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 » Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:52 pm

Part two:

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?


gib wrote: 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 you should know by now that even though you express your own frame of mind regarding the existential relationship between thinking and feeling and wanting and doing, I think you are not grasping the nature of dasein in the most reasonable manner. Or, rather, given my own existential assessment of what a more reasonable manner encompasses.

As for the word "should" here the distinction I make is between those in the scientific and medical communities who have both the background and the education to assess the covid pandemic most rationally and those in one or another political community who seem less concerned with the virus itself and more concerned with linking it to their hatred of government. There may be those in the medical and scientific communities who have a political axe to grind but I suspect there are far fewer of them there than in the moral and political objectivist communities.

gib wrote: And which scientific advice? The one supporting the covid mandates or the one against them?


Well, you can Google "science and covid" and get websites like this: https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/

In fact, any number of those in the scientific community are now predicting that Covid is on the brink of becoming endemic.

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.


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


How many times can I note that in not being you or them, what can I possibly know in depth about how you or they construe a sense of identity. All I can note is that in regard to "I" in the world of conflicting value judgments, your frame of mind strikes me as similar to theirs. Maia like you will agree with me regarding some aspects of dasein...but falls back on this sense of what she "just knows" is true about things like abortion or vaccinations. And then when I press her she backs away. And that's because like you [in my opinion] she knows what is at stake if she loses that sense of "feeling" that some things are worth wanting more than others. It's the "fractured and fragmented" "I" that repels her.

Then this part...

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.


gib wrote: 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.


Okay, but in acknowledging that they are just subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, how zealous can one be? Viscerally I want the truckers to win, but if my life had led me politically in the other direction then, perhaps, just as viscerally, I'd want them to lose. As though the "feeling" part of "I" here has a mind all its own. It just doesn't compute for me.

gib wrote: 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.


All I can do here is to imagine you explaining this to the truckers...or to those here like Urwrong and observr.

...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.


gib wrote: 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?


When you have become as "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am in regard to value judgments, you don't denounce much at all. Instead, uncertainty and ambiguity and ambivalence come to prevail time and again. Instead of subsuming what I see and hear and come to know through the news media as I once did in being an objectivist [in God or in ideology or in deotology], I am pulled and tugged in conflicting directions. Both sides [many sides] make rational arguments merely by embracing different sets of assumptions about the "human condition". The ones I've noted a number of times above.

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.


gib wrote: 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.


Back to not being them myself. I have not lived their lives, had their experiences, sustained their relationships, read what they read, heard what they heard etc.

All I can do is to expose them to the points I raise in my signature threads and, given circumstances involving things like government, covid, abortion, guns etc., try to grasp how they arrive at their own conclusions regarding behaviors deemed either right or wrong. If they are not fractured and fragmented as "I" am, how then do they explain -- to themselves -- what enables them to feel whole...to feel committed to one political agenda rather than another.

On the other hand, assessments such as this...

gib wrote: 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.


...are [to me] mainly abstract. Again, take it to the truckers or the objectivists here. Imagine their own reactions. The "either/or facts" can be shared with some but not others. But the bottom line will be what either can or cannot be encompassed factually regarding the righteousness of any particular political protest. Here "I" think and feel as a "broken" man. While on some level I still cannot grasp why you don't.

For Maia and MagsJ, what is "intrinsic" is that which viscerally, intuitively, instinctually they have over time come to just know in their gut is true about something. Though, sure, you'd have to run that by them. On the other hand, if you do make sure they bring their grasp of it down to earth. Pertaining to something like the trucker protest.

Even when you do focus on more specific things like this...

gib wrote: 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.


...I'm unable to grasp how this works for you given the extent to which you share my own understanding of dasein. Yes, you either want theses things to happen or feel these things about others or you don't. But, for me, once I grasp that had my life been very different I would not want or feel these things at all -- or even want and feel the opposite -- an intact self seems out of reach. Both philosophically and in terms of my actual life experiences.

gib wrote: 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.


This is largely unintelligible to me. It makes no sense given my own understanding [here and now] of the existential relationship between identity, morality, conflicting goods and political economy.

Thus...

