iambiguