## Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Biggy: I win either way.

Maia: Not really…

Biggy: Of course, that's my point…

And you wonder why we’re confused by you.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:iambiguous wrote: My understanding of dasein in my signature threads has left me "fractured and fragmented". With MagsJ and Maia, they can simply ignore the points I raise there and stick with, "I just know what I do about abortion and the covid pandemic and the role of government." It's their "intrinsic self" that becomes their own objectivist font of choice.

...a case of connecting the dots in One’s mind, to arrive at an end-point.. each person’s dots being unique to They, hence differences of opinion and so forth.

Okay, but "One's mind" is first of all filled with all that revolves around the particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts into which it is "thrown" adventitiously at birth. It is indoctrinated as a child by others to understand the world around them as they do. It has its own profoundly problematic set of uniquely personal experiences and relationship and access to information and knowledge.

..but I weren’t indoctrinated -when a child, by others- to understand the world around me as they did.

Do you resent that style of upbringing, that you had?

iambiguous said: “It has its own profoundly problematic set of uniquely personal experiences and relationship and access to information and knowledge.”

PTSD is holding you back and stopping you progressing, as that ^^^ problem, should be profoundly in the past.

Then this part: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

Then the points I note in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All the stuff that gib and I at length, substantively have been exploring on this thread.

On the other hand, the irony here from my frame of mind, is that in some respects, your intrinsic self and gib's emotions and my dasein all serve to anchor "I" to a point of departure in our exchanges with others. We all fall back on our assessment of them as the starting point in discussions of "I" in the is/ought world.

Only [in my opinion] you two use your own "by default" assumptions to bring the world around to your own objectivist moral and political assessment of things like government health care policy pertaining to the covid pandemic. Whereas dasein is construed by me as an assumption that precipitates my own far more "fractured and fragmented" moral and political perspectives.

Over-thinking everything? or so it seems like you are, to me.. surely every situation can’t always be that dire, to warrant you to go through those 'thinking' motions, every single time? or perhaps it is us, that are being too blasé here..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 25041
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote:Biggy: I win either way.

Maia: Not really…

Biggy: Of course, that's my point…

And you wonder why we’re confused by you.

Please. How difficult is it to grasp the point I am making here:

I react to my own situation and, given the life I've lived, I conclude what I do about it. You react [to me] having no real understanding at all of the life I've lived. Of what my current situation is. And, yes, absolutely: the other way around regarding me reacting to you.

I think I win either way because of how I construe all of this from my own vantage point. Maia, knowing nothing in depth of my own life, my own situation, reacts to it instead based on her own life, her own situation. Of which I have no in depth understanding.

Only, like you, when she bumps into another who doesn't share her own moral and political convictions, she has this part of herself that, intuitively, viscerally, intrinsically, "spiritually" etc., "just knows" that what she believes about things like the government and the covid pandemic and abortion, etc., reflects something analogous to the One True Path.

The part that she can nestle down into psychologically and feel a hell of a lot more comforted and consoled than someone like me. I merely point out that in accepting this soothing "foundation" she sacrifices all of the many more options that are available to those who don't have to ask themselves, "what would the Goddess do?"

For you of course, taking into account the point I made to Maia above, it's "forget about what I think about the truckers...all that really matters is how I feel about them." As though the two have almost nothing to do with each other. As though our emotional reactions to the world around us are not in turn profoundly rooted in dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Ichthus77 wrote:This is Biggy:
https://youtu.be/A_re4losUdU

back to you, gibs

This point is too salient to be overlooked, but apparently needs restating.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

MagsJ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:iambiguous wrote: My understanding of dasein in my signature threads has left me "fractured and fragmented". With MagsJ and Maia, they can simply ignore the points I raise there and stick with, "I just know what I do about abortion and the covid pandemic and the role of government." It's their "intrinsic self" that becomes their own objectivist font of choice.

...a case of connecting the dots in One’s mind, to arrive at an end-point.. each person’s dots being unique to They, hence differences of opinion and so forth.

Okay, but "One's mind" is first of all filled with all that revolves around the particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts into which it is "thrown" adventitiously at birth. It is indoctrinated as a child by others to understand the world around them as they do. It has its own profoundly problematic set of uniquely personal experiences and relationship and access to information and knowledge.

..but I weren’t indoctrinated -when a child, by others- to understand the world around me as they did.

Right, when you were born you were immediately on your own. Or those that raised you waited until you were able to understand the language and then made it clear to you that you were completely capable of understanding and differentiating right from wrong and good from bad behavior yourself. Morality? politics? religion? cultural norms? They were firm: Whatever as a child you came independently to think was reasonable and virtuous was okay with them.

Anyone else here raised that way?

MagsJ wrote:Do you resent that style of upbringing, that you had?

That "style" of upbringing? How is it not basically the norm around the globe? The only difference being, that, given the vast and varied historical and cultural and experiential contexts that any particular individual might be "thrown" into at birth, what gets crammed into our brains as children can vary vastly as well.

Then, of course, the part where you discovered your "intrinsic self". Then anyone who does not share your own moral and political convictions is stopped dead in their tracks. After all, if your "intrinsic self" is in command what can others do but to acknowledge that they're not you. And that it will be futile to try to broach their own political prejudices. To discuss and debate them with you.

Again, that's basically what the objectivists can throw back at me: dasein, dasein, dasein.

Only my own "by default" assumptions fracture and fragment "me". While yours anchor you to the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

iambiguous said: “It has its own profoundly problematic set of uniquely personal experiences and relationship and access to information and knowledge.”

MagsJ wrote: PTSD is holding you back and stopping you progressing, as that ^^^ problem, should be profoundly in the past.

And you know this...how? And progressing to what...a facsimile of your own "intrinsic self"?

Given what context?

Then this part: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

Then the points I note in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All the stuff that gib and I at length, substantively have been exploring on this thread.

On the other hand, the irony here from my frame of mind, is that in some respects, your intrinsic self and gib's emotions and my dasein all serve to anchor "I" to a point of departure in our exchanges with others. We all fall back on our assessment of them as the starting point in discussions of "I" in the is/ought world.

Only [in my opinion] you two use your own "by default" assumptions to bring the world around to your own objectivist moral and political assessment of things like government health care policy pertaining to the covid pandemic. Whereas dasein is construed by me as an assumption that precipitates my own far more "fractured and fragmented" moral and political perspectives.

MagsJ wrote: Over-thinking everything? or so it seems like you are, to me.. surely every situation can’t always be that dire, to warrant you to go through those 'thinking' motions, every single time? or perhaps it is us, that are being too blasé here..

Who argues that every situation is dire? Instead, gib and I are discussing situations like the trucker protest where the truckers themselves certainly deemed it to be dire enough to do what they did.

So, how does "over-thinking" work here? If someone doesn't share your own or gib's own "intuitive" or "emotional" reaction to the protest they are over-thinking it? And for gib, thinking itself is, as for me, rooted in dasein such that you really can't trust what you think about it anyway.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:He refuses to respond to me anymore because I beat him at the abortion debate.

YOU beat him?!?!

It's not the sort of debate that has a winner.
One side says that a woman's body is her sovereign domain.
The other side insists that as soon as a man implants seed in that body she loses that sovereignty to the state.

These are opinions.
You can be on either side of the opinion but there is no objective truth here.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher

Posts: 2584
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: ..but I weren’t indoctrinated -when a child, by others- to understand the world around me as they did.

Right, when you were born you were immediately on your own. Or those that raised you waited until you were able to understand the language and then made it clear to you that you were completely capable of understanding and differentiating right from wrong and good from bad behavior yourself.

Well.. my parents didn’t follow us around with a bible in one hand and a belt in the other, forcing their views and prejudices onto us. They were pretty lenient.. as long as I didn’t do anything 'wrong/counter to their values' of no lieing, stealing, or absconding with anyone, all of which I never did.. unlike my siblings, and only then would the Victorian values in them come out. I rarely ever got told off.

So you think that values aren’t innate, that we are blank slates? Animals aren’t, but we are?

Morality? politics? religion? cultural norms? They were firm: Whatever as a child you came independently to think was reasonable and virtuous was okay with them.

Sure, all the above was discussed.. over the dinner table or around the TV, but it was a discussion not a diktat, so more expectation of us upholding societal etiquette than having to do and think their way.

Anyone else here raised that way?

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Do you resent that style of upbringing, that you had?

That "style" of upbringing? How is it not basically the norm around the globe? The only difference being, that, given the vast and varied historical and cultural and experiential contexts that any particular individual might be "thrown" into at birth, what gets crammed into our brains as children can vary vastly as well.

Well that’s just it.. no family or individual has the same experiences.. qualia at play?

I played, I ate, I read, I drank copious amounts of tea, I went to church, I did my chores.. and then school happened and that’s when my mind got crammed with an ideology.. the education systems’ ideologies, of which my mother had prepared me for but I didn’t want to go, but had to..

Then, of course, the part where you discovered your "intrinsic self".

The intrinsic 'I' is not discovered, but evolves..

Then anyone who does not share your own moral and political convictions is stopped dead in their tracks. After all, if your "intrinsic self" is in command what can others do but to acknowledge that they're not you. And that it will be futile to try to broach their own political prejudices. To discuss and debate them with you.

I have no qualms.. in regard to having such discussions, but I am not up for having my mind changed.. something of which my own parents rarely 'went there' with.

I’ve not tried to take away your views from you or deny you them, but to keep and hold onto mine.

Again, that's basically what the objectivists can throw back at me: dasein, dasein, dasein.

Only my own "by default" assumptions fracture and fragment "me". While yours anchor you to the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

Everyone is going to have an opinion on societal matters, but not to the extent that you do, in becoming fractured and fragmented.. what’s in it for you in becoming so? how does it benefit you?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous said: “It has its own profoundly problematic set of uniquely personal experiences and relationship and access to information and knowledge.”
MagsJ wrote: PTSD is holding you back and stopping you progressing, as that ^^^ problem, should be profoundly in the past.

And you know this...how? And progressing to what...a facsimile of your own "intrinsic self"?

Oh, just a hunch.. and progressing to a less fractured and fragmented self.. if you’re not happy with being so, that is? as that just might be the way your mind works and assesses things. Was it always so?

Given what context?

..that of change, of whether you were not always so, but became so and now are.

iambiguous wrote:Then this part: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

..a sequence of events, unfolding into a disaster.. perhaps we all experience that at least once in our lives.. the ‘what ifs and whys’ that can make or ruin lives.

Then the points I note in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All the stuff that gib and I at length, substantively have been exploring on this thread.

On the other hand, the irony here from my frame of mind, is that in some respects, your intrinsic self and gib's emotions and my dasein all serve to anchor "I" to a point of departure in our exchanges with others. We all fall back on our assessment of them as the starting point in discussions of "I" in the is/ought world.

Our assessment of others’ modus operandi, yes.. of them themselves, no.

Only [in my opinion] you two use your own "by default" assumptions to bring the world around to your own objectivist moral and political assessment of things like government health care policy pertaining to the covid pandemic. Whereas dasein is construed by me as an assumption that precipitates my own far more "fractured and fragmented" moral and political perspectives.

We arrive at what we arrive at, by the means that we have at our disposal.. all's being by way of differing means, ergo.. qualia.

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Over-thinking everything? or so it seems like you are, to me.. surely every situation can’t always be that dire, to warrant you to go through those 'thinking' motions, every single time? or perhaps it is us, that are being too blasé here..

Who argues that every situation is dire? Instead, gib and I are discussing situations like the trucker protest where the truckers themselves certainly deemed it to be dire enough to do what they did.

So, how does "over-thinking" work here? If someone doesn't share your own or gib's own "intuitive" or "emotional" reaction to the protest they are over-thinking it? And for gib, thinking itself is, as for me, rooted in dasein such that you really can't trust what you think about it anyway.

I don’t take issue with your discussional stance, you seem to be taking issue with mine, in that it is too blasé to be of substance.. like I don’t take into consideration the consequence of chance and change, but I do.

..though I could be completely wrong. lol
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 25041
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Ichthus77 wrote:
Ichthus77 wrote:This is Biggy:
https://youtu.be/A_re4losUdU

back to you, gibs

This point is too salient to be overlooked, but apparently needs restating.

And I guess I'm the one to bear the burden of responding, but what do you want me to say about that? You mocked Biggy by comparing him to Ace Ventura, good for you. Keep up the good work
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote: But you're right Pedro that when Biggy rejects one's attempt at delivering such a proof, he is implicitly stating that he is one of the "reasonable people".

No, I am noting that in regard to proofs aimed at establishing whether the truckers are behaving rationally, his thinking, your thinking and my thinking is derived largely from the subjective assumptions I make in regard to value judgments derived largely from dasein in my signature threads. The irony here is that you and I would both seem to agree that such thinking is problematic...and not to be trusted. Something seems reasonable to you but not to others because the life you and they lived nudged or propelled you and them to embrace particular sets of political prejudices. Instead, your own objectivist trajectory here revolves around how you "feel" about the trucker's protest. You "just know" emotionally, intuitively that you want what they want.

How about Pedro? Is he willing to agree that had his own life been different he might be here thinking -- professing -- that the truckers were acting unreasonably?

Pedro wrote:I do think this has political implications. If one of the parties is ideologically motivated, and by extention unreasonable, what gain is there in reasoning with them? You either abandon reason yourself, or you aim only for the reasonable.

gib wrote: I agree with that, and that's exactly what I do. Which is something I was trying to get across to Biggy but in vein. I tried to explain how I can slip into the mindset of the "fulminating fanatical pinheads" (abandoning reason) and give voice to my prejudices; but this voice could never stand up to the iambiguous challenge of being an objectively demonstrable proof that all reasonable men and women are obliged to agree with.

