the limits of fascism

[Skepdick]

I have considered all sorts of possibilities, but I have to base them on the material you present.

That's hardly useful given the problem of underdetermination.

Where do you think the similarities between you and Immanuel Can stop?

There are similarities? You'd have to justify that claim...

As I have said, I am happy to be proven wrong. So show me that you are more than just a dick.

If you were charitable, I wouldn't have to.

[tillingborn]

I have considered all sorts of possibilities, but I have to base them on the material you present.

That's hardly useful given the problem of underdetermination.

The problem of underdetermination just means that there will always be alternative possibilities. Like every other sentient being that isn't hogtied by ideology, I make do with the possibility I'm aware of that I calculate works best for my current purpose. If there is a situation for which any particular possibility isn't useful, I'll look for another that is. As I understand, so would you.

As I have said, I am happy to be proven wrong. So show me that you are more than just a dick.

If you were charitable, I wouldn't have to.

How much charity do you want?

[Skepdick]

The problem of underdetermination just means that there will always be alternative possibilities.

Nothing of that sort. The problem simply implies that anything you conclude/claim/believe or infer over and above that which was observed is an interpretation. Given any finite set of observations infinite interpretations are possible.

It just depends on how much of your own biases you project onto the situation.

Like every other sentient being that isn't hogtied by ideology, I make do with the possibility I'm aware of that I calculate works best for my current purpose.

Why do you make your pragmatism other people's problem? Also...

If there is a situation for which any particular possibility isn't useful, I'll look for another that is. As I understand, so would you.

You've never explicitly stated what "your purpose is", so you've left me guessing what your utility-function is.

Surely that's not something you want to leave to my interpretation? If we are talking cross-purpose we are probably wasting each other's time...

How much charity do you want?

Any charity would be a good start. Tell me about those "alternative possibilities" that you've dismissed. Start with those that paint me in a good light.

[tillingborn]

The problem of underdetermination just means that there will always be alternative possibilities.

Nothing of that sort. The problem simply implies that anything you conclude/claim/believe or infer over and above that which was observed is an interpretation. Given any finite set of observations infinite interpretations are possible.

So exactly the same thing is "Nothing of the sort." I really can't be bothered to argue with someone who agrees with everything I say.

[Skepdick]

So exactly the same thing is "Nothing of the sort." I really can't be bothered to argue with someone who agrees with everything I say.

Why do you keep framing everything as "arguments", "attacks", "conflict" and "agreement/disagreement"?

Are you actually capable of suspending judgment during a conversation? Are you capable of suspending judgment at all?

Perhaps the phenomenological practice of Epoché is something you don't know about?
Or at least, something you don't seem to know how to put to practice.

[tillingborn]

Why do you keep framing everything as "arguments", "attacks", "conflict" and "agreement/disagreement"?

I can't wipe my ass with your compliments, but I am busy wiping my ass with your ego.

Are you actually capable of suspending judgment during a conversation? Are you capable of suspending judgment at all?

As I made clear, I am not certain what your words intend, so I remain agnostic. You are absolutely right that I will draw conclusions, simply to fit a developing narrative, but if I take a wrong turn, possibly because of my own biases/insecurities, I am happy to have them corrected. Show me why I am wrong, and I will thank you.

[Skepdick]

Why do you keep framing everything as "arguments", "attacks", "conflict" and "agreement/disagreement"?

I can't wipe my ass with your compliments, but I am busy wiping my ass with your ego.

Are you actually capable of suspending judgment during a conversation? Are you capable of suspending judgment at all?

As I made clear, I am not certain what your words intend, so I remain agnostic. You are absolutely right that I will draw conclusions, simply to fit a developing narrative, but if I take a wrong turn, possibly because of my own biases/insecurities, I am happy to have them corrected. Show me why I am wrong, and I will thank you.

I guess you haven't joined the dots between ego, judgment and insecurities yet.

The very thing impairing your judgment.

It is precisely your ego that I am attacking. Not you.

[tillingborn]

I guess you haven't joined the dots between ego, judgment and insecurities yet.

The very thing impairing your judgment.

As I said, show me why I am wrong, and I will thank you.

[Skepdick]

As I said, show me why I am wrong, and I will thank you.

You are wrong because you keep framing everything as being "right" and "wrong".

There's nothing wrong with being wrong in the intellectual/factual/philosophical sense.

It's only moral wrongness that matters.

[tillingborn]

As I said, show me why I am wrong, and I will thank you.

You are wrong because you keep framing everything as being "right" and "wrong".

There's nothing wrong with being wrong in the intellectual/factual/philosophical sense.

You are framing the intellectual/factual/philosophical sense as being "right" and "wrong".

It's only moral wrongness that matters.

So do you hope to correct my morals?

[Skepdick]

You are framing the intellectual/factual/philosophical sense as being "right" and "wrong".

I am not. I am rejecting the very notion of "being right" or "wrong" outside of moral discourse.

So do you hope to correct my morals?

Not in the least bit. Just your default framing.

[tillingborn]

You are framing the intellectual/factual/philosophical sense as being "right" and "wrong".

I am not. I am rejecting the very notion of "being right" or "wrong" outside of moral discourse.

That's an aesthetic choice.

So do you hope to correct my morals?

Not in the least bit. Just your default framing.

We've been conversing for a while now. What progress have you made?

[Skepdick]

That's an aesthetic choice.

That's one way to dismiss it.

None the less, you are equivocating "right" and "wrong".

We've been conversing for a while now. What progress have you made?

Minimal. Largely due to your defensiveness/ego.

[tillingborn]

We've been conversing for a while now. What progress have you made?

Minimal. Largely due to your defensiveness/ego.

Since your current tactics are impeded by my ego, why don't you try the direct approach and tell me exactly what my new 'default framing' should be?

[Advocate]

[quote=tillingborn post_id=503423 time=1616318943 user_id=7001]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503421 time=1616316858 user_id=17350][quote=tillingborn post_id=503420 time=1616316669 user_id=7001]
We've been conversing for a while now. What progress have you made?
[/quote]
Minimal. Largely due to your defensiveness/ego.
[/quote]
Since your current tactics are impeded by my ego, why don't you try the direct approach and tell me exactly what my new 'default framing' should be?
[/quote]

Nvm that person. All the answers are in here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/ and here tiny.cc/TheWholeStory