Christianity

[Harry Baird]

Yep. But my own "thing" here revolves less around what objectivists of her ilk post [about Christianity or any other set of value judgments] and more around exploring how, given the manner in which their lives unfolded existentially [out in a particular world understood in a particular way] they came to think and to believe what they insist that all others must think and to believe as well. In other words, if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings. Like they are.

Philosophically, my own "personal prejudice" as it were.

She'll either go there or she won't. Most objectivists won't, however, in my view, because what if my own arguments begin to sink in? What if they begin to suspect that their own comforting and consoling "sense of identity" in regard to moral and political and spiritual convictions are just "existential contraptions" rooted subjectively in dasein in turn?

Oh, I see. I'm not aware of VT's objectivist views.

Depending on what you mean by it, I'm something of an objectivist myself, so it's possible you and I don't see so eye-to-eye here.

I also hadn't encountered the word "dasein" until I saw IC criticising you earlier in this thread for using it. Doing a bit of googling, I'm not really sure what it means over "human existence". Are the two terms synonymous? If not, what beyond "human existence" does "dasein" denote (and connote, if applicable)?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yep. But my own "thing" here revolves less around what objectivists of her ilk post [about Christianity or any other set of value judgments] and more around exploring how, given the manner in which their lives unfolded existentially [out in a particular world understood in a particular way] they came to think and to believe what they insist that all others must think and to believe as well. In other words, if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings. Like they are.

Philosophically, my own "personal prejudice" as it were.

She'll either go there or she won't. Most objectivists won't, however, in my view, because what if my own arguments begin to sink in? What if they begin to suspect that their own comforting and consoling "sense of identity" in regard to moral and political and spiritual convictions are just "existential contraptions" rooted subjectively in dasein in turn?

Oh, I see. I'm not aware of VT's objectivist views.

Depending on what you mean by it, I'm something of an objectivist myself, so it's possible you and I don't see so eye-to-eye here.

I also hadn't encountered the word "dasein" until I saw IC criticising you earlier in this thread for using it. Doing a bit of googling, I'm not really sure what it means over "human existence". Are the two terms synonymous? If not, what beyond "human existence" does "dasein" denote (and connote, if applicable)?

WTF? So now even being objective (which should be every single human) has its own 'ist'?? Jesus fucking krist.

[attofishpi]

Two over used dumb arse words: existential & dasein.

[Harry Baird]

Actually I have perfect pitch, so you are barking up the wrong tree there.

Oh, right, now I see which tree you're in. This one:

How's that canoe-building going?

Sprinkler's finally been turned off, so I've got a good old fire going. Should have her hollowed out in no time.

You can't be using aboriginal resources

Funny thing. My neighbour has kindly offered for the log and other supplies to be donated from his own resources, so that box is nicely ticked.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How about 'thinkists'? Meaning: 'People who think about stuff'.

[Harry Baird]

How about 'thinkists'? Meaning: 'People who think about stuff'.

Nice. Now we can replace "wokie". The new term is "pinkist thinkist".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harry, where does the idea, the assumption, the manifest practice of asking questions and then, more or less, demanding answers and feeling justified and empowered to do so come from?

[seeds]

If you present, in a list form, what you believe are the favored ideas that inform modern liberalism, then I will make an effort to cooperate with your inquiry.

[...]
So now I'm supposed to give you a list of the condemned and vilified ideas that you entertain?

Just briefly before other potential responses, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding here. Seeds, I think AJ is asking you not for a list of the ideas that he entertains (as you seem to have misinterpreted him as doing), but of those favoured by modern liberalism ("wokism", in other words, I guess).

I'm always open to correction if I am indeed misunderstanding something, but in this case, it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Alexis clearly stated that at this present moment he "entertains" ideas that are condemned and vilified in the present dispensation.

In which case, I was just trying to get him to not only tell me what those specific ideas were,...

(of which he rightfully pointed me to where he mentioned a few of them)

...but also, to clarify what he meant by "entertaining" said ideas.

So, no, there's no misunderstanding, at least not in this latest exchange, for I'm just trying to cut through the walls of his eloquent prose in order to get a bead on his take on reality.

For example, for all I know at this point, Alexis might be a well read and highly educated Trump supporter, and that would speak volumes to me as to where his head is at - as seen from the purple haze of my entheogenically-induced, psychedelic stupor.

