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 iambiguous » Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:17 pm

iambiguous wrote: The truckers protest. What does it mean?


gib wrote: No! What does "existentially" mean?!


Again, for years now I've been making the distinction between existential meaning -- what the trucker protest means to you subjectively as the embodiment of dasein -- and essential meaning -- what some insist it must mean to everyone. In other words, what it means to them.

The pinheads.

But even in regard to those I construe to be pinheads, I am more than willing to entertain any demonstrable proof that indeed how they think about it -- and covid and the role of government in regard to healthcare policy -- is in fact the objective truth.

Is it the right thing to do? Well, there are personal opinions about it rooted in political prejudices that are derived from the life that someone has lived existentially...given their indoctrination as a child and their own unique accumulation of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. But all of that is simply ignored by the moral and political objectivists. For them there is God or a political ideology or a deontological philosophical assessment or an analysis of nature. From this font they judge others as being either "one of us" [the good guys] or "one of them" [the bad guys].


gib wrote: This doesn't help in the least. In fact, your brain did one of it's glitchy things again. You turned the question from "What does existentially mean?" to "What does the trucker protest mean?" <-- You are aware that you did that, right?

You know what I think? I think you like to use big words without knowing what they mean.


Note to others:

Please, by all means, explain to me what his point here has to do with my point above it.

It's practically the sort of querulous gibberish I'd expect from Urwrong. And, more and more, I'm convinced that, with him, it's a "condition". Not on ecmandu's plane perhaps but surely clinical.

iambiguous wrote:What are you suggesting...we don't have an obligation to demonstrate what we think the truck protest means to us, to others?


gib wrote: Not in the least.


Then what's the point of protesting then? You protest in order to make an argument about the government's policy. To present your side.

Although, sure, for any number of pinheads, the fact that they believe what they do is demonstration enough that it is true. Yeah, I do get that part.

That they should just accept the arguments that we make?


gib wrote: They can do whatever they want. We're not obligated to explain our position and they're not obligated to accept it.


Well, indeed, in those communities where might makes right prevails the only obligation the objectivists have is to enforce the laws that they dictate.

Whereas in a community that revolves around democracy and the rule of law explaining the reasons why we believe what we do is kind of the whole point.

iambiguous wrote: Let's just say that your understanding of "what if?" is different from mine. Mine revolves around "what if my draft number had precluded my being drafted into the Army, going to Vietnam, meeting Mac and the others, rejecting Christianity and the "silent majority" political dogmas, going to college, meeting Mary, reading about existentialism, becoming a left-wing political activist...and profoundly changing my life forever.

What if, instead, I had stayed with my family and friends, continued working at Maryland Ship Building and Drydock, sustained my Christian beliefs and reactionary political prejudices, and went on being that until "here and now".


gib wrote: I fail to see the difference (other than you're speculating on your own life instead of mine). Is it that you're just asking the "what if" question without speculating answers? What's the point of that?


Then we will definitely have to agree to disagree about the "what if?" factor. My own understanding of it revolves more or less around this: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

The staggering complexity of all the variables that come together in our lives so as to end up as we think we are "here and now"? There's the pinhead objectivist rendition of that and Benjamin Button's and mine.

iambiguous wrote:My point has everything to do with how we come to acquire one set of political prejudices rather than another. Again, we simply do not "think it through" in the same way. And I'm certainly not arguing that my way is inherently/necessarily more rational. Only that in regard to the protesting truckers and our own reaction to the protest, it has considerable relevance.


gib wrote: Right, and I tied it back to the truckers (Hallelujah!!!). I said I'd probably side with Trudeau. Remember?


That's not the point. The point is the manner in which in thinking that part through we come to different conclusions about how much it matters in our lives existentially.

iambiguous wrote:Where did I argue that you didn't think it through? I only noted the obvious: that in regard to "what if?" in our lives, you didn't think it through as I did. And "obviously" because given the manner in which I thought it through I have come to believe that in regard to moral and political value judgments, "I" am now fractured and fragmented. Why? Because of the existential trajectory of my life explored on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382


gib wrote: Yes, and again, we've been over this a thousand times. I stopped gaining new insights into how you've thought it through a long time ago. I'm confident I understand.


Yes, and again, I suspect that if you really understood the existential implications of my own trajectory here, you'd be inclined to acknowledge it is no less true of you and the trucker protest.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, reconfigure the points you make here into how you react to the trucker protest politically.


gib wrote: Ok, that might be an interesting exercise. But I know it's not gonna make sense to you. We'll try anyway. So let's see... I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.

^ Can you work with that?


Nope. In fact, I can't even imagine an argument that is further removed from my own existential speculations. It's an intellectual contraption on steroids.

iambiguous wrote:And my moral nihilist doesn't say there is no such thing as value...that it is illusory. He or she says that moral and political values are existential fabrications/concoctions


gib wrote: IOW, illusory.


No. The existiential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.

there does not appear to be a way for philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, etc., to take all of the conflicting subjective/intersubjective accounts of right and wrong, good and evil, rooted out in particular worlds historically, culturally and individually and, using the tools at their disposal, coming up with the most rational/virtuous conclusions.


gib wrote: That's because it isn't based on rationality.


Huh? Are you saying that the trucker protest isn't derived from the reasons the truckers give for explaining why they believe they are doing the right thing? My point is only that those on the other side have their reasons too. And that the acquisition of these reasons is predicated more on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here than in any argument that philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, etc., can come up with to resolve it objectively.

gib wrote:In other words, when you look at the world through my subjectivist lenses, you don't take these intellectual contraptions as ephemeral mirages that have no concrete basis in reality, you take them as providing their own basis in reality. And with relativism, you can accommodate conflicting intellectual contraptions in different people's heads. Therefore, I never end up in the spot where anything fragments, let alone my "I". Everything stays intact because there is reality in intellectual contraptions, in the is/ought world, no less than in the concrete world of either/or. I just characterize it as subjective and relative rather than objective and absolute.


Make this relevant to the trucker protest.


Of course: straight back up into the intellectual clouds:

gib wrote: With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.

^ There! Now don't tell me I'm not tying it back to the trucker protest.


Note to others:

You tell me if he is.

He "thinks" his way into believing that he is not fractured and fragmented here. I "think" my way into believing that I am.

Meanwhile, the truckers reasons for doing what they do are no less the embodiment of dasein from my frame of mind.

So, right now, we're stuck.

iambiguous wrote:But: I'm nothing at all like most here are: trying to convince liberals to think like conservatives or conservatives to think like liberals.

Instead, my points are aimed at what I construe to be both the left-wing and right-wing objectivists.


gib wrote: You don't think you're trying to change people's minds?


From my vantage point, there's a big difference between thinking that you are right objectively and trying to change the minds of those who think you are wrong objectively, and trying to convince people that right and wrong itself is predicated on the subjective parameters of dasein. That there is no objective morality in a No God world. That moral nihilism is a reasonable manner in which to construe conflicting goods.

iambiguous wrote:Their own precious moral and political I itself is deconstructed by the assumptions that "I" make. That's what most perturbs them about me.


gib wrote: If it perturbs them, you're changing their minds.


On the other hand, what are the realistic odds that someone like Urwrong [with or without a "condition"] will ever change his mind...about anything? The entirety of his psychological comfort and consolation revolves precisely around being a dogmatic, authoritarian pinhead.

gib wrote: The problem here is one of language. The brain is built to express itself (its thoughts, its experiences, its feelings, etc.) in statements, and statements are structured to describe objective states or objective facts.


^^Does this make sense to you?^^


gib wrote:Well, does it?


What, in regard to the trucker protest?

What "objective facts"?
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby gib » Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:07 am

iambiguous wrote:Again, for years now I've been making the distinction between existential meaning -- what the trucker protest means to you subjectively as the embodiment of dasein -- and essential meaning -- what some insist it must mean to everyone. In other words, what it means to them.


THANK YOU, BIGGY!!!

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Please, by all means, explain to me what his point here has to do with my point above it.

It's practically the sort of querulous gibberish I'd expect from Urwrong. And, more and more, I'm convinced that, with him, it's a "condition". Who? Me or Urwrong? Not on ecmandu's plane perhaps but surely clinical.


Why is Urwrong your pinhead poster boy?

iambiguous wrote:Then what's the point of protesting then? You protest in order to make an argument about the government's policy. To present your side.


Sure, but no one has an obligation to do this. Any one of the truckers could have gone home, or even kept on protesting without demonstrating the truth of their position such that all rational men and women are obliged to accept.

iambiguous wrote:Well, indeed, in those communities where might makes right prevails the only obligation the objectivists have is to enforce the laws that they dictate.

No they don't.

Whereas in a community that revolves around democracy and the rule of law explaining the reasons why we believe what we do is kind of the whole point.


But not an obligation.

iambiguous wrote:Then we will definitely have to agree to disagree about the "what if?" factor. Aaaaaaw! BOOO!!! My own understanding of it revolves more or less around this: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

Benjamin Button?

The staggering complexity of all the variables that come together in our lives so as to end up as we think we are "here and now"? There's the pinhead objectivist rendition of that and Benjamin Button's and mine.


I get it, Biggy, really I do. If things had been different at some point in my past, even way in my past, even slightly different, my life could have turned out wholly different, even steering me to adopt a totally different ideology. And I would have built for myself equally rational sounding objective arguments to justify that ideology. So what does this mean? It means the justifications we bring to bear on our ideologies aren't what really drive us to do what we do (protest, support, go to war, etc.); the millions and millions of tiny variables that affect and shape us throughout are lives are. And our justifications are more like things we patch together after the fact so that we have an answer to the question "Why are you doing this?" The millions of variables that lead us to where we are today are more or less arbitrary--they can be anything and can come at any time, and they can happen to anyone--and therefore our justifications and our ideologies are just as arbitrary. As you put, "I might as well have gone in the other direction."

(The only thing I left out was the "I" fracturing and fragmenting, but I believe I gave an account earlier of how I understand that.)

It's not that hard to grasp. If you're still dumbfounded by why I don't drop my subjectivism (or whatever I believe in) and jump in the hole with you in response to this, maybe you aren't grasping my point of view.

iambiguous wrote:That's not the point. The point is the manner in which in thinking that part through we come to different conclusions about how much it matters in our lives existentially.


Existentially, eh? Well, this is entirely possible. Maybe the implications of all this matters far more to you than it does to me.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and again, I suspect that if you really understood the existential implications of my own trajectory here, you'd be inclined to acknowledge it is no less true of you and the trucker protest.


And did I not acknowledge it a thousand times? I think the problem is your approach is built for confrontation, so when you come across a person who agrees with you, it fails to compute in your mind, and you fall back on the assumption that you're dealing with an objectivist pinhead.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Ok, that might be an interesting exercise. But I know it's not gonna make sense to you. We'll try anyway. So let's see... I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.

^ Can you work with that?
Nope. In fact, I can't even imagine an argument that is further removed from my own existential speculations. It's an intellectual contraption on steroids.


:lol: That's the crux of our disagreement then. But you do acknowledge that I tied it into the trucker protest, right?

And if you can't work with this despite that I tied it into the trucker protest, would you say that we're out of options? I mean, you keep saying that you need your discussion partner to tie his/her point to the subject matter of the discussion. So when that fails, what do you fall back on?

iambiguous wrote:No. The existiential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.


Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.

iambiguous wrote:Huh? Are you saying that the trucker protest isn't derived from the reasons the truckers give for explaining why they believe they are doing the right thing? Exactly. My point is only that those on the other side have their reasons too. I know And that the acquisition of these reasons is predicated more on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here than in any argument that philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, etc., can come up with to resolve it objectively.


You've got the order backwards. It starts with dasein, yes, but then comes the behavior (protesting), and only last do the reasons and justifications show up (mandated vaccines are immoral). We far more often invent our justifications for the things we do as an after thought, as something we need to prepare in our heads in case we're challenged by someone. Justifications are far more useful as tools for debate than as a motivating factors that push us to action.

What drove the truckers (Ha! Ha! "drove") to protest was their trucksemotion. They were angry. Or they felt threatened. And this compelled them to drive to Ottawa to protest. On the way there, they came up with the moral justifications for why it's right for them to do what they were going to do (and convinced themselves that those were the reasons they drove to Ottawa in the first place). And these emotions are not based on a rational argument. No one said, "They're violating my right to refuse vaccines. Therefore, I will be angry. Here I go. GRRRRRR!!!" Rather, the violation of their right to refuse vaccines itself triggered the anger (directly) and made them want to protest in Ottawa; and then they rehearsed their justifications for doing so. Why should they be angry about being forced to vaccinate? Well, that's where dasein comes in. From dasein, and the millions of tiny variables that, throughout their lives, determined their values and attitudes towards vaccines, came the predisposition to be angry when someone wants to violate their right to refuse vaccination. And you know as well as I, dasein is not rational; it is not an argument; it is an unconscious force that develops and shapes us all through our lives, more or less arbitrarily. This is why I say the reason philosophers have yet to come up with a definitive rational argument determining what is finally the objectively right moral position (on anything) is because there is no one absolute rational argument that applies to everyone and settles the matter.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Make this relevant to the trucker protest.


Of course: straight back up into the intellectual clouds: What?!?!

gib wrote:With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.

^ There! Now don't tell me I'm not tying it back to the trucker protest.


You mean to tell me that by bringing my "cloudy" philosophy back down to Earth, tying it into the trucker protest--like you asked me to--I'm actually going back up into the clouds? This is worse than the first instance when tying it to the trucker protest didn't work for you. At least there, we can acknowledge that it just didn't work for you (can't win 'em all). But here, you're going into denial that I brought my philosophy down to Earth and did exactly what you said.

Image

Seriously, what's wrong with you, man?!

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

You tell me if he is.

He "thinks" his way into believing that he is not fractured and fragmented here. I "think" my way into believing that I am.

Meanwhile, the truckers reasons for doing what they do are no less the embodiment of dasein from my frame of mind.

So, right now, we're stuck.


Don't you mean, we're truck? Bada bang! :D

iambiguous wrote:From my vantage point, there's a big difference between thinking that you are right objectively and trying to change the minds of those who think you are wrong objectively, and trying to convince people that right and wrong itself is predicated on the subjective parameters of dasein. That's not changing their minds? That there is no objective morality in a No God world. <-- Careful Biggy--that sounds like an objective statement! That moral nihilism is a reasonable manner in which to construe conflicting goods. <-- That definitely was an objective statement. For shame, Biggy, for shame.

disappointed 35 percent.gif
disappointed 35 percent.gif (247.1 KiB) Viewed 1070 times


On the other hand, what are the realistic odds that someone like Urwrong [with or without a "condition"] will ever change his mind...about anything? The entirety of his psychological comfort and consolation revolves precisely around being a dogmatic, authoritarian pinhead.


Don't you think we've picked on urwrong enough? I'm starting to feel bad for the guy. You must have another pinhead in your deck of cards.

Anyway, my point was (if you can be bothered to go back and read it) that if the effect you're having on other people's minds is to change them (regardless of whether that's what you're trying to do), they will instinctively fight you. And it's not because what you're saying takes away their comfort (although it will make them feel uncomfortable) but because it's just a survival instinct. Whatever it is you think you're doing, it's triggering that instinct in people.

iambiguous wrote:What, in regard to the trucker protest?

In regard to everything. The fact that statements are structured to describe objective facts is not only true of the truckers. It's true of anything that can be expressed in statements.

What "objective facts"?


Interesting response, Biggy. There is no indication in this response that you comprehend what I said. Maybe you do, but the fact that you have to stop me here and ask these questions indicates to me that I'm losing you. So this is a breakthrough, Biggy! A breakthrough!!! Does that excite you as much as it excite me (if for no other reason than that we don't have to drag on this experiment anymore)?

So let's recap:

It started with me trying to explain to you why, as a subjectivist, I still use language in the usual way (to make objective sounding statements):

gib wrote:The problem here is one of language. The brain is built to express itself (its thoughts, its experiences, its feelings, etc.) in statements, and statements are structured to describe objective states or objective facts. For example, if I want to describe the color of the sky as I see it, I will say, "The sky is blue"... but that sounds like "The sky actually is blue, objectively." It is how statements are interpreted by default. But this is true regardless of whether I'm an objectivist or not. I could be a subjectivist, but if someone asks me what color the sky is, I'll still say "the sky is blue". This no more affirms objectivism for me than it does for a 2 year old who looks up at the sky and says "the sky is blue", a 2 year old who hasn't the mental capacity to even understand what "objectivism" and "subjectivism" mean. This is because the brain, by default, experiences the world as objectively there, and thus constructs language to express the world in an objective way.


...to which you responded:

iambiguous wrote:...yeah, you did go way, way, way, way, way, up into the intellectual contraption clouds.


And from past conversations, I've learned from you that this is Biggy speak for "I don't understand". And that sparked an idea: I was going to try repeating my quote above one sentence at a time and see exactly where I lose you.

So I started with this:

gib wrote:The problem here is one of language.


And you said:

iambiguous wrote:Again, there's the language used to describe the actual objective facts that came out of the trucker protest in Canada, and the language used in either defending or rejecting what they did.


...which told me you understand what it means for the problem to be one of language (though you highlighted a different language problem than the one I had in mind). So I went on:

gib wrote:The problem here is one of language. The brain is built to express itself (its thoughts, its experiences, its feelings, etc.) in statements...


...to which you said:

iambiguous wrote:Sure. But which brain expressing its thoughts, feelings and experiences in statements pertaining to what set of circumstances?


That seemed like an affirmative to me. So I went on:

gib wrote:The problem here is one of language. The brain is built to express itself (its thoughts, its experiences, its feelings, etc.) in statements, and statements are structured to describe objective states or objective facts.


...to which you said:

iambiguous wrote:What, in regard to the trucker protest?

What "objective facts"?


...and this is where I think I start losing you (the edge of the clouds). Usually, when one starts asking questions like this, one is starting to not understand. Granted you asked questions before this: "Sure. But which brain expressing which thoughts...?" but it was prefaced with an affirmative.

So it seems the longer the quote goes on describing generalities without tying it to specifics as examples, the less you are able to follow along. This continues up to the point where you can't follow at all, and this seems to be around 3 sentences or 3 thoughts.

There also seems to be a disconnect between what the quote is addressing and what you think the quote is addressing. Like I said, the quote was a response to your comment about how you're trying to figure out where I fit between the fanatic fulminating objectivist pinheads and those whose "I" is fractured and fragmented:

iambiguous wrote:Yeah. Given my own assessment of your posts here. It's just that I'm acknowledging that my assessment of your assessments is in turn a subjective frame of mind rooted existentially in dasein. As opposed to those like Urwrong who insist that others are wrong times a thousand if they don't share his own frenetic moral and political dogmas. With you, it's basically probing where you fit in here between the fulminating fanatic pinheads like him and the fractured and fragmented minds like mine.


So it was you that started this tangent which had nothing to do with the trucker protest, talking about how you sort ILP members into your categories instead. You ended off explaining that, with me, you're probing where I fit. So I thought I'd help by giving my explanation of how the problem you are having in categorizing me comes down to language. In other words, my quote was quite relevant to where you took the discussion, but for some reason you expected it to be about the trucker protest (as though I was just ignoring your comment). I wonder if had you not made that mistake, it would have been easier to follow along.

I also wonder whether you have a deficit for processing generalized statements. You asked, "What, in regard to the trucker protest?" to which I said, "In regard to everything". This indicated to me that you couldn't grasp that it was a generalization, that you can't help but to think it has to be about something specific (such that it wouldn't be true of other specific things). But I couldn't answer your question in regard to anything specific (the trucker protest or the difference between subjectivists and objectivists) because my statement was a generalization about how we make statements period. Maybe if I interleaved my quote with examples, it might have helped, but I don't know if that would have helped or hindered your understanding that it wouldn't have been just about the examples I'd give. Generalizations are about all examples one could possibly give. So I wonder if it would have helped had I noted that it was a generalized statement to begin with. Would you have been able to react with "Ok, gib, thanks for letting me know. Now I know to read it as a generalization," or would you still not be able to process that?

Now, even though this experiment wasn't the point of this thread, the thread sorta, kinda (not really) fulfilled its purpose. The purpose was to see how a discussion with Biggy goes down when there's an actual context--an IRL context--and when his partner is actually IRL involved. And while we never got around to discussing my motives and rationale for getting involved in the trucker protest, we did get to see what happens when I bring in a totally unrelated philosophy that I, as a subjectivist, believe in.

We have this:

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Ok, that might be an interesting exercise. But I know it's not gonna make sense to you. We'll try anyway. So let's see... I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.

^ Can you work with that?


Nope. In fact, I can't even imagine an argument that is further removed from my own existential speculations. It's an intellectual contraption on steroids.


...and this:

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Make this relevant to the trucker protest.


Of course: straight back up into the intellectual clouds:

gib wrote:With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.

^ There! Now don't tell me I'm not tying it back to the trucker protest.


Note to others:

You tell me if he is.

He "thinks" his way into believing that he is not fractured and fragmented here. I "think" my way into believing that I am.

Meanwhile, the truckers reasons for doing what they do are no less the embodiment of dasein from my frame of mind.

So, right now, we're stuck.


So it seems that, at least with me and my subjectivism, it doesn't work. You said you couldn't work with the first one, which is fine. The second one caused you to go into denial that I, in fact, tied my subjectivism to the trucker protest. So it not only didn't work, but had a counter-effect. Go figure.

I never did get a chance to run this experiment with my motives and reasons for involving myself in the trucker protest. My subjectivism is a poor subject matter for the trucker protest because it has absolutely nothing to do with it, but my distrust in government does. <-- Wanna try it again with that?

Or... we can return to some of your questions you asked which I said I would answer after we were done the experiment:

gib wrote:I'll answer all your questions once we complete this experiment.


^ Wanna do that?
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Sat Apr 02, 2022 6:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:Then what's the point of protesting then? You protest in order to make an argument about the government's policy. To present your side.


gib wrote: Sure, but no one has an obligation to do this. Any one of the truckers could have gone home, or even kept on protesting without demonstrating the truth of their position such that all rational men and women are obliged to accept.


Who is arguing that the truckers in Canada were obligated to protest? My point is still that the "truth of their position" is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein. Same for those on the other side. Again, it's less about what one believes when moral and political "goods" come into conflict and more how one comes to acquire one set of political prejudices rather than another. It's the objectivists among us [left and right] who insist their frame of mind is not a prejudice but a reflection the most rational and virtuous conclusion that mere mortals in a No God world can come to.

Always the main point in regard to my own distinction between being a subjectivist and an objectivist.

iambiguous wrote:Well, indeed, in those communities where might makes right prevails the only obligation the objectivists have is to enforce the laws that they dictate.


No they don't.[/okay] So, what, they pass laws about vaccinations and lockdowns and the like but then don't bother to enforce them?


Whereas in a community that revolves around democracy and the rule of law explaining the reasons why we believe what we do is kind of the whole point.


gib wrote:But not an obligation.


No, not an obligation. But most folks who are politically active like the truckers clearly had decided they are obligated to let the world know what they were thinking. Why else would they be protesting?

iambiguous wrote:The staggering complexity of all the variables that come together in our lives so as to end up as we think we are "here and now"? There's the pinhead objectivist rendition of that and Benjamin Button's and mine.


gib wrote:I get it, Biggy, really I do. If things had been different at some point in my past, even way in my past, even slightly different, my life could have turned out wholly different, even steering me to adopt a totally different ideology. And I would have built for myself equally rational sounding objective arguments to justify that ideology.


Yep, that's basically what "I" get too.

gib wrote: So what does this mean? It means the justifications we bring to bear on our ideologies aren't what really drive us to do what we do (protest, support, go to war, etc.); the millions and millions of tiny variables that affect and shape us throughout are lives are. And our justifications are more like things we patch together after the fact so that we have an answer to the question "Why are you doing this?" The millions of variables that lead us to where we are today are more or less arbitrary--they can be anything and can come at any time, and they can happen to anyone--and therefore our justifications and our ideologies are just as arbitrary. As you put, "I might as well have gone in the other direction."


Yes, and you either let that sink in all the way or you don't. Once you come to recognize that 1] your commitment to the trucker protest is profoundly rooted existentially in dasein and that 2] had your life been different you might be here arguing against the protest, you ask yourself, "okay, so what then is the most rational manner in which to react to it"?

Philosophically for example. Since this is a philosophy forum. Is there in fact the "wisest" reaction of all? Something along the lines of a Plato or a Descartes or a Kant?

gib wrote: (The only thing I left out was the "I" fracturing and fragmenting, but I believe I gave an account earlier of how I understand that.)


The fracturing and fragmenting revolves as well around the realization that those on both sides of the trucker protest are able to make reasonable arguments for and against it. They merely start with different sets of assumptions about, among other things, the role of government in our lives. That too however being largely the embodiment of dasein.

gib wrote: It's not that hard to grasp. If you're still dumbfounded by why I don't drop my subjectivism (or whatever I believe in) and jump in the hole with you in response to this, maybe you aren't grasping my point of view.


Obviously. But the existential implications of how we both understand "contingency, chance and change" in our lives here is clearly different.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:That's not the point. The point is the manner in which in thinking that part through we come to different conclusions about how much it matters in our lives existentially.


gib wrote: Existentially, eh? Well, this is entirely possible. Maybe the implications of all this matters far more to you than it does to me.


Yes, as opposed to those who approach their own moral narratives/political agendas given the assumption that with just the right font -- God, ideology, deontology, nature -- one can transcend contingency, chance and change altogether. And aren't they truly lucky to have found it out of all the hundreds of moral, political and spiritual paths there are to choose from.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and again, I suspect that if you really understood the existential implications of my own trajectory here, you'd be inclined to acknowledge it is no less true of you and the trucker protest.


gib wrote: And did I not acknowledge it a thousand times? I think the problem is your approach is built for confrontation, so when you come across a person who agrees with you, it fails to compute in your mind, and you fall back on the assumption that you're dealing with an objectivist pinhead.


You acknowledge it...but you don't. Yes, you may well be here arguing against the truckers had things been different in your life. But they weren't so you're not. So, what exactly is it that you are agreeing with me about given that you are still not "fractured and fragmented" yourself? All I can do then is attempt to understand that better.

gib wrote:Ok, that might be an interesting exercise. But I know it's not gonna make sense to you. We'll try anyway. So let's see... I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.

^ Can you work with that?


Nope. In fact, I can't even imagine an argument that is further removed from my own existential speculations. It's an intellectual contraption on steroids.


gib wrote: :lol: That's the crux of our disagreement then. But you do acknowledge that I tied it into the trucker protest, right?


Sure, if you call tying that to the trucker's protest relevant to the points I am trying to make here.

And then just more of the same...

gib wrote: And if you can't work with this despite that I tied it into the trucker protest, would you say that we're out of options? I mean, you keep saying that you need your discussion partner to tie his/her point to the subject matter of the discussion. So when that fails, what do you fall back on?


The next time there's a trucker protest take these arguments to them. See how they react to it.

iambiguous wrote:No. The existential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.


gib wrote: Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.


Again, how you connect the dots between points like this and the truckers protest itself is beyond my grasping.

iambiguous wrote:Huh? Are you saying that the trucker protest isn't derived from the reasons the truckers give for explaining why they believe they are doing the right thing?


gib wrote: Exactly.


I would truly love to be around when you explain that to them.

My point is only that those on the other side have their reasons too. And that the acquisition of these reasons is predicated more on the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here than in any argument that philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, etc., can come up with to resolve it objectively.


gib wrote: You've got the order backwards. It starts with dasein, yes, but then comes the behavior (protesting), and only last do the reasons and justifications show up (mandated vaccines are immoral). We far more often invent our justifications for the things we do as an after thought, as something we need to prepare in our heads in case we're challenged by someone. Justifications are far more useful as tools for debate than as a motivating factors that push us to action.


Again, all I can do here is imagine their own reaction to something like this. I suspect the reasons they have for acting as they do is more in line with the reasons we give for acting as we do. My main aim is merely to suggest the reasons are derived more from the manner in which I construe dasein here than in anything that philosophers can provide as a foundations for coming up with the optimal reaction to the government and the covid pandemic. Or for some the only rational reaction there can be. Their own.

gib wrote: What drove the truckers (Ha! Ha! "drove") to protest was their trucksemotion. They were angry. Or they felt threatened. And this compelled them to drive to Ottawa to protest. On the way there, they came up with the moral justifications for why it's right for them to do what they were going to do (and convinced themselves that those were the reasons they drove to Ottawa in the first place). And these emotions are not based on a rational argument. No one said, "They're violating my right to refuse vaccines. Therefore, I will be angry. Here I go. GRRRRRR!!!" Rather, the violation of their right to refuse vaccines itself triggered the anger (directly) and made them want to protest in Ottawa; and then they rehearsed their justifications for doing so. Why should they be angry about being forced to vaccinate? Well, that's where dasein comes in. From dasein, and the millions of tiny variables that, throughout their lives, determined their values and attitudes towards vaccines, came the predisposition to be angry when someone wants to violate their right to refuse vaccination. And you know as well as I, dasein is not rational; it is not an argument; it is an unconscious force that develops and shapes us all through our lives, more or less arbitrarily. This is why I say the reason philosophers have yet to come up with a definitive rational argument determining what is finally the objectively right moral position (on anything) is because there is no one absolute rational argument that applies to everyone and settles the matter.


Sure, there are those who get angry because the government does something that they don't like. But how many stop there? I'm angry and that's enough? No, I suspect that they will discuss this anger with others. And others will be tuning into their favorite news channels or internet blogs. All the "reasons" for why the government does this instead of that will be included in the protest. Along with all the political prejudices that picture two very different worlds that we live in. Red and blue worlds among others. As though reasons and emotions don't become deeply entangled in the minds of those on both sides.

Of course: straight back up into the intellectual clouds:


gib wrote:With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.

^ There! Now don't tell me I'm not tying it back to the trucker protest.


gib wrote: You mean to tell me that by bringing my "cloudy" philosophy back down to Earth, tying it into the trucker protest--like you asked me to--I'm actually going back up into the clouds? This is worse than the first instance when tying it to the trucker protest didn't work for you. At least there, we can acknowledge that it just didn't work for you (can't win 'em all). But here, you're going into denial that I brought my philosophy down to Earth and did exactly what you said.


If you call this...

With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.


...an example of coming down out of the clouds, we are far removed regarding what that means.

iambiguous wrote:From my vantage point, there's a big difference between thinking that you are right objectively and trying to change the minds of those who think you are wrong objectively, and trying to convince people that right and wrong itself is predicated on the subjective parameters of dasein.


]That's not changing their minds?


And you don't grasp the distinction here?

That there is no objective morality in a No God world.


gib wrote: Careful Biggy--that sounds like an objective statement!


How many times over the years here have I noted that my own conclusions regarding "I" in the is/ought world are no less subjective "personal opinions" rooted in dasein. Yet no doubt you will still bring up this point again.

gib wrote: Anyway, my point was (if you can be bothered to go back and read it) that if the effect you're having on other people's minds is to change them (regardless of whether that's what you're trying to do), they will instinctively fight you. And it's not because what you're saying takes away their comfort (although it will make them feel uncomfortable) but because it's just a survival instinct. Whatever it is you think you're doing, it's triggering that instinct in people.


Oh, it's all in the genes then? Though, sure, a comfortable and consoling survival for some does revolve around being convinced that how they construe the trucker protest is the way everyone ought to construe it.

gib wrote: So let's recap:

It started with me trying to explain to you why, as a subjectivist, I still use language in the usual way (to make objective sounding statements):


gib wrote:The problem here is one of language. The brain is built to express itself (its thoughts, its experiences, its feelings, etc.) in statements, and statements are structured to describe objective states or objective facts. For example, if I want to describe the color of the sky as I see it, I will say, "The sky is blue"... but that sounds like "The sky actually is blue, objectively." It is how statements are interpreted by default. But this is true regardless of whether I'm an objectivist or not. I could be a subjectivist, but if someone asks me what color the sky is, I'll still say "the sky is blue". This no more affirms objectivism for me than it does for a 2 year old who looks up at the sky and says "the sky is blue", a 2 year old who hasn't the mental capacity to even understand what "objectivism" and "subjectivism" mean. This is because the brain, by default, experiences the world as objectively there, and thus constructs language to express the world in an objective way.


gib wrote: ...to which you responded:


iambiguous wrote:...yeah, you did go way, way, way, way, way, up into the intellectual contraption clouds.


Yes, I'm I'm sticking with it.

gib wrote: And from past conversations, I've learned from you that this is Biggy speak for "I don't understand". And that sparked an idea: I was going to try repeating my quote above one sentence at a time and see exactly where I lose you.


No, that's Biggy speak for "I might understand your point better if you intertwined it in your 'subjectivist' assessment of the trucker protest." Clearly the distinction you make between "subjective" and "objective" in regard to "I" in the is/ought world is not the same one I make. What difference does it make if each new sentence is not connected to the trucker protest?

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:What, in regard to the trucker protest?

What "objective facts"?


Then from my frame of mind straight back up into the clouds you go...

gib wrote: ...and this is where I think I start losing you (the edge of the clouds). Usually, when one starts asking questions like this, one is starting to not understand. Granted you asked questions before this: "Sure. But which brain expressing which thoughts...?" but it was prefaced with an affirmative.

So it seems the longer the quote goes on describing generalities without tying it to specifics as examples, the less you are able to follow along. This continues up to the point where you can't follow at all, and this seems to be around 3 sentences or 3 thoughts.

There also seems to be a disconnect between what the quote is addressing and what you think the quote is addressing. Like I said, the quote was a response to your comment about how you're trying to figure out where I fit between the fanatic fulminating objectivist pinheads and those whose "I" is fractured and fragmented:


Words defending yet more words still. No truckers, no covid pandemic, no government policy in sight. And, again, there are many here eager to sustain this sort of exchange with you. I'm just not one of them.

Though, sure, if the problem is that I don't get why I should be one of them perhaps it is best that you just give up on me and move on to those that value all that can be grasped about the truckers' protest from up in the clouds.

Then here we go again...

iambiguous wrote:Yeah. Given my own assessment of your posts here. It's just that I'm acknowledging that my assessment of your assessments is in turn a subjective frame of mind rooted existentially in dasein. As opposed to those like Urwrong who insist that others are wrong times a thousand if they don't share his own frenetic moral and political dogmas. With you, it's basically probing where you fit in here between the fulminating fanatic pinheads like him and the fractured and fragmented minds like mine.


Take this speculation down out of the clouds and relate it to the trucker protest...or abortion or feminism or gun control.

Instead -- to me -- just more of the same...

gib wrote: So it was you that started this tangent which had nothing to do with the trucker protest, talking about how you sort ILP members into your categories instead. You ended off explaining that, with me, you're probing where I fit. So I thought I'd help by giving my explanation of how the problem you are having in categorizing me comes down to language. In other words, my quote was quite relevant to where you took the discussion, but for some reason you expected it to be about the trucker protest (as though I was just ignoring your comment). I wonder if had you not made that mistake, it would have been easier to follow along.

I also wonder whether you have a deficit for processing generalized statements. You asked, "What, in regard to the trucker protest?" to which I said, "In regard to everything". This indicated to me that you couldn't grasp that it was a generalization, that you can't help but to think it has to be about something specific (such that it wouldn't be true of other specific things). But I couldn't answer your question in regard to anything specific (the trucker protest or the difference between subjectivists and objectivists) because my statement was a generalization about how we make statements period. Maybe if I interleaved my quote with examples, it might have helped, but I don't know if that would have helped or hindered your understanding that it wouldn't have been just about the examples I'd give. Generalizations are about all examples one could possibly give. So I wonder if it would have helped had I noted that it was a generalized statement to begin with. Would you have been able to react with "Ok, gib, thanks for letting me know. Now I know to read it as a generalization," or would you still not be able to process that?

Now, even though this experiment wasn't the point of this thread, the thread sorta, kinda (not really) fulfilled its purpose. The purpose was to see how a discussion with Biggy goes down when there's an actual context--an IRL context--and when his partner is actually IRL involved. And while we never got around to discussing my motives and rationale for getting involved in the trucker protest, we did get to see what happens when I bring in a totally unrelated philosophy that I, as a subjectivist, believe in.


You've got this overarching frame of mind -- http://www.mm-theory.com -- you use to understand the world around you. But I'm only interested in the parts that pertain to this:

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

And that includes your "experiment".

Pertaining to the trucker protest. Or to any other moral and political conflagration.
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby gib » Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:28 am

iambiguous wrote:Who is arguing that the truckers in Canada were obligated to protest?


You did, right here:

Biggy says we have an obligation - 40%.png
Biggy says we have an obligation - 40%.png (31.03 KiB) Viewed 994 times


Ok, ok, fine... you didn't exactly say the truckers have an obligation to protest, but I didn't say you did.

iambiguous wrote:No, not an obligation. But most folks who are politically active like the truckers clearly had decided they are obligated to let the world know what they were thinking. Why else would they be protesting?


Anger?

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and you either let that sink in all the way or you don't. Once you come to recognize that 1] your commitment to the trucker protest is profoundly rooted existentially in dasein and that 2] had your life been different you might be here arguing against the protest, you ask yourself, "okay, so what then is the most rational manner in which to react to it"?


Well, maybe you ask yourself that question, but trust me, one can allow the above to sink in and not bother to ask that question. One would have to presuppose that 1) there is a most rational manner in which to react, and 2) that it matters. I don't believe in 1) and I'm not even sure 2) is true. So why would I ask myself that question?

And yet, you seem to agree that I get everything leading up to that point. But if this is the question you're asking yourself once all the above has sunk in, I question how much of a nihilist or subjectivist you really are, expecting there to still be a "most rational manner" in which to react.

iambiguous wrote:Obviously. But the existential implications of how we both understand "contingency, chance and change" in our lives here is clearly different.


Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not really sure what "contingency, chance, and change" has to do with this. Why don't you tell me what "contingency, chance, and change" means to you and what it has to do with the manner in which we draw our own conclusions after letting all the above sink in?

iambiguous wrote:You acknowledge it...but you don't. Yes, you may well be here arguing against the truckers had things been different in your life. But they weren't so you're not. So, what exactly is it that you are agreeing with me about given that you are still not "fractured and fragmented" yourself? All I can do then is attempt to understand that better.


But you don't even do that. I've given you numerous opportunities to understand it better, but you dismiss them all as in one way or another irrelevant. To wit, we have different understandings of what an "intellectual contraption" is. If you understood that, you'd understand how it is I can agree with you that had things been different I wouldn't necessarily be arguing in favor of the truckers, and that given the arbitrary manner by which we come to acquire our political prejudices one would have to be a fool to believe he or she just so happens to inherit the "right" political prejudice, and yet I'm ok with the stance that I do take. I acknowledge everything leading up to your conclusion, but I reject your conclusion. And this hinges on our understanding of what an "intellectual contraption" is. Too bad you can't be bothered to follow up on that.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, if you call tying that to the trucker's protest relevant to the points I am trying to make here.


How could it not be relevant? Tying it to the trucker protest is exactly what you asked me to do. If that isn't relevant, why did you ask?

The problem, Biggy, is that you're expecting a square peg to fit into a round hole. You read my "cloudy" explanation of how my understanding of "intellectual contraption" differs from yours, and you asked me to tie it to the trucker protest. When I did, you found it to be no less cloudy than it was before. What this tells me is that you were expecting it to come across as something much more mundane or "down to earth"--as if what I was really talking about was something like the right to refuse vaccination, or the right to question the government's authority, or any number of the ideas your much more familiar with and well versed in--as if the only reason it sounds like I'm talking about way-up-in-the-clouds metaphysical concepts (like the nature of consciousness, the problem of mind and matter, the relation between perception and reality, etc.) is because I'm choosing to use way-up-in-the-clouds language (which you don't speak) and if only I were to translate it to earth-language, it would be put into words and concepts completely unrelated to metaphysical ideas like consciousness, mind and matter, perception and reality, etc.--words and concepts related more to things like the trucker protest, abortion, women's rights, black lives matter, or any of the hot political topics of the day which you feel way more comfortable talking about.

You have a choice when this happens: either 1) accuse me of failing to bring it down to earth, or 2) recognize the flaw in your expectations, that a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole. What you read when I tied my cloudy explanations to the trucker protest is just what it ends up looking like when I tie it to the trucker protest. I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't fail to bring it down to earth. Those are just the results you get when you ask me to tie my cloudy metaphysics about consciousness (specifically intellectual contraptions in this case) to the trucker protest. The reason it still seems cloudy to you is because cloud-language is the only language with which it can be expressed. IOW, it won't change when I tie it to the trucker protest.

So make your choice. Either recognize the opportunity presented to you by these results, the opportunity to grow, to expand and deepen your understanding of other people's views, to refine the shape of the hole you're trying to fit pegs into--or don't. Block it out. Continue to insist that I failed to come down out of the clouds. That way, you won't ever have to step outside the comfort zone of your intellectual sanctuary. You can continue to throw people into the buckets of objectivist pinheads and nihilist who believe exactly what you believe. Either way, you won't have to endure the pains of growth. You'll never find what you claim to be seeking, mind you, but at least you'll have your comfort zone until the day you die.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:And if you can't work with this despite that I tied it into the trucker protest, would you say that we're out of options? I mean, you keep saying that you need your discussion partner to tie his/her point to the subject matter of the discussion. So when that fails, what do you fall back on?


The next time there's a trucker protest take these arguments to them. See how they react to it.


So, into the waste bin I go. :lol:

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.


Again, how you connect the dots between points like this and the truckers protest itself is beyond my grasping.


Don't always assume I am connecting the dots. This is yet another example of... *drum roll*... a segue! I order to figure out what started it (in the hopes of seeing if it *could* be tied to the trucker protest), I did what you never bother to do: trace it back to the source. And let me tell you, it is a looong segue--which raises the question of why only now are you concerned with its relevance to the trucker protest. It stems from our discussion about how my life might have turned out differently had I not been stood up by that girl when I was 16 (which itself was a segue driven by you--I guess it's ok when you do it). I figured I could stop there as not only did you initiate that segue but you seemed to be driving to a point that you thought was relevant despite having nothing to do with the trucker protest, so I didn't think we needed to figure out where that segue came from (although it seems obvious it came from you challenging the foundations on which my pro-trucker stance rests) as you seemed to accept it as relevant up to that point.

So this is how the conversation went:

iambiguous and gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Obviously not every single experience you have matters the same. But those that revolve around politics count for considerably more.


gib wrote:And I believe I've given you that.


iambiguous wrote:Yes, but you haven't thought it through as I do.


gib wrote:How do you know I haven't thought it through? I don't come to the same conclusions, or perhaps I'm not reacting to those conclusions the same way you are, but I think at this point I've definitely thought it through as you have. We've been over this time and time and time again, and I'm seeing nothing new in your argument at this point. I think the crux of our disagreement is in this conclusions we draw and our respective reactions to it. So let's focus on that.


What followed was one of my lengthy cloud rambles... but it was still relevant because we were on the topic of where our disagreement/understanding lies and I was attempting to go into detail as to the reason why. You seemed to think such a pursuit was relevant up to this point as you didn't question its relevance and in fact kept fueling it, so I don't think we can say that my rant is irrelevant just because to you it comes across as cloudy.

I will quote this though as it was a point you responded to (the bolded text in particularly) and continues the segue:


gib wrote:I said that we have a fundamental disagreement (whether you realize it or not) about what an "intellectual contraption" is. We both agree that it's something mental (a thought, a concept, a cognitive way of looking at the world) but I think of the mental in a completely different way (from you, from urwrong, from everybody)--the key difference is that I don't think of intellectual contraptions as mere images or illusory objects or fabrications. For example, a concept like "value" is, in a nihilistic vein, a human fabrication. The nihilist says that there is no such thing as value, that it is a human construction, that we made it up and is therefore illusory. But I'm not a nihilist. I concur that we make up the concept of "value" and artificially assign value to things, but making up "value" in the mind is to make it real. More generally, I believe that the mind (i.e. intellectual contraptions) gives reality to the things it makes up. Add relativism to the mix and you've got my brand of subjectivism.


iambiguous wrote:And my moral nihilist doesn't say there is no such thing as value...that it is illusory. He or she says that moral and political values are existential fabrications/concoctions rooted largely in the life that one lives.


gib wrote:IOW, illusory.


iambiguous wrote:No. The existiential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.


gib wrote:Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.


iambiguous wrote:Again, how you connect the dots between points like this and the truckers protest itself is beyond my grasping.