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.


gib wrote: Maybe, but why should I lose sleep over that?


That will often depend on how deeply immersed you are in political activism. When I was an activist moral and political convictions were always very, very important to me. And in part because what I thought about right and wrong was often very much in sync with what I felt was right or wrong was very much in sync with what I wanted to see happen "in the news".

gib wrote: 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.


You're asking me something here that only you can answer. You have to go out there and become embedded in political struggles. Note the reactions of others to your own level of commitment. All I can do is imagine myself back then noting what I think you are arguing here to my "comrades" and political allies. I think they'd think my points were...irrelevant. More for the classroom than the streets.

I still recall the truculent reaction of many to my own post William Barrett perspective. Marxism/socialism and "moral nihilism"? Eventually, it took me out of political activism altogether.

...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 health policies re the pandemic.


gib wrote: This time, I get to say to you, what does that have to do with my point?


No, what is more important is what you convey to the truckers regarding the existential relationship between your point and their protest.

gib wrote: 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?


Yeah. Based on my own many years as a political activist, how emotions work for most who protest government policies is this:

1] they think the policies stink
2] they feel the policies stink and
3] they want the policies to be changed

gib wrote: 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."


Right. And someone on the other end of the political spectrum is making the same sort of point to those who are politically and emotionally committed to backing the government's policy. In fact, some will argue the polices don't go far enough.

Then what?

That those on both sides of the protest put their political activism on the shelf until it can be determined precisely what the nature of the emotions they are feeling are?

Then imagine them reacting to me. Imagine them reacting to my own sense of being "fractured and fragmented"...of suggesting that at best they can grapple with attempts to forge government policies that revolve around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

gib wrote: 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?


Not really. I suspect that what you believe here about emotions allows you to keep your distance from a "fractured and fragmented" sense of self. But from my frame of mind that's because you don't construe emotions themselves in regard to moral and political value judgments as "I" do.

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).


Okay, but my aim is to take "philosophical" discussions like this down out of the clouds and introduce them to the protesters of the world.

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".


gib wrote: 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.


Maybe to you, but certainly not for others. And how emotions work for the objectivists here is simple: you feel what I do about the protest and the government or you're a "libtard". Maybe even a "Commie".

Go ahead, ask them.

gib wrote: 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?


Again, if you equate your opinions about justice and the trucker protest with your opinions about digestion and blood circulation, I'd say we are truly far removed here.

Human biology isn't such that anytime soon digestion and blood circulation is likely to be construed any differently.

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.


gib wrote: 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.


Again, thinking and feeling with respect to the either/or world is such that if someone attempts to kill you, you will almost certainly have an emotional reaction. Deserving to die or not here can be irrelevant. Where the ambivalence can arise is when the discussion focuses in on whether you did deserve to die. Some people might feel strongly that you did, while others might feel strongly that you didn't. But even here ambivalence can follow. You might feel there are reasons you did deserve to die, but also reasons that you didn't. Or, with those like me, it can reach the point where you are simply unable to decide. Or, again, for the sociopaths deserving to has nothing to do with it. They want you dead. End of story.

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".


No, that's what you think I think you are trying to argue. Instead, I think that thinking like this is what the objectivists will try to argue. What I don't understand about you is why you don't argue as I do if you grasp the existential relationship between dasien and value judgments in the general vicinity of my own conclusions.

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.


gib wrote: 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.


Please note where I noted above that I would not be afraid if someone was out to murder me. I don't want to die. On the other hand, someday the pain in my life might so outweigh the pleasure I kill myself.

And [to me] your "assessment" of me here is so preposterous, I might just as well be having this discussion with a pinhead.

How about if we chalk it up it up to a bad day. You're just not, uh, thinking clearly here and now. 8)

To wit:

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.


Unless, of course, Urwrong. :wink:

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.


gib wrote: Are any of these not in sync with your thoughts? Things you believe? how 'bout your thoughts on dasein?


Again, my thinking and my feeling here are pretty much in alignment. In fact, where the distinction is made here [by me] is between the "circumstances" of my life [pretty good] and my philosophy of life [still grim]. In other words, I enjoy my day to day experiences by and large, but it's only a matter of time before The Big One sends me hurtling toward the abyss. And in what I construe to be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence.

gib wrote: 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).


