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!!!

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:17 pm

Pretending to rip each other’s masks off, are we? Save me a piece o’ that corn for later!
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

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6143
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:Exactly! Confusion, ambiguity, ambivalence, uncertainty and the like goes with the territory when you think as "I" do.


gib wrote: This is why I suspect you suffer a cognitive disorder.


One possible translation: "You don't think about these things as I do."

What on earth do you suppose I am trying to convey here when I connect the dots between dasein and having "fractured and fragmented" value judgments. Again, that you are not fractured and fragmented in turn is still the part that escapes me. From my frame of mind your frame of mind seems analogous to MagsJ and Maia's "intrinsic self". You "just know" what you do about what you "feel" and "want" in regard to the truckers.


gib wrote: I should hope I know what I feel and want.


That's not the point [mine]: that what you feel and want are no less derived existentially from dasein.

Even while seeming to acknowledge that had you lived a very different life, you would "just know" that you "feel" you don't support them.


gib wrote: To say I know X is right is one thing. It's another to say I know what I feel. Of course, I know what I feel. I should hope everyone does. And if my life had been different, of course I would feel different, and I would know I feel different. What's the problem?


Again, with most objectivists here [and especially the pinheads] I suspect that how they think about the trucker protest is in the general vicinity of how they feel about it. Both of which are, in turn, in the general vicinity of what they wanted the outcome of the protest to be.

Go ahead, ask them.

In fact, in a recent email exchange with Maia she explained why she does not post here anymore: "I just found the whole thing soul-crushingly tedious in the end, to be honest. ILP, Know Thyself, and whatever. I might be many things, but a philosopher isn't one of them."


gib wrote: What, so feeling things now disqualifies you as a philosopher?


Note something I have posted here that would indicate that. We are hard-wired to think and to feel and to want things. But in regard to things like the covid pandemic and government healthcare policies this often precipitates [at times] fierce conflicts.

So, is there a way to determine the optimal manner in which to think and to feel and to want things when confronting these conflagrations? Is there a way to demonstrate that our thoughts here are different from our emotions and our wants?

Note to others:

Anyone here also experience a big gap between what you think about your moral and political convictions and what you feel? Such that you find yourself thinking one thing but feeling and wanting other things altogether?

I have my take on that but my take still alienates her. The exchange didn't last because [in my view] she recognizes my own philosophy for the threat it is. Though she disagrees and I certainly respect her own take on my take.


gib wrote: Yes, arguing with you is soul-crushingly tedious.


Try this:

1] you come here and note a post from me
2] you think to yourself, "there's that tedious soul-crushing* moral nihilist again!"
3] you refuse to read the post and instead move on to others.

Let me know that works for you.

* soul-crushing is just how Maia put it. She might not make this distinction between thinking and feeling as you do, but she clings to this "intrinsic" part of herself that can never be "fractured and fragmented". Just as you do. She pulled away from me so as to make sure that I did not [eventually] crush her "spiritual" soul.

You know, if "I" do say so myself.

iambiguous wrote:Again the question: "do you rise above your own hard wiring?"

In regard to what? the trucker protest? the morality of abortion? the right to bear arms? What does it even mean here to understand the role that our "hard-wiring" plays in our reactions to them? I must still be misunderstanding your point.


gib wrote: Again, you should know the answer to these question. You were the one who brought up our hard-wiring. In regards to what were you saying we are hard-wired?


Quite the contrary, my point is that biologically/genetically [in a free will world] we come into this world hard-wired just like all the other animals. But, unlike them, childhood indoctrination/memes/history/culture/personal experiences etc., create an entirely more complex sense of reality. That's why different people answer those questions differently. Now, you seem to grasp that in terms of how we think through our answers. Only you, being an "anomaly", are content to accept that your feelings and your wants are all that need matter in order to keep your precious objectivist Self intact in supporting the truckers. I root that in the "psychology of objectivism". You don't.

iambiguous wrote:I flat out acknowledge "over and again" that my own value judgments are no less rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.


That's meaningless unless you back it up with action. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?


This is precisely the sort of thing I'd expect from the pinheads...who have now taken over the thread. Though you do note below that you will, what, now be abandoning the thread and joining them?

I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.

Enough walking for you?

That my reaction to the trucker protest is but a political prejudice rooted in turn in over two-decades as a radical leftist. In my view, I'd be a hypocrite if, in acknowledging this, I still insisted that the trucker protest reflected only the way in which "I" think and feel about it. And that if others wish to be rational in turn, they are obligated to think the same way.


gib wrote: Yes, you would be a hypocrite if you did that. But that's not the only way to be a hypocrite. I'm pointing out another. Accusing others of doing the same without leveling those same accusations at yourself is another.


