Prismatic567 wrote:The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.iambiguous wrote:I guess we're stuck then. I won't go up there and you won't come down here. At least not in the manner in which [in our own way] we have come to understand the distinction.
And unless we can figure out a way to meld the two approaches, I suspect we will just go on spinning our wheels.
I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.![]()
Prismatic567 wrote:OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...
Prismatic567 wrote:1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
2. Loads of examples of the above drives
3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology
I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.
Prismatic567 wrote:To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.
iambiguous wrote:Prismatic wrote:The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.
I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.![]()
On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.
But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.
Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.
If given the chance Seligman and I would vote for optimism. Consider the
following:• Pessimism encourages depression, therefore is associated with a weak
Seligman says, “The best thing one can say about a pessimist is that his fears
immune system.
• Pessimism feels down—blue, sad, worried or anxious.
• Pessimism can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because pessimists tend
not to create or face challenges, they fail more frequently—even when
success is possible.
were founded.”• Optimism encourages happiness, therefore is associated with vitality.
I say, “The best thing one can say about an optimist is that she enjoyed the
• Optimism feels up—hopeful, confident and cheerful.
challenge regardless of the outcome.”
https://solutionsforresilience.com/wp-c ... timism.pdf
Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.
Note the above point why humanity must take note of the future.Prismatic567 wrote:OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...
Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, "positive progress" revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition "in the future".
And we can predict anything about that, right?
My example re Morality previously was confined to 'Chattel Slavery' and not to slavery in the broadest sense.And then [as I see it] another "intellectual contraption" expressing yet another "genral description" of human interactions:Prismatic567 wrote:1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
2. Loads of examples of the above drives
3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology
I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.
And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:Prismatic567 wrote:I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.
But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:
Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is "wage-slavery" in the form of one or another sweatshop.
Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.
So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your "progressive" assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?
And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?
This is why I have given you the case of progress in morality e.g. chattel slavery and there are many others [not mentioned yet].Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:Prismatic567 wrote:To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.
What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.
That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this "analysis" by way of noting it's relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.
It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.
Your own.
Btw what do you meant by 'font'?Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.
There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.
Prismatic567 wrote:iambiguous wrote:Prismatic wrote:The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.
I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck.![]()
On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.
But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.
Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.
You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;
To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman's books on 'Learned Optimism' and 'Learned helplessness', then to others.
Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.
Prismatic567 wrote: I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.
Prismatic567 wrote: Note the typical saying'
1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.
2. Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.
Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.
Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.
Your own.
Prismatic567 wrote: It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.
Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font [foundation] mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.
There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human community.
The Eternal Warrior wrote:I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it's a matter of understanding it, except to those who don't but do it anyway and it's kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS'ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don't know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS'ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.
I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven't really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I'm making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it's possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it's own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it's own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn't really explain what Dasein is; I'm still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don't even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don't feel ahead of you, either. It's an odd fluxuating concept from what I've seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.
Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?
When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
telos wrote: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.
iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself
There are some odd assumptions in here, and that's good. Since you are in a hole, at least emotionally, I assume, and have not gotten out while searching for 'frames of mind' capable of yanking you, perhaps the assumptions involved in seeing frames of mind as the solution are not correct. Depressives often use a lot of truth to justify problematic lifestyle choices, so do manics. Fixation on frames of mind is a pathology, or at least, it can be. Perhaps a look at the secondary gains one gets from being in the hole need to be looked at. Why is it appealing? It may be disturbing to look at that, but it presents an approach not dependent on frames of mind finding. There are others. All the objectivists may well be threatened by the brave thinking of non-objectivists. Let's assume that. Let's assume the bravery of the non-objectivist. Looking out at those one thinks one is braver than is then no longer a brave act. Searching for frames of mind, no longer brave, now a habit. How about now turning that bravery inward and see why the hole is so appealing. If the urge is now to say 'OH, no, I really want to get out of the whole, just no one has proved....' Consider that this may be as fear driven as the objectivists you think are afraid to notice how much braver you are.iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
Prismatic567 wrote:When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.
