These are not universal truths...

[iambiguous]

How come whenever I see biggy in a thread, I also see phyllo?

He's a fascinating set of contradictions ...

- a nihilist who moralizes
- an atheist obsessed with God and salvation
- a fractured "I" who displays an unchanging set of beliefs
- supposedly interested in "how ought one live?", he never discusses it or pursues any advice offered to him
- he asks for contexts to discuss, but never discusses them in any detail
- he claims to believe in dasein, that one is the product of time and place, but acts incredulous when someone presents a POV different from his own
- goes talks about the gap in knowledge, but he also understands all sort of things about you and objectivists in general
- he mocks people who present "serious philosophy", and also those "kids" who avoid "serious philosophy"
- he doubts the effectiveness of "the tools of philosophy" but he keeps asking for arguments based on those tools

A classic example of how the objectivist mind needs to see everything in terms of stark contractions. Either/or.

a nihilist who moralizes

No, what I do is to explore human morality as an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

an atheist obsessed with God and salvation

No, what preoccupies me from time to time, is the fact that oblivion is right around the corner. I wonder what is to become of "I" when I die. I don't want it to revolve around the abyss that is nothingness; and, to the best of my knowledge, God and religion are the only andidotes.

a fractured "I" who displays an unchanging set of beliefs

No, an "I" that is fractured and fragmented only in regard to conflicting goods derived from dasein; and an "I" that over the years has embraced many conflicting objectivist moral narrative and political agendas.

And on and on and from my end too.

For each accusation, he states it as though the manner in which he construes me reflects not just another existential contraption embedded in his own subjective rendition of "I", but as though this captures me in a manner in which all rational men and women are are obligated to in turn.

Meanwhile, he is still on track to go all the way to the grave convinced that how he views things like Communism and abortion is in sync with how he views things like objective morality and God.

And I'm still thinking how comforting and consoling that must feel.

[iambiguous]

But, for most of us, the fact that it can be demonstrated to be true works fine. For example, Miley Cyrus exists. She owns a "fluffy white kitty Shanti Om Bb". Does that qualify as an objective truth? a universal truth?

Are there in turn things that she can do or not do with this cat that qualify -- objectively? universally? -- as immoral behavior.

How would an ethicist go about demonstrating it?

If, for whatever personal reason, someone abuses or kills a cat, are philosophers able to establish this as either objectively immoral or universally immoral?

This is just : "Girl owns cat" and a sudden jump to a a bunch of questions about morality.

No steps. No process. No method. No tools applied. No analysis. Not even an argument.

Okay, and on your part: "Girl owns cat" and a sudden jump to a bunch of answers about morality.

Rooted somehow in moral objectivism and God.

Note to others:

Let him provide us with the steps, method, process, tools, analysis and arguments he used to reach those answers.

I do make an argument regarding that crucial distinction between facts able to be accumulated about cats and the people that own them, and our reaction to those who [for whatever personal reason] choose to abuse or kill them.

It's embedded throughout the points I raise in my signature threads.

Where is his own equivalent of that?

[phyllo]

All you do is sit on your throne and say "NO".

I have better things to do than trying to show you anything.

[iambiguous]

All you do is sit on your throne and say "NO".

I have better things to do than trying to show you anything.

Do I reduce you down to "retorts" like this more or less than you allow me to do it?

A new thread perhaps?

[phyllo]

You're not "reducing" me to anything. I gave you some feedback.

There are reasons why almost nobody here wants to talk to you any more.

A new thread will end up like all your threads.

[Karpel Tunnel]

A new thread will end up like all your threads.

Yes, for someone who thinks there is no way, that he knows of, to resolve disputes over values, he hasn't the slightest concern about turning threads dealing with what other people value into threads that (SHOULD) deal with what he values. And if they don't, he gives them pejorative labels, and then goes on hijacking. It's trolling, and he got happy when you gave him arguments he is very comfortable dealing with since they allow him to repeat himself.

[iambiguous]

You're not "reducing" me to anything. I gave you some feedback.

Fine. We can leave it to others to decide for themselves which seems more reasonable. And then the extent to which reason of this sort reflects [technically] a universal truth.

There are reasons why almost nobody here wants to talk to you any more.

Indeed, and this is as close as I have come to understanding it:

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.

On the other hand, talk about an existential contraption!!

A new thread will end up like all your threads.

I would certainly hope so.

[iambiguous]

A new thread will end up like all your threads.

Yes, for someone who thinks there is no way, that he knows of, to resolve disputes over values, he hasn't the slightest concern about turning threads dealing with what other people value into threads that (SHOULD) deal with what he values. And if they don't, he gives them pejorative labels, and then goes on hijacking. It's trolling, and he got happy when you gave him arguments he is very comfortable dealing with since they allow him to repeat himself.

