phyllo wrote: Indeed. And I would certainly encourage those who have come to this conclusion to avoid responding to anything that I might post here in the future.
It's hard to tell whether to don't read the posts or your reading comprehension is just poor. Either way, you don't get my point yet again.
Come on, on thread after thread and post after post here at ILP, folks are leveling this accusation at each other. But almost without exception the discussions revolve around "reality" in the is/ought world.
But that's my point. Unlike with relationships that unfold in the either/or world, where "the truth" is actually able to be established, value judgments are embedded far more in the existential contraptions
of particular individuals living very, very different lives.
Now, in the either/or world, obstetricians can live lives far, far removed from the lives of other obstetricians. But the part about human biology and human sexuality begetting unwanted pregnancies is the same for all of them. "I" here is embedded
in a set of facts.
But, when the focus shifts to morality, what are "the facts" equally applicable to ethicists who pop up all along the political spectrum?
Okay, but then what? How might this be applicable to you when your own moral narrative and your own chosen behaviors come into conflict with others?
phyllo wrote: I already explained it - they try to convince you or force you and/or you try to convince then or force them.
But [from my frame of mind] those who are "one of us" and those who are "one of them" convince/force each other from a subjective/subjunctive perspective that is no less an existential contraption rooted in political prejudices rooted in dasein. And thus ever subject to change given new relationships, new experiences and access to new ideas. And the conflicting goods don't go away, right? And the reality of acquiring the political power necessary to enforce one set of rewards and punishments will always remain the bottom line in any particular community.
Indeed, yet all I can do [as a moral nihilist] is to suggest that there be as much tolerance as possible within any particular human community.
phyllo wrote: "As a moral nihilist" surely you must see that intolerance is just as reasonable. You really have no grounds for suggesting tolerance besides the feeling that you like it.
You left out this part:
But even here this frame of mind is no less an existential contraption.In other words, I'm admitting right from the start that either with respect to means or ends, "I" is an existential contraption rooted in dasein rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
Then it's back to the extent to which philosophers can put more than just a dent in that assumption.
No one should be permitted to force others to play his or her game [using his or her rules] because that game is said to be the one that all rational and virtuous people ought to play.
phyllo wrote: "As a moral nihilist" why should it not be permitted to force "to play his or her game"?
Do you have any reasons besides that you don't like that?
I'll just toss the same accusation back to you here: "It's hard to tell whether [you] don't read the posts or your reading comprehension is just poor. "
My being a "moral nihilist" is no less an existential contraption. So any assumption I make here is in turn rooted in the political prejudicies "I" have acquired existentially over the course of having lived my life.
In other words, for those who do insist that others play their game by their rules, they might do so based on their assumption that it is the most rational thing to do; or on the assumption that good and bad here always revolve around "what's in it for me?"
And "I" am no more effective than anyone else here in demonstrating that they are wrong. Philosophically or otherwise.
But games here [as sports or contests] usually have a minimal of ethical content. Few will argue that one is morally obligated to play baseball rather than foorball, or to play chess rather than checkers.
Thus:
...when the "game" is abortion or Communism, there are those who insist that the rules of discussion and debate must revolve entirely around their own set of assumptions.
phyllo wrote: So? They can insist. There is nothing inherently wrong with that insistence. It can't be immoral or unethical from the point of view of a moral nihilist.
But why do some insist on one thing while others insist on something else? How is
this part embedded more in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529That's the discussion I always nudge the exchange toward.
Except with abortion and Communism the stakes can be excruciatingly high for some.
Also, I never argue that any particular point of view here is either inherently right or wrong. On the other hand, for all "I" know it might well be. Here all we can do is to communicate to the best of our ability what we think and feel "here and now".
But what the objectivists cling [in my view] to is the assumption that what they do think and feel "here and now" is somehow in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do". The part embedded psychologically in this:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296Again, the more relevant question for me here is still this: How are you not down in that hole with me?
phyllo wrote: Why would you ask that? By your own philosophy, you can't possibly understand my life because you have not lived it. Therefore, you need to ask questions about yourself. That's how you would make progress.
True. But, really, what else is there? All we can do is to connect the dots here between what we have come to think [philosophically or otherwise] regarding the relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world", and how that may or may not be embedded existentially in the life that [so far] we have lived.
But: Communication breakdowns here are bound to be more the rule than the exception. In a way that communication between mathematicians, scientistists and/or logicians is likely to be considerably less so.
Then this:
All I can surmise is that somehow "in your head" the political contraptions that you have managed to sustain over the years in regard to issues like abortion and Communism are just enough in sync with the "real you" in sync with "the right thing to do", that you are not able to grasp why and how "I" have not managed to accomplish the same thing.
phyllo wrote: See. You don't understand my thoughts about that stuff at all. "Real you", "the right thing to do" - what a load of shit.
Indeed, and that's why the moral and political objectivists are so intent on shoving all that shit aside. Whether others actually understand their thoughts doesn't change the fact [for them] that when it comes to moral and political narratives/agendas, what
they think
is in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
Go ahead, ask them.
I'm just ever groping to understand how, with more intellectually sophisticated folks like you and karpel and gib and others, this all plays out "for all practical purposes" when your own values come into conflict. What have you managed to accomplish here that "I" still cannot?phyllo wrote: My questions to you were "why do the consequences of moral nihilism bother you? " and "why do you keep hounding 'objectivists' when they are doing nothing wrong"?
They bother me because over and again "I" am drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods. I no longer have access to the psychological comfort and consolation embedded in the objectivism that I once knew.
So, "I" am bothered, but only in a fractured and fragmented way. And while sometimes that can actually be comforting [like believing in a wholly determined universe] other times it is really and truly wrenching.
But: only inside this existential contraption that I have come to think of as "me".And, look around you, the world is bursting at the seams with a staggering amount of human pain and suffering. But I no longer have access to a frame of mind convinced that much of this would go away if only everyone would live as they ought to. As I once thought that they should.
So, how much of that is left for you?