These are not universal truths...

[iambiguous]

Note to Faust...

See what happens to a thread when the Kids run rampant?

On the other hand, better them than me?

[Ecmandu]

At least you tried to save mankind....then they crucified you, for the second time.

Well… I'm not coming back in a body anymore after this life. This world will miss my smile, my intellect, my handshakes… etc…

I've been here too many times now… when I die, I'll actually really move on after this. Treasure it while you can.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, another thread hijacked by two of the usual suspects.

[Aegean]

Back on track.
Truth. A word referring to perspective.
Any claim of an absolute truth can only refer to the perspective's certainty.

Is there a 'truth'. Only a dynamic one. To grasp it is to have it slip through your fingers. Like water. Like a flame.

Oh shit, I'm being infected by the atmosphere to prose and allegories.

[iambiguous]

From what I know, to measure something,,,,value or judge it...you must have an objective in mind.
Nothing is innately or intrinsically good/ or bad, valuable or worthless...but only in relation to an objective.

What is your objective?
Universal equality, peace on earth....an end to strife?

Again, my objective is this:

Okay, let's take your own "general description" assessment here out into the world and explore your point given a particular context.

What becomes the most rational standard by which to measure truth [universal or otherwise] in regard to a set of circumstances in which what is said to be true about particular human behaviors comes into dispute.

Let's pin down "idiocy"...existentially.

You choose the context.

You'll either go there or you won't. Though, sure, we may well be in dispute over what "there" means.

[Aegean]

From what I know, to measure something,,,,value or judge it...you must have an objective in mind.
Nothing is innately or intrinsically good/ or bad, valuable or worthless...but only in relation to an objective.

What is your objective?
Universal equality, peace on earth....an end to strife?

Again, my objective is this:

Okay, let's take your own "general description" assessment here out into the world and explore your point given a particular context.

What becomes the most rational standard by which to measure truth [universal or otherwise] in regard to a set of circumstances in which what is said to be true about particular human behaviors comes into dispute.

Let's pin down "idiocy"...existentially.

You choose the context.

You'll either go there or you won't. Though, sure, we may well be in dispute over what "there" means.

You either understand, or you don't.

The objective establishes the standard by which an action a choice can be evaluated.

What is your objective, in regards to abortion or paedophilia, or consuming fasces as a solution to world poverty?

The objective determined good and bad.
I bet your objective is to reduce all to nil and then force all to negotiate and compromise to bring about the utopian future world of peace on earth.
Anything that diverts or challenges this goal is dismissed or negated.
No other anser will do. They've wasted their time taking you seriously for months. I will not make the same mistake.
Another clown in this circus.

I even know what you will respond.
Go ahead.

[Ecmandu]

Well, another thread hijacked by two of the usual suspects.

I specifically asked him to move all those comments to my thread. He refused.

You want to get back on topic?

Let's get to the heart of the game here.

I state that consent violation is self evident. If your consent is being violated, then you can at that moment disprove every god or idol. That's a powerful and true test.

To state this is like stating that a triangle has three sides.

What's the game? "What if a very powerful ruler decided to state that a triangle has 4 sides and a square has 3 sides? That's will to power"

All you are doing is changing the name, but NOT the eternal form. Nobody is powerful enough to change the eternal form!

Yes. Ethics is objective… why? everyone doesn't want their consent violated. This makes this truth transcendent, eternal form style - objective for all possible beings.

I'm teaching you things you don't want to hear, because it not only disproves all Gods, it disproves YOU as a god, objectively.

The thing that's so beautiful about this eternal form, is that not even I (it's discoverer) am able to be immune to this judgement. It's an eternal form that applies to ALL beings. ANYONE can judge for themselves. That's REAL POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People who rely upon illusory power hate the eternal forms, because the eternal forms are a self evident democracy, not an illusion.

You folks are still attached to negative non-zero sum outcomes.

Like I stated before: If you actually ask a person what their best memories are, you'll find a common thread: They are all negative non zero sum outcomes… they are sick!!! They are psychopathic!!! They are sick!!! Mental illness is just like having pancreatitis, except that since it is the mind itself, there is a stigma, not only by society, but by the individual "my MIND cannot be sick!" Well, yes, actually it is.

[iambiguous]

The objective establishes the standard by which an action a choice can be evaluated.

What is your objective, in regards to abortion or paedophilia, or consuming fasces as a solution to world poverty?

My point though is to assess the extent to which any particular individual's objective is or is not largely an existential contraption. "I" here rooted in dasein rooted in the arguments I provide in my signature. Thus if we choose gun control [from above] as the focus of discussion, for some the objective is to expand the rights of citizens to manufacture, sell and use firearms. For others, however, it is to limit [or even eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosophy, is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Or, instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?