Huh? Where am I doing that? Believing that their own value judgments are rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein? I'd only be a hypocrite here if I insisted that they must believe that too.

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

You explain it to me. I have never argued that we are hard-wired to arrive at particular value judgments...only that we seem hard-wired to reduce the world down to rational/irrational, moral/immoral answers. For most culminating in God. Though for others in God's secular equivalents: ideology, idealism, deontology, assessments of Nature.

The objectivists from my frame of mind.

I can only assume I am not really understanding his point. So, maybe you do.


gib wrote: Note to others:

Notice how he uses this irrelevant minutiae to dodge the point I was making. He still refuses to apply the question to himself. As much as he claims to apply his own philosophy to himself, he will never ask himself--why your philosophy and not someone else's?--because then the answer can be applied to me (or whoever he's debating with) and I become no longer a fanatical fulminating objectivist pinhead.


The answer is applicable to everyone, in my opinion. Only I have no capacity to demonstrate that beyond my own subjective/existential assumptions. Same with "fulminating fanatic objectivist pinheads". What on earth does that mean other than what it has come to mean to me subjectively/existentially in my head? It's not like I turn to the philosophers or the scientists and ask them for the definitive argument establishing it as either objectively true or false.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, and Jim thinks it's right to eat the eggs.


Or he doesn't care.


Right, like what he doesn't care about is not, in turn, rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein.

You think he's right relative to his own ideology. But like me you note that had his life been very different he might have thought it was wrong. That's my point. Right and wrong here predicated not on objective morality but on the subjective morality we acquire existentially.


gib wrote: And why do you have a problem with morality predicated on subjectivity and acquired existentially?


Because that is what predisposed me toward being "fractured and fragmented" in the world of conflicting value judgments. I don't have your mystical "emotions" and "wants" to obviate that. I don't have the pinheads arrogant, authoritarian "my way or the highway" mentality.

gib wrote:She wants it too, eh? Glad we added that.


iambiguous wrote:Sure. For those of us who are not anomalies here, when we think something is wrong and we feel something is wrong, we usually want others to stop doing it.


gib wrote: Ok, well... you own that.


And that means what exactly?

Dasein down to the bone. Why? Because had Jean's life been very different, she might be eating the eggs herself.


gib wrote: Still waiting for you to make your point.


iambiguous wrote:Still waiting for you to explain how on earth you believe that I have not made it here in regard to questions asked and answers given re the either/or world and the is/ought world.


]The problem with you is that you're confusing AF and full of contradictions. How am I supposed to get a clear and well defined point from anything you say.


Note to others:

Give it a shot: what does his point have to do with mine regarding the distinction between Jim eating four eggs and Jim defending it as both rationally and morally sound.

There's nothing wholly subjective about someone eating 4 eggs. They either did or they didn't. But where is the wholly objective answer regarding whether human beings ought to eat eggs?


gib wrote: Beats me. Let me know when you find it.


Once again, reduced down to flippancy.


Note to others:

Trust me on this: the moral and political conflagration revolving around eating eggs does not pertain to the number of eggs people eat, but on whether eating eggs itself is right or wrong behavior.

Now, gib, supposedly, will agree with me that if he does eats eggs, a life lived very differently from the one he did might have resulted in his thinking that eating eggs was wrong. Maybe the woman who didn't show up above might have persuaded him not to.

Be that as it may, however, he might still feel that eating eggs is okay and still want to.

You ask him to explain that better.

iambiguous wrote:Right. Like both sides here in regard to the role of government pertaining to health care policies effecting citizens don't have access to a set of facts that they claim backs up their own political prejudices. As though arguments and "the facts" are only out of whack for the other side.


gib wrote: Huh? Where have you been living the past 20 years? On an Amish commune? Have you seriously never noticed how each side presents facts (or "facts") that contradict the facts of the other side?


That's precisely my point!! And lo and behold! Both sides insist that only their set of facts really count.

gib wrote: Or wait... unless you're saying that because I don't know whose facts to believe, that means I think the pro-trucker arguments are right.


What difference does that make? What you think about the facts still pales next to how you feel about them. Right?

gib wrote:On a first reading, these seem to be in contradiction, but I think it's fair to assume that by the first one you're contrasting your leftist feelings (from whatever's left of your leftist points of view) about the trucker protest against your nihilist thoughts on dasein (which tell you you shouldn't have any feelings about the trucker protest, leftist or rightist). Or maybe visa-versa (i.e. your nihilist feelings about dasein contrasted with your leftist thoughts on the truckers). But by the second, you must mean your thoughts on dasein are aligned with your feelings on dasein. Or maybe your leftist thoughts on the truckers are aligned with your leftist feelings on the truckers. Or maybe both. Is any of this remotely correct?


Yes, I'm "fractured and fragmented" about being "fractured and fragmented" too. At times, I'm closer to feeling hopelessly drawn and quartered. Why? Because I think that both sides have crucial points to make. But, other times, I seem able to feel much more adamant about one point of view. Why? Because "in the moment" the arguments of one side strike me as more rational. Perhaps because of an experience I have, or something I read or something I hear on the news.


gib wrote: Let's just leave it at that before you change your mind.


But that's my point. Given how I think about my own value judgments, any new experience, relationship or access to new information and knowledge, might result in my changing my mind. As I noted above. It's the objectivists among us [especially the pinheads] that almost never do. Hell, you may be lucky enough to take your own objectivists emotions and wants to the grave with you.

Well, if you steer clear of me, anyway.

iambiguous wrote:Back to how we think this through differently. The moral conclusion to draw here [mine] is that liking/wanting the truckers to either win or lose is largely dependent on the experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that predispose us existentially to want them to either win or lose.


gib wrote:How is this a moral conclusion?


It is [to me] in how I connect the dots between dasein and moral convictions themselves. You live one life that existentially predisposes you to argue their protest is a just cause or you live another life altogether predisposing you existentially to argue their protest is an unjust cause.


gib wrote: So then, back to what I said:


gib wrote:if all I can conclude from the above is that I’d like to see the truckers win (which is just an either/or fact), how is that so incompatible with admitting that had my life been different I might be here thinking and feeling and wanting just the opposite? Without drawing any moral conclusions here (which seems to be your handicap), it’s all comfortably within the realm of either/or.


gib wrote: Where's the moral element in this? (hint: my point is that there isn't one)


Again, we think about morality intertwined existentially in dasein differently. That you want to see the truckers win because you feel it...yes, that can in fact be true, sure. As though [for most] that can somehow be separate and distinct from what you think about their protest politically. As you note, though, you are the "anomaly" here. Most of us [and especially the objectivists//pinheads] feel and want the truckers to win because they think that they ought to.

Note to the objectivists and pinheads:

How many of you felt and wanted the truckers to win but thought that they shouldn't? How many of you will admit that had your life been very different you might instead be here arguing against the truckers?

iambiguous wrote:Why do you suppose philosophy was invented in the first place? In order to take things like that into account and come up with the optimal or the only rational ethical assessment instead. The "wisest" "philosophy of life".


gib wrote: Philosophy wasn't "invented". Humans have been doing philosophy ever since they could think. We do philosophy because we like thinking. We like to figure things out in our head, and some of us go so far as to take it several degrees into abstraction and come out with new insights to suit our purposes. Sometimes that turns out to be moral philosophy or simply justifications for our cause, but it certainly isn't the raison d'etre of philosophy.


Invented, discovered, stumbled upon historically and culturally, built into us genetically...call it what you will. When it comes down to conflicting goods, it still comes down [in any particular community] to one or another combination of make makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. Well, taking into account political economy of course.

As for that "general description intellectual contraption" philosophy you speak of here, well, we'll need a context of course.

And, for me, taking dasein into account in a way quite different from how you do.

iambiguous wrote:If it's not illogical why would it be odd?


gib wrote: Because things can be odd to say without being illogical.


Okay, if you change your mind, move on to part two above and then to this post, note some instances of that in regard to your reaction to the trucker protest.

gib wrote: I once tried to strike up a conversation with a girl I liked once so I said "you're tall." It was definitely an odd thing to say--awkward and embarrassing--but certainly not illogical--she was tall.


Well, that's an either/or world context. On the other hand, suppose you told her to beat it because you think tall girls are always irrational. You know that had your life been different you might have thought that it was short girls who were irrational. But you just feel what you do. And that's what makes things true for you.

Imagine her reaction to that? The same or different than mine?

iambiguous wrote:Just imagine their reaction to you if you said it. Wouldn't it basically be the reaction I get from the pinheads here? I'm not questioning what they believe so much as how they came about believing one thing rather than another. I'm questioning the very nature of identity itself in the is/ought world. That is what perturbs the objectivists the most. Me introducing them to a "fractured and fragmented" self. What if they start to construe their own "I" in that manner?


gib wrote: This is the part of your philosophy I understand all too well.


Just not enough to remind yourself that one day it might be your own as well. Unless, of course, you walk away from my arguments altogether.

The [objectivists and pinheads] want to win because most of them dismiss all that existential "dasein stuff" completely and insist it is both rational and virtuous that they do win.


gib wrote: Right, and thank God I'm not in a situation where I would be compelled to say that. But the way I read that bizarre quote above is like this: "Look, I want you guys to win, but please understand that had I been raised a leftist, I'd (probably) want you to lose." I'd expect they'd think that was obvious (though still weird to say).