Once again the assumption being that reasonable and unreasonable are actually able to be calculated [philosophically or otherwise] in regard to conflicting goods. But: I do concede that, sure, maybe there is an ideological or deontological truth regarding the truckers. Maybe what they did was objectively reasonable. All I can do, once again, is to raise my own objections to that given the assumption that we mere mortals live in a No God world. And that there are dozens and dozens of hopelessly conflicting secular Humanisms "out there" all insisting that their own arguments are proof enough regarding how all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think about the truckers.

I can't help it if some of them are pinheads like Pedro.

Pedro wrote:Life isn't easy, and most problems don't have simple solutions such that all reasonable people can be compelled to agree.

That's my point, of course. Only I wrap my own reactions to conflicting goods around dasein, culminating in this "general description intellectual contraption":

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.

Then I come to discussions like this and ask how and why others don't come to the same conclusion about their own value judgments.

GIVEN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT.

Of their own choosing I might add.

gib wrote: Right! This was the "life as tragedy" conclusion one can arrive at that Biggy, for some reason, couldn't accept.

Huh?

Life can be deemed tragic philosophically if one believes that his or her own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless; and destined for oblivion. Think, say, Antoine Roquentin. Someone, however, may believe that but the life they live is embedded in sets of circumstances that are bursting at the seams with fantastic, wonderful experiences. Or one can believe that life is the best of all possible worlds philosophically but comes to be embedded in sets of circumstances awash in "the agony of defeat", in numbing suffering and pain.

Each of us individually embodies our own existential combination of that, right? And then of course the God option.

gib wrote: He seems to recognize that both sides have reasonable arguments to offer but resists concluding on that note. He seems to still want to know, who's right and who's wrong. The tragedy of life is that both are right (or both are wrong) and therefore there is no way of satisfying everyone.

Note to the fulminating fanatic objectivists and pinheads here:

Is that true? Are both sides of the trucker protest and the abortion wars and the gun control conflagration right? They're right from their side, you're right from yours?

Is that how you view these things? Uh, like I do? Though for reasons not rooted in dasein?

Then [of course] straight back up into the didactic clouds:

Pedro wrote:Because a position that does consider the actual subject or situation would be clearly superior, a communist must pretend, at least to himself, that no man does this. That the only question any man can ever ask is what cause they will subordinate their thinking to.

And it's always his own pinhead rendition of the "communists" doing this.

gib wrote: Biggy has admit to being a former leftist, and there seem to be remnants of leftism within him, one of which most probably is one of the basic pillars of Marxism: that history is the story of class struggles, a perpetual dialectic of oppressed and oppressor. The oppressed will always rally to a cause, the aim of which is to overthrow the oppressors, and therefore will bring with them all the moral arguments in their arsenal. This is so basic to Marxism that Biggy, even after having disavowed leftism, probably still harbors this assumption without being fully conscious of it. He therefore cannot imagine someone not having a moral argument to back up whatever cause their prejudices push them to fight for or participate in.

Yeah, that's basically how my understanding of dasein works. When you spend over twenty years immersed existentially in leftist political activism, it becomes deeply embedded in "I". But at least I was able to recognize it as a political prejudice. Do the fulminating fanatic objectivists and pinheads here acknowledge the same regarding their own continuing arrogant, authoritarian dogmas?

Besides, it doesn't make the points that Marxist raise about such things as political economy go away. It doesn't make their arguments instantly unreasonable just because the pinheads here don't share them.

iambiguous wrote:Personally, deep down inside, I think he wants to go back to being a pinhead again himself.

gib wrote: Hey, I can go back to being a pinhead any time I want... and I do.

You want to be a pinhead again? Okay, may I offer you a suggestion?
Start here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=194822

gib wrote: I pride myself on being fluid--one day a pinhead, the next a gentleman and a scholar--better to be skilled at both than only one.

Sure, that works great here. But take that "fluidity" to the next trucker protest. See how they react to it.

gib wrote: And it's psychologically healthy too. You know that we all have our prejudices, even you--and those prejudices need a voice sometimes, need to be let out of their box--you should try it, it might do you some good.

Actually, what is deemed far more psychologically healthy for the fulminating fanatic objectivists and the pinheads here is them scowling at the scumbag, libtard, commies who dared to protest against the trucker protest itself.

Note to the fulminating fanatic objectivists and pinheads:

Explain that to him.

The trucker protest, abortion, gun control. Who are the "reasonable people" there? Let's start with your definition, okay?

gib wrote: I don't have a definition prepared and if I slapped one together it would be all too contrived. But I do have an intuitive feel for what is meant when someone talks about "reasonable people".

Exactly! What I construe to be this deep down inside me core self, real me -- the intrinsic I -- that those like MagsJ and Maia and others might construe "spiritually" as their Soul.

But, from my frame of mind that is all no less the embodiment of dasein out in the is/ought world.

On the other hand...

gib wrote: I've always thought that it would have to at least encompass two things: 1) the ability to be rational/use logic, and 2) a willingness to cooperate, to agree to abide by certain rules of discourse, to work something out together with the other.

...these intuitive feelings must still be rational and logical. Even though you seem to agree with me that this part of our professed convictions revolve more around the increasingly problematic [and often precarious] instability rooted existentially in dasein.

As for cooperating and abiding by shared rules, isn't that the whole point of embracing democracy and the rule of law: moderation, negotiation and compromise. Precisely what the fulminating fanatic objectivists and [especially] the pinheads detest.

iambiguous wrote:Come on, gib, how pathetic is someone who calls anyone who doesn't think exactly as he does about, to cite just one example, everything under the sun, a communist?

gib wrote: I don't think you're a communist. I think you tend to lean left despite your attempts to remain centered or unaligned (like me, except that I lean right).

Okay, then straight back to the conjecture that had our lives been different I would be leaning right and you would be leaning left. Then the part where there does not appear to be the definitive argument establishing that all rational men and women are obligated to lean one way or the other.

gib wrote: Who me? I cannot be the judge of that. "Pinhead" is your term. You must judge whether my grasp of dasein disqualifies me or not from being a pinhead.

Based on our discussion to date, you are clearly not a pinhead as "I" understand the meaning of the word -- subjectively, existentially -- in my head. Here and now. But how about a discussion there between you and him regarding your own understanding of dasein in regard to the trucker protest. Or better still that discussion right here...out of The Corner. Which from my frame of mind is the very heart and soul of the New "social media" ILP.

iambiguous wrote:Ah, of course! Brian!! Satyr's very own rendition of zoot allures.

Ichthus77 wrote:Satyr was Brian? hm. I doubt that. But what do I know?

gib wrote: I think he was saying Satyr referred to zoot allures as Brian. Am I right, Biggy?

Exactly! Further proof that you are not a pinhead!! Like her.

Maia wrote:In addition to the above referenced quotation regarding my opinion of what being a philosopher entails, which I do indeed stand by, as I have never claimed that revered title for myself...

gib wrote: I don't think we got exactly what you think being a philosopher entails, only that you weren't one.