So, I don't know if this helps, but you can see how I connect the dots between my last point and the scenario about the girl who stood me up from which it stemmed--and this is almost literally connecting the dots--so if you can form the connection between that scenario (which you were driving) and the trucker protest, you should be able (quite easily) to connect the dots between that and the last point I made above. And if not, why did you follow along with the segue so long before pointing out that there is no apparent connection between it and the trucker protest?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Huh? Are you saying that the trucker protest isn't derived from the reasons the truckers give for explaining why they believe they are doing the right thing?


Exactly.


I would truly love to be around when you explain that to them.


I have 0 faith that the truckers would believe me were I to argue with them that the reasons they give for being in Ottawa are not the real reason they are there, nor that they would even understand what I'm talking about. You'd probably see me laughed at or ignored. But what is that supposed to prove? Am I supposed to doubt my own points just because I can't convince a group of truckers of their truth? Failing to convince people of the points I make or get them to understand happens all the time. You of all people should know this. You fail to convince people of your points on ILP all the time. Yet you continue to promulgate your nihilist dasein arguments as though that doesn't matter one iota. Why should it matter for me?

iambiguous wrote:Again, all I can do here is imagine their own reaction to something like this. Why is that so definitive? I suspect the reasons they have for acting as they do is more in line with the reasons we give for acting as we do. My main aim is merely to suggest the reasons are derived more from the manner in which I construe dasein here than in anything that philosophers can provide as a foundations for coming up with the optimal reaction to the government and the covid pandemic. Or for some the only rational reaction there can be. Their own.


I'm with you 100% here.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, there are those who get angry because the government does something that they don't like. But how many stop there? Oh, lots, but I get your point--it's the truckers we're talking about. I'm angry and that's enough? No, I suspect that they will discuss this anger with others. And others will be tuning into their favorite news channels or internet blogs. All the "reasons" for why the government does this instead of that will be included in the protest. Along with all the political prejudices that picture two very different worlds that we live in. Red and blue worlds among others. As though reasons and emotions don't become deeply entangled in the minds of those on both sides.


And all of this is to serve the emotions that started it, the emotions that are ultimately the core reason they do anything in this context. All the rest--what they discuss among their friends, what they see on the media, the dwelling, the contemplating, the rationalizing--all serve to make it ok to gratify their emotions, to preserve their sense of moral right while doing so.

iambiguous wrote:If you call this...

gib wrote:With respect to the trucker protest, they are in the moral right because my mind projects it as such. And this is the case only in relation to my mind. To other peoples' minds, it may project in a different way. "I" do not fragment because what "I" am (a supporter of the trucker protest) is also projected by my mind, and that makes it real, keeps it intact.


...an example of coming down out of the clouds, we are far removed regarding what that means.


We are not removed at all. I did exactly what you asked of me. Alas, this is but another example of you expecting a square peg to fit into a round hole. You expected that by tying my subjectivist metaphysics to the trucker protest, it would cease to be subjectivist metaphysics and become something mundane and practical, something you could sink your teeth into (arguments against vaccination, government overreach, the right to protest... hell, I think if I made it about abortion, you'd say I did it right). Like I said above, you have a choice to either recognize that not all pegs will fit into your round hole or scorn me for not being more round.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:That's not changing their minds?


And you don't grasp the distinction here?


It ain't about changing their minds.

iambiguous wrote:How many times over the years here have I noted that my own conclusions regarding "I" in the is/ought world are no less subjective "personal opinions" rooted in dasein. Yet no doubt you will still bring up this point again.


Absolutely I will! Because I don't grant you that excuse. Admitting that your own arguments apply to your own objective statements doesn't get you a free pass any more than a murderer admitting that the law applies to him gets him a free pass--especially one that won't grant the same license to other murderers. It's as if you think by admitting that when you (accidentally?) make objective statements, your own philosophy applies to you no less than to me or urwrong or other ILP pinheads, you get to make objective statements (or that they aren't really objective statements). I mean, that would be all fine and dandy, except that you don't grant the same right to anyone else. Everyone except Biggy is an objectivist pinhead when they make objective sounding statements, but not Biggy; when he makes an objective sounding statement, he excuses it with his my-philosophy-applies-to-me magic wand and makes the problem go away, thus evading objectivist pinhead status.

The problem is that you're human too, and we all, at the end of the day, are compelled to make objective sounding statements (this was my point about how the brain is evolved to structure language to sound objectivy). You try to avoid it for the most part--posing challenges and inquiries instead of making statements, committing to no specific position in the act, and always remembering to claim to be seeking the truth rather than stating your own truth--but you can't help that once in a while, you'll fall prey to the impulse to express yourself using your brain's default language algorithms (i.e. just stating what you think, which comes out as objective sounding statements). When that happens, and when someone points it out, you redeem yourself with the my-philosophy-applies-to-me defense--as if the "you" who made those objective statements was a different "you"--a urwrong, a Uccisor, a gib--someone to whom you can apply the "objectivist pinhead" label--and that's ok because it isn't "you" anymore--you've resumed being your nihilist, dasein loving "I".

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Anyway, my point was (if you can be bothered to go back and read it) that if the effect you're having on other people's minds is to change them (regardless of whether that's what you're trying to do), they will instinctively fight you. And it's not because what you're saying takes away their comfort (although it will make them feel uncomfortable) but because it's just a survival instinct. Whatever it is you think you're doing, it's triggering that instinct in people.


Oh, it's all in the genes then? Pretty close. Though, sure, a comfortable and consoling survival for some does revolve around being convinced that how they construe the trucker protest is the way everyone ought to construe it.


It does for everyone, even you. Think of it this way. Imagine you're having one of your typical debates with a right wing conservative who has deeply religious convictions. You get on the topic of the existence of God, and as you're wont to do, you cast doubt on his arguments for the existence of God. You chip away at his faith until he feels the uneasiness of doubt. And you can tell by the way he gets hostile and defensive. This is the discomfort you often talk about, the discomfort that we may very well live in a No God world, no God to console us in our prayers, no God to be our moral guiding light, no God to take us in as we stand at the gates of heaven upon our death. It is the discomfort that, as you often put it, maybe the arguments you put forward about dasein also apply to him. Now imagine the next day you meet with an atheist, and being the impartial gadfly who strives to treat every objectivist the same regardless of their stance, you dig into him just as you did the theist of yesterday. You make him doubt his certainty that there is no God, that we are free to make our own moral choices, that maybe he will be judged at the end of his life for not believing and not following the one true path. Again, discomfort arises, the same uneasiness you made the theist feel the other day, and you can tell by the way he gets hostile and defensive.

Now you see that in the one case, you caused a man a great deal of discomfort by destroying his belief in God. And in the other, by destroying his doubt in God. You've essentially convinced each one that the other's worldview is the correct one--a worldview that was the source of comfort and solace for one and the source of discomfort and anguish for the other. My point is, it's not the content of the worldview that brings comfort and joy, it's more the sense of feeling secure with one's worldview regardless of the content. Strip that away from a man, no matter what it is, and he will feel discomfort, panic, and rage against you. This is true of you especially, Biggy, as I have not seen a more tightly controlled and narrow comfort zone than yours, and the way you defend it--sometimes flatly blocking out the slightest suggestion that there may be a world of thought beyond your comfort zone--and always channeling every ounce of your energies into keeping the discussion within the bounds of your comfort zone--tells me that you're the poster boy for the point I'm making--namely, that we have a natural instinct to fend off ideas and arguments whose effect is to draw our minds away from the worldviews we've adapted to.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:And from past conversations, I've learned from you that this is Biggy speak for "I don't understand". And that sparked an idea: I was going to try repeating my quote above one sentence at a time and see exactly where I lose you.


No, that's Biggy speak for "I might understand (which means you don't understand) your point better if you intertwined it in your 'subjectivist' assessment of the trucker protest." You're gonna get the same result as above. Clearly the distinction you make between "subjective" and "objective" in regard to "I" in the is/ought world is not the same one I make. Probably. What difference does it make if each new sentence is not connected to the trucker protest?


Difference to what?

iambiguous wrote:Words defending yet more words still. No truckers, no covid pandemic, no government policy in sight. And, again, there are many here eager to sustain this sort of exchange with you. I'm just not one of them.


Yet, the discussion goes on. In this particular case, I don't really care if the experiment relates to the trucker protest. The truckers are irrelevant to the experiment. It can be done regardless of whether the content relates to the trucker protest or not, and I wanted to do it so I moved forward with it.

iambiguous wrote:Though, sure, if the problem is that I don't get why I should be one of them perhaps it is best that you just give up on me and move on to those that value all that can be grasped about the truckers' protest from up in the clouds.


Yeah... or you can.

iambiguous wrote:Then here we go again...

iambiguous wrote:Yeah. Given my own assessment of your posts here. It's just that I'm acknowledging that my assessment of your assessments is in turn a subjective frame of mind rooted existentially in dasein. As opposed to those like Urwrong who insist that others are wrong times a thousand if they don't share his own frenetic moral and political dogmas. With you, it's basically probing where you fit in here between the fulminating fanatic pinheads like him and the fractured and fragmented minds like mine.


Take this speculation down out of the clouds and relate it to the trucker protest...or abortion or feminism or gun control.


I think you quoted the wrong snippet... unless you were refering to the following:

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So it was you that started this tangent which had nothing to do with the trucker protest, talking about how you sort ILP members into your categories instead. You ended off explaining that, with me, you're probing where I fit. So I thought I'd help by giving my explanation of how the problem you are having in categorizing me comes down to language. In other words, my quote was quite relevant to where you took the discussion, but for some reason you expected it to be about the trucker protest (as though I was just ignoring your comment). I wonder if had you not made that mistake, it would have been easier to follow along.

I also wonder whether you have a deficit for processing generalized statements. You asked, "What, in regard to the trucker protest?" to which I said, "In regard to everything". This indicated to me that you couldn't grasp that it was a generalization, that you can't help but to think it has to be about something specific (such that it wouldn't be true of other specific things). But I couldn't answer your question in regard to anything specific (the trucker protest or the difference between subjectivists and objectivists) because my statement was a generalization about how we make statements period. Maybe if I interleaved my quote with examples, it might have helped, but I don't know if that would have helped or hindered your understanding that it wouldn't have been just about the examples I'd give. Generalizations are about all examples one could possibly give. So I wonder if it would have helped had I noted that it was a generalized statement to begin with. Would you have been able to react with "Ok, gib, thanks for letting me know. Now I know to read it as a generalization," or would you still not be able to process that?

Now, even though this experiment wasn't the point of this thread, the thread sorta, kinda (not really) fulfilled its purpose. The purpose was to see how a discussion with Biggy goes down when there's an actual context--an IRL context--and when his partner is actually IRL involved. And while we never got around to discussing my motives and rationale for getting involved in the trucker protest, we did get to see what happens when I bring in a totally unrelated philosophy that I, as a subjectivist, believe in.


I don't think you want me to bring this out of the clouds and tie it to the trucker protest. It won't make it any more clear, just as it didn't in the examples above. Learn from this, Biggy, learn from this.

I'll await your response to this. If this quote of mine is actually what your were referring to, and indeed you want me to relate it to the trucker protest, I'll try my best. But I will admonish that you're just gonna get the same confusing results as you get every time you ask this of me. Think this through, Biggy. Think through the assumptions you're making when you ask this of me. Are any of them unwarranted? Are you asking a square peg to fit into a round hole? Give these questions some thought and get back to me.

iambiguous wrote:You've got this overarching frame of mind I sure do! -- http://www.mm-theory.com <-- Yup, that's my subjectivism -- you use to understand the world around you. But I'm only interested in the parts that pertain to this:

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


And I have delivered. You've already gotten a taste of what it looks like when I tie my metaphysical philosophies about consciousness and mind to the trucker protest. It doesn't compute for you. It won't compute with any subsequent attempt.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 17, 2022 2:28 am

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Who is arguing that the truckers in Canada were obligated to protest?


You did, right here:

Biggy says we have an obligation - 40%.png


Ok, ok, fine... you didn't exactly say the truckers have an obligation to protest, but I didn't say you did.


My point was only to suggest the obvious: that in regard to situations when citizens are angry at one or another government policy, any number of them will feel an obligation to protest that policy. Not that they must protest. After all, each of us is in a particular situation. For any number of reasons protesting may not be an actual option for us. We might lose our job, or a relationship or in some instances or very lives might be in danger. If, for example, the government policy is being pursued by someone like Vladimir Putin. Think the Nazis and the Jews.

Back to that age old relationship between outrage and fear. We are outraged at someone for doing this or that but if we protest too loudly we fear they have the power to cause us great harm. Each of us has to weigh our options given the situation as we perceive it.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and you either let that sink in all the way or you don't. Once you come to recognize that 1] your commitment to the trucker protest is profoundly rooted existentially in dasein and that 2] had your life been different you might be here arguing against the protest, you ask yourself, "okay, so what then is the most rational manner in which to react to it"?


gib wrote: Well, maybe you ask yourself that question, but trust me, one can allow the above to sink in and not bother to ask that question.


Sure they can. But then most don't construe moral and political value judgments as I do. As the existential embodiment of dasein. Clearly objectivists don't think it through as I do.

To wit:

gib wrote: One would have to presuppose that 1) there is a most rational manner in which to react, and 2) that it matters. I don't believe in 1) and I'm not even sure 2) is true. So why would I ask myself that question?


Because you are not an objectivist?

Although, from my frame of mind, you seem more than capable of playing one here.

gib wrote: And yet, you seem to agree that I get everything leading up to that point. But if this is the question you're asking yourself once all the above has sunk in, I question how much of a nihilist or subjectivist you really are, expecting there to still be a "most rational manner" in which to react.


Here I go back to "the gap". There's what "here and now" "I" think about "the most rational manner" in which to think about the trucker protest, and there's all that can be known about it. After all, there may well be a God. And there may well be His secular equivalent...a Humanist argument that nails it. It's like the moral equivalent of the black swan. I don't think objectively it is possible here in a No God world, but all it takes is one argument here or elsewhere to bring that crashing down all around me.

iambiguous wrote:Obviously. But the existential implications of how we both understand "contingency, chance and change" in our lives here is clearly different.


gib wrote: Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not really sure what "contingency, chance, and change" has to do with this. Why don't you tell me what "contingency, chance, and change" means to you and what it has to do with the manner in which we draw our own conclusions after letting all the above sink in?


Again, the truckers protesting, others reacting to the protest. All of the existential contingences in your life that would have to fall into places in order for you to be drawn into it deeply. There was always the chance that had your life been different for any number of reasons at any number of junctures, you would have had no interest in it at all. And then any subsequent changes in your life [experiences, relationships, info/knowledge] that cause you to drop your commitment. Or switch to the other side.

Thus, from my own frame of mind...

iambiguous wrote:You acknowledge it...but you don't. Yes, you may well be here arguing against the truckers had things been different in your life. But they weren't so you're not. So, what exactly is it that you are agreeing with me about given that you are still not "fractured and fragmented" yourself? All I can do then is attempt to understand that better.


gib wrote: But you don't even do that.


Or, perhaps, if I did, I would think of all this more like you do?

gib wrote: I've given you numerous opportunities to understand it better, but you dismiss them all as in one way or another irrelevant. To wit, we have different understandings of what an "intellectual contraption" is. If you understood that, you'd understand how it is I can agree with you that had things been different I wouldn't necessarily be arguing in favor of the truckers, and that given the arbitrary manner by which we come to acquire our political prejudices one would have to be a fool to believe he or she just so happens to inherit the "right" political prejudice, and yet I'm ok with the stance that I do take. I acknowledge everything leading up to your conclusion, but I reject your conclusion. And this hinges on our understanding of what an "intellectual contraption" is. Too bad you can't be bothered to follow up on that.


You're okay with the stance that you take even though you readily admit that had things been different in your life you'd be be okay with taking the opposite stance. Now, this point by me is not construed by you to be me actually following up on your point. Okay, we are clearly stuck then. Maybe we can get beyond that, maybe not.

But my point is then this: If John recognizes that his support for the truckers is just the existential embodiment of dasein and Jane recognizes that her rejection of the truckers is also just the existential embodiment of dasein, can they come to a philosophy forum such as this and arrive at the most rational reaction to the protest? Or does it always more or less revolve around the manner in which I construe "conflicting goods":

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own value judgments regarding the trucker protest are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective value judgments "I" can reach here, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap here, 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.

And so fitting the cloudy square pegs into the cloudy round holes persist between us. Because I hear you claiming to understand me while claiming in turn to be comfortable with the stance you take now in support of the truckers.

From my frame of mind, you could hardly be misunderstanding my points more. Otherwise you would recognize your support as still just a particular political prejudice of yours rooted largely in dasein. Same with vaccinations and reacting to the authority of the government and regarding all the other moral and political conflagrations that beset us. There's objectivism on one end of the commitment spectrum and a fractured and fragmented ambivalence on the other end. And how "I" understand it, and how you do.

From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is all about establishing that "comfort zone" where you can claim to grasp the points I make here but still feel assured that your support of the truckers is, what, the most rational argument? If so, you understand practically next to nothing about how "I" react to them.

gib wrote:And if you can't work with this despite that I tied it into the trucker protest, would you say that we're out of options? I mean, you keep saying that you need your discussion partner to tie his/her point to the subject matter of the discussion. So when that fails, what do you fall back on?


The next time there's a trucker protest take these arguments to them. See how they react to it.


gib wrote: So, into the waste bin I go. :lol:


Actually, my point is more along the lines of how you will react when these objectivists truckers and objectivists apologist here are the ones who toss you into the waste bin, not me. They'd expect me to argue as I do, they wouldn't expect you to argue as I do. Or, rather, up to the point where you say you don't. Confusing them all the more.

gib wrote: So, I don't know if this helps, but you can see how I connect the dots between my last point and the scenario about the girl who stood me up from which it stemmed--and this is almost literally connecting the dots--so if you can form the connection between that scenario (which you were driving) and the trucker protest, you should be able (quite easily) to connect the dots between that and the last point I made above. And if not, why did you follow along with the segue so long before pointing out that there is no apparent connection between it and the trucker protest?


My point is still the same. The girl who stood you up might well have been that crucial "contingency, chance and change" component in your life that led you to being here insisting instead that you are comfortable with the stance you take rejecting the trucker protest. She might have been the one able to provide you with the thinking that others were and are not.

iambiguous wrote:Huh? Are you saying that the trucker protest isn't derived from the reasons the truckers give for explaining why they believe they are doing the right thing?


gib wrote: Exactly.


I would truly love to be around when you explain that to them.


gib wrote: I have 0 faith that the truckers would believe me were I to argue with them that the reasons they give for being in Ottawa are not the real reason they are there, nor that they would even understand what I'm talking about.


What I would broach here is that there are no essential, objective reasons for or against the protest. There are only the subjective reasons derived from political prejudices embodied in dasein. Imagine their reaction to that. And then you saying, what, "that's true but you can still feel comfortable with your 'stance' as the most rational frame of mind."

gib wrote: You'd probably see me laughed at or ignored. But what is that supposed to prove? Am I supposed to doubt my own points just because I can't convince a group of truckers of their truth? Failing to convince people of the points I make or get them to understand happens all the time. You of all people should know this. You fail to convince people of your points on ILP all the time. Yet you continue to promulgate your nihilist dasein arguments as though that doesn't matter one iota. Why should it matter for me?


I do doubt my own value judgments here. And for all the reasons I've given.

And, please, come on, here I am calling into question not whether someone is right or wrong about the trucker protest but whether their convictions themselves are but subjective contraptions rooted not in the objective truth but in profoundly problematic existential narratives....ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and new ways in which to think about it.

Of course many here will react askance to that!

iambiguous wrote:Again, all I can do here is imagine their own reaction to something like this. I suspect the reasons they have for acting as they do is more in line with the reasons we give for acting as we do. My main aim is merely to suggest the reasons are derived more from the manner in which I construe dasein here than in anything that philosophers can provide as a foundations for coming up with the optimal reaction to the government and the covid pandemic. Or for some the only rational reaction there can be. Their own.


gib wrote: I'm with you 100% here.


Right, 100%.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, there are those who get angry because the government does something that they don't like. But how many stop there? I'm angry and that's enough? No, I suspect that they will discuss this anger with others. And others will be tuning into their favorite news channels or internet blogs. All the "reasons" for why the government does this instead of that will be included in the protest. Along with all the political prejudices that picture two very different worlds that we live in. Red and blue worlds among others. As though reasons and emotions don't become deeply entangled in the minds of those on both sides.


gib wrote: And all of this is to serve the emotions that started it, the emotions that are ultimately the core reason they do anything in this context. All the rest--what they discuss among their friends, what they see on the media, the dwelling, the contemplating, the rationalizing--all serve to make it ok to gratify their emotions, to preserve their sense of moral right while doing so.


Emotions here are no less the embodiment of dasein to me. Some think and feel one way about the protest, others another way. Where exactly would the line be drawn? Depends on the individual of course.

And what does that depend on?

iambiguous wrote:How many times over the years here have I noted that my own conclusions regarding "I" in the is/ought world are no less subjective "personal opinions" rooted in dasein. Yet no doubt you will still bring up this point again.


gib wrote: Absolutely I will! Because I don't grant you that excuse. Admitting that your own arguments apply to your own objective statements doesn't get you a free pass any more than a murderer admitting that the law applies to him gets him a free pass--especially one that won't grant the same license to other murderers.


What objective statements? A statement I make about the trucker protest is either able to be demonstrated as in fact the objective truth or it isn't. If I state this protest unfolded in Madagascar, is that true? If I state the protest was a just cause is that true? That's always the distinction I make. Same with murder. What particular murder in what particular context construed from what particular point of view?

gib wrote: It's as if you think by admitting that when you (accidentally?) make objective statements, your own philosophy applies to you no less than to me or urwrong or other ILP pinheads, you get to make objective statements (or that they aren't really objective statements). I mean, that would be all fine and dandy, except that you don't grant the same right to anyone else. Everyone except Biggy is an objectivist pinhead when they make objective sounding statements, but not Biggy; when he makes an objective sounding statement, he excuses it with his my-philosophy-applies-to-me magic wand and makes the problem go away, thus evading objectivist pinhead status.


As per usual what you think you are telling others about me is not at all what I think I am telling them.

Cite some examples of these "objective sounding statements" of mine...pertaining to the trucker protest.

And of course from the perspective of others here I am the subjectivist pinhead. Fine. Choose a context involving conflicting behaviors revolving around conflicting value judgments and let's explore our respective moral philosophies.

Then [to me] stratight back up into what "I" construe to be the "intellectual contraption clouds":

gib wrote: The problem is that you're human too, and we all, at the end of the day, are compelled to make objective sounding statements (this was my point about how the brain is evolved to structure language to sound objectivy). You try to avoid it for the most part--posing challenges and inquiries instead of making statements, committing to no specific position in the act, and always remembering to claim to be seeking the truth rather than stating your own truth--but you can't help that once in a while, you'll fall prey to the impulse to express yourself using your brain's default language algorithms (i.e. just stating what you think, which comes out as objective sounding statements). When that happens, and when someone points it out, you redeem yourself with the my-philosophy-applies-to-me defense--as if the "you" who made those objective statements was a different "you"--a urwrong, a Uccisor, a gib--someone to whom you can apply the "objectivist pinhead" label--and that's ok because it isn't "you" anymore--you've resumed being your nihilist, dasein loving "I".


Again, note some of these "objective sounding statements" as they pertain to the distinction I make between the trucker protest re the either/or world and our reactions to it re the is/ought world.

I may simply be misunderstanding your point here.

gib wrote: Anyway, my point was (if you can be bothered to go back and read it) that if the effect you're having on other people's minds is to change them (regardless of whether that's what you're trying to do), they will instinctively fight you. And it's not because what you're saying takes away their comfort (although it will make them feel uncomfortable) but because it's just a survival instinct. Whatever it is you think you're doing, it's triggering that instinct in people.


iambiguous wrote:Oh, it's all in the genes then? Though, sure, a comfortable and consoling survival for some does revolve around being convinced that how they construe the trucker protest is the way everyone ought to construe it.


gib wrote: It does for everyone, even you. Think of it this way. Imagine you're having one of your typical debates with a right wing conservative who has deeply religious convictions. You get on the topic of the existence of God, and as you're wont to do, you cast doubt on his arguments for the existence of God. You chip away at his faith until he feels the uneasiness of doubt. And you can tell by the way he gets hostile and defensive. This is the discomfort you often talk about, the discomfort that we may very well live in a No God world, no God to console us in our prayers, no God to be our moral guiding light, no God to take us in as we stand at the gates of heaven upon our death. It is the discomfort that, as you often put it, maybe the arguments you put forward about dasein also apply to him.


Yes, and, in part, I speak of this discomfort because, in once having been both a God and a No God objectivist myself, I felt and still do feel the profound discomfort of experiencing the world of conflicting goods from a fractured and fragmented frame of mind. And from a frame of mind that presumes "in the end" I've still got oblivion to deal with. This discomfort is an everyday reality for me...but not for the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. For them it only becomes disturbing if my arguments start to "get" to them.

I sense this here all the time. But, again, I have to acknowledge that what "I" do sense here is no less a subjective manifestation of dasein...as "here and now" I understand it.

gib wrote: Now imagine the next day you meet with an atheist, and being the impartial gadfly who strives to treat every objectivist the same regardless of their stance, you dig into him just as you did the theist of yesterday. You make him doubt his certainty that there is no God, that we are free to make our own moral choices, that maybe he will be judged at the end of his life for not believing and not following the one true path. Again, discomfort arises, the same uneasiness you made the theist feel the other day, and you can tell by the way he gets hostile and defensive.


Yes, I have in fact done precisely that in regard to those like Sculptor. Just ask Bob or Ierrellus. He can be truly mocking in regard to the religious minded here. Whereas I am the first to admit that, sure, there may well be a God, the God. That's certainly one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Instead, for the religious minded, I request that they bring this God [spiritual path] of theirs here:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

This is the part that brings about the most discomfort for them. Or, rather, given my own existential reaction to them down through the years.

gib wrote: Now you see that in the one case, you caused a man a great deal of discomfort by destroying his belief in God. And in the other, by destroying his doubt in God. You've essentially convinced each one that the other's worldview is the correct one--a worldview that was the source of comfort and solace for one and the source of discomfort and anguish for the other. My point is, it's not the content of the worldview that brings comfort and joy, it's more the sense of feeling secure with one's worldview regardless of the content.


Yes. That's the whole point of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The objectivist belief can be anything. It's the belief itself that is the main point. Or, rather, my main point. Their reactions to the trucker strike is often just a springboard to convey their reactions to the role of government in our lives itself: "I" vs. we", "capitalism vs, socialism", "genes vs. memes" and on and on.

gib wrote: Strip that away from a man, no matter what it is, and he will feel discomfort, panic, and rage against you. This is true of you especially, Biggy, as I have not seen a more tightly controlled and narrow comfort zone than yours, and the way you defend it--sometimes flatly blocking out the slightest suggestion that there may be a world of thought beyond your comfort zone--and always channeling every ounce of your energies into keeping the discussion within the bounds of your comfort zone--tells me that you're the poster boy for the point I'm making--namely, that we have a natural instinct to fend off ideas and arguments whose effect is to draw our minds away from the worldviews we've adapted to.


Again, if you choose to construe my own frame of mind here as source of comfort and consolation, I can only note how completely preposterous that is. To live with the existential belief that my own life is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that I have access to no capacity to differentiate right from wrong behavior and that any day now "I" will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion...To believe that could possibly be a comforting way to construe one's reality?

Then it all comes back to whatever the hell this means...

gib wrote: And I have delivered. You've already gotten a taste of what it looks like when I tie my metaphysical philosophies about consciousness and mind to the trucker protest. It doesn't compute for you. It won't compute with any subsequent attempt.


...in regard to the trucker protest the role of government and whatever else you subsume inside your own "metaphysical philosophy about consciousness and mind".

But so much more to the point [mine] it's not what this epistemological/intellectual contraption philosophy means to me but what it means to the truckers doing the protesting.

Run it by them or anyone else protesting something that the government does wholly in sync with your political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, and get back to us.

How about the war in Ukraine?
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Sculptor » Sun Apr 17, 2022 12:22 pm

gib wrote:This is another invitation to the distinguished I.A. Biguous to join me in another hopeless debate that he can't contribute to without a context. Well, as fortune would have it, we have a context. We have one hell of a mother fucking context--the Freedom Convoy in Canada.

A sad and tiny minority of Trumpers.
No need for hypotheticals. And I'm the perfect person to engage with. I am a Canadian and I am involved! You no longer have to ask me what would I do. I can tell you what I am doing.

So whadya say Biggy? Wanna try this again?

They got more publicity than they deserved and melted away at the least provocaion.
Bye bye.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Apr 17, 2022 12:27 pm

Opposition has nukes. Folks got mouths to feed. Gonna take divine intervention or mutually assured destruction to end what’s coming.
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: 6063
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby gib » Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:06 am

iambiguous wrote:My point was only to suggest the obvious: that in regard to situations when citizens are angry at one or another government policy, any number of them will feel an obligation to protest that policy. Not that they must protest. Very well then. Let's drop it. After all, each of us is in a particular situation. For any number of reasons protesting may not be an actual option for us. We might lose our job, or a relationship or in some instances or very lives might be in danger. If, for example, the government policy is being pursued by someone like Vladimir Putin. Think the Nazis and the Jews.


Absolutely!

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Well, maybe you ask yourself that question, but trust me, one can allow the above to sink in and not bother to ask that question.

Sure they can. But then most don't construe moral and political value judgments as I do. As the existential embodiment of dasein. Clearly objectivists don't think it through as I do.

Perhaps a discussion on how you construe dasein is warranted. I've been assuming it doesn't deviate far from Heidegger's meaning since he coined the term, but maybe that's a false assumption.

To wit:

gib wrote:One would have to presuppose that 1) there is a most rational manner in which to react, and 2) that it matters. I don't believe in 1) and I'm not even sure 2) is true. So why would I ask myself that question?


Because you are not an objectivist?


I would think I'd ask the question if I was an objectivist. Objectivists definitely believe there is a most rational manner in which to react and moral objectivists definitely believe it matters. Granted, a staunch objectivist probably wouldn't budge from his or her original position on matters like the trucker protest or vaccine mandates or whatever else, and therefore wouldn't end up in a mind state where they begin to doubt their position and were thus compelled to ask the question, but I would still think that however one ends up in such a mind state, the compulsion to ask the question could only be motivated by a quasi-desperate attempt to restore some form of objectivism. A true subjectivist would have no problem letting go of the question.

iambiguous wrote:Although, from my frame of mind, you seem more than capable of playing one here.


Yes, I'm capable of playing one. I can easily slip into the role. I can easily slip into many roles. I guess it's one of my talents. I can take another person's point of view and slip myself into their world. And since we live in a largely objectivists world--especially when you consider objectivism is more or less the brain's "default" paradigm--it's exceedingly easy to slip into an objectivist frame of mind.

iambiguous wrote:Here I go back to "the gap". There's what "here and now" "I" think about "the most rational manner" in which to think about the trucker protest, and there's all that can be known about it. After all, there may well be a God. And there may well be His secular equivalent...a Humanist argument that nails it. It's like the moral equivalent of the black swan. I don't think objectively it is possible here in a No God world, but all it takes is one argument here or elsewhere to bring that crashing down all around me.


So is this an argument from ignorance? As in, I [iambiguous] don't know whether there is a most rational manner in which to react, therefore I ask the question just in case?

iambiguous wrote:Again, the truckers protesting, others reacting to the protest. All of the existential contingences in your life that would have to fall into places in order for you to be drawn into it deeply. There was always the chance that had your life been different for any number of reasons at any number of junctures, you would have had no interest in it at all. And then any subsequent changes in your life [experiences, relationships, info/knowledge] that cause you to drop your commitment. Or switch to the other side.


So it sounds like "contingency and chance" refer to the multitude of random variables that steer us in the directions our lives take us and "change" refers to the effect, the consequences of how these numerous variables continually influence us, possibly compelling us to change our minds. Ok, so contingency, chance, and change is indeed a powerful force that most likely would condition us--you and I--to draw different conclusions after letting all that we have talked about sink in--you being prompted to ask the question "what then is the most rational manner in which to react" and me feeling not the slightest compulsion to ask this question.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You acknowledge it...but you don't. Yes, you may well be here arguing against the truckers had things been different in your life. But they weren't so you're not. So, what exactly is it that you are agreeing with me about given that you are still not "fractured and fragmented" yourself? All I can do then is attempt to understand that better.

But you don't even do that.

Or, perhaps, if I did, I would think of all this more like you do?


Or at least show signs of being interested, if not comprehending at least something to start. But I don't see that from you. I see repeated attempts to feign wanting to understand other people's points of view better, but your actions tell a different story--that of wanting to challenge and destroy other people's points of view (and if you can't, to avoid them).

iambiguous wrote:You're okay with the stance that you take even though you readily admit that had things been different in your life you'd be be okay with taking the opposite stance. Now, this point by me is not construed by you to be me actually following up on your point. Okay, we are clearly stuck then. Maybe we can get beyond that, maybe not.


To be clear, I'm not 100% sure I have a solid position on the trucker protest (or any controversial issue). I'm driven primarily by emotion and, if I have to, I put together a rational sounding justification after the fact--and only to the extent that I have to. What I'm okay with is following my emotions insofar as it doesn't bother my conscience too much.

iambiguous wrote:But my point is then this: If John recognizes that his support for the truckers is just the existential embodiment of dasein and Jane recognizes that her rejection of the truckers is also just the existential embodiment of dasein, can they come to a philosophy forum such as this and arrive at the most rational reaction to the protest?


Does the most rational reaction include throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "I don't know"? Because that's what I imagine John and Jane would do if they really took your dasein argument to heart (and thought it through as you do). I don't see any other conclusion to draw from the fact that whatever our political prejudices, it's all just existential embodiments of dasein, than that there is no obvious One and Only objectively correct or best rational manner in which to react--it would all appear to be put on equal footing, so to speak--equally arbitrary, equally vacuous--so what else could John and Jane do but both agree to give up trying to figure out it? (I suppose then at least they would stop butting heads with each other.) <-- If that counts as a most rational manner in which to react after taking your dasein argument into account, then I suppose there is hope for an affirmative answer: there is at least that reaction.

Personally, I've always felt that conflicting goods can be looked at as a tragedy--that we live in a tragic world in which the most fair outcome can't always be realized. Everyone has a right to be protected from deadly diseases like COVID; yet at the same time, everyone has a right to their own bodily determination, including whether a vaccine is injected into it or not (and without having to choose between the vaccine and their livelihood or freedom). What the trucker protest shows is that we don't always have a way to satisfy both, so the outcome inevitably ends up being tragic for some.

^ This doesn't give us the perfect prescription for how to behave or what to do about the problem. People on both sides of the isle will, when faced with the choice to either act or role over, still choose to act in their own self-interest, but at least we can all agree that it is tragic that some will get their way and others won't--that we would all, if we could, apply the solution that protects the rights of as many of us as possible and mourn, to whatever extent we can, those whose rights we cannot protect--and this preserve at least a small glimer of faith that underneath the surface, despite being at each other's throats, we act in good will.

iambiguous wrote:And so fitting the cloudy square pegs into the cloudy round holes persist between us. Because I hear you claiming to understand me while claiming in turn to be comfortable with the stance you take now in support of the truckers.


I'm comfortable with my stance because I don't need it to be rooted in a rock solid logical foundation (like an impeccably rational argument or an objectively demonstrable proof)--I'm okay with a bit of faith, I'm okay with being driven (to a degree) by emotion rather than rationality, and I suppose to a large extent I feel comfortable knowing there are plenty of others who take my side and have my back (a strong social support group goes a long way, I think). The comfort I take in my stances doesn't hinge on the criteria you seem to be laying down, at least for yourself, namely that it must be capable of rising above the status of being just a mere intellectual contraption or the existential embodiment of dasein. For me, it can be all that and I'm still ok with it.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, you could hardly be misunderstanding my points more. Otherwise you would recognize your support as still just a particular political prejudice of yours rooted largely in dasein. Same with vaccinations and reacting to the authority of the government and regarding all the other moral and political conflagrations that beset us. There's objectivism on one end of the commitment spectrum and a fractured and fragmented ambivalence on the other end. And how "I" understand it, and how you do.


You know, Biggy, I think you're just out of touch with your emotions. You seem to live in a world of pure intellectualism, and if you acknowledge emotions at all, it's only to dismiss them as "just another existential embodiment of dasein". You seem to think that, at the end of the day, any support for or against issue X, any stance one can take, or any attachment or commitment to a belief or a moral position, amounts to nothing more than a purely intellectual thought structure--a thought structure that stands or falls depending on if its host believes in it absolutely and finally--i.e. that it must be true for all men and women in all situations or it's not true at all--and that whoever takes this stance or supports this or that side of an issue believes wholeheartedly that he or she grasps the absolute truth of the matter and "knows" indubitably that he or she is irrevocably correct--and if any sliver of doubt enters in, he or she cannot help but to drop his or her stance entirely--black and white just like that.

Is there no room in your world for "I could be wrong but I still believe"? Can one not say "I'm not sure what the ultimate defense of my position is but I support it nonetheless"? Of course there is, but only because you believe people who say this haven't truly grasped the gravity of what your dasein argument entails. You believe that if one truly grasped it, they could never say something like this. They would either have (or think they have) a definitive demonstrable proof of their position that all rational men and women are obligated to acknowledge--or they would remain suspended in the same kind of nihilistic limbo that you find yourself in, their "I" being fractured and fragmented. The former case seems to be the only situation you can conceive that would permit one who grasps your dasein arguments to continue to believe. But I submit to you that there are other ways--despite grasping your dasein arguments--and I would, if I were you, look at emotions for a start.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is all about establishing that "comfort zone" where you can claim to grasp the points I make here but still feel assured that your support of the truckers is, what, the most rational argument? <-- Ah ha! That confirms what I thought! If so, you understand practically next to nothing about how "I" react to them.


Hopefully, what I said above about the role of emotions in sustaining beliefs and values and the positions one takes on controversial issues like the trucker protest sheds some light on your confusion. In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are right"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to win." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.

iambiguous wrote:Actually, my point is more along the lines of how you will react when these objectivists truckers and objectivists apologist here are the ones who toss you into the waste bin, not me. They'd expect me to argue as I do, they wouldn't expect you to argue as I do. Or, rather, up to the point where you say you don't. Confusing them all the more.


Oh, you mean you would direct me to take my arguments to the truckers. And in this chain of the thread, we're talking about taking my arguments about the metaphysics of consciousness to the truckers. Unfortunately, I don't think this would help you at all; I don't think the truckers could make heads or tells of my metaphysics of consciousness any more than you could, let alone how it ties into the trucker protest.

I wonder if we have any truckers who were involved in the protest on this board, or maybe just supporters of the trucker protest. If so, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to conduct yet another experiment (sorry Bigs, I know you hate when I experiment, but in this case, you'd be getting exactly what you want :D)--me explaining my metaphysics of consciousness to a trucker protest supporter, and specifically how it ties in to the trucker protest (regardless, I guess, of whether that says anything about which side of the debate is right).

iambiguous wrote:My point is still the same. The girl who stood you up might well have been that crucial "contingency, chance and change" component in your life that led you to being here insisting instead that you are comfortable with the stance you take rejecting the trucker protest. She might have been the one able to provide you with the thinking that others were and are not.


That wasn't your point. You're point was that values are not illusory to the nihilist, remember? At least your brand of nihilism:

iambiguous & gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:No. The existiential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.

gib wrote:Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.
iambiguous wrote:Again, how you connect the dots between points like this and the truckers protest itself is beyond my grasping.



And now it isn't.

It's true, you did make a point about the girl who stood me up waaay back, and it's a fine point--no qualms here--but it's a distraction now.

iambiguous wrote:What I would broach here is that there are no essential, objective reasons for or against the protest. There are only the subjective reasons derived from political prejudices embodied in dasein. EXACTLY!!! Imagine their reaction to that. And then you saying, what, "that's true but you can still feel comfortable with your 'stance' as the most rational frame of mind."


Drop the "as the most rational frame of mind". It's not "as" anything. It's just whichever side of the debate/protest they're on.

iambiguous wrote:I do doubt my own value judgments here. And for all the reasons I've given.


And for some reason, you take me as having absolutely no doubts in my own value judgments.

iambiguous wrote:Emotions here are no less the embodiment of dasein to me.


Well, as long as we agree that the primary motivating factor driving the truckers to protest was their emotions, I'm all good with this line in the conversation. Are emotions the embodiment of dasein? Sure, they can be, and in the trucker protest they most likely are. But here, what it means for one to feel the "right" emotions or the "wrong" emotions is something entirely different than what it means to take the "right" stance or the "wrong" stance.

To clarify, by being the embodiment of dasein, I assume that you mean the emotions that are invoked in a person when he hears about the truckers being forced to vaccinate depend almost entirely on that person's history--how they we raised, what in regards to vaccines, truckers, etc. they experienced in the past, what media sources they are regularly exposed to, etc., etc., etc.. One person might react favorably to the news that the government is mandating vaccines for truckers who cross the border--"Good! It's about time someone forced them to vaccinate!" they might think--and another person might react unfavorably--"What?! The government has no right! How dare they!" <-- Is that the idea?

Then consider this--what does it mean for one to take the "right" stance on a debate such as the trucker protest? I take it to mean that we assume there is an objective truth out there that is reflected in one's stance, that is aligned with it. And assuming for the moment that we can cleanly separate any emotions from one's stance (such that, like Spock, one is completely unattached to one's stance--one just happens to have it at the moment), if it was shown to a person that the truth actually differs from his stance, it would seem strange were he to stay committed to his stance--as though he were suffering some form of brain abnormality or acting completely irrationally. Typically, the stances we take (without involving emotions for the moment) hinge on the truth as we know it. Change what we know about the truth, and we subject our stances to change.

But now turn to emotions. How are emotions effected by changes in how we see the truth? Well, sometimes they change just like the stances we take (ex. anger towards a spouse fades instantly when we learn she wasn't cheating after all) but not always. Here's an imaginary scenario to drive the point home: you are hiding from a crazed murderer who wants to take your life. You are overwhelmed with fear--a perfectly fine example of an emotion--now while you stay put in your hiding place, you consider your usual arguments about dasein and how this fear you feel is no less the existential embodiment of dasein than your stance that murder is wrong--you consider that if you were in the murderer's shoes, you may well believe that there is nothing wrong with killing. It might even be a thrill. Short of feeling terrified, you'd feel elation if you were in the murderer's shoes. But as clear as that line of thinking is to you, no matter how impossible it feels to refute it, you still can't shake the fear from your bones. You acknowledge that, with respect to your emotions, you might as well have gone in the other direction (elation); you even acknowledge that, not being privy to some ultimate demonstrable objective proof that either your fear is the right emotion to have or the murderer's sense of elation is the right emotion to have, you can't even feel indifferent; you can't even feel emotionally suspended in some nihilistic limbo, suspended until you can somehow figure out what the right emotion to have is. No, you continue to be overwhelmed with this relentless fear, a heart pounding fear that just won't go away, that won't listen to your dasein arguments or considerations of other ways to feel like that of the murderer. It persists in your chest in defiance of every intellectual contraption you bring to bear against it.

Now, can you tell me why this is? Why would you continue to feel fear while hiding from a murderer who's out for your blood when you know, had it been a belief, a thought, a conviction on some highly important political issue, your considerations about dasein would at least have brought doubt to your mind if not thrown out the belief, thought, or conviction all together? I'll tell you why? Because unlike thought and our intellectual stances on things, emotions aren't about the truth--they aren't trying to get at what's universally true for all of us--they're about our own self-interest. What's right for you is not what's right for the murderer. What's right for you is that you stay alive. What's right for the murderer is that he kills you. Emotions aren't interested in your eternal questions, in what is the most rational manner in which to react such that all rational men and women would be obligated to agree with you--they are only interested in what serves your own self-interest--whether morally right or morally wrong--and that is a matter that is often settled before you can even begin to contemplate what might be the ultimate objective truth that, once and for all, applies to all human beings.

