the queen is dead

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:39 am Camilla looked as if she has dementia. Charles' eyes are far close together. Andrew always looks shifty. Harry looked ferocious.
A massive and shameless confection of military worship but with really good music.
I believe the point of your message is we should not sacralise royal personages.

There has been a huge popular feeling that Queen Elizabeth is godlike. One man reportedly was angry that her body was not carried along the byways of the whole kingdom so that , like a religious relic, the Coffin could be viewed by everyone.
In the absence of God, as is the case in European consciousness, there remains the need for a centre of aspirations and morals.
Good music ,eye watering visuals, and great logistics notwithstanding, it's a pity the service in Westminster Abbey was so conventional.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:45 pm Look, with the British monarchy being politically toothless...a ritualistic, ceremonial spectacle put on enabling some "in their heads" to link the present with the past...it's a pale imitation of an actual political conflict.

And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amYeah, sure. Though this has little to do with what I wrote.
Well, to the extent that what you wrote is construed by you to be a personal opinion about the Queen, it has, in my view, everything to do with it.
The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amSAme thing.
Same thing indeed. Many members here have either personal opinions or political convictions about Queen Elizabeth's life and death. Often they are in conflict. So, is there a way for philosophers "to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to them?"

What could possibly be of more importance in a philosophy forum? Otherwise, in regard to things like the monarchy and guns and abortion and race and gender and sexual orientation etc., we can all just say "it's just my own personal opinion"...and that ends it? Well, until those on either end of the ideological spectrum actually gain political power. And then others are punished for not having the "right" personal opinion. About Jews for example. Historically as it were.

Thus again...
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the [an]other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amJesus, your responses are completely abstract and generalized. A specific person, you, labeling something another specific person, me, said as political. When asked repeatedly why you view it as poltical, you blame fanatics who will or might, though they didn't. Only you did.
I've tried to explain why, aside from the introspective motive and intention of any particular individuals in regard to queens and kings and monarchies and democracies -- their own "personal opinions" -- what is of far more importance [to me] is how others react to it out in the world of actual human interactions.

And far from being abstract, I note all of this in regard to the Holocaust and the death of Queen Elizabeth; and in regard to such moral and political conflagrations as guns and abortion and race and gender and sexual orientation. Given any particular context here, see how far "it's just my personal opinion" gets you.

Then the even more important part [for me] of how all of this is rooted existentially in dasein rather than in anything the tools of philosophers can provide us.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amAbove you even mention that different people will view it as personal or political depending. But not you. You manage to label some people as fanatics, though you know that others will not do that. You manage to use pejortative terms for convervative policies and attitudes, but tend not to do this for liberal ones.
That's because both my "personal opinions" and my "political prejudices" are fractured and fragmented "given the profoundly problematic, rooted existentially in dasein" assumptions that "I" make here:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amBut you can't manage to have your own, yes, mere, opinion, yes, based on dasein, about my saying I didn't grieve the queen. IOW you can weigh in with your personal opinion on all sorts of things, but not this.
Sigh...

"I" hear the arguments of those on both sides of the issue. And in the past when I was an objectivist myself, I would have come down solid one way or the other. As, say, a devout Christian or a devout Marxist. Now however "I" recognize that there are arguments for and against monarchy and democracy, for and against capitalism and socialism, for and against idealism and pragmatism, for and against collectivist narratives and individualist narratives, for and against genes and memes.

I'm far, far, far more "drawn and quartered" regarding "conflicting goods". Something that the fulminating fanatic objectivists here are anything but.

As for accusations of this sort...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amIs it because I pointed out the issue? You can express your personal opinions, yes, based on dasein, when you decide or on impulse, but if someone else brings up the issue or seems critical you can't manage? Then, it's all about other people and you are a mere cipher for their potential fanatical interpretations.

This is a simple basic human interaction thing. Hey, you called thta political, do you really react that way? And I get, yes, again and again intellectual contraptions and it simply cannot be uttered on your part. Yes, I thought that was political. Your opinion struck me, Iambigiuous as poltical. Or....No, for me it isn't political, though I expect others will or may react that way. The latter would seem to be the case since you keep saying it will be fanatics who will react to it as political.

Notice even there, you manage to have an opinion about them. That they are fanaticals. YOu manage to express an opinion with YOUR OWN PERSONAL REACTION right there.
...choose an issue -- a "conflicting good" -- that is of particular importance to you. One that carries weight for us far beyond the [to me] "queen is dead!" bullshit here on this thread. I started it only in order to explore dasein.

