compatibilism

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely fascinating.

You know, they say if everywhere you go it smells like shit, you should check the bottom of your shoe. I wonder when Biggy will have the thought that maybe it's him dragging shit everywhere...

I believe that was 2005 or 6. So we are talking about a long-standing pattern, nearly 20 years. The trickiest part was finding him, since the name is not the same.
But a search for a couple of his favorite words and bingo, there he was.

As far as shit on the shoe...yes, I was actually stunned at how closely the criticisms were to those I have seen him receive here.

[Flannel Jesus]

A whole 20 years mumbling the same nothings and making no progress whatsoever... sad.

[Iwannaplato]

Again -- click -- if I always post the same things then, in a free will world, don't those like you have the option to either read or not to read what I post? Just as, in a free will universe, I have chosen not to read what you post here because I have thought myself into believing that almost all of what you and your ilk do post here is up in the intellectual clouds.

Shift the context all you like.
You said I don't know squat. You were wrong. You requested I cite examples. I did.
Can you admit such things?

If you manage to admit that you were wrong, perhaps I'll discuss one of the issues you brought up as a substitute for simply admitting you were wrong.

Is it such a huge thing to concede you were wrong?

I

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it such a huge thing to concede you were wrong?

Let's just say I'm

fractured and fragmented.

[phyllo]

Is it such a huge thing to concede you were wrong?

Let's just say I'm

fractured and fragmented.

How can someone be fractured and fragmented and yet post the same things for 20 years?

Doesn't fractured and and fragmented mean that one changes judgements, evaluations and positions frequently?

If not, then what does it mean?

Surely, it can't simply mean that had one lived different experiences, then one would have different judgements, evaluations and positions? That seems too banal.

[Flannel Jesus]

How can someone be fractured and fragmented and yet post the same things for 20 years?

Doesn't fractured and and fragmented mean that one changes judgements, evaluations and positions frequently?

If not, then what does it mean?

Surely, it can't simply mean that had one lived different experiences, then one would have different judgements, evaluations and positions? That seems too banal.

As the temporary stand-in for biggy, WWBD?
He would say...

Stooge mode, engaged. Have you even TRIED to consider Dasein today? Wiggle wiggle, for your futile attempts at discourse are nothing more than a pitiful display of cognitive distortion. Your mind, a mere puppet on the strings of intellectual ineptitude, dances to atune of insipid banality.

Once a stooge, always a stooge.

Yours truly,
Biggie.

[iambiguous]

Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.

Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.
A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.

I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.

know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.

seconds later another poster different thread

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.

If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.

Etc.

Absolutely fascinating.

You know, they say if everywhere you go it smells like shit, you should check the bottom of your shoe. I wonder when Biggy will have the thought that maybe it's him dragging shit everywhere...

That I can still reduce the Stooges down to posting drivel like this -- in a philosophy forum! -- may well be all the satisfaction I need!

On the other hand, admittedly, how dreadful is that?!

[iambiguous]

"After all, it's one thing to reject free will when you actually do have the option to accept it. Did he? Do we?"

I see u going back to this (non) problem all the time, biggs, and i don't understand exactly what the complaint is.

If someone convinces another person through force of reason to no longer believe freewill exists, that person will no longer be determined to believe freewill exists... so what's the problem here?

Okay, imagine everything that happens is caused by antecedent conditions, whatever they may be. Person x believes freewill exists and person y doesn't believe freewill exists. Both of these events are determined, and, it isn't, nor need it be, always determined that people will believe what is true. But sometimes, along the way, x people can become y people if the proper antecedent conditions are in place (that force of reason above).

Now if your complaint is that it's unfair or ill-mannered to criticize people for believing freewill exists when it doesn't, i can agree with that, sure. Doing so would be a blunder on the part of the determinist; for how can he blame someone for not believing what is true if they're determined not to believe what is true.

The difference here is only the mood of the criticism. It's one thing to say 'u are an idiot becuz you're too stupid to realize freewill doesn't exist' and quite another to say 'u are bad or immoral becuz of this'. I don't think any determinist would ever say the latter. Certainly not spinz becuz he was like a rock. He was strong as he could be. Like a rock.

Anyway when you say 'it's one thing to reject free will when you actually do have the option to accept it', remember this thing can go both ways. U got determinists who, compelled by convincing arguments, become people who believe in freewill. But all this... aaaaall of it, kevin! All of it... is determined.

You post this. Others react to it.

In a wholly determined universe as, "here and now", I understand it, you were never free to opt not to post it. And I and others were never free react to it other than as our brains, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compel us to.

Then this part:

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.

Only -- click -- I flat-out admit I may well be thinking this through incorrectly. On the other hand, if there is a definitive resolution here, how come scientists and philosophers have not been able to pin it down?

Unless, of course, someone here can link me to that ontological -- teleological? -- consensus.

[iambiguous]

Let's just say that my brain compels me to come back around to this...

ME:

Really? Cite some examples of this please. You actually know squat about what unfolded back then.

Yeah, Biggier, there's no way I could know anything about what happened back then.

A 3 second search produced some very familiar sounding reactions.

I disagree, since you always post the same thing. You forever want to discuss the lack of absolutes and then hide by saying it includes what you discuss. That's just being dishonest.

Again -- click -- if I always post the same things then, in a free will world, don't those like you have the option to either read or not to read what I post? Just as, in a free will universe, I have chosen not to read what you post here because I have thought myself into believing that almost all of what you and your ilk do post here is up in the intellectual clouds.