This is why, despite agreeing with your dasein arguments on an intellectual level, I can still feel a certain way about this or that issue. I still feel strongly about supporting the truckers despite knowing there is no ultimate rational and objectively real argument I could put forward to convince all rational men and women, once and for all, that they should feel the way I do about the truckers. I feel, on an instinctual level, that the truckers' cause serves my own interests more than that of the vaccine mandate proponents, so it is impossible for me to stay neutral. I find myself, without even choosing, taking a stance anyway.


iambiguous wrote:What objective statements?


*Ugh* This one here!

"That there is no objective morality in a No God world."

...you know, the one that prompted me to say "Careful Biggy--that sounds like an objective statement!"?

And please, you make tons of objective statement all... the... fricken... time... yes, even of the is/ought variety.

But I guess your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick turns them into subjective statements, right? Or is it that the my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick makes it so that it wasn't really "you" who uttered those objective statements (you don't have an "I" after all)?

iambiguous wrote:As per usual what you think you are telling others about me is not at all what I think I am telling them.

Cite some examples of these "objective sounding statements" of mine...pertaining to the trucker protest.


Why pertaining to the trucker protest? My charge against you (that you utter the occasional objective statement) applies generally (as you use the my-philosophy-applies-to-me even outside discussions on the trucker protest).

So let's start with these:

"As per usual what you think you are telling others about me is not at all what I think I am telling them."

"And of course from the perspective of others here I am the subjectivist pinhead."

And from elsewhere in this thread:

"Just another example of a "political prejudice" that you refuse to see as such."

"There's the mentality that there is one and only one way in which to both understand and to react to the protest -- the right way, mine -- or there is the assumption that as with most conflicting goods there are rational arguments to be made from both ends of the political spectrum and that the "best of all possible worlds" is to grapple with policies that take into account the arguments from different political prejudices."

"On the contrary, if I were another Urwong, I'd be insisting that others were wrong times a 1,000 if they did not share my own set of assumptions about you."

"Yes, one way or another. A subjectivist -- a moral nihilist -- starts with the assumption that one would have be omniscient in order to grasp every single component of the truckers protest. He would have to be fully knowledgeable about every aspect of the covid pandemic and the role of government down through the ages. Then the one and the only manner in which to grasp it all together."

"I make it clear that in examining the arguments of those at both ends of the political spectrum here reasonable points can be made given certain intial assumptions above covid and government and the well-being of a community in terms of healthcare policies. Neither side is able to make the points raised by the other side just go away. So, given my own initial assumption regarding "I" as the existential embodiment of dasein re my signature threads here, I am "drawn and quartered". I'm not into calling those who don't agree with me necessarily wrong because they are not "one of us"."

"It really comes downs to how one construes "I" at the existential -- historical, cultural, experiential -- intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy.

Given a particular set of circumstance."

"My point, however, is that for the moral and political objectivists among us, not only do they include their own political dogmas -- really just political prejudices rooted in dasein -- in their set of assumptions but exclude the assumptions of all who don't think exactly like they do."

"Then back to where you fit in here re the trucker protests such that you explore this in coming down out of the sky. Not a fulminating fanatic pinhead like Urwrong but not fractured and fragmented like me."

And that's just from this thread (I could dig up more if I decided to go beyond 8). Imagine what we'd find if we combed this entire site.

What a truly foolish challenge it is for you to press me to find quotes from you that sounded like you were making objective statements. Did you really think you never made them?

iambiguous wrote:Choose a context involving conflicting behaviors revolving around conflicting value judgments and let's explore our respective moral philosophies.


I know! How bout the trucker protest?!

iambiguous wrote:Again, note some of these "objective sounding statements" as they pertain to the distinction I make between the trucker protest re the either/or world and our reactions to it re the is/ought world.


Will the above suffice?

iambiguous wrote:Yes. That's the whole point of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The objectivist belief can be anything. It's the belief itself that is the main point. Or, rather, my main point. Their reactions to the trucker strike is often just a springboard to convey their reactions to the role of government in our lives itself: "I" vs. we", "capitalism vs, socialism", "genes vs. memes" and on and on.


Great! So you do understand. Then you will understand that 1) to say that you cause your contenders discomfort at the thought that your arguments might apply to them is trivial; it's no different than saying the thought that one could be wrong in their convictions causes them discomfort (d'uh!). And 2) insofar as you are human, it applies to you no less than to any other human being. So yeah, the thought that your arguments might apply to your contender might cause them discomfort, but all the same, the thought (in your head) that your contender's points might apply to you causes you discomfort.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Strip that away from a man, no matter what it is, and he will feel discomfort, panic, and rage against you. This is true of you especially, Biggy, as I have not seen a more tightly controlled and narrow comfort zone than yours, and the way you defend it--sometimes flatly blocking out the slightest suggestion that there may be a world of thought beyond your comfort zone--and always channeling every ounce of your energies into keeping the discussion within the bounds of your comfort zone--tells me that you're the poster boy for the point I'm making--namely, that we have a natural instinct to fend off ideas and arguments whose effect is to draw our minds away from the worldviews we've adapted to.


Again, if you choose to construe my own frame of mind here as source of comfort and consolation, I can only note how completely preposterous that is. To live with the existential belief that my own life is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that I have access to no capacity to differentiate right from wrong behavior and that any day now "I" will tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion...To believe that could possibly be a comforting way to construe one's reality?


Aaand your understanding is lost. Look, I have no idea how comfortable or uncomfortable your worldview is (though when it's convenient, you tell us of how liberating your views are), my point is you hang onto it like a life raft because any other worldview is 10 times worse. The discomfort you would feel if someone convinced you that your outlook is wrong--even if that painted a much brighter, rosier picture of the world--would be unbearable compared to what you might feel at the thought of your meaningless, purposeless existence, your lack of a moral compass, and the oblivion that awaits your fall into the abyss of death. I thought above you understood the point that it has absolutely nothing to do with the content of your belief--that an atheist coerced into believing in God feels just as much pain as a theist coerced into doubting God--why then are you now appealing to the content of your beliefs, of the lack of purpose and meaning, of moral compass, and of salvation from the abyss? Why, when you supposedly understand that the pain comes from the act itself of having your beliefs torn to shreds?

iambiguous wrote:Then it all comes back to whatever the hell this means...

gib wrote:And I have delivered. You've already gotten a taste of what it looks like when I tie my metaphysical philosophies about consciousness and mind to the trucker protest. It doesn't compute for you. It won't compute with any subsequent attempt.



Holy shit! The fact that it does not compute itself fails to compute! :lol:

You truly are an enigma to behold, Biggy.

iambiguous wrote:...in regard to the trucker protest the role of government and whatever else you subsume inside your own "metaphysical philosophy about consciousness and mind".


Hey, you wanna try it again? I'd be delighted to oblige. It would be hilarious watching you run in circles, failing to remember the consequence of every round (some obscure definition of insanity comes to mind).

iambiguous wrote:But so much more to the point [mine] it's not what this epistemological/intellectual contraption philosophy means to me but what it means to the truckers doing the protesting.

Run it by them or anyone else protesting something that the government does wholly in sync with your political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, and get back to us.

How about the war in Ukraine?


Well, as long as you understand that however we got onto the subject of my metaphysical philosophies on consciousness, it was never my intention (I don't think) to relate it to the trucker protest or the war in Ukraine. You were the one who insisted I tie it to the trucker protest. So whatever outcome we get from me bringing my philosophies of consciousness to the truckers, that's for you to deal with, not me.

Nonetheless, I'll see if I can get the ball rolling vis-a-vis a discussion with a trucker, protester, or supporter.
Last edited by gib on Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby gib » Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:09 am

Sculptor wrote:A sad and tiny minority of Trumpers.


It was actually quite a turn out--several thousands just in Ottawa--and that's not to mention the movement they spurred all around the world--the numerous trucker rallies that rose up in multiple countries against the kinds of governments whose dicks you like to suck. And who says they were all Trumpers? These are simply people who don't want to lose their jobs because they chose to exercise their right not to be vaccinated. I don't know where Trump enters the picture.

Sculptor wrote:They got more publicity than they deserved and melted away at the least provocaion.


Did they now? You call the Emergency Act, a war time measure to squash any opposition against the government by force, the "least provocation"? Police were trampling people on horse back, they were freezing people's bank accounts, throwing dissidents in jail... least provocation my ass.

And I don't know how much less publicity you can get when all videos uploaded to youtube in support of the truckers got taken down as soon as the movement was squashed.

Ichthus77 wrote:Opposition has nukes. Folks got mouths to feed. Gonna take divine intervention or mutually assured destruction to end what’s coming.


Amen to that!
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby gib » Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:50 am

Ok, we got a thread going in which I can engage any truckers, protestors involved in the trucker protest, or just supporters of the cause here:

Any truckers, protestors, or supporters here?

I even invite anyone who's against the trucker protest or what they stand for to join as that, I think, is where the real juice you, Biggy, are looking for will flow from.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 02, 2022 9:58 pm

iambiguous wrote:My point was only to suggest the obvious: that in regard to situations when citizens are angry at one or another government policy, any number of them will feel an obligation to protest that policy. Not that they must protest. Very well then. After all, each of us is in a particular situation. For any number of reasons protesting may not be an actual option for us. We might lose our job, or a relationship or in some instances or very lives might be in danger. If, for example, the government policy is being pursued by someone like Vladimir Putin. Think the Nazis and the Jews.


gib wrote: Absolutely!


Indeed, and how are our individual reactions to any particular government policies not rooted existentially in dasein? Some support the policy. Some protest it. Why one way and not the other?

I note my own subjective narrative in explaining that 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 I'm still trying to grasp yours. Where exactly you fit in along that moral and political spectrum from the fulminating fanatic objectivist pinheads like Urwrong on one end to the fractured and fragmented personalities like me on the other end.

gib wrote: Well, maybe you ask yourself that question, but trust me, one can allow the above to sink in and not bother to ask that question.


iambiguous wrote:Sure they can. But then most don't construe moral and political value judgments as I do. As the existential embodiment of dasein. Clearly objectivists don't think it through as I do.


gib wrote: Perhaps a discussion on how you construe dasein is warranted. I've been assuming it doesn't deviate far from Heidegger's meaning since he coined the term, but maybe that's a false assumption.


That thread already exists here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

And I've taken my own distinction elsewhere: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... =5&t=34319

In other words, a very "false assumption". Heidegger's Dasein is but another "up in the clouds" intellectual contraption to me. My dasein is considerably more "down to earth".

Instead, you and your ilk are almost always more comfortable in a "world of words":

gib wrote:I would think I'd ask the question if I was an objectivist. Objectivists definitely believe there is a most rational manner in which to react and moral objectivists definitely believe it matters. Granted, a staunch objectivist probably wouldn't budge from his or her original position on matters like the trucker protest or vaccine mandates or whatever else, and therefore wouldn't end up in a mind state where they begin to doubt their position and were thus compelled to ask the question, but I would still think that however one ends up in such a mind state, the compulsion to ask the question could only be motivated by a quasi-desperate attempt to restore some form of objectivism. A true subjectivist would have no problem letting go of the question.


Okay, how is this relevant to your position on the trucker protest? You were once an objectivist regarding things like this but now you're not? A subjectivist of my ilk recognizes that both the questions we ask and the answers we give in regard to "conflicting goods" of this sort can only lead to a fractured and fragmented frame of mind until one day a philosopher is able to come up with the optimal or the only rational manner in which to react to it. Then there would be no need to feel ambiguity and ambivalence and uncertainty.

Now, what am I to make of this:

iambiguous wrote:Although, from my frame of mind, you seem more than capable of playing one here.


gib wrote: Yes, I'm capable of playing one. I can easily slip into the role. I can easily slip into many roles. I guess it's one of my talents. I can take another person's point of view and slip myself into their world. And since we live in a largely objectivists world--especially when you consider objectivism is more or less the brain's "default" paradigm--it's exceedingly easy to slip into an objectivist frame of mind.


Here, of course, I'm trying to imagine you among the truckers explaining your "support" for their protest. How do you suppose they would react to this? As opposed to the far more fanatically fierce support offered to them from the Urwrong pinheads here among us.

iambiguous wrote:Here I go back to "the gap". There's what "here and now" "I" think about "the most rational manner" in which to think about the trucker protest, and there's all that can be known about it. After all, there may well be a God. And there may well be His secular equivalent...a Humanist argument that nails it. It's like the moral equivalent of the black swan. I don't think objectively it is possible here in a No God world, but all it takes is one argument here or elsewhere to bring that crashing down all around me.


gib wrote: So is this an argument from ignorance? As in, I [iambiguous] don't know whether there is a most rational manner in which to react, therefore I ask the question just in case?


Ignorance? Like there isn't an unimaginably vast reservoir of ignorance between what you and I think about the trucker protest here and now and all that there is to be known about it going back to an actual understanding of Existence itself?!!!

The question is going to be asked because there is in fact a covid pandemic and there are in fact governments reacting to it with policies. Then we're back to my understanding of subjectivism here and whatever the hell your understanding is. Which still largely escapes me.

I note this...

iambiguous wrote:Again, the truckers protesting, others reacting to the protest. All of the existential contingences in your life that would have to fall into places in order for you to be drawn into it deeply. There was always the chance that had your life been different for any number of reasons at any number of junctures, you would have had no interest in it at all. And then any subsequent changes in your life [experiences, relationships, info/knowledge] that cause you to drop your commitment. Or switch to the other side.


And you respond:

gib wrote: So it sounds like "contingency and chance" refer to the multitude of random variables that steer us in the directions our lives take us and "change" refers to the effect, the consequences of how these numerous variables continually influence us, possibly compelling us to change our minds. Ok, so contingency, chance, and change is indeed a powerful force that most likely would condition us--you and I--to draw different conclusions after letting all that we have talked about sink in--you being prompted to ask the question "what then is the most rational manner in which to react" and me feeling not the slightest compulsion to ask this question.


Baffled as ever.

You admit that contingency, chance and change can result in conflicting subjective/existential leaps of faith such that you're here supporting the truckers and others are here protesting them...but so what?!

We don't need to wonder here if there might be the most rational manner in which to react to their behavior?

How does that make any sense at all?! Why on earth do you suppose the world we do live in is still bursting at the seams with religious and philosophical and ideological and moral and political and "genes trumps memes" Satyrion objectivists?

Why? Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?

You acknowledge...

gib wrote: To be clear, I'm not 100% sure I have a solid position on the trucker protest (or any controversial issue). I'm driven primarily by emotion and, if I have to, I put together a rational sounding justification after the fact--and only to the extent that I have to. What I'm okay with is following my emotions insofar as it doesn't bother my conscience too much.


Right, like our emotional reactions -- and "a bit of faith" -- regarding government policies is any less rooted existentially in dasein.

iambiguous wrote:But my point is then this: If John recognizes that his support for the truckers is just the existential embodiment of dasein and Jane recognizes that her rejection of the truckers is also just the existential embodiment of dasein, can they come to a philosophy forum such as this and arrive at the most rational reaction to the protest?


gib wrote: Does the most rational reaction include throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "I don't know"? Because that's what I imagine John and Jane would do if they really took your dasein argument to heart (and thought it through as you do).


Look, you either recognize that what you think you know is a manifestation of dasein [as I encompass it above] or you come to an argument that makes this go away. Did the truckers do the right thing? Well, there's what you think here and now. But you are admitting that had things been different in your life you might be here instead thinking just the opposite.

So, which is it, subjectivism...or objectivism? Damned if I can grasp which one you think it is. Some murky combination of both...based on what you "feel" is true. Or is your frame of mind like MagsJ? She [like Maia] is in possession of this "intrinsic Self" such that she "just knows" she ought to support the truckers.

You too?

gib wrote: I don't see any other conclusion to draw from the fact that whatever our political prejudices, it's all just existential embodiments of dasein, than that there is no obvious One and Only objectively correct or best rational manner in which to react--it would all appear to be put on equal footing, so to speak--equally arbitrary, equally vacuous--so what else could John and Jane do but both agree to give up trying to figure out it? (I suppose then at least they would stop butting heads with each other.) <-- If that counts as a most rational manner in which to react after taking your dasein argument into account, then I suppose there is hope for an affirmative answer: there is at least that reaction.


Here "for all practical purposes" it comes down to who can accumulate the most facts about the covid pandemic. Suppose, for example, hard evidence comes to light indicating that the pandemic really was just a hoax employed by the liberals in order to sustain their Big Government policies. Or irrefutable facts emerge that the vaccination really is a dangerous concoction...tens of thousands of those vaccinated [like me] start to drop like flies. Here we have to put our trust in those in the scientific and medical communities who don't have a political ax to grind. Their concern really being the "general welfare" of citizens.

gib wrote: Personally, I've always felt that conflicting goods can be looked at as a tragedy--that we live in a tragic world in which the most fair outcome can't always be realized. Everyone has a right to be protected from deadly diseases like COVID; yet at the same time, everyone has a right to their own bodily determination, including whether a vaccine is injected into it or not (and without having to choose between the vaccine and their livelihood or freedom). What the trucker protest shows is that we don't always have a way to satisfy both, so the outcome inevitably ends up being tragic for some.


Yes, that's exactly how "conflicting goods" work...reasonable arguments can often be made from those on both the left and the right. And from those in the middle. With the fulminating fanatic objectivists however [left and right] it's always one or another authoritarian dogma that is championed.

That's where the tragedies often come into play. When either the political dogmatists prevail or those in the medical industrial complex interested only in fattening their wallets prevail. Here the most dangerous aspect of government policy often revolves around crony capitalism. Government policy [through Wall Street contributions and through K street transactions here in America] results not in what is best in term of public health but what makes those who own and operate Big Pharma and Big Medicine and the insurance industry richer.

Then [again] the part where we are clearly "stuck":

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, you could hardly be misunderstanding my points more. Otherwise you would recognize your support as still just a particular political prejudice of yours rooted largely in dasein. Same with vaccinations and reacting to the authority of the government and regarding all the other moral and political conflagrations that beset us. There's objectivism on one end of the commitment spectrum and a fractured and fragmented ambivalence on the other end. And how "I" understand it, and how you do.


gib wrote: You know, Biggy, I think you're just out of touch with your emotions. You seem to live in a world of pure intellectualism, and if you acknowledge emotions at all, it's only to dismiss them as "just another existential embodiment of dasein".


Okay, there's how you think about the trucker protest. And there's how you feel about it. Explain to us this "gap" you embody such that what you feel is not in turn rooted existentially in the experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that you have accumulated over the years. Most folks who think it through and support the truckers feel angry at the government polices that prompted the protest. And vice versa.

gib wrote: You seem to think that, at the end of the day, any support for or against issue X, any stance one can take, or any attachment or commitment to a belief or a moral position, amounts to nothing more than a purely intellectual thought structure--a thought structure that stands or falls depending on if its host believes in it absolutely and finally--i.e. that it must be true for all men and women in all situations or it's not true at all--and that whoever takes this stance or supports this or that side of an issue believes wholeheartedly that he or she grasps the absolute truth of the matter and "knows" indubitably that he or she is irrevocably correct--and if any sliver of doubt enters in, he or she cannot help but to drop his or her stance entirely--black and white just like that.


Bullshit. That's your take on my take here. For me, our emotional and psychological reactions to government policies can be no less ambiguous and ambivalent...depending in large part on how dead certain we are that what we think about them reflects the optimal or the only rational reaction.

Aren't these two aspects of our value judgments profoundly related? Why on earth do you suppose particularly fierce objectivists here like Urwrong on the right are reduced down time and again to sliming the liberals. Or on the left those like Sculptor in regard to conservatives.

gib wrote: Is there no room in your world for "I could be wrong but I still believe"? Can one not say "I'm not sure what the ultimate defense of my position is but I support it nonetheless"? Of course there is, but only because you believe people who say this haven't truly grasped the gravity of what your dasein argument entails.


Sure, existential leaps of faith are taken all the time. But these folks clearly don't think dasein through as "I" do 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 I can do is to note my own "fractured and fragmented" reactions to things like abortion and feminism and gun policies and trucker protest and the role of government. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to think and feel fractured and fragmented in regard to these things. It doesn't to you.

Again, maybe we can come to a better understanding of our respective reactions and maybe we can't. What I do note though is that you seem closer to my own frame of mind than those that I call the "pinheads" here.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is all about establishing that "comfort zone" where you can claim to grasp the points I make here but still feel assured that your support of the truckers is, what, the most rational argument? If so, you understand practically next to nothing about how "I" react to them.


gib wrote: Hopefully, what I said above about the role of emotions in sustaining beliefs and values and the positions one takes on controversial issues like the trucker protest sheds some light on your confusion.


Not really. Again, to take that existential leap of faith to supporting the truckers because you "just feel" it's the right thing to do...how is that any different from those who take an existential leap of faith to protesting them because they "just feel" it's the right thing to do? Where does the part here about dasein go away?

gib wrote: In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are right"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to win." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.


Or...

In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I don't support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are wrong"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to fail." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.


Again: we understand dasein here differently. I respect the thought you've put into it in this exchange...and, sure, your frame of mind might actually be more reasonable than mine. But: "here and now" I don't either think or feel that it is.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Actually, my point is more along the lines of how you will react when these objectivists truckers and objectivists apologists here are the ones who toss you into the waste bin, not me. They'd expect me to argue as I do, they wouldn't expect you to argue as I do. Or, rather, up to the point where you say you don't. Confusing them all the more.


gib wrote: Oh, you mean you would direct me to take my arguments to the truckers. And in this chain of the thread, we're talking about taking my arguments about the metaphysics of consciousness to the truckers. Unfortunately, I don't think this would help you at all; I don't think the truckers could make heads or tells of my metaphysics of consciousness any more than you could, let alone how it ties into the trucker protest.


Okay, but your "metaphysics of consciousness" either has profound "for all practical purposes" implication for the truckers or it doesn't. I know that my own existential contraption here...

"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."

...does.

iambiguous wrote:My point is still the same. The girl who stood you up might well have been that crucial "contingency, chance and change" component in your life that led you to being here insisting instead that you are comfortable with the stance you take rejecting the trucker protest. She might have been the one able to provide you with the thinking that others were and are not.


gib wrote: That wasn't your point. You're point was that values are not illusory to the nihilist, remember?


No, my point is that the moral and political values we all must take our existential leaps to if we choose to interact with others are derived subjectively re individual daseins out in a particular world understanding it in a particular way.

gib wrote: At least your brand of nihilism:


iambiguous wrote:No. The existential fabrications/concoctions are derived from the actual life that you lived, the actual experiences that you had.

gib wrote: Yes, derived... but they are not themselves real any more than hallucinations are real just because they are derived from drugs which are real.

iambiguous wrote:Again, how you connect the dots between points like this and the truckers protest itself is beyond my grasping.


gib wrote: And now it isn't.


And now what isn't? We interact with others socially, politically and economically. Out in a particular world understood in a particular way. As such, over time, our own value judgments [rooted in dasein] can come into conflict with those of others [also rooted in dasein]. The interactions are not illusory. Our reactions to them are not illusory. Instead, it comes down to the extent to which [philosophically or otherwise] we can determine which reactions reflect the optimal or the only rational reactions. And then the extent to which we think and feel more or less fractured and fragmented in our own existential leaps.

gib wrote: It's true, you did make a point about the girl who stood me up waaay back, and it's a fine point--no qualms here--but it's a distraction now.


That's ridiculous. Had she not stood you up she may well have been the one who yanked your thinking about the truckers to a frame of mind other than what you think and feel now.

That's the whole point of coming to grips with the "for all practical implications" of thinking about dasein as "I" do here and now.

Our life is not only about the experiential trajectory that we took but all the other trajectories that we might have taken instead if any one of hundreds and hundreds of experiences had turned out otherwise given all the variables/factors that come at us from every direction.

Again, as I noted above, it comes down to how you and I react differently to this: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

But those reactions [to me] are no less rooted in dasein...as "I" understand it "here and now".

iambiguous wrote:What I would broach here is that there are no essential, objective reasons for or against the protest. There are only the subjective reasons derived from political prejudices embodied in dasein. [color=blue]EXACTLY!!! Imagine their reaction to that. And then you saying, what, "that's true but you can still feel comfortable with your 'stance' as the most rational frame of mind."


gib wrote: Drop the "as the most rational frame of mind". It's not "as" anything. It's just whichever side of the debate/protest they're on.


Come on, this is a philosophy forum! And given that to most philosophy is still construed to be the "search for wisdom", what is that but the assumption that there is the most rational manner in which to think and feel about our own value judgments. There are the facts about the covid pandemic and the facts about any particular government's reaction to it. Truths applicable to all of us. But what of our moral and political conviction in reacting to the protest itself? What are the indisputable facts there?

iambiguous wrote:I do doubt my own value judgments here. And for all the reasons I've given.


gib wrote: And for some reason, you take me as having absolutely no doubts in my own value judgments.


What?! You have made it clear [to me] that you are not one of Urwrong's pinheads here. But how are you not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am? That's what our exchange is basically about to me. You "feel" comfortable enough with your "stance" that you are not drawn and quartered as "I" am.

Okay, fine, that "works" for you. And for others here such as Moreno and/or Karpel Tunnel.

Well, it doesn't work that way for me. It still "feels" reasonable to me that, given my understanding of dasein "here and now" "I" am fractured and fragmented.

gib wrote: To clarify, by being the embodiment of dasein, I assume that you mean the emotions that are invoked in a person when he hears about the truckers being forced to vaccinate depend almost entirely on that person's history--how they we raised, what in regards to vaccines, truckers, etc. they experienced in the past, what media sources they are regularly exposed to, etc., etc., etc.. One person might react favorably to the news that the government is mandating vaccines for truckers who cross the border--"Good! It's about time someone forced them to vaccinate!" they might think--and another person might react unfavorably--"What?! The government has no right! How dare they!" <-- Is that the idea?


Yeah. At least until someone comes along with the optimal or the only rational argument for or against vaccination. Or, say, Jesus Christ comes back and settles it Himself once and for all?

gib wrote: Then consider this--what does it mean for one to take the "right" stance on a debate such as the trucker protest? I take it to mean that we assume there is an objective truth out there that is reflected in one's stance, that is aligned with it. And assuming for the moment that we can cleanly separate any emotions from one's stance (such that, like Spock, one is completely unattached to one's stance--one just happens to have it at the moment), if it was shown to a person that the truth actually differs from his stance, it would seem strange were he to stay committed to his stance--as though he were suffering some form of brain abnormality or acting completely irrationally. Typically, the stances we take (without involving emotions for the moment) hinge on the truth as we know it. Change what we know about the truth, and we subject our stances to change.


Yep. Only given the complexity of all the variables involved in producing the covid virus in "nature" and all the complexities involved in grappling with the policies of any particular government "here and now" what are the chances of finally resolving it once and for all.

gib wrote: But now turn to emotions. How are emotions effected by changes in how we see the truth? Well, sometimes they change just like the stances we take (ex. anger towards a spouse fades instantly when we learn she wasn't cheating after all) but not always. Here's an imaginary scenario to drive the point home: you are hiding from a crazed murderer who wants to take your life. You are overwhelmed with fear--a perfectly fine example of an emotion--now while you stay put in your hiding place, you consider your usual arguments about dasein and how this fear you feel is no less the existential embodiment of dasein than your stance that murder is wrong--you consider that if you were in the murderer's shoes, you may well believe that there is nothing wrong with killing. It might even be a thrill. Short of feeling terrified, you'd feel elation if you were in the murderer's shoes. But as clear as that line of thinking is to you, no matter how impossible it feels to refute it, you still can't shake the fear from your bones. You acknowledge that, with respect to your emotions, you might as well have gone in the other direction (elation); you even acknowledge that, not being privy to some ultimate demonstrable objective proof that either your fear is the right emotion to have or the murderer's sense of elation is the right emotion to have, you can't even feel indifferent; you can't even feel emotionally suspended in some nihilistic limbo, suspended until you can somehow figure out what the right emotion to have is. No, you continue to be overwhelmed with this relentless fear, a heart pounding fear that just won't go away, that won't listen to your dasein arguments or considerations of other ways to feel like that of the murderer. It persists in your chest in defiance of every intellectual contraption you bring to bear against it.


The fear or elation that someone feels when being stalked by someone who wants to kill them or in stalking someone that he wants to kill is one thing. The fear or elation one feels in reacting to the covid virus or the government policy to fight it, another thing altogether. My understanding of dasein above is far more applicable to the latter.

Yes, the experiences you have in your life can be instrumental in making you choose to be a killer but, in fact, you either choose to or not. But now switch gears to our emotional reactions to the killing -- murder -- of another. How, in fact, ought we to think and feel here? A very different take on dasein once we switch from the either/or to the is/ought world.

And here my take on our emotional reactions is different from yours. You seem more inclined to give weight to emotions here that "I" don't. They are still far more just another manifestation of the subjective/existential parameters of dasein to me.

gib wrote: This is why, despite agreeing with your dasein arguments on an intellectual level, I can still feel a certain way about this or that issue. I still feel strongly about supporting the truckers despite knowing there is no ultimate rational and objectively real argument I could put forward to convince all rational men and women, once and for all, that they should feel the way I do about the truckers. I feel, on an instinctual level, that the truckers' cause serves my own interests more than that of the vaccine mandate proponents, so it is impossible for me to stay neutral. I find myself, without even choosing, taking a stance anyway.


This is just psychological bullshit to me. A way for you to make my arguments about dasein less problematic so that you can "just feel" strongly about supporting the truckers even though any number of changes in your life might well have found you here "just feeling" strongly that they are wrong to protest.

iambiguous wrote:As per usual what you think you are telling others about me is not at all what I think I am telling them.

Cite some examples of these "objective sounding statements" of mine...pertaining to the trucker protest.


gib wrote: Why pertaining to the trucker protest? My charge against you (that you utter the occasional objective statement) applies generally (as you use the my-philosophy-applies-to-me even outside discussions on the trucker protest).

So let's start with these:

"As per usual what you think you are telling others about me is not at all what I think I am telling them."

"And of course from the perspective of others here I am the subjectivist pinhead."

And from elsewhere in this thread:

"Just another example of a "political prejudice" that you refuse to see as such."

"There's the mentality that there is one and only one way in which to both understand and to react to the protest -- the right way, mine -- or there is the assumption that as with most conflicting goods there are rational arguments to be made from both ends of the political spectrum and that the "best of all possible worlds" is to grapple with policies that take into account the arguments from different political prejudices."

"On the contrary, if I were another Urwong, I'd be insisting that others were wrong times a 1,000 if they did not share my own set of assumptions about you."

"Yes, one way or another. A subjectivist -- a moral nihilist -- starts with the assumption that one would have be omniscient in order to grasp every single component of the truckers protest. He would have to be fully knowledgeable about every aspect of the covid pandemic and the role of government down through the ages. Then the one and the only manner in which to grasp it all together."

"I make it clear that in examining the arguments of those at both ends of the political spectrum here reasonable points can be made given certain intial assumptions above covid and government and the well-being of a community in terms of healthcare policies. Neither side is able to make the points raised by the other side just go away. So, given my own initial assumption regarding "I" as the existential embodiment of dasein re my signature threads here, I am "drawn and quartered". I'm not into calling those who don't agree with me necessarily wrong because they are not "one of us"."

"It really comes downs to how one construes "I" at the existential -- historical, cultural, experiential -- intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy.

Given a particular set of circumstance."

"My point, however, is that for the moral and political objectivists among us, not only do they include their own political dogmas -- really just political prejudices rooted in dasein -- in their set of assumptions but exclude the assumptions of all who don't think exactly like they do."

"Then back to where you fit in here re the trucker protests such that you explore this in coming down out of the sky. Not a fulminating fanatic pinhead like Urwrong but not fractured and fragmented like me."


Over and over and over and over again, I make it clear that points like this from me are in no way excluded from my own assumptions about points like this. Given the life that I have lived "I" am now "here and now" predisposed to think like this from anyone. But in no way am I arguing that this reflects the most reasonable manner in which all rational men and women are obligated to think in turn. I would never exclude my own "self" here from my own set of assumptions. Instead, what most perturbs the objectivists among us [and not just those "I" construe to be pinheads] is that this may wll be applicable to their own moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Yes. That's the whole point of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The objectivist belief can be anything. It's the belief itself that is the main point. Or, rather, my main point. Their reactions to the trucker strike is often just a springboard to convey their reactions to the role of government in our lives itself: "I" vs. we", "capitalism vs, socialism", "genes vs. memes" and on and on.


What, did you think I excluded myself from this?

gib wrote: Great! So you do understand. Then you will understand that 1) to say that you cause your contenders discomfort at the thought that your arguments might apply to them is trivial; it's no different than saying the thought that one could be wrong in their convictions causes them discomfort (d'uh!). And 2) insofar as you are human, it applies to you no less than to any other human being. So yeah, the thought that your arguments might apply to your contender might cause them discomfort, but all the same, the thought (in your head) that your contender's points might apply to you causes you discomfort.


Look, all I can note here is how much discomfort my own thinking brings to me.

And, existentially, to extrapolate from that to others who are now nestled in their comforting and consoling objectivist cocoon coming to believe that my frame of mind really is applicable to them.

After all, I went through this three times myself. Once when I lost the Christian God, again when I lost the Unitarian God and then when I lost Marxism. Being fractured and fragmented is not just a "theoretical" thing for me. I really have come to "think" and to "feel" that my own existence is essentially meaningless and absurd, that there is no moral "stance" I can "just know" -- "just feel" -- is the best one, that oblivion itself is just around the corner existentially for me.

Then this thing: http://www.mm-theory.com/

iambiguous wrote:...in regard to the trucker protest the role of government and whatever else you subsume inside your own "metaphysical philosophy about consciousness and mind".


gib wrote: Hey, you wanna try it again? I'd be delighted to oblige. It would be hilarious watching you run in circles, failing to remember the consequence of every round (some obscure definition of insanity comes to mind).


Yeah. On this thread or start a new thread.

I'm always more than willing to allow others to decide which one of us is spinning our wheels more futilely here.

iambiguous wrote:But so much more to the point [mine] it's not what this epistemological/intellectual contraption philosophy means to me but what it means to the truckers doing the protesting.

Run it by them or anyone else protesting something that the government does wholly in sync with your political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, and get back to us.

How about the war in Ukraine?


gib wrote: Well, as long as you understand that however we got onto the subject of my metaphysical philosophies on consciousness, it was never my intention (I don't think) to relate it to the trucker protest or the war in Ukraine.


Come on, how many times have I made it abundantly clear that my own interest in philosophy here revolves around this:

"How ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both 1] conflicting goods and 2] contingency, chance and change?"

Your theoretical contraptions are either applicable there or they are not. So, on the contrary, it's entirely up to you to go or to not go there.

You know, given human autonomy. :-k
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon May 02, 2022 10:17 pm

gib: to IAM....
Why is Urwrong your pinhead poster boy?

K: UR should be EVERYONES pinhead poster boy....

Kropotkin
Now if only I could get the other "members of the collection of truth"
to put me on ignore, life would be good..

PK
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11201
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

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

Postby gib » Fri May 13, 2022 8:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:That thread already exists here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

That's what I thought. It doesn't seem to deviate much from Heidegger's "dasein" but you do put a lot of emphasis on the fluidity of the concept of the "self".

And I've taken my own distinction elsewhere: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... =5&t=34319

Again, I don't really see a distinction but rather a difference in emphasis. Whereas Heidegger seems to emphasize our preoccupation with our own ontology, you emphasize the difficulty with which we grapple to find objectivity in our assessments of our own ontology.

In other words, a very "false assumption". Heidegger's Dasein is but another "up in the clouds" intellectual contraption to me. My dasein is considerably more "down to earth".


Ha! Given the distinction in emphasis I noted above, you are several orders of magnitude higher up in the clouds than Heidegger.

And I'm not seeing how it makes a difference to my understanding of your arguments.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I would think I'd ask the question if I was an objectivist. Objectivists definitely believe there is a most rational manner in which to react and moral objectivists definitely believe it matters. Granted, a staunch objectivist probably wouldn't budge from his or her original position on matters like the trucker protest or vaccine mandates or whatever else, and therefore wouldn't end up in a mind state where they begin to doubt their position and were thus compelled to ask the question, but I would still think that however one ends up in such a mind state, the compulsion to ask the question could only be motivated by a quasi-desperate attempt to restore some form of objectivism. A true subjectivist would have no problem letting go of the question.


Okay, how is this relevant to your position on the trucker protest? You were once an objectivist regarding things like this but now you're not? Yeah, sure. A subjectivist of my ilk (you're not a subjectivist) recognizes that both the questions we ask and the answers we give in regard to "conflicting goods" of this sort can only lead to a fractured and fragmented frame of mind until one day a philosopher is able to come up with the optimal or the only rational manner in which to react to it. Then there would be no need to feel ambiguity and ambivalence and uncertainty.


I'm still on the specific question of "What is the most rational manner in which to react?"... a true subjectivist has no issue letting this question go.

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, I'm trying to imagine you among the truckers explaining your "support" for their protest. How do you suppose they would react to this? As opposed to the far more fanatically fierce support offered to them from the Urwrong pinheads here among us.


What, you mean support that hinges on me slipping into an objectivist's role or support regardless of what role I slip into? Because I'll tell you from the start, my support for the truckers doesn't hinge on what "role" I slip into--objectivist or subjectivists--because, as I said in my previous post, my support hinges more on how I feel about the protest emotionally, which doesn't change whether I'm a subjectivist or an objectivist. So that leaves explaining to them my support for their protest, or explaining to them how I'm a subjectivist but can slip into the objectivist role. The former, I think they would accept with open arms. The latter, I don't think they would understand or care about.

iambiguous wrote:Ignorance? Like there isn't an unimaginably vast reservoir of ignorance between what you and I think about the trucker protest here and now and all that there is to be known about it going back to an actual understanding of Existence itself?!!!

So that's a yes?

The question is going to be asked because there is in fact a covid pandemic and there are in fact governments reacting to it with policies.


That there is a covid pandemic and governments reacting to it with policies has nothing to do with you and I having this discussion on ILP--it has everything to do with the truckers and protestors on the ground in Ottawa (or it did) who are not interested in doing armchair philosophy to figure out the metaphysical implications of objectivism and subjectivism in the context of nihilism and idealism. They are chiefly concerned with the question of what the most rational manner in which to react is because both sides, in putting forward their positions as the most rational, are assuming there is a most rational manner in which to react, and verily they are in the middle of an extremely contentious disagreement about what that is. So obviously, the question is of great import to them--if settled, it may well resolve the entire situation. But for us, it is of no greater import than the extent to which we find it philosophically interesting. You in particular would ask the question not only to the extent you find it philosophically interesting, but to the extent you think it possible that there is a most rational manner in which to react. In other words, the question is asked out of ignorance.

iambiguous wrote:I note this...

iambiguous wrote:Again, the truckers protesting, others reacting to the protest. All of the existential contingences in your life that would have to fall into places in order for you to be drawn into it deeply. There was always the chance that had your life been different for any number of reasons at any number of junctures, you would have had no interest in it at all. And then any subsequent changes in your life [experiences, relationships, info/knowledge] that cause you to drop your commitment. Or switch to the other side.


And you respond:

gib wrote:So it sounds like "contingency and chance" refer to the multitude of random variables that steer us in the directions our lives take us and "change" refers to the effect, the consequences of how these numerous variables continually influence us, possibly compelling us to change our minds. Ok, so contingency, chance, and change is indeed a powerful force that most likely would condition us--you and I--to draw different conclusions after letting all that we have talked about sink in--you being prompted to ask the question "what then is the most rational manner in which to react" and me feeling not the slightest compulsion to ask this question.


Baffled as ever.

Not surprising

You admit that contingency, chance and change can result in conflicting subjective/existential leaps of faith such that you're here supporting the truckers and others are here protesting them...but so what?!

Well, I get why you're asking the question. I just don't put my life on hold until I get a definitive answer. My life is too important to me to spend it dwelling over questions like that. So I put the question on hold and move on with my life.

We don't need to wonder here if there might be the most rational manner in which to react to their behavior?

I don't

How does that make any sense at all?! Different strokes for different folks Why on earth do you suppose the world we do live in is still bursting at the seams with religious and philosophical and ideological and moral and political and "genes trumps memes" Satyrion objectivists?

Contingency, chance, and change?

Why? Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


If we're all hard wired for this, yet you're able to be aware of it (and just how problematic it is), why can't others also be aware? Why can't I be aware of this? Why would you continually insist that I'm not?

And do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no. But then how on Earth does it strike you as fair to ask this question of others--Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?--but not yourself? And if you do ask this of yourself (in the privacy of your own head?), what's your answer? Could this answer not suffice for others?

Until you can understand how a stance can be rooted in emotion rather than certainty in being right (and how emotions don't play by your rules), you'll never get a satisfactory answer to this question.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:To be clear, I'm not 100% sure I have a solid position on the trucker protest (or any controversial issue). I'm driven primarily by emotion and, if I have to, I put together a rational sounding justification after the fact--and only to the extent that I have to. What I'm okay with is following my emotions insofar as it doesn't bother my conscience too much.


Right, like our emotional reactions -- and "a bit of faith" -- regarding government policies is any less rooted existentially in dasein.


You're missing the part about "I'm not 100% sure I have a solid position..." If you're asking the question "Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?" don't you think this makes a difference? If I'm not 100% sure I have solid position, then I'm obviously not saying my answer is the winner.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Does the most rational reaction include throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "I don't know"? Because that's what I imagine John and Jane would do if they really took your dasein argument to heart (and thought it through as you do).


Look, you either recognize that what you think you know is a manifestation of dasein [as I encompass it above] or you come to an argument that makes this go away. Did the truckers do the right thing? Well, there's what you think here and now. But you are admitting that had things been different in your life you might be here instead thinking just the opposite.

Don't dismiss the above question. Does the most rational reaction include throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "I don't know"?

So, which is it, subjectivism...or objectivism? Neither! Subjectivism/objectivism has nothing to do with my stance on the trucker protest! Damned if I can grasp which one you think it is. Some murky combination of both...based on what you "feel" is true. I'm primarily a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism. Or is your frame of mind like MagsJ? She [like Maia] is in possession of this "intrinsic Self" such that she "just knows" she ought to support the truckers.


No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say I'm in possession of an understanding of the nature of consciousness that you don't (and never will) comprehend. I don't claim my understanding is at all correct, just as you don't claim that your political prejudices are at all correct, but it is an understanding, just as you have an understanding of your own political prejudices, and this understanding allows for being a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I don't see any other conclusion to draw from the fact that whatever our political prejudices, it's all just existential embodiments of dasein, than that there is no obvious One and Only objectively correct or best rational manner in which to react--it would all appear to be put on equal footing, so to speak--equally arbitrary, equally vacuous--so what else could John and Jane do but both agree to give up trying to figure out it? (I suppose then at least they would stop butting heads with each other.) <-- If that counts as a most rational manner in which to react after taking your dasein argument into account, then I suppose there is hope for an affirmative answer: there is at least that reaction.


Here "for all practical purposes" it comes down to who can accumulate the most facts about the covid pandemic. Suppose, for example, hard evidence comes to light indicating that the pandemic really was just a hoax employed by the liberals in order to sustain their Big Government policies. Or irrefutable facts emerge that the vaccination really is a dangerous concoction...tens of thousands of those vaccinated [like me] start to drop like flies. Here we have to put our trust in those in the scientific and medical communities who don't have a political ax to grind. Their concern really being the "general welfare" of citizens.


And how well did that pan out for the truckers and protestor? How well did it pan out for their opposition? Each side is claiming to be in possession of opposing science. One side says they have the science to backup the claim that vaccines are perfectly safe. The other side, that the vaccines are dangerous. One side claims to have science showing masks work. The other side, that they don't work. It doesn't seem to me that pulling the debate down from the is/ought world to the either/or world makes it any more soluble. Which, given the manner in which our access to the science itself is severely limited, I again see no other option than for John and Jane to throw their hands in the air and say, "I don't know."

Now is this the most rational manner in which to react?

