Challenge to iambiguous and surreptitious both

[Ecmandu]

I'll get one turn for every turn taken by both iambiguous and surreptitious to debate objective morality. (Both who claim rabid subjectivity)

I personally think they're both afraid.

[iambiguous]

I challenge surreptitious to be more terrified than I am.

[surreptitious75]

Morality is an abstract construct that is constantly evolving within society over time
And so it cannot be objective for that would mean that it could never change at all

[Carleas]

I would be interested to see this, though I'm skeptical of the format (2 v 1), but maybe the two's arguments are different enough that it's 1 v 1 v 1?

How many posts? Word limit? Judges/poll for winner?

[Ecmandu]

I would be interested to see this, though I'm skeptical of the format (2 v 1), but maybe the two's arguments are different enough that it's 1 v 1 v 1?

How many posts? Word limit? Judges/poll for winner?

I trust everyone to be terse. I would try to do my whole argument in the first post. I think 3 rounds should suffice. I have no preference over you or a poll. Maybe the other two can weigh in.

The way I look at the 2 v 1... is that there can be many different perspectives, modalities that argue against 2+2=4, but the point still remains.

The only issue with polling is that, besides me, everyone seems to have 10 accounts on ILP.

[Carleas]

I don't think I'd be a good judge for this one, I'm pretty worked up about morality just now, in a way that would significantly influence my reading of the debate.

The only issue with polling is that, besides me, everyone seems to have 10 accounts on ILP.

I don't think that's the case, unless people are covering their tracks pretty well, which I doubt very many people are doing. Nor do I expect a lot of will to improperly influence such a poll.

In the alternative, we could just forgo any designated form of evaluation, and let the merits of the arguments be hashed out in post-debate discussion.


Have challenger/s accepted? What's the statement to be debated? "Morality is objective"?

[Karpel Tunnel]

"Morality is objective"?

Which then leads to the question, which one?

I suggest that Ecmandu present the objective morality on a specific issue OR give us the way we determine which of two disagreeing moralities on a particular issue.

[Ecmandu]

"Morality is objective"?

Which then leads to the question, which one?

I suggest that Ecmandu present the objective morality on a specific issue OR give us the way we determine which of two disagreeing moralities on a particular issue.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194264&p=2707642#p2707642

It could be both, poll, and post discussion...

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu?

Admittedly, after the first few posts from him here, I only occasionaly skim the stuff he contributes.

From my perspective, he seems to live entirely inside his head. He has recreated the reality around him to fit snuggly into this "world of words" that allows him to ensconce "I" into a frame of mind that allows him in turn to connect the dots between his own rendition of "the real me" and the "right thing to do".

Like so many other tedious objectivists that I have come across over the years, nothing he opines here really intrigues me at all. At times it even borders on intellectual babble.

But sure that in turn is no less my own existential reaction to him. A subjective/subjunctive contraption embedded in my own prejudices.

On the other hand, if anyone reading this is able to point out what they construe to be the most important facet of his argument -- an assessment successfully confronting the components of my own moral philosophy -- I may reconsider.

And then if he is actually willing to take the discussion out into the world of conflicted goods -- moral conflagrations most here will be familiar with -- the debate may well come to unfold here.

[surreptitious75]

Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu

He has some rather strange ideas about the nature of existence so try not to take him too seriously
But at least he is interesting even though it all gets a bit predictable after a while but give it a go

[Ecmandu]

Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu

He has some rather strange ideas about the nature of existence so try not to take him too seriously
But at least he is interesting even though it all gets a bit predictable after a while but give it a go

That's funny. Im predictable, but iambiguous isn't!