No, I suspect most of the pinheads would be completely uninterested in that "philosophical" stuff. You either think and feel they ought to win and want them to or you are "one of them"...the libtard/commie scumbags.

Again, go ahead, ask them.

iambiguous wrote:What's bizarre about it? You agree that you might think the opposite of what you do now had your experiences predisposed you to.


Sure, but this is ILP. But to say it at a protest to a trucker???


That's my point! The objectivist pinheads would be totally averse to taking their protest there. They are all pretty much entirely in sync with their thoughts and feelings and wants. Fuck all that dasein shit.

You tell them that. But insist that you still feel that they ought


Ought, Biggy?


Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting: you're an anomaly.

...to win, you want them to win "here and now". Why? Because you were not a radical leftist yourself. Just that you might have been. That you might have been and been there castigating their protest.


gib wrote: Well, I wouldn't tell them words that you put in my mouth. I'd tell them I want them to win but not that they ought to win. <-- Does that register? Are you blocking it out? Is there just a gap on your screen where I wrote those words?


Register to who...me or them?

I mean, what are you telling them? That there is no way in which to determine if they are right or wrong objectively. It's all rooted subjectively in dasein. But, hey, you still want them to win anyway?


Eeexactly!


Again, all I can do here is try to imagine their reaction to that!!!

gib wrote: And if you didn't have such a severe cognitive disorder, this would make sense to you.


Or if I was an anomaly myself.

I'm trying to imagine their reaction to that. Are you really with them...or not?


Sure, they might be confused by that, but I don't need them to understand in order for me to want them to win.


Okay, sure, see if that wins them over.

gib wrote:But I gather what you mean to say is that though I want the truckers to win, I don't support them morally, and they might take offense to that (even if they understand I don't support the anti-truckers morally either). IOW, so what if I want them to win? What they want is moral support.

Have I got that right?


Well, here you would have to take your point of view to the next anti-government protest you feel supportive of, run it by the protesters and get back to us.


gib wrote: You're brain's glitching again. I asked if I interpreted you correctly and you answered a different question (who knows what).


Sigh...

It's not how I interpret all of this here in a philosophy forum, but how those at the next protest you attend interpret this truly anomalous distinction of yours. Get back to us on that. The real-world reactions to actual events.

iambiguous wrote: Yes, I'm most interested in what motivated Putin and Alito "in real life". Then why are we talking about applying my frame of mind to them?


gib wrote: Ask them why they did what they did. What were their reasons. How they connect the dots between thinking and feeling and wanting.


Okay, but I suspect they would not reply with, "I thought I was justified in doing what I did, but, actually, I felt that I shouldn't do it."

So, one comes to want what one feels one shouldn't do?

iambiguous wrote:No, I'm suggesting that the reason we choose particular behaviors in particular contexts is embedded in a profoundly complex, problematic intertwining of genes and memes. Something that wolves and other animals know nothing about.


gib wrote: And neither do I, at least not which gene/meme combination is the correct one to have in order to get it right. But that doesn't make my pro-trucker feelings go away. I might as well be an animal like a wolf.


See, there you go. Your "self" "here and now" [in the is/ought world] consists of this profoundly complex and problematic admixture of genes and memes. And depending on the life you lived you could have thought many different conflicting things about the trucker protest. But your feelings, seemingly having a mind all their own, are not rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein like your thoughts? You just feel they are right. You just want them to win.

Well, that's when I cue Maia's and MagsJ's "intrinsic self".

iambiguous wrote:Moot to you, of fundamental importance to me. And our moral and political convictions are not just "intellectual contraptions" once the discussion revolves around a particular set of circumstances like the trucker protest. Here there are plenty of facts that can be established regarding both the covid pandemic and the government policies. What comes into conflict is our reaction to those facts given conflicting sets of assumptions about genes vs. memes, capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, idealism vs. pragmatism, deontology vs. consequentialism...and on and on


gib wrote: Right, and that's where they become intellectual contraptions again. Those are the thoughts that, for me, become moot once dasein enters the picture because there is no way to decide. Obviously the facts aren't moot. Facts, once exposed, are crystal clear. But I thought we were talking about the is/ought world.


What, in the is/ought world, our thoughts and our emotions and our wants in regard to what we construe the facts to be really don't have much to do with each other when you are an "anomaly"?

Okay, but I'm not one of them. My own thoughts and feelings and wants, while ever shifting and changing over time, more or less came into sync about things like government protests or abortion or gun control. Back when I was an objectivist myself.

Instead, where I went off the beaten path, is in regard to the role played by dasein as encompassed in my signature threads.