And like hell the scientific and medical communities don't have a political ax to grind. Doctors are losing their jobs simply for wanting to prescribe ivermectin to their COVID patients. Professionals are being silenced for voicing expert opinions that happen to go against the mainstream narrative. And you know as well as I, Big Pharma (particularly Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, etc.) stand to make a fortune in these desperate times. No ax to grind my ass.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, there's how you think about the trucker protest. And there's how you feel about it. <-- That's the most insightful distinction you've made so far. Explain to us this "gap" you embody such that what you feel is not in turn rooted existentially in the experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that you have accumulated over the years. Why would I do that when that's not what I believe? Most folks who think it through and support the truckers feel angry at the government polices that prompted the protest. And vice versa.


Yes, yes they do. But like I said, it's the distinction between what I believe about my stance on the trucker protest (that it's rooted in dasein) and how I feel about the trucker protest (I want the truckers to win); NOT the distinction between emotions being rooted in dasein and emotions not being rooted in dasein. The latter is a false interpretation on your part. The only point I'm making is that, despite both being rooted in dasein, my beliefs about the trucker protest (its moral ins and outs) is at odds with my feelings about the trucker protest (wanting them to win).

iambiguous wrote:Aren't these two aspects of our value judgments profoundly related? Yes, but not inseparable. Why on earth do you suppose particularly fierce objectivists here like Urwrong on the right are reduced down time and again to sliming the liberals. Or on the left those like Sculptor in regard to conservatives.


Because the likes of Urwrong and Sculptor have their beliefs and emotions perfectly aligned. I don't. And I'll further add that I don't care to align them.

iambiguous wrote:Not really. Again, to take that existential leap of faith to supporting the truckers because you "just feelwant to" it's the right thing to do...how is that any different from those who take an existential leap of faith to protesting them because they "just feelwant to" it's the right thing to do? Where does the part here about dasein go away?


You keep making the same mistake that I keep trying to correct. Forget "the right thing to do". Forget "I think". It isn't "I feel... therefore, I think..." It isn't "I feel it's the right thing to do". It's just "I feel like it." I support the truckers 'cause I feel like it. I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I don't have a defense. I don't draw any intellectual/rational conclusions based on how I feel. It's just the feeling in isolation--or rather, the feeling leading directly to action (with some bullshit justifications maybe conjured up along the way). You keep wanting to sneak some cognitive/intellectual stance in there. You keep assuming that before one can act or speak in defense of one side of an issue or another, they have to form a cognitive opinion or argument to back up that defense--like it's impossible to go from the feeling directly to the acting or speaking in defense. Once you drop that assumption, it's not hard to see how feelings can be both rooted in dasein and drivers pushing us to act/speak in defense of one side of the issue or the other.

Having a preference for which side you want to win is really no different than having a preference for what flavor of pizza to order. Suppose you and a room mate couldn't agree on what flavor of pizza to order--you want pepperoni, she wants Hawaiian--and so you have a case of "conflicting goods". Would you honestly expect to get into a debate over who has the best objective moral argument about which flavor you both ought to order? What flavor you both ought to prefer? Even if you both, for whatever bizarre reason, agreed that your pizza flavor preferences were rooted in dasein, that would not make your preferences go away. You would not stop liking pepperoni pizza and she would not stop liking Hawaiian. It would be absurd to get into an argument about suppressing or denying your preferences for the sake of some greater moral good. Instead, you would probably settle on a compromise--half and half--or if you were feeling especially vicious, force and coercion.

Now, obviously, the trucker protest is a much more significant and important issue to have preferences over than pizza--but when someone like myself agrees with your dasein argument, I see no other choice than to abandon any attempt to arrive at the best, most objective, moral justification for supporting one side or the other--and that leaves me with only my preferences--my emotionally based desire to see the truckers win--without a moral justification--without a solid argument in my defense--just a raw amoral, irrational, subjective desire to see the truckers win; the only difference between you and I at this point is that whereas you would panic because you need a moral, rational, and objective argument/justification to have a preference, your "I" fragmenting and fracturing if you don't get one, I don't; I don't panic because I don't care about having a moral, rational, objective justification for having the preferences I have. I just accept that I have them and strive to satisfy them--amorally so to speak (yes, I'm a horrible, wicked, evil person)--for purely selfish reasons--just 'cause I "feel like it".

iambiguous wrote:Not really. Again, to take that existential leap of faith to supporting the truckers because you "just feel" it's the right thing to do...how is that any different from those who take an existential leap of faith to protesting them because they "just feel" it's the right thing to do? Where does the part here about dasein go away?

gib wrote:In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are right"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to win." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.


Or...

gib wrote:In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I don't support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are wrong"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to fail." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.



Yes, two people can want different conflicting outcomes--even despite understanding your arguments about dasein--so what?

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but your "metaphysics of consciousness" either has profound "for all practical purposes" implication for the truckers or it doesn't.


It doesn't.

The only reason I brought it up is because you asked me to tie it to the trucker protest. I warned you that it has nothing to do with the trucker protest (and therefore tying it in is pointless), but you insisted that the only way you would understand it is if I tied it into the trucker protest... so I did. Not a huge shock that you couldn't make heads or tails of it.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:It's true, you did make a point about the girl who stood me up waaay back, and it's a fine point--no qualms here--but it's a distraction now.


That's ridiculous. Had she not stood you up she may well have been the one who yanked your thinking about the truckers to a frame of mind other than what you think and feel now.

That's the whole point of coming to grips with the "for all practical implications" of thinking about dasein as "I" do here and now.

Our life is not only about the experiential trajectory that we took but all the other trajectories that we might have taken instead if any one of hundreds and hundreds of experiences had turned out otherwise given all the variables/factors that come at us from every direction.

Again, as I noted above, it comes down to how you and I react differently to this: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

But those reactions [to me] are no less rooted in dasein...as "I" understand it "here and now".


This tangent is a dead horse not worth beating. I'll just chock it up to you not understanding the point I was making. So back to the subject main subject matter.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Drop the "as the most rational frame of mind". It's not "as" anything. It's just whichever side of the debate/protest they're on.


Come on, this is a philosophy forum! And given that to most philosophy is still construed to be the "search for wisdom", what is that but the assumption that there is the most rational manner in which to think and feel about our own value judgments. There are the facts about the covid pandemic and the facts about any particular government's reaction to it. Truths applicable to all of us. But what of our moral and political conviction in reacting to the protest itself? What are the indisputable facts there?


This is precisely the kind of response that indicates to me that you're not the least bit interested in understanding. I said to drop the "as the most rational frame of mind" because I thought you were trying to understand the stance I take on the trucker protest. I'm trying to get through to you that I support the truckers but not as the most rational frame of mind one can have on the issue. You want facts? <-- That's a fact. It actually is the truth about the stance I take on the truckers. And as soon as you realize this, you suddenly want me to have a "most rational frame of mind"? You all of a sudden tell me "com on, this is a philosophy forum"--like I'm supposed to have a most rational frame of mind--so that you can (what?) criticize it for not falling in line with your dasein argument? What do you think it means that I understand and agree with your dasein argument? It means that I wouldn't take a stance on the grounds that it's "the most rational frame of mind". And now, here you are, insisting that I do. Why? No doubt, so that you can say, "See? You don't understand dasein as I do!"

If you really were interested in understanding my point of view, this was a golden opportunity. It seemed like you did understand, but rather than respond with "Ah, I see, gib. You're not aiming for the most rational frame of mind. That makes a bit more sense," you respond with "come on, have a most rational frame of mind." You need me to have a most rational frame of mind because challenging that with your dasein arguments is all you know how to do here.

So I guess at this point, I don't need to belabor the point--you seem to understand what I meant by "drop the 'as the most rational frame of mind'" but you don't want to hear it--so I'll leave it there and let you do what you want with it.

iambiguous wrote:What?! You have made it clear [to me] that you are not one of Urwrong's pinheads here. But how are you not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am? That's what our exchange is basically about to me. You "feel" comfortable enough with your "stance" that you are not drawn and quartered as "I" am.

Okay, fine, that "works" for you. And for others here such as Moreno and/or Karpel Tunnel.

Well, it doesn't work that way for me. It still "feels" reasonable to me that, given my understanding of dasein "here and now" "I" am fractured and fragmented.


Whenever I hear about your "fractured and fragmented" self, I fall back on the interpretation which I believe you provided that it means you have lost your sense of certainty in knowing who you are--what you understand yourself to be--a good god-fearing conservative--and later, an enlightened left-wing liberal--and now you find yourself suspended in nihilistic limbo, unable to grip onto any objectively solid definition of yourself, any certainty in knowing who you are; instead, you only have fractures and fragments of a self-concept that you are at a loss to put together.

^ This is what I don't experience.

However, that's not to say I don't experience any kind of similar tension or loss. For one thing, I wish I could close the gap between what I think I know and all there is to know--with respect to the trucker protest or any other issue of serious import; it would be nice to know that my support for the truckers actually contributes to a good cause. For all I know, maybe the truckers are horrible, horrible people who are doing nothing but making the world a worse place--and then what kind of a low-life asshole would I be?--but I've resigned to the fact that I'll probably never know, and that all I have is the limited and distorted information I'm getting from the media--and then my feelings--so I find it relatively easy to give up trying to close that gap, not dwell over it into perpetuity, and instead deal only with how I feel about the trucker protest. And for the most part, this works for me--I generally don't care that I don't know everything I need to know about the trucker protest in order to be certain I'm doing the right thing--but if I'm being perfectly honest, I do on occasion feel guilty that I'm not doing more to fortify my knowledge and certainty in regards to all the facts surrounding the trucker protest--usually when I start thinking about it too much. So if your struggle is with your "fractured and fragmented" self, mine is with (among other things) the guilt I feel over not doing more to close the gap between what I think I know and all there is to know (though there seems to be a difference in degree as well).

iambiguous wrote:Yeah. At least until someone comes along with the optimal or the only rational argument for or against vaccination. Or, say, Jesus Christ comes back and settles it Himself once and for all?


Can't get any closer to a God's eye view than that.

iambiguous wrote:The fear or elation that someone feels when being stalked by someone who wants to kill them or in stalking someone that he wants to kill is one thing. The fear or elation one feels in reacting to the covid virus or the government policy to fight it, another thing altogether.


Well, not really. My point hinges on the fact that our emotions are evolved to serve our own self-interest, unlike our moral convictions which are supposed to be universal and apply to all, even if that means great sacrifices to one's self. This is obvious in the case of a killer hunting you down. You fear the killer for the sake of preserving your own life. But it is no less true of the trucker protest. I want the truckers to win (emotionally) for personal, selfish reasons, not moral reasons. I don't feel nearly as threatened by COVID than some of the more vulnerable people in society, and I certainly don't want to live in a police state where the government can force me to receive whatever medical treatments it deems necessary or else be penalized. So for my own self-interest, which doesn't change whether it turns out that the truckers are in the moral right or the moral wrong, I want (emotionally) the truckers to get their way.

But just to make this more interesting (and more relevant), let's alter the scenario above (about the killer hunting you down) just a bit such that the killer experiences rage against you instead of elation. He experiences rage because, in his view, you have done him a grave injustice. I'll leave it up to your imagination what you did, but he feels so horribly wronged by you that it warrants, in his mind, your murder. So in his mind, it would not only bring great elation to kill you but would count as an act of true justice and moral right. You, of course, don't think so. According to you, whatever it is you did to him, you had every right, or at least it wasn't your fault, and you certainly don't deserve to be killed. So not only do you feel profound fear, but you feel that this is a grave moral wrong (not that you didn't think so in the first scenario but...). Now it's a question of moral right or moral wrong just like the trucker protest.

So here's the question... according to my point, even if you were to be persuaded that you did, in fact, commit a horrible wrong against the murderer and you therefore owe him your life, you would still feel fear because your emotions serve only to preserve your own self-interest, your own life. But according to you, if you were persuaded that you did commit a horrible wrong against the murderer and you therefore owe him your life, you wouldn't feel fear at all. You would feel (what?) anger towards yourself? Such incredible rage that you would take your own life in order for justice to be served no later than you would have the murderer take your life? That you would feel elation at the thought that you were going to die for what you did? And supposing you weren't convinced that you deserved to die, but just felt stuck in the usual nihilistic limbo you always claim to be stuck in--not knowing how to determine whose morality is correct--yours or the murderer's--you would feel (what?) ambivalence? Confusion? Emotional numbness? Determination to find the answer? But certainly not fear?

iambiguous wrote:And here my take on our emotional reactions is different from yours. You seem more inclined to give weight to emotions here that "I" don't. They are still far more just another manifestation of the subjective/existential parameters of dasein to me.


And to me too. They don't need to not be.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:This is why, despite agreeing with your dasein arguments on an intellectual level, I can still feel a certain way about this or that issue. I still feel strongly about supporting the truckers despite knowing there is no ultimate rational and objectively real argument I could put forward to convince all rational men and women, once and for all, that they should feel the way I do about the truckers. I feel, on an instinctual level, that the truckers' cause serves my own interests more than that of the vaccine mandate proponents, so it is impossible for me to stay neutral. I find myself, without even choosing, taking a stance anyway.


This is just psychological bullshit to me. A way for you to make my arguments about dasein less problematic so that you can "just feel" strongly about supporting the truckers even though any number of changes in your life might well have found you here "just feeling" strongly that they are wrong to protest.


And what do you do differently? Do you feel a certain way about the trucker protest? For or against it? If you do, what do you do with those emotions? Do you suppress them until you can figure out which side is right and which side is wrong? Do you pretend not to feel them? Do you lock them away in your unconscious so that on a conscious level, you feel nothing? An emotional nothing to match your intellectual nothing--that is, your intellectual suspension in nihilistic limbo? How do the dynamics between your emotions and your intellectual position play out in your mind?

Given the degree to which you claim to be utmost concerned over issues like this, I would imagine it's quite a struggle in there--a struggle between holding at bay any feelings you may have for or against the issue (whatever issue that may be) and your indecision over which side is right and which side is wrong--a struggle you willingly perpetuate because knowing with absolute certainty what is, once and for all, the right thing to do morally and objectively is of tantamount importance to you, a first priority. Well, it isn't as important for me. Not caring to be as certain as you want to be comes naturally to me. So I would say I'm not putting any effort into trying to make your arguments about dasein go away but rather resisting your efforts to convince me that I should care--just as you resist my efforts to make you not care--something we both have to do only on the rare occasions when we engage each other.

iambiguous wrote:Over and over and over and over again, I make it clear that points like this from me are in no way excluded from my own assumptions about points like this.


D'uh! That's not in question at all. The question was: when have you ever made any "objective sounding statements," remember?

iambiguous wrote:Cite some examples of these "objective sounding statements" of mine...pertaining to the trucker protest.


So nice try. You can't have it both ways. You have to decide, which is it? Do you deny that you make "objective sounding statements" or do you admit it with the caveat that your reasoning about dasein applies to your statements just as much as to anyone else's? Don't scurry around the question. Face it like a man. If I rose to your challenge (i.e. cited examples of how you make "objective sounding statements") just admit it gracefully.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Yes. That's the whole point of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The objectivist belief can be anything. It's the belief itself that is the main point. Or, rather, my main point. Their reactions to the trucker strike is often just a springboard to convey their reactions to the role of government in our lives itself: "I" vs. we", "capitalism vs, socialism", "genes vs. memes" and on and on.


What, did you think I excluded myself from this?


Would you drop your persistence on this point! We get it! Your arguments about dasein apply to you. I don't think you could be any more clear about this. I'm not denying that you apply your own arguments to yourself, I'm denying that that's a valid move. Every time you bring up this point, I ask: does that make your points (your "objective sounding statement") not really objective? Or does it mean it wasn't really "you" making those statements (you don't have an "I" after all)? Are you acknowledging that you made a mistake in uttering those "objective sounding statements"? And if so, don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to go around accusing others of making "objective sounding statements"? Hypocritical to deny others the right to regard their own "objective sounding statements" in the same way? As being subject to dasein? You certainly don't seem to grant me that right.

iambiguous wrote:Look, all I can note here is how much discomfort my own thinking brings to me.

Sure, but that wasn't my point.

And, existentially, to extrapolate from that to others who are now nestled in their comforting and consoling objectivist cocoon coming to believe that my frame of mind really is applicable to them.

I'm offering an alternative to that.

After all, I went through this three times myself. Once when I lost the Christian God, again when I lost the Unitarian God and then when I lost Marxism. Being fractured and fragmented is not just a "theoretical" thing for me. I really have come to "think" and to "feel" that my own existence is essentially meaningless and absurd, that there is no moral "stance" I can "just know" -- "just feel" -- is the best one, that oblivion itself is just around the corner existentially for me.

Hmm, that's interesting. Didn't know about your transition from the Christian God to the Unitarian God. We might delve into that sometime... but not now, obviously because it has no relevance to the trucker protest.

Then this thing: http://www.mm-theory.com/


What about that thing?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Hey, you wanna try it again? I'd be delighted to oblige. It would be hilarious watching you run in circles, failing to remember the consequence of every round (some obscure definition of insanity comes to mind).


Yeah. On this thread or start a new thread.


All righty then. Round and round we go. This is round two. Tell me if this makes any sense to you:

gib wrote:I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.


Does it make sense this time?

iambiguous wrote:Come on, how many times have I made it abundantly clear that my own interest in philosophy here revolves around this:

"How ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both 1] conflicting goods and 2] contingency, chance and change?"

Your theoretical contraptions are either applicable there or they are not. So, on the contrary, it's entirely up to you to go or to not go there.

You know, given human autonomy. :-k


You're forgetting that this is my thread. So sure it's up to me to go there, but I'm not trying to accommodate your interests. I don't care what you're interested in, I post what I'm interested in. That and 90% of the time, I'm responding to your questions and your demands. I brought up my metaphysics of consciousness because you asked about it.

PS - Not having much luck finding a trucker or protester to engage with on my metaphysics of consciousness and its relation to the trucker protest. You might want to drop by this thread and clarify some of the requirements more specifically. Ex, would it suffice if I engaged with Urwrong? He's not a trucker, and he took no part in the protest, but I think he'd react to my comments about my metaphysics of consciousness and its relation to the trucker protest the same way as your typical trucker/protestor.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby gib » Fri May 13, 2022 8:48 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:gib: to IAM....
Why is Urwrong your pinhead poster boy?

K: UR should be EVERYONES pinhead poster boy....

Kropotkin


I'm not sure you're any less of a pinhead than urwrong, at least according to Biggy. Biggy reserves the "pinhead" title for those who believe dogmatically that their points of view are the absolute objective truth. The thing is, Biggy is a closet case lefty so he enjoys picking on urwrong waaay more than picking on you or Sculptor or any of the other lefties on this board.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 18, 2022 4:37 pm

Part one edited

iambiguous wrote: That thread already exists here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529


gib wrote: That's what I thought. It doesn't seem to deviate much from Heidegger's "dasein" but you do put a lot of emphasis on the fluidity of the concept of the "self".


iambiguous wrote: And I've taken my own distinction elsewhere: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... =5&t=34319


gib wrote: Again, I don't really see a distinction but rather a difference in emphasis. Whereas Heidegger seems to emphasize our preoccupation with our own ontology, you emphasize the difficulty with which we grapple to find objectivity in our assessments of our own ontology.


iambiguous wrote:Heidegger's Dasein is but another "up in the clouds" intellectual contraption to me. My dasein is considerably more "down to earth".


gib wrote: Ha! Given the distinction in emphasis I noted above, you are several orders of magnitude higher up in the clouds than Heidegger.


If this is actually how you think about his Dasein and my dasein, we are no doubt wasting each other's time. Still, in regard to things like abortion or public health policies or feminism, or Nazis, note some examples of how you construe Heidegger as being considerably more "down to Earth".

That ought to be interesting.

gib wrote:I'm still on the specific question of "What is the most rational manner in which to react?"... a true subjectivist has no issue letting this question go.


A true subjectivist. And of course how you understand this is by default the starting point here.

Again, for me, until an objective morality can be established -- either re God or No God -- all of our moral and political value judgments are derived subjectively, existentially, from the life that we live. That's my starting point.

And what on earth does it even mean to have "no issue letting this question go"? Which question? Pertaining to what context? Whether in regard to a woman contemplating an abortion, or a trucker contemplating a protest against the government.

The questions are, "Is abortion moral or immoral"? "Is the trucker strike rational or irrational?"

Says who? Based on what argument that is not derived subjectively, existentially from the life he or she lived? I'm still waiting for such an argument from you.

And, for the objectivists among us, such questions can be asked, but there is always only one right answer: their own.

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, I'm trying to imagine you among the truckers explaining your "support" for their protest. How do you suppose they would react to this? As opposed to the far more fanatically fierce support offered to them from the Urwrong pinheads here among us.


gib wrote:What, you mean support that hinges on me slipping into an objectivist's role or support regardless of what role I slip into? Because I'll tell you from the start, my support for the truckers doesn't hinge on what "role" I slip into--objectivist or subjectivists--because, as I said in my previous post, my support hinges more on how I feel about the protest emotionally, which doesn't change whether I'm a subjectivist or an objectivist.


Unbelievable. Well, to me. As though you put your emotions up on a pedestal here and worship them instead. As though what we come to feel about things like the trucker protest is not in turn profoundly rooted existentially in dasein.

gib wrote:So that leaves explaining to them my support for their protest, or explaining to them how I'm a subjectivist but can slip into the objectivist role. The former, I think they would accept with open arms. The latter, I don't think they would understand or care about.


You to the truckers: "Hey, I feel the same way you do about the government policy. And let's all agree that this makes us right. And even though others feel that we are wrong our emotions trump theirs in the end."

How can it really be other than that? Sooner or later, however, you have to get around to explaining why you feel what you do. You have to align your feelings with your thinking. You have make arguments. Arguments in my view rooted largely in dasein.

iambiguous wrote:
The question is going to be asked because there is in fact a covid pandemic and there are in fact governments reacting to it with policies.


gib wrote:That there is a covid pandemic and governments reacting to it with policies has nothing to do with you and I having this discussion on ILP--it has everything to do with the truckers and protestors on the ground in Ottawa (or it did) who are not interested in doing armchair philosophy to figure out the metaphysical implications of objectivism and subjectivism in the context of nihilism and idealism.


Right, right. They can just shrug off the points I make here regarding how they acquired their points of view. They have them and that's that. And it's the fact they feel that they are right that allows them to huff and puff arrogantly at those who dare not to agree with them. And those on the other side against them. Both sides embody the fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality. But not here. There.

gib wrote:They are chiefly concerned with the question of what the most rational manner in which to react is because both sides, in putting forward their positions as the most rational, are assuming there is a most rational manner in which to react, and verily they are in the middle of an extremely contentious disagreement about what that is. So obviously, the question is of great import to them--if settled, it may well resolve the entire situation. But for us, it is of no greater import than the extent to which we find it philosophically interesting. You in particular would ask the question not only to the extent you find it philosophically interesting, but to the extent you think it possible that there is a most rational manner in which to react. In other words, the question is asked out of ignorance.


Come on, depending on which side prevails in the end millions might be impacted. So the bottom line is whether both sides insist that only their argument and feelings count, or whether they are willing to negotiate a compromise in which both sides get something but neither side gets it all.

The objectivists are interested only in a "my way, or the highway" solution. They don't really give a shit about establishing the most rational manner in which to achieve it.

You admit that contingency, chance and change can result in conflicting subjective/existential leaps of faith such that you're here supporting the truckers and others are here protesting them...but so what?!


gib wrote:Well, I get why you're asking the question. I just don't put my life on hold until I get a definitive answer. My life is too important to me to spend it dwelling over questions like that. So I put the question on hold and move on with my life.


No, instead, you take your own existential leap to the truckers side because you feel strongly it's the right thing to do. Like those on the other side aren't going exactly the same thing.

And, sure, if you dwell on questions like that too long, you might find yourself becoming increasingly more fractured and fragmented as well. You're just less inclined to go after me as scathingly as the hardcore objectivist pinheads here do.

...to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


gib wrote:If we're all hard wired for this, yet you're able to be aware of it (and just how problematic it is), why can't others also be aware? Why can't I be aware of this? Why would you continually insist that I'm not?


It's not a question of being aware of it but how we react to what we think that we are aware of. My own awareness less led me to believe that being drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods is reasonable. How has it not led the objectivists on both sides of the trucker protest or the abortion wars to feel that way? How have you managed to avoid it? Well, you just don't feel that way:

gib wrote: Until you can understand how a stance can be rooted in emotion rather than certainty in being right (and how emotions don't play by your rules), you'll never get a satisfactory answer to this question.


We will clearly have to agree to disagree about whether emotions play more by my rules or your rules. They are more embedded in dasein to me. That's why with few exceptions those who think the truckers are right also feel that they are right, and those that feel the truckers are wrong also think that they are wrong? Just a coincidence?

You claim to be "primarily a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism". If you say so. In regard to the truckers protest, I still haven't a clue as to how "for all practical purposes" that would be communicated to them.

Note to others:

Take a stab at it. What on earth do you think he means by that. If you were able to, how would you explain it to the truckers?

Same with this:

gib wrote: ...it's the distinction between what I believe about my stance on the trucker protest (that it's rooted in dasein) and how I feel about the trucker protest (I want the truckers to win); NOT the distinction between emotions being rooted in dasein and emotions not being rooted in dasein.


So, you acknowledge that had things been different in your life you might not believe in the truckers protest. In fact, you might be in here taking the side of those like KP and Sculptor. But that, what, you'd still want them to win?!! How you make your own emotions here less rooted in dasein is beyond my grasping. Again, for the preponderance of us, it certainly seems that what we think about something and how we feel about it are pretty much in sync. Except for those like me. Both my thinking and feeling have over the years fractured and fragmented together. Although, sure, given the manner in which the preponderance of my experiences have revolved around left wing folks my prejudices are largely there. But that too is no less existential. Take the Song Be Syndrome out of my life and I'd still probably be a reactionary politically and a Christian religiously.

And then this unintelligible [to me] distinction between what you feel and what you want. What we want is no less embodied in dasein to me.

gib wrote: You keep making the same mistake that I keep trying to correct. Forget "the right thing to do". Forget "I think". It isn't "I feel... therefore, I think..." It isn't "I feel it's the right thing to do". It's just "I feel like it." I support the truckers 'cause I feel like it. I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I don't have a defense. I don't draw any intellectual/rational conclusions based on how I feel. It's just the feeling in isolation--or rather, the feeling leading directly to action (with some bullshit justifications maybe conjured up along the way).


Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head and ask him why he invaded Ukraine. Let's put this frame of mind in the heads of Alito and his ilk on the Supreme Court and ask them why they're gutting Roe v. Wade. As supposed to them presenting arguments wholly in sync with how they feel about what they are doing. With what they "want" to do.

gib wrote: You keep wanting to sneak some cognitive/intellectual stance in there. You keep assuming that before one can act or speak in defense of one side of an issue or another, they have to form a cognitive opinion or argument to back up that defense--like it's impossible to go from the feeling directly to the acting or speaking in defense. Once you drop that assumption, it's not hard to see how feelings can be both rooted in dasein and drivers pushing us to act/speak in defense of one side of the issue or the other.


No, I just assume that most people have reasons for why they think and feel what they do about things like government policies and abortion. I just explore the extent to which this is rooted [intellectually and emotionally] in dasein. And not in folks saying, 'well, it's just what I want."

iambiguous wrote: Again, to take that existential leap of faith to supporting the truckers because you "just feel" it's the right thing to do...how is that any different from those who take an existential leap of faith to protesting them because they "just feel" it's the right thing to do? Where does the part here about dasein go away?


gib wrote: In essence, such a position can be held if strong emotions still rear their (ugly?) head. To say, "I support the truckers" needn't mean "I have the ultimate demonstrable proof that the truckers are right"; most of the time, it just means "I want the truckers to win." And one can still want this despite understanding your dasein arguments.


Well some such as you can, others such as me cannot. The crux of the matter. The part about you I don't understand and the part about me that you don't understand.

On the other hand, the objectivists -- especially the pinheads -- are often adamant that both their facts and they opinions reflect the most rational frame of mind.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but your "metaphysics of consciousness" either has profound "for all practical purposes" implication for the truckers or it doesn't.


gib wrote: It doesn't.

The only reason I brought it up is because you asked me to tie it to the trucker protest. I warned you that it has nothing to do with the trucker protest (and therefore tying it in is pointless), but you insisted that the only way you would understand it is if I tied it into the trucker protest... so I did. Not a huge shock that you couldn't make heads or tails of it.


Fine. But what interest me here are those factors that do have important implications for the truckers protest.

gib wrote:It's true, you did make a point about the girl who stood me up waaay back, and it's a fine point--no qualms here--but it's a distraction now.


iambiguous wrote: That's ridiculous. Had she not stood you up she may well have been the one who yanked your thinking about the truckers to a frame of mind other than what you think and feel now.

That's the whole point of coming to grips with the "for all practical implications" of thinking about dasein as "I" do here and now.

Our life is not only about the experiential trajectory that we took but all the other trajectories that we might have taken instead if any one of hundreds and hundreds of experiences had turned out otherwise given all the variables/factors that come at us from every direction.

Again, as I noted above, it comes down to how you and I react differently to this: https://youtu.be/6Zp7dq6b2PI

But those reactions [to me] are no less rooted in dasein...as "I" understand it "here and now".


gib wrote: This tangent is a dead horse not worth beating. I'll just chock it up to you not understanding the point I was making. So back to the subject main subject matter.


To you perhaps but not at all to me. It's one of the most important factors of all in grasping the complex and convoluted nature of human identity out in the is/ought world.

gib wrote:Drop the "as the most rational frame of mind". It's not "as" anything. It's just whichever side of the debate/protest they're on.


Come on, this is a philosophy forum! And given that to most philosophy is still construed to be the "search for wisdom", what is that but the assumption that there is the most rational manner in which to think and feel about our own value judgments. There are the facts about the covid pandemic and the facts about any particular government's reaction to it. Truths applicable to all of us. But what of our moral and political conviction in reacting to the protest itself? What are the indisputable facts there?


gib wrote: This is precisely the kind of response that indicates to me that you're not the least bit interested in understanding. I said to drop the "as the most rational frame of mind" because I thought you were trying to understand the stance I take on the trucker protest. I'm trying to get through to you that I support the truckers but not as the most rational frame of mind one can have on the issue.


Right, you are more invested in what you "feel" about the protest. In the side you "want" to win. The fact that your life might unfolded differently such that you were predisposed to argue against them here wouldn't change how you feel and what you want? You'd still want them to win?

Again, you may be making a good point here...one I simply am not understanding. But it's certainly true that I don't understand it. I can't recall an instance in my own life where I thought through to one political conviction and still felt just the opposite. Wanting something that would bring about what I thought was wrong. But then, true, I was an objectivist myself then.

gib wrote: If you really were interested in understanding my point of view, this was a golden opportunity. It seemed like you did understand, but rather than respond with "Ah, I see, gib. You're not aiming for the most rational frame of mind. That makes a bit more sense," you respond with "come on, have a most rational frame of mind." You need me to have a most rational frame of mind because challenging that with your dasein arguments is all you know how to do here.


I've noted the distinction between you and those fulminating fanatic objectivists here who dismiss dasein altogether. They are absolutely fierce in insisting it's all about "one of us" [the rational, virtuous good guys] and "one of them" [the irrational, immoral bad guys]. But I'll be damned if I understand this distinction you make between the profoundly problematic nature of what one comes to to think, to know, to believe about the truckers protest and what one comes to feel and want instead. Suddenly the "profoundly problematic" part is shunted aside as you take an emotional and psychological leap of faith to this political prejudice rather than that political prejudice. As though emotions and wants themselves are somehow above and beyond all that existential stuff.

iambiguous wrote:You have made it clear [to me] that you are not one of Urwrong's pinheads here. But how are you not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am? That's what our exchange is basically about to me. You "feel" comfortable enough with your "stance" that you are not drawn and quartered as "I" am.

Okay, fine, that "works" for you. And for others here such as Moreno and/or Karpel Tunnel.

Well, it doesn't work that way for me. It still "feels" reasonable to me that, given my understanding of dasein "here and now" "I" am fractured and fragmented.


gib wrote: Whenever I hear about your "fractured and fragmented" self, I fall back on the interpretation which I believe you provided that it means you have lost your sense of certainty in knowing who you are--what you understand yourself to be--a good god-fearing conservative--and later, an enlightened left-wing liberal--and now you find yourself suspended in nihilistic limbo, unable to grip onto any objectively solid definition of yourself, any certainty in knowing who you are; instead, you only have fractures and fragments of a self-concept that you are at a loss to put together.


I am just as certain about myself as anyone else in regard to the empirical, biological, demographic, circumstantial etc., facts about my Self. It is in regard to my moral and political and spiritual values that dasein as "I" understand it becomes increasingly more applicable. I am not in possession of your "feelings" and "wants" such that I can just shunt this...

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

...aside, and feel, what, committed to either one side or the other?

Again, this....

gib wrote: However, that's not to say I don't experience any kind of similar tension or loss. For one thing, I wish I could close the gap between what I think I know and all there is to know--with respect to the trucker protest or any other issue of serious import; it would be nice to know that my support for the truckers actually contributes to a good cause. For all I know, maybe the truckers are horrible, horrible people who are doing nothing but making the world a worse place--and then what kind of a low-life asshole would I be?--but I've resigned to the fact that I'll probably never know, and that all I have is the limited and distorted information I'm getting from the media--and then my feelings--so I find it relatively easy to give up trying to close that gap, not dwell over it into perpetuity, and instead deal only with how I feel about the trucker protest.


...does work for you in a way that it does not for me. As for the gap between what you think you know and all there is to know? How far back do you want to go? To the part where the human species/the human condition itself is understood in the context of grasping the nature of Existence itself?

We don't even know for certain that free will is the real deal. And who among us is able to fully demonstrate that they are not in a sim world, a dream world or one or another Matix reality. Then the arguments for and against solipsism.

Then back to Rummy's Rule:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

What, you don't think that's applicable to the trucker protest?

iambiguous wrote:The fear or elation that someone feels when being stalked by someone who wants to kill them or in stalking someone that he wants to kill is one thing. The fear or elation one feels in reacting to the covid virus or the government policy to fight it, another thing altogether.


gib wrote: Well, not really.


Well, from my frame on mind, really. The fear of someone stalking you is an immediate, wholly tangible experience. No ambiguity, no uncertainty. I'm afraid because someone is trying to kill me and I don't want tlo die. The fear of covid or of vaccinations or of government policy is far, far, far more complex and convoluted. There are many, many more variables involved. And the variables are understood differently by different people. The experiences are completely different. It's like the difference between an acute pain in which the cause is clear -- you broke your leg -- and chronic pain in which the doctors can't seem to pin down what is causing it. It may even be psycho-somatic.

gib wrote: My point hinges on the fact that our emotions are evolved to serve our own self-interest, unlike our moral convictions which are supposed to be universal and apply to all, even if that means great sacrifices to one's self.


First of all, how does one construe the "self" here...as I do, as you do, as Urwrong does? And then that great divide between those who insist that morality revolves first and foremost around "I", while others insist it must revolve around "we". And those particular fanatic Randroid egoists who will never sacrifice their Self for anyone.

gib wrote: But just to make this more interesting (and more relevant), let's alter the scenario above (about the killer hunting you down) just a bit such that the killer experiences rage against you instead of elation. He experiences rage because, in his view, you have done him a grave injustice. I'll leave it up to your imagination what you did, but he feels so horribly wronged by you that it warrants, in his mind, your murder. So in his mind, it would not only bring great elation to kill you but would count as an act of true justice and moral right. You, of course, don't think so.


Note a point I made above that would lead you to believe this. Of course someone might think like this. I'm sure there have been many murders in which the killer felt precisely that way.

gib wrote: According to you, whatever it is you did to him, you had every right, or at least it wasn't your fault, and you certainly don't deserve to be killed. So not only do you feel profound fear, but you feel that this is a grave moral wrong (not that you didn't think so in the first scenario but...). Now it's a question of moral right or moral wrong just like the trucker protest.


No, I am not arguing that whatever it is I did to him was right, but that "in my head", given the manner in which I construe the situation, given the manner in which existentially I was predisposed to construe it based on one set of existential prejudices rather than another, "I" thought myself subjectively into believing I was morally justified. But what's his side of the story? How do others construe it? Where's the God-like font that can settle it once and for all?

With you, it seems you're willing to admit that given different experiences in your life, your reaction to what someone does to you may vary considerably. But emotionally you are able to latch on to, what, the optimal reaction...the reaction that you finally want?

As for this...

gib wrote: So here's the question... according to my point, even if you were to be persuaded that you did, in fact, commit a horrible wrong against the murderer and you therefore owe him your life, you would still feel fear because your emotions serve only to preserve your own self-interest, your own life. But according to you, if you were persuaded that you did commit a horrible wrong against the murderer and you therefore owe him your life, you wouldn't feel fear at all. You would feel (what?) anger towards yourself? Such incredible rage that you would take your own life in order for justice to be served no later than you would have the murderer take your life? That you would feel elation at the thought that you were going to die for what you did? And supposing you weren't convinced that you deserved to die, but just felt stuck in the usual nihilistic limbo you always claim to be stuck in--not knowing how to determine whose morality is correct--yours or the murderer's--you would feel (what?) ambivalence? Confusion? Emotional numbness? Determination to find the answer? But certainly not fear?


There so many different existential contexts that can unfold, given those who have lived very, very different lives, you would have to focus in on an actual event. Examine the specific motives and intentions of the participants. Since I have never had someone stalk and attempt to kill me, I have nothing concrete to fall back on.

Then there are the sociopaths who don't give a shit about any of this. Everything is simple: what's in it for me? Fuck morality and who is right and wrong. And the psychopaths who, clinically, are not even able to make these distinctions.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed May 18, 2022 7:44 pm, edited 3 times 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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 18, 2022 5:08 pm

Part 2

I had to split this because my post exceeded the 60,000 character limit!!

gib wrote: This is why, despite agreeing with your dasein arguments on an intellectual level, I can still feel a certain way about this or that issue. I still feel strongly about supporting the truckers despite knowing there is no ultimate rational and objectively real argument I could put forward to convince all rational men and women, once and for all, that they should feel the way I do about the truckers. I feel, on an instinctual level, that the truckers' cause serves my own interests more than that of the vaccine mandate proponents, so it is impossible for me to stay neutral. I find myself, without even choosing, taking a stance anyway.


iambiguous wrote:This is just psychological bullshit to me. A way for you to make my arguments about dasein less problematic so that you can "just feel" strongly about supporting the truckers even though any number of changes in your life might well have found you here "just feeling" strongly that they are wrong to protest.


gib wrote: And what do you do differently? Do you feel a certain way about the trucker protest? For or against it? If you do, what do you do with those emotions?


Again, I don't exclude my own value judgments from my own point of view. Yes, my thoughts and my feelings about the trucker protest are more in the general vicinity of the left. But that is because I spent over 20 years as a far-left political activist. I clearly recognize that my reaction as a profoundly embedded existential prejudice that, had my life been different, I might have acquired very different prejudices. And in fact here and now those leftist prejudices have been profoundly diluted as a result of my having become a moral nihilist.

It's not a question of suppressing my emotions or pretending they don't exist or feeling nothing. It's simply recognizing that what I do feel is derived more from the manner in which my life actually unfolded existentially rather than from any argument [philosophical or otherwise] that would allow me to grasp how I ought to feel as a rational and virtuous human being. The way the objectivists/pinheads do. Their own emotions are nothing if not self-righteous, right?

gib wrote:I would say that everything going on with the trucker protest is a projection of my mind (and any other mind also aware of or experiencing it). But because the mind carries within it the seeds of being, it projects it as an actual event happening in the real world. That it is right or wrong receives a similar treatment. The morality of it projects from my mind (my emotions and conscience in particular) and becomes the actual moral standing of the trucker's cause.


gib wrote: Does it make sense this time?


Nope. And, again, the best way to test it is to take it to those protesting any government policy that you yourself protest. Run it by those out in the street actually confronting the government and its policy. Note their reactions and bring them back here.

And how close is your own understanding of projection to this one: "the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds".

Again, what is always most crucial to me is what the mind thinks given a particular context. And how close it can come to demonstrating that what it thinks others are obligated to think as well. And, in regard to value judgments, how what it thinks [and feels] is derived from dasein.

iambiguous wrote:Come on, how many times have I made it abundantly clear that my own interest in philosophy here revolves around this:

"How ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both 1] conflicting goods and 2] contingency, chance and change?"

Your theoretical contraptions are either applicable there or they are not. So, on the contrary, it's entirely up to you to go or to not go there.

You know, given human autonomy. :-k


gib wrote: You're forgetting that this is my thread. So sure it's up to me to go there, but I'm not trying to accommodate your interests. I don't care what you're interested in, I post what I'm interested in. That and 90% of the time, I'm responding to your questions and your demands. I brought up my metaphysics of consciousness because you asked about it.


Okay, approach it from that point of view, sure. But what I asked is for you to connect the dots between it and the trucker protest.

And then when I noted, "Okay, but your 'metaphysics of consciousness' either has profound 'for all practical purposes' implication for the truckers or it doesn't", you responded that it doesn't.

So, sure bring it in if you wish. But my own reaction to "general description intellectual contraptions" isn't likely to change. Well, unless, of course, given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge, it does.
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed May 18, 2022 8:03 pm, edited 2 times 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."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby MagsJ » Wed May 18, 2022 7:59 pm

_
TLAR [A = aint]
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: 25059
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

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

Postby gib » Sat Jun 11, 2022 7:40 am

iambiguous wrote:If this is actually how you think about his Dasein and my dasein, we are no doubt wasting each other's time. Still, in regard to things like abortion or public health policies or feminism, or Nazis, note some examples of how you construe Heidegger as being considerably more "down to Earth".


I say Heidegger is more down to Earth because he is concerned simply with our "being in the world" (that's how I understand his definition of "dasein"). As I noted above, and as I interpret your words, you seem to be concerned more with the difficulty with which we grapple to find objectivity in our being in the world. <-- that's like an onion around which you've added several more layers.

I don't have any examples for you. Just take those two construals and see how they apply to things like feminism, abortion, Nazism, etc. yourself.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I'm still on the specific question of "What is the most rational manner in which to react?"... a true subjectivist has no issue letting this question go.


A true subjectivist. And of course how you understand this is by default the starting point here.

It is for me. Why would I go with someone else's understanding?

Again, for me, until an objective morality can be established -- either re God or No God -- all of our moral and political value judgments are derived subjectively, existentially, from the life that we live. That's my starting point.

Works for me.

And what on earth does it even mean to have "no issue letting this question go"? You've forgotten already? Which question? Pertaining to what context? Whether in regard to a woman contemplating an abortion, or a trucker contemplating a protest against the government.

It's the same question we've been discussing this whole time. It's even in the quote above: "What is the most rational manner in which to react?" Does it matter what context? My point is that a subjectivist wouldn't think there is a most rational manner in which to react in any context (you know, because he's a subjectivist).

The questions are, "Is abortion moral or immoral"? "Is the trucker strike rational or irrational?"

Go to a doctor and get your long-term memory checked.

Says who? Based on what argument that is not derived subjectively, existentially from the life he or she lived? I'm still waiting for such an argument from you.

It's almost like you got me confused with someone one a different thread you've been arguing with.

And, for the objectivists among us, such questions can be asked, but there is always only one right answer: their own.


Ok, since you've gotten lost (again) I'm going to try to put you back on track. The question was "What is the most rational manner in which to react [to anything]?" And the point I was arguing is that a true subjectivist would have no need for this question, and that since you are stuck on it (indeed, your entire life seems to be stuck on it) I call you out as a closet case objectivist.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:What, you mean support that hinges on me slipping into an objectivist's role or support regardless of what role I slip into? Because I'll tell you from the start, my support for the truckers doesn't hinge on what "role" I slip into--objectivist or subjectivists--because, as I said in my previous post, my support hinges more on how I feel about the protest emotionally, which doesn't change whether I'm a subjectivist or an objectivist.

Unbelievable. Really. Well, to me. As though you put your emotions up on a pedestal here and worship them instead. As though I can't just be truthful with you. As though what we come to feel about things like the trucker protest is not in turn profoundly rooted existentially in dasein.