Let us compare our own moral philosophies. Then as the exchange unfolds relating to this issue, you can note particular instances of the things you accuse me of here.

An exchange along the lines of gib and me over at ILP: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197767

Just focus in on the exchanges between me and gib and magnus anderson and maia...ignore the riff raff element that has now taken over ILP. This thread may well end up being the last actual philosophical exchange over there.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:34 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:39 am Camilla looked as if she has dementia. Charles' eyes are far close together. Andrew always looks shifty. Harry looked ferocious.
A massive and shameless confection of military worship but with really good music.
I believe the point of your message is we should not sacralise royal personages.

There has been a huge popular feeling that Queen Elizabeth is godlike. One man reportedly was angry that her body was not carried along the byways of the whole kingdom so that , like a religious relic, the Coffin could be viewed by everyone.
In the absence of God, as is the case in European consciousness, there remains the need for a centre of aspirations and morals.
Good music ,eye watering visuals, and great logistics notwithstanding, it's a pity the service in Westminster Abbey was so conventional.
So the British royals provide a 'moral' guide for the Englsh? That explains a lot then :lol:

As for the funeral, would you have preferred American gospel choirs and egomaniacal preachers? American Independence day-style floats?
I found it refreshing and a huge relief that there wasn't a hint of woke tokenism (wokenism?). Why should it pander to those dipshits? The funeral was exactly the way the Queen wanted it to be-- the one time she could show her true feelings. The British royals know how to do funerals better than anyone else in the world. The precision is extraordinary. Everything is exquisitely done-- down to the tiniest detail (like the air of irreverence and michief that emanates from the marvellously gifted row of boy sopranos. They could easily be ordered to stand still and behave like little statues, but they clearly are not). It's all part of the character of the overall performance. Only an idiot alters perfection.
Royalty is about warmongering and veneration of the military-- and that's exactly what their funerals show everyone, but only the most mean-spirited curmudgeon could fail to appreciate the sheer beauty and spectacle of them. They are essentially military parades. You only have to think of Russian or Chinese military parades to appreciate how well the English do them.
There's also the added bonus of seeing self-important military types being tortured for hours. There would have been no compromise even if she had died at the height of England's last heat wave :lol:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

Then I'm noting that those who lived very different lives from yours could easily have been shaped [if not comprised] to embrace conflicting political prejudices.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pmYep, you are sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays. Wrong. Do not drag your fat ass past GO: do not collect 200 bucks.
No, that's what you need to insist that I am saying in order to avoid going into detail regarding how your own personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge shaped your thinking subjectively regarding these things while not actually comprising it.

And avoiding altogether the existential parameters of those who lived very, very different lives being shaped to embrace opposite conclusions regarding these things. In other words, the commonsense part.

Not to mention all the times I reduce you down to "quips" like the one following this point...
I'm thinking more along the lines of identities forged existentially. As explored in these two films: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... e#p2476698

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... y#p2366489

Not that I'd ever expect hardcore objectivists of your ilk to actually grasp the implications of all this for your own identity. After all, the whole point of being an objectivist for your kind is to have the comfort and consolation that comes from being able to neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pmNot watchin' 'em (unless they're porn...are they porn?).
Of course you won't watch them. Or read my reviews at ILP. I would never expect a fulminating fanatic objectivist of your ilk to. Instead, so much more to the point is how you continue not to be in least bit embarrassed being reduced down to retorts like that. Over at ILP I'd get that all the time from the Kids.
After all, the whole point of being an objectivist for your kind is to have the comfort and consolation that comes from being able to neatly divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pmNope. It's cuz I'm right and you're a wrong-headed moron: that's as plain as the crooked nose on my lop-sided face. As plain as the sweat tricklin' down between your man paps.
Thus confirming my point. So, if you're not embarrassed to post intellectual dreck of this sort at the Philosophy Now magazine forum, I'm not embarrassed to suggest that you ought to be.
My point though is as a young child your parents did in fact indoctrinate you on the ways of their world. About countless things. Only as you grew older and had experiences apart from them did you start to "toss" some of their beliefs and existentially acquire moral and political prejudices all your own.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pmNope. They gave me an Electronium Thinking Hat.
Note to others:

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck believing that henry's brain compels him to post crap like this. So, he's off the hook. But why, by and large, only with me? Go ahead, ask me to explain that.
Okay, in regard to your own son, how, with respect to queens and guns and abortions, do you go about making this distinction to him? Did you sit him down and say, "Son, these are the things I believe. On the other hand, you may well have experiences that take you in just the opposite direction. And that's fine with me."
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pm I just passed on the Electronium Thinking Hat.
Lucky kid, eh? Either that or the dreaded chip off the old block.
Ah, back to his "general description intellectual contraptions" in which the whole truth here revolves tautologically around the definitions he gives to the words. Others are quite simply wrong if they don't define them in precisely the same way. And then in precisely the same way bring those definitions out into the world of actual human interactions.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:37 pmeveryone[/i]: a free man has an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. And anyone who disagrees is a wrong-headed, moronic enemy.
And on and on and on he goes in the same vein for the entire post. Abandoning substantive points for his "clever" quips and retorts. Short taunting sentences. Sometimes only a few words about things like "fat-assery & pussification, or dick flashin". Just like the Kids over at ILP. Something, however, I never expected to encounter here at all.

And it just never seems to occur to him that at a philosophy forum brought into existence by the folks from Philosophy Now magazine this is not really the place for endless "clever" quips and retorts.

Except maybe in the Lounge.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

No, that's what you need to insist that I am saying in order to avoid going into detail regarding how your own personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge shaped your thinking subjectively regarding these things while not actually comprising it.
Nope. It's obvious you believe man is nuthin' but an -- initially -- empty receptacle, one to be filled up by whatever. For you: whoever or whatever a man is at any given moment is simply the sum or aggregate of experience.

As to what I avoid: splayin' open my life. I understand it's a masturbatory thing for you to prance about declarin' I'm broken and then lookin' for someone to save you/lookin' to erode other folks so they break too, but I don't roll that way.

*
And avoiding altogether the existential parameters of those who lived very, very different lives being shaped to embrace opposite conclusions regarding these things. In other words, the commonsense part.
Yes, I know, Joe likes pepperoni and Stan prefers Canadian Bacon and -- by Crom -- you'll get down to the moral/ethical/existential bottom of their differences if it kills you...hopefully.

*
Not to mention all the times I reduce you down to "quips" like the one following this point...
The only thing reduced is how seriously I take you. I never did see you as much, and -- as of now -- you're less noteworthy than age (or your butt-buddy, pro). You have achieved the lowly status of curiosity.

Congratulations.

*
Of course you won't watch them. Or read my reviews at ILP.
Of course I won't. What have you said there that you haven't fulimnated about here? Nuthin', I reckon. You have one trick, and you play it over and over. The novelty is gone.

*
Instead, so much more to the point is how you continue not to be in least bit embarrassed being reduced down to retorts like that.
I learned a long while back not to put more effort into posts than the folks I'm tusslin' do. You've been coastin' for a long time now. Once that sunk in: I just stopped.

*
if you're not embarrassed to post intellectual dreck of this sort at the Philosophy Now magazine forum, I'm not embarrassed to suggest that you ought to be.
Oh, I'm not embarrassed to coast: and neither are you.

*
Note to others:
He's serious, folks: pay attention.

*
Unfortunately, I'm still stuck believing that henry's brain compels him to post crap like this.
Yes, to you, I'm a meat machine.

*
So, he's off the hook.
Never realized I was on the hook.

*
But why, by and large, only with me?
Why do I treat you like dirt? Cuz that's what you are.

*
Go ahead, ask me to explain that.
Five bucks sez no one, 'cept mebbe pro, does.

*
the dreaded chip off the old block
Yep, seems to be the case.

*
Something, however, I never expected to encounter here at all.
Naiveté.

*
And it just never seems to occur to him that at a philosophy forum brought into existence by the folks from Philosophy Now magazine this is not really the place for endless "clever" quips and retorts.
You're the only one openly complainin': that oughta tell you sumthin'.

*
Except maybe in the Lounge.
This whole place is a lounge, goofus.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Belinda »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:48 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:34 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:39 am Camilla looked as if she has dementia. Charles' eyes are far close together. Andrew always looks shifty. Harry looked ferocious.
A massive and shameless confection of military worship but with really good music.
I believe the point of your message is we should not sacralise royal personages.