There are the thoughts and feelings and wants of a moral objectivist and the thoughts and feelings and wants of a "fractured and fragmented" moral nihilist.

iambiguous wrote:Ever and always back to how we construe thinking, feeling and wanting in reaction to Truedeau and the truckers differently. If your life had been very different it might have pissed you off that the truckers protested in the first place. You'd want them to lose. And a government's reaction to covid -- or, next, monkeypox with a homosexual factor? -- will revolve around how dangerous they think it is.


gib wrote: This tired old point you keep bringing up--that had my life been different, I would have felt different--means nothing to me.


Trust me: it means even less to the objectivists and pinheads among us. Why? Because with them they are not even willing to subject their fulminating fanatic convictions to the arguments I make regarding dasein.

Whereas with you, you admit [up to a point] that your moral and political convictions are rooted existentially in dasein...but that means nothing to you! How ludicrous is that!!

You know, if "I" do say so myself.

gib wrote: It's an obvious and trivial truism.


Okay, explain that to the pinheads here.

But then...

gib wrote: Of course I would feel differently if I were, say, raised to think like a leftist. For you to say this should (what?) "cancel out" how I feel about the truckers in actuality sounds to me like saying that the cuttlefish couldn't really be a cuttlefish because if it had evolved differently it would have become a different species.


Note to others:

Explain this to me, please.

He seemed to be arguing above that he might have been raised as a leftist to think the protest was wrong...but still feel they ought to win.

But now, what, he concurs that he could have been raised to think and to feel they were wrong...but still want them to win?

gib wrote: Now your point might make sense if I were saying that my feelings justify coming to the conclusion that the truckers are morally right, but I'm not saying that, am I? And I suppose I could say it a thousand times and it still wouldn't sink in, would it? To you, everything must come down to moral statements.


Please. What was the trucker protest about? For the objectivists and the pinheads among us it revolved around how they thought and felt that big government libtard healthcare polices were wrong, unjust, irrational. Maybe they would include immoral as well. Or, for some, maybe it was all about the bucks.

But for the non-anomalists among us, supporting or not supporting the behaviors of others, will often have an ethical component that is embedded in their thoughts and feelings.

iambiguous wrote:Look, all I'm noting is that if the protesters do beat you up then it is not likely that they make that distinction between thinking and feeling as you do.


gib wrote: I don't think it would have anything to do with that distinction. Think high school jocks reacting to a nerd making an intellectual point.


Right, they're exactly the same thing!!!

They's not "anomalies" themselves. They're like most objectivists instead who feel they are doing the right thing because they think they are doing the right thing. And the two in tandem is why they feel justified in wanting to win.


gib wrote: Just to be clear, I don't think I'm an anomaly. I just figure I must seem like one from your point of view.


Huh?

gib wrote: What can I say, Biggy? I'm an anomaly. Yes, I am one of those rare individuals who doesn't know what to think about the trucker protest (whether it's right or wrong) and yet I find myself wanting them to win.


As for this...

gib wrote:* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well Biggy, I think I'm going to throw in the towel. I've reached the point of exhaustion and I'm no longer getting anything out of this discussion except a headache.

I definitely think we're talking passed each other and there's no way to fix that. We're speaking different languages. Yours sounds like English to me but it isn't the English I was raised on. And I can't maneuver around your bizarre cognitive algorithms. It's not so much what your saying that I can't grasp but how you think, the way your brain processes information--it's so different from anything I've ever encountered that "cognitive disorder" is the most descriptive label I can come up with. What seems to have significant logical implications to you, I see as total nonsense or irrelevance. What seems to allow you to draw particular conclusions, I see as non-sequiturs. For example, you seem to take the fact that had one's life been different one would be arguing and feeling different things as a reason to doubt or reject the arguments and feelings one currently has, but to me this sounds like saying had I been born in a country that spoke a different language, I wouldn't speak English, therefore English is invalid. Or your request that I take my arguments to the truckers/protestors... you seem to think that if I imagine what their reactions would be that this would change what I think/feel. To me, at most, it just means that some people might disagree with me. And last but not least, the fact that you seem to think everything I say is leading up to an argument in defense of a definite moral position... even things like "I don't take a moral position on the trucker protest," seem to be somehow construed as in support of the truckers' moral position.

^ Bizarre cognitive algorithms indeed. And the best I can surmise is that it's psychodynamic in nature, that you are a master in leveraging your own psychoanalytic defense mechanisms to control not only what you believe and feel, but how you interpret others. I can't get by that. All my attempts have resulted in frustration and despair. And at this point, that's all I find myself doing. It's soul-crushingly tedious! So I have to do what's best for my psychological health and detach myself from this conversation while I can. I won't be reading part 2.

So long, Biggy. It was a pleasure (up to a point).


