Mr Reasonable and iambiguous don't contend

[phyllo]

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

For the objectivists, the third point in particular.

In fact, you write as if it bothers and disturbs you, rather than some other philosophers. Sure, some will be disturbed but you often reply to posters who are not bothered and disturbed as though they ought to be.

Specifically:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

Some just accept the limitations of the human condition. They realize that they don't have complete and absolute knowledge and move on from there. They don't keep rehashing the same unanswered philosophical questions over and over. Why would they?
They move on to other interests, using whatever philosophical concepts that they find useful.
That doesn't mean that they are actually bothered by what they discovered.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

This always sounds like you can substitute a potato for a person and get the same results. It removes a person completely as a participant and shifts everything on to some abstract "laws of matter" - outside of you. As if what you feel, say or do is not dependent on you being there feeling, saying and doing.

If you think like that, then I guess you would be disturbed.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

"You" become fractured and fragmented because ... why? Existence ought to be different that what you find? You would have been a different person if you had been exposed to another set of circumstances?

Are objectivists bothered by this idea is it just you who is bothered?

For example, are Buddhists or Christians bothered? Buddhists don't have a permanent "I". Christians are tossed on the waves of God's will, but they have a free choice between good and evil.

[iambiguous]

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

For the objectivists, the third point in particular.

In fact, you write as if it bothers and disturbs you, rather than some other philosophers. Sure, some will be disturbed but you often reply to posters who are not bothered and disturbed as though they ought to be.

Again, these things bother and disturb some but not others because, in my view, we all live lives that [existentially] predispose some to react as they do given the actual experiences that they have had that bring them into contact with questions like this. And that then compel them to react one way rather than another.

My point here then revolves around this...

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

In other words, some react one way to the points I raised above and others in very different ways.

But: having acknowledged the role that dasein plays in fabricating and refabricating "I" over the years here, is there a way for philosophers to pin down how mere mortals in a No God world ought to react to the points I raise?

All I can do is to go into a philosophy venue [or what's left of this one] and garner reactions from others who think about these things too.

Then I conclude:

Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

Some just accept the limitations of the human condition. They realize that they don't have complete and absolute knowledge and move on from there. They don't keep rehashing the same unanswered philosophical questions over and over. Why would they?
They move on to other interests, using whatever philosophical concepts that they find useful.
That doesn't mean that they are actually bothered by what they discovered.

Yes. Some go in one direction in reacting to it, others in different directions. Which just takes me back to the points I rasied above. If some are more disturbed by this than others, while others are not disturbed at all, how is this explained? If not by the manner in which "I" construe human identity here as the embodiment of dasein. Then back to any and all philosophical attempts to pin down the most rational reaction of all. But: Then on to those who are so preoccupied with merely subsisting from day to day or who have any number of pleasurable and fulfilling "distractions" to go to in order occupy their mind and their time. Well, sure, in that case fuck all the thinking that those like me put into it. Or: Once the futility of grappling with it sinks in in then, sure, move on.

Some do. Some don't. And I'm the last to argue that we either should or shouldn't go one way rather than the other.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

This always sounds like you can substitute a potato for a person and get the same results. It removes a person completely as a participant and shifts everything on to some abstract "laws of matter" - outside of you. As if what you feel, say or do is not dependent on you being there feeling, saying and doing.

If you think like that, then I guess you would be disturbed.

You can substitute yourself for a potato here but no potato is confronted with an antinomy that has fascinated, perplexed and/or disturbed philosophers now for thousands of years. The fact is, neither one of us has any definitive way of knowing for certain whether the words I type here now and the words you read here now reflect a sequence of interactions that were never not going to unfold.

Then back again to what I noted above regarding different reactions from different people given the assumption that there does in fact exist some measure of human autonomy/free will/volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

"You" become fractured and fragmented because ... why? Existence ought to be different that what you find? You would have been a different person if you had been exposed to another set of circumstances?

I can only grin and bear it here.

All these years and all these exchanges between us. Yet this reaction is basically what I'd expect from someone who had just bumped into the points I make above and in my signature threads.

Of course you may well be thinking pretty much the same thing regarding my getting your own frame of mind. If nothing else it reflects just how complex and convoluted human interactions can become -- especially communicating them -- once we leave the part where something either is or is not true. Something that, in fact, is rather or relatively easy to demonstrate as true for all of us.

I was once a devout Christian. I was once a devout Marxist. I was once a devout social democrat. I lived in a "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys] world. A "binary" world as KT might say.

Now, however, I recognize just how much of that mentality was rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein. Now, however, I recognize how both sides relating to all of the "conflicting goods" that rend us as a species are able to make reasonable arguments that the other side can't just make go away. Now, however, I recognize how, once someone thinks him/herself into believing in a No God world where mere mortals have no access to a transcending font, becoming a sociopath is not an inherent or necessarily irrational frame of mind. Sans God, in my view, it can be defended philosophically as a reasonable perspective.

Are objectivists bothered by this idea is it just you who is bothered?