Fear of them? Please note where you think I expressed that above. As for an objective morality, sure, why not. It might exist. All any of us who don't believe that it does can do is to listen in on the discussions of those who think that it does. What have we got to lose?

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.


Then I don't think you think enough about the staggering gap that must exist between "an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence" like you here on planet Earth and all that can possibly be known about the existence of existence itself. Just in terms of the "unknown unknowns....the things we don't even know that we don't know."

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?


gib wrote: 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?


That's always tricky. You do what you do. So, where do the genes stop and the memes begin. And that's just one aspect of why things are "that complex".

All I can do is make the distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world here.

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.


gib wrote: 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)?


As I noted above, sure, when my thinking changed over the years my emotions were only more or less able to keep up. There is no definitive dividing line whereby I tell myself, "now I think this instead so I must feel that instead too". But over time if I felt comfortable with being a Marxist but abandoned it for Democratic Socialism and then for Social Democracy and then for existentialism and then for deconstruction and then for moral nihilism, my emotions eventually did catch up. Only for someone like me what does that really mean given the extent to which intellectually and emotionally "I" am "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world.

Then there's your own rendition of this:

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.


gib wrote: 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.


On the other hand, I spent over two decades embodying one or another religious or political font [as an objectivist] before I even became acquainted with dasein as construed by William Barrett existentially regarding "rival goods".

And "out of sync" as I noted above.

gib wrote: 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!!!


As you say, however, you are an anomaly. What would happen if, given new personal experiences, your political prejudices did change such that you thought that all citizens should be forced to get vaccinated. Then, what, your feelings would be more in sync with your thoughts?

That they are out of sync now is just something that encompasses the "self" you have come to experience. Why? How on earth would I know?
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: 46416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby gib » Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:19 am

iambiguous wrote:Exactly! Confusion, ambiguity, ambivialence, uncertainty and the like goes with the terriotory when you think as "I" do. This is why I suspect you suffer a cognitive disorder. 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. I should hope I know what I feel and want. 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.

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


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."

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

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. Oh, of course :icon-rolleyes: Though she disagrees and I certainly respect her own take on my take.


Yes, arguing with you is soul-crushingly tedious.

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

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


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

iambiguous wrote:I flat out acknowledge "over and again" that my own value judgments are no less rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein. That's meaningless unless you back it up with action. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? 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.


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

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

You explain it to me. I have never argued that we are hard-wired to arrive at particular value judgments...only that we seem hard-wired to reduce the world down to rational/irrational, moral/immoral answers. What difference does this make to my point. 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.


Note to others:

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

iambiguous wrote:Okay, and Jim thinks it's right to eat the eggs. Or he doesn't care. 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. Yep. That's my point. Right and wrong here predicated not on objective morality but on the subjective morality we acquire existentially.


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

iambiguous wrote:
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.


Ok, well... you own that.

iambiguous wrote:Still waiting for you to explain how on earth you believe that I have not made it here in regard to questions asked and answers given re the either/or world and the is/ought world. The problem with you is that you're confusing AF and full of contradictions. How am I supposed to get a clear and well defined point from anything you say. There's nothing wholly subjective about someone eating 4 eggs. Sure there is... it just happens to also be objective. They either did or they didn't. But where is the wholly objective answer regarding whether human beings ought to eat eggs?


Beats me. Let me know when you find it.

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


Huh? Where have you been living the past 20 years? On an Amish commune? Have you seriously never noticed how each side presents facts (or "facts") that contradict the facts of the other side? Or wait... unless you're saying that because I don't know whose facts to believe, that means I think the pro-trucker arguments are right.

iambiguous wrote:
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...


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

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


gib wrote:How is this a moral conclusion?