Given my own argument, there are no necessary standards able to be derived philosophically. Instead, the standards remain an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. In other words, the actual lives [experiences] of some predispose them to embrace one rather than another political agenda [set of prejuduces] in regard to this issue.

The objective determined good and bad.

But not before the existential trajectory of our lives largely determine the objectives embraced by any particular "I" out in any particular world understood in any particular way.

Then it comes down to differentiating that which one is able to demonsttrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a "personal opinion".

I bet your objective is to reduce all to nil and then force all to negotiate and compromise to bring about the utopian future world of peace on earth.

Anything that diverts or challenges this goal is dismissed or negated.
No other anser will do. They've wasted their time taking you seriously for months. I will not make the same mistake.
Another clown in this circus.

Yet more "general description" bullshit in which, as with other "serious philosophers" and/or Kids and/or objectivists here, the exchange configures [from their end] into huffing and puffing, retorts and making me the issue.

Again, in regard to gun control or to any other issue in which, from your perspective, "idiocy" becomes the narrative of choice, let's see how far we can take an exchange.

[Aegean]

My point though is to assess the extent to which any particular individual's objective is or is not largely an existential contraption. "I" here rooted in dasein rooted in the arguments I provide in my signature. Thus if we we choose gun control [from above] as the focus of discussion, for some the objective is to expand the rights of citizens to manufacture, sell and use firearms. For others, however, it is to limit [or eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosopnhy is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Ot instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?

This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn't matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.

Given my own argument, there are no necessary standards able to be derived philosophically. Instead, the standards remain an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. In other words, the actual lives [experiences] of some predispose them to embrace one rather than another political agenda [set of prejuduces] in regard to this issue.

Really?
There are no standards?
Because you say so?
No way to ground language?

This is your wish. And nothing and nobody will take it away from you. It is how you want to "change the world", and bring about peace.

But not before the existential trajectory of our lives largely determine the objectives embraced by any particular "I" out in any particular world understood in any particular way.

Then it comes down to differentiating that which one is able to demonsttrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a "personal opinion".

So, rational men cannot achieve a consensus?
Are they all living in their private worlds, like you are?

Yet more "general description" bullshit in which, as with other "serious philosophers" and/or Kids and/or objectivists here, the exchange configures [from their end] into huffing and puffing, retorts and making me the issue.

Again, in regard to gun control or to any other issue in which, from your perspective, "idiocy" becomes the narrative of choice, let's see how far we can take an exchange.

When you get stressed you revert to the mantra....the poem you repeat. Like a child trying to comfort itself.

Nobody can help you. The problem is psychological.
My 80 IQ can barely process this level of insanity.

[iambiguous]

My point though is to assess the extent to which any particular individual's objective is or is not largely an existential contraption. "I" here rooted in dasein rooted in the arguments I provide in my signature. Thus if we we choose gun control [from above] as the focus of discussion, for some the objective is to expand the rights of citizens to manufacture, sell and use firearms. For others, however, it is to limit [or eliminate] the same. Now, using the tools of philosopnhy is it possible to construct an argument that either reconciles or resolves this conflict? Ot instead, are the components of my own argument more pertinent?

This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn't matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.

Given my own argument, there are no necessary standards able to be derived philosophically. Instead, the standards remain an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein. In other words, the actual lives [experiences] of some predispose them to embrace one rather than another political agenda [set of prejuduces] in regard to this issue.

Really?
There are no standards?
Because you say so?
No way to ground language?

This is your wish. And nothing and nobody will take it away from you. It is how you want to "change the world", and bring about peace.

But not before the existential trajectory of our lives largely determine the objectives embraced by any particular "I" out in any particular world understood in any particular way.

Then it comes down to differentiating that which one is able to demonsttrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a "personal opinion".

So, rational men cannot achieve a consensus?
Are they all living in their private worlds, like you are?

Yet more "general description" bullshit in which, as with other "serious philosophers" and/or Kids and/or objectivists here, the exchange configures [from their end] into huffing and puffing, retorts and making me the issue.

Again, in regard to gun control or to any other issue in which, from your perspective, "idiocy" becomes the narrative of choice, let's see how far we can take an exchange.

When you get stressed you revert to the mantra....the poem you repeat. Like a child trying to comfort itself.

Nobody can help you. The problem is psychological.
My 80 IQ can barely process this level of insanity.

Note to others:

Nothing new here is there? Just one more Kid reconfiguring ILP into their own personal rendition of "social media".

Sure, those of us who do take philosophy seriously may disagree regarding what that means. And, as well, some no doubt will point the finger at me in that regard. I'm part of the problem too.

But you either respect the intelligence of others or you don't. And there was once a time when I had considerable respect for the intelligence of those who often disagreed with my own narrative here. In particular with respect to "I" in the is/ought world. But they're all gone. von rivers, moreno, only_humean, statiktech, lizbethrose, volchok, omar etc.