(Now, open your chant books to page 137, and starting with the fourth line of the first verse, let us chant the following line together:

"...Excuse me while I kiss the sky...")
_______

[Harry Baird]

Harry, where does the idea, the assumption, the manifest practice of asking questions and then, more or less, demanding answers and feeling justified and empowered to do so come from?

To ask is not to demand. I can't force you to answer. But here's the thing: we're on a discussion forum, not a personal blog. I think discussion can reasonably, at least in part, be construed as a back-and-forth in which the participants seek understanding and clarification from one another (as well, of course, as offering their thoughts and ideas, etc). Questions and answers can reasonably be construed to be part of this process, and thus, being open to answering questions is plausibly a prerequisite for participation in a discussion.

Do you see it differently? What does discussion mean to you? What, plausibly, are the prerequisites for discussion?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How about 'thinkists'? Meaning: 'People who think about stuff'.

Nice. Now we can replace "wokie". The new term is "pinkist thinkist".

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Harry Baird]

[...]
So now I'm supposed to give you a list of the condemned and vilified ideas that you entertain?

Just briefly before other potential responses, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding here. Seeds, I think AJ is asking you not for a list of the ideas that he entertains (as you seem to have misinterpreted him as doing), but of those favoured by modern liberalism ("wokism", in other words, I guess).

I'm always open to correction if I am indeed misunderstanding something, but in this case, it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Alexis clearly stated that at this present moment he "entertains" ideas that are condemned and vilified in the present dispensation.

In which case, I was just trying to get him to not only tell me what those specific ideas were,...

(of which he rightfully pointed me to where he mentioned a few of them)

...but also, to clarify what he meant by "entertaining" said ideas.

So, no, there's no misunderstanding, at least not in this latest exchange, for I'm just trying to cut through the walls of his eloquent prose in order to get a bead on his take on reality.

For example, for all I know at this point, Alexis might be a well read and highly educated Trump supporter, and that would speak volumes to me as to where his head is at - as seen from the purple haze of my entheogenically-induced, psychedelic stupor.

(Now, open your chant books to page 137, and starting with the fourth line of the first verse, let us chant the following line together:

"...Excuse me while I kiss the sky...")
_______

I think you missed my point. I'm totally on board with your seeking clarification from AJ as to what the ideas are that he entertains. That's not where I think your misunderstanding lies. The misunderstanding I was trying to explain is that you construed his response as to in turn seek from you those ideas of his that he entertains. Instead, though, he was seeking from you a list of the ideas that you entertain as a "modern liberal", which label he presumes you're comfortable accepting.

So, basically, he was saying "You show me yours and I'll show you mine". I think that that's what you missed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Elaborate on this, please. What are the manifestations of this degeneration, and what more specifically are its causes?

A few pages back (my they accumulate quickly) you said you pay no or little attention to SA affairs. In this instance I am speaking to widespread degeneration within the SA state. How about this: dedicate some time to researching contemporary events and then (?) we will talk.

You seem to want me to do work that you should do.

[Gary Childress]

Philosophically, my own "personal prejudice" as it were.

She'll either go there or she won't. Most objectivists won't, however, in my view, because what if my own arguments begin to sink in? What if they begin to suspect that their own comforting and consoling "sense of identity" in regard to moral and political and spiritual convictions are just "existential contraptions" rooted subjectively in dasein in turn?

What if "existential contraptions rooted subjectively in dasein" is just an "existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein". Then what? Do her convictions then get the possibility of their objectivity restored?

[Harry Baird]

How about 'thinkists'? Meaning: 'People who think about stuff'.

Nice. Now we can replace "wokie". The new term is "pinkist thinkist".

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Huh. I would have thought that somebody who can actually read would have... well, actually read.

[Harry Baird]

Elaborate on this, please. What are the manifestations of this degeneration, and what more specifically are its causes?

A few pages back (my they accumulate quickly) you said you pay no or little attention to SA affairs. In this instance I am speaking to widespread degeneration within the SA state. How about this: dedicate some time to researching contemporary events and then (?) we will talk.

You seem to want me to do work that you should do.

It's not about anybody doing anybody else's work. It's that when, on a discussion forum, a person makes a claim, they are generally seen as being responsible for justifying and/or clarifying it when asked. Do you reject either that that's the convention, or the convention itself? If so, again, what do you see as reasonable conventions to accept in a discussion?