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


So then, back to what I said:

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


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

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


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

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


Because things can be odd to say without being illogical. I once tried to strike up a conversation with a girl I liked once so I said "you're tall." It was definitely an odd thing to say--awkward and embarrassing--but certainly not illogical--she was tall.

iambiguous wrote:Just imagine their reaction to you if you said it. I imagine they would shrug it off as nonsense. Wouldn't it basically be the reaction I get from the pinheads here? If you actually confronted them with a stance opposed to theirs, then yes. But the awkward phrase you'd have me say above is just... weird. I'm not questioning what they believe so much as how they came about believing one thing rather than another. I know, you've emphasized this ad nauseum 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?


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

iambiguous wrote:What's bizarre about it? What on Earth would compel you to say it? You agree that you might think the opposite of what you do now had your experiences predisposed you to. Sure, but this is ILP. But to say it at a protest to a trucker??? You tell them that. But insist that you still feel that they ought Ought, Biggy? to win, you want That's better. 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.

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

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

Eeexactly!

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


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


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

iambiguous wrote:
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.


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

iambiguous wrote:IRL? In real life? Yes. Yes, I'm most interested in what motivated Putin and Alito "in real life". Then why are we talking about applying my frame of mind to them? Ask them why they did what they did. What were their reasons. How they connect the dots between thinking and feeling and wanting.


That's your job.

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


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

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


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

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


This tired old point you keep bringing up--that had my life been different, I would have felt different--means nothing to me. It's an obvious and trivial truism. Of course I would feel differently if I were, say, raised to think like a leftist. For you to say this should (what?) "cancel out" how I feel about the truckers in actuality sounds to me like saying that the cuttlefish couldn't really be a cuttlefish because if it had evolved differently it would have become a different species. Now your point might make sense if I were saying that my feelings justify coming to the conclusion that the truckers are morally right, but I'm not saying that, am I? And I suppose I could say it a thousand times and it still wouldn't sink in, would it? To you, everything must come down to moral statements.

iambiguous wrote:Of course! We can speculate about what those protesting a government policy you feel is wrong but don't necessarily think is wrong, <-- Close enough... as long as you make this distinction. but only when you actually present your arguments to them and get back to us can this move beyond conjecture.


But I'm not speculating about what the protesters feel or think is wrong.

iambiguous wrote:Look, all I'm noting is that if the protesters do beat you up then it is not likely that they make that distinction between thinking and feeling as you do. I don't think it would have anything to do with that distinction. Think high school jocks reacting to a nerd making an intellectual point. 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.


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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

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

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

So long, Biggy. It was a pleasure (up to a point).
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 origami » Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:42 am

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

Deeper analysis, though, because you did this like a gentleman and many of us were following in awe, leads me to a more subtle conclusion:

In the end, what scares him the most, what terrifies communists the most was a key point that you kept getting stuck on: that you don't think there is an objective morality that supports your position on the truckers. In other words, what terrifies a communist is somebody not being ideological.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:28 pm

Or better said, not acting as if they believed in ideology.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13286
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:28 pm

No pinheads please!!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

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

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:48 pm

#ideasMatter
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: 6089
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:02 pm

So no pin heads do?

That is also an idea lost on some/ most as finding it in a headful of doing.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13286
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:05 pm

Meno_ wrote:So no pin heads do?

That is also an idea lost on some/ most as finding it in a headful of doing.





When something is very difficult to find it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Especially because the area you have to search is too large and because of everything around it"
"
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13286
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:39 pm

Well. Here’s how you know you’ve found “the one”. The best idea is all three of these on the inside, and you can tell by their fruit:

good/real, beautiful/whole, true/actual

If you are that sort of “tree of life”, and bump into someone also like that, you become one tree of life all twisted up together, and if you’re not too old you bear a lot of fruit & baby trees, and so do they. Or you just visit each other’s grandkids. And that’s the truth. Then birds of the same feather all poop in your tree.
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: 6089
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:34 pm

Sure good fertilizer
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13286
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:49 am

You win.
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: 6089
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:18 am

Easiest way to find a needle in a haystack is to burn the entire haystack to ashes and drag a huge magnet over the ashes.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:05 am

Great! The philosophical equivalent of the Keystone Cops are now all here!!! :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

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

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:41 am

Meno_ wrote:Or better said, not acting as if they believed in ideology.