Well, if it bothers someone to believe that the manner in which "I" construe human identity out in the is/ought world as fractured and fragmented is applicable to them as well, then they are bothered by it. If not, then not. That's no less rooted in dasein, right?

For example, are Buddhists or Christians bothered? Buddhists don't have a permanent "I". Christians are tossed on the waves of God's will, but they have a free choice between good and evil.

Yes, but Buddhists and Christians in what sets of circumstances, choosing what enlightened or God sanctioned behaviors given what they believe is true "in their head" about connecting those dots to the one on the other side of the grave?

And how much of what they believe is more or less blind faith derived from the very points I make about acquiring a sense of self at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy.

How many of them think seriously, introspectively about any of this at all?

In a word: dasein.

[phyllo]

So ...

Stay the course.

Don't change, adjust, alter or rethink anything.

[iambiguous]

So ...

Stay the course.

Don't change, adjust, alter or rethink anything.

So, once again, you allow yourself to abandon an actual substantive exchange -- with paragraphs Mr. Reasonable and prom75! -- and are reduced down to "retorts" like this.

And, just out of curiosity, note some of the ways that, of late, you have changed, adjusted or rethought your own point of view in regard to an important frame of mind in regard to an important issue in your life.

[phyllo]

So, once again, you allow yourself to abandon an actual substantive exchange -- with paragraphs Mr. Reasonable and prom75! -- and are reduced down to "retorts" like this.

Since I have the free will of a potato, how can I not have posted that?

And, just out of curiosity, note some of the ways that, of late, you have changed, adjusted or rethought your own point of view in regard to an important frame of mind in regard to an important issue in your life.

I would not share that with you.

I would have to have some very god reasons to share it on a public forum.

[iambiguous]

So, once again, you allow yourself to abandon an actual substantive exchange -- with paragraphs Mr. Reasonable and prom75! -- and are reduced down to "retorts" like this.

Since I have the free will of a potato, how can I not have posted that?

You tell me. For example, how you would go about demonstrating to us that you have the free will of a potato.

And then this part: https://www.thekitchn.com/potato-varieties-64061

Besides, my point is that no one [yet] seems to have pinned this age-old antinomy to the mat. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. Or, rather, to the best of my current knowledge.

And, just out of curiosity, note some of the ways that, of late, you have changed, adjusted or rethought your own point of view in regard to an important frame of mind in regard to an important issue in your life.

I would not share that with you.

I would have to have some very god reasons to share it on a public forum.

Fair enough. It's just that when you come in here and suggest that I am not willing to change, adjust, alter or rethink my own point of view, it seems reasonable to me to inquire as to how you have yourself have unfolded over the years in that regard. At least since our own exchanges began.

Or did you literally mean "god reasons"?

[phyllo]

Fair enough. It's just that when you come in here and suggest that I am not willing to change, adjust, alter or rethink my own point of view, it seems reasonable to me to inquire as to how you have yourself have unfolded over the years in that regard. At least since our own exchanges began.

You come here and complain about being in your hole. You apparently want someone to say something that helps you get out of your hole.

You apparently want to talk to people on this forum.

But people are turned off by your posts and your general behavior and they don't want to talk to you any more.

So, either you change or you will end up with nobody to talk to here.

That's all it is. It's not about me changing. It's not about me at all.

[iambiguous]

Fair enough. It's just that when you come in here and suggest that I am not willing to change, adjust, alter or rethink my own point of view, it seems reasonable to me to inquire as to how you have yourself have unfolded over the years in that regard. At least since our own exchanges began.

You come here and complain about being in your hole. You apparently want someone to say something that helps you get out of your hole.

Sure, if that's how you construe it, then "in your head" that's how it is.

But I see it less as "complaining" and more as describing how, over the years, "I" have myself reconfigured from a dogmatic objectivist in regard to my own moral and political value judgments into a moral nihilist who is in fact "fractured and fragmented". Given the reasons I note above and in my signature threads.

Besides, I also note the advantages of being "drawn and quartered" in turn. In other words, unlike the objectivists who have thought themselves into believing that there are only the right things and the wrong things to do, "I" have considerably more options available to me. Right? It's just that here "in my head" there is the other side of the coin. The glum and the grim side.

You apparently want to talk to people on this forum.

But people are turned off by your posts and your general behavior and they don't want to talk to you any more.

So, either you change or you will end up with nobody to talk to here.

That's all it is. It's not about me changing. It's not about me at all.

Again, I addressed that above. I could change the manner in which I argue my points, but if it's the points themselves that disturb people [the objectivists in particular] It's not likely that others will come around.

On the other hand, notice how on the abortion thread phoneturia has begun an exchange with me. Whole paragraphs even.

[phyllo]

Change or don't change.

Take advice or don't take it.

Believe what you want or don't believe it.

Mir gleich.

[iambiguous]

Change or don't change.

Take advice or don't take it.

Believe what you want or don't believe it.

But he repeats himself!

His first groot!!

Mir gleich

And Es ist mir egal right back at you.

You know, aus der perspektive des dasein.