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosity can anyone here give me a reason why I should actually give serious thought to debating Ecmandu

He has some rather strange ideas about the nature of existence so try not to take him too seriously
But at least he is interesting even though it all gets a bit predictable after a while but give it a go

Hell, in my own way, no one is more predictable here than me. But I still find the points that I raise [and the way I articulate them] intriguing. The stuff that obsesses me revolves around the choices that we make when they come to revolve around others who insist that they are not the choices that a rational and virtuous person would make. Why? Because they are not the choices that they would make. Then they cite one or another God or ideology or moral narrative said to be predicated on Reason or Nature.

But then I ask them how instead that is not embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How are they able to defend their own values/behaviors such that they are not entangled [as "I" am] in this:

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.

Only demonstrate how this is the case by noting actual conflicts that they have had with others; or by defending their political values in reacting to a moral conflagration that pops up over and again "in the news".

It's getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me.

[surreptitious75]

It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me

It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation

[iambiguous]

It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me

It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation

Actually, I'm convinced it is hard for them because once they bring their carefully constructed "world of words" -- their "intellectual contraption" -- down to earth, they bump into the components of my own moral philosophy.

They bump into this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In other words, they come to understand [more or less] that so much of what they do value as either the right or the wrong thing to do comes to be embodied existentially over the course of their actual "lived life". As a consequence, they are predisoposed to think and to feel this instead of that given the actual sequence of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge that has come to constitute their "self" -- "I" -- out in a particular is/ought world construed from a particular point of view.

And then to the extent they seek to transcend this theologically, philosophically, scientifically, ideologically, "naturally" etc., by encompassing a moral narrative that all rational and virtuous men and women are said to be obligated to embody, they note that those on the other side are doing much the same thing. Conflicting goods. Start with one set of assumptions about human interactions [the unborn have a natural right to life], reasonable behaviors are these; start with another set [women have a political right to choose] and reasonable behaviors are those.

Finally, the most astute come to recognize that even to the extent they are right [philosophically, morally etc.] what ultimately counts [in a No God world] is having the power [in any particular community] to legislate and then to enforce one set of values over the others.

But these relationships can only be explored fully [in my view] down on the ground. By noting our own experiences or by justifying our own political values relating to the conflicts that pop up everyday "in the news".

[Ecmandu]

It is getting them to go there that is always the hard part for me

It is hard because morality is subjective or inter subjective and constantly evolving both collectively and individually
There are no absolute rules or objectively right or wrong answers and everything is ultimately open to interpretation

Actually, I'm convinced it is hard for them because once they bring their carefully constructed "world of words" -- their "intellectual contraption" -- down to earth, they bump into the components of my own moral philosophy.

They bump into this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In other words, they come to understand [more or less] that so much of what they do value as either the right or the wrong thing to do comes to be embodied existentially over the course of their actual "lived life". As a consequence, they are predisoposed to think and to feel this instead of that given the actual sequence of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge that has come to constitute their "self" -- "I" -- out in a particular is/ought world construed from a particular point of view.

And then to the extent they seek to transcend this theologically, philosophically, scientifically, ideologically, "naturally" etc., by encompassing a moral narrative that all rational and virtuous men and women are said to be obligated to embody, they note that those on the other side are doing much the same thing. Conflicting goods. Start with one set of assumptions about human interactions [the unborn have a natural right to life], reasonable behaviors are these; start with another set [women have a political right to choose] and reasonable behaviors are those.

Finally, the most astute come to recognize that even to the extent they are right [philosophically, morally etc.] what ultimately counts [in a No God world] is having the power [in any particular community] to legislate and then to enforce one set of values over the others.

But these relationships can only be explored fully [in my view] down on the ground. By noting our own experiences or by justifying our own political values relating to the conflicts that pop up everyday "in the news".

So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

[iambiguous]

So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

How on earth does someone actually go about "hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms"? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?

With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.

[just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean]

[Ecmandu]

So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

How on earth does someone actually go about "hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms"? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?

With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.

[just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean]

Ahh... so now someone who solves your hole must be clinically insane.

We already co-hallucinate reality from eternal forms.

