compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 5:24 pm It's not an inside joke between you and age. You write "no, seriously" all the time, to all sorts of people. It's an idiom that you misuse - that doesn't mean to other people the thing you intend to mean by it. There are a lot of aspects of the way you write that are like that. You fairly consistently misuse figures of speech in a way that is very particular to you, and very hard to understand for anybody that isn't you.
:lol:

No, seriously.



How about this then...

My brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels me to note it. Then your brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compelled you to react to it only as you were never able not to.

That way we are both off the hook!!

At least until Judgment Day. :shock:
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

To note what?

You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm To note what?

You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
One can look at someone's behavior from the model that errors aren't working for the person.
One can also look at someone's behavior to see if the errors lead to results that fit with the person's goals.
This can be at the politician level or at the relatively powerless individual level.
Irritating people and critiquing without make a clear point can trigger responses, a bit like

click bait.

Try this model: goals: to bait clicks, frustrate discussion partners and when people get frustrated with the behavior declare victory.

See if that model fits the behavior as well or better than a more charitable one.


In any case....
Iambiguous says....
Now, if you want posts that truly don't mean anything, note the ones we get From Satyr over at ILP in reaction to the stuff I post there.
in relation to...
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
A perfectly clear statement. It's not an incorrectly-used cliche. A bit creative treating the Abrahamic religions as diseases, and clearly expresses his opinion that Iambiguous is a dead-end discussion partner. Something that discussion partners, including moderators, having been saying for over a decade and not in small numbers. And charitable reads (Abrahamic effect) of his behavior and intentions, despite the evidence, will lead to satisfying his goals.

Anyone who thinks Satyr is incorrect, is welcome to spend time in reasoned dialogue with Iambiguous. See how that goes.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 am Iambiguous says....
Now, if you want posts that truly don't mean anything, note the ones we get From Satyr over at ILP in reaction to the stuff I post there.
in relation to...
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
A perfectly clear statement.
Yeah, strange post to point to as "meaningless". The meaning is clear, even if "abrahamism" could use a bit of fleshing out. Biggy might not agree with the statement, he might think the statement is wrong, but the statement clearly has meaning.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

I don't have socks - all the ones I have are torn or are without their other half. I've seen peeps go from an IQ of 89 to an IQ of 230 in the twinkling of an eye. I need socks!!

There are several ways ta attack this conundrum:

Are we free (willed) as we allegedly think we are?

What else can be asked of this and, most importantly, should we ... ask?

I'm actually quite impressed by how well we've faced this challenge head on.

What exactly goes on inside our heads when determinism vs. free will becomes an issue.

Questions ... questions ... questions ... no answers though ... Deus Magnus Est.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Sculptor »

Agent Smith wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:30 pm I don't have socks - all the ones I have are torn or are without their other half. I've seen peeps go from an IQ of 89 to an IQ of 230 in the twinkling of an eye. I need socks!!

There are several ways ta attack this conundrum:

Are we free (willed) as we allegedly think we are?

What else can be asked of this and, most importantly, should we ... ask?

I'm actually quite impressed by how well we've faced this challenge head on.

What exactly goes on inside our heads when determinism vs. free will becomes an issue.

Questions ... questions ... questions ... no answers though ... Deus Magnus Est.
MY sock strategy...
1) Throw out all socks
2) Buy 2 dozen identical pairs of your favorite socks.
When you lose a sock it can always pair up with another lost who has lost his partner sock.
No one ever notices because they are the same shape and colour as the other lost soul.
The decision to take on this strategy was caused by years of hating ill matched socks.

When they are all worn out, or you have too few to get you through to wash day repeat from 1).

It is not necessary to have an IQ over 110 to follow this strategy, but it might help.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Agent Smith »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:59 pm
Agent Smith wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 1:30 pm I don't have socks - all the ones I have are torn or are without their other half. I've seen peeps go from an IQ of 89 to an IQ of 230 in the twinkling of an eye. I need socks!!

There are several ways ta attack this conundrum:

Are we free (willed) as we allegedly think we are?

What else can be asked of this and, most importantly, should we ... ask?

I'm actually quite impressed by how well we've faced this challenge head on.

What exactly goes on inside our heads when determinism vs. free will becomes an issue.

Questions ... questions ... questions ... no answers though ... Deus Magnus Est.
MY sock strategy...
1) Throw out all socks
2) Buy 2 dozen identical pairs of your favorite socks.
When you lose a sock it can always pair up with another lost who has lost his partner sock.
No one ever notices because they are the same shape and colour as the other lost soul.
The decision to take on this strategy was caused by years of hating ill matched socks.

When they are all worn out, or you have too few to get you through to wash day repeat from 1).

It is not necessary to have an IQ over 110 to follow this strategy, but it might help.
Much obliged!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Stooge wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
Again, assuming free will, I challenge -- dare -- you to note both an issue and a set of circumstances that we can examine. Then as the exchange unfolds you can decisively note for others the complete and utter lack of "structure" in my writing. By, for example, comparing and contrasting my writing with the exemplary structure in the writing of those like you and iwannaplato.

