Not yours, yeah. It is, however, mine.That's not the point.
With my proviso in place, sure.The point is that provided we accept the new information, we might change our mind.
Sure.That we can't know for sure that down the road this won't happen.
I have, with the priviso.Whereas the objectivists among us who are absolutely adamant regarding their own moral and political dogmas [God or No God] never acknowledge that.
You told me on another thread that you had changed your mind regarding important things in your life. And, as I recall, you cited some vague example. But nothing really specific.
It was across several threads and I was fairly specific. I, of course, didn't splay myself like some do and offer up a self-deprecating biography.
No, I didn't splay myself and offer a self-deprecating biography becuz it's not necessary. If I tell you I moved from atheism to deism becuz of the failures of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain, that is sufficient to have a conversation. There's no need for me to debase myself, like some folks. This isn't a therapy site and no one here is a counsellor. Those who are troubled ought remember that.And you don't in my view because I suspect that in regard to an issue like abortion or guns or transgender rights, you either never really have changed your mind in the past or you did but don't want to fess up to it because that just reinforces my contention that you are now forced to admit that you might be wrong about something important you believe in now.
You can deem whatever you like. Just spare me the rhetorical tricks. They aren't workin' the way you'd like (unless your intent is to end the conversation).I certainly deem that to be what you are doing.
Sure you do. Overall, your intent is clear: to break folks. To fracture them as you claim you were fractured.I don't expect to convince you, henry.
How is recognizing an individual, any individual, every individual, as having a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property a my way or the highway proposition? Only way a body could conclude such a thing is if they don't believe an individual, any individual, every individual has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. Do you believe you have a right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property? Do you believe I have a right to my, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property? If you don't believe either then do you believe others have a right to your life, liberty, and property? Do you believe you have a right to my life, liberty, and property?"my way or the highway" libertarian mentality.
And you've posted nuthin', currently, to convince me you're anything than a garden-variety trickster.You have posted nothing so far that would lead me to conclude that the "psychology of objectivism" is not what motivates you by and large.
Again, just a wordy way of sayin' an individual is just the product of his experiences...change his experiential components and you change the person.All I can do is to come back to this:
That's what you're sayin' and that's what you keep tryin' to convince me (or yourself?) of. Seems like it's worthy enough for you to keep on goin' on about it.To say that all I am arguing above is "an individual is nuthin' but a product of experience" isn't even worthy of a response from me.
Nah. It's about two real people -- you and me -- in the real world debating on how to live and on how we live. Me, as a free will, whole. You, as a broken meat machine. All the fancy talk doesn't change that.It's about how you and I construe the existential parameters of human identity in the is/ought world from very different perspectives.
And you as faux-nihilist to me.You as a run-of-the-mill objectivist to me.
Of course you're not fractured about the dry facts of you. I live at 666 XYZ Lane: there's nuthin' to get flummoxed about.No, I am pointing out the fact that in regard to hundreds and hundreds of variables in my life I am not in the least fractured and fragmented.
Yes, I've read your scripts. They say I am a product of experience; given other experiences I, as product, might be different.Then I note the parts rooted existentially in the is/ought world of value judgments where "I" am. And then in my signature threads and in my posts I explain why I think that way.
I've explained and you've snipped that away and chose to not substantively address it. I'll answer again in the manner I might address DAM (there's a chick with a condition): I am the experiencer, not the sum of experience. I exist before and after any experience. I learn from, but am not transmuted by, experience. I am not fractured becuz I cannot be, by definition, fractured. Too esoteric? Not esoteric enough? Tell me your level of comprehension and I'll lower the bar even more.Then in regard to value judgments of your own I ask you to note why you are not that way.
I'm givin' you the only accurate summary of your view I can, based solely on what you've posted. If I'm missin' sumthin', you're free to point it out. In the absence of you doin' so, I can't see much point in you objectin' to my summary, over and over. You aren't movin' me.Then, in my view, you wiggle out of going there and post responses that describe me in a way that is ludicrous to me.
Another rhetorical trick. Who are these many you refer to? Name these souls you've shaken to core with your dasein. I see none of those folks here. Mebbe they're all over there, at that other place. I would like to meet them, these converts of yours.I suspect that revolves around you not really wanting to grasp that because, as with so many like you over the years, it begins to sink in: "what if that becomes applicable to me!!"
Yeah, like I said you default to determinism. Just commit and say I'm a determinist (we all understand, of course, given new information and experiences you might come to believe different...lord, but you've told us so enough times) and be done with it. Time to stop fence-sittin', Iam (but then, you're not really fence sittin', are you)."Here and now" it makes the most sense to me given that human brains are matter.
Nope. You might wanna read that conversation I had with Harbal again, the one I posted, the one you snipped out and didn't respond substantively to.Only those like you have a God, the God to fall back on.
First thing you got right in a coon's age...If we have free will it's because God intended us to. Your God simply split the scene.