As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.
On the other hand, I can still recall vividly a time when I actually believed that others were down in the holes. Why? Because as a committed Christian or Unitarian or Marxist or Trotskyist or Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat or Liberal, I understood the way things really were. And they didn't. The only way they could be yanked up out of their own holes was to reach up and let me [and all those like me] pull them out.
Then I bumped into John and Mary. And then William Barrett. William Barrett with his "rival goods". Barrett in particular propelled me to existentialism. And that eventually drew me to one or another of the "post-modern" narratives: deconstruction, semiotics, post-structuralism.
All mangled together with the thinking of folks like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Richard Rorty.
On the other other hand, might I suggest that a concern of yours may well be that I yank you down into a hole more or less analogous to my own?
You resist mightily of course because you have so much invested psychologically in your own objectivist/idealist intellectual concoction.
Indeed, it took me years and years to finally abandon my own rendition of this frame of mind.
I thought at first that I was liberating myself from both philosophical realism and political idealism. And up to a point I was. But as I get closer and closer to the abyss, I become increasingly more aware of the price one pays for that.
And here I am all but paralyzed in confronting things like Trumpworld.
Instead [running out of time] I'm now left with two options:
1] finding folks who are down in the hole with me -- commiseration
2] finding folks who can yank me the hell up out of it -- something analogous to the "comfort and consolation" that they sustain
Each of these philosophers provide specific narrow windows of insight but as a holistic view, they are very half-cooked. Schopenhauer toyed with Hinduism and Buddhism but got nowhere [not his fault as the relevant materials during his time was scant].All mangled together with the thinking of folks like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Richard Rorty.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:There are some odd assumptions in here, and that's good. Since you are in a hole, at least emotionally, I assume, and have not gotten out while searching for 'frames of mind' capable of yanking you, perhaps the assumptions involved in seeing frames of mind as the solution are not correct.iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Depressives often use a lot of truth to justify problematic lifestyle choices, so do manics. Fixation on frames of mind is a pathology, or at least, it can be.
phyllo wrote: The big advantage of the dasein hole, is that nothing you do or think can be "wrong".
phyllo wrote: Your acts and thoughts are the result of your environment and they cannot be anything other than what they are/were - always correct.
That's a very pleasant idea.
phyllo wrote: Determinism has the same appeal. Another of Iambig's favorite subjects.
Prismatic567 wrote:As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my "I-ness" and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.
Prismatic567 wrote:As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.
Very unfortunate for you.iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.
No, I didn't jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.
I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.Prismatic567 wrote:I have put in a lot of effort to stabilize my "I-ness" and that is to ensure I will not be influenced by Dark-Matters from you or anywhere.
Indeed, but my argument is that this effort revolves more around an intellectual contraption that, in my opinion, is a psychological defense mechanism.
I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].Prismatic567 wrote:As for (2) no one can yank you out your hole except yourself. The most others can do is to throw in various ideas and views.
All I can note here are the many times in the past I was able to abandon one objectivist frame of mind only when others were able to convince me to embrace their own. And we always saw those who did not share our own righteous cause as in a hole all their own.
But this hole is nothing at all like them.
And, who knows, if I am finally able to yank you down into it with me, maybe you too will see the light.
That isn't there.
Prismatic567 wrote:Very unfortunate for you.iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:As I had mentioned in the other post, it may have taken you years but you have jumped into and is stuck in a different hole and still in the same shaky paradigm.
No, I didn't jump into it. I tumbled down into it over the years. And paradigms of this sort [in the is/ought world] are shaky only from a point of view.
Prismatic567 wrote: As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.
Prismatic567 wrote:I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].
Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.
What I have suggested is a typical solution is solving any persistent problem if any, i.e. reframing the question appropriately not necessary to another's point of view.Prismatic567 wrote: As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.
And, from my vantage point, you need to recognize the extent to which, in offering this advice to others, you are arguing that only when they come to share your own set of technical assumptions, have they reframed their philosophical position to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.