Instead, in their place are the screeching Kids.

Though, sure, admittedly, that is no less an existential contraption all my own.

So, sure, my point will either resonate or it won't.

[Aegean]

See?
Back to the poem.
Predictable.

[phyllo]

Note to others:

Nothing new here is there? Just one more Kid reconfiguring ILP into their own personal rendition of "social media".

Sure, those of us who do take philosophy seriously may disagree regarding what that means. And, as well, some no doubt will point the finger at me in that regard. I'm part of the problem too.

But you either respect the intelligence of others or you don't. And there was once a time when I had considerable respect for the intelligence of those who often disagreed with my own narrative here. In particular with respect to "I" in the is/ought world. But they're all gone. von rivers, moreno, only_humean, statiktech, lizbethrose, volchok, omar etc.

Instead, in their place are the screeching Kids.

Though, sure, admittedly, that is no less an existential contraption all my own.

So, sure, my point will either resonate or it won't.

You were begging for Aegean to come here so that you could make a fool of him.

He's here. You have your public.

Go ahead and begin.

[iambiguous]

You were begging for Aegean to come here so that you could make a fool of him.

He's here. You have your public.

Go ahead and begin.

I thought I already had.

[phyllo]

You were begging for Aegean to come here so that you could make a fool of him.

He's here. You have your public.

Go ahead and begin.

I thought I already had.

That was it?

[iambiguous]

You were begging for Aegean to come here so that you could make a fool of him.

He's here. You have your public.

Go ahead and begin.

I thought I already had.

That was it?

That's all he was worth.

A Kid has to earn my contempt.

[phyllo]

After all those years of talk. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.

[iambiguous]

After all those years of talk. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE.

On the other hand, I'm always disappointing you.

But, rest assured, your own intelligence is A-Okay in my book.

You know, if you're willing to accept that as, say, a compliment.

[Aegean]

He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.

He's a troubled mind...waiting for Godot.
Like so many on ILP....a bit fucked-up in the head.
More annoying than anything.
It's the repetition that can become tiresome...and his interpretation of this frustration as a 'victory'. His effect.

But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
Here it's practically the norm.

[Ecmandu]

He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.

He's a troubled mind...waiting for Godot.
Like so many on ILP....a bit fucked-up in the head.
More annoying than anything.
It's the repetition that can become tiresome...and his interpretation of this frustration as a 'victory'. His effect.

But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
Here it's practically the norm.

Oh, this'll be good. So what's sane? I know I'm sane. I'm curious with what and how you disagreeing with me and others in all that diversity makes you sane.

So what's sane?

[phyllo]

He wanted to sing his poem in my face….expecting a magical effect.

He's a troubled mind...waiting for Godot.
Like so many on ILP....a bit fucked-up in the head.
More annoying than anything.
It's the repetition that can become tiresome...and his interpretation of this frustration as a 'victory'. His effect.

But is he the only one who is insane and full of self-aggrandizing delusions, on ILP?
Here it's practically the norm.

He's the one who is constantly quoting you, "analyzing" your posts and begging for the opportunity to engage with you directly.

[phyllo]

Oh, this'll be good. So what's sane? I know I'm sane.

But of course.

[Aegean]

Was he?
I bet he selected what he brought over.
What he means by 'engage' is the opportunity to repeat the poems he learned and have served him well, until Godot cums.
Isolating him was devastating. He wanted centre stage...for his poem to have its greatest impact.

Let me see if I can recall one of his early work"
I was born to a middle-class whore...blah, blah
All that to say that we are born blank slates and are programmed to judge according to the culture we are born into.
Nurturing 101.
All memes, no genes.
If absolute evidence is not offered, then negation will erase it, automatically.

The only acceptable answer....all are equally ignorant...so why not compromise and reach some mutually beneficial agreement to live in peace with our lies.
Its textbook Marxism.
Let's share the costs of our shared ignorance.

[Ecmandu]

Oh, this'll be good. So what's sane? I know I'm sane.

But of course.

I have a definition of sanity: Non contradiction. I'm less contradictory than others, which makes me MORE sane.

Everyone uses that definition of sanity… even this new dude. He's trying to use the law of non-contradiction to establish his sanity.

You know… people on this board give me WAY to little credit.

[Aegean]

Oh, this'll be good. So what's sane? I know I'm sane.

But of course.

Don't all insane people think they are sane?

But, let's be honest...how many sane people are on ILP?
One claims to be a trime traveler repairing consent violations; another that his posts are read and used to form geopolitics; another claims have solved the mysteries of existence...and on and on.
So many messiahs, and geniuses, on ILP...of all places. A shit hole....in the middle of cyber-nowhere.

This is more like an asylum of lost souls.

[phyllo]

I have a definition of sanity: Non contradiction. I'm less contradictory than others, which makes me MORE sane.

That's crazy.