compatibilism

[iambiguous]

In other words, I brought it up because the shit I get from the Stooges here is not all that far removed from the shit I got from the Stooges there.

OK, this is getting surreal. I say that people there had the same kinds of reactions to you.
You tell me I don't know squat and tell me to show you examples.
I show you examples, but somehow I am shameless and wrong....
and here you say it yourself precisely. There were Stooges there also. And why would you call them Stooges, because they were reacting to you in ways that make you call people Stooges.

You admit there were people reacting in similar ways. That's issue one. That was my claim and I demonstrated and here above you confirm it without every acknowledging this.

Issue 2 is: are these people right?

You can't even admit the easier to see, let's look at the examples issue. In fact you want to jump past that, without admitting anything, to the more complicated issue.

(As an asside: the whole 'explanation' with you and your friends spinning around back then hasn't even convinced you, see the quote above. It was a near gibberish non-defense, which you yourself don't even buy or there wouldn't have been what you call Stooges back then)

Note to others:

So, what do you think, a "failure to communicate"?

Let's just say that "here and now" we do have free will and you are all able to decide of your own volition which one of us here is most ridiculous.

Well, politics aside, of course.

Me, I acknowledge over and again that my own assessment here [in regard to value judgments] is no less but the existential embodiment of dasein.

As noted, you do this in the abstract, up in the clouds of abstraction, you concede with no context that you might have a distorted view. It never leads to anything practical.

Click...

This, in my view, is simply bulshit. In the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

I explore in depth my own moral philosophy as it pertains to abortion. As, in my view, it pertains to all conflicting goods.

How about you and your own moral perspective on abortion? How are your own value judgments derived in a way other than the manner in which I acquired mine? How are they either fractured and fragmented [as mine are] or not fractured and fragmented [as is the case with the moral objectivists].

You name call and then mind read and play to the gallery.

On the contrary -- click -- I explore articles pertaining to free will, determinism and compatibilism in Philosophy Now magazine and from other online sources. Then I comment on the arguments the authors make. I'm not the one here intent on turning the discussions into assessments of me.

Also, I noted the reason why, in my view, the objectivists among us react to me as they do...there and here:

Which is a different topic.

To you, perhaps, but certainly not to me. I've been tangling with objectivists online now for over 20 years. And those are the three main narratives that most pissed them off

.

Or that's a story you tell yourself to soothe yourself when you are criticized for how you interact with people

You seem utterly incapable of considering that.

Again, I don't rule anything out here. As Nicholas noted of Maurice, "he was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest."

That seems like a reasonable description of me here. Then my "win"/"win" assessment. But this doesn't make the parts pertaining to dasein and the Benjamin Button Sydrome go away. Let alone "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule".

They become "Stooges" however only when, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, I construe their reactions to my posts as focusing far more on making me the issue. It's a judgment call.

And notice how here you make no mention of that fact that they, we, are specifically talking about the way you interact with other people. The only possible narratives you present and it seems even can manage to consider at all, have to do with the other people's psychology.

I have no idea what this has to do with my point above.

Then back to the psychobabble rendition of me...

Supposedly you are fractured and fragmented. Supposedly you think we may or may not know things and our viewpoints are affected by dasein. And yet despite decades of putting forward these positions
in any specific, concrete interaction with others
you only find and present narratives where other people have the problems.

IOW your own philosophy has no affect on you when it comes to your own behavior and interactions.

There are these up in the clouds, after the name calling and mindreading.

We'll need a context of course.

If nothing else you can, in a civil and intelligent manner, note specific instances of all your complaints about me.

Asked and answered. Said and done.

I missed it then.

And, okay, you're now "done" with this exchange. Fine, fuck off then...

[Iwannaplato]

So, no response to the topic. I posted about compatiblism,
viewtopic.php?p=696630#p696630

but you just want keep up this bullshit avoidance of admitting anything. You already said you were stuck. So, go back to the topic. I popped in a post. Or ignore that and post more of your philosophical diary, whatever.

[iambiguous]

So, no response to the topic. I posted about compatiblism,
viewtopic.php?p=696630#p696630

but you just want keep up this bullshit avoidance of admitting anything. You already said you were stuck. So, go back to the topic. I popped in a post. Or ignore that and post more of your philosophical diary, whatever.

Again, I rarely read what you post here unless you're coming after me. Fairly or not, I lump you in with Alexis Jacobi and Veritas Aequitas and all the other "epistemologists" here.

Though, sure, how would you go about connecting the dots between that post and, say, Mary aborting Jane?

[Iwannaplato]

Again, I rarely read what you post here unless you're coming after me.

So, you complain when I go after you for making you the issue, but those are the only posts you read. Think for a second about how that is problematic even on a practical level.

Though, sure, how would you go about connecting the dots between that post and, say, Mary aborting Jane?

Why not actually interact with the post, so I know you read it. I know nothing about Mary's level of neurosis, ability to reason, level of compulsiveness...you know, like stuff from the article I quoted and my response to it.

[Atla]

Again, I rarely read what you post here unless you're coming after me.

So, you complain when I go after you for making you the issue, but those are the only posts you read. Think for a second about how that is problematic even on a practical level.