I think Maia is "gone" again. And "I" think that revolves around her gifted intelligence. There is a part of her able to recognize that if she does sustain whatever each of us thinks a "philosopher" is here, she risks me deconstructing her own "intrinsic self". Her Goddess. Her spiritual font.

She insists that is not the case, however. And I'm the first to admit that may well be true. That, in fact, it is me who is unable to grasp her own more reasonable argument.

Thus, we can only respectfully agree to disagree about it. Or certainly respectfully from my end.

Maia wrote:....I feel compelled to add some context. In addition to the above referenced quotation regarding my opinion of what being a philosopher entails, which I do indeed stand by, as I have never claimed that revered title for myself...

iambiguous wrote:How on earth does that quote above entail what being a philosopher is or does?

gib wrote: Similar question from me... or rather, which quote?

This one here:

Oscar Wilde wrote:There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

That's the one I presumed she meant. But I have never read Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. So, I don't know the context in which he brought that observation up.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but I became aware of your presence at ILP on the thread revolving not around that but around Paganism. Then our own exchange commenced in regard to a thread revolving around dreams.

gib wrote: Did you ask her to put it in the context of the trucker protest?

Nope. Believe it or not, the trucker protest never came up. But that might have been because at the time of our truly amazing exchange -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=196919 -- Freedom Convoy hadn't even begun yet.

Maia wrote:Perhaps it's my fault for not expressing myself properly, but I want to assure you that nothing you have said has posed any sort of threat to my own way of thinking, and this has nothing at all to do with why I stopped posting here. The fact that you continue to apparently believe this effectively means that any further dialogue is pointless, because I'm just not getting across to you my actual thoughts and feelings.

gib wrote: I'd second that but I'm much too brutish to be that solicitous.

And here is what I posted above in regard to her observation. One of my own:

Again, fair enough. As I pointed out time and again, what can I really know about your life and how it came together to predispose you to think what you do. All I can do is to extrapolate from my many, many, many experiences with those who embodied one or another God or No God moral or political or philosophical or spiritual font. And, of course, remembering my own turbulent experiences in embodying them.

You would not likely use the word "predispose" however. You have other words. But that revolves around how we understand the meaning of dasein.

As with gib, you seemed willing to agree that had your life been very different, you might be here mocking Paganism. But, instead, you have this, what, visceral, intuitive "real me" core self -- soul? -- that you can fall back on to feel "whole"?

...that's the whole point of coming into venues like this. To explore the philosophies of those who do not feel "fractured and fragmented" when confronting things like the trucker protest or issues like abortion or gun control.

From my frame of mind, "soul-crushing" is synonymous with being "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world. She [like you] is not. But I still suspect there is a part of her that understood that she risked losing all the comfort and consolation that her own existential identity provides her. What if she does start to slip down into the hole "I" am in. What if you do?

Again: based on all of my many, many, many interactions with objectivists online going back 20 years now. Like you, she already recognizes that her thinking about things like Paganism and the trucker protest is basically just an existential contraption. What if her "intrinsic self" is too?

As for the points I raised with Zoot/Prom75 [who, by the way, still posts regularly here: https://forum.philosophynow.org/ ] let's go there.

iambiguous wrote: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.

gib wrote: That's me.

On the other hand, unlike most who abandon philosophy, you're still here in [what's left of] a philosophy forum.

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.

gib wrote: For some, that might bring them into philosophy.

Compelled to as it were?

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 [rooted in dasein] 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.

gib wrote: Are we still talking about possible reasons why some left ILP?

You brought up the points I raised with Zoot/Prom75, right? I was just pointing them out to MagsJ when she suggested some left ILP because of me.

iambiguous wrote:Mainly, I speculate that those like Only_Humean and Faust, who were often focused technically on logic and epistemology, might of had enough of me insisting that in regard to "I" in the is/ought world, their definitions and technical knowledge be brought down out of the didactic clouds and made applicable to that which is of most interest to me:

gib wrote: Knowing Faust, he would never have allowed a single individual to drive him away from a discussion forum. I think, like you, he saw ILP as a cesspool of pinheads and one day asked himself, "Why the hell am I hanging around with these depraved vermin?"

Well put.

Note to Faust: You're up!!

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 6#p2824896

iambiguous wrote:Well, that's the whole point of coming into venues like this. To explore the philosophies of those who do not feel "fractured and fragmented" when confronting things like the trucker protest or issues like abortion or gun control.

gib wrote: * COUGH * bull shit * COUGH *[/color]

Oh, sorry. I keep forgetting that you know me better than I know myself.

Or, if they are not successful in nudging me up out of the hole I have [philosophically and otherwise] dug for myself, they might be willing to come down into it with me.

gib wrote: Willing???

Yeah, assuming that we live in a free will corner of the universe. Only they have to be willing to sustain the discussion regarding these things with me. Maia is not.

But, again, that might revolve more around her assessment of "us" than mine. After all, she may well be thinking that it is me who is not "sophisticated" enough to grasp her point of view. And, no doubt about it, she might be right. But now we are "over". Her Soul is still intact.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, do you have one of those?

I win either way.

gib wrote: Well, as long as [i]you win.

Yeah, but only from my own existentially problematic and precarious point of view...and with the abyss [oblivion] getting closer and closer.

Now, admittedly, being down in the hole encompass a belief that your own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless; and that "I" tumbles over into the abyss that is oblivion. No getting around how glum that can be, right? On the other hand, if you are an objectivist on this side of the grave, all your options revolve around one or another equivalent of "what would Jesus do?"

There's right and wrong, good and bad. Depending on what particular "ism" you subscribe to. Always obligated to do the right thing. And how stifling that can be. Whereas with moral nihilism your options veritable explode. You won't find many moral nihilists willing to abstain from sex for years and years in deference to a Goddess. A Goddess that is mostly just a "construct" in your mind.

gib wrote: That really depends on what's driving you. Many gain a sense of deep fulfillment from living up to a moral standard--it's not always driven by guilt or shame; there's a great quote by Jordan Peterson that I've been searching for forever which goes something like this: "The mental state of the nihilist is not a kind of neutral apathy, it's unbearable suffering."

And how is all of this not embedded deeply in dasein? You know, for example, how we think about it?

Unbearable suffering?

Trust me: I don't care who you are, if the suffering gets unbearable enough you might well beg to die. And that doesn't exclude Peterson and his ilk, does it? What's that really got to do with nihilism?

Let's face it, the only cure for that is a leap of faith to or a wager made with one or another God. Or however it all works with spiritual paths like Buddhism and Paganism.

If I am recalling it correctly, Maia is not herself convinced that through Paganism and the Goddess, there is an afterlife for her. I forget how she addressed that. But one thing for sure it seems [to me]...

On this side of the grave, Paganism and the Goddess do provide her with just enough comfort and consolation to make the shithole that human existence can become bearable enough to sustain her.