That's the whole point. Terror prevents a communist from even believing somebody can be not ideological. They have to tell themselves that they are just pretending.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:28 am

They sold their mind to a cause, and it is understandably terrifying to them that other people didn't.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby gib » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:29 am

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


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

origami wrote:Deeper analysis, though, because you did this like a gentleman and many of us were following in awe In awe, you say, leads me to a more subtle conclusion:

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


Well, it certain sends some people for a loop. Not everyone realizes what ideologies are, or what it is to suspend them and experience life "raw" so to speak.

Ichthus77 wrote:Well. Here’s how you know you’ve found “the one”. The best idea is all three of these on the inside, and you can tell by their fruit:

good/real, beautiful/whole, true/actual


That sounds Kantian. Is it? What's the difference between "real" and "actual"?

And doesn't this depend on the person?

Ichthus77 wrote:If you are that sort of “tree of life”, and bump into someone also like that, you become one tree of life all twisted up together, and if you’re not too old you bear a lot of fruit & baby trees, and so do they. Or you just visit each other’s grandkids. And that’s the truth. Then birds of the same feather all poop in your tree.


Absolutely! People who share common values and beliefs work well together.

Ecmandu wrote:Easiest way to find a needle in a haystack is to burn the entire haystack to ashes and drag a huge magnet over the ashes.


You do realize that's an analogy, right? What's does burning the haystack and using the magnet represent?

origami wrote:That's the whole point. Terror prevents a communist from even believing somebody can be not ideological. They have to tell themselves that they are just pretending.


And I wonder what Bigs thinks of me? Does he think I'm pretending or does he suffer a cognitive disorder? He certainly didn't ask the right questions to open that box. It would have been nice if he did.
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 origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:38 am

gib wrote:And I wonder what Bigs thinks of me? Does he think I'm pretending or does he suffer a cognitive disorder? He certainly didn't ask the right questions to open that box. It would have been nice if he did.


That would have constituted an honest question borne out of honest curiosity.

A communist doesn't have honest questions. He has propaganda objectives.

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


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

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

I do think this has political implications. If one of the parties is ideologically motivated, and by extention unreasonable, what gain is there in reasoning with them? You either abandon reason yourself, or you aim only for the reasonable.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:43 am

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

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

So, I propose that what defines a reasonable person is the ability for compromise.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:51 am

- acting as if you’ve sold your mind to a cause/ideology (“I do believe; help my unbelief.” or “The truth is out there. I want to believe.” - go through whatever motions on your own steam?)

- actually selling your mind to a cause/ideology (theism, I presume?) (based on good reasons/evidence?) (if reject higher purpose… fill the hole with good works on your own steam?)

- suspending the selling of one’s mind to ideology/cause & living life “raw” … as a settled position, or tentatively? if the latter… agnostic (more like apistic)

Any other options?

Can one suspend & stay raw at the cost of refusing to examine evidence of a worthy ideology/cause? Apatheism? Fill the hole with “scientism”?

This isn’t just Biggy. It’s all of us.
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: 6089
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:54 am

gib, (re: good, beautiful, true) see my harmonic triads thread & ask there if you really want to get into it :)
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: 6089
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:00 am

Whenever you get a communist to reveal where he sees the faultline, it is never in the subject being discussed. It is always some point unrelated to what is being discussed: "do you believe in God?""Do you believe in sharing?""Do you care about the environement?" etc.

For a communist, the point of contention is never some point about the subject at hand, but which cause to subordinate your thinking to. If you know which cause you are subordinated to, then you can find your opinion. The details of a subject or situation are inconsequential.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:02 am

Because a position that does consider the actual subject or situation would be clearly superior, a communist must pretend, at least to himself, that no man does this. That the only question any man can ever ask is what cause they will subordinate their thinking to.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:11 pm

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


"Go back to The Corner, man!" :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

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

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46416
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

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

Postby origami » Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:27 pm

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


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


Sorry, didn't mean to intrude into your safe space lol.
There's no one thing that's true. It's all true.
Ernest Hemingway
User avatar
origami
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:47 pm

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

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:26 pm

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


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


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


Not to worry.

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

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

8) :lol: :wink:
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: 46416
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