There has been a huge popular feeling that Queen Elizabeth is godlike. One man reportedly was angry that her body was not carried along the byways of the whole kingdom so that , like a religious relic, the Coffin could be viewed by everyone.
In the absence of God, as is the case in European consciousness, there remains the need for a centre of aspirations and morals.
Good music ,eye watering visuals, and great logistics notwithstanding, it's a pity the service in Westminster Abbey was so conventional.
So the British royals provide a 'moral' guide for the Englsh? That explains a lot then :lol:

As for the funeral, would you have preferred American gospel choirs and egomaniacal preachers? American Independence day-style floats?
I found it refreshing and a huge relief that there wasn't a hint of woke tokenism (wokenism?). Why should it pander to those dipshits? The funeral was exactly the way the Queen wanted it to be-- the one time she could show her true feelings. The British royals know how to do funerals better than anyone else in the world. The precision is extraordinary. Everything is exquisitely done-- down to the tiniest detail (like the air of irreverence and michief that emanates from the marvellously gifted row of boy sopranos. They could easily be ordered to stand still and behave like little statues, but they clearly are not). It's all part of the character of the overall performance. Only an idiot alters perfection.
Royalty is about warmongering and veneration of the military-- and that's exactly what their funerals show everyone, but only the most mean-spirited curmudgeon could fail to appreciate the sheer beauty and spectacle of them. They are essentially military parades. You only have to think of Russian or Chinese military parades to appreciate how well the English do them.
There's also the added bonus of seeing self-important military types being tortured for hours. There would have been no compromise even if she had died at the height of England's last heat wave :lol:
Right you are Veggie. The Royal family's PR experts , and the late Queen are and were second to none and all the mourning and funerary arrangements have been planned down to the smallest detail taking into account what the people need from Royalty, together with the requirements of the Church of England, the established church.

I'm glad you enjoyed it all. I was inseparable from the TV .

I fear the Queen will be irreplaceable as the still centre of national consciousness for many of her subjects. As such she was incomparably better than "egomaniacal preachers" or even the most charismatic popular celebrity.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 6:14 pm
No, that's what you need to insist that I am saying in order to avoid going into detail regarding how your own personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge shaped your thinking subjectively regarding these things while not actually comprising it.
Nope. It's obvious you believe man is nuthin' but an -- initially -- empty receptacle, one to be filled up by whatever. For you: whoever or whatever a man is at any given moment is simply the sum or aggregate of experience.

As to what I avoid: splayin' open my life. I understand it's a masturbatory thing for you to prance about declarin' I'm broken and then lookin' for someone to save you/lookin' to erode other folks so they break too, but I don't roll that way.

*
And avoiding altogether the existential parameters of those who lived very, very different lives being shaped to embrace opposite conclusions regarding these things. In other words, the commonsense part.
Yes, I know, Joe likes pepperoni and Stan prefers Canadian Bacon and -- by Crom -- you'll get down to the moral/ethical/existential bottom of their differences if it kills you...hopefully.

*
Not to mention all the times I reduce you down to "quips" like the one following this point...
The only thing reduced is how seriously I take you. I never did see you as much, and -- as of now -- you're less noteworthy than age (or your butt-buddy, pro). You have achieved the lowly status of curiosity.

Congratulations.

*
Of course you won't watch them. Or read my reviews at ILP.
Of course I won't. What have you said there that you haven't fulimnated about here? Nuthin', I reckon. You have one trick, and you play it over and over. The novelty is gone.

*
Instead, so much more to the point is how you continue not to be in least bit embarrassed being reduced down to retorts like that.
I learned a long while back not to put more effort into posts than the folks I'm tusslin' do. You've been coastin' for a long time now. Once that sunk in: I just stopped.

*
if you're not embarrassed to post intellectual dreck of this sort at the Philosophy Now magazine forum, I'm not embarrassed to suggest that you ought to be.
Oh, I'm not embarrassed to coast: and neither are you.

*
Note to others:
He's serious, folks: pay attention.

*
Unfortunately, I'm still stuck believing that henry's brain compels him to post crap like this.
Yes, to you, I'm a meat machine.

*
So, he's off the hook.
Never realized I was on the hook.

*
But why, by and large, only with me?
Why do I treat you like dirt? Cuz that's what you are.

*
Go ahead, ask me to explain that.
Five bucks sez no one, 'cept mebbe pro, does.

*
the dreaded chip off the old block
Yep, seems to be the case.

*
Something, however, I never expected to encounter here at all.
Naiveté.

*
And it just never seems to occur to him that at a philosophy forum brought into existence by the folks from Philosophy Now magazine this is not really the place for endless "clever" quips and retorts.
You're the only one openly complainin': that oughta tell you sumthin'.

*
Except maybe in the Lounge.
This whole place is a lounge, goofus.
Note to others:

There is an exchange on this thread between myself and Iwannaplato regarding reactions to the Queen's death. And isn't this exchange basically what one would expect at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine? A substantive and largely civil exchange of thoughts and feelings.

Then there's whatever henry is trying to turn it into instead.

Now, with others here, henry is, from time to time, able to sustain a reasonably substantive back and forth exchange.

Just [of late] not with me.

Why?

Well, I speculate, that's because with others here the exchanges revolve around dueling definitions and deductions...or around conflicting objectivist narratives. Both sides believe that there is a right and a wrong way to think about thinks like the Queen or guns or abortions. Then they go back and forth -- liberals vs. conservatives by and large -- making their substantive arguments.

With me, however, I shift the focus. It's not what one believes but how existentially one comes to believe one thing rather than another. The argument that revolves around dasein.

And the more the particularly fanatical objectivists of henry's ilk come to recognize the threat that is to their own Precious Self, the more they are likely to make everything about me. The more they resort to sputtering posts -- "clever" quips and retorts -- like the ones from henry here of late.

They have no substantive rebuttals to the points I raise, in my view.

So, until henry is willing to shift back to a more substantial exchange with me, I'll pass on the Stooge material from him of late.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Note to others:
Really, people: pay attention.

*
There is an exchange on this thread between myself and Iwannaplato regarding reactions to the Queen's death. And isn't this exchange basically what one would expect at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine? A substantive and largely civil exchange of thoughts and feelings.
🤣

Here's IWP's last response to biggy...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:45 pm And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.
Yeah, sure. Though this has little to do with what I wrote.
The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
SAme thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.
Jesus, your responses are completely abstract and generalized. A specific person, you, labeling something another specific person, me, said as political. When asked repeatedly why you view it as poltical, you blame fanatics who will or might, though they didn't. Only you did. Above you even mention that different people will view it as personal or political depending. But not you. You manage to label some people as fanatics, though you know that others will not do that. You manage to use pejortative terms for convervative policies and attitudes, but tend not to do this for liberal ones.

But you can't manage to have your own, yes, mere, opinion, yes, based on dasein, about my saying I didn't grieve the queen. IOW you can weigh in with your personal opinion on all sorts of things, but not this.

Is it because I pointed out the issue? You can express your personal opinions, yes, based on dasein, when you decide or on impulse, but if someone else brings up the issue or seems critical you can't manage? Then, it's all about other people and you are a mere cipher for their potential fanatical interpretations.

This is a simple basic human interaction thing. Hey, you called thta political, do you really react that way? And I get, yes, again and again intellectual contraptions and it simply cannot be uttered on your part. Yes, I thought that was political. Your opinion struck me, Iambigiuous as poltical. Or....No, for me it isn't political, though I expect others will or may react that way. The latter would seemt to be the case since you keep saying it will be fanatics who will react to it as political.

Notice even there, you manage to have an opinion about them. That they are fanaticals. YOu manage to express an opinion with YOUR OWN PERSONAL REACTION right there.

But if asked to do this by someone else...oh, no. Then you can only react as the population of the entire planet and it is their fault, those fanatics, that it will be taken as political.

I don't know what this is, actually. It's my fault for engaging after saing I wouldn't. I mean, there is some strange pattern here on your part that keeps you from reacting when asked as a person, despite being perfectly capable of slipping your personal values all over the place about things you are not asked about. That's on you whatever defensiveness or avoidance or whatever it is.

But shame on me, as they say, for somehow thinking that if I reflect back what is happening perhaps 4 or 5 different ways, a change will happen. Dasein, sure, means we are potentially changing. But then people generally find their GROOVE, the record skips, from then on, the same way, each time.
...'nuff said.

*
Now, with others here, henry is, from time to time, able to sustain a reasonably substantive back and forth exchange.

Just [of late] not with me.

Why?
Answered: You have one trick, and you play it over and over. The novelty is gone.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:59 pm
Note to others:
Really, people: pay attention.