...I didn't read it in turn. I happened to glance down to your concluding point [as I often do with longs posts] and noticed the part about bidding me adieu and not even bothering to read the second part.

So, there, we're even! 8)
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby origami » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:01 am

Brian wrote:
Pedro wrote:
Brian wrote:Pedro: 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.

"Go back to The Corner, man!" :lol:


Sorry, didn't mean to intrude into your safe space lol.


Not to worry.

I'll post my reaction to gib's reaction to part one today. He didn't even read part two. He's moving on to others. Like to, say, you and your own abominable pinhead ilk: the New ILP in a nutshell.

Personally, deep down inside, I think he wants to go back to being a pinhead again himself. Good luck in bringing him back into the fold.

8) :lol: :wink:


That's you crazy motherfuckers that have a fold. Pedophiles and drug traffickers who can't live with themselves.

On this side, we have thinking individuals.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby origami » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:04 am

Go flash some little girl Brian, Jesus Christ.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby MagsJ » Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:02 am

_
Weird.. the things some do to get off on.
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.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25068
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

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

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:21 am

gib wrote:
Pedro wrote:My initial analysis of this thread was that you let him get away with too much without defining "reasonable people," a fundamental, pivotal point of his position.


I didn't think "reasonable people" was all that ambiguous. I took the term for granted. But now that you bring it up, let's ask him. Biggy, how are you defining "reasonable people"?


We'll need a context of course. And I don't do definitions, remember? I take them out into the world of actual conflicting goods.

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

Pedro wrote:In the end, what scares him the most, what terrifies communists the most was a key point that you kept getting stuck on: that you don't think there is an objective morality that supports your position on the truckers. In other words, what terrifies a communist is somebody not being ideological.


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?

On the other hand, they are all just pinheads to me.

How about this: you skedaddle over to The Corner and explain to him why your own grasp of dasein disqualifies you from being a pinhead.

Unless, of course, he can bring you back into the fold. 8)
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:28 am

Pedro wrote:Go flash some little girl Brian, Jesus Christ.


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

Long gone though, isn't he?

Gee, I wonder why? :lol:
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:25 am

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

Keep Brian’s name out of your “mouth”.

No, seriously.
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

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6143
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Maia » Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:36 am

+++There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.+++
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Soul crushing tedium notwithstanding, if segments of my private correspondence must be bandied about in public, then 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, I also, in my very next missive to Mr Biguous, clarified my position in the following manner:

+++I wasn't referring to you, with the soul crushing comment, just the whole thing, really. When I joined, all those years ago, I was hoping for discussions about how our senses work, how they perceive the world, and so on. I didn't really get much of that. I felt that I might have a unique perspective to offer, but hardly anyone seemed interested. In fact, you were pretty much the only person who ever asked me about those things.+++
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

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

Postby MagsJ » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:02 pm

_
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.
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.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25068
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

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

Postby Meno_ » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:21 pm

And the fold we really all of us should be expected to belong to, while flaspoints of sensibility travail through our senses, exhibit the symptomatic prevalance of long held objective - subjective qualifications.

These are mere reflections on smoke and mirrored reminders of how we forget that this type of concentrated discussion has never actually been resolved, at least by those who claim to be pinheads, since the 17 th centuries
effort to disclaim objective criteria to judge others by.

Such on close examination is shades away from hypocracy of an obvious kind, and the only way such is avoided is through references to some internally associated construction of membership alluded to.

It's a human oh so human effort .


Yes, language does retain formidable and iron clad associations to past gone relevance, forgetting that ideas remain in tact, while concurrently language is being deconstructed into veritable prismatic content.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13324
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:46 pm

Pedro wrote:That's you crazy motherfuckers that have a fold. Pedophiles and drug traffickers who can't live with themselves.

On this side, we have thinking individuals.


He means crazy motherfucker communists, of course.

But more to the point [mine] gib and I are exploring [substantively] the existential parameters of dasein pertaining to thinking and feeling and wanting; as they pertain as well to a particular context...the Canadian trucker protest.

It's a discussion worthy of a philosophy forum in my view. It's the sort of discussion that used to be the rule here before the Kids and the fulminating fanatics and the pinheads and the social media sort took over.

Here's Pedro reconfiguring this substantive exchange into a combination of a typical Satyrean "one of us" [the arrogant, authoritarian, self-righteous few] vs. "one of them" [the libtard, commie, scumbag many] and The Corner.

It's the reason so many have left ILP for greener pastures.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

But, come on, really, what are the odds of that?
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby MagsJ » Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:06 pm

_
Many left because of you too, I recall..

