henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am
you won't actually cite examples of this
From RL? Hell no I won't. Last thing I need is you, after figurin' out where exactly I am, showin' up on my stoop.
Unbelievable! I'm able to note all of the instances in which I came to believe I was wrong about the "big stuff" here in "real life"...
...I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.
...without fearing you will show up on my stoop.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 amI don't like you much, but I don't wanna shoot your obese, agoraphobic self. I mean, jeez, I don't wanna have to haul your carcass offa my lawn (and I don't wanna pay anyone to do it either).
Note to others:
You tell me what this tells us about him!!
Note to Flash Dangerpants:
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am I doubt he's readin' this thread: send him a private message.
Better than that, I started a new thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35405
Nothing from you there yet though.
How do you calculate this? Given that those at the other end of the political spectrum will often argue exactly the same thing in regard to a "a well regulated Militia".
How in interpreting the meaning of that does one acquire a point of view such that there is only a remote possibility of them being wrong?
What I suspect of course is that in coming to embody the "psychology of objectivism" above, they believe that which most comforts and consoles them. It's not what they believe about guns but that what they believe about guns allows them to, among other things, voice disdain regarding those fools who don't share their own arrogant and self-righteous convictions.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am What do I assert, biggy?
Things like this:
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am I say I'm a free will with natural rights. If I'm wrong, then I'm a determined meat machine with no right to anything. The
calculation, then is pretty clear.
Not clear at all given that you, like all the rest of us, have no way in which to untangle all of the variables here...
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
...in order to demonstrate that what you construe to be clarity here is
not anything more than than your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, thinking and posting what it could never have not thought and posted. We're all entangled in the profound mystery that is mindful matter. You "solve" it [given human autonomy] by positing a God that gave you a Soul. A God you "thought up" and in no way, shape or form can actually demonstrate the existence of. Or, rather, to the best of my current knowledge.
What I suspect of course is that in coming to embody the "psychology of objectivism" above, they believe that which most comforts and consoles them. It's not what they/you believe about guns but that what they/you believe about guns allows them/you to, among other things, voice disdain regarding those fools who don't share their/your own arrogant and self-righteous convictions..
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am Oh, I don't need a gun for
that. I'd voice my
confident and
righteous disdain for you and your schtick to your face, empty-handed (just not on my lawn).
Right, like the objectivists from the other end of the political spectrum aren't voicing the same confident and righteous contempt for you and your ilk. Some empty handed, though others no doubt fully armed with all manner of guns and weapons.
you completely avoid owning up to how this...is also applicable to you.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am I don't comment cuz I don't know what you're sayin'.
This again:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?
Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.
Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.
Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.
Who else here doesn't understand the point I am making regarding just how surreal this quandary is for us? Brains trying to pin down brains themselves. Going all the way back to fitting them into the existence of existence itself.
This part:
the laws of nature compel your brain to delude you into thinking that your brain is not deluding you into thinking that you post what you do of your own volition.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am Well, that seems an awfully convoluted, self-defeatin', anti-evolutionary thing for Nature to do. Of what possible benefit is what you believe is
illusion, mind/free will, to a meat machine whose purposes are to move heat around and to reproduce?
Of course, this just brings up the question of teleology. If it's not your God who created an existence enabling mere mortals to contemplate things like "benefits" and "purposes", was it nature itself?
Is there a
meaning part to Nature?
Whereas I always come back to this here: click.
In other words...
assuming that we do possess free will.
Only that assumption in and of itself may be embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.
We're all stuck in the gap between what we think we know about free will and all that there is to be known about it...going back to how the "human condition" itself fits into all we would need to know about the existence of existence itself.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am Not me. If you are, you're there by
choice.
Not you. In other words, in your head, you believe this. And that need be as far as it goes in order to make it true. And you can demonstrate to us that my
choice here is a manifestation of free will...how?
Simple enough perhaps: your brain compels you to assert that it is so.
Please. From the day we are born until well into our teens we are indoctrinated by others to see our life as they do. And then as adults in a free will world how we come to think of our life is profoundly embedded in a particular historical and cultural and experiential context. We come to have particular sets of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge that commonsense tells us will predispose us to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am I'm sorry your ma & pa abused you (not really).
Once again, allowing yourself to be reduced down to what passes as a..."clever" retort? Prime New ILP material.
What you won't do, in my view, is to examine my point here in depth in regard to your own existential self, your own hopelessly subjective value judgments.
I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am Well, aren't you
the flailin' about lookin' for absolutely any port in a storm sob story!
A hint: you went in the wrong direction.
That's all you can come up with until you go into depth regarding the reasons that you yourself changed your mind about the "big stuff".
And I promise you I won't show up on your stoop if you do.
Then this...
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am can a nihilist be moral?
Sure. It depends on the extent to which in a No God world [an assumption] a nihilist is able to think him or herself into accepting one or another Humanist moral and political agenda as more or less rational. Not all nihilists are as fractured and fragmented as "I" am.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:59 am In other words:
no.
Note to others:
How pathetic is this? He asked the question. I gave him an answer. Which he then completely ignores in order to basically insist that the only correct answer [his] is "No.".