*
There is an exchange on this thread between myself and Iwannaplato regarding reactions to the Queen's death. And isn't this exchange basically what one would expect at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine? A substantive and largely civil exchange of thoughts and feelings.
🤣

Here's IWP's last response to biggy...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:45 pm And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.
Yeah, sure. Though this has little to do with what I wrote.
The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
SAme thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.
Jesus, your responses are completely abstract and generalized. A specific person, you, labeling something another specific person, me, said as political. When asked repeatedly why you view it as poltical, you blame fanatics who will or might, though they didn't. Only you did. Above you even mention that different people will view it as personal or political depending. But not you. You manage to label some people as fanatics, though you know that others will not do that. You manage to use pejortative terms for convervative policies and attitudes, but tend not to do this for liberal ones.

But you can't manage to have your own, yes, mere, opinion, yes, based on dasein, about my saying I didn't grieve the queen. IOW you can weigh in with your personal opinion on all sorts of things, but not this.

Is it because I pointed out the issue? You can express your personal opinions, yes, based on dasein, when you decide or on impulse, but if someone else brings up the issue or seems critical you can't manage? Then, it's all about other people and you are a mere cipher for their potential fanatical interpretations.

This is a simple basic human interaction thing. Hey, you called thta political, do you really react that way? And I get, yes, again and again intellectual contraptions and it simply cannot be uttered on your part. Yes, I thought that was political. Your opinion struck me, Iambigiuous as poltical. Or....No, for me it isn't political, though I expect others will or may react that way. The latter would seemt to be the case since you keep saying it will be fanatics who will react to it as political.

Notice even there, you manage to have an opinion about them. That they are fanaticals. YOu manage to express an opinion with YOUR OWN PERSONAL REACTION right there.

But if asked to do this by someone else...oh, no. Then you can only react as the population of the entire planet and it is their fault, those fanatics, that it will be taken as political.

I don't know what this is, actually. It's my fault for engaging after saing I wouldn't. I mean, there is some strange pattern here on your part that keeps you from reacting when asked as a person, despite being perfectly capable of slipping your personal values all over the place about things you are not asked about. That's on you whatever defensiveness or avoidance or whatever it is.

But shame on me, as they say, for somehow thinking that if I reflect back what is happening perhaps 4 or 5 different ways, a change will happen. Dasein, sure, means we are potentially changing. But then people generally find their GROOVE, the record skips, from then on, the same way, each time.
...'nuff said.
As I noted, "largely civil". But both our collection of points are certainly substantive. And he/she will either continue the exchange or not. I can only suggest to others that they compare and contrast my exchange with Iwannaplato and henry's substance-less and clearly ridiculous "quips and retorts". However "clever" they might be.

:lol: :roll: :lol:
iambiguous wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:18 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:45 pm Look, with the British monarchy being politically toothless...a ritualistic, ceremonial spectacle put on enabling some "in their heads" to link the present with the past...it's a pale imitation of an actual political conflict.

And, again, the irony here being that in regard to your own personal opinions about it, I construe them to be the embodiment of dasein...as fabricated subjectively out in a particular world understood in a particular way...as largely unfolding within the existential parameters of your individual life. Had your life been different for any number of reasons you might be here devastated by the queen's death.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amYeah, sure. Though this has little to do with what I wrote.
Well, to the extent that what you wrote is construed by you to be a personal opinion about the Queen, it has, in my view, everything to do with it.
The crucial point being that, this being a philosophy forum, there was not appear [to me] to be a way for philosophers, using the technical tools are their disposal, to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amSAme thing.
Same thing indeed. Many members here have either personal opinions or political convictions about Queen Elizabeth's life and death. Often they are in conflict. So, is there a way for philosophers "to assess how all rational -- wise -- men and women ought to react to them?"

What could possibly be of more importance in a philosophy forum? Otherwise, in regard to things like the monarchy and guns and abortion and race and gender and sexual orientation etc., we can all just say "it's just my own personal opinion"...and that ends it? Well, until those on either end of the ideological spectrum actually gain political power. And then others are punished for not having the "right" personal opinion. About Jews for example. Historically as it were.