I won’t expect a reply from you.. you never do, when cornered or confronted.
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.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25068
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:14 pm

Maia wrote: There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray


Okay, but it's one thing to be talked about on Page Six and another thing altogether in a philosophy forum. In the tabloids, the focus is always on the personal, while in a philosophy forum it is on the ideas that we express regarding how we have come to understand ourselves out in the world. Then the part where how we do come to understand ourselves can come into conflict with how others understand themselves.

Maia wrote: Soul crushing tedium notwithstanding...


On the other hand, there are any number of souls that have been crushed down through the ages. And the experience being tedious is not likely how they would describe it. I recall for example my own soul being crushed when I was no longer able to embrace the comfort and the consolation that Christianity provided me.

Maia wrote: ...if segments of my private correspondence must be bandied about in public...


I didn't think disclosing that would be something that you would object to. But, if it did upset you, then I apologize.

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...


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

Maia wrote: ...I also, in my very next missive to Mr Biguous, clarified my position in the following manner:

I wasn't referring to you, with the soul crushing comment, just the whole thing, really. When I joined, all those years ago, I was hoping for discussions about how our senses work, how they perceive the world, and so on. I didn't really get much of that. I felt that I might have a unique perspective to offer, but hardly anyone seemed interested. In fact, you were pretty much the only person who ever asked me about those things.


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.

And all I can do here is to react to someone based on what I come to believe that they are conveying. And, as we all know, this may or may not coincide with what we think we ourselves are conveying. That's the whole point of broaching dasein for me.

Also, as I noted to gib further up the exchange, while I do believe my philosophy is a threat to your own rendition of an "intrinsic self", and that I do believe in turn that is why you backed away from me, I respect your intelligence and would never suggest that your own frame of mind here, with respect to what may or may not be true, is less applicable than mine...in a philosophy forum.
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Maia » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:14 pm

+++Also, as I noted to gib further up the exchange, while I do believe my philosophy is a threat to your own rendition of an "intrinsic self", and that I do believe in turn that is why you backed away from me, I respect your intelligence and would never suggest that your own frame of mind here, with respect to what may or may not be true, is less applicable than mine...in a philosophy forum.+++

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.

I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:24 pm

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.

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.
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:26 pm

Maia, you seemed to suggest that listening to your intuition means you’re not a philosopher. But if one only listens to one’s logical thinking, you can justify anything and it doesn’t even have to be real. It’s like the formula for photosynthesis without any plants or suns.

We need both. Science & philosophy never shoulda got divorced.

I hope you stick around.
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

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6143
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:50 pm

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.

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.

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 [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.


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.
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:54 pm

Iron does sharpen iron.
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

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6143
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:23 pm

Also, as I noted to gib further up the exchange, while I do believe my philosophy is a threat to your own rendition of an "intrinsic self", and that I do believe in turn that is why you backed away from me, I respect your intelligence and would never suggest that your own frame of mind here, with respect to what may or may not be true, is less applicable than mine...in a philosophy forum.


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.


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, viseral, intuitive "real me" core self -- soul? -- that you can fall back on to feel "whole"?

Maia wrote:I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for.


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.

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.

I win either way.

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.

Now, just out of curiosity, what brought you to this thread? You had noted that you had left ILP and Know Thyself. And I just don't see you following a thread like this one.

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

Again, just curious.
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:25 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Iron does sharpen iron.


:lol:

No, seriously.

Right, gib?

Is it her thread now?
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:43 pm

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

back to you, gibs
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

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6143
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Maia » Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:02 am

+++I win either way.+++

Not really, since you appear to have lost, either way. Sorry to be blunt, but I think your words called for it.

And yes, a friend of mine brought this thread to my attention.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

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

Postby gib » Sat Aug 13, 2022 7:06 am

origami wrote:If it isn't ambiguous, then the question is, of any given person, such as iambiguous here, are they reasonable?


To be fair to Biggy, he's not calling himself reasonable but asking what would count as an objectively demonstrable proof of some moral position X to reasonable people. And come to think of it, "reasonable" doesn't really have to be defined here, so long as what counts as reasonable in the proof also characterizes the minds of the people who recognize it as reasonable. If "reasonable" meant "really stupid" then a really stupid proof ought to convince really stupid people; a highly intelligent proof ought to convince highly intelligent people. But you're right that when Biggy rejects one's attempt at delivering such a proof, he is implicitly stating that he is one of the "reasonable people".

origami wrote:Maybe you have made several points that all reasonable people would be compelled to agree to. I haven't. But if, for example, imabiguous isn't reasonable, then it wouldn't apply to him. That's a good point. So you wouldn't be failing the "iambiguous challenge," would you? You wouldn't expect somebody that is not reasonable to also agree.

No, but I hold myself to a similarly high standard, and I don't think I could make an argument that absolutely all reasonable people would be compelled to agree with. And besides, I didn't actually make an argument in support of the truckers.