Without the eternal form of say, walkingness, walking would be impossible to name as an object.

[Ecmandu]

So in other words... you're arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral.

Correct?

How on earth does someone actually go about "hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms"? And if, having accomplished this, what criteria would they cite in order to differentiate moral from immoral behaviors?

With respect to, say, any particular moral conflagration we are likely to be familiar with.

[just out of curiosity, has your sanity ever been questioned?
By a professional, I mean]

Ahh... so now someone who solves your hole must be clinically insane.

We already co-hallucinate reality from eternal forms.

Without the eternal form of say, walkingness, walking would be impossible to name as an object.

Let me be more succinct. Without eternal forms, motion could not be named as an object and different motions could not be named as different objects.

[surreptitious75]

you re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral

I am arguing that there is no such thing as hallucinating reality from eternal forms [ whatever they are ]
But what has this got to do with subjective morality which is supposed to be what this thread is about ?

[surreptitious75]

Without eternal forms motion could not be named as an object and different motions could not be named as different objects

Motion is not an object but a behaviour and will you please stop posting all this nonsense as it makes absolutely no sense at all

[iambiguous]

...and will you please stop posting all this nonsense as it makes absolutely no sense at all

Yeah, that's basically my own reaction as well. Some of the stuff he posts makes me think that, philosophically, he's a double bogie short of a hole in one. Or 299 pins away from a perfect game.

I can't decide if he is in fact a fucking genius...and that I am in way over my head. Or perhaps he is just fucking around entertaining himself by posting whatever pops into his head in order to yank our chains.

All I know is that he comes no where near to bringing these "eternal forms" [and all the other intellectual contraptions] out into the world of conflicting goods; and he certainly doesn't describe or demonstrate the manner in which they are said to be applicable to the part where we topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Is he living in a world all his own? One inside his head? Or am I the problem? Am I simply not getting some very, very insightful points from him?

I'm open to be convinced it's the latter.

[Ecmandu]

you re arguing that hallucinating ones entire reality from eternal forms is not moral

I am arguing that there is no such thing as hallucinating reality from eternal forms [ whatever they are ]
But what has this got to do with subjective morality which is supposed to be what this thread is about ?

It has everything to do with the objective solution to morality, we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations.

I solved this with what I call, "the 5 heartbreaks of relationship"

A reality with more that 1 person in it, never works.

Walking is motion, we name it as an object.

It's all in my videos ... about 7 hours content

[iambiguous]

It has everything to do with the objective solution to morality, we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations.

Sure, that'll do it. You can pack your things and live alone on an island somewhere. Or you can eschew all human contact and live by your own wits deep in the forest. A survivalist.

This way the behaviors that you choose come down to a relationship with nature alone.

Or, for some, with a God of their choosing.

The point being that you behave only in accordance with your own sense of right and wrong. There is simply no one else around who might beg to differ.

For the overwhelming preponderance of us however that is not an option that they choose. They do interact with others who might beg to differ. And regarding any number of things.

Then what?

Then any number of folks will make any number of videos to explain how if only others will choose what they choose then moral harmony can still be the order of the day.

[surreptitious75]

we all need to individually be in our own reality to solve all moral equations

A reality with more than I person in it never works

The reality you are currently experiencing comprises over 7 billion people

Reducing that to just I will not automatically solve every moral equation

[Karpel Tunnel]

From my perspective, he seems to live entirely inside his head. He has recreated the reality around him to fit snuggly into this "world of words" that allows him to ensconce "I" into a frame of mind that allows him in turn to connect the dots between his own rendition of "the real me" and the "right thing to do".

I thought it was interesting because the summation works rather well for you also, except for the two things cited at the end

"the unreal me" and the "seeming impossibility of finding the right thing to do coupled with the need to prioritize finding it anyway over all other things'

would be my replacements.

And yes, this leads to Ecmandu and Iamb having different metaphysics but it ends up creating similar discussion partners.