I guess to you it's "as though" but that just betrays the limits of your intellect.

iambiguous wrote:You to the truckers: "Hey, I feel the same way you do about the government policy. And let's all agree that this makes us right. And even though others feel that we are wrong our emotions trump theirs drive us in the end."

How can it really be other than that? Easily, but not for you apparently. Sooner or later, however, you have to get around to explaining why you feel what you do. Actually, I don't. You have to align your feelings with your thinking. Not really. You have to make arguments. Arguments in my view rooted largely in dasein.


And since they're rooted in dasein, I don't. Not when I'm arguing with you, at least. You see what you just did? You told me how you want me to respond and how in turn you want to respond to that. You want me to back up my emotions with rational sounding arguments so that you can point out how they're rooted in dasein. But I'm afraid I already agree that they'd be rooted in dasein. Sorry that I agree.

iambiguous wrote:Right, right. They can just shrug off the points I make here regarding how they acquired their points of view. As they should. They have them and that's that. And it's the fact they feel that they are right that allows them to huff and puff arrogantly at those who dare not to agree with them. Ah, so listening to you is the only way not to be arrogant. And those on the other side against them. Both sides embody the fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality. But not here. There.


I don't think you can necessarily label simply taking a side the embodiment of the "fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality".

iambiguous wrote:Come on, depending on which side prevails in the end millions might be impacted. So the bottom line is whether both sides insist that only their argument and feelings count, or whether they are willing to negotiate a compromise in which both sides get something but neither side gets it all.

The objectivists are interested only in a "my way, or the highway" solution. They don't really give a shit about establishing the most rational manner in which to achieve it.


Aren't those one and the same?

Just to put this back in perspective, we're talking about whether the question "What is the most rational manner in which to react?" is asked out of ignorance or not. You claim not to be an objectivist. I point out that you'd have no need to ask the question in that case. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I speculate that you ask the question out of ignorance--that is, you don't claim to know one way or the other whether there is a most rational manner in which to act. Therefore, just in case, you think it prudent to ask the question.

Sure, millions might be impacted by the answer to this question, but the majority of people don't ask it out of ignorance. They not only feel there must be a most rational manner in which to react but that they know what that manner is. If they ask the question at all, it's rhetorical.

iambiguous wrote:No, instead, you take your own existential leap to the truckers side because you feel strongly it's the right thing to do. Like those on the other side aren't going exactly the same thing.

*sigh* I guess I'll wait to read your response below, the ones that address the points I make about what it is to "feel strongly" about one side or the other.

And, sure, if you dwell on questions like that too long, you might find yourself becoming increasingly more fractured and fragmented as well. You're just less inclined to go after me as scathingly as the hardcore objectivist pinheads here do.


I may be a pinhead, but I'm not a fanatical fulminating one.

iambiguous wrote:It's not a question of being aware of it but how we react to what we think that we are aware of. My own awareness less led me to believe that being drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods is reasonable. How has it not led the objectivists on both sides of the trucker protest or the abortion wars to feel that way? How have you managed to avoid it? Well, you just don't feel that way:


Feel what way? That being drawn and quartered is reasonable? I don't know, I guess staying out of trouble is a much nicer experience than being drawn and quartered? But that's just me.

And I would like answers to these questions:

gib wrote:And do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no. But then how on Earth does it strike you as fair to ask this question of others--Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?--but not yourself? And if you do ask this of yourself (in the privacy of your own head?), what's your answer? Could this answer not suffice for others?


iambiguous wrote:We will clearly have to agree to disagree about whether emotions play more by my rules or your rules. They're not my rules, they're nature's rules--human nature that is. They are more embedded in dasein to me. Sure. That's why with few exceptions those who think the truckers are right also feel that they are right, and those that feel the truckers are wrong also think that they are wrong? Just a coincidence?


No, it's just semantics. To say "I think the truckers are right" is to say "I think I'm right." It would be nonsense to say "I think the truckers are right, but I disagree with them."

iambiguous wrote:You claim to be "primarily a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism". If you say so. In regard to the truckers protest, I still haven't a clue as to how "for all practical purposes" that would be communicated to them.

Note to others:

Take a stab at it. What on earth do you think he means by that. If you were able to, how would you explain it to the truckers?


I don't know why I have to explain it to the truckers specifically, so I'm just going to explain it.

Being a subjectivist, to me, means believing that the world is determined by the mind, by one's perceptions, experiences, beliefs, values, and so on. And as we all know, the mind is easily capable of having experiences of objectivity. We all believe that 2 + 2 = 4, for example. The subjectivist in me says that 2 + 2 = 4 because that's how I experience the relation between quantities, but I also experience it to be objectively true--and so it is objectively true (for me).

As for the truckers who believe in an entire world of objectivity, my subjectivism goes hand-in-hand with relativism, so I have no issue saying the world is primarily objective for them. But when I say I can accommodate objectivism, I mean a little more than just that. I mean I can agree with them on certain issues. That Trudeau is a tyrant (for example) or that no one should be vaccinated against their will (for another). I wouldn't personally regard these as objectively true (at least for me) though I would acknowledge that they are objectively true for the truckers. But we don't need to agree on their objectivity just to agree. They would say Trudeau is a tyrant as an objective fact, I would say he's a tyrant as a subjective opinion (mine)--and that should be enough for us to get on with things.

iambiguous wrote:So, you acknowledge that had things been different in your life you might not believe in the truckers protest. In fact, you might be in here taking the side of those like KP and Sculptor. But that, what, you'd still want them to win?!! No, why would I want them to win if I'm siding with KP and Sculptor? How you make your own emotions here less rooted in dasein Again, * sigh * is beyond my grasping. Again, for the preponderance of us, it certainly seems that what we think about something and how we feel about it are pretty much in sync. The preponderance of people are fairly simple minded. Except for those like me. And only you, right? Both my thinking and feeling have over the years fractured and fragmented together. Mine too, in a manner of speaking, just not my 'I'. Although, sure, given the manner in which the preponderance of my experiences have revolved around left wing folks my prejudices are largely there. Please tell me we haven't been arguing over terminology. But that too is no less existential. Take the Song Be Syndrome out of my life and I'd still probably be a reactionary politically and a Christian religiously.


Is what I'v been calling 'emotions' what you call 'prejudices'? Glad to hear you at least acknowledge you have them, and that they are at odds with your beliefs on dasein. That's what I've been trying to say about my emotions.

And of course, here comes the part where you conveniently lose the ability to comprehend just at the moment when I clear up the crux of your misunderstanding:

iambiguous wrote:And then this unintelligible [to me] distinction between what you feel and what you want. What we want is no less embodied in dasein to me.

gib wrote:You keep making the same mistake that I keep trying to correct. Forget "the right thing to do". Forget "I think". It isn't "I feel... therefore, I think..." It isn't "I feel it's the right thing to do". It's just "I feel like it." I support the truckers 'cause I feel like it. I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I don't have a defense. I don't draw any intellectual/rational conclusions based on how I feel. It's just the feeling in isolation--or rather, the feeling leading directly to action (with some bullshit justifications maybe conjured up along the way).



I didn't once mention "want" anywhere in the above. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm making a distinction between what I feel and what I want--there is no distinction at all (must be one of your brain glitches again); on the other hand, I did mention the word "think" in contrast to "feel", which is the distinction I was making. Try reading it again. Maybe it will make more sense this time.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head and ask him why he invaded Ukraine. Let's put this frame of mind in the heads of Alito and his ilk on the Supreme Court and ask them why they're gutting Roe v. Wade. As supposed to them presenting arguments wholly in sync with how they feel about what they are doing. With what they "want" to do.


That sounds like a really lame exercise, but okay. I'm Vladimir Putin thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--I want to invade Ukraine, so I invade Ukraine. I'm Alito thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--and I want to gut the Roe v. Wade case, so I gut the Roe v. Wade case. <-- Are we seeing any brilliant insights here?

iambiguous wrote:No, I just assume that most people have reasons for why they think and feel what they do about things like government policies and abortion. I just explore the extent to which this is rooted [intellectually and emotionally] in dasein. And not in folks saying, 'well, it's just what I want."


You're doing more than just assuming, you're insisting. I tell you I side with the truckers because "it's just what I want," and you inject an extra step: "it's just what I want, therefore it's right."

To be fair, I won't deny that my desires to see the truckers win comes along with thoughts pushed into my head by those desires. My mind will conjure up all manner of arguments and justifications for why the truckers should win. But because I agree with your dasein argument those thoughts mean very little to me--I see through them, so to speak--they become mere "intellectual contraptions" that pass through my mind and disappear--and I'm left only with the desire to see the truckers win. So if you want, we can get into those thoughts, but I must preface that with the disclaimer that I've already dismissed them.

iambiguous wrote:Well some such as you can, others such as me cannot. The crux of the matter. The part about you I don't understand and the part about me that you don't understand.


Well, I'm trying. And I think I'm succeeding to an extent, though there is obviously much left to understand.

iambiguous wrote:Fine. But what interest me here are those factors that do have important implications for the truckers protest.


Well, you'll have to bear with me then. My thread, my decisions. Then again, I am letting you drive for the most part.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:This tangent is a dead horse not worth beating. I'll just chock it up to you not understanding the point I was making. So back to the subject main subject matter.


To you perhaps but not at all to me. It's one of the most important factors of all in grasping the complex and convoluted nature of human identity out in the is/ought world.


Just to put this in perspective, the tangent I'm calling a dead horse is the one where we started arguing about whether, to the nihilist, values are mere fabrications and illusory. You (eventually) responded to that by bring up the point (for the second time) about the girl who stood me up. <-- I was calling that a distraction because it had nothing to do with the question of whether or not values are illusory to the nihilist. I didn't want to continue on that tangent, however, because it's stupid, so I called it a dead horse not worth beating. But if you really think it's "one of the most important factors of all in grasping the complex and convoluted nature of human identity out in the is/ought world" we can bring that horse back to life and ride it into the sunset.

iambiguous wrote:Right, you are more invested in what you "feel" about the protest. In the side you "want" to win. The fact that your life might unfolded differently such that you were predisposed to argue against them here wouldn't change how you feel and what you want? You'd still want them to win?


What do you mean? Would it change what I want here and now? No, it wouldn't. Would it change what I want in this alternate universe where I'm arguing on the opposite side? Of course!

iambiguous wrote:Wanting something that would bring about what I thought was wrong.


I envy you then... always wanting what's right. Most people aren't strangers to the experience of struggling with their conscience. Living up to one's morality is not always easy. It can be a burdensome chore, so much so that many will fall into nihilism, preferring to dismiss morality as a mere human fabrication, calling none of us to its higher purpose. It demands great sacrifice sometimes; for example, if the greater good requires that you sacrifice yourself to save the many, such as when a soldier is called to war in order to protect his country. He doesn't want to die, he doesn't want to leave his wife and kids to fight in a foreign land, but he knows he must--it's the right thing to do--and so he musters the strength and the courage to go fight despite the urges of his more basic desires.

Are you telling me you've never experienced this? You've never had to struggle with your conscience? That your conscience and your emotions are always in sync? Are you really saying that there's never been a moment in your life when you wanted one thing but knew you had to do the opposite?

iambiguous wrote:I've noted the distinction between you and those fulminating fanatic objectivists here who dismiss dasein altogether. They are absolutely fierce in insisting it's all about "one of us" [the rational, virtuous good guys] and "one of them" [the irrational, immoral bad guys]. But I'll be damned if I understand this distinction you make between the profoundly problematic nature of what one comes to to think, to know, to believe about the truckers protest and what one comes to feel and want instead. You don't know the difference between emotions and thoughts? Or just how they can diverge? Suddenly the "profoundly problematic" part is shunted aside as you take an emotional and psychological leap of faith to this political prejudice rather than that political prejudice. As though emotions and wants themselves are somehow above and beyond all that existential stuff.


"As though" to you, I suppose. But to me, they just are. Stubborn little creatures, emotions are. They just don't listen to your dasein arguments.

iambiguous wrote:Again, this....

gib wrote:However, that's not to say I don't experience any kind of similar tension or loss. For one thing, I wish I could close the gap between what I think I know and all there is to know--with respect to the trucker protest or any other issue of serious import; it would be nice to know that my support for the truckers actually contributes to a good cause. For all I know, maybe the truckers are horrible, horrible people who are doing nothing but making the world a worse place--and then what kind of a low-life asshole would I be?--but I've resigned to the fact that I'll probably never know, and that all I have is the limited and distorted information I'm getting from the media--and then my feelings--so I find it relatively easy to give up trying to close that gap, not dwell over it into perpetuity, and instead deal only with how I feel about the trucker protest.


...does work for you in a way that it does not for me. As for the gap between what you think you know and all there is to know? How far back do you want to go? To the part where the human species/the human condition itself is understood in the context of grasping the nature of Existence itself?


Not particularly. I just want to point out that I'm not without my own struggles when it comes to this stuff. My struggles are between what I think I know and all there is to know. You seem stuck on your fractured 'I'. I don't suppose these are two sides of the same coin, are they?

iambiguous wrote:We don't even know for certain that free will is the real deal. And who among us is able to fully demonstrate that they are not in a sim world, a dream world or one or another Matix reality. Then the arguments for and against solipsism.


These are the questions that will plague me til the day I die.

iambiguous wrote:Then back to Rummy's Rule:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

What, you don't think that's applicable to the trucker protest?


If the tables were turned, and I was asking you that question, you'd say, "Of course! Everything's related to the trucker protest."

iambiguous wrote:Well, from my frame on mind, really. The fear of someone stalking you is an immediate, wholly tangible experience. No ambiguity, no uncertainty. I'm afraid because someone is trying to kill me and I don't want tlo die. The fear of covid or of vaccinations or of government policy is far, far, far more complex and convoluted. There are many, many more variables involved. And the variables are understood differently by different people. The experiences are completely different. It's like the difference between an acute pain in which the cause is clear -- you broke your leg -- and chronic pain in which the doctors can't seem to pin down what is causing it. It may even be psycho-somatic.


I don't know if that's the best analogy, but I get your point. Still, I will repeat, my point is that emotions hinge on self-interest. Your point about the complexity of the covid situation and government policy (etc.) adds an elements of uncertainty that nicely contrasts with the certainty of a killer trying to kill you, but I still don't think you understand how uncertainty plays in here. Knowing you, the uncertainty is over what the morally right thing to do is. But I'm making the point that, while there is uncertainty, it's the uncertainty of how all these things--the covid virus, the vaccines, the government policies--will effect one's self--amorally as it were. I've never been so uncertain about these things to not know how to feel about them--I've always felt relatively certain that I would survive covid if I caught it--I'm a healthy 45 year old man who wouldn't mind going through a moderately uncomfortable experience in order to gain personal immunity--and I'm pretty certain the government policies Trudeau's administrations wants to impose in response to the pandemic would make my life miserable. Is it the right thing to do? Lifting all mandates and allowing the virus to take its toll? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But therein lies the differences between what my emotions want (self-interest) and what's best for everyone (the elderly and vulnerable who actually might die if they catch covid). If I come to the conclusion that my freedoms aren't worth the lives of the elderly and the vulnerable, then I will have to act against my emotions. But my emotions are still there--they still want what's best for me, for my own self-gratification, because nothing's changed in that regard--I'm still a relatively healthy 45 year old man who almost certainly would survive covid--so to act morally, at least in this scenario, requires acting against my emotions.

Maybe you're not certain which group of people you fall into--the healthy and resilient or the vulnerable and immunologically weak--or maybe somewhere in between--maybe this is what you're uncertain about; maybe you're uncertain about how, in your country, government policy in regard to covid will effect you personally. If that's the case, fair enough. But if you are certain about how it will effect you, even just relatively certain--how it will effect you in the either/or world--then this will impinge on your emotions way more than your uncertainty about the moral standing of the situation. It's in that sense that my analogy to the murderer trying to kill you is not such a different scenario than you seem to think.

iambiguous wrote:First of all, how does one construe the "self" here... I never thought in a million years that question would come up. as I do, as you do, as Urwrong does? And then that great divide between those who insist that morality revolves first and foremost around "I", while others insist it must revolve around "we". And those particular fanatic Randroid egoists who will never sacrifice their Self for anyone.


While the concept of the 'self' can be quite ambiguous and obscure, there's actually a simple answer to this question. If you think about what I'm saying--that emotions serve our self-interest--the 'self' there is obviously the organism that must survive using its emotions to guide it. Self-interest here means survival or whatever makes survival easier or more likely. So, I guess... the body?

Point is... emotions don't care for our metaphysical conceptions of this abstract philosophical "self" that varies from person to person, from culture to culture--emotions have their own concept of "self"--the organism, the living body--as that is what they're there to take care of. So please, Biggy, stop skirting around the point I'm making and focus on the actual crux of the issue. I'm trying to explain to you how my emotions can be out of sync with my intellect, remember? Speculating on how we define the 'self' in an abstract metaphysical sense won't help here.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:But just to make this more interesting (and more relevant), let's alter the scenario above (about the killer hunting you down) just a bit such that the killer experiences rage against you instead of elation. He experiences rage because, in his view, you have done him a grave injustice. I'll leave it up to your imagination what you did, but he feels so horribly wronged by you that it warrants, in his mind, your murder. So in his mind, it would not only bring great elation to kill you but would count as an act of true justice and moral right. You, of course, don't think so.


Note a point I made above that would lead you to believe this.


I'm just saying suppose you don't think you deserve to be killed (I know, it's a stretch)--for the sake of this scenario.

iambiguous wrote:No, I am not arguing that whatever it is I did to him was right, but that "in my head", given the manner in which I construe the situation, given the manner in which existentially I was predisposed to construe it based on one set of existential prejudices rather than another, "I" thought myself subjectively into believing I was morally justified. Sure. But what's his side of the story? How do others construe it? Where's the God-like font that can settle it once and for all?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? These are the questions you ask yourself, the questions that prevent you from feeling one way or another about the murderer killing you. And my question is: do you really not feel anything? Not even fear for your life?

With you, it seems you're willing to admit that given different experiences in your life, your reaction to what someone does to you may vary considerably. But emotionally you are able to latch on to, what, the optimal reaction...the reaction that you finally want?


I don't know if it would be the optimal reaction, but if I'm being lead purely by my emotions, then sure, it would be, for all intents and purposes, what I finally want (I guess).

iambiguous wrote:There so many different existential contexts that can unfold, given those who have lived very, very different lives, you would have to focus in on an actual event. Examine the specific motives and intentions of the participants. Since I have never had someone stalk and attempt to kill me, I have nothing concrete to fall back on.


You mean to tell me you'd have to actually experience being hunted down by a murderer to know whether you'd be scared or not?!?!

Just above you made no qualms about the fact that you'd be scared. You said, "The fear of someone stalking you is an immediate, wholly tangible experience. No ambiguity, no uncertainty. I'm afraid because someone is trying to kill me and I don't want tlo die," but now you're saying this depends on if the morality of the situation is in question? Why doesn't it depend on you having had the experience if the morality of the situation wasn't in question?

Ok, let's grant that you genuinely don't know how you would feel. You're at least open to the possibility that you're uncertainty about the morality of the situation--i.e. whether or not you deserve to die because of some allegedly heinous act you committed against the murderer--would prevent you from feeling fear. When you imagine this scenario in your mind--not being afraid even though there's a murderer after you--does that see normal to you? Is it what you'd expect of someone in that situation?

Let's do this. Let's bring it down to Earth, down to a real life situation ('cause I know you love those). How do you feel about the trucker protest? I assume you don't feel one way or the other. Since you can't determine the morality of the situation--which side is in the moral right--your emotions are likewise undetermined. Is that correct?

Earlier you mentioned that even you have your own prejudices. What is an example of one of those prejudices? What constitutes this prejudice? Is it that you feel a certain way about some issue? But if so, is this an issue you feel intellectually certain about? That is, you feel you know what the morally right thing to do about it is? If so, how is a prejudice? If not, how is it that you feel any way about it at all--you know, given that your feelings are always in sync with your intellect?

Just as you're confused about how I can feel a certain way about some issue without taking an absolute intellectual stance on it, I'm confused about how this has never happened to you. I want to know how your mind is able to do this--to always suppress (or just not feel) any emotion until you can be absolutely certain you know the correct moral position to take. So I'm trying to bring to the discussion an example of a time when your emotions were not in sync with your intellect. Do you have any examples from your life, any examples at all? Help me out here.

iambiguous wrote:Again, I don't exclude my own value judgments from my own point of view. No one's saying you do. Yes, my thoughts and my feelings about the trucker protest are more in the general vicinity of the left. But that is because I spent over 20 years as a far-left political activist. I clearly recognize that my reaction as a profoundly embedded existential prejudice that, had my life been different, I might have acquired very different prejudices. And in fact here and now those leftist prejudices have been profoundly diluted as a result of my having become a moral nihilist.

Great! We have an example of a prejudice that you own up to! And you admit to having feelings attached to it. No one's questioning whether you exclude your own value judgments from your own point of view. I'm just looking for an example of how your emotions (prejudices) are not in sync with you intellectual position on some issue (the truckers in this case). Given that you recognize that any stance you take on the trucker protest is rooted in dasein, you are not able to take any such stance, and yet your prejudices predispose you to feeling a certain way about it (leftish). <-- This is what I wanted to get at. Thank you!

It's not a question of suppressing my emotions or pretending they don't exist or feeling nothing. It's simply recognizing that what I do feel is derived more from the manner in which my life actually unfolded existentially rather than from any argument [philosophical or otherwise] that would allow me to grasp how I ought to feel as a rational and virtuous human being. The way the objectivists/pinheads do. Their own emotions are nothing if not self-righteous, right?


Okay, so the only thing left for me to inquire about is this: what do you do with your emotions? You don't suppress them, you don't pretend they don't exist, you certainly have them so it's not that you feel nothing... but then how do they impinge on your intellectual stance with respect to the truckers? And how do they impinge on your actions? If your prejudices are "lefty" as you say, I would think this makes you want to take a stance against the truckers, or to do something to fight against the trucker's cause. But you don't. So what is happening in your mind? Are you resisting the urge to take a (biased) stance? Are you resisting the urge to act?

There has to be something that keeps your emotions/prejudices and your intellectual stance (i.e. your recognition that it stems from dasein) out of sync... otherwise, you and I are exactly alike (except for maybe having opposite prejudices). I'm profoundly perplexed, in that case, why my own psychology, as I've tried to explain it here, is so unintelligible to you. Are we just using different words?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Does it make sense this time?


Nope. And, again, the best way to test it is to take it to those protesting any government policy that you yourself protest. Run it by those out in the street actually confronting the government and its policy. Note their reactions and bring them back here.


Well, I've got the next best thing, an in-depth analysis of my metaphysics of consciousness with your favorite pinhead, urwrongx1000:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=197909

He may not be a trucker, he may not have been there at the protest, but he's such a strong supporter he might as well have been. Alas, he seems to have abandoned the thread just as it was getting interesting. You can read through it if you like and get back to me on how much light it sheds on my metaphysics of consciousness and how it relates to the trucker protest.

Did you wanna go for round 3?

iambiguous wrote:And how close is your own understanding of projection to this one: "the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds".


Not close. This is actually the point on which I think urwrong got confused and on which the thread ended. You can read through it and see if it makes any more sense to you.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, approach it from that point of view, sure. But what I asked is for you to connect the dots between it and the trucker protest.

And then when I noted, "Okay, but your 'metaphysics of consciousness' either has profound 'for all practical purposes' implication for the truckers or it doesn't", you responded that it doesn't.

So, sure bring it in if you wish. But my own reaction to "general description intellectual contraptions" isn't likely to change. Well, unless, of course, given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge, it does.


Ok, but I had to try. You said that you could only understand a person's worldview if they connected it to a context, in this case the trucker protest--so I had to try connecting my theory to the trucker protest in whatever way it connects... and see if it helped. It didn't obviously, and I didn't think it would, but I had to try.
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:43 pm

Since I'd like to avoid that 60,000 word/character limit to posting here, I'll post this in two parts...

Part one:

iambiguous wrote:If this is actually how you think about his Dasein and my dasein, we are no doubt wasting each other's time. Still, in regard to things like abortion or public health policies or feminism, or Nazis, note some examples of how you construe Heidegger as being considerably more "down to Earth".


gib wrote: I say Heidegger is more down to Earth because he is concerned simply with our "being in the world" (that's how I understand his definition of "dasein"). As I noted above, and as I interpret your words, you seem to be concerned more with the difficulty with which we grapple to find objectivity in our being in the world. <-- that's like an onion around which you've added several more layers.

I don't have any examples for you. Just take those two construals and see how they apply to things like feminism, abortion, Nazism, etc. yourself.


Well, when you find some examples of him taking Dasein down to Earth in the is/ought world, we can discuss how that might differ from how I take dasein down here.

Note to others:

Same challenge.

gib wrote: It's the same question we've been discussing this whole time. It's even in the quote above: "What is the most rational manner in which to react?" Does it matter what context? My point is that a subjectivist wouldn't think there is a most rational manner in which to react in any context (you know, because he's a subjectivist).


Again, we can get into a technical discussion regarding how "serious philosophers" differentiate subjectivism from objectivism, but my main interest still revolves around closing the gap between what we believe "in our head" reflects the most rational reaction [to anything] and the extent to which we can demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to concur with our own reaction. Whether in regard to abortion, feminism, gun control or the trucker protest. And [of course] the manner in which I root our reactions here in dasein.

Where any number of objectivists get "lost" because, in my view, they can't deal with the consequences of their own precious "Real Me in sync with the Right thing To Do" moral and political convictions not being around to comfort and console them. How could they be pinheads if that is deconstructed?!

iambiguous wrote:You to the truckers: "Hey, I feel the same way you do about the government policy. And let's all agree that this makes us right. And even though others feel that we are wrong our emotions trump theirs in the end."

How can it really be other than that? Sooner or later, however, you have to get around to explaining why you feel what you do. You have to align your feelings with your thinking. You have to make arguments. Arguments in my view rooted largely in dasein.


gib wrote: And since they're rooted in dasein, I don't. Not when I'm arguing with you, at least. You see what you just did? You told me how you want me to respond and how in turn you want to respond to that. You want me to back up my emotions with rational sounding arguments so that you can point out how they're rooted in dasein. But I'm afraid I already agree that they'd be rooted in dasein. Sorry that I agree.


From my frame of mind, this has almost nothing to do with the point I make above. And "for all practical purposes" we clearly construe our thoughts and our feelings regarding our behaviors being rooted in dasein very differently.

To wit...

iambiguous wrote:Right, right. They can just shrug off the points I make here regarding how they acquired their points of view.


gib wrote: As they should.


Again, here you are supposedly agreeing with me that their value judgments [like ours] are in fact rooted largely in dasein, but they should simply shrug that part off?

They have them and that's that. And it's the fact they feel that they are right that allows them to huff and puff arrogantly at those who dare not to agree with them. And those on the other side against them. Both sides embody the fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality.


gib wrote: I don't think you can necessarily label simply taking a side the embodiment of the "fulminating fanatic objectivist mentality".


I make the distinction here between those like Urwrong who, in my view, are "fulminating fanatic objectivists" -- pinheads to me -- and those able at least to dig a little deeper into my own assumptions regarding the role that dasein plays in the is/ought world.

iambiguous wrote:Come on, depending on which side prevails in the end millions might be impacted. So the bottom line is whether both sides insist that only their argument and feelings count, or whether they are willing to negotiate a compromise in which both sides get something but neither side gets it all.

The objectivists are interested only in a "my way, or the highway" solution. They don't really give a shit about establishing the most rational manner in which to achieve it.


gib wrote: Aren't those one and the same?

Just to put this back in perspective, we're talking about whether the question "What is the most rational manner in which to react?" is asked out of ignorance or not. You claim not to be an objectivist. I point out that you'd have no need to ask the question in that case. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, I speculate that you ask the question out of ignorance--that is, you don't claim to know one way or the other whether there is a most rational manner in which to act. Therefore, just in case, you think it prudent to ask the question.


I'm still largely oblivious to the point you are trying to make here about me. From my frame of mind, objectivism revolves around the assumption that there is in fact the most rational reaction that one can have in regard to the trucker protest or to the morality of abortion. And this must be the case, the objectivists insist because they already embody it. All that "dasein" stuff that you and I discuss here is completely irrelevant to them. It's ever and always "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys]. For them the is/ought world is just another component of the either/or world. Either derived from one or another God or one or another political dogma/ideology or one or another deontological philosophical assessment or one or another screed about Nature.

Where you fit into all of this "for all practical purposes" is still the big mystery to me.

gib wrote: Sure, millions might be impacted by the answer to this question, but the majority of people don't ask it out of ignorance. They not only feel there must be a most rational manner in which to react but that they know what that manner is. If they ask the question at all, it's rhetorical.


Right, like, philosophically or otherwise, ignorance can be pinned down in reacting to government policy in the health crisis. Or how about this: claiming it is all just a "libtard", "globalist" hoax!

iambiguous wrote:It's not a question of being aware of it but how we react to what we think that we are aware of. My own awareness led me to believe that being drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods is reasonable. How has it not led the objectivists on both sides of the trucker protest or the abortion wars to feel that way? How have you managed to avoid it? Well, you just don't feel that way:


gib wrote: Feel what way? That being drawn and quartered is reasonable? I don't know, I guess staying out of trouble is a much nicer experience than being drawn and quartered? But that's just me.


The objectivists stay out of trouble with their own kind by dividing up the world between own of us [the rational few] and one of them [the ignorant or irrational many]. The pinheads are just all the more fierce in their declamations.

gib wrote: And I would like answers to these questions:


gib wrote:And do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no.


My own hard-wiring? In what sense? I have changed my own moral and political value judgments many times over the years. And my point is that, in the is/ought world, the moral and political philosophies of all of us are rooted existentially in dasein out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically and culturally and in terms of our personal experiences. We don't "rise above" the past, we merely shift in different directions. Depending on which new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge we come upon. Only some of which are even in our complete control.

gib wrote: But then how on Earth does it strike you as fair to ask this question of others--Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?--but not yourself? And if you do ask this of yourself (in the privacy of your own head?), what's your answer? Could this answer not suffice for others?


Again, we'll need a context. Asking and answering questions in regard to what? My own answers "here and now" in regard to the trucker protest and the abortion and the gun wars is no less drawn and quartered.

iambiguous wrote:We will clearly have to agree to disagree about whether emotions play more by my rules or your rules.


gib wrote: They're not my rules, they're nature's rules--human nature that is.


Right, like nature programs us to feel what we do about the truckers and those who have or perform abortions. Instead, what nature does is to hard-wire our capacity to experience emotions. What those emotions end up being are no less rooted existentially in dasein [to me] than what we end up thinking is reasonable or not.

That's why with few exceptions those who think the truckers are right also feel that they are right, and those that feel the truckers are wrong also think that they are wrong? Just a coincidence?


gib wrote: No, it's just semantics. To say "I think the truckers are right" is to say "I think I'm right." It would be nonsense to say "I think the truckers are right, but I disagree with them."


I thought we were talking about the day-to-day relationship between "I think the truckers are right" being or not being in sync with "I feel the truckers are right". With most men and women, thoughts and feelings pretty much match here. At least that has been my own experience down through the years as a political activist.

iambiguous wrote:You claim to be "primarily a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism". If you say so. In regard to the truckers protest, I still haven't a clue as to how "for all practical purposes" that would be communicated to them.

Note to others:

Take a stab at it. What on earth do you think he means by that. If you were able to, how would you explain it to the truckers?


gib wrote: I don't know why I have to explain it to the truckers specifically...


You're the one here attempting to seek them out on another thread. So, if you do find some you might have to explain to them how, in terms of their actual protest, what "primarily [being] a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism" means. How are they to understand that in terms of the protest itself?

gib wrote: ....so I'm just going to explain it.

Being a subjectivist, to me, means believing that the world is determined by the mind, by one's perceptions, experiences, beliefs, values, and so on. And as we all know, the mind is easily capable of having experiences of objectivity. We all believe that 2 + 2 = 4, for example. The subjectivist in me says that 2 + 2 = 4 because that's how I experience the relation between quantities, but I also experience it to be objectively true--and so it is objectively true (for me).


Yeah, perceptions of reality in the either/or world. My mind perceives that she has 2 apples in her left hand + 2 apples in her right hand. That equals 4 apples in total. And, yes, that happens to coincide with how many apples there are objectively.

But then this part...

Jim ate 2 eggs in the morning and then 2 eggs at night. Jim ate 4 eggs. Jean agrees it is 4 eggs but insists that eating any number of eggs at all is immoral because human beings have no right to consume animals in any form.

Subjectivism and objectivism here.

gib wrote: As for the truckers who believe in an entire world of objectivity, my subjectivism goes hand-in-hand with relativism, so I have no issue saying the world is primarily objective for them. But when I say I can accommodate objectivism, I mean a little more than just that. I mean I can agree with them on certain issues. That Trudeau is a tyrant (for example) or that no one should be vaccinated against their will (for another). I wouldn't personally regard these as objectively true (at least for me) though I would acknowledge that they are objectively true for the truckers.


On the other hand, how are we not back to what we believe "in our head" is objectively true about these things and how we are or are not able to actually demonstrate that Trudeau is in fact a tyrant here and that vaccinations either ought or ought not in fact to be mandatory? What part can be connected to objective reality and what part is just what each of us as individuals thinks and feels is true "in our head". The part I derive from dasein. And in not making any significant distinction between thoughts and feelings.

gib wrote: But we don't need to agree on their objectivity just to agree. They would say Trudeau is a tyrant as an objective fact, I would say he's a tyrant as a subjective opinion (mine)--and that should be enough for us to get on with things.


Sure, if that works for you. But it sure as shit doesn't work for me. If what is truly objective here cannot be pinned down, the role that dasein plays in our own convictions [or lack thereof] doesn't just -- poof! -- go away.

iambiguous wrote:So, you acknowledge that had things been different in your life you might not believe in the truckers protest. In fact, you might be in here taking the side of those like KP and Sculptor. But that, what, you'd still want them to win?!!


gib wrote: No, why would I want them to win if I'm siding with KP and Sculptor?


Exactly. That's my point. Existentially, their thoughts and their feelings led them to embrace one set of political prejudices, your thoughts and your feelings led you to the opposite end of the political prejudice spectrum. Then this still unintelligible [to me] distinction you make between subjectivism and objectivism. What makes sense to you here simply does not make sense to me. It seems to revolve around this distinction you make between reasons and emotions...a distinction that I don't make.

Thus...
How you make your own emotions here less rooted in dasein


gib wrote: Again, * sigh *


Yeah, "sigh" indeed.

Again, for the preponderance of us, it certainly seems that what we think about something and how we feel about it are pretty much in sync.


gib wrote: The preponderance of people are fairly simple minded.


Yes, those I call the objectivist pinheads.

Then this [to me] bizarre admittance...

Both my thinking and feeling have over the years fractured and fragmented together.


gib wrote: Mine too, in a manner of speaking, just not my 'I'.


Back to this: Huh? How is what we think and feel about the trucker protest not the two main components of "I" in discussing the protest itself? And it's in how we configure our understanding of the "terminology" we use here into moral and political convictions [or for me the lack thereof] that would seem to drive the exchanges on the Society, Government, and Economics threads.

gib wrote: Is what I'v been calling 'emotions' what you call 'prejudices'? Glad to hear you at least acknowledge you have them, and that they are at odds with your beliefs on dasein. That's what I've been trying to say about my emotions.


We are still in two different exchanges here.

When have I ever argued that I don't have both thoughts and emotions in regard to the conflicting goods that pop up over and again "on the news"? Let alone that either are in conflict with my beliefs about dasein 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

I am either completely misunderstanding your point here or we are, if possible, even farther removed regarding the roll that dasein plays in acquiring value judgments.

Encompassed for example here:

gib wrote: And of course, here comes the part where you conveniently lose the ability to comprehend just at the moment when I clear up the crux of your misunderstanding:


iambiguous wrote:And then this unintelligible [to me] distinction between what you feel and what you want. What we want is no less embodied in dasein to me.


gib wrote:You keep making the same mistake that I keep trying to correct. Forget "the right thing to do". Forget "I think". It isn't "I feel... therefore, I think..." It isn't "I feel it's the right thing to do". It's just "I feel like it." I support the truckers 'cause I feel like it. I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I don't have a defense. I don't draw any intellectual/rational conclusions based on how I feel. It's just the feeling in isolation--or rather, the feeling leading directly to action (with some bullshit justifications maybe conjured up along the way).


gib wrote: I didn't once mention "want" anywhere in the above. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm making a distinction between what I feel and what I want--there is no distinction at all (must be one of your brain glitches again); on the other hand, I did mention the word "think" in contrast to "feel", which is the distinction I was making. Try reading it again. Maybe it will make more sense this time.


All I can do here is to bring this down to Earth.

1] I think the trucker protest is the right thing to do
2] I feel the trucker protest is the right thing to do
3] I want the trucker protest to succeed because I think and feel it's the right thing to do

Even while admitting that had your life been different you might be here thinking and feeling and wanting just the opposite.

There's how I understand the existential parameters of value judgments here and what I still don't understand about yours.
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 18, 2022 8:20 pm

Part two:

iambiguous wrote:Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head and ask him why he invaded Ukraine. Let's put this frame of mind in the heads of Alito and his ilk on the Supreme Court and ask them why they're gutting Roe v. Wade. As opposed to them presenting arguments wholly in sync with how they feel about what they are doing. With what they "want" to do.


gib wrote:That sounds like a really lame exercise, but okay. I'm Vladimir Putin thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--I want to invade Ukraine, so I invade Ukraine. I'm Alito thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--and I want to gut the Roe v. Wade case, so I gut the Roe v. Wade case. <-- Are we seeing any brilliant insights here?


He wants to invade Ukraine but offers no justifications for why he wants it? How about because, from his frame of mind [for whatever personal reasons], he thinks and feels it is the right thing to do. Same with the Supremes.

Why do they all think and feel what they do? That's when I propose the arguments I do pertaining to the self at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. The part about thinking and feeling and wanting something/anything intertwined in dasein.

Then...

iambiguous wrote:No, I just assume that most people have reasons for why they think and feel what they do about things like government policies and abortion. I just explore the extent to which this is rooted [intellectually and emotionally] in dasein. And not in folks saying, 'well, it's just what I want."


gib wrote:You're doing more than just assuming, you're insisting. I tell you I side with the truckers because "it's just what I want," and you inject an extra step: "it's just what I want, therefore it's right."


No, I try to understand how you connect the dots between what you want to see the truckers accomplish and how you think and feel about that accomplishment itself. How all three, if not intertwined in the manner in which I construe dasein here as the embodiment of a political prejudice rooted existentially in the lives we live, are intertwined in your own head.

gib wrote: To be fair, I won't deny that my desires to see the truckers win comes along with thoughts pushed into my head by those desires. My mind will conjure up all manner of arguments and justifications for why the truckers should win. But because I agree with your dasein argument those thoughts mean very little to me--I see through them, so to speak--they become mere "intellectual contraptions" that pass through my mind and disappear--and I'm left only with the desire to see the truckers win. So if you want, we can get into those thoughts, but I must preface that with the disclaimer that I've already dismissed them.


Okay, but how is this really all that different from those here like Maia and MagsJ who embrace an intuitive "intrinsic self". When push comes to shove they "just know" what they do about things like abortion or feminism or the tricker protest. And since none of us can be them, there is nothing we can really say to rebut their points.

Whereas, from my frame of mind, this "intrinsic self" is no less the subjective, existential embodiment of dasein.

Then back to what is still largely unintelligible [to me] about your frame of mind...

iambiguous wrote:Right, you are more invested in what you "feel" about the protest. In the side you "want" to win. The fact that your life might unfolded differently such that you were predisposed to argue against them here wouldn't change how you feel and what you want? You'd still want them to win?


gib wrote: What do you mean? Would it change what I want here and now? No, it wouldn't. Would it change what I want in this alternate universe where I'm arguing on the opposite side? Of course!


Alternate universe?

To the best of my current knowledge there is only the one that we live in. And in that universe [for me] you live a life that involves -- revolves around -- an accumulation of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that predispose you existentially to support the truckers protest or to protest the protest itself. You think and feel and want everything here in tandem. How you intertwine thinking and feeling and wanting is not understood by me.

Note to others:

If you think you might be able to explain his point here using a different set of words, by all means, give it a shot.

To wit:

iambiguous wrote:I've noted the distinction between you and those fulminating fanatic objectivists here who dismiss dasein altogether. They are absolutely fierce in insisting it's all about "one of us" [the rational, virtuous good guys] and "one of them" [the irrational, immoral bad guys]. But I'll be damned if I understand this distinction you make between the profoundly problematic nature of what one comes to think, to know, to believe about the truckers protest and what one comes to feel and want instead.


gib wrote: You don't know the difference between emotions and thoughts? Or just how they can diverge?


Sure, but back again to the part where, for most of us, how we feel about the trucker protest is very much connected existentially to how we think about it. Not many will think that the truckers are behaving rationally but feel that they are not. And then if someone convinces them that the truckers are, instead, behaving irrationally, and the government policy is the correct one, are they going to still feel what they did when they thought the truckers were right and the government was wrong? Yes, there may well be a period where they find themselves feeling ambivalent...pulled in both directions...but once their thinking shifts more fully, their emotions will follow. At least that's how it has always been with me. Then the part about what they want comes into alignment as well.

Note to others:

How about your own reactions to the trucker protest? More in the direction you think I am going or Gib is going?

Suddenly the "profoundly problematic" part is shunted aside as you take an emotional and psychological leap of faith to this political prejudice rather than that political prejudice. As though emotions and wants themselves are somehow above and beyond all that existential stuff.


gib wrote: "As though" to you, I suppose. But to me, they just are. Stubborn little creatures, emotions are. They just don't listen to your dasein arguments.


Okay, but in being a political activist for over 20 years, my own thinking and feeling and wanting were almost always in alignment. First as a moral and political objectivist and then later as a moral nihilist. Today my thinking and feeling and wanting is just far more "fractured and fragmented".

Then the part where you note how in some respects you share in the "dasein stuff" I note but are not yourself fractured and fragmented. From my frame one they are both basically one and the same thing.

To the extent one comes to think this...

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

...one is drawn and quartered when, among other things, one follows the stuff in the news.

Again, this....


gib wrote: However, that's not to say I don't experience any kind of similar tension or loss. For one thing, I wish I could close the gap between what I think I know and all there is to know--with respect to the trucker protest or any other issue of serious import; it would be nice to know that my support for the truckers actually contributes to a good cause. For all I know, maybe the truckers are horrible, horrible people who are doing nothing but making the world a worse place--and then what kind of a low-life asshole would I be?--but I've resigned to the fact that I'll probably never know, and that all I have is the limited and distorted information I'm getting from the media--and then my feelings--so I find it relatively easy to give up trying to close that gap, not dwell over it into perpetuity, and instead deal only with how I feel about the trucker protest.


...does work for you in a way that it does not for me. As for the gap between what you think you know and all there is to know? How far back do you want to go? To the part where the human species/the human condition itself is understood in the context of grasping the nature of Existence itself?


gib wrote: Not particularly. I just want to point out that I'm not without my own struggles when it comes to this stuff. My struggles are between what I think I know and all there is to know. You seem stuck on your fractured 'I'. I don't suppose these are two sides of the same coin, are they?


Two sides of what coin? The Reality coin? And my "I" is fractured only in regard to the is/ought world, or when we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb and grapple with the Biggest Questions of them all.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:We don't even know for certain that free will is the real deal. And who among us is able to fully demonstrate that they are not in a sim world, a dream world or one or another Matix reality. Then the arguments for and against solipsism.


gib wrote: These are the questions that will plague me til the day I die.


Me too.

iambiguous wrote:Then back to Rummy's Rule:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

What, you don't think that's applicable to the trucker protest?


gib wrote: If the tables were turned, and I was asking you that question, you'd say, "Of course! Everything's related to the trucker protest."


Again, though, given "the gap", I might say that but how on earth can I possibly really know what I am talking about? What can I possibly even begin to grasp about the trucker protest and that which causes everything to be related to everything else? Back to the Ben Button clip above.