We'll need a context of course.

[like shooting fish in a barrel, he mused]

[phyllo]

Indeed, and this is as close as I have come to understanding it:

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.

Which says that you don't understand it at all.

It has almost nothing to do with your philosophy and almost everything to do with how you post.

You are the issue.

[iambiguous]

Indeed, and this is as close as I have come to understanding it:

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.

Which says that you don't understand it at all.

It has almost nothing to do with your philosophy and almost everything to do with how you post.

You are the issue.

In that case, note a particular post of mine that best exemplfies this in regard to examining "universal truth" on this thread.

What exactly are you saying here about "how" I post?

After all, from my point of view, those points have everything to do with my philosophy.

And, it seems to me, how I am posting them is by way of examining determinism, the ontology of existentence and "I" in the is/ought world re the actual points I make about them in my posts.

No, I think that what perturbs you most are the arguments that I make. The closer I come to convincing you that they may well be applicable to you, the more perturbed you get.

If, for no other reason, that has been my experience with objectivists of your ilk going back to long ago.

In any event, as Gib pointed out, you've been going after me for years now. You keeping huffing and puffing about me, yet continue to respond to my posts.

You know what they say. If you're down in a hole [philosophically or otherwise] stop digging.

Only that's not really an option for me. "I" am the hole.

[phyllo]

What exactly are you saying here about "how" I post?

After all, from my point of view, those points have everything to do with my philosophy.

You ask for answers but as soon as someone responds, it's ...

- general
- an existential contraption
- words defending words

Or you ignore what they wrote and repeat your own points.

The possibility that someone is correct about something is strictly forbidden:

phyllo wrote:
Certainly you need to determine a correct course of action. That's where logic and rationality come into it.

I'm not sure why you would need to demonstrate anything to anyone.

Philosophy still seems to be applicable.

In other words, if someone agrees with you regarding the correct course of action here, they are being logical and rational.

Trust me, I get that part. Just as if someone agrees with you in regard to abortion or Communism they are being logical and rational. They are "one of us".

And you think that you are having a discussion when you respond like this?? A discussion about philosophy??

It's a farce.

[phyllo]

If, for no other reason, that has been my experience with objectivists of your ilk going back to long ago.

Did I mention that you stereotype people?

Not surprising since you appear to have no interest what they have to say.

[Aegean]

Note top others
He calls 'objectivists' anyone who thinks his own perspective is superior to another.

The only acceptable answer is we:
We are all equally ignorant - replacing the Abrahamic 'we are all equally sinful' or the Marxist 'we are all equally poor' (or ought to be so) - and we must stop fighting and collectively come to mutually beneficial compromises.
This is the Utopia he promotes with nihilism
He chips away at confidence, cultivating - he imagines - uncertainty so as to produce a surrender to the collective project.
His psychology is based on his own loss of trust in his own senses and judgments. He wants to make this universal.

He is the one who wants to 'change the world'.

[phyllo]

He calls 'objectivists' anyone who thinks his own perspective is superior to another.

It's anyone who thinks that there are answers that "mere mortals" can figure out.

He insists that knowledge and understanding are always out of reach. We must admit to a collective ignorance and incompetence.

When he throws in determinism, control and guidance are also out of reach. We must admit to a collective powerlessness.

[Aegean]

He calls 'objectivists' anyone who thinks his own perspective is superior to another.

It's anyone who thinks that there are answers that "mere mortals" can figure out.

He insists that knowledge and understanding are always out of reach. We must admit to a collective ignorance and incompetence.

When he throws in determinism, control and guidance are also out of reach. We must admit to a collective powerlessness.

Exactly. He wants to make his own weakness into a universal truth.
He's been disillusioned by the Abrahamic one-god, and then Marxism - its secular form - and has lost all trust in others, as an expression of his loss of confidence in his own judgments.
He concludes with a defensive annihilation of all ideas as equally in error, and because there are no absolutes he easily finds a gap to exploit and to dismiss all ideas.

He concludes, because someone else taught him how, that the only 'solution' to bring about the utopia the other ideologies failed to bring about, si to admit that we all are equally ignorant - emphasis on the 'equally'.
Nihilism reduces all to parity - no distinctions, no variations, no gradations, no superior/inferior.
Either all are one, or all are nil.
With no god - absolute oneness - then nil.
Like I said....any expression of confidence and certainty, is 'objectivism' in his demented mind. the only acceptable attitude is humility, admittance that nobody knows the truth, and a surrender to the collective.
We are all proletariats, or we are all sinners.
Salvation can be found in the collective.

A neurotic.