Again, what I call the "psychology of objectivism" on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- but she doesn't.

So, I wonder if, instead, someone brought all of this to your attention...MagsJ? urwrong? turd?

Maia wrote:And yes, a friend of mine brought this thread to my attention.

gib wrote: Who, dammit, who?!?! We need to know!!!

Actually, I don't need to know myself but, sure, I'm curious. It's been months and months since she brought us Turd's objectivist missives. And urwrong? I can only hope that she has absolutely nothing to do with that sexual predator. He truly is a pinhead!!

So, I'm guessing MagsJ.

Note to MagsJ:

Fess up.

Note to Maia's friend if it's none of the above:

Please let her know that she is truly missed here at what's left of ILP. We want her back on a regular basis.

Well, I do anyway.
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

iambiguous wrote:So, I wonder if, instead, someone brought all of this to your attention...MagsJ? urwrong? turd?

Maia wrote:
And yes, a friend of mine brought this thread to my attention.

gib wrote:
Who, dammit, who?!?! We need to know!!!

So, I'm guessing MagsJ.

Note to MagsJ:

Fess up.

I have nothing to ‘Fess up’, for..

I didn’t know of any 'mentions' until Maia’s post appeared.. sorry to disappoint.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 25041
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

iambiguous wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Many left because of you too, I recall..

Obviously, we are both speculating on why others choose to leave ILP. Or do you have actual information from those who did leave indicating that they did indeed leave because of me.

..you were not the only one responsible for making others decide to leave ILP, so not that reflective of you per se, but of a statistical trend of that era.

I played up a lot back then, because of all that.. I can’t be bothered to, these last coupl’a years.. cracking jokes and irony, a necessary infrequent-must.

iambiguous wrote:And those that may have left because of me? Well, as I once speculated in an exchange with zoot allures/prom75, there might be three main reasons for that:

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.

Perhaps a case of ego being in play.

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.

Perhaps they should ease-up on the psychedelics then..

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 [rooted in dasein] 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.

That existential contraption being a paternoster-esque existence, it seems.

iambiguous wrote:Mainly, I speculate that those like Only_Humean and Faust, who were often focused technically on logic and epistemology, might of had enough of me insisting that in regard to "I" in the is/ought world, their definitions and technical knowledge be brought down out of the didactic clouds and made applicable to that which is of most interest to me:

"How [morally and politically] ought one to behave in a world awash in both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

Then this crucial aspect of the "human condition"

Connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

The whole point of this thread: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

Or those like uccisore who "blew up" at me because I kept shifting the discussions from his own self-righteous liberals vs. self-righteous conservatives battling it out, to an exploration into how we acquire our value judgments themselves: existentially through dasein.

The boards were quite intense back then, or so it would seem from this ^^^ recollection of your’s ..and therein the problematic-circumstances, may have lay.. one, not letting the other, move forward with their argument. Many were very good at doing that, I do recall.

Thing is.. they either denied that they were doing so, or didn’t realise that they were doing so. My jury’s still out, on that one.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 25041
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:With MagsJ and Maia, they can simply ignore the points I raise there and stick with, "I just know what I do about abortion and the covid pandemic and the role of government." It's their "intrinsic self" that becomes their own objectivist font of choice.

Having seen the way you misinterpret me, I'm starting to have my doubts this is true of them.

Mags, since your here, I'll take this opportunity to ask you: how would you describe your views in your own words? What kinds of arguments have you put to Biggy in your attempts to make yourself clear?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote:
gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:With MagsJ and Maia, they can simply ignore the points I raise there and stick with, "I just know what I do about abortion and the covid pandemic and the role of government." It's their "intrinsic self" that becomes their own objectivist font of choice.

Having seen the way you misinterpret me, I'm starting to have my doubts this is true of them.

Ya think!

..Iam is guilty, of the 'informal fallacy' of ‘moving the goalposts’ ..you answer, they move them, you answer, they move them again -ad infinitum- ..well, until you trap them into a corner or thwart their attempt at correcting you by spotlighting their burning error.

I can just picture iam sniggering in front of his screen, as they move the goalpost for yet another time..

My views on what? ..that’s quite a broad field of possibilities.

What kinds of arguments have you put to Biggy in your attempts to make yourself clear?

Here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598 and, here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... Patriarchy - don’t forget those shifting goalposts to look out for, won’t ya!
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.

MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek

Posts: 25041
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

MagsJ wrote: ..but I weren’t indoctrinated -when a child, by others- to understand the world around me as they did.

Right, when you were born you were immediately on your own. Or those that raised you waited until you were able to understand the language and then made it clear to you that you were completely capable of understanding and differentiating right from wrong and good from bad behavior yourself.

MagsJ wrote: Well.. my parents didn’t follow us around with a bible in one hand and a belt in the other, forcing their views and prejudices onto us. They were pretty lenient.. as long as I didn’t do anything 'wrong/counter to their values' of no lieing, stealing, or absconding with anyone, all of which I never did.. unlike my siblings, and only then would the Victorian values in them come out. I rarely ever got told off.

Okay, well put. Some children are raised considerably closer to the way in which most of us think about being indoctrinated. But even the word indoctrinated itself is tricky. After all, a parent can self-consciously attempt to instill precisely the same moral, political and spiritual values that they adhere to in their children. But their motivation is love. They genuinely believe that how they see the world around them, given all the various historical, cultural and interpersonal/experiential contexts, to be as all should construe it. And certainly their children. Did the Obama's indoctrinate their girls? Did the Trump's indoctrinate their boys and Ivanka?

On the other hand, is it just a coincidence if their children largely share their parents own sense of moral and political reality?

And, of course, what can I really know about your own childhood? How, perhaps, you construe it as now part of your "intrinsic self".

And then this part: What Victorian values? In regard to what set of circumstances? Lying in regard to what particular controversial issues of their day?

MagsJ wrote: So you think that values aren’t innate, that we are blank slates? Animals aren’t, but we are?

No, I think that nature and nurture are intertwined [in a free will world] in a profoundly problematic manner. Given any particular individual out in any particular world understood in any particular way. But: Show me someone who will argue that they can apprise us of where one ends and the other begins and I'll show you an objectivist. It's just that some here [and at KT] are so zealous in insisting that it can only be their own that to "me" they become pinheads. But you [and those like gib] are definitely not construed by me to be one of them.

Morality? politics? religion? cultural norms? They were firm: Whatever as a child you came independently to think was reasonable and virtuous was okay with them.

MagsJ wrote: Sure, all the above was discussed.. over the dinner table or around the TV, but it was a discussion not a diktat, so more expectation of us upholding societal etiquette than having to do and think their way.

Then your parents were the best in my view. On the other hand, to what extent are they the exception? With my own daughter admittedly [as I recall], it started out with me still being a hardcore objectivist. And I'm sure that, in some respects, like the father in E. L. Doctorow's The Book of Daniel, I was like Julius Rosenberg hammering into her head the evils of capitalism. But, as I came to abandon objectivism, that all changed. I shifted gears to reminding her that she wasn't me. That she would come to acquire her own existential point of view about many things.