Whatever that in itself means!!!

iambiguous wrote:First of all, how does one construe the "self" here... as I do, as you do, as Urwrong does? And then that great divide between those who insist that morality revolves first and foremost around "I", while others insist it must revolve around "we". And those particularly fanatic Randroid egoists who will never sacrifice their Self for anyone.


gib wrote: While the concept of the 'self' can be quite ambiguous and obscure, there's actually a simple answer to this question. If you think about what I'm saying--that emotions serve our self-interest--the 'self' there is obviously the organism that must survive using its emotions to guide it. Self-interest here means survival or whatever makes survival easier or more likely. So, I guess... the body?

Point is... emotions don't care for our metaphysical conceptions of this abstract philosophical "self" that varies from person to person, from culture to culture--emotions have their own concept of "self"--the organism, the living body--as that is what they're there to take care of.


Right, as though putting people who have led very, very different lives and come to think about the nature of their own reality [cognitively and emotionally] given very, very different sets of assumptions would listen to you explaining that and this would make their reaction to the trucker protest...more or less effable?

Back again to how each of us connect the dots existentially between I think this about the truckers, I feel this about the truckers, I want this in regard to the truckers. I know by and large how "here and now" I connect those dots.

How about others here?

And then there's you:

gib wrote: So please, Biggy, stop skirting around the point I'm making and focus on the actual crux of the issue. I'm trying to explain to you how my emotions can be out of sync with my intellect, remember? Speculating on how we define the 'self' in an abstract metaphysical sense won't help here.


As though this is more about me not grasping what you are imparting here about emotions and not more about you not grasping what I am trying to impart here about them.

Or, again, maybe your emotions and your intellect here are intertwined very, very differently from mine.

gib wrote: But just to make this more interesting (and more relevant), let's alter the scenario above (about the killer hunting you down) just a bit such that the killer experiences rage against you instead of elation. He experiences rage because, in his view, you have done him a grave injustice. I'll leave it up to your imagination what you did, but he feels so horribly wronged by you that it warrants, in his mind, your murder. So in his mind, it would not only bring great elation to kill you but would count as an act of true justice and moral right. You, of course, don't think so.


Note a point I made above that would lead you to believe this.


gib wrote: I'm just saying suppose you don't think you deserve to be killed (I know, it's a stretch)--for the sake of this scenario.


I'm clearly not understanding your point. Whatever I think and feel and whatever the killer is thinking and feeling is derived existentially from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. There are the facts able to be communicated objectively about the circumstances. Then there's my side and the killer's side regarding whether I deserve to be killed.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:No, I am not arguing that whatever it is I did to him was right, but that "in my head", given the manner in which I construe the situation, given the manner in which existentially I was predisposed to construe it based on one set of existential prejudices rather than another, "I" thought myself subjectively into believing I was morally justified. But what's his side of the story? How do others construe it? Where's the God-like font that can settle it once and for all?


gib wrote: Well, that's the rub, isn't it? These are the questions you ask yourself, the questions that prevent you from feeling one way or another about the murderer killing you. And my question is: do you really not feel anything? Not even fear for your life?


Just more confusion here from my end. I feel what I do, sure. But unlike the objectivists who justify what they feel based on the assumption that they feel what any rational and virtuous man or woman is ought to feel, "I" recognize that my feelings are rooted more in my own set of subjective assumptions.

For example, I killed the killer's dog because it barked all night keeping me awake. Even after I complained to the killer about it. The killer feels I deserve to die for doing that. I feel I don't deserve to die for doing that. Conflicting emotions. Derived from how existentially we both perceive the situation differently. Now, is there a way to determine how all rational men and women are obligated to feel here?

Again, unless you are thinking about it altogether differently.

With you, it seems you're willing to admit that given different experiences in your life, your reaction to what someone does to you may vary considerably. But emotionally you are able to latch on to, what, the optimal reaction...the reaction that you finally want?


gib wrote: I don't know if it would be the optimal reaction, but if I'm being lead purely by my emotions, then sure, it would be, for all intents and purposes, what I finally want (I guess).


Okay, now back to how we construe all of this differently given our different understanding of how dasein factors into our thinking and feeling and wanting.

To wit...

iambiguous wrote:There so many different existential contexts that can unfold, given those who have lived very, very different lives, you would have to focus in on an actual event. Examine the specific motives and intentions of the participants. Since I have never had someone stalk and attempt to kill me, I have nothing concrete to fall back on.


gib wrote: You mean to tell me you'd have to actually experience being hunted down by a murderer to know whether you'd be scared or not?!?!


Again: as though we are in two different exchanges.

Yes, we all come into this world hard-wired to experience a wide range of emotions. And with a survival instinct:

"survival instinct: noun. the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying."

So, presuming we still very much want to live, fear will be felt if our life is in danger. On the other hand, we are also equipped to feel despair. So, we may actually take our own life instead. It all comes back to each of us as individuals understanding our "self" existentially, subjectively.

gib wrote: Just above you made no qualms about the fact that you'd be scared. You said, "The fear of someone stalking you is an immediate, wholly tangible experience. No ambiguity, no uncertainty. I'm afraid because someone is trying to kill me and I don't want to die," but now you're saying this depends on if the morality of the situation is in question? Why doesn't it depend on you having had the experience if the morality of the situation wasn't in question?


Huh? Depending on the situation as "I" perceive and understand it "in the moment", morality may or may not be a factor.

What you're focusing on here...

gib wrote: Ok, let's grant that you genuinely don't know how you would feel. You're at least open to the possibility that you're uncertainty about the morality of the situation--i.e. whether or not you deserve to die because of some allegedly heinous act you committed against the murderer--would prevent you from feeling fear. When you imagine this scenario in your mind--not being afraid even though there's a murderer after you--does that see normal to you? Is it what you'd expect of someone in that situation?


...always depends on the subjective, existential, circumstantial parameters of any particular one of us as individuals.

gib wrote: Let's do this. Let's bring it down to Earth, down to a real life situation ('cause I know you love those). How do you feel about the trucker protest? I assume you don't feel one way or the other. Since you can't determine the morality of the situation--which side is in the moral right--your emotions are likewise undetermined. Is that correct?


Here and now, I feel ambivalent. Why? Because there are conflicting accounts regarding the covid pandemic, the role of government, lockdowns, wearing masks, vaccinations. Both sides are able to make reasonable points in their arguments. Now, when I was a hardcore radical leftist, I would have felt the protest was wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Why? Because it was out of sync with my objectivist Marxist dogma. I would have fit all the facts into my dogmatic assumptions.

Today, however, I recognize those convictions as but a manifestation of a particular set of political prejudices "I" derived existentially from dasein. In other words, now, instead, I am more willing to take into account that both sides do have reasonable arguments to make. Just based on different sets of assumptions about, among other things, capitalism and socialism, the role of government, polices revolving more around "I" or "we".

gib wrote:Just as you're confused about how I can feel a certain way about some issue without taking an absolute intellectual stance on it, I'm confused about how this has never happened to you. I want to know how your mind is able to do this--to always suppress (or just not feel) any emotion until you can be absolutely certain you know the correct moral position to take. So I'm trying to bring to the discussion an example of a time when your emotions were not in sync with your intellect. Do you have any examples from your life, any examples at all? Help me out here.


Here, of course, we are back to the fact that you can't be inside my head understanding the world around me as I do given the life that I lived. Nor I inside your head understanding the world around you given the life that you lived.

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

It's not a question of suppressing my emotions or pretending they don't exist or feeling nothing. It's simply recognizing that what I do feel is derived more from the manner in which my life actually unfolded existentially rather than from any argument [philosophical or otherwise] that would allow me to grasp how I ought to feel as a rational and virtuous human being. The way the objectivists/pinheads do. Their own emotions are nothing if not self-righteous, right?


gib wrote: Okay, so the only thing left for me to inquire about is this: what do you do with your emotions? You don't suppress them, you don't pretend they don't exist, you certainly have them so it's not that you feel nothing... but then how do they impinge on your intellectual stance with respect to the truckers? And how do they impinge on your actions?


I don't know how to explain it to you better than I already have. Once my thinking "I" in the is/ought world came to revolve more and more around this...

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

...the feeling "I" followed. For those like me, at best, they can act only in accepting the ambivalence that they feel. And that will probably revolve around the political prejudices they embody rooted in dasein. Thus for me, the existential "I" is more on the left end of the political spectrum. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that had my life been different "I" might have felt more committed to the right end of it.

So, sure...

gib wrote: If your prejudices are "lefty" as you say, I would think this makes you want to take a stance against the truckers, or to do something to fight against the trucker's cause. But you don't. So what is happening in your mind? Are you resisting the urge to take a (biased) stance? Are you resisting the urge to act?


First of all, my political activist days are long gone. But, again, if I were younger I'd still be no less ambivalent. Yeah, I could take that existential leap to the left. But that wouldn't make my thinking 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

...go away.

Then this part:

gib wrote: There has to be something that keeps your emotions/prejudices and your intellectual stance (i.e. your recognition that it stems from dasein) out of sync... otherwise, you and I are exactly alike (except for maybe having opposite prejudices). I'm profoundly perplexed, in that case, why my own psychology, as I've tried to explain it here, is so unintelligible to you. Are we just using different words?


There are simply too many genetic/memetic variables involved -- re nature and nurture -- in understanding any particular human identity. Many of which go back to our indoctrination as children. And many of which were, are and will be beyond our either fully understanding or controlling.
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby gib » Wed Jul 06, 2022 4:48 am

iambiguous wrote:Well, when you find some examples of him taking Dasein down to Earth in the is/ought world, we can discuss how that might differ from how I take dasein down here.


I look forward to that with maddening anticipation.

iambiguous wrote:Again, we can get into a technical discussion regarding how "serious philosophers" differentiate subjectivism from objectivism...


Yes, we can, but all I want to note is that I don’t understand what kind of subjectivist you are to bother wondering what is the most rational manner in which to react... I mean, objectively.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, this has almost almost? nothing to do with the point I make above. And "for all practical purposes" we clearly construe our thoughts and our feelings regarding our behaviors being rooted in dasein very differently.


Now that has (almost) nothing to do with the point I was making.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Right, right. They can just shrug off the points I make here regarding how they acquired their points of view.


gib wrote:As they should.


Again, here you are supposedly agreeing with me that their value judgments [like ours] are in fact rooted largely in dasein, but they should simply shrug that part off?


Yes, you know what happens to people who don’t shrug it off? They become like you.

iambiguous wrote:I'm still largely oblivious to the point you are trying to make here about me. From my frame of mind, objectivism revolves around the assumption that there is in fact the most rational reaction that one can have in regard to the trucker protest or to the morality of abortion. And this must be the case, the objectivists insist because they already embody it. All that "dasein" stuff that you and I discuss here is completely irrelevant to them. It's ever and always "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys]. For them the is/ought world is just another component of the either/or world. Either derived from one or another God or one or another political dogma/ideology or one or another deontological philosophical assessment or one or another screed about Nature.


Exactly. And you don’t believe that there is a most rational manner in which to react, right? So what puzzles me is why you would bother asking whether there is or isn't. Are you not sure? Not sure whether to be an objectivist in search of that one most rational manner in which to react, or a subjectivist who puts the question to rest feeling that, at least for you, there is no (objective/universal) most rational manner in which to react? <— This is what I speculate. It’s the only scenario that would put my puzzlement about you--a subjectivist who still wonders about the most rational manner in which to react--to rest. And only you can tell me if this scenario is, in fact, true.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:And do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no.

My own hard-wiring?


*ugh* Yes, the hard wiring that you brought up:

iambiguous wrote:Why? Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


Get a hammer and some nails cause I want that quote securely fastened in your mind when I ask this question: do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:But then [if the answer is no] how on Earth does it strike you as fair to ask this question of others--Why yours and not the countless other answers out there? <-- The question you ask of others--but not yourself? And if you do ask this of yourself (in the privacy of your own head?), what's your answer? Could this answer not suffice for others?
Again, we'll need a context.


Did you nail that quote tight and secure? Because that quote is your context. That's right, it's your context, it's your question. You asked it. And yet, you've already forgotten it, like you forget anything you write just one post ago. No wonder you're always asking for a context; even contexts that you establish slip your mind in only one round. This is a cognitive disorder! And your laziness to go back and read where the conversation came from doesn't help either. At this point, I'm wondering whether I should even bother re-asking my questions? This very paragraph I'm writing has probably caused you to lose track of the conversation so that in your reply you'll be asking "what questions?"

iambiguous wrote:I thought we were talking about the day-to-day relationship between "I think the truckers are right" being or not being in sync with "I feel the truckers are right".


Well, here's what you said:

iambiguous wrote:That's why with few exceptions those who think the truckers are right also feel that they are right, and those that feel the truckers are wrong also think that they are wrong?


You're still thinking in terms of feeling that things are right or wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it's not about right or wrong. Consider "I want the truckers to win" or "I hate the truckers" <-- feelings without any mention of right or wrong, without any thoughts of right or wrong.

This is why I don't believe you're trying to understand my point of view one bit. Why do I have to keep correcting this false assumption of yours? Is it really that hard to grasp? Have you even attempted to grasp it? I haven't seen you ask "Wanting the truckers to win without thinking they're right? How can that be, gib?" which leads me to believe you're just ignoring my point, or blocking it out like all the other things you don't want to hear or care to understand.

iambiguous wrote:You're the one here attempting to seek them out on another thread. What, like you understand it but you’re worried the truckers might not? So, if you do find some you might have to explain to them how, in terms of their actual protest, what "primarily [being] a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism" means. How are they to understand that in terms of the protest itself?


It would be the same as how I explained it to you.

iambiguous wrote:Jim ate 2 eggs in the morning and then 2 eggs at night. Jim ate 4 eggs. Jean agrees it is 4 eggs but insists that eating any number of eggs at all is immoral because human beings have no right to consume animals in any form.


If Jean thinks this is an objective fact, then it is an objective fact for her (relative to her, according to her, in her world, or any other relativistic phrasing). It is not an objective fact for the likes of you and I.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, how are we not back to what we believe "in our head" is objectively true about these things I literally just said they’re not objectively true for me. and how we are or are not able to actually demonstrate that Trudeau is in fact a tyrant here and that vaccinations either ought or ought not in fact to be mandatory? That's more your question to bear. What part can be connected to objective reality and what part is just what each of us as individuals thinks and feels is true "in our head". The part I derive from dasein. And in not making any significant distinction between thoughts and feelings.


If you don't want to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, then we're talking strictly about the pinheads only (here I'm gonna have to as gracefully as possible bow out of that category). I've only been making a distinction between thoughts and feelings because they are not aligned within myself (nor within you I take it). In my opinion, there is no way to demonstrate beyond everyone's ability to deny or disagree that Trudeau is(n't) objectively and irrefutably a tyrant nor that vaccines ought (not) to be mandatory. These propositions are by their very nature subjective opinions and have no place in the world of facts (your either/or). And I'm fine with that. I don't need them or their opposites to be objective facts.

iambiguous wrote:Sure, if that works for you. But it sure as shit doesn't work for me. If what is truly objective here cannot be pinned down, the role that dasein plays in our own convictions [or lack thereof] doesn't just -- poof! -- go away.


Then I guess it's a problem for you but not for me.

iambiguous wrote:Exactly. That's my point. I would say good point, but it's just a point. Existentially, their thoughts and their feelings led them to embrace one set of political prejudices, your thoughts and your feelings led you to the opposite end of the political prejudice spectrum. Then this still unintelligible [to me] distinction you make between subjectivism and objectivism. What makes sense to you here simply does not make sense to me. It seems to revolve around this distinction you make between reasons and emotions...a distinction that I don't make.


It's strange that you don't make this distinction as I would think you're own thoughts on the matter put you at odds with your emotions. You've admitted that you have your own political prejudices which I would think come with emotions and thoughts, and sure they're probably aligned--but those aren't the thoughts and emotions I would distinguish--I would distinguish (in your case) the emotions that come with your political prejudices and your thoughts on dasein, which for all intents and purposes seem to oppose at every turn any allegiance to or against any of the hot moral debates that rage in today's political foray. The trucker protest--for or against it, Biggy?--it's neither, right?--you can't decide whether to be for or against it because you recognize that any position you take on it would stem from dasein--right? For or against abortion? For or against gun control? For or against vaccine mandate? You can't decide, right? Yet you have certain political prejudices, isn't that right? Having said you lean left, I would think you are anti-trucker--at least insofar as your prejudices are concerned (as opposed to your thoughts on dasein). How you think and feel about the trucker protest when it comes to your prejudices, therefore, is at odds with your thoughts and feelings in regards to dasein. <-- That's the distinction I mean to draw. Unless I've sorely misunderstood you, this has been your entire campaign at ILP since you began here--so I would think of all people, you understand this distinction the most. If I'm wrong, help me out here--help me understand how your thoughts on dasein are aligned with your political prejudices.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Mine too, in a manner of speaking, just not my 'I'.


Back to this: Huh? How is what we think and feel about the trucker protest not the two main components of "I" in discussing the protest itself? And it's in how we configure our understanding of the "terminology" we use here into moral and political convictions [or for me the lack thereof] that would seem to drive the exchanges on the Society, Government, and Economics threads.


If you think our thoughts and feelings on a particular political/moral subject constitutes the ‘I’, it’s no wonder you feel fractured and fragmented. I simply don’t identify my ‘I’ with whatever “isms” I believe in. Sure, I may call myself a subjectivist, but that’s not who I am at the core of my being. I’m also a father. I’m also a software developer. I’m someone with ADD. I’m a white Canadian middle aged man. I’m a cycling enthusiast. I’m a writer and an artist. If my subjectivism were to fracture and fragment one day, or even if I just stopped believing in it, I’d still be me. I just wouldn’t call myself a subjectivist anymore. I wouldn’t feel that I’ve “fractured”. Same for all the other peripheral aspects of who I am. My “I” survives their death.

So maybe this is your problem. You feel you can’t identify yourself with anything other than a moral/political ideology. You need an “ism” to cling to just to feel you are someone. You think?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote: Is what I'v been calling 'emotions' what you call 'prejudices'? Glad to hear you at least acknowledge you have them, and that they are at odds with your beliefs on dasein. That's what I've been trying to say about my emotions.


We are still in two different exchanges here.

Of course!!!

When have I ever argued that I don't have both thoughts and emotions in regard to the conflicting goods that pop up over and again "on the news"? One has to wonder with you. Let alone that either are in conflict with my beliefs about dasein here:


What else am I supposed to conclude based on everything you’ve said so far. You’ve said that you have your own share of political prejudices, and that where there’s thoughts involved in political prejudices there’s feelings in sync with them. But your thoughts on dasein, from what I’ve gathered, preclude you from actually believing in your prejudices as they seem to suggest that all prejudices are acquired via arbitrary life events and experiences and what circumstances we’re born into, that you could just as easily have acquired the opposite prejudices, and that all such prejudices are groundless and vacuous. And if these are your thoughts on dasein, then what feelings are in sync with them? I’ve surmised something like confusion or ambivalence—a not knowing what to believe—or maybe even a numb apathy, a not caring what to believe. But then aren’t these thoughts and feelings at odds with those of your political prejudices? When your political prejudices illicit feelings of anger towards the truckers (or whatever they make you feel), isn’t this anger at odds with your feelings of confusion, ambivalence, or apathy (or whatever) that come with your thoughts on dasein? Aren’t your thoughts on the wrongness of the truckers’ cause at odds with your thoughts on dasein which tell you that you have no grounds to say that what the truckers are doing is wrong?

iambiguous wrote:I am either completely misunderstanding your point here or we are, if possible, even farther removed regarding the roll that dasein plays in acquiring value judgments.


I dunno, I think you’re just trying to avoid consensus.

iambiguous wrote:All I can do here is to bring this down to Earth.

1] I think the trucker protest is the right thing to do
2] I feel the trucker protest is the right thing to do
3] I want the trucker protest to succeed because I think and feel it's the right thing to do <— Non-sequitur


I don’t think there’s enough strike-through on this board to correct the number of times you make this mistake. I think the problem comes down to you’re inability to leave out the “right thing to do” part. For some reason, you seem incapable of imagining someone having thoughts about some prominent political issue without it being about right or wrong. For my own part, I don’t have a whole lotta thoughts about the truckers that don’t stem from my feelings about them. And as for the thoughts that do stem from my feelings, my understanding of dasein and the arbitrariness by which we acquire our political prejudices pretty much squashed them out, takes the wind out of their sail, removes the grounds on which they would stand, and makes them feel hollow and vacuous. So they don’t even seem like reasonable premises with which to start an argument, which is why I often decline to make such arguments, at least in discussions with you. So that scratches 1] out.

As for 2], my feelings about the truckers were never about right or wrong to begin with. They couldn’t be. They depend on thought to connect them to right and wrong. That’s why our emotions typical drive our thinking. They are attempting to come up with some rational in order to justify themselves, usually morally, to make it ok to feel and act upon them. But as I said above, my understanding of dasein stomps out any thoughts my feelings about the truckers could come up with, and therefore I’m left only with my feelings—feelings in a state of disconnect from right and wrong, of dissatisfaction for want of a justification. But you cannot imagine that, I gather. You cannot imagine a person having feelings about some major political issue without those feelings being about right and wrong, let alone feeling without even any thoughts about right and wrong.

If you want a more accurate picture of the logical structure of my argument here, it’s like this:

1] I’d like to see the truckers win (the emotional part)
2] I don’t really have any thoughts worth adding to this (since it’s all vacuous anyway).
3] Ergo, I’d like to see the truckers win (what else can I conclude?).

iambiguous wrote:Even while admitting that had your life been different you might be here thinking and feeling and wanting just the opposite.


Well, you tell me: 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.

iambiguous wrote:There's how I understand the existential parameters of value judgments here and what I still don't understand about yours.


And now we know why.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head and ask him why he invaded Ukraine. Let's put this frame of mind in the heads of Alito and his ilk on the Supreme Court and ask them why they're gutting Roe v. Wade. As opposed to them presenting arguments wholly in sync with how they feel about what they are doing. With what they "want" to do.


gib wrote:That sounds like a really lame exercise, but okay. I'm Vladimir Putin thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--I want to invade Ukraine, so I invade Ukraine. I'm Alito thinking only in terms of what I want--no justifications--and I want to gut the Roe v. Wade case, so I gut the Roe v. Wade case. <-- Are we seeing any brilliant insights here?


He wants to invade Ukraine but offers no justifications for why he wants it? How about because, from his frame of mind [for whatever personal reasons], he thinks and feels it is the right thing to do. Same with the Supremes.


Well, that isn't the frame of mind in question. You said, "Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head..." referring to the frame of mind I'm trying to get across to you. It's a frame of mind of pure raw desire, of unadulterated, unsullied want--the kind an animal might have, an animal without the ability to reason, to tell right from wrong, or to even think abstractly--what do you think a wolf might offer up for his moral justifications for killing its prey? <-- That's the frame of mind I'm talking about.

iambiguous wrote:Why do they all think and feel what they do? That's when I propose the arguments I do pertaining to the self at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. The part about thinking and feeling and wanting something/anything intertwined in dasein.


Sure, but then perhaps you should give up asking me what my reasons are for thinking and feeling the way I do--because I don't really have any--not even in regards to the truckers; I want them to win, but this is more like an animalistic desire that stems from a sort of survival instinct, an intuition that says I'd be better off in a world where the truckers got their way--and any "reason" that comes out of this desire I recognize as simply dasein doing it's thing--so it's hard for me to take them seriously (unless I think they can actually work for me in a particular situation) which is to say it's hard for me to treat them as my "reasons" for wanting the truckers to win.

iambiguous wrote:No, I try to understand how you connect the dots between what you want to see the truckers accomplish and how you think and feel about that accomplishment itself. How all three, if not intertwined in the manner in which I construe dasein here as the embodiment of a political prejudice rooted existentially in the lives we live, are intertwined in your own head.


You'll have to break this down for me. I'm not entirely understanding. Is this like connecting the dots between the means and the ends? I want to see the truckers accomplish a world in which all covid mandates are lifted and we can go back to our normal lives. The way I think and feel about such an accomplishment, such a world, is that I would enjoy it a lot more than a world full to the brim with covid mandates of all kinds, a world in which I cannot do anything without government approval all in the name of keeping people safe from covid. Is the former a morally superior world? Well, I'd have to give that some deeper thought before I commit to an answer. What I know right now is that I'd be happier in such a world, that it's more desirable to me (it's kind of odd putting it this way as the covid mandates, for the most part, have been lifted, but you obviously understand that this discussion began in the thick of the trucker protest before they started lifting the mandates).

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:To be fair, I won't deny that my desires to see the truckers win comes along with thoughts pushed into my head by those desires. My mind will conjure up all manner of arguments and justifications for why the truckers should win. But because I agree with your dasein argument those thoughts mean very little to me--I see through them, so to speak--they become mere "intellectual contraptions" that pass through my mind and disappear--and I'm left only with the desire to see the truckers win. So if you want, we can get into those thoughts, but I must preface that with the disclaimer that I've already dismissed them.
Okay, but how is this really all that different from those here like Maia and MagsJ who embrace an intuitive "intrinsic self". How is it all that different from your political prejudices? When push comes to shove they "just know" what they do about things like abortion or feminism or the tricker protest. And since none of us can be them, there is nothing we can really say to rebut their points.


I think we should worry less about Maia and MagsJ and focus more on you. You're the one who insists that our prejudices come with thoughts that are in sync with our emotions, and here I'm only trying to meet you half way, admit that there are indeed thoughts that come with my feelings on the truckers (it's just that I dismiss them in light of what I understand about dasein). And you've even admitted this about yourself--you've said that you have your own political prejudices that come with thoughts and feelings in sync with each other. And if all this makes us like Maia and MagsJ, then I throw it back to you... How are your prejudices all that different from those like Maia and MagsJ?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:What do you mean? Would it change what I want here and now? No, it wouldn't. Would it change what I want in this alternate universe where I'm arguing on the opposite side? Of course!


Alternate universe?

To the best of my current knowledge there is only the one that we live in. And in that universe [for me] you live a life that involves -- revolves around -- an accumulation of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that predispose you existentially to support the truckers protest or to protest the protest itself. You think and feel and want everything here in tandem. How you intertwine thinking and feeling and wanting is not understood by me.


You have this strange way of bringing up the suggestion that had one's life been different then they would have been here arguing the opposite of what they are arguing, yet completely denying that this counts as an alternate universe--as if the thought of one's life turning out differently isn't just a thought but an actuality--as if we live many lives at once in some kind of quantum superposition where my support for the truckers coexists with my condemnation of the truckers.

Whatever it is you're thinking here, to the rest of us, yes, it is an alternate universe.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:You don't know the difference between emotions and thoughts? Or just how they can diverge?


Sure, "sure" is not an answer to the question. but back again to the part where, for most of us, how we feel about the trucker protest is very much connected existentially to how we think about it. Even when you're denouncing those thoughts with your arguments about dasein? Not many will think that the truckers are behaving rationally but feel that they are not. I didn't say my thoughts and my feelings about the truckers are working in opposition to each other. And then if someone convinces them that the truckers are, instead, behaving irrationally, and the government policy is the correct one, are they going to still feel what they did when they thought the truckers were right and the government was wrong? Yes, there may well be a period where they find themselves feeling ambivalent...pulled in both directions...but once their thinking shifts more fully, their emotions will follow. At least that's how it has always been with me. Then the part about what they want comes into alignment as well.


I would argue the same point I've argued countless times before--that for me it's not a matter of wanting the truckers to win while disagreeing with the trucker's cause, but just wanting the truckers to win without any thoughts on the matter (none that I don't dismiss as groundless anyway)--but I know that's in that foggy/cloudy region of incomprehensible thinking to you, so I won't bother. Instead, I'd like to see how you respond to some of my inquiries above--notably, how your own thoughts on dasein don't "nullify" your own thoughts underlying your own political prejudices. How does your understanding of dasein not make your thoughts underlying your political prejudices seem totally vaccuous and arbitrary? If you can explain to me how you fully understand the problems posed to our political prejudices by your points on dasein and yet you still fully believe in the validity and objective reality of your own political prejudices, then I might be able to explain to you how my own psychology on this point differs.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but in being a political activist for over 20 years, my own thinking and feeling and wanting were almost always in alignment. First as a moral and political objectivist and then later as a moral nihilist. Today my thinking and feeling and wanting is just far more "fractured and fragmented".


And why do you think you’re the only one this is true for? Every time I try to tell you my feelings on the matter of the truckers are not in sync with my thoughts on it, you seem to think that’s an impossibility, or worse an incomprehensibility. (And note I never said there was a third element called a “want”--a want is a type of feeling, one and the same with it--but you misperceived a distinction between them in something I said earlier).

iambiguous wrote:Then the part where you note how in some respects you share in the "dasein stuff" I note but are not yourself fractured and fragmented. From my frame one they are both basically one and the same thing.


Yes, I definitely think this is where the crux of our disagreement/misunderstand lies--in the fact that we both claim to understand the "dasein stuff" yet this fractures and fragments your "I" but it doesn't my "I". I'm not sure I get why they are inextricably one and the same, though I see how they are tightly connected--as I've gathered from earlier discussions, a substantive understanding of your "dasein" would entail understanding how much in the is/ought world lacks a clear and demonstrative basis for being accepted as objectively real and objectively justified, and is rather more arbitrary and meaningless--and further to this point, insofar as one's "I" is understood in terms that are defined in this is/ought world, one's "I" is equally lacking in any objectively real and justified basis (thus the fracturing and fragmenting). But as I pointed out above, I don't define my "I" in terms of anything in the is/ought world, not essentially--to me, they are separable--sure, I may call myself a subjectivist, but like I said above, this isn't core to my being, to my understanding of who I am--so my subjectivism could be torn to shreads one day, or I could simply choose to drop it, and however much this might cause me great consternation, I don't think it would shake my core sense of who I am, that I am an "I".

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I just want to point out that I'm not without my own struggles when it come to this stuff. My struggles are between what I think I know and all there is to know. You seem stuck on your fractured 'I'. I don't suppose these are two sides of the same coin, are they?

Two sides of what coin? The Reality coin?


I mean, are these two different ways of expressing the same struggle? If you don't know what "coin" this struggle could possibly be, then I guess the answer to my question is no, they are not two sides to the same coin.

iambiguous wrote:And my "I" is fractured only in regard to the is/ought world, or when we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb and grapple with the Biggest Questions of them all.


Then I guess my "I" is fractured too. I just don't invest much in that sort of "I". I much prefer to identify with the "I" that's part of the either/or world--that I am a father, a software developer, an ex-drug user and alcoholic, an artist, an active member of ILP (though not as active as I used to be), and so forth and so on. That's more what I pride myself on. So if some abstract conception of my "I" that hinges on an "ism" in the is/ought world has to be tossed, I don't lose sleep over it.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:These are the questions that will plague me til the day I die.


Me too.


Yeay! Agreement!

iambiguous wrote:Right, as though putting people who have led very, very different lives and come to think about the nature of their own reality [cognitively and emotionally] given very, very different sets of assumptions would listen to you explaining that and this would make their reaction to the trucker protest...more or less effable?


What does effability have to do with it? I'm making a point about the way I think emotions work, the role they play in our biological functioning. Sure, I may be wrong, but my intention is to render it as a fact of human nature. What does it matter whether people listen to me or not, whether they have led very different lives and had very different experiences, or think of their reality in very different ways? What does it matter whether my explaining this to them makes their reactions to the trucker protest "effable" (whatever that means)? It wouldn't change how I think emotions work any more than how I think digestion or blood circulation works.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to how each of us connect the dots existentially between I think this about the truckers, I feel this about the truckers, I want this in regard to the truckers. <-- You can dispense talking about "wants" as I never said they were something distinct from feelings. I know by and large how "here and now" I connect those dots.

How about others here?


Last I checked, I was having this discussion with you. I don't know what having this discussion with others would contribute.

iambiguous wrote:As though this is more about me not grasping what you are imparting here about emotions and not more about you not grasping what I am trying to impart here about them.


Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the former.

iambiguous wrote:I'm clearly not understanding your point. Whatever I think and feel and whatever the killer is thinking and feeling is derived existentially from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. There are the facts able to be communicated objectively about the circumstances. Then there's my side and the killer's side regarding whether I deserve to be killed.


Fine, let's suppose you did think you deserved to be killed. Or let's supposed you were ambivalent, or perhaps didn't care. Are you honestly telling me that there is not a single scenario in which your emotions would not be in sync with your thoughts on whether or not you deserved to be killed by the murderer? Or your thoughts on what dasein has to say about which point of view--yours or the murderer's--is the correct one? So if you believed you deserved to die, you wouldn't be afraid but would anticipate your murder with eagerness hoping that justice will soon be served? Or if your thoughts on dasein left you in your typical nihilistic limbo, not knowing whose morality is correct--yours or the murderer's--you wouldn't be afraid but would sit there in apathy or indecision as the murderer comes at you with a knife?

^ I think you're afraid to answer this question. I predict you'll attempt to avoid it at all costs.

iambiguous wrote:Just more confusion here from my end. I feel what I do, sure. But unlike the objectivists who justify what they feel based on the assumption that they feel what any rational and virtuous man or woman is ought to feel, "I" recognize that my feelings are rooted more in my own set of subjective assumptions.


That's not the issue here; you're trying to avoid admitting that you'd be afraid. "I feel what I do" doesn't cut it. You're trying to avoid admitting that this represents a scenario in which your thoughts on dasein would, like any other scenario, say that you don't know of a way to decide whose morality is right--yours or the murderer's--yet you'd still feel something definite (fear) that one would not describe as "in sync" with your thoughts on dasein. You're thoughts on dasein would sync up (I presume) with feelings of apathy or indecision or ambivalence, or something of that nature, whereas your feelings in regard to the murderer looming over you with a knife would be in the ball park of fear.

iambiguous wrote:For example, I killed the killer's dog because it barked all night keeping me awake. Even after I complained to the killer about it. The killer feels I deserve to die for doing that. I feel I don't deserve to die for doing that. Conflicting emotions. Derived from how existentially we both perceive the situation differently. Now, is there a way to determine how all rational men and women are obligated to feel here?


Perfect! You fleshed it out nicely. Now take it a step further and suppose the killer was in the midst of trying to kill you. What are your thoughts on the morality of what he's trying to do? What are your feelings on what he's trying to do? Synced up?

iambiguous wrote:Again, unless you are thinking about it altogether differently.


Oh, clearly I am.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, now back to how we construe all of this differently given our different understanding of how dasein factors into our thinking and feeling and wanting.

To wit...

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:There so many different existential contexts that can unfold, given those who have lived very, very different lives, you would have to focus in on an actual event. Examine the specific motives and intentions of the participants. Since I have never had someone stalk and attempt to kill me, I have nothing concrete to fall back on.


You mean to tell me you'd have to actually experience being hunted down by a murderer to know whether you'd be scared or not?!?!


Again: as though we are in two different exchanges.

If you'd stop trying to avoid the question, you could actually join me in my exchange.

Yes, we all come into this world hard-wired to experience a wide range of emotions. And with a survival instinct:

"survival instinct: noun. the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying."

=D>

So, presuming we still very much want to live, fear will be felt if our life is in danger. =D> =D> =D> On the other hand, we are also equipped to feel despair. <-- Aaand we're avoiding #-o So, we may actually take our own life instead. It all comes back to each of us as individuals understanding our "self" existentially, subjectively.


Ok, suppose you take your own life in despair (what an odd emotion to feel when a murderer is coming at you with a knife)... how is that "in sync" with what your thoughts on dasein have to say about the matter?

iambiguous wrote:Huh? Depending on the situation as "I" perceive and understand it "in the moment", morality may or may not be a factor.

How perceptive of you.

What you're focusing on here...

gib wrote:Ok, let's grant that you genuinely don't know how you would feel. You're at least open to the possibility that you're uncertainty about the morality of the situation--i.e. whether or not you deserve to die because of some allegedly heinous act you committed against the murderer--would prevent you from feeling fear. When you imagine this scenario in your mind--not being afraid even though there's a murderer after you--does that see normal to you? Is it what you'd expect of someone in that situation?


...always depends on the subjective, existential, circumstantial parameters of any particular one of us as individuals.


Absolutely, but this isn't some mysterious undefined scenario in which we haven't pinned down the numerous variables that play a role or who is involved. We know what all the parameters of the situation are, we've defined them. We know who's involved--you! It's a situation in which you killed the murderer's dog and the murderer thinks this warrants your death. You don't. So he sets out to kill you and you, in some manner, want to avoid being killed. So what do you feel? What do your thoughts on dasein say about it? Are the former and the latter in sync?

It's not that complicated a question. In fact, you know how to answer one of them. The question about what your thoughts on dasein have to say about it. Don't they always say that you can't determine whose morality is correct? Yours or the murderer's? So that's one question down. All that leaves is how you would feel given that a murderer is looming over you with a knife. Are you really saying "Well, gee-whiz, it depends, you know"?

iambiguous wrote:Here and now, I feel ambivalent. Why? Because there are conflicting accounts regarding the covid pandemic, the role of government, lockdowns, wearing masks, vaccinations. Both sides are able to make reasonable points in their arguments. Now, when I was a hardcore radical leftist, I would have felt the protest was wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Why? Because it was out of sync with my objectivist Marxist dogma. I would have fit all the facts into my dogmatic assumptions.

Ah, so you have no problem answering this question. I presume this means you have no political prejudices vis-à-vis the trucker protest, no feelings that are "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Just ambivalence which is perfectly in sync with your thoughts on the matter when dasein is considered.

Today, however, I recognize those convictions as but a manifestation of a particular set of political prejudices "I" derived existentially from dasein. In other words, now, instead, I am more willing to take into account that both sides do have reasonable arguments to make. Just based on different sets of assumptions about, among other things, capitalism and socialism, the role of government, polices revolving more around "I" or "we".


Ok, this is better than nothing. It's not the example I hoped for of a situation in which your political prejudices brought with them emotions that clashed with your thoughts on dasein, but at least I can see that you have no problem answering the question when your feelings are in sync with your thoughts insofar as dasein is considered.

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, we are back to the fact that you can't be inside my head understanding the world around me as I do given the life that I lived. Nor I inside your head understanding the world around you given the life that you lived.

That's right. You know what helps with that? Examples!

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.


Excellent! So now you can take any one of those examples and use it to relate to my frame of mind when it comes to my feelings toward the trucker protest and my thoughts on it. Take for example your transition into moral nihilism (I assume that's when you discovered dasein). When you are just transitioning, there are typically remnants of old feelings attached to the prejudices you are attempting to leave behind, and these are, at least temporarily, out of sync with your new outlook (this is the point you're making, right?). So when you made your transition into moral nihilism, you must have still felt, to some degree, feelings attached to certain moral issues tied into certain political/social events going on at the time, no? So would it not be fair to say that, at the time, you remember being in a state of mind in which your thoughts (believing in moral nihilism and the implications of dasein) were out of sync with your emotions (favoring, let's just say, pro-choice abortion laws)?

My state of mind with respect to the trucker protest is not all that different from this--except that I seem to be stymied in a state where my pro-trucker feelings are not going away yet my understanding of dasein and its implications for the trucker protest also aren't going away. My thoughts on dasein telling me I have no reason to feel one way or another about the trucker protest, yet my feelings are definitely pro-trucker--as if I'm going through one of your transitions.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Okay, so the only thing left for me to inquire about is this: what do you do with your emotions? You don't suppress them, you don't pretend they don't exist, you certainly have them so it's not that you feel nothing... but then how do they impinge on your intellectual stance with respect to the truckers? And how do they impinge on your actions?


I don't know how to explain it to you better than I already have. Try one more time. Once my thinking "I" in the is/ought world came to revolve more and more around this...

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

...the feeling "I" followed. <-- And that "I" feels ambivalence? For those like me, at best, they can act only in accepting the ambivalence that they feel. Ambivalence, got it. And that will probably revolve around the political prejudices they embody rooted in dasein. <-- This part I need clarification on. Thus for me, the existential "I" is more on the left end of the political spectrum. And how does your existentialist "I" feel about the truckers? But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that had my life been different "I" might have felt more committed to the right end of it.


We're just about there, Biggy. You have nicely laid out the relation between what your thinking "I" in the is/ought world thinks and what your feeling "I" feels--the thinking "I" thinks the above quote (that you might just as well have gone in the other direction) and the feeling "I" feels an emotion that aligns perfectly with that: ambivalence. Then you also mentioned your existential "I" which thinks and feels something more aligned with the left--something like disapproval of what the truckers are doing? Right?--which I would say is at odds with your ambivalent "I" who is unsure you should even have such thoughts and feelings as disapproval of what the truckers are doing. I would say your existential "I" and the "I" aware of dasein and all its implications are not in sync with each other.

iambiguous wrote:So, sure...
gib wrote:If your prejudices are "lefty" as you say, I would think this makes you want to take a stance against the truckers, or to do something to fight against the trucker's cause. But you don't. So what is happening in your mind? Are you resisting the urge to take a (biased) stance? Are you resisting the urge to act?


First of all, my political activist days are long gone. But, again, if I were younger I'd still be no less ambivalent. Yeah, I could take that existential leap to the left. But that wouldn't make my thinking 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

...go away.


Right, so what does happen to your left-leaning feelings when they do arise? Do they clash with your ambivalent feelings that stem from your understanding of dasein? And what about your left-leaning thoughts? Do they get "cancelled out" by your thoughts on dasein? Or are you somehow able to reconcile "Those truckers have no right to protest!" with "I have no idea whether or not those truckers have a right to protest since my understanding of dasein gives me no way to decide!"

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:There has to be something that keeps your emotions/prejudices and your intellectual stance (i.e. your recognition that it stems from dasein) out of sync... otherwise, you and I are exactly alike (except for maybe having opposite prejudices). I'm profoundly perplexed, in that case, why my own psychology, as I've tried to explain it here, is so unintelligible to you. Are we just using different words?


There are simply too many genetic/memetic variables involved -- re nature and nurture -- in understanding any particular human identity. Many of which go back to our indoctrination as children. And many of which were, are and will be beyond our either fully understanding or controlling.


Is this an answer to my question about whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Are you saying that all the genetic/memetic variables involved in our respective lives and all the indoctrination we received as children make it nearly impossible (or fully impossible) to determine whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Surely it's not that hard to figure out, is it?
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:23 pm

Part One:

iambiguous wrote:Again, we can get into a technical discussion regarding how "serious philosophers" differentiate subjectivism from objectivism...


gib wrote:Yes, we can, but all I want to note is that I don’t understand what kind of subjectivist you are to bother wondering what is the most rational manner in which to react... I mean, objectively.


I'm a subjectivist who acknowledges that the objectivists -- one of them -- might be right. There may be the most rational manner in which to react to the trucker protest or to abortion. I never deny that going back to all that one would need to know about existence itself in order to fully explain how and why the "human condition" fits into it.

iambiguous wrote:From my frame of mind, this has almost nothing to do with the point I make above. And "for all practical purposes" we clearly construe our thoughts and our feelings regarding our behaviors being rooted in dasein very differently.


gib wrote:Now that has (almost) nothing to do with the point I was making.


Then for now we're stuck.

iambiguous wrote:Right, right. They can just shrug off the points I make here regarding how they acquired their points of view.


gib wrote:As they should.


Again, here you are supposedly agreeing with me that their value judgments [like ours] are in fact rooted largely in dasein, but they should simply shrug that part off?


gib wrote:Yes, you know what happens to people who don’t shrug it off? They become like you.


Yes, and, predictably enough, given my understanding of dasein, I did become me. What I don't understand is how, given the extent to which you claim to understand my own understanding of dasein, you didn't become me. or more like me. Thus, from my frame of mind, given your own take on subjectivism and emotions, you are still able to delude yourself about your support for the truckers.

In other words, "yes, it's rooted subjectively in dasein, but I'll just shrug that part off because 'somehow' I 'just know' emotionally that they are right."