You are wasting your time with him.
Every time you pay attention to him he considers ti a victory - like he is making a difference, bringing about this 'better world' he imagines.
He is beyond reason, and help.
He was told of the power of the nil, and he yields it passionately. Waiting for the final nil - Godot.
This is his final retribution against existence that failed to deliver what he once considered inevitable.

[iambiguous]

What exactly are you saying here about "how" I post?

After all, from my point of view, those points have everything to do with my philosophy.

You ask for answers but as soon as someone responds, it's ...

- general
- an existential contraption
- words defending words

Or you ignore what they wrote and repeat your own points.

Again, cite some examples of this from this thread. Or cite the most egregious example. You make this claim as though in making it, that, in itself, makes it so.

Or, sure, we can just let others make up their own minds about it. That works for me. Here and now.

The possibility that someone is correct about something is strictly forbidden:

phyllo wrote:
Certainly you need to determine a correct course of action. That's where logic and rationality come into it.

I'm not sure why you would need to demonstrate anything to anyone.

Philosophy still seems to be applicable.

In other words, if someone agrees with you regarding the correct course of action here, they are being logical and rational.

Trust me, I get that part. Just as if someone agrees with you in regard to abortion or Communism they are being logical and rational. They are "one of us".

And you think that you are having a discussion when you respond like this?? A discussion about philosophy??

It's a farce.

Look, either someone thinks that in regards to discussions of Communism or abortion or how I post here, their own take on it reflects either the optimal or the only rational point of view, or, like me, they suggest instead that value judgments of this sort are embedded existentially in dasein...ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

You do the math.

[iambiguous]

Note top others
He calls 'objectivists' anyone who thinks his own perspective is superior to another.

No, he suggests that in regard to "I" in the is/ought world, an objectivist is someone who believes that his or her own value judgments reflect the most rational and the most virtuous manner in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from bad behaviors.

As for this...

The only acceptable answer is we:
We are all equally ignorant - repacing the Abrahamic 'we are all equally sinful' or the Marxist 'we are all equally poor' (or ought to be so) - and we must stop fighting and collectively come to mutually beneficial compromises.
This is the Utopia he promotes with nihilism
He chips away at confidence, cultivating - he imagines - uncertainty so as to produce a surrender to the collective project.
His psychology is based on his own loss of trust in his own senses and judgments. He wants to make this universal.

He is the one who wants to 'change the world'.

It is [in my view] little more than intellectual gibberish in search of a context in which to connect the dots between the definition and meaning of the words used to defend other words, and actual behaviors in conflict out in the is/ought world.

This part:

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 prejudices] 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 demonstrate is true for all rational men and women and that which largely remains, subjectively, a "personal opinion".

[Aegean]

See what I mean?
He is against objective morality, then demands that others defend it, because he needs to nullify it to feel he is making a difference.
The only correct answer is 'there is no morality, so why don't we agree to disagree and then stop the bickering and come to a concession'.

The idea that morality does not require an absolute, like god, to be objective, independent from subjectivity, alludes him. He can only think in absolutes.
He is used to attacking the other absolutist side of the paradigm, and is helpless against this out of the nihilistic paradigm possibility.

The idea that abortion, thieving, adultery is neither good nor bad in any universal senses but only in reference to a ideal, a motive, an objective, alludes him.
He cannot process this, so he goes back to the poem and repeats it and each time he is convinced he is making a 'good point' and 'destroying the opposition' - the strawman he's been burning as he waits for the end.
If you show any certainty, you are an evil objectivist.
The only correct attitude is humble subjectivity. An admission that we are all EQUALLY ignorant...equally sinners....equally proletariats...and morality is a social construct....in other words a meaningless human artifice.

You can't reason with this.
This is gone....he's waiting for the body to follow his mind into the nil.

[iambiguous]

If, for no other reason, that has been my experience with objectivists of your ilk going back to long ago.

Did I mention that you stereotype people?

Not surprising since you appear to have no interest what they have to say.

In the past, you noted your own assessment of Communism. One which, in a manner that I have yet to grasp, is intertwined with your assessment of objective morality and God.

I then challenged that frame of mind with my own: that "I" here is embedded existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. And that depending on the unique set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas that one has, their understanding and assessment of Communism is rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the manner in which I have come to understand human identity in my signature threads.

How does that constitute proof that I have no interest in what you have to say about Communism?

Other then [given my own experience with objectivists over the years] to have an interest in what you say about it is to agree with what you say about it.

[Aegean]

If god doesn't say so, then it must be an us versus they say so.
So why not come to a compromise so that we all say so?

He cannot think outside this premise.
That something can be objectively probable and still not a product of subjective whimsy, is beyond his mind's ability to process.
That's where he's trapped....in the hole in his own mind.
He wants to change the world, or pull it into his dilemma with him....as a final act of vengeance.
Nothing to work with here.
It's already gone.