MagsJ wrote: I played, I ate, I read, I drank copious amounts of tea, I went to church, I did my chores.. and then school happened and that’s when my mind got crammed with an ideology.. the education systems’ ideologies, of which my mother had prepared me for but I didn’t want to go, but had to..

Here though, from my frame of mind, we need a context. Ideology in regard to what issue? Given what set of circumstances? The part where your mother comes to an end and an independent you begins.

Then, of course, the part where you discovered your "intrinsic self".

MagsJ wrote: The intrinsic 'I' is not discovered, but evolves..

Yes, evolves out in a particular world that you have come to understand in a particular way...existentially, subjectively. A world ever and always awash in contingency, chance and change. A world such that no one really knows if a new experience, relationship or access to information and knowledge might take them in an entirely new direction.

Thus [for me] this crucial point:

Then anyone who does not share your own moral and political convictions is stopped dead in their tracks. After all, if your "intrinsic self" is in command what can others do but to acknowledge that they're not you. And that it will be futile to try to broach their own political prejudices. To discuss and debate them with you.

MagsJ wrote: I have no qualms.. in regard to having such discussions, but I am not up for having my mind changed.. something of which my own parents rarely 'went there' with.

Okay, but others might have qualms when confronted with something in the vicinity of "I just know intuitively, viscerally what I think and believe about the trucker protest, about government, about the covid pandemic."

Again, they are not you. So how on earth would they -- could they -- effectively continue the exchange?

MagsJ wrote: I’ve not tried to take away your views from you or deny you them, but to keep and hold onto mine.

True, but my point is that "I" don't go after the convictions of others as the objectivists do because I have come to conclude that my opinions here are no less moral and political prejudices [rooted existentially in dasein] than theirs. So, the thing I'm unclear about in regard to your own convictions is this: where does the "intrinsic self" end and "objectivism" begin?

Then this part:

Again, that's basically what the objectivists can throw back at me: dasein, dasein, dasein.

Only my own "by default" assumptions fracture and fragment "me". While yours anchor you to the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

MagsJ wrote: Everyone is going to have an opinion on societal matters, but not to the extent that you do, in becoming fractured and fragmented.. what’s in it for you in becoming so? how does it benefit you?

First of all, when I am told things like this, the first thing that almost always pops into my head is that there are those convinced that philosophy -- the search for wisdom -- revolves not around what seems reasonable to me here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...but what I "get" out of thinking as I do. It's like they're thinking to themselves, "if I thought like that it would be terrible."

As though someone like Nietzsche should have asked himself, "wouldn't the consequences of a No God world precipitate nihilism...and wouldn't nihilism then precipitate a world where 'in the absence of God all things are permitted'"?

So, philosophically, there must be a God? As though the whole point of philosophy was that wisdom should, in the end, revolve around something that comforts and consoles you...rather than what you honestly, introspectively have come to think about the "human condition" in a No God world?

"Now, let me explain to Biggy why I don't think like he does".

iambiguous wrote:Then the points I note in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

All the stuff that gib and I at length, substantively have been exploring on this thread.

On the other hand, the irony here from my frame of mind, is that in some respects, your intrinsic self and gib's emotions and my dasein all serve to anchor "I" to a point of departure in our exchanges with others. We all fall back on our assessment of them as the starting point in discussions of "I" in the is/ought world.

Only [in my opinion] you two use your own "by default" assumptions to bring the world around to your own objectivist moral and political assessment of things like government health care policy pertaining to the covid pandemic. Whereas dasein is construed by me as an assumption that precipitates my own far more "fractured and fragmented" moral and political perspectives.

MagsJ wrote: Everyone is going to have an opinion on societal matters, We arrive at what we arrive at, by the means that we have at our disposal.. all's being by way of differing means, ergo.. qualia.

"Qualia: In philosophy of mind, qualia are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience."

Exactly! Individual. Instances. Of. Subjective. Conscious. Experience.

Dasein in a nutshell. As I explore on this thread over at PN:

https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 23&t=35489

Qualia pertaining to this:

1] the extent to which a philosopher can actually demonstrate that what he or she thinks or believes is true "in their head", all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are categorically and imperatively obligated to think and to believe is true in turn

2] the extent to which what a philosopher thinks or believes is true "in their head" is derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of human identity -- dasein -- in the is/ought world, or thoughts and beliefs that can in fact be established and confirmed to be true objectively for all of us in the either/or world

MagsJ wrote: Over-thinking everything? or so it seems like you are, to me.. surely every situation can’t always be that dire, to warrant you to go through those 'thinking' motions, every single time? or perhaps it is us, that are being too blasé here..

iambiguous wrote: Who argues that every situation is dire? Instead, gib and I are discussing situations like the trucker protest where the truckers themselves certainly deemed it to be dire enough to do what they did.

So, how does "over-thinking" work here? If someone doesn't share your own or gib's own "intuitive" or "emotional" reaction to the protest they are over-thinking it? And for gib, thinking itself is, as for me, rooted in dasein such that you really can't trust what you think about it anyway.

MagsJ wrote: I don’t take issue with your discussional stance, you seem to be taking issue with mine, in that it is too blasé to be of substance.. like I don’t take into consideration the consequence of chance and change, but I do.

..though I could be completely wrong. lol

Again: It's not gib's stance or my stance or your stance on the trucker protest that most intrigues me. It's in how each of us comes existentially to acquire one stance rather than another.

Now, gib seems to more or less agree with me that his cognitive stance on the protest is largely rooted in dasein. And, thus, had his life been different he might have come to think about the protest differently as well. How about you? Same thing?

On the other hand, I construe his own rendition of an "intrinsic self"...his emotional reaction to the protest...as basically, for all practical purposes, the same thing. He wants the protest to succeed because he feels that it ought to.

Then back to how I am more inclined to intertwine thinking and feeling and wanting subjectively, existentially in dasein. Out in a particular world historically, culturally and in terms of our uniquely personal experiences.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

MagsJ wrote:Ya think!

Just a bit.

MagsJ wrote:..Iam is guilty, of the 'informal fallacy' of ‘moving the goalposts’ What I call segues, often very subtle..you answer, they move them, you answer, they move them again -ad infinitum- ..well, until you trap them into a corner or thwart their attempt at correcting you by spotlighting their burning error.

I've noticed the same with Biggy. If he doesn't want to address your point, he'll segue to the next closest thing (usually a slightly different context). This is especially true if you make a good point that would otherwise stump him--he'll never concede but segue into a tangent closely resembling the one you're on... and then blame you for not staying on topic.

My views on what? ..

Oh, you know, the usual topics that Biggy likes to get into. Specifically, with respect to the quote above, we were talking about Biggy's "I" and why it is "fractured and fragmented" while mine is not. Then he brings up you and Maia, comparing my take on the subject with yours, recounting your views as saying that you have this "intrinsic self" and that you "just know" moral right from wrong--which, according to him--is the only thing keeping your "intrinsic self" from fracturing and fragmenting.