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:I'm still largely oblivious to the point you are trying to make here about me. From my frame of mind, objectivism revolves around the assumption that there is in fact the most rational reaction that one can have in regard to the trucker protest or to the morality of abortion. And this must be the case, the objectivists insist because they already embody it. All that "dasein" stuff that you and I discuss here is completely irrelevant to them. It's ever and always "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys]. For them the is/ought world is just another component of the either/or world. Either derived from one or another God or one or another political dogma/ideology or one or another deontological philosophical assessment or one or another screed about Nature.


gib wrote:Exactly. And you don’t believe that there is a most rational manner in which to react, right?


No, I don't. But that's just "here and now". Given a new experience, a new relationship, and access to new information and knowledge I might change my mind. Back again to what we believe about things like this and what we can demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

gib wrote:So what puzzles me is why you would bother asking whether there is or isn't. Are you not sure? Not sure whether to be an objectivist in search of that one most rational manner in which to react, or a subjectivist who puts the question to rest feeling that, at least for you, there is no (objective/universal) most rational manner in which to react? <— This is what I speculate. It’s the only scenario that would put my puzzlement about you--a subjectivist who still wonders about the most rational manner in which to react--to rest. And only you can tell me if this scenario is, in fact, true.


Am I not sure about what I believe here and now?!! That you would ask me that given how many times I come back to "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" in my posts just boggles my mind. My point is that given both of them how can any of us really be sure about anything we believe? I merely make the distinction between beliefs in the either/or world [there was or was not a trucker protest in Canada] and beliefs in the is/ought world [the trucker protest that was in Canada was a good thing or a bad thing].

iambiguous wrote:Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


gib wrote:Get a hammer and some nails cause I want that quote securely fastened in your mind when I ask this question: do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no.


Not sure what you are getting at here. All of us are hard-wired biologically to answer these questions. But with nature comes nurture. And that allows us and others to shape and mold our answers to our own historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts. And in a world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. What you're noting here doesn't [to me] make that go away.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:But then [if the answer is no] how on Earth does it strike you as fair to ask this question of others--Why yours and not the countless other answers out there? <-- The question you ask of others--but not yourself? And if you do ask this of yourself (in the privacy of your own head?), what's your answer? Could this answer not suffice for others?
Again, we'll need a context.


gib wrote:Did you nail that quote tight and secure? Because that quote is your context. That's right, it's your context, it's your question. You asked it. And yet, you've already forgotten it, like you forget anything you write just one post ago. No wonder you're always asking for a context; even contexts that you establish slip your mind in only one round. This is a cognitive disorder! And your laziness to go back and read where the conversation came from doesn't help either. At this point, I'm wondering whether I should even bother re-asking my questions? This very paragraph I'm writing has probably caused you to lose track of the conversation so that in your reply you'll be asking "what questions?"


Note to others:

What point is he making here? Because whatever it is, damned if I know how it relates to the point that I am making.

iambiguous wrote:I thought we were talking about the day-to-day relationship between "I think the truckers are right" being or not being in sync with "I feel the truckers are right".


gib wrote:Well, here's what you said:


iambiguous wrote:That's why with few exceptions those who think the truckers are right also feel that they are right, and those that feel the truckers are wrong also think that they are wrong?


gib wrote:You're still thinking in terms of feeling that things are right or wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but it's not about right or wrong. Consider "I want the truckers to win" or "I hate the truckers" <-- feelings without any mention of right or wrong, without any thoughts of right or wrong.


Again, note to others:

Give us your "thought through" argument regarding whether the truckers were right or wrong to protest. Now, if someone were to ask you how you feel about the protest does it or doesn't it coincide with what you think about it?

You hate the truckers. Why? Because you think that their protest is part of the problem and not the solution to the covid pandemic. You think that if they prevail, things will get much worse and that means a shittier world to live in.

Then this part...

gib wrote: This is why I don't believe you're trying to understand my point of view one bit. Why do I have to keep correcting this false assumption of yours? Is it really that hard to grasp? Have you even attempted to grasp it? I haven't seen you ask "Wanting the truckers to win without thinking they're right? How can that be, gib?" which leads me to believe you're just ignoring my point, or blocking it out like all the other things you don't want to hear or care to understand.


Why do you suppose he always assumes this is about me not trying to understanding his point of view, and not him not trying to understand mine?

Yes, I would ask him, "Wanting the truckers to win without thinking they're right? How can that be, gib?"

Does anyone here want them to win while thinking they are wrong?

I can only assume that I am not really understanding his point here about thinking and feeling and wanting. There's how they are intertwined existentially in dasein to me and how they are intertwined existentially in dasein to him. Again, unlike the pinheads here [urwrong's ilk], he accepts part of my narrative regarding dasein, but clearly understands it other then as "I" do.

iambiguous wrote:Jim ate 2 eggs in the morning and then 2 eggs at night. Jim ate 4 eggs. Jean agrees it is 4 eggs but insists that eating any number of eggs at all is immoral because human beings have no right to consume animals in any form.


gib wrote: If Jean thinks this is an objective fact, then it is an objective fact for her (relative to her, according to her, in her world, or any other relativistic phrasing). It is not an objective fact for the likes of you and I.


What does that have to do with my point? Eating four eggs is the objective fact. For all of us. Jim did in fact eat four eggs. Nothing pertaining to dasein as I understand it here. But when the discussion shifts to the morality of human beings consuming animals as a part of their diet what is in fact true for all of us then? That is the part where Jean thinks it is wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Where she feels it's wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Where she wants Jim to stop eating eggs. Dasein down to the bone. Why? Because had Jean's life been very different, she might be eating the eggs herself.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, how are we not back to what we believe "in our head" is objectively true about these things and how we are or are not able to actually demonstrate that Trudeau is in fact a tyrant here and that vaccinations either ought or ought not in fact to be mandatory? What part can be connected to objective reality and what part is just what each of us as individuals thinks and feels is true "in our head". The part I derive from dasein. And in not making any significant distinction between thoughts and feelings.


gib wrote: If you don't want to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, then we're talking strictly about the pinheads only (here I'm gonna have to as gracefully as possible bow out of that category). I've only been making a distinction between thoughts and feelings because they are not aligned within myself (nor within you I take it).


Well, they're not aligned for me because "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to the trucker protest. Given the assumptions the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. Given the assumptions those opposed to the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. "I" am tugged and pulled in both directions. As with abortion and gun control and all other "conflicting goods". Instead, I take an existential leap in a generally liberal direction because I spent nearly 25 years of my life as radical leftist. It's now practically hard wired into me as a frame of mind. But these days I recognize it more as a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein. But given that, my thoughts and feelings and wants are generally aligned.

gib wrote: In my opinion, there is no way to demonstrate beyond everyone's ability to deny or disagree that Trudeau is(n't) objectively and irrefutably a tyrant nor that vaccines ought (not) to be mandatory. These propositions are by their very nature subjective opinions and have no place in the world of facts (your either/or). And I'm fine with that. I don't need them or their opposites to be objective facts.


Right, you are "somehow" still able to "just know" or to "feel" that siding with the truckers is, viscerally, a more comfortable fit.

And "somehow" I'm not able to. Sounds almost mystical to me.

Then around and around we go:

iambiguous wrote:Sure, if that works for you. But it sure as shit doesn't work for me. If what is truly objective here cannot be pinned down, the role that dasein plays in our own convictions [or lack thereof] doesn't just -- poof! -- go away.


gib wrote: Then I guess it's a problem for you but not for me.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly. That's my point. Existentially, their thoughts and their feelings led them to embrace one set of political prejudices, your thoughts and your feelings led you to the opposite end of the political prejudice spectrum. Then this still unintelligible [to me] distinction you make between subjectivism and objectivism. What makes sense to you here simply does not make sense to me. It seems to revolve around this distinction you make between reasons and emotions...a distinction that I don't make.


gib wrote: It's strange that you don't make this distinction as I would think you're own thoughts on the matter put you at odds with your emotions.


Both my thoughts and my emotions are fractured and fragmented.

gib wrote: You've admitted that you have your own political prejudices which I would think come with emotions and thoughts, and sure they're probably aligned--but those aren't the thoughts and emotions I would distinguish--I would distinguish (in your case) the emotions that come with your political prejudices and your thoughts on dasein, which for all intents and purposes seem to oppose at every turn any allegiance to or against any of the hot moral debates that rage in today's political foray.


Yes, exactly! Instead, as just noted above, "I" am left with an existential "me" drawn and quartered time and again when confronting those newspaper headlines. My thoughts and feelings against the truckers are no more than components of the life I lived on the left. Just as the thoughts and feelings of those for the truckers are no more than components of the life they lived on the right.

Of course, all that "existential stuff" would go away if philosophers and ethicists and political scientists were able to sift through the "personal opinion" quagmire and come up with the optimal manner in which all rational and virtuous human beings were obligated to think and feel and want here.

And that's where the objectivists among us come in, right? Their God. Their ideology. Their philosophy. Their assessment of nature.

gib wrote:Mine too, in a manner of speaking, just not my 'I'.


iambiguous wrote:Back to this: Huh? How is what we think and feel about the trucker protest not the two main components of "I" in discussing the protest itself? And it's in how we configure our understanding of the "terminology" we use here into moral and political convictions [or for me the lack thereof] that would seem to drive the exchanges on the Society, Government, and Economics threads.


gib wrote: If you think our thoughts and feelings on a particular political/moral subject constitutes the ‘I’, it’s no wonder you feel fractured and fragmented. I simply don’t identify my ‘I’ with whatever “isms” I believe in. Sure, I may call myself a subjectivist, but that’s not who I am at the core of my being. I’m also a father. I’m also a software developer. I’m someone with ADD. I’m a white Canadian middle aged man. I’m a cycling enthusiast. I’m a writer and an artist. If my subjectivism were to fracture and fragment one day, or even if I just stopped believing in it, I’d still be me. I just wouldn’t call myself a subjectivist anymore. I wouldn’t feel that I’ve “fractured”. Same for all the other peripheral aspects of who I am. My “I” survives their death.


Again, if this assessment of all the components that you think make you you don't result in you feeling fractured and fragmented in regard to your moral and political arguments here, fine, that works for you.

It doesn't work for me. I don't have MagsJ's or Maia's "intrinsic self". I'm not able intuitively to "just know" the truckers are right. I don't feel connected to your own "core self", enabling me to "somehow" obviate all that "dasein stuff".

gib wrote: So maybe this is your problem. You feel you can’t identify yourself with anything other than a moral/political ideology. You need an “ism” to cling to just to feel you are someone. You think?


And how exactly would "I" go about not feeling drawn and quartered in regard to this too?

I do what everyone else does. I read the news and I think about what I am reading. I react intellectually, emotionally, psychologically to what I am reading. I have a set of moral and political prejudices rooted in dasein that predispose me to think more one way rather than another way. Only, unlike you and others, my own understanding of all this comes back around to the points "I" make on these threads:

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

Then the part where, in regard to things like the trucker protest, I ask others to explain how and why they don't react as "I" do at all. In particular, the objectivists.

gib wrote: What else am I supposed to conclude based on everything you’ve said so far. You’ve said that you have your own share of political prejudices, and that where there’s thoughts involved in political prejudices there’s feelings in sync with them. But your thoughts on dasein, from what I’ve gathered, preclude you from actually believing in your prejudices as they seem to suggest that all prejudices are acquired via arbitrary life events and experiences and what circumstances we’re born into, that you could just as easily have acquired the opposite prejudices, and that all such prejudices are groundless and vacuous. And if these are your thoughts on dasein, then what feelings are in sync with them? I’ve surmised something like confusion or ambivalence—a not knowing what to believe—or maybe even a numb apathy, a not caring what to believe. But then aren’t these thoughts and feelings at odds with those of your political prejudices? When your political prejudices illicit feelings of anger towards the truckers (or whatever they make you feel), isn’t this anger at odds with your feelings of confusion, ambivalence, or apathy (or whatever) that come with your thoughts on dasein? Aren’t your thoughts on the wrongness of the truckers’ cause at odds with your thoughts on dasein which tell you that you have no grounds to say that what the truckers are doing is wrong?


Well put!

That's the quandary. That's the "for all practical purposes" consequences of thinking and feeling and wanting as a "fractured and fragmented" persona out in the world with others.

"I" can never really be certain that how I think and feel about the things I react to in the news might be reflective of what is really true or what is just a component of political prejudices derived existentially from dasein. Ever and always pulled and tugged ambivalently in conflicting directions.

Then the part where "I" recognize how sociopaths and those moral nihilists who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy are able to rationalize a purely selfish frame of mind in a No God world. Fuck morality altogether.

iambiguous wrote:All I can do here is to bring this down to Earth.

1] I think the trucker protest is the right thing to do
2] I feel the trucker protest is the right thing to do
3] I want the trucker protest to succeed because I think and feel it's the right thing to do <— Non-sequitur


Note to Urwrong:

1] Do you think the trucker protest is the right thing to do?
2] Do you feel the trucker protest is the right thing to do
3] Do you want the trucker protest to succeed because you think and feel it's the right thing to do?

Any non-sequiturs here for you?

gib wrote: I don’t think there’s enough strike-through on this board to correct the number of times you make this mistake. I think the problem comes down to you’re inability to leave out the “right thing to do” part. For some reason, you seem incapable of imagining someone having thoughts about some prominent political issue without it being about right or wrong.


No, there are probably those who read about things like the trucker protest and don't think of it in terms of right or wrong. Perhaps they just like following the drama that is embedded in the confrontation itself. Or, with no dog in the fight, they're just curious to see how it ends. Or it has nothing to do with right or wrong for them but only in how it effects the size of their bank account.

Then [of course] your own profoundly subjective rooted existentially in dasein reaction to it...

gib wrote: For my own part, I don’t have a whole lotta thoughts about the truckers that don’t stem from my feelings about them. And as for the thoughts that do stem from my feelings, my understanding of dasein and the arbitrariness by which we acquire our political prejudices pretty much squashed them out, takes the wind out of their sail, removes the grounds on which they would stand, and makes them feel hollow and vacuous. So they don’t even seem like reasonable premises with which to start an argument, which is why I often decline to make such arguments, at least in discussions with you. So that scratches 1] out.

As for 2], my feelings about the truckers were never about right or wrong to begin with. They couldn’t be. They depend on thought to connect them to right and wrong. That’s why our emotions typical drive our thinking. They are attempting to come up with some rational in order to justify themselves, usually morally, to make it ok to feel and act upon them. But as I said above, my understanding of dasein stomps out any thoughts my feelings about the truckers could come up with, and therefore I’m left only with my feelings—feelings in a state of disconnect from right and wrong, of dissatisfaction for want of a justification. But you cannot imagine that, I gather. You cannot imagine a person having feelings about some major political issue without those feelings being about right and wrong, let alone feeling without even any thoughts about right and wrong.


Bottom line: In not being inside your head and having no real clue regarding all of the uniquely personal experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that constitute your own lived life, I'm not able to fathom how this led you to connect the dots between your "I" and the trucker protest.

I only have access to my own life.

Next up: encompassing all of this "logically"?!

gib wrote: If you want a more accurate picture of the logical structure of my argument here, it’s like this:

1] I’d like to see the truckers win (the emotional part)
2] I don’t really have any thoughts worth adding to this (since it’s all vacuous anyway).
3] Ergo, I’d like to see the truckers win (what else can I conclude?).


Note to others:

Does this make sense to you? How would you compare and contrast it to your own reaction to the truckers, the role of governemnt and the covid pandemic?
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:15 pm

Part two:

iambiguous wrote:Even while admitting that had your life been different you might be here thinking and feeling and wanting just the opposite.


gib wrote:Well, you tell me: 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.


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.

To me, it's like you going up to the truckers during their protest and saying "Look, I want you guys to win, but please understand that had my life been different, I'd want you to lose."

As though they will just shrug that off. They 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.

[Putin] wants to invade Ukraine but offers no justifications for why he wants it? How about because, from his frame of mind [for whatever personal reasons], he thinks and feels it is the right thing to do. Same with the Supremes.


gib wrote:Well, that isn't the frame of mind in question. You said, "Okay, let's put this frame of mind in Vladimir Putin's head..." referring to the frame of mind I'm trying to get across to you. It's a frame of mind of pure raw desire, of unadulterated, unsullied want--the kind an animal might have, an animal without the ability to reason, to tell right from wrong, or to even think abstractly--what do you think a wolf might offer up for his moral justifications for killing its prey? <-- That's the frame of mind I'm talking about.


Right, and this "pure raw desire" to want to invade or to strike down Roe is what really counts, not how they think the situation through and accumulate actual reasons for invading Ukraine or overturning Roe.

On the other hand, the wolf thinks nothing through, does it? It has no reason to kill other than the fact its instinct propels/compels it to. Only [to me] you come off as another Satyr here. Biological imperatives tossing historical, cultural, social, political, economic, etc., memes onto the back burner. If not completely off the stove.

Then back to the part where you explain your own reaction to the truckers...

iambiguous wrote:Why do they all think and feel what they do? That's when I propose the arguments I do pertaining to the self at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. The part about thinking and feeling and wanting something/anything intertwined in dasein.


gib wrote:Sure, but then perhaps you should give up asking me what my reasons are for thinking and feeling the way I do--because I don't really have any--not even in regards to the truckers; I want them to win, but this is more like an animalistic desire that stems from a sort of survival instinct, an intuition that says I'd be better off in a world where the truckers got their way--and any "reason" that comes out of this desire I recognize as simply dasein doing it's thing--so it's hard for me to take them seriously (unless I think they can actually work for me in a particular situation) which is to say it's hard for me to treat them as my "reasons" for wanting the truckers to win.


Again, you go up to the truckers and they give you a list of actual reasons why they think and feel what they do about the government's policies. You tell them, "forget all that, it's the animal in me that wants you to win because the animal in me 'just knows' the world will be a better place if you do prevail".

Try that at the next protest. The "monkeypox" protest? Then get back to us with their reactions.

iambiguous wrote:No, I try to understand how you connect the dots between what you want to see the truckers accomplish and how you think and feel about that accomplishment itself. How all three, if not intertwined in the manner in which I construe dasein here as the embodiment of a political prejudice rooted existentially in the lives we live, are intertwined in your own head.


gib wrote: You'll have to break this down for me. I'm not entirely understanding. Is this like connecting the dots between the means and the ends? I want to see the truckers accomplish a world in which all covid mandates are lifted and we can go back to our normal lives. The way I think and feel about such an accomplishment, such a world, is that I would enjoy it a lot more than a world full to the brim with covid mandates of all kinds, a world in which I cannot do anything without government approval all in the name of keeping people safe from covid. Is the former a morally superior world? Well, I'd have to give that some deeper thought before I commit to an answer. What I know right now is that I'd be happier in such a world, that it's more desirable to me (it's kind of odd putting it this way as the covid mandates, for the most part, have been lifted, but you obviously understand that this discussion began in the thick of the trucker protest before they started lifting the mandates).


Of course, the problem with speculation of this sort is that we just can't know for certain how the covid pandemic would have played out in Canada had the government policies been the exact opposite of what they were. No masks, no social distancing, no lockdowns, no vaccinations. Instead, those on both sides merely assume things would have been either much better or much worse.

And what you seem to be suggesting is that Canadian citizens and the government should have just ignored the advice coming from the scientific and medical community and, what, went with their gut?

gib wrote:To be fair, I won't deny that my desires to see the truckers win comes along with thoughts pushed into my head by those desires. My mind will conjure up all manner of arguments and justifications for why the truckers should win. But because I agree with your dasein argument those thoughts mean very little to me--I see through them, so to speak--they become mere "intellectual contraptions" that pass through my mind and disappear--and I'm left only with the desire to see the truckers win. So if you want, we can get into those thoughts, but I must preface that with the disclaimer that I've already dismissed them.


iambiguous wrote: Okay, but how is this really all that different from those here like Maia and MagsJ who embrace an intuitive "intrinsic self". When push comes to shove they "just know" what they do about things like abortion or feminism or the tricker protest. And since none of us can be them, there is nothing we can really say to rebut their points.


gib wrote: How is it all that different from your political prejudices?


Because I acknowledge that those political prejudices are derived existentially from the life I lived. A life I only had so much understanding and control over. With MagsJ and Maia, that part is merely subsumed in their "intrinsic self".

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.

gib wrote: I think we should worry less about Maia and MagsJ and focus more on you. You're the one who insists that our prejudices come with thoughts that are in sync with our emotions, and here I'm only trying to meet you half way, admit that there are indeed thoughts that come with my feelings on the truckers (it's just that I dismiss them in light of what I understand about dasein).


This isn't a mathematical relationship however. Our thoughts and feelings in regard to our value judgments often shift about given new sets of circumstances, new information, new insights. Sometimes we feel confused or uncertain or ambiguous or ambivalent. Why? Because we do live in a world awash in "contingency, chance and change". And I focus in on the objectivists among us. Those who, however jumbled their thoughts and feeling might be on any given day, eventually come to anchor "I" to one or another objectivist font. Their thoughts and feelings then go goose-stepping to the next protest.

gib wrote: And you've even admitted this about yourself--you've said that you have your own political prejudices that come with thoughts and feelings in sync with each other. And if all this makes us like Maia and MagsJ, then I throw it back to you... How are your prejudices all that different from those like Maia and MagsJ?


No, I said back when I was an objectivist myself my thoughts and feelings were often interchangeable. But I never attributed that to an "intrinsic self". I attributed it to what I believed about myself in the world around me. As a Christian, a Unitarian, a Marxist-Leninist, a Trotskyite, a Democratic Socialist, a Social Democrat, a liberal Democrat.

Then I bumped into William Barrett and existentialism, into Supannika Rongsopa and deconstruction/semiotics. Then "I" began to crumble in the is/ought world.

gib wrote:What do you mean? Would it change what I want here and now? No, it wouldn't. Would it change what I want in this alternate universe where I'm arguing on the opposite side? Of course!


Alternate universe?

To the best of my current knowledge there is only the one that we live in. And in that universe [for me] you live a life that involves -- revolves around -- an accumulation of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that predispose you existentially to support the truckers protest or to protest the protest itself. You think and feel and want everything here in tandem. How you intertwine thinking and feeling and wanting is not understood by me.


gib wrote: You have this strange way of bringing up the suggestion that had one's life been different then they would have been here arguing the opposite of what they are arguing, yet completely denying that this counts as an alternate universe--as if the thought of one's life turning out differently isn't just a thought but an actuality--as if we live many lives at once in some kind of quantum superposition where my support for the truckers coexists with my condemnation of the truckers.


But it's not an alternate universe, is it? Not in the sense that some argue in regard to the "multiverse". They'll suggest there are an infinite number of universes. In some you support the truckers, in others you don't. Complete and utter conjecture. Whereas my point here is rooted right here on planet Earth in this universe. Or, rather, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

gib wrote: Whatever it is you're thinking here, to the rest of us, yes, it is an alternate universe.


Then let's agree to disagree regarding what an alternate universe is.

gib wrote:You don't know the difference between emotions and thoughts? Or just how they can diverge?


Sure, but back again to the part where, for most of us, how we feel about the trucker protest is very much connected existentially to how we think about it.


gib wrote: Even when you're denouncing those thoughts with your arguments about dasein?


That's your take on what I am doing, not mine. I'm merely noting that given new experiences, relationships, information and knowledge, etc., my thoughts changed over the years. I denounced previous thoughts only because "I" shifted to a new objectivist font.

Not many will think that the truckers are behaving rationally but feel that they are not. And then if someone convinces them that the truckers are, instead, behaving irrationally, and the government policy is the correct one, are they going to still feel what they did when they thought the truckers were right and the government was wrong? Yes, there may well be a period where they find themselves feeling ambivalent...pulled in both directions...but once their thinking shifts more fully, their emotions will follow. At least that's how it has always been with me. Then the part about what they want comes into alignment as well.


gib wrote: I would argue the same point I've argued countless times before--that for me it's not a matter of wanting the truckers to win while disagreeing with the trucker's cause, but just wanting the truckers to win without any thoughts on the matter (none that I don't dismiss as groundless anyway)--but I know that's in that foggy/cloudy region of incomprehensible thinking to you, so I won't bother.


Just another example of how we think about the "for all practical purposes" existential parameters of dasein differently. Though I'm certainly not suggesting that my way is more reasonable than yours. I'm merely pointing out the obvious: that our individual lives were no doubt so very, very different in turn, what could either one of us really grasp about the other. I simply make that distinction between what can be communicated coherently in the either/or world because there, an objective reality does in fact exist -- barring sim worlds mind-blowing Matrix scenarios -- and what gets communicated far more turbulently in the is/ought world.

gib wrote: Instead, I'd like to see how you respond to some of my inquiries above--notably, how your own thoughts on dasein don't "nullify" your own thoughts underlying your own political prejudices. How does your understanding of dasein not make your thoughts underlying your political prejudices seem totally vaccuous and arbitrary? If you can explain to me how you fully understand the problems posed to our political prejudices by your points on dasein and yet you still fully believe in the validity and objective reality of your own political prejudices, then I might be able to explain to you how my own psychology on this point differs.


Back to this:

That's your take on what I am doing, not mine. I'm merely noting that given new experiences, relationships, information and knowledge, etc., my thoughts changed over the years. I denounced -- nullified -- previous thoughts only because "I" shifted to a new objectivist font.


iambiguous wrote:Okay, but in being a political activist for over 20 years, my own thinking and feeling and wanting were almost always in alignment. First as a moral and political objectivist and then later as a moral nihilist. Today my thinking and feeling and wanting is just far more "fractured and fragmented".


gib wrote: And why do you think you’re the only one this is true for? Every time I try to tell you my feelings on the matter of the truckers are not in sync with my thoughts on it, you seem to think that’s an impossibility, or worse an incomprehensibility. (And note I never said there was a third element called a “want”--a want is a type of feeling, one and the same with it--but you misperceived a distinction between them in something I said earlier).


No, over and again I'm merely pointing out that there's how I have come to understand dasein in regard to my own thoughts and feelings -- and my own thoughts and feelings and wants -- and how I don't understand yours.

Actually, the best of all possible worlds here would be you and I confronting truckers in a new protest, and attempting to explain to them our own understanding of dasein. How, for me, it engenders this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.


...in regard to their protest. And whatever it provokes in you in regard to their protest.

iambiguous wrote:Then the part where you note how in some respects you share in the "dasein stuff" I note but are not yourself fractured and fragmented. From my frame one they are both basically one and the same thing.


gib wrote: Yes, I definitely think this is where the crux of our disagreement/misunderstand lies--in the fact that we both claim to understand the "dasein stuff" yet this fractures and fragments your "I" but it doesn't my "I". I'm not sure I get why they are inextricably one and the same, though I see how they are tightly connected--as I've gathered from earlier discussions, a substantive understanding of your "dasein" would entail understanding how much in the is/ought world lacks a clear and demonstrative basis for being accepted as objectively real and objectively justified, and is rather more arbitrary and meaningless--and further to this point, insofar as one's "I" is understood in terms that are defined in this is/ought world, one's "I" is equally lacking in any objectively real and justified basis (thus the fracturing and fragmenting). But as I pointed out above, I don't define my "I" in terms of anything in the is/ought world, not essentially--to me, they are separable--sure, I may call myself a subjectivist, but like I said above, this isn't core to my being, to my understanding of who I am--so my subjectivism could be torn to shreads one day, or I could simply choose to drop it, and however much this might cause me great consternation, I don't think it would shake my core sense of who I am, that I am an "I".


Okay, then let me ask you what you asked me: how would you make a distinction between your sense of self in regard to the trucker protest and how MagsJ and Maia would come back to their "intrinsic self"? They are not fractured and fragmented because there is this deep down inside them "real me", "core self", "soul" that allows them to "just know" -- viscerally? intuitively? spiritually? -- how to react to it.

Only I suggest that this so-called "intrinsic self" is no less the existential embodiment of dasein.

iambiguous wrote: ...my "I" is fractured only in regard to the is/ought world, or when we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb and grapple with the Biggest Questions of them all.


gib wrote: Then I guess my "I" is fractured too. I just don't invest much in that sort of "I". I much prefer to identify with the "I" that's part of the either/or world--that I am a father, a software developer, an ex-drug user and alcoholic, an artist, an active member of ILP (though not as active as I used to be), and so forth and so on. That's more what I pride myself on. So if some abstract conception of my "I" that hinges on an "ism" in the is/ought world has to be tossed, I don't lose sleep over it.


Okay, but how interested would the truckers be in the either/or Gib? Maybe some might be able to identify with it, but mostly they are going to be interested in whether you are "one of us" or "one of them". And here, your "ism" can often be the only thing that matters to them. It's certainly the only thing that matters to Urwrong and his ilk here.

iambiguous wrote:Right, as though putting people who have led very, very different lives and come to think about the nature of their own reality [cognitively and emotionally] given very, very different sets of assumptions would listen to you explaining that and this would make their reaction to the trucker protest...more or less effable?


gib wrote: What does effability have to do with it? I'm making a point about the way I think emotions work, the role they play in our biological functioning.


Come on, you're at the protest discussing the government and the covid pandemic with the truckers. For them, a hell of alot will come down to what you think about human emotions -- their own for example -- and how it can be encompassed and described in words they can then relate back to what they are doing there. And how what they want is connected to what they think and feel about the government's healt policies re the pandemic.

gib wrote: Sure, I may be wrong, but my intention is to render it as a fact of human nature. What does it matter whether people listen to me or not, whether they have led very different lives and had very different experiences, or think of their reality in very different ways? What does it matter whether my explaining this to them makes their reactions to the trucker protest "effable" (whatever that means)? It wouldn't change how I think emotions work any more than how I think digestion or blood circulation works.


Ask them why those things matter.

And you don't know what "new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge" down the road might do to how you think emotions work. As though our emotional reactions to conflicting goods is on par with what how we think "digestion or blood circulation works".

iambiguous wrote:Back again to how each of us connect the dots existentially between I think this about the truckers, I feel this about the truckers, I want this in regard to the truckers. I know by and large how "here and now" I connect those dots.

How about others here?


gib wrote: Last I checked, I was having this discussion with you. I don't know what having this discussion with others would contribute.


Please, others here are following this exchange. Just check the view count. And they might have insights into the relationships we're discussing that neither one of us have considered.

Unfortunately, however, the New ILP isn't likely to generate much in the way of serious feedback. Ten years ago it almost certainly would have.

Indeed, our exchange here may well be among the very last actual philosophical discussions there are at the New ILP. That's why, by and large, I've gone over to this forum: https://forum.philosophynow.org/

Lots of folks there I have little respect for [nor they for me] but it is still in the general vicinity of the Old ILP.

iambiguous wrote:As though this is more about me not grasping what you are imparting here about emotions and not more about you not grasping what I am trying to impart here about them.


gib wrote: Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the former.


I know! This being the New ILP, let's create a poll!! :wink:

iambiguous wrote:I'm clearly not understanding your point. Whatever I think and feel and whatever the killer is thinking and feeling is derived existentially from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. There are the facts able to be communicated objectively about the circumstances. Then there's my side and the killer's side regarding whether I deserve to be killed.


gib wrote: Fine, let's suppose you did think you deserved to be killed. Or let's supposed you were ambivalent, or perhaps didn't care. Are you honestly telling me that there is not a single scenario in which your emotions would not be in sync with your thoughts on whether or not you deserved to be killed by the murderer? Or your thoughts on what dasein has to say about which point of view--yours or the murderer's--is the correct one? So if you believed you deserved to die, you wouldn't be afraid but would anticipate your murder with eagerness hoping that justice will soon be served? Or if your thoughts on dasein left you in your typical nihilistic limbo, not knowing whose morality is correct--yours or the murderer's--you wouldn't be afraid but would sit there in apathy or indecision as the murderer comes at you with a knife?


Of course! Given different scenarios understood existentially re dasein, my thoughts and my feelings might be all over the board. I might experience considerable ambiguity, uncertainty, confusion. But what doesn't change is that my thoughts and feelings are, by and large, derived existentially from dasein. And that, in the absence of God, there does not appear to be a way to establish definitively that I did or did not deserve to be murdered.

Hell, a sociopath might have raped and tortured and chopped into pieces a child of the killer. And still argued that he doesn't deserve to die because from his frame of mind doing what he wanted to do, what gave him pleasure and satisfaction in doing, is...reasonable.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, where's the argument that demonstrates that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational, is necessarily immoral.

That's how frightening moral nihilism can be. That's why millions are inclined to believe in one or another objectivist font. To make that go away. It's just that for most it is God. And here "leaps of faith" or "wagers" are all that are needed to make the religion font true.

For them.

gib wrote: I think you're afraid to answer this question. I predict you'll attempt to avoid it at all costs.


No, I think that the objectivists among us are, on some level, afraid that my arguments above and below might one day become a part of their own arguments. And that their own "precious Self" in the is/ought world might begin to crumble.

Only, with you, I'm all the more curious as to why you own sense of self hasn't crumbled even more.

iambiguous wrote:Just more confusion here from my end. I feel what I do, sure. But unlike the objectivists who justify what they feel based on the assumption that they feel what any rational and virtuous man or woman is ought to feel, "I" recognize that my feelings are rooted more in my own set of subjective assumptions.


gib wrote: That's not the issue here; you're trying to avoid admitting that you'd be afraid.


There you go again, asserting something about me that is far more reflective of how existentially you have come to be predisposed to think about these things. That you seem considerably less ambiguous and uncertain about me than I am about you speaks volumes about you from my frame of mind.

And I'm afraid of many things. Of death. Of this "always never nothing" world where something unsettling -- even devastating -- is always just around the corner. Of going to the grave not having a clue regarding why I was even born in the first place...and not knowing what the "human condition" itself might mean in the context of "all there is". Let alone my part in it. Of being ultimately ignorant of what the answers might be to the Big Questions. Afraid of all the things that anyone of us might be afraid of in this turbulent and ofttimes brutal world.

Instead, from you, I get "insights" like this:

gib wrote: "I feel what I do" doesn't cut it. You're trying to avoid admitting that this represents a scenario in which your thoughts on dasein would, like any other scenario, say that you don't know of a way to decide whose morality is right--yours or the murderer's--yet you'd still feel something definite (fear) that one would not describe as "in sync" with your thoughts on dasein. You're thoughts on dasein would sync up (I presume) with feelings of apathy or indecision or ambivalence, or something of that nature, whereas your feelings in regard to the murderer looming over you with a knife would be in the ball park of fear.


Psycho-babble in a particularly ponderous "intellectual contraption", let's call it.

iambiguous wrote:For example, I killed the killer's dog because it barked all night keeping me awake. Even after I complained to the killer about it. The killer feels I deserve to die for doing that. I feel I don't deserve to die for doing that. Conflicting emotions. Derived from how existentially we both perceive the situation differently. Now, is there a way to determine how all rational men and women are obligated to feel here?


gib wrote: Perfect! You fleshed it out nicely. Now take it a step further and suppose the killer was in the midst of trying to kill you. What are your thoughts on the morality of what he's trying to do? What are your feelings on what he's trying to do? Synced up?


Well, the next time I kill someone's dog and he tries to murder me for it, I'll let you know to the best of my ability, how "I" came to intertwine my thoughts and feelings.


gib wrote: We know what all the parameters of the situation are, we've defined them. We know who's involved--you! It's a situation in which you killed the murderer's dog and the murderer thinks this warrants your death. You don't. So he sets out to kill you and you, in some manner, want to avoid being killed. So what do you feel? What do your thoughts on dasein say about it? Are the former and the latter in sync?


Again, the problem here is that I have never killed someone's dog, who, because of it, comes after me in order to kill me. All I can suggest is that if that ever happens, my reasons for doing what I did and then reacting to what the killer chooses to do [in a free will world of course] will be rooted existentially in dasein. And here the variables can run into the hundreds and hundreds. Only some of which I will fully understand and control. The sheer complexity of human psychology in situations like this is far, far, far beyond my grasping. Only the objectivists among us, even here, will insist that they do.

gib wrote: It's not that complicated a question. In fact, you know how to answer one of them. The question about what your thoughts on dasein have to say about it. Don't they always say that you can't determine whose morality is correct? Yours or the murderer's? So that's one question down. All that leaves is how you would feel given that a murderer is looming over you with a knife. Are you really saying "Well, gee-whiz, it depends, you know"?


No, I say that "here and now", I am not able to determine whose morality is correct. That, from my frame of mind, only the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God would allow mere mortals to insist that Judgment Day makes sense. He would know if I deserved to die. Why? Because would He not transcend dasein here? Then the part where we attempt to determine if one or another secular "ism" can determine if I deserve to die.

And, yes, if the killer is about to stab me with the knife, my reaction is still no less the embodiment of dasein. How could it possibly not be?

iambiguous wrote:Here and now, I feel ambivalent. Why? Because there are conflicting accounts regarding the covid pandemic, the role of government, lockdowns, wearing masks, vaccinations. Both sides are able to make reasonable points in their arguments. Now, when I was a hardcore radical leftist, I would have felt the protest was wrong. Unequivocally wrong. Why? Because it was out of sync with my objectivist Marxist dogma. I would have fit all the facts into my dogmatic assumptions.


gib wrote: Ah, so you have no problem answering this question. I presume this means you have no political prejudices vis-à-vis the trucker protest, no feelings that are "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Just ambivalence which is perfectly in sync with your thoughts on the matter when dasein is considered.


Well, I am still stuck with the philosophical prejudices "I" have come accept "here and now" given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Only I also argue here that given "new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas" in a world awash in "contingency, chance and change" there's no ruling out the possibility that I might not think this way at all someday. Again, I never exclude myself from my own point of view.

Still...

Today, however, I recognize those convictions as but a manifestation of a particular set of political prejudices "I" derived existentially from dasein. In other words, now, instead, I am more willing to take into account that both sides do have reasonable arguments to make. Just based on different sets of assumptions about, among other things, capitalism and socialism, the role of government, polices revolving more around "I" or "we".


gib wrote: Ok, this is better than nothing. It's not the example I hoped for of a situation in which your political prejudices brought with them emotions that clashed with your thoughts on dasein, but at least I can see that you have no problem answering the question when your feelings are in sync with your thoughts insofar as dasein is considered.


Well, do your best to articulate the example you would have hoped for instead.

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, we are back to the fact that you can't be inside my head understanding the world around me as I do given the life that I lived. Nor I inside your head understanding the world around you given the life that you lived.


gib wrote: That's right. You know what helps with that? Examples!


No, from my frame of mind, the only thing that might help here are the sort of examples that you are looking for.

And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.


gib wrote: Excellent! So now you can take any one of those examples and use it to relate to my frame of mind when it comes to my feelings toward the trucker protest and my thoughts on it. Take for example your transition into moral nihilism (I assume that's when you discovered dasein). When you are just transitioning, there are typically remnants of old feelings attached to the prejudices you are attempting to leave behind, and these are, at least temporarily, out of sync with your new outlook (this is the point you're making, right?). So when you made your transition into moral nihilism, you must have still felt, to some degree, feelings attached to certain moral issues tied into certain political/social events going on at the time, no? So would it not be fair to say that, at the time, you remember being in a state of mind in which your thoughts (believing in moral nihilism and the implications of dasein) were out of sync with your emotions (favoring, let's just say, pro-choice abortion laws)?


Yes, I discussed that above. When you encounter brand new experiences in a world that never stops changing, sure, your thoughts and feelings can start to slip and slide in any number of directions. It's just that for most all the directions end up revolving around one or another objectivist font. As they did for me.

Then [for me] existentially this part...

3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.


In other words, the manner in which my own thinking became entangled in all of these new experiences, engendering new thoughts.

gib wrote: My state of mind with respect to the trucker protest is not all that different from this--except that I seem to be stymied in a state where my pro-trucker feelings are not going away yet my understanding of dasein and its implications for the trucker protest also aren't going away. My thoughts on dasein telling me I have no reason to feel one way or another about the trucker protest, yet my feelings are definitely pro-trucker--as if I'm going through one of your transitions.


What can I say? My own thoughts and feelings by and large are not like this. Not about the truckers or abortion or feminism or gun control or all the others conflagrations in the is/ought world. My understanding of dasein here eventually led me to my current "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind.

But not you.

Go figure?

gib wrote:If your prejudices are "lefty" as you say, I would think this makes you want to take a stance against the truckers, or to do something to fight against the trucker's cause. But you don't. So what is happening in your mind? Are you resisting the urge to take a (biased) stance? Are you resisting the urge to act?


First of all, my political activist days are long gone. But, again, if I were younger I'd still be no less ambivalent. Yeah, I could take that existential leap to the left. But that wouldn't make my thinking 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

...go away.


gib wrote: Right, so what does happen to your left-leaning feelings when they do arise? Do they clash with your ambivalent feelings that stem from your understanding of dasein? And what about your left-leaning thoughts? Do they get "cancelled out" by your thoughts on dasein? Or are you somehow able to reconcile "Those truckers have no right to protest!" with "I have no idea whether or not those truckers have a right to protest since my understanding of dasein gives me no way to decide!"


Again, a part of me accepts that there may well be a more reasonable and virtuous argument to be made about the trucker protest. It might be from the left or the right.

But that always comes back to whether there are, in turn, more reasonable and virtuous arguments to be made about these things:

* capitalism more than socialism?
* big government more than small government?
* politics revolving more around "I" than "we"?
* rationalism more than empiricism?
* genes more than memes?
* idealism more than pragmatism?

And on and on.

Again, we don't even know for certain if this entire exchange is or is not only as it ever could have been given that both our brains are necessarily in sync with the laws of matter in the only possible reality in the only possible world in the only possible universe.

With or without the only possible God?

There are simply too many genetic/memetic variables involved -- re nature and nurture -- in understanding any particular human identity. Many of which go back to our indoctrination as children. And many of which were, are and will be beyond our either fully understanding or controlling.


gib wrote: Is this an answer to my question about whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Are you saying that all the genetic/memetic variables involved in our respective lives and all the indoctrination we received as children make it nearly impossible (or fully impossible) to determine whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Surely it's not that hard to figure out, is it?


No, my main "thing" here revolves around the extent to which words and worlds can or cannot be intertwined objectively in the is/ought world. Interacting concepts vs. actual interacting flesh and blood human beings.

Differentiating the trucker protest as an actual event and our reactions to it in being either supportive or not supportive.
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: 46403
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby gib » Fri Jul 22, 2022 9:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:I'm a subjectivist who acknowledges that the objectivists -- one of them -- might be right. There may be the most rational manner in which to react to the trucker protest or to abortion. I never deny that going back to all that one would need to know about existence itself in order to fully explain how and why the "human condition" fits into it.


Good enough.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and, predictably enough, given my understanding of dasein, I did become me. What I don't understand is how, given the extent to which you claim to understand my own understanding of dasein, you didn't become me. or more like me. Thus, from my frame of mind, given your own take on subjectivism and emotions, you are still able to delude yourself <--Cause that's what I'm doing. Yup. about your support for the truckers.

In other words, "yes, it's rooted subjectively in dasein, but I'll just shrug that part off because 'somehow' I 'just know' emotionally that they are right."


*Ugh* Forget it! I'm tired of correcting this mistake. Just be confused.

iambiguous wrote:Not sure what you are getting at here. Didn't have any nails, huh? All of us are hard-wired biologically to answer these questions. But with nature comes nurture. And that allows us and others to shape and mold our answers to our own historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts. And in a world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. What you're noting here doesn't [to me] make that go away.


Not able to answer the question, huh? Not surprising. But I think it's fair to say the answer is "no" (despite how much you act like it's "yes").

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Did you nail that quote tight and secure? Because that quote is your context. That's right, it's your context, it's your question. You asked it. And yet, you've already forgotten it, like you forget anything you write just one post ago. No wonder you're always asking for a context; even contexts that you establish slip your mind in only one round. This is a cognitive disorder! And your laziness to go back and read where the conversation came from doesn't help either. At this point, I'm wondering whether I should even bother re-asking my questions? This very paragraph I'm writing has probably caused you to lose track of the conversation so that in your reply you'll be asking "what questions?"


Note to others:

What point is he making here? Because whatever it is, damned if I know how it relates to the point that I am making.