[Aegean]

Double whammy.
Permit me to ignore the next recitation of the poem.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If god doesn't say so, then it must be an us versus they say so.
So why not come to a compromise so that we all say so?

He cannot think outside this premise.
That something can be objectively probable and still not a product of subjective whimsy, is beyond his mind's ability to process.
That's where he's trapped....in the hole in his own mind.
He wants to change the world, or pull it into his dilemma with him....as a final act of vengeance.
Nothing to work with here.
It's already gone.

Very well said. But I think we are now preaching to the choir. It is also a victory for him, or a vengeance as you accurately put it, if the thread continues focused on him, because this allows him to 'respond' and potentially 'play the victim' or say we are focusing on him rather than his ideas, with some hint that it is because we have been triggered into terror.

I think it is useful to point out when he starts hijacking threads and to perhaps warn off people who start finding their shoes or feet sticking in his goo.

But then we gotta ignore him.

The body will form a cyst around cancerous tissue, to deny it nutrition, to wall it off. But if we keep building the wall, after the cancerous tissue is walled in, well, that causes other problems.

[phyllo]

In the past, you noted your own assessment of Communism. One which, in a manner that I have yet to grasp, is intertwined with your assessment of objective morality and God.

I then challenged that frame of mind with my own: that "I" here is embedded existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. And that depending on the unique set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas that one has, their understanding and assessment of Communism is rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the manner in which I have come to understand human identity in my signature threads.

I said some things about Communism.

You proceeded to tell me what I think about Communism and Communists. It's what you think that objectivists "of my ilk" think about Communism and Communists. It's not what I think. You projected your beliefs on to me.

And you keep feeding that back to me. Over and over.

You do the same with respect to God. You insist that I must be concerned with salvation and the afterlife. Those are obsessions that you think theists must have.

It doesn't matter if I correct you. You keep going back to it. It's like you either don't care what people say or you don't remember what they say.

I regret saying anything about Communism or God.

[Aegean]

If god doesn't say so, then it must be an us versus they say so.
So why not come to a compromise so that we all say so?

He cannot think outside this premise.
That something can be objectively probable and still not a product of subjective whimsy, is beyond his mind's ability to process.
That's where he's trapped....in the hole in his own mind.
He wants to change the world, or pull it into his dilemma with him....as a final act of vengeance.
Nothing to work with here.
It's already gone.

Very well said. But I think we are now preaching to the choir. It is also a victory for him, or a vengeance as you accurately put it, if the thread continues focused on him, because this allows him to 'respond' and potentially 'play the victim' or say we are focusing on him rather than his ideas, with some hint that it is because we have been triggered into terror.

I think it is useful to point out when he starts hijacking threads and to perhaps warn off people who start finding their shoes or feet sticking in his goo.

But then we gotta ignore him.

The body will form a cyst around cancerous tissue, to deny it nutrition, to wall it off. But if we keep building the wall, after the cancerous tissue is walled in, well, that causes other problems.

I've been ignoring him for a long, long time.

Thought I would expose him, here, before I start ignoring him again.

Let the dead be dead, and let the living continue living.

[iambiguous]

See what I mean?
He is against objective morality, then demands that others defend it, because he needs to nullify it to feel he is making a difference.

Let him cite a single post able to demonstrate that I am against objective morality.

Instead, over and again, I have noted that objective morality may well exist. If only because a God, the God may well exists. My point is that given the components of my own moral philosophy, "I" [here and now] do not believe that it exists.

If others, however, do, let them note this by encompassing their moral values in a description of an actual context in which conflicting goods have prevailed now for as many years as, say, philosophers themselves have been around?

What single righteous behavior has been demonstrated to be obligatory for all rational men and women. Just one.

Then where does he go? Ever and always back up into the clouds:

The idea that morality does not require an absolute, like god, to be objective, independent from subjectivity, alludes him. He can only think in absolutes.
He is used to attacking the other absolutist side of the paradigm, and is helpless against this out of the nihilistic paradigm possibility.

The closest he'll come to the real world is this sort of thing...

The idea that abortion, thieving, adultery is neither good nor bad in any universal senses but only in reference to a ideal, a motive, an objective, alludes him.
He cannot process this, so he goes back to the poem and repeats it and each time he is convinced he is making a 'good point' and 'destroying the opposition' - the strawman he's been burning as he waits for the end.

What particular abortion, theft or adultery in what particular set of circumstances? Viewed from what particular frame of mind embodying what particular set of moral and political prejudices?

Again, let him choose a context and we can explore his accusations more specifically.

Or, sure, we can all note how he wiggles out of it this time.