Do you recall ever having a conversation with Biggy in which you described your "I" as an "intrinsic self"? Do you, Mags, "just know" moral right from wrong?

MagsJ wrote:Here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598 and, here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... Patriarchy - don’t forget those shifting goalposts to look out for, won’t ya!

Much appreciated, Mags, but I really can't read all that. I'm getting older and my death is fast approaching--roughly 40 more years to go--so I need to make as much of my time as I can. Getting a Coles Notes version of your arguments with Biggy would mean getting more done in my life before I die--or as Biggy would say, tumbling over into the abyss.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

MagsJ wrote:..Iam is guilty, of the 'informal fallacy' of ‘moving the goalposts’ What I call segues, often very subtle..you answer, they move them, you answer, they move them again -ad infinitum- ..well, until you trap them into a corner or thwart their attempt at correcting you by spotlighting their burning error.

gib wrote:I've noticed the same with Biggy. If he doesn't want to address your point, he'll segue to the next closest thing (usually a slightly different context). This is especially true if you make a good point that would otherwise stump him--he'll never concede but segue into a tangent closely resembling the one you're on... and then blame you for not staying on topic.

New challenge...

We choose a new context in which conflicting goods abound...one that has been in the news of late. We exchange our own moral and political reactions to it given what we construe to be the reasons why we react to it as we do and not another way.

Then, as the exchange unfolds, you can both note actual specific instances of me doing this.

So, you two pick the moral/political conflagration. How about we take it to a new thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

gib wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Ya think!

Just a bit.

MagsJ wrote:..Iam is guilty, of the 'informal fallacy' of ‘moving the goalposts’ What I call segues, often very subtle..you answer, they move them, you answer, they move them again -ad infinitum- ..well, until you trap them into a corner or thwart their attempt at correcting you by spotlighting their burning error.

I've noticed the same with Biggy. If he doesn't want to address your point, he'll segue to the next closest thing (usually a slightly different context). This is especially true if you make a good point that would otherwise stump him--he'll never concede but segue into a tangent closely resembling the one you're on... and then blame you for not staying on topic.

My views on what? ..

Oh, you know, the usual topics that Biggy likes to get into. Specifically, with respect to the quote above, we were talking about Biggy's "I" and why it is "fractured and fragmented" while mine is not. Then he brings up you and Maia, comparing my take on the subject with yours, recounting your views as saying that you have this "intrinsic self" and that you "just know" moral right from wrong--which, according to him--is the only thing keeping your "intrinsic self" from fracturing and fragmenting.

Do you recall ever having a conversation with Biggy in which you described your "I" as an "intrinsic self"? Do you, Mags, "just know" moral right from wrong?

MagsJ wrote:Here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197598 and, here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... Patriarchy - don’t forget those shifting goalposts to look out for, won’t ya!

Much appreciated, Mags, but I really can't read all that. I'm getting older and my death is fast approaching--roughly 40 more years to go--so I need to make as much of my time as I can. Getting a Coles Notes version of your arguments with Biggy would mean getting more done in my life before I die--or as Biggy would say, tumbling over into the abyss.

+++Do you recall ever having a conversation with Biggy in which you described your "I" as an "intrinsic self"? Do you, Mags, "just know" moral right from wrong?

I have never described my "I" as an "intrinsic self" either with those exact words or any other form of words. Indeed, I could never have done so, as I don't actually know what they mean. I draw no distinction between myself, and any putative "intrinsic self".

As for "just knowing" moral right from wrong this is complete rubbish, and possibly, I suspect, deliberately obtuse, so as to provoke a response.

So, when Iambiguous wrote:
+++But, in my view, there are lots of ways to be blind. And "I" try to examine as many of them as I can.+++

I have no choice but to retort that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

The Golden Rule is found in every major culture in history, but unlike empathy, which we “just know” (but which can be stunted), we arrive at it. It’s like how we “just know” math at certain levels of brain development if we are not kept in a deprivation chamber, but we can arrive at higher/deeper knowledge through willful exploration. Some folks arrive at the same solution using different paths, but it’s the same solution—describing the same thing. That’s why you don’t have to “feel” to practice the Golden Rule. Sometimes feeling even gets in the way.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

Ichthus77
ILP Legend

Posts: 6029
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Do you recall ever having a conversation with Biggy in which you described your "I" as an "intrinsic self"? Do you, Mags, "just know" moral right from wrong?

Maia wrote: I have never described my "I" as an "intrinsic self" either with those exact words or any other form of words. Indeed, I could never have done so, as I don't actually know what they mean. I draw no distinction between myself, and any putative "intrinsic self".

It was Mags who used "intrinsic self" to connect the dots between "I" and her own moral and political value judgments. In the links she provided gib above.

But how else would Maia describe her own? Just as gib agreed with me that had his life been different, he might be here arguing against the trucker protest, she agreed with me that had her life been different, she might be here arguing against Paganism and the Goddess. Not believing in them at all.

Okay, if she believes that, what then explains how she can still believe in them today anyway? From my frame of mind, there must be something construed by her to be deep down inside herself -- a core self, a real me, a soul -- that transcends dasein.

But [from my own subjective perspective]: the more we pursued this the more she seemed to back away from the exchange. The part that to "me", she would describe as "soul-crushing".

Again, however, since I had great respect for her intelligence, her curiosity, and her capacity to articulate her point of view, of course I was interested in exploring the extent to which her own frame of mind might perhaps nudge me away from mine. And, yes, I speculated that she was backing away because a part of her -- subconsciously? -- was concerned that I might end up nudging her down into the hole with me instead. And thus taking away from her the comfort and the consolation that believing in Paganism and the Goddess provide her.

To the best of my recollection, Maia described her own value judgments as revolving around an "intuitive" or "spiritual" self. Which, to me, is no less the existential embodment of dasein than gib's emotions.

Maia wrote: As for "just knowing" moral right from wrong this is complete rubbish, and possibly, I suspect, deliberately obtuse, so as to provoke a response.

Look, if she agrees that her thinking -- commitment? -- in regard to Paganism and the Goddess is rooted subjectively, existentially, experientially in dasein, then what part of her is able to make a commitment to, for example, abstaining from sex for years and years. Wouldn't she admit that had her life been different she would never make such a commitment with respect to a bodily function that couldn't possibly be more natural. It's sex after all as Satyr would remind us that reproduces the species itself.

Maia wrote: So, when Iambiguous wrote:
But, in my view, there are lots of ways to be blind. And "I" try to examine as many of them as I can.

Maia wrote: I have no choice but to retort that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Back to this:

Gib sees the trucker protest. Not in terms of his literal vision but in terms of his moral and political reaction to it. But then he pulls back and acknowledges that had his life been different, his moral and political vision might be more in sync with Peter Kropotkin's and Sculptor's and the other liberals here.

