very well Biggie, I'll take a look at your thread.
[After lunch time here.]
iambiguous wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:Very well Biggie, I'll take a look at your thread.
[After lunch time here.]
Right, whatever that means.![]()
Just out of curiosity, that smug and scoffing persona portrayed in your avatar...
Now, as we all know, the cartoon character Jokers of comic book fame -- and those up on silver screen -- always walked the talk.
How do you walk it?
Zero_Sum wrote:iambiguous wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:Very well Biggie, I'll take a look at your thread.
[After lunch time here.]
Right, whatever that means.![]()
Just out of curiosity, that smug and scoffing persona portrayed in your avatar...
Now, as we all know, the cartoon character Jokers of comic book fame -- and those up on silver screen -- always walked the talk.
How do you walk it?
Everybody will see how I truly roll once the demise and collapse of the United States is complete.![]()
I however don't want to give anybody any spoilers on that at the moment. It's more fun that way and I like to leave a bit of mystery or intrigue behind. I have future plans or reservations though, don't you worry about that Biggie.
iambiguous wrote:
About what I expected.
The collapse of the united states? You've been predicting that for at least as long as I've been here.
So it is still largely "in your head". And, thus, how you "roll" is still largely in there too.
But, come on, given us some indication that this is not all just you talking the talk but not walking it. What is at least in the planning stages? And does it involve becoming a survivalist isolated from "society"...or more in the other direction: becoming involved in a clandestine political struggle to reconfigure the world more to your liking.
And what I worry about is the extent to which, as with Ecmandu and others here, your posts can all be explained by a..."condition"?
Oh, and a nod to Phyllo too.
Zero_Sum wrote: I don't have to explain or justify anything to you.
But there's still this part:1] there is a "real me" and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.
2] there is no "real me" and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". Instead "I" here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my si
gnature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .
And this part:Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.
And this part:So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.
And, most important of all, I'm less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.
And especially this part:You say that "here and now" you are a "polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism."
Okay, let's zero in on a particular context, a particular set of "conflicting goods" in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.
As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
And as it relates to your interests.
That's one possible reason for sites like this. But people are not going to be go into great details. They are not interested in being that rigorous nor is most of the audience. Not here.It's just that sites like this are created in order for us to explain and to justify our points of view.
WendyDarling wrote:My frustration involves not being able to find and pull evidence forth from the internet, it’s completely missing or fees are involved. For instance, I wanted to know what charges China was tacking on to imports before 2018, nothing appeared about the past, rather only entry after entry of Trump’s trade deals with China. Grrr!
phyllo wrote:That's one possible reason for sites like this. But people are not going to be go into great details. They are not interested in being that rigorous nor is most of the audience. Not here.It's just that sites like this are created in order for us to explain and to justify our points of view.
...my own story here might be construed as particularly bathetic. Back before various "social media" like twitter and facebook became the preferred platforms for philosophy I was once a member of the larger, more "prestigious" philosophy forum online, The Philosophy Forum: https://thephilosophyforum.com/
But, for posting pretty much the same sort of thing I post here, Postmodern Beatnik -- out of the blue! -- "banned me for life".
Anyway, I went looking for another forum and settled on ILP.
And, back then, there really were far, far, far more discussions started and then sustained by those who, for whatever personal reason, were avid philosophers. Far fewer Kids and "social media" types.
So, basically, I put all my eggs in the ILP basket.
I started my signature threads including quotes, music and film. I commenced my "back to the beginning" series. I contributed any number of posts aimed at precipitating exchanges relating to that which is of most interest to me: how ought one to live given the stark reality that there may or may not be an actual Judgment Day.
Alas, however, ILP has gone more in the direction of the Kids, the yak yak yakkers, and the rabid [often unintelligible] fulminating fanatic objectivists.
WendyDarling wrote:I agree Biggie, moderators needed.![]()
[Carleas, please recruit Postmodern Beatnik.]
But there's still this part:1] there is a "real me" and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.
2] there is no "real me" and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". Instead "I" here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .
And this part:Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.
And this part:So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.
And, most important of all, I'm less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.
And especially this part:You [Joker] say that "here and now" you are a "polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism.".
Now, given all of the things that you say you are in regard to your moral and political value judgments, let's zero in on a particular context, a particular set of "conflicting goods" in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.
As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
And as it relates to your interests.
iambiguous wrote:WendyDarling wrote:My frustration involves not being able to find and pull evidence forth from the internet, it’s completely missing or fees are involved. For instance, I wanted to know what charges China was tacking on to imports before 2018, nothing appeared about the past, rather only entry after entry of Trump’s trade deals with China. Grrr!
Uh, wrong thread?
WendyDarling wrote:iambiguous wrote:WendyDarling wrote:My frustration involves not being able to find and pull evidence forth from the internet, it’s completely missing or fees are involved. For instance, I wanted to know what charges China was tacking on to imports before 2018, nothing appeared about the past, rather only entry after entry of Trump’s trade deals with China. Grrr!
Uh, wrong thread?
Uh, no. You may not see the link but my nod to Phyllo who actually brought and used evidence, was explaining that I try to do likewise to prove my assertions or disprove the assertions of others to no avail without access to the goods online. KT, Phyllo, and Carleas all come to the party locked and loaded while most don’t.
But there's still this part:1] there is a "real me" and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.
2] there is no "real me" and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively "the right thing to do". Instead "I" here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .
And this part:Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.
And this part:So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.
And, most important of all, I'm less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.
And especially this part:You [Joker] say that "here and now" you are a "polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism.".
Now, given all of the things that you say you are in regard to your moral and political value judgments, let's zero in on a particular context, a particular set of "conflicting goods" in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.
As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.
And as it relates to your interests.
phyllo wrote:1
2
False dichotomy
So what did the "dissidents, peasants, and general malcontents" gain with this victory?Zero_Sum wrote:We can't control the public narrative on the internet forum anymore, we're losing control, quick, we need more moderation to put the dissidents, peasants, and general malcontents back into their place again!![]()
That will show them!
phyllo wrote:1
2
False dichotomy
Users browsing this forum: No registered users