How else?Okay, I then note, but in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors?
Instead [over and over and over again] we get "analysis" like this:Prismatic567 wrote:I have mentioned it is critical for 'knowing' to be complemented with 'doing'. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.
And then, when, in exasperastion, I ask, "what on earth does that mean?!", you simply reconfigure the words into yet another "general description".
What is critical is I [unlike you] don't dig holes for myself to fall in and cannot get out of it.Prismatic567 wrote:I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all 'holes' in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and 'spiritual' practices] to ensure I don't fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].
All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your "analyses"/"arguments" above. In other words, in an exchange that probes human interactions we are all familiar with such that the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are grappled with [by you] existentially.
You keep repeating this statement which I don't understand and I don't think is applicable to me at all.All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your "analyses"/"arguments" above.
Prismatic567 wrote:Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.
Prismatic567 wrote: So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.
Note my points raised in the other thread.iambiguous wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Actually the point I got from you is you have dug a hole so deep [presumably with lots of snakes and terrible vermins] you cannot yank yourself out of it.iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.
My point is that I can't just will myself out of it. I can't just think, "gee, this is a shitty way to look at things, so I guess I'll look at things another way".
Instead, I have to come up with a point of view that convinces me that my dilemma is not a reasonable way in which to construe human interactions in the is/ought world. With or without contributions from others.Prismatic567 wrote: So I provided suggestions how you can get out of it and stated only you can do the climbing out yourself.
And I appreciate any and all suggestions that any and all folks are willing to offer.
But they either will or will not nudge me in another direction. Again, I'm not arguing that because they don't they are wrong. The problem may well be that I just don't understand how they are able to experience conflicted interactions with others and not be entangled in my dilemma.
But here I need them to note how they actually accomplished this by taking their arguments/analyses and situating them "out in the world": in contexts we are likely to be familiar with. Some [like you] claim to have accomplished this. But clearly we do not understand this in the same way.
I think that is appealing to some people, I am not sure it is appealing to him. He does seem to judge people as being wrong, and morally, not just epistemologically. He sees this as simply something he cannot control but not really what he believes. To me it seems systemic, that the hole allows him to judge more absolutely. The objectivists are wrong to hold moral opinions, period. This slides past any need to point out what is wrong with any particular moral stance. One need not get into the abortion debate and try to demonstrate why abortion is OK or not. A complicated debate to say the least. But with the dasein critique of having moral stances one has a tool in practice morally judge especially the right - since he is on the left - without getting into the muck of specific issues. Now I don't think he is only doing this disingenously. I do believe that he does sit there and think that there are no objective supports for leftist values also. I am sure he does have those moments. But the pattern of behavior and how the hole functions allows a purity of focus and moral attack. He can always put the other person in the position of proving something. Give them the onus. Give them the hoops to jump through. There are secondary gains galore in that.phyllo wrote:The big advantage of the dasein hole, is that nothing you do or think can be "wrong". Your acts and thoughts are the result of your environment and they cannot be anything other than what they are/were - always correct.
That's a very pleasant idea.
Determinism has the same appeal. Another of Iambig's favorite subjects.
Prismatic567 wrote:
I believe you have leaped out of a real psychological anchor of theism [flimsy but nevertheless exists] into existentialism but without developing any real psychological anchor to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: The objectivists are wrong to hold moral opinions, period. This slides past any need to point out what is wrong with any particular moral stance. One need not get into the abortion debate and try to demonstrate why abortion is OK or not. A complicated debate to say the least. But with the dasein critique of having moral stances one has a tool in practice morally judge especially the right - since he is on the left - without getting into the muck of specific issues.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Now I don't think he is only doing this disingenously. I do believe that he does sit there and think that there are no objective supports for leftist values also. I am sure he does have those moments. But the pattern of behavior and how the hole functions allows a purity of focus and moral attack. He can always put the other person in the position of proving something. Give them the onus. Give them the hoops to jump through. There are secondary gains galore in that.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: If he believes in determinism, then it gets even funnier.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]