iambiguous wrote: โFri Feb 16, 2024 12:29 am
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pm
iambiguous wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 9:18 pm
Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.
Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.
A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.
I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.
Again -- click -- if I always post the same things then, in a free will world, don't those like you have the option to either read or not to read what I post? Just as, in a free will universe, I have chosen not to read what you post here because I have thought myself into believing that almost all of what you and your ilk do post here is up in the intellectual clouds.
Then this part: we'll need a context.
know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.
More to the point [mine], what is it regarding what I post over and over and over again that seems to perturb some? Both there and here.
I've narrowed it down to three possible reasons:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing as well. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmseconds later another poster different thread
Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?
On the other hand, there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.
But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself?
Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pm...and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.
If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.
Again, given what particular context? And, from my frame of mind, it is moral objectivists who are "for all practical purposes" helpless. Why? Because they have no choice but to embrace/embody one or another rendition of What Would Jesus Do?/What would Kant do?
On the other hand, for the moral nihilists among us, actual options increase dramatically when you eschew moral
obligations.
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmI mean, don't post the name of a forum if it's this easy to find information that shows people including moderators reacted in very similar ways to you back then in your Golden Age of... yadda, yadda.
I posted it because it pertained to myself, Rebecca and Julian pursuing our own problematic Magus "script".
Hell, for all I know, Victor himself might have been one of them!
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmFor someone who laments the limits of human knowledge, and almost as a mantra says that you might be wrong about something, you never actually are when it comes to yourself or something you did. No admissions
, oh, yeah, I didn't really respond to you.
No, I make that crucial distinction between what we can know objectively in regard to the either/or world and what we can know objectively regarding conflicting goods
in that either/or world.
What, in other words, doctors can know about abortion as a medical procedure and what ethicists/Kantians can know about abortion as a moral issue.
With you, however, I am most curious regarding the extent to which, given the points I raise in the OPs here...
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
...you either share or reject my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment and conclusions.
Are you or are you not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods? Given that, as with me "here and now" you do not believe in the existence of a God, the God.
In other words -- click -- discussing what mere mortals in a No God world think about all this with someone like phyllo. To the best of my knowledge, he still believes in his own rendition of God and objective morality. How about exploring that with him here. Given free will of course.
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmIn the abstract, up in the clouds, you might make mistakes or be an ass, but here on the ground, you never can admit any of that, to the point where anyone who does you call a Stooge. LOL.
Projection.
And how is this not "rooted existentially in dasein" itself? Besides, I almost never recognize myself in your occasional psychobabble posts pertaining to me.
Iwannaplato wrote: โThu Feb 15, 2024 11:21 pmBut don't worry we'll get bored again and you can go back to posting to yourself and all those hypothetical, lurking people who are so interested in your philosophical diary.
I don't post to myself.
In fact, what is particularly intriguing to me regarding our posts here is the point Flannel Jesus noted regarding bots. He maintains that even though my threads generate hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
views, almost all of them are from bots.
So, just out of curiosity, for others here, is this the case? Note some hard facts about this please. Quote actual numbers.
For example, over the past week or so, this thread alone generated over 20,000 new views. If, say, 19,900, were from bots what on Earth motivates them and those who created them to come here and read our posts?