What's to confront? it's a wordy way of sayin' some folks are determinists, some folks are free willists and currently there's no way to establish conclusively the truth.When confronted with this...
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.
Big whoop. You already lean toward determinism, so just commit and move on.
I've offered up what works for me, acknowledging every time it might not work for you. It never does; nuthin' anyone posts does. Do, I've come to understand there's nuthin' I can tell you that'll serve as evidence. Thing is: if my notions about God are right, it doesn't matter cuz He doesn't care if you believe in Him or not. But, yeah, I know, deism is no comfort for a guy obsessed about the possibility of a horrific afterlife (or who claims to be worried about such things). Me, I don't get what the hoopla is. And now you'll give me another canned response meant to belittle me for lackin' the will to accept nihilism and join you on the junk heap of broken things....you bring it back to a God that, once again, to the best of my knowledge, you have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of.
And, in advance of you goin' on about look what I've reduced you to let me say I have no clue how else to respond to you. My sincere responses don't cut the (your) mustard and are rejected, ignored, dismissed, or used as jumpin' off points for you to post script. My snark is waved about as proof of victory. Some times I take you as you present yourself, existentially fractured and in-stasis; other times I see you as trickster, a conniver. Increasingly I see you as mentally ill or autistic like age.
I just don't know what to do with you, Iam. We never get out of the starting gate...and I'm gettin' awfully tired just runnin' in place, Alice.
Not really. The crux of the abortion debate is when does human life begin or what constitutes human life or personhood. Lots of noise is made about a woman's right to choose but that's always in the context of what I want to abort is not a human being and not I wanna kill my unborn child. Even the most hard core pro abortionists do not advocate killing children. The crux of the gun debate is should a person own a killing machine. To that end, anti-gunners attempt to reclassify a gun as sumthin' other than property. Its purpose, to them, trumps its status as property. And always such folks shy away from answering the simple question if I've done no harm with my gun, why am I to be penalized? On those rare occasions they tackle that question the answer is always, when you strip it down to its essence you're guilty till proven innocent. Property: I know what I mean when I talk about it. My definition is conventional. What's yours? What's your justifier for depriving folks of property (in general or from some specific class of property)?And [of course] "natural rights" in regard to abortion and guns and property and the like are what you say they are.
What I expect from you here is a withdrawal to I don't care what people think so much as how they came to believe it.
In that case: tell me how you arrived at the notion democracy is the way to go. You said if weapons were forbidden by law you'd turn in your revolver. How did you arrive at the conclusion doing so would be the right thing?
I believe every single person who's ever lived, who lives today, and who will live tomorrow knows in his bones his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's, yeah.You "just know" viscerally, deep down in your gut that what you believe about these things is true.
If you or Harbal or anyone actually believes your life, liberty, and property are not yours, that others can justly lay claim to you, well, I feel very sorry for you.And if those like Harbel, myself and others believe intuitively in something else, then...then what, henry?
This is supposed to pass as a substantive response to my conversation with Harbal?No, henry, in my view, that is simply preposterous.
I might disagree with those on when human life begins, but I'm guessin' we'd all agree that children ought not be killed.Even those like gib and magsj and maia who posit their own rendition of this deep down inside intrinsic/spiritual/emotional Self will no doubt differ from you regarding any number of issues. And certainly Deists themselves are all over the board morally and politically.
I might disagree with those about the status or necessity of guns but I'm guessin' we'd all agree that a person's property is his.
I might disagree with those on when a person ought be jailed for an offense or what comprises an offense but I'm guessin' we'd all agree if there is no offense a person ought be left alone.
So, yeah we's dicker on details but not fundamentals.
I reckon I'm as committed to my family as anyone, and mebbe more than many. Does this mean they, as individuals or as a group, own me? Does this mean I have a claim to any of their lives, liberties, or properties?There are literally millions upon millions of men and women around the globe who intertwine "I" profoundly in one or another "we". Many far more willing to identity with the family or the community than with the so-called "rugged individual" mentality.
As I say: even the slaver, as he affixes prices to men, knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. Failing to recognize or willfully ignoring the natural rights of others violates others, it doesn't negate natural rights. I mean, a person can choose to ignore that fire burns but that doesn't change the fact fire burns, yeah?And that's before we get to the amoral global capitalists and narcissistic sociopaths who see others only as a means to their own selfish ends.
Did you read them? Did you even go over to the thread? Should I post the relevant pieces here? If I do, will you read them?What then is the evidence in these pieces?
The context is what it's always been: two real people -- you and me -- in the real world debating on how to live and on how we live. Me, as a free will, whole. You, as a broken meat machine.Note this given a particular context and then we'll talk.
And, as I say: I haven't figured out if you're broken, a trickster, or just mentally ill.I sometimes wonder if from time to time you are a few sandwiches short of a picnic