Maia sees Paganism and the Goddess. Not in terms of her literal vision because, unlike gib, she has none. Instead, in terms of her moral and political reaction to them. But then she too pulls back and acknowledges that had her life been different, her moral and political vision might be more in sync with mine and Sculptor's and the other atheists at ILP.

What am I missing here?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

+++What am I missing here?+++

You're not missing anything. You are absolutely correct to say that I fully accept that had my life been different, my views and belief systems would have been different.

Where we differ, therefore, is that what you regard as a profound insight into reality, I regard as a trivially banal truism.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

What am I missing here?

Maia wrote: You're not missing anything. You are absolutely correct to say that I fully accept that had my life been different, my views and belief systems would have been different.

Where we differ, therefore, is that what you regard as a profound insight into reality, I regard as a trivially banal truism.

Now this is typical. I respond to her in whole paragraphs. She "snips" a single line from my post instead.

Again, though, flat out admitting that her belief regarding Paganism and the Goddess is an existential contraption given the particular trajectory of experiences and relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that unfolded in her lived life.

But...

How on earth is this...

"Where we differ, therefore, is that what you regard as a profound insight into reality, I regard as a trivially banal truism."

...to be understood for all practical purposes? She gives up sex for years and years as a sacrifice to the Goddess and admits that her life could have been different such that she would be here instead ridiculing such a choice. Instead, she might have been an enthusiastic adherent of sexual abandon as the Pagans are portrayed in The Wicker Man.

Her lived life might have predisposed her existentially to believe in nihilism or Communism or fascism or Christianity or Satanism or the philosophy of a sociopath...but she regards that as a "trivially banal truism".

Note to others:

You tell me what you think I am missing here?

And this doesn't surprise me either.

Back again to this:

But how else would Maia describe her own? Just as gib agreed with me that had his life been different, he might be here arguing against the trucker protest, she agreed with me that had her life been different, she might be here arguing against Paganism and the Goddess. Not believing in them at all.

Okay, if she believes that, what then explains how she can still believe in them today anyway? From my frame of mind, there must be something construed by her to be deep down inside herself -- a core self, a real me, a soul -- that transcends dasein.

But [from my own subjective perspective]: the more we pursued this the more she seemed to back away from the exchange. The part that to "me", she would describe as "soul-crushing".

"I" speculate that there is a part of her that is intent on sustaining the comfort and the consolation that her commitment to Paganism and the Goddess provide her. And another part of her that suspects all of that is put at risk when the exchange does revolve around philosophy as a potential "soul-crusher".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

iambiguous wrote:
What am I missing here?

Maia wrote: You're not missing anything. You are absolutely correct to say that I fully accept that had my life been different, my views and belief systems would have been different.

Where we differ, therefore, is that what you regard as a profound insight into reality, I regard as a trivially banal truism.

Now this is typical. I respond to her in whole paragraphs. She "snips" a single line from my post instead.

Again, though, flat out admitting that her belief regarding Paganism and the Goddess is an existential contraption given the particular trajectory of experiences and relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that unfolded in her lived life.

But...

How on earth is this...

"Where we differ, therefore, is that what you regard as a profound insight into reality, I regard as a trivially banal truism."

...to be understood for all practical purposes? She gives up sex for years and years as a sacrifice to the Goddess and admits that her life could have been different such that she would be here instead ridiculing such a choice. Instead, she might have been an enthusiastic adherent of sexual abandon as the Pagans are portrayed in The Wicker Man.

Her lived life might have predisposed her existentially to believe in nihilism or Communism or fascism or Christianity or Satanism or the philosophy of a sociopath...but she regards that as a "trivially banal truism".

Note to others:

You tell me what you think I am missing here?

And this doesn't surprise me either.

Back again to this:

But how else would Maia describe her own? Just as gib agreed with me that had his life been different, he might be here arguing against the trucker protest, she agreed with me that had her life been different, she might be here arguing against Paganism and the Goddess. Not believing in them at all.

Okay, if she believes that, what then explains how she can still believe in them today anyway? From my frame of mind, there must be something construed by her to be deep down inside herself -- a core self, a real me, a soul -- that transcends dasein.

But [from my own subjective perspective]: the more we pursued this the more she seemed to back away from the exchange. The part that to "me", she would describe as "soul-crushing".

"I" speculate that there is a part of her that is intent on sustaining the comfort and the consolation that her commitment to Paganism and the Goddess provide her. And another part of her that suspects all of that is put at risk when the exchange does revolve around philosophy as a potential "soul-crusher".

Tedium is the only thing that I described as soul crushing, the tedium of having to repeat myself over and over again in answer to exactly the same questions.

Let me state it for you once more. Nothing you have said has in any way changed my opinions on anything, and frankly, the suggestion that it might is rather insulting, to be honest. What it tells me is that you simply haven't been listening to a word I've been saying.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

Maia wrote:Tedium is the only thing that I described as soul crushing, the tedium of having to repeat myself over and over again in answer to exactly the same questions.

Okay, but my recollection was that you stopped posting at ILP and KT because you discovered that you were not a philosopher and that the exchanges here and there were "soul-crushing".

But: If I am misremembering this then, sure, I'm wrong.

In any event, let's just agree to disagree that you are actually attempting at length/in depth to respond to my points above.

Maia wrote:Let me state it for you once more. Nothing you have said has in any way changed my opinions on anything, and frankly, the suggestion that it might is rather insulting, to be honest. What it tells me is that you simply haven't been listening to a word I've been saying.

Note to others:

Decide for yourselves if her reaction to this...

But how else would Maia describe her own? Just as gib agreed with me that had his life been different, he might be here arguing against the trucker protest, she agreed with me that had her life been different, she might be here arguing against Paganism and the Goddess. Not believing in them at all.

Okay, if she believes that, what then explains how she can still believe in them today anyway? From my frame of mind, there must be something construed by her to be deep down inside herself -- a core self, a real me, a soul -- that transcends dasein.

...comes even close to an Indepth and substantive answer.

Oh, and does anyone else here imagine that had you lived your life differently and been predisposed existentially to embrace nihilism or Communism or fascism or Christianity or Satanism or the philosophy of a sociopath instead, that would be construed by you to be just a "trivially banal truism".

I have to be missing something really, really important to believe that someone who worships and adores Donald Trump could admit to himself or herself that had their life been different they might be here reacting to him as, say, Peter does. That's a "trivially banal truism"?!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

### Re: Hey Biggy, we GOT a context!!!

+++In any event, let's just agree to disagree that you are actually attempting at length/in depth to respond to my points above.+++

Having tried it before, to no avail, I'm not, in fact, attempting an in depth response to your points. So we appear to be in agreement, yet again.

If you care to go back over that long conversation we had last year, when I was under the impression that you were interested in my thoughts and feelings for their own sake, rather than simply to use as ammunition to try and undermine them, then you'll find all the answers you need as to what I think and believe, and why. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Maia
Philosopher

Posts: 3649
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users