Well, unless, of course, you were referring to the lack of structure in iwannaplato's writing instead. :wink:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm To note what?

You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
One can look at someone's behavior from the model that errors aren't working for the person.
One can also look at someone's behavior to see if the errors lead to results that fit with the person's goals.
This can be at the politician level or at the relatively powerless individual level.
Irritating people and critiquing without make a clear point can trigger responses, a bit like

click bait.

Try this model: goals: to bait clicks, frustrate discussion partners and when people get frustrated with the behavior declare victory.

See if that model fits the behavior as well or better than a more charitable one.
Note to others:

What on Earth do you suppose this mean?!!

Though, as with Flannel Stooge...
Again, assuming free will, I challenge -- dare -- him to note both an issue and a set of circumstances that we can examine. Then as the exchange unfolds he can decisively note for others how his assessment above is applicable to my writing.
Uh, click bait? Is he referring to all of the clicks I get in regard to these...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34285
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34271
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35199
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=39982
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34260

...threads here? Those foolish enough to take the bait and -- click -- choosing of their own volition to read my posts?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 amIn any case....
Iambiguous says....
Now, if you want posts that truly don't mean anything, note the ones we get From Satyr over at ILP in reaction to the stuff I post there.
in relation to...
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.
A perfectly clear statement. It's not an incorrectly-used cliche. A bit creative treating the Abrahamic religions as diseases, and clearly expresses his opinion that Iambiguous is a dead-end discussion partner.
Simply unbelievable!!!

This guy loathes me so much, he is actually willing to champion a near-Nazi like Satyr over at ILP.

Again, this is what I posted over at ILP that iwannaplato seems to argue warrants Satyr's response:

ME:
Moral Nihilism and its Implications
Marc Krellenstein
Northeastern University
Consider, for example, arguments over abortion that set the absolute sanctity of any form of unique human life against the absolute right of control over one’s own body, or debates in “trolley” problems over diverting a runaway trolley to kill one person in order to save the five in its path.
Again, in my view, the key point here is not that such absolutes are embraced by those on both sides of the morality wars, but that the main goal of the objectivists is the belief that such absolutes do in fact exist. And that this is the case because, well, those on both sides already claim to embody them.

The point is that in believing this it enables both liberals and conservatives to sustain the comfort and that consolation that comes with being able to divide the world up between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys].

Also, it allows those on both sides to insist that their value judgments here are not just "political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein" but instead reflect [philosophically or otherwise] the most rational manner in which to understand the issue.
The variation in moral beliefs across and within cultures also argues against the possibility that there exist absolute moral obligations that all people recognize. No attempt to rationalize these differences has succeeded.
Please. As the objectivists among us [from both sides] make crystal clear, if they believe that there are in fact absolute moral truths that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace, then that need be as far as they go. Then it simply comes down to how much political power they have in any particular community or nation. For example, the Catholics on the United States Supreme Court. Now, in America, laws can be passed criminalizing behaviors that were once permitted.
It could be argued that the belief that there are no absolute foundations is itself an absolute belief. But, rather than being absolute, it is an observation that no rational argument has established absolute values. It leaves open the possibility that evidence may yet be offered that proves otherwise.
Yes, if someone argues that there are no absolute moral truths in regard to abortion how is that not just as indefensible? On the other hand, it is the obligation of those who claim that there are to demonstrate this. And, from my frame of mind, that involves demonstrating that, in fact, the arguments made by the other side are not reasonable.

So, given the pro/con arguments regarding the legality of abortion -- https://abortion.procon.org/ -- anyone here care to try?
HIM:
Lorikeet/Satyr wrote:Whoever believes this Karen can be "healed"....or reasoned with.....is suffering from Abrahamism they haven't, yet, fully reconverted from.

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 7:42 amSomething that discussion partners, including moderators, having been saying for over a decade and not in small numbers. And charitable reads (Abrahamic effect) of his behavior and intentions, despite the evidence, will lead to satisfying his goals.

Anyone who thinks Satyr is incorrect, is welcome to spend time in reasoned dialogue with Iambiguous. See how that goes.
Again, all I can do is to speculate as to why moreno/karpel tunnel/iwannaplato responds to me as he does. And I suspect that it revolves around the fact that increasingly he is beginning to grasp that the more time he spends actually reading my posts the greater likelihood that he too will end up "fractured and fragmented".

That, in my view, is why he doesn't "click" on me as he once used to. Bit by bit I was chipping away at his own "serious philosophy" pedantry in the is/ought world. So, up in the didactic clouds he stays with all of the other scholastic philosophers here.

Wel, unless, of course, I'm wrong.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 4:38 pm
Flannel Stooge wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
Again, assuming free will, I challenge -- dare -- you to note both an issue and a set of circumstances that we can examine. Then as the exchange unfolds you can decisively note for others the complete and utter lack of "structure" in my writing. By, for example, comparing and contrasting my writing with the exemplary structure in the writing of those like you and iwannaplato.