Thus again...
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:32 amthat's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.
From my frame of mind, this all revolves around different distinctions that we make between "personal opinions" and "political convictions"...out in the real world where we may intend one thing rather than the [an]other but others are often more than willing to insist it must be as they construe it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amJesus, your responses are completely abstract and generalized. A specific person, you, labeling something another specific person, me, said as political. When asked repeatedly why you view it as poltical, you blame fanatics who will or might, though they didn't. Only you did.
I've tried to explain why, aside from the introspective motive and intention of any particular individuals in regard to queens and kings and monarchies and democracies -- their own "personal opinions" -- what is of far more importance [to me] is how others react to it out in the world of actual human interactions.

And far from being abstract, I note all of this in regard to the Holocaust and the death of Queen Elizabeth; and in regard to such moral and political conflagrations as guns and abortion and race and gender and sexual orientation. Given any particular context here, see how far "it's just my personal opinion" gets you.

Then the even more important part [for me] of how all of this is rooted existentially in dasein rather than in anything the tools of philosophers can provide us.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amAbove you even mention that different people will view it as personal or political depending. But not you. You manage to label some people as fanatics, though you know that others will not do that. You manage to use pejortative terms for convervative policies and attitudes, but tend not to do this for liberal ones.
That's because both my "personal opinions" and my "political prejudices" are fractured and fragmented "given the profoundly problematic, rooted existentially in dasein" assumptions that "I" make here:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amBut you can't manage to have your own, yes, mere, opinion, yes, based on dasein, about my saying I didn't grieve the queen. IOW you can weigh in with your personal opinion on all sorts of things, but not this.
Sigh...

"I" hear the arguments of those on both sides of the issue. And in the past when I was an objectivist myself, I would have come down solid one way or the other. As, say, a devout Christian or a devout Marxist. Now however "I" recognize that there are arguments for and against monarchy and democracy, for and against capitalism and socialism, for and against idealism and pragmatism, for and against collectivist narratives and individualist narratives, for and against genes and memes.

I'm far, far, far more "drawn and quartered" regarding "conflicting goods". Something that the fulminating fanatic objectivists here are anything but.

As for accusations of this sort...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:30 amIs it because I pointed out the issue? You can express your personal opinions, yes, based on dasein, when you decide or on impulse, but if someone else brings up the issue or seems critical you can't manage? Then, it's all about other people and you are a mere cipher for their potential fanatical interpretations.

This is a simple basic human interaction thing. Hey, you called thta political, do you really react that way? And I get, yes, again and again intellectual contraptions and it simply cannot be uttered on your part. Yes, I thought that was political. Your opinion struck me, Iambigiuous as poltical. Or....No, for me it isn't political, though I expect others will or may react that way. The latter would seem to be the case since you keep saying it will be fanatics who will react to it as political.

Notice even there, you manage to have an opinion about them. That they are fanaticals. YOu manage to express an opinion with YOUR OWN PERSONAL REACTION right there.
...choose an issue -- a "conflicting good" -- that is of particular importance to you. One that carries weight for us far beyond the [to me] "queen is dead!" bullshit here on this thread. I started it only in order to explore dasein.

Let us compare our own moral philosophies. Then as the exchange unfolds relating to this issue, you can note particular instances of the things you accuse me of here.

An exchange along the lines of gib and me over at ILP: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=197767

Just focus in on the exchanges between me and gib and magnus anderson and maia...ignore the riff raff element that has now taken over ILP. This thread may well end up being the last actual philosophical exchange over there.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:51 pm
My question actually is: How is it that Man is capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined? If such a power exists, what is the basis of it? Or where did it come from?
That's 3 questions. Becuz man is a free will and not a meat machine, and that's not undetermined, that's self-determined. Man is a composite being, meat and spirit irrevocably intermixed, neither worth a damn without the other. God.

-----
Kay I did.

Now what?
No, you didn't.

Try again.
Your version of 'free' (which is pretty vague to say the least). Stop making 'free' a political term.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by reasonvemotion »

iambiguous wrote:
Now, with others here, henry is, from time to time, able to sustain a reasonably substantive back and forth exchange.

Just [of late] not with me.

Why?
Why?

Even our own minds can deliberately harm us at times. The brain likes to give somewhat deceptive explanations about personality. 
Granted every one has blind spots which allows emotions and thoughts (usually unconscious) to influence or result in behaviors that are used as a self protection mechanism and what is obvious about you is a lack of wisdom and judgment.  

You are an utter mystery to yourself.
Post Reply