That's pretty much like asking "what question?". Never mind. I'll simplify all this by reiterating your quote (the one that started this tangent) and just give my thoughts rather than try to do the impossible--extract answers from you.

iambiguous wrote:Why? Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


My thoughts are that you're being a complete and utter hypocrite. You ask this question of me--"Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?"--but never yourself--even though you tirelessly claim to apply your own philosophy to yourself!!! When? Only when it's convenient? You've already admitted that you have your own political prejudices--which is another way of saying you have your own answers (presumably arrived at by the aforementioned hard wiring)--yet you don't see fit to ask yourself the question "Why yours [Biggy] and not the countless other answers out there?" and apply whatever answer comes up to me.

iambiguous wrote:Give us your "thought through" argument regarding whether the truckers were right or wrong to protest. Now, if someone were to ask you how you feel about the protest does it or doesn't it coincide with what you think about it?


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. But that's not even the weird part. The weird part is that you are exactly the same (except maybe wanting the truckers to lose instead of win). You claim to have left-leaning prejudices (which, to me, means you probably want the truckers to lose) and yet you claim not to know what to think about the trucker protest morally speaking. Why you are incapable of drawing a link between your frame of mind here and mine is beyond me.

But hey, if you're so desperate to understand me, not believing me when I explain myself sure seems to be working out for you, doesn't it?

iambiguous wrote:Why do you suppose he always assumes this is about me not trying to understanding his point of view, and not him not trying to understand mine?


What is there to not understand? You're point is far more simple than you try to make it out to be. It's nihilism 101 (mixed with a bit of relativism, I guess). All I see is you ignoring the points I make and make monumental mistakes in the few you actually attempt to interpret, mistakes the likes of which only someone with a cognitive disorder can make. I first have to attempt to correct these mistakes before I can even begin to attempt to understand what you're saying.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, I would ask him, "Wanting the truckers to win without thinking they're right? How can that be, gib?"


That doesn't count now. You should have asked when you had a chance of convincing me you were interested.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:If Jean thinks this is an objective fact, then it is an objective fact for her (relative to her, according to her, in her world, or any other relativistic phrasing). It is not an objective fact for the likes of you and I.


What does that have to do with my point?


You were asking what I mean by "I'm a subjectivist who can accommodate objectivism". I explained that I can accommodate it with relativism. Then you gave your example of eggs. I don't know. Were you done with your question at that point? If so, you must have moved onto another point, but it would have been nice to know you made this transition (and what you transitioned into).

Jean thinks it's wrong to eat eggs. I think she's right relative to her own ideology. Now what's your point?

iambiguous wrote:Eating four eggs is the objective fact. Sure. For all of us. Yep. Jim did in fact eat four eggs. He sure did. Nothing pertaining to dasein as I understand it here. But when the discussion shifts to the morality of human beings consuming animals as a part of their diet what is in fact true for all of us then? <-- That's a different question. That is the part where Jean thinks it is wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Yeppers Where she feels it's wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Most definitely. Where she wants Jim to stop eating eggs. She wants it too, eh? Glad we added that. Dasein down to the bone. Why? Because had Jean's life been very different, she might be eating the eggs herself.


Still waiting for you to make your point.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:If you don't want to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, then we're talking strictly about the pinheads only (here I'm gonna have to as gracefully as possible bow out of that category). I've only been making a distinction between thoughts and feelings because they are not aligned within myself (nor within you I take it).

Well, they're not aligned for me because "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to the trucker protest. <-- Yes, it comes back to the whole thing about being fractured. Given the assumptions the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. Given the assumptions those opposed to the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. "I" am tugged and pulled in both directions. That's interesting; I feel torn too but not by the arguments each side makes, but by the facts. Which side is reporting the actual facts? As with abortion and gun control and all other "conflicting goods". Instead, I take an existential leap in a generally liberal direction because I spent nearly 25 years of my life as radical leftist. It's now practically hard wired into me as a frame of mind. So it's definitely there. But these days I recognize it more as a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein. Of course. But given that, my thoughts and feelings and wants are generally aligned.


Ok, let's pause here for a second. First of all, I want to thank you for being clearer than you've ever been. This really helps. Second, I want to contrast this:

iambiguous wrote:Well, they're not aligned for me because "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to the trucker protest.


...with this:

iambiguous wrote:But given that, my thoughts and feelings and wants are generally aligned.


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?

iambiguous wrote:Right, you are "somehow" still able to "just know" or to "feel" that siding with the truckers is, viscerally, a more comfortable fit.

Well, that's an improvement. At least you're not talking about right and wrong.

And "somehow" I'm not able to. Sounds almost mystical to me.


I'll bet.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:You've admitted that you have your own political prejudices which I would think come with emotions and thoughts, and sure they're probably aligned--but those aren't the thoughts and emotions I would distinguish--I would distinguish (in your case) the emotions that come with your political prejudices and your thoughts on dasein, which for all intents and purposes seem to oppose at every turn any allegiance to or against any of the hot moral debates that rage in today's political foray.


Yes, exactly! Progress! Instead, as just noted above, "I" am left with an existential "me" drawn and quartered time and again when confronting those newspaper headlines. My thoughts and feelings against the truckers are no more than components of the life I lived on the left. Just as the thoughts and feelings of those for the truckers are no more than components of the life they lived on the right.

Bingo!

Of course, all that "existential stuff" would go away if philosophers and ethicists and political scientists were able to sift through the "personal opinion" quagmire and come up with the optimal manner in which all rational and virtuous human beings were obligated to think and feel and want here.

Alas!

And that's where the objectivists among us come in, right? Their God. Their ideology. Their philosophy. Their assessment of nature.


"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:So maybe this is your problem. You feel you can’t identify yourself with anything other than a moral/political ideology. You need an “ism” to cling to just to feel you are someone. You think?


And how exactly would "I" go about not feeling drawn and quartered in regard to this too?


In regard to what? Not clinging to an "ism" for a sense of identity? I think you ought to first come to grips with whether or not this is in fact your problem.

And BTW, what do you mean by "drawn and quartered"? Do you mean you feel pulled in multiple directions?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:What else am I supposed to conclude based on everything you’ve said so far. You’ve said that you have your own share of political prejudices, and that where there’s thoughts involved in political prejudices there’s feelings in sync with them. But your thoughts on dasein, from what I’ve gathered, preclude you from actually believing in your prejudices as they seem to suggest that all prejudices are acquired via arbitrary life events and experiences and what circumstances we’re born into, that you could just as easily have acquired the opposite prejudices, and that all such prejudices are groundless and vacuous. And if these are your thoughts on dasein, then what feelings are in sync with them? I’ve surmised something like confusion or ambivalence—a not knowing what to believe—or maybe even a numb apathy, a not caring what to believe. But then aren’t these thoughts and feelings at odds with those of your political prejudices? When your political prejudices illicit feelings of anger towards the truckers (or whatever they make you feel), isn’t this anger at odds with your feelings of confusion, ambivalence, or apathy (or whatever) that come with your thoughts on dasein? Aren’t your thoughts on the wrongness of the truckers’ cause at odds with your thoughts on dasein which tell you that you have no grounds to say that what the truckers are doing is wrong?


Well put!

Why, thank you! :D

That's the quandary. That's the "for all practical purposes" consequences of thinking and feeling and wanting as a "fractured and fragmented" persona out in the world with others.

That's great! Well, it's not great, not for you... but it's great that I've got at least something right about you.

"I" can never really be certain that how I think and feel about the things I react to in the news might be reflective of what is really true or what is just a component of political prejudices derived existentially from dasein. Ever and always pulled and tugged ambivalently in conflicting directions.

And to be fair, I feel the same way. But I don't feel compelled by this to NOT have the political prejudices I have.

Then the part where "I" recognize how sociopaths and those moral nihilists who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy are able to rationalize a purely selfish frame of mind in a No God world. Fuck morality altogether.


Their mothers never raised 'em right.

iambiguous wrote:...I'm not able to fathom how this led you to connect the dots between your "I" and the trucker protest.


It didn't.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:If you want a more accurate picture of the logical structure of my argument here, it’s like this:

1] I’d like to see the truckers win (the emotional part)
2] I don’t really have any thoughts worth adding to this (since it’s all vacuous anyway).
3] Ergo, I’d like to see the truckers win (what else can I conclude?).


Note to others:

Does this make sense to you? How would you compare and contrast it to your own reaction to the truckers, the role of governemnt and the covid pandemic?


Just a simple note: 2] is not really a premise. We can remove it to get:

1] I’d like to see the truckers win.
2] Ergo, I’d like to see the truckers win.

Good ol' law of identity. Can't get any more logical than that.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Even while admitting that had your life been different you might be here thinking and feeling and wanting just the opposite.


gib wrote:Well, you tell me: 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.


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.

How is this a moral conclusion?

To me, it's like you going up to the truckers during their protest and saying "Look, I want you guys to win, but please understand that had my life been different, I'd want you to lose."

Which would be a very odd thing to say indeed, but from what I can tell, not at all illogical.

As though they will just shrug that off. They would! They 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.


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).

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?

iambiguous wrote:Right, and this "pure raw desire" to want to invade or to strike down Roe is what really counts, not how they think the situation through and accumulate actual reasons for invading Ukraine or overturning Roe.

IRL, it probably counts for a lot. But again, I thought we were talking about the frame of mind I'm trying to get across, which you said to apply to Putin and Alito. ^ That's what you get. Didn't expect that? Then you probably don't understand the frame of mind I'm talking about.

On the other hand, the wolf thinks nothing through, does it? It has no reason to kill other than the fact its instinct propels/compels it to. Only [to me] you come off as another Satyr here. Biological imperatives tossing historical, cultural, social, political, economic, etc., memes onto the back burner. If not completely off the stove.

But so are you. Isn't that what your arguments about dasein amounts to? Don't they say to toss all historical, cultural, etc. onto the back burner? Because they're all arbitrary and vacuous?


Look, I'm not saying that I'm literally like a wolf--incapable of giving my desires the rational forethought they deserve--it's just that as soon as my thoughts on what you call "dasein" enter the picture, it's all moot. Any thoughts I might have about why the truckers should win get "snuffed out" because, like you, I suddenly realize it's all just intellectual contraptions, arbitrarily inherited from my upbringing, past experience, journey through life, etc., and I lose any faith I might otherwise have in them. Then they just sort of "fizzle out".

How is this not exactly what you're saying about yourself? How do you not see the parallel? I suppose the only difference is that, with me, this doesn't seem to make the emotions go away. It still pisses me off that Trudeau treated the truckers the way he did. It still fills me with joy to know that the truckers stood up to that tyrant. I just can't seem to come up with any rational moral justifications for it--that is, none that can withstand the quelling powers of my thoughts on dasein when they enter the picture.

iambiguous wrote:Again, you go up to the truckers and they give you a list of actual reasons why they think and feel what they do about the government's policies. You tell them, "forget all that, it's the animal in me that wants you to win because the animal in me 'just knowsfeels' the world will be a better place for me if you do prevail".

^ Note the corrections in blue.

Try that at the next protest. The "monkeypox" protest? Then get back to us with their reactions.


You really want those reactions, huh? I gotta be honest, I still don't quite get what you want from their reactions to me putting my arguments to them. Whatever your reasons, it wouldn't change what I'm saying here. It might get me beat up, but I don't see how it would get me to suddenly understand what you're saying like a revelation from God. Is this more for your understanding or mine?

iambiguous wrote:And what you seem to be suggesting is that Canadian citizens and the government should have just ignored the advice coming from the scientific and medical community and, what, went with their gut?


I can forgive you this time for repeating the same mistake as you made it in a much more subtle way. You see that word in deep bold red ^^^? What does it say? It says "should", doesn't it? "Should" carries moral connotations. It's like saying, "It would be the right thing to do if..." And you know what I have to say about my feelings in regard to morality, right? Right??? Come on, no second chances now. The pressures on, Biggy. You should know this.

And which scientific advice? The one supporting the covid mandates or the one against them?

iambiguous wrote:Because I acknowledge that those political prejudices are derived existentially from the life I lived. And so do I. A life I only had so much understanding and control over. With MagsJ and Maia, that part is merely subsumed in their "intrinsic self".


Then we share the same difference between them.

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.


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

iambiguous wrote:This isn't a mathematical relationship however. Our thoughts and feelings in regard to our value judgments often shift about given new sets of circumstances, new information, new insights. Sometimes we feel confused or uncertain or ambiguous or ambivalent. Why? Because we do live in a world awash in "contingency, chance and change". And I focus in on the objectivists among us. Those who, however jumbled their thoughts and feeling might be on any given day, eventually come to anchor "I" to one or another objectivist font. Their thoughts and feelings then go goose-stepping to the next protest.


And I suppose that if it wasn't for my subjectivism and if I were a lot more zealous, I might join them--the ones whose prejudices I could align with. But I've never been that good at making a case for the moral correctness (or incorrectness) of a personal prejudice or a social movement, so even then, it would be more following the heard than making a case for our cause. I've always been far more attuned to my own flaws and mistakes to believe in my own bullshit, always seeing through the holes in my own arguments (even when I don't put them up front in arguments with others) and this puts me in a position to understand my primitive/animalistic self better than my intellectual self (who is really only a puppet of the former anyway). Again, driven by emotion and impulse over intellect and virtue.

iambiguous wrote:But it's not an alternate universe, is it? Not in the sense that some argue in regard to the "multiverse". Nooo, I'm being metaphorical! They'll suggest there are an infinite number of universes. In some you support the truckers, in others you don't. This isn't a Rick and Morty episode. Complete and utter conjecture. Whereas my point here is rooted right here on planet Earth in this universe. Or, rather, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".


It's an imaginary "universe". We are imagining an alternate route our lives could have taken. Our lives didn't actually take this alternate route--not here on planet Earth--it took this alternate route in our imaginations. Perhaps I should use scare quotes when I call this a "universe".

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:You don't know the difference between emotions and thoughts? Or just how they can diverge?



iambiguous wrote:Sure, but back again to the part where, for most of us, how we feel about the trucker protest is very much connected existentially to how we think about it.



gib wrote:Even when you're denouncing those thoughts with your arguments about dasein?


That's your take on what I am doing, not mine. I'm merely noting that given new experiences, relationships, information and knowledge, etc., my thoughts changed over the years. I denounced previous thoughts only because "I" shifted to a new objectivist font.


And what about now? Do your thoughts on dasein not compel you to denounce your "previous" leftist thoughts? Is "denounce" just not the word you would use? What about "invalidate"? How 'bout "discredit"? Cause doubt in? Make you less certain about?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Instead, I'd like to see how you respond to some of my inquiries above--notably, how your own thoughts on dasein don't "nullify" your own thoughts underlying your own political prejudices. How does your understanding of dasein not make your thoughts underlying your political prejudices seem totally vacuous and arbitrary? If you can explain to me how you fully understand the problems posed to our political prejudices by your points on dasein and yet you still fully believe in the validity and objective reality of your own political prejudices, then I might be able to explain to you how my own psychology on this point differs.


Back to this:

iambiguous wrote:That's your take on what I am doing, not mine. I'm merely noting that given new experiences, relationships, information and knowledge, etc., my thoughts changed over the years. I denounced -- nullified -- previous thoughts only because "I" shifted to a new objectivist font.



So what does this mean? Does it mean that now, in regards to your present thoughts on dasein, they do or they do not nullify (make you doubt) your previous thoughts relating to your (past?) political prejudices? Because if your thoughts on dasein do cause you to doubt your thoughts on your political prejudices, I don't see how this is any different from what I'm saying about myself.

iambiguous wrote:Actually, the best of all possible worlds here would be you and I confronting truckers in a new protest, and attempting to explain to them our own understanding of dasein. How, for me, it engenders this...

iambiguous wrote: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.


...in regard to their protest. And whatever it provokes in you in regard to their protest.


Well, there was my thread Any truckers, protestors, or supporters here? Your favorite pinhead replied but he seems to have abandoned it. You can always attempt to revive it. Urwrong's not a trucker (not that I'm aware of) but it's the closest thing we have. Will that do?

iambiguous wrote:Okay, then let me ask you what you asked me: how would you make a distinction between your sense of self in regard to the trucker protest and how MagsJ and Maia would come back to their "intrinsic self"? They are not fractured and fragmented because there is this deep down inside them "real me", "core self", "soul" that allows them to "just know" -- viscerally? intuitively? spiritually? -- how to react to it.


Well, first of all, I have no idea what they mean by "intrinsic self" (or what you think they mean by it) nor do I know what you mean by "in regard to the trucker protest" but I think I can hazard a guess.

The "self" to me is very much anchored in the either/or world. The self is just the person I see in the mirror. It is, if nothing else, the body. But obviously, I think it's more than just the body; it involves our being alive, our consciousness and personality. This more intangible/abstract aspect of the self defies an easily pinned down definition but I harbor no doubts that it's there, that I am conscious and alive, that I do have a personality with thoughts and feelings and opinions and likes and tastes, etc.. While hard to wrap my head around conceptually, I have no doubt these are facts about me--facts in the either/or world. And I have no reason to assume they would cease to be facts if all my cherished ideologies and philosophies, if all my morals and values, one day crumbled before my mind's eye and blew away as dust. My personality and thoughts and feelings and all that might change but it would remain a fact that I have them and that they constitute who I am in that moment.

I don't know what it means for these things to be "intrinsic". I don't think of them like some integrated, though intangible, object like a soul. I don't think they're "infused" into my body like water in a sponge, or floating around my head like words in a cartoon thought bubble. They're just somehow "there"--associated with me... or just with me. And certainly they come from dasein--from my life's experiences and the circumstances I was born into and grew up in--but this doesn't make them any less part of the either/or world--I either am or I am not a supporter of the trucker convoy--I either am or I am not a subjectivist--these are facts about me, things that I can definitively say are true or not true about me. Whether this makes them "intrinsic" depends on what Mags/Maia mean by that word, or what you think they mean by it.

As for my sense of self in regard to the trucker protest, I assume you mean that part of me that has thoughts, feelings, opinions, likes/dislikes, maybe even memories and experiences, about the trucker protest. It wouldn't be all that different from the above except narrowed down to very specific things about me that come to the foreground when the topic of the truckers is raised (or events involving the protest arise). But these would be no less either/or facts about me--it's an either/or fact that I want the truckers to win, an either/or fact that I could have had my bank account frozen, an either/or fact that Trudeau fills me with disgust every time I see him on my TV screen, etc.. <-- There's no ambiguity about this stuff for me, so my sense of self stays intact.

^ Note that nowhere in the above did I have to use moral language. I didn't have to specify what my moral position is on anything. My sense of self doesn't extend all that much into the is/ought world--not that there is no extension but the bulk of it remains comfortably in the either/or world such that if anything of myself in the is/ought world were to be compromised, there would be enough in the either/or world to survive a sense of integration so that I don't feel fractured and fragmented.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, but how interested would the truckers be in the either/or Gib? Maybe some might be able to identify with it, but mostly they are going to be interested in whether you are "one of us" or "one of them". And here, your "ism" can often be the only thing that matters to them. It's certainly the only thing that matters to Urwrong and his ilk here.


Maybe, but why should I lose sleep over that? And who's to say they won't accept my support for them even if I can't fully subscribe to their ideology and morality on an intellectual/abstract level? Don't you think the vast majority of them would recognize support as valuable regardless of the ideological leanings of the supporter? Would they even care whether I agree with them on such a lofty abstract level? I think most of them would be far more pragmatic than that.

Having said that, I'm sure there would be a small handful of truckers who really, really, really care that I believe in exactly the same things they believe in and share exactly their values, and against them I might run into trouble. But if you had seen the side of the protest that I've seen, you would know these people as a very tolerant and friendly bunch, not requiring strict dogmatic conformity at every level--mind, body, and soul--but ok, let's consider the infinitesimal few who are dangerously fanatical in the most radical, arrogant, bigoted way. What would I do if confronted by the likes of them? Is that what you're asking? Run away! Or lie! Or tell the truth and get beat up! Or maybe I'd give in to my political prejudices and allow my emotions to have their way with my thoughts, weaving all manner of intellectual moral contraptions in defense of the trucker's cause. I don't know. What kind of answer would be most relevant to you? What are you getting at?

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Right, as though putting people who have led very, very different lives and come to think about the nature of their own reality [cognitively and emotionally] given very, very different sets of assumptions would listen to you explaining that and this would make their reaction to the trucker protest...more or less effable?


gib wrote:What does effability have to do with it? I'm making a point about the way I think emotions work, the role they play in our biological functioning.


Come on, you're at the protest discussing the government and the covid pandemic with the truckers. For them, a hell of alot will come down to what you think about human emotions -- their own for example -- and how it can be encompassed and described in words they can then relate back to what they are doing there. And how what they want is connected to what they think and feel about the government's healt policies re the pandemic.


This time, I get to say to you, what does that have to do with my point? Seriously, I'm making a point about the way I think emotions work, the role they play in our biological functioning. I don't know how explaining this to the truckers amidst a protest would change anything. I suppose you're trying to get some understanding of what I'm saying by trying to get me to paint a picture of how I would explain it to the truckers. Does this help you to understand? Is this what you're asking of me?

I don't think I'd explain it any differently than how I explain it to you, but here goes... So imagine I'm at the protest. I'm up on stage in front of a podium. The mic is on. Hundreds of riled up truckers are anticipating my words of wisdom. And I say... "Hear ye, hear ye, oh truckers of Canada! Listen to my words! Let me tell you about the nature of the emotions you are feeling! Your anger, your frustrations, your angst... Emotions are the product of millions of years of biological evolution. They serve but one purpose--to ensure our survival. They perform in the service of our self-interests. These feelings of anger you feel, why, they are there to protect you from government overreach, from the potentially harmful effects of an experimental RNA vaccine, from living in a world where the powers that be can determine your lives as though you were livestock, bred and raised only for the slaughter, to feed their greedy appetites! This is why you were driven (*snicker* driven *snicker*) to Ottowa to protest. That it is wrong what the government is doing may or may not be true, but you have convinced yourselves that it is in order to feel justified in doing what your anger compels you to do--otherwise, you might feel you have no right--or you might be indecisive--or you may not be able to sell your campaign to others and gain followers, convince the public, or come out looking like the good guys in the media--that certainly wouldn't serve your self-interests and it may be hazardous to your survival (re: the potential harms of a sketchy vaccine or the blood soaked consequences of living under a tyrannical maniac)--so you are biologically predisposed to come up with and believe in some morality that supports the aims of your emotions, to help you feel all right with what you're doing. That's not to say your morality isn't true but it is at least one of the reason, maybe the only reason, you believe in it."

^ Off the top of my head. Now I don't know if this would go over so well. I'd probably get booed off the stage. But I never said my point on emotions would help the truckers cause, nor that I wanted to convince the truckers it was true. You just asked how I would explain it to the truckers in the midst of a protest, presumably because that would help you understand my point better. Well, did it?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Sure, I may be wrong, but my intention is to render it as a fact of human nature. What does it matter whether people listen to me or not, whether they have led very different lives and had very different experiences, or think of their reality in very different ways? What does it matter whether my explaining this to them makes their reactions to the trucker protest "effable" (whatever that means)? It wouldn't change how I think emotions work any more than how I think digestion or blood circulation works.


Ask them why those things matter.

They don't matter to them. They matter to this discussion, to you asking me to explain my point of view (in vein).

And you don't know what "new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge" down the road might do to how you think emotions work. As though our emotional reactions to conflicting goods is on par with what how we think "digestion or blood circulation works".


Obviously, I'm not "as certain" about how emotions work as I am about how digestion or blood circulation works, but that's not the point. The point is how I mean it. Quality, not quantity. I mean for my view on how emotions work to be taken in the same way one takes how digestion or blood circulation works--as a biological fact about reality. How certain we can be about it is beside the point.

And so what if my opinion about it changes down the road. My opinion on how digestion and blood circulation could change down the road. Any of my opinions or the things I think I know could change down the road. Is that a reason to bite our tongue and not express what we think?

iambiguous wrote:Please, others here are following this exchange.


And I couldn't be happier. But still, I'm having this discussion with you, not them. Spectators are not interlocutors. It is no defense to recruit others to change my mind if you can't.

iambiguous wrote:Of course! Given different scenarios understood existentially re dasein, my thoughts and my feelings might be all over the board. I might experience considerable ambiguity, uncertainty, confusion.


Well then, sir, you are a very odd human being indeed. I think most would instinctively be gripped by fear and be compelled to run away or defend themselves or whatever... no matter how much they thought they deserved to die. I guess I thought you would be like them and this would be a great example of how your thoughts on dasein (which say you should feel ambivalent) would clash with your feelings in that moment (fear). But alas, I guess your feelings are always--always--aligned with your thoughts. "Alas", because that prevents you from understanding a frame of mind like mine and most others--one that permits the occasional clash.

iambiguous wrote:Okay, Mr. Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, where's the argument that demonstrates that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational, is necessarily immoral.

Ha! You still think that's what I'm trying to argue. You're like a robot, programmed for only one thing. It's like talking to one of those automated voices when you call costumer support: "I'd like to speak to an agent..." "I think you want to buy cleaning detergent :D".

That's how frightening moral nihilism can be. Ooooo, moral nihilism. :shock: That's why millions are inclined to believe in one or another objectivist font. To make that go away. It's just that for most it is God. And here "leaps of faith" or "wagers" are all that are needed to make the religion font true.


Oh please, this is pinhead speak. This is what pinheads do to stroke their own egos. You know the narrative: everyone is blind to the truth because they are afraid. But not I. I, the ultimate ubermensch, have the courage to see the truth! How 'bout we bring back my theory: that the most frightening thing is to change your outlook--whether that's yours, mine, or the pinheads'. <-- And if that's true, you're the most frightened of all. Just look above. You couldn't even admit that if a murderer was after you, you'd be afraid--to admit that would be to admit I might have a point.

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:I think you're afraid to answer this question. I predict you'll attempt to avoid it at all costs.

No, I think that the objectivists among us are, on some level, afraid that my arguments above and below might one day become a part of their own arguments. And that their own "precious Self" in the is/ought world might begin to crumble.

Be that as it may, you did avoid the question.

Only, with you, I'm all the more curious as to why you own sense of self hasn't crumbled even more.


I'm trying to explain it, Biggy, I'm trying.

iambiguous wrote:There you go again, asserting something about me that is far more reflective of how existentially you have come to be predisposed to think about these things. That you seem considerably less ambiguous and uncertain about me than I am about you speaks volumes about you from my frame of mind.

Yeah, means I'm more perceptive than you.

And I'm afraid of many things. Of death. Of this "always never nothing" world where something unsettling -- even devastating -- is always just around the corner. Of going to the grave not having a clue regarding why I was even born in the first place...and not knowing what the "human condition" itself might mean in the context of "all there is". Let alone my part in it. Of being ultimately ignorant of what the answers might be to the Big Questions. Afraid of all the things that anyone of us might be afraid of in this turbulent and ofttimes brutal world.


Are any of these not in sync with your thoughts? Things you believe? how 'bout your thoughts on dasein?

Could it be that your fear of the afterlife--your fear of God--is what drives you to incessantly search for an ultimate answer to the question: is there an absolutely, fully objective, morality that we are all obliged to follow (lest our fate is eternal hellfire).

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Perfect! You fleshed it out nicely. Now take it a step further and suppose the killer was in the midst of trying to kill you. What are your thoughts on the morality of what he's trying to do? What are your feelings on what he's trying to do? Synced up?


Well, the next time I kill someone's dog and he tries to murder me for it, I'll let you know to the best of my ability, how "I" came to intertwine my thoughts and feelings.


Care to hazard a guess? Surely you're not opposed to guessing? According to what you've been saying, I would think you'd guess that you wouldn't feel afraid but ambivalent. I personally wouldn't.

iambiguous wrote:Again, the problem here is that I have never killed someone's dog, who, because of it, comes after me in order to kill me. All I can suggest is that if that ever happens, my reasons for doing what I did and then reacting to what the killer chooses to do [in a free will world of course] will be rooted existentially in dasein. And here the variables can run into the hundreds and hundreds. Only some of which I will fully understand and control. The sheer complexity of human psychology in situations like this is far, far, far beyond my grasping. Only the objectivists among us, even here, will insist that they do.


I don't think it's that complex.

iambiguous wrote:And, yes, if the killer is about to stab me with the knife, my reaction is still no less the embodiment of dasein. How could it possibly not be?


Just out of curiosity, are you considering genetic predispositions as part of dasein? Even predispositions that we all share in common, like we are all predisposed to develop sight?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Ah, so you have no problem answering this question. I presume this means you have no political prejudices vis-à-vis the trucker protest, no feelings that are "left-leaning" or "right-leaning". Just ambivalence which is perfectly in sync with your thoughts on the matter when dasein is considered.


Well, I am still stuck with the philosophical prejudices "I" have come accept "here and now" given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

Only I also argue here that given "new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas" in a world awash in "contingency, chance and change" there's no ruling out the possibility that I might not think this way at all someday. Again, I never exclude myself from my own point of view.


And that's perfectly fair. But then those prejudices must conflict with your feelings of ambivalence to a certain degree, no? Or maybe you just wouldn't describe it as a "conflict". Maybe something like feeling ambivalent with a slight pull to the left (to disdain against the truckers)?

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Ok, this is better than nothing. It's not the example I hoped for of a situation in which your political prejudices brought with them emotions that clashed with your thoughts on dasein, but at least I can see that you have no problem answering the question when your feelings are in sync with your thoughts insofar as dasein is considered.


Well, do your best to articulate the example you would have hoped for instead.


A situation in which your political prejudices brought with them emotions that clashed with your thoughts on dasein. So your thoughts on dasein say you should feel ambivalent about some issue. But your political prejudices on that issue make you feel anything but ambivalent (angry, sad, elated, etc.). Any examples?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:That's right. You know what helps with that? Examples!


No, from my frame of mind, the only thing that might help here are the sort of examples that you are looking for.


How is it that you start that sentence with a "No"?

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Excellent! So now you can take any one of those examples and use it to relate to my frame of mind when it comes to my feelings toward the trucker protest and my thoughts on it. Take for example your transition into moral nihilism (I assume that's when you discovered dasein). When you are just transitioning, there are typically remnants of old feelings attached to the prejudices you are attempting to leave behind, and these are, at least temporarily, out of sync with your new outlook (this is the point you're making, right?). So when you made your transition into moral nihilism, you must have still felt, to some degree, feelings attached to certain moral issues tied into certain political/social events going on at the time, no? So would it not be fair to say that, at the time, you remember being in a state of mind in which your thoughts (believing in moral nihilism and the implications of dasein) were out of sync with your emotions (favoring, let's just say, pro-choice abortion laws)?


Yes, I discussed that above. HALLELUJA!!! When you encounter brand new experiences in a world that never stops changing, sure, your thoughts and feelings can start to slip and slide in any number of directions. It's just that for most all the directions end up revolving around one or another objectivist font. As they did for me.


Sure! So then you just admitted to being familiar with exactly the state of mind I'm trying to communicate to you. You had feelings that stemmed from a political prejudice of yours which were out of sync with your thoughts on dasein. This is exactly the state of mind I'm in with respect to the truckers. I have a political prejudice in favor of the truckers. There are feelings of anger that arise when I see the way the truckers are treated. But my thoughts on dasein (or my subjectivism/relativism) say that I could just as well have had the opposite political prejudice feeling joy at the thought of the truckers being forced to get vaccines, and this leads me to think there is no one "right" way to feel about it, or at least that I don't know what the right way to feel about it is; so if anything, I should feel ambivalent... but I don't. <-- CLASH!!!

iambiguous wrote:Again, we don't even know for certain if this entire exchange is or is not only as it ever could have been given that both our brains are necessarily in sync with the laws of matter in the only possible reality in the only possible world in the only possible universe.


Oh no, don't go down that road. :shock:

iambiguous wrote:
gib wrote:Is this an answer to my question about whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Are you saying that all the genetic/memetic variables involved in our respective lives and all the indoctrination we received as children make it nearly impossible (or fully impossible) to determine whether or not we're using different words to express the same concepts? Surely it's not that hard to figure out, is it?


No, my main "thing" here revolves around the extent to which words and worlds can or cannot be intertwined objectively in the is/ought world. Interacting concepts vs. actual interacting flesh and blood human beings.

Differentiating the trucker protest as an actual event and our reactions to it in being either supportive or not supportive.


Sooo... are you not going to answer my question?
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: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

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

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:12 pm

Part one:

iambiguous wrote:Yes, and, predictably enough, given my understanding of dasein, I did become me. What I don't understand is how, given the extent to which you claim to understand my own understanding of dasein, you didn't become me...or more like me. Thus, from my frame of mind, given your own take on subjectivism and emotions, you are still able to delude yourself about your support for the truckers.


Cause that's what I'm doing. Yup.


Look, don't get me wrong. I don't exclude myself here. I may well be deluding myself about all this. All I can do is to note how "I" connect the dots [in the is/ought world] between thinking, feeling, wanting and doing in my signature threads and then given a particular context ask others to explain to me why they don't.

In other words, "yes, it's rooted subjectively in dasein, but I'll just shrug that part off because 'somehow' I 'just know' emotionally that they are right."


gib wrote: *Ugh* Forget it! I'm tired of correcting this mistake. Just be confused.


Exactly! Confusion, ambiguity, ambivialence, uncertainty and the like goes with the terriotory when you think 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. 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.

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."

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: Get a hammer and some nails cause I want that quote securely fastened in your mind when I ask this question: do you rise above your own hard wiring? Given that you never fail to remind us of your my-philosophy-applies-to-me trick, I would think the answer is no.


iambiguous wrote:Not sure what you are getting at here. All of us are hard-wired biologically to answer these questions. But with nature comes nurture. And that allows us and others to shape and mold our answers to our own historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts. And in a world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. What you're noting here doesn't [to me] make that go away.


gib wrote: Not able to answer the question, huh? Not surprising. But I think it's fair to say the answer is "no" (despite how much you act like it's "yes").


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.

iambiguous wrote:Why? Because to the question "how ought one to live?" human beings are clearly hard wired psychologically to insist that there is but one and only one true answer: their own. But being hard wired to seek an answer/the answer doesn't necessarily make your answer the winner. Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?


gib wrote: My thoughts are that you're being a complete and utter hypocrite. You ask this question of me--"Why yours and not the countless other answers out there?"--but never yourself--even though you tirelessly claim to apply your own philosophy to yourself!!!


I flat out acknowledge "over and again" that my own value judgments are no less rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein. 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: When? Only when it's convenient? You've already admitted that you have your own political prejudices--which is another way of saying you have your own answers (presumably arrived at by the aforementioned hard wiring)--yet you don't see fit to ask yourself the question "Why yours [Biggy] and not the countless other answers out there?" and apply whatever answer comes up to me.


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.

iambiguous wrote:Give us your "thought through" argument regarding whether the truckers were right or wrong to protest. Now, if someone were to ask you how you feel about the protest does it or doesn't it coincide with what you think about it?


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. But that's not even the weird part. The weird part is that you are exactly the same (except maybe wanting the truckers to lose instead of win). You claim to have left-leaning prejudices (which, to me, means you probably want the truckers to lose) and yet you claim not to know what to think about the trucker protest morally speaking. Why you are incapable of drawing a link between your frame of mind here and mine is beyond me.


All I can suppose/speculate/conjecture is that when it comes to what we feel and want in regard to the trucker protest, the role that dasein plays here is understood differently by me. I'm not an anomaly in the sense that "here and now" I seem more like most people. In other words, how I came to think and feel and want -- re "I" in the is/ought world -- was intertwined profoundly, problematically in the existential trajectory of my life.

gib wrote: But hey, if you're so desperate to understand me, not believing me when I explain myself sure seems to be working out for you, doesn't it?


I'm not desperate to understand anyone. I'm just curious as to how you can grasp my own understanding of dasein in a way that the "pinheads" here are never likely to, yet are able to make this distinction between thinking on the one hand and feeling and wanting on the other that "I" simply do not experience myself.

On the other hand, grasping human psychology itself is about as difficult as it gets. There are simply too many variables -- re nature and nurture -- that are both beyond our fully understanding or fully controlling. Just fitting in our indoctrination as children makes it beyond our pinning down fully. Hell, most of us don't even remember anything at all until we are about 5 or 6 years old.

gib wrote: Jean thinks it's wrong to eat eggs. I think she's right relative to her own ideology. Now what's your point?


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

iambiguous wrote:But when the discussion shifts to the morality of human beings consuming animals as a part of their diet what is in fact true for all of us then?


That's a different question.


Yes, it's a question asked in the is/ought world.

That is the part where Jean thinks it is wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Where she feels it's wrong for Jim to eat the eggs. Where she wants Jim to stop eating eggs.

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


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.

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


Still waiting for you to make your point.


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. 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:If you don't want to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, then we're talking strictly about the pinheads only (here I'm gonna have to as gracefully as possible bow out of that category). I've only been making a distinction between thoughts and feelings because they are not aligned within myself (nor within you I take it).


Well, they're not aligned for me because "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to the trucker protest. Given the assumptions the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. Given the assumptions those opposed to the truckers make about the role of government in our lives, they make reasonable arguments. "I" am tugged and pulled in both directions.

gib wrote: That's interesting; I feel torn too but not by the arguments each side makes, but by the facts. Which side is reporting the actual facts?


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.

As with abortion and gun control and all other "conflicting goods". Instead, I take an existential leap in a generally liberal direction because I spent nearly 25 years of my life as radical leftist. It's now practically hard wired into me as a frame of mind. But these days I recognize it more as a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein. But given that, my thoughts and feelings and wants are generally aligned.


gib wrote: Ok, let's pause here for a second. First of all, I want to thank you for being clearer than you've ever been. This really helps. Second, I want to contrast this:


iambiguous wrote:Well, they're not aligned for me because "I" am fractured and fragmented in regard to the trucker protest.


...with this:

iambiguous wrote:But given that, my thoughts and feelings and wants are generally aligned.


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: You've admitted that you have your own political prejudices which I would think come with emotions and thoughts, and sure they're probably aligned--but those aren't the thoughts and emotions I would distinguish--I would distinguish (in your case) the emotions that come with your political prejudices and your thoughts on dasein, which for all intents and purposes seem to oppose at every turn any allegiance to or against any of the hot moral debates that rage in today's political foray.


Yes, exactly! Instead, as just noted above, "I" am left with an existential "me" drawn and quartered time and again when confronting those newspaper headlines. My thoughts and feelings against the truckers are no more than components of the life I lived on the left. Just as the thoughts and feelings of those for the truckers are no more than components of the life they lived on the right.


Bingo!


Yes, and "Bingo!" for you too. It works the same way for all of us in my opinion.

Of course, all that "existential stuff" would go away if philosophers and ethicists and political scientists were able to sift through the "personal opinion" quagmire and come up with the optimal manner in which all rational and virtuous human beings were obligated to think and feel and want here.


gib wrote: Alas!


Indeed. But I'm not arguing that philosophers and ethicists and political scientists haven't already accomplished this. Or, if not, can't accomplish it. Only that if they already have, I'm not privy to it. So, sure, if someone here is convinced that they have, link me to it. Along with all the hard evidence backing it up.

And that's where the objectivists among us come in, right? Their God. Their ideology. Their philosophy. Their assessment of nature.


gib wrote: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."


Yes, the most popular One True Path by far.

gib wrote: So maybe this is your problem. You feel you can’t identify yourself with anything other than a moral/political ideology. You need an “ism” to cling to just to feel you are someone. You think?


And how exactly would "I" go about not feeling drawn and quartered in regard to this too?


gib wrote: In regard to what? Not clinging to an "ism" for a sense of identity? I think you ought to first come to grips with whether or not this is in fact your problem.


Again, there's a part of me convinced that my own "fractured and fragmented" moral perspective may well be irrational itself. That in fact there is an optimal "ism" that ties everything together. God or No God. In other words, if what we construe to be problems and solutions are no less rooted subjectively in dasein out in a particular world understood in a particular way -- i.e. existentially -- what then?

gib wrote: And BTW, what do you mean by "drawn and quartered"? Do you mean you feel pulled in multiple directions?


It's just another way of encompassing "fractured and fragmented". Only easier to visualize because the uncertainty, confusion and ambiguity are reduced down to quarters.

"I" can never really be certain that how I think and feel about the things I react to in the news might be reflective of what is really true or what is just a component of political prejudices derived existentially from dasein. Ever and always pulled and tugged -- drawn and quartered -- ambivalently in conflicting directions.


And to be fair, I feel the same way. But I don't feel compelled by this to NOT have the political prejudices I have.


Sure, if you can acknowledge them to be but "political prejudices" rooted existentially in dasein, but still "feel" that what you "want" is enough, good for you. That just doesn't make sense to me. Once I think myself into believing that my value judgments are but existential fabrications/contraptions derived basically from the life I lived, thinking and feeling and wanting are not things to be juxtaposed but intertwined in my "sense of reality" about the world of conflicting goods. At any given time.

Then the part where "I" recognize how sociopaths and those moral nihilists who own and operate the "show me the money" global economy are able to rationalize a purely selfish frame of mind in a No God world. Fuck morality altogether.


gib wrote: Their mothers never raised 'em right.


For many sociopaths however "show me the money" reflects the "right" way to live. They have both wealth and power in a world many believe is "all there is". They live "the good life" all the way to the grave. What else is there from their point of view.

gib wrote:Well, you tell me: 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.


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.


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.

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".

To me, it's like you going up to the truckers during their protest and saying "Look, I want you guys to win, but please understand that had my life been different, I'd want you to lose."


gib wrote: Which would be a very odd thing to say indeed, but from what I can tell, not at all illogical.


If it's not illogical why would it be odd? 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?

As though they will just shrug that off.


They would!


Of course they would! That's what the self-righteous objectivists always do. It's one of us [the good guys] vs. one of them [the bad guys].

They 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).


What's bizarre about it? You agree that you might think the opposite of what you do now had your experiences predisposed you to. You tell them that. But insist that you still feel that they ought 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.

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?

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

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.

iambiguous wrote:Right, and this "pure raw desire" to want to invade or to strike down Roe is what really counts, not how they think the situation through and accumulate actual reasons for invading Ukraine or overturning Roe.


gib wrote: IRL, it probably counts for a lot. But again, I thought we were talking about the frame of mind I'm trying to get across, which you said to apply to Putin and Alito. ^ That's what you get. Didn't expect that? Then you probably don't understand the frame of mind I'm talking about.


IRL? In real life? Yes, I'm most interested in what motivated Putin and Alito "in real life". Ask them why they did what they did. What were their reasons. How they connect the dots between thinking and feeling and wanting.

On the other hand, the wolf thinks nothing through, does it? It has no reason to kill other than the fact its instinct propels/compels it to. Only [to me] you come off as another Satyr here. Biological imperatives tossing historical, cultural, social, political, economic, etc., memes onto the back burner. If not completely off the stove.


But so are you. Isn't that what your arguments about dasein amounts to? Don't they say to toss all historical, cultural, etc. onto the back burner? Because they're all arbitrary and vacuous?


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: Look, I'm not saying that I'm literally like a wolf--incapable of giving my desires the rational forethought they deserve--it's just that as soon as my thoughts on what you call "dasein" enter the picture, it's all moot. Any thoughts I might have about why the truckers should win get "snuffed out" because, like you, I suddenly realize it's all just intellectual contraptions, arbitrarily inherited from my upbringing, past experience, journey through life, etc., and I lose any faith I might otherwise have in them. Then they just sort of "fizzle out".


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: How is this not exactly what you're saying about yourself? How do you not see the parallel? I suppose the only difference is that, with me, this doesn't seem to make the emotions go away. It still pisses me off that Trudeau treated the truckers the way he did. It still fills me with joy to know that the truckers stood up to that tyrant. I just can't seem to come up with any rational moral justifications for it--that is, none that can withstand the quelling powers of my thoughts on dasein when they enter the picture.


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.

After all, some of the protrucker pinheads here insist it's all just a "libtard" a hoax. Do the facts support that?

gib wrote: You really want those reactions, huh?


Of course! We can speculate about what those protesting a government policy you feel is wrong but don't necessarily think is wrong, but only when you actually present your arguments to them and get back to us can this move beyond conjecture.

gib wrote: I gotta be honest, I still don't quite get what you want from their reactions to me putting my arguments to them. Whatever your reasons, it wouldn't change what I'm saying here. It might get me beat up, but I don't see how it would get me to suddenly understand what you're saying like a revelation from God. Is this more for your understanding or mine?


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. 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.
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: 46403
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