Well, unless, of course, you were referring to the lack of structure in iwannaplato's writing instead. :wink:
I would take you up on that offer if I wanted to read more of your words than I already do. The fewer times I have to read "click", "no, seriously", "is/ought world" and "up in the clouds" the better. You don't write with enough straight forward clarity for me.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 5:12 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 4:38 pm
Flannel Stooge wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 10:38 pm You would benefit from a persuasive writing course. You need some structure.
Again, assuming free will, I challenge -- dare -- you to note both an issue and a set of circumstances that we can examine. Then as the exchange unfolds you can decisively note for others the complete and utter lack of "structure" in my writing. By, for example, comparing and contrasting my writing with the exemplary structure in the writing of those like you and iwannaplato.

Well, unless, of course, you were referring to the lack of structure in iwannaplato's writing instead. :wink:
I would take you up on that offer if I wanted to read more of your words than I already do. The fewer times I have to read "click", "no, seriously", "is/ought world" and "up in the clouds" the better. You don't write with enough straight forward clarity for me.
Note to others:

I challenge you to explain why he keeps embarrassing himself with substanceless posts like this one.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

He makes these accusations against me. Just as iwannaplato does. I ask them to sustain a discussion with me that would allow them to note over and again just why their accusations are applicable. They could thump me if they can convince others of the same.

I think I know why they refuse to. And I think that they do too. They just can't let go of the comforting and consoling belief that "somehow" in a free will world one can reject God and religion but still convince oneself that moral and political value judgments can be embraced without being "fractured and fragmented".

If they do reject God and religion.

In my own rooted existentially in dasein view, they are to philosophy what Satyr is to Nature.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Note to biggy: no one cares about your squabbles with other people. There's probably no "others" to whom your notes matter.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Yo, FJ and iwanna!!

Another chance, in a free will world, for you to defend Satyr!!!

ME:
A Review of Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks
Matt McManus

The Enlightenment and Its Discontents

The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. He includes obvious picks such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard, three of Hicks’ four horsemen of postmodernity. But others—Richard Rorty and Jacques Lacan—have a debatable association with postmodernity and some of those included were even outright critics of postmodernism, such as the feminist legal scholar Catherine Mackinnon, author of “Points Against Postmodernism,” and Luce Irigaray, whose work is a frequent target of postmodern feminists due to its alleged essentialism.
Actually, the problem begins with the title of the book itself. It assumes that postmodernism itself can be explained such that it does not just involve the author's own accumulated collection of moral and political and philosophical prejudices. All rooted existentially in dasein given the manner in which the trajectory of his life predisposed him to one set of prejudices rather than another.

That's why I ask those like Satyr who embrace much of Hick's own political bigotries to explore an assessment of postmodernism in regard to a particular set of circumstances. Race, gender, sexual preferences, abortion, guns, the role of government. How are they encompassed in a postmodern frame of mind?

Or how about this:
These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables. Lyotard claims that, “Saddam Hussein is a product of Western departments of state and big companies,” which Hicks interprets to mean that Hussein is a “victim and spokesman for victims of American imperialism the world over.”
Indeed, how does one go about examining American foreign policy in the Middle East as a postmodernist? As opposed to, say, a Marxist? Where from the Marxist frame of mind, the American government [Democratic or Republican] has always been utterly preoccupied with the oil there. Political economy in a nutshell.

To wit:

"The irony was that Saddam had been a close American ally ever since Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution in Iran removed the Shah in 1979 and all through during the 1980s. Iraq was seen as an essential bulwark against the new Islamic Republic of Iran. The Americans had poured money and aid into Iraq to help it fight the Iranians during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988." WORLD

And, of course, the only reason that Iran became an enemy to the American government [Democratic and Republican] revolves around this:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/69036340 ... -four-days

"On Aug. 19, 2013, the CIA publicly admitted for the first time its involvement in the 1953 coup against Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh."

We installed the autocratic Shah. Which eventually led to the Ayatollah Khomeini and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Thus...
In fact, Lyotard’s essay discusses the early support Hussein received from the American government during his prolonged war against Iran in the 1980s. These interpretive problems immediately make one suspicious that this book may be less about explaining postmodernism in a liberal and charitable way and more about lumping together and dismissing all forms of left-wing criticism that may owe an intellectual debt to continental European thought.
Exactly. It's not postmodern thinking that is explained so much as why the right wing/conservative objectivists are clearly deemed more rational and virtuous than the left wing/liberal objectivists.

By Hicks. By Satyr.
HIM:
Lorikeet wrote:The more you post...the more your essence becomes evident, even to a dullard.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 5:29 pm Note to biggy: no one cares about your squabbles with other people. There's probably no "others" to whom your notes matter.
:lol:

No, seriously.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I don't feel any pressing need to defend satyr or read all of that
Post Reply