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.


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.

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

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

But if you are additionally bending yourself out of shape to convince the unreasonable of something, the fanatics, those who delegate their thinking, their capacity to arrive at opinions and decisions, to the hierarchy of a cause, you are unlikely ever to get anywhere.

This is true. In this case, you don't share a common cause, unlike in a situation in which both parties may disagree but their common cause is the truth--they both want to arrive at it--and therefore neither party minds admitting to being wrong sometimes.

So, I propose that what defines a reasonable person is the ability for compromise.


That's definitely part of it--or in other words, cooperation; being reasonable is more than just using logic. Logic can be used to be difficult and uncooperative and even arrive at absurd conclusions (think of Descartes reasoning his way into doubting almost everything). It takes a willingness to see things from the other person's point of view and to help them string together the logical connections between their points. <-- That is a choice. One could choose just the opposite--to find the holes in the other person's points--and you can always find holes--thereby exposing the flaws in their arguments; but you can also fill those holes with your own contributions in order to help the other person make his/her point. <-- That's cooperation, that's being reasonable.

origami 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.


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.

Don't know if this is exactly what your point is but it seems similar enough.

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


Hey, I can go back to being a pinhead any time I want... and I do. To wit: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=197143

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.

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.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I didn't think "reasonable people" was all that ambiguous. I took the term for granted. But now that you bring it up, let's ask him. Biggy, how are you defining "reasonable people"?
We'll need a context of course. You have a different definition for different contexts? And I don't do definitions, remember? Vaguely I take them out into the world of actual conflicting goods.

Seems to ring a bell.

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


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". 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.

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?


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).

iambiguous wrote:How about this: you skedaddle over to The Corner and explain to him why your own grasp of dasein disqualifies you from being a pinhead.


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.

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?


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

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...


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

iambiguous wrote:
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...



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


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.


Or this one here:

Maia wrote:I just found the whole thing soul-crushingly tedious in the end, to be honest. ILP, Know Thyself, and whatever. I might be many things, but a philosopher isn't one of them.


Either way, same question.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but I became aware of your presence at ILP on the thread revolving not around that but around Paganism. Wow, that's gotta be like a kid in a candy store. Then our own exchange commenced in regard to a thread revolving around dreams.


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

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.

You echo the sentiments of perhaps thousands.

I sincerely hope you find what you're looking for.


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

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.

^ That's me.

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.

For some, that might bring them into philosophy.

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.


^ Are we still talking about possible reasons why some left ILP?

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:


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?"

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.

* COUGH * bull shit * COUGH *

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.

Willing???

I win either way.

Well, as long as you win.

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.

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."

Now, just out of curiosity, what brought you to this thread? You had noted that you had left ILP and Know Thyself. And I just don't see you following a thread like this one.

When it involves me, everyone flocks to it.

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


Turd??? Really???

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


Who, dammit, who?!?! We need to know!!!
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."
- Alastor the radio demon

"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."
- Alastor the radio demon

"`With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."
- Alastor the radio demon
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9311
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:05 pm

I win either way.


Maia wrote: Not really, since you appear to have lost, either way.


Of course, that's my point, isn't it? I react to my own situation and, given the life I've lived, I conclude what I do about it. You react 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.

That's the whole point of philosophy venues. To do the best we can in attempting to close that gap.

I give my thought through arguments as to why I have come to believe that human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd in a No God world. An existence that then topples over into the abyss that is oblivion. And then I note those like you who win here because you have been able think yourself into believing in one or another objectivist font. Anchoring your Self to one or another comforting and consoling One True Path.

And I flat out acknowledge that there is no getting around the fact that "I" lose here. I can only fall back on the fact that, philosophically and otherwise, I have explored all of this deeply and honestly and introspectively. I was able to jettison the "psychology of objectivism" and at least take advantage of the fact that my own life does not revolve around whatever you and other objectivists here construe to be the equivalent of "what would Jesus do"?

What would the Goddess do?

And, so, yeah, I lost the possibility that you and I might become "virtual friends". But, as with everything else, from my frame of mind, we each have our own rendition of what that means.

Maia wrote: Sorry to be blunt, but I think your words called for it.


Blunt always works for me. Just don't confuse being blunt with being right. All the time in other words. In discussions of identity and value judgments what does it mean to be blunt when you acknowledge that had your life been very different you might be here rejecting Paganism. Rejecting the Goddess.

Bluntly.

But, as with gib and MagsJ, you have this deep down inside you Real Me that "somehow" transcends dasein, that "just knows" what is really, really true about things like this.

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


Okay, fair enough.

But, in my view, there are lots of ways to be blind. And "I" try to examine as many of them as I can.
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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46429
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users