Though, sure, how would you go about connecting the dots between that post and, say, Mary aborting Jane?

Why not actually interact with the post, so I know you read it. I know nothing about Mary's level of neurosis, ability to reason, level of compulsiveness...you know, like stuff from the article I quoted and my response to it.

Judging from the obsession, maybe Mary was secretly pregnant with iambiguous's child..

[phyllo]

I know nothing about Mary's level of neurosis, ability to reason, level of compulsiveness...you know, like stuff from the article I quoted and my response to it.

We can't be talking about one specific Mary, because we know nothing about her and her situation but also because the discussion would not be applicable to other women dealing with current or future abortions.

We must be talking about all women in general or women with some particular issues. That at least makes some sense.

If we are going to talk about abortion at all. And I don't think it's a good idea because it's so loaded with baggage.

[Iwannaplato]

Judging from the obsession, maybe Mary was secretly pregnant with iambiguous's child..

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's said it's based on a true story he was part of.

[Flannel Jesus]

Did someone say cabbage?

[Iwannaplato]

I know nothing about Mary's level of neurosis, ability to reason, level of compulsiveness...you know, like stuff from the article I quoted and my response to it.

We can't be talking about one specific Mary, because we know nothing about her and her situation but also because the discussion would not be applicable to other women dealing with current or future abortions.

Sure. It's supposed to stand in for all such situations.

We must be talking about all women in general or women with some particular issues. That at least makes some sense.

Yes, I agree. And I could have responded with a general account for how one might think about different evaluations of people dependent on the íssues raised in that article. But I wanted a bit more of a response from him before producing more, at least enough to see he'd read it. And there's enough there, I think to object, for example, or support the idea.

If we are going to talk about abortion at all. And I don't think it's a good idea because it's so loaded with baggage.

I agree. Better to choose a more everyday act that is controversial but by comparison trivial. That can help keep the debate less volatile

[Iwannaplato]

Did someone say cabbage?

Something just passed above my head.

[phyllo]

And I could have responded with a general account for how one might think about different evaluations of people dependent on the íssues raised in that article. But I wanted a bit more of a response from him before producing more, at least enough to see he'd read it. And there's enough there, I think to object, for example, or support the idea.

I think if he had posted, it would be one or several of his standard three responses.

In any case, he seems only interested in posting his opinions of the blurbs he quotes.

[Atla]

Judging from the obsession, maybe Mary was secretly pregnant with iambiguous's child..

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's said it's based on a true story he was part of.

Mary and Mary's boyfriend were iam's friends, as I recall, or something?

The problem with this idea is that people like iam don't have friends. And the problem with my idea above is that people like iam don't get laid, so Mary couldn't have cheated with him. Normally that is, unless some fairly unusual daseins were involved. I'm starting to see the intricacies..

[Iwannaplato]

Judging from the obsession, maybe Mary was secretly pregnant with iambiguous's child..

Actually, I'm pretty sure he's said it's based on a true story he was part of.

Mary and Mary's boyfriend were iam's friends, as I recall, or something?

The problem with this idea is that people like iam don't have friends. And the problem with my idea above is that people like iam don't get laid, so Mary couldn't have cheated with him. Normally that is, unless some fairly unusual daseins were involved. I'm starting to see the intricacies..

Hey, he's told us about his life many times. The guy's had a wide range of phases. I'm sure he's had friends and more. We can't confuse his online presence now with the life he's led or even, leading.

People do change, for good and for ill.

[Iwannaplato]

And I could have responded with a general account for how one might think about different evaluations of people dependent on the íssues raised in that article. But I wanted a bit more of a response from him before producing more, at least enough to see he'd read it. And there's enough there, I think to object, for example, or support the idea.

I think if he had posted, it would be one or several of his standard three responses.

In any case, he seems only interested in posting his opinions of the blurbs he quotes.

Which is a very strange process. It seems more associational than a real connection to the texts. At least the ones I've looked at.

[Iwannaplato]

In any case, I was thinking a bit about my post. It seems to me that we react to people as if they have varying degrees of freedom. Setting aside the ontological issue, it seems to me we forgive moral transgressions or are more empathetic to the transgressor if they are of low IQ, if they have what gets called a mental illness, if they are out of control for various reasons (drugs, compulsivity, post-trauma....). Of course how much such things affect now much we morally condemn someone varies individually. For the condemners that is.

I think there is a they aren't/weren't quite free either in general or at the time of transgression.

If you stick that in determinism, it might seem off somehow. They did what they were always going to do regardless of those critieria, just as anyone else.

But despite the seeming naivte about ontology, I think there are good practical reasons for treating people differently due to temporary or long-term mental state or abilility.

Temporary states caused by events that contribute to a transgression are exceptions. It's different from someone who is not triggered by a specific event but has a pattern of transgressing as a habit. Likewise, potentially at least, with people who were on drugs, especially if you can get them off them.

The article was talking about mental tendencies that reduce the person's ability to learn from reasoning. I don't know what to think about that category in terms of morally judging them.

I suppose it depends what it is that interferes with being reasoned with. Like if it comes from narcissism or indifference to what others think and say, I can't see any reason to have a less strong reaction to them. Impulsivity...hm