Then this part: we'll need a context.

know you're spiel as does everyone here. It doesn't change the fact that you insist over and over again on dasein. No one disputes it but when you're called on your behavior, which is tiresome, boring and rude, you simply run and hide. You never take responsibility for how you come across, as if it's everyone's problem but yours.

More to the point [mine], what is it regarding what I post over and over and over again that seems to perturb some? Both there and here.

I've narrowed it down to three possible reasons:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing as well. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

seconds later another poster different thread

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

On the other hand, there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.

But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself? Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.

...and anoter poster, different thread, this one a moderator, whose name your mentioned in your post.

If you are stuck in the dark room, look for matches, instead of simply bemoaning the utter darkness surrounding you; yet the latter seems to be your modus operandi -- not only do you spend all this effort complaining about how you have no light, but you also attack those who are looking to lift the darkness. It's almost like you derive a sort of perverse satisfaction from this existential helplessness.Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas ultra omnis sunto.

Again, given what particular context? And, from my frame of mind, it is moral objectivists who are "for all practical purposes" helpless. Why? Because they have no choice but to embrace/embody one or another rendition of What Would Jesus Do?/What would Kant do?

On the other hand, for the moral nihilists among us, actual options increase dramatically when you eschew moral obligations.

I mean, don't post the name of a forum if it's this easy to find information that shows people including moderators reacted in very similar ways to you back then in your Golden Age of... yadda, yadda.

I posted it because it pertained to myself, Rebecca and Julian pursuing our own problematic Magus "script". Hell, for all I know, Victor himself might have been one of them!

For someone who laments the limits of human knowledge, and almost as a mantra says that you might be wrong about something, you never actually are when it comes to yourself or something you did. No admissions, oh, yeah, I didn't really respond to you.

No, I make that crucial distinction between what we can know objectively in regard to the either/or world and what we can know objectively regarding conflicting goods in that either/or world.

What, in other words, doctors can know about abortion as a medical procedure and what ethicists/Kantians can know about abortion as a moral issue.

With you, however, I am most curious regarding the extent to which, given the points I raise in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...you either share or reject my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment and conclusions.

Are you or are you not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods? Given that, as with me "here and now" you do not believe in the existence of a God, the God.

In other words -- click -- discussing what mere mortals in a No God world think about all this with someone like phyllo. To the best of my knowledge, he still believes in his own rendition of God and objective morality. How about exploring that with him here. Given free will of course.

In the abstract, up in the clouds, you might make mistakes or be an ass, but here on the ground, you never can admit any of that, to the point where anyone who does you call a Stooge. LOL.

Projection.

And how is this not "rooted existentially in dasein" itself? Besides, I almost never recognize myself in your occasional psychobabble posts pertaining to me.

But don't worry we'll get bored again and you can go back to posting to yourself and all those hypothetical, lurking people who are so interested in your philosophical diary.

I don't post to myself.

In fact, what is particularly intriguing to me regarding our posts here is the point Flannel Jesus noted regarding bots. He maintains that even though my threads generate hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of views, almost all of them are from bots.

So, just out of curiosity, for others here, is this the case? Note some hard facts about this please. Quote actual numbers.

For example, over the past week or so, this thread alone generated over 20,000 new views. If, say, 19,900, were from bots what on Earth motivates them and those who created them to come here and read our posts?

HIM [Mr. Snippet aka Mr. Wiggle]:

Again -- click -- if I always post the same things then, in a free will world, don't those like you have the option to either read or not to read what I post? Just as, in a free will universe, I have chosen not to read what you post here because I have thought myself into believing that almost all of what you and your ilk do post here is up in the intellectual clouds.

Shift the context all you like.
You said I don't know squat. You were wrong. You requested I cite examples. I did.
Can you admit such things?
If you manage to admit that you were wrong, perhaps I'll discuss one of the issues you brought up as a substitute for simply admitting you were wrong.

Is it such a huge thing to concede you were wrong?

Note to others:

Sure -- click -- make up your own minds regarding his post.

Me, I'm still feeling justified in coming back around to this:

Absolutely shameless!!!

[Flannel Jesus]

What's wrong with this guy's mind that he feels the need to just quote what was said, really really long posts, just quote them without adding anything? What does he think these really long quote sessions accomplish? I don't get it.

[Iwannaplato]

Note to others:

Sure -- click -- make up your own minds regarding his post.

Me, I'm still feeling justified in coming back around to this:

Absolutely shameless!!!

Yeah, yeah. I know you feel justified in not acknowledging I knew stuff and could find examples and you were wrong. Feel justified.
Iambiguous is feeling justified.
Well, that's news.

Oh, yes, you probably don't need to tell people to make up their own minds.

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

Sure -- click -- make up your own minds regarding his post.

Me, I'm still feeling justified in coming back around to this:

Absolutely shameless!!!

Yeah, yeah. I know you feel justified in not acknowledging I knew stuff and could find examples and you were wrong. Feel justified.
Iambiguous is feeling justified.
Well, that's news.

Oh, yes, you probably don't need to tell people to make up their own minds.

I responded to the points you raised above regarding the Ponderer's Guild. You "snipped" that part away.

[phyllo]

Hi Becky,

If you're reading this, please give us your opinion on IWP's posts. We would really like to get the views of one of Biggie's friends.

TIA

[Flannel Jesus]

You "snipped" that part away.

He snipped that away? The only things he snipped are you saying "ME" and "HIM" like a fucking lunatic.

[iambiguous]

Hi Becky,

If you're reading this, please give us your opinion on IWP's posts. We would really like to get the views of one of Biggie's friends.

TIA

ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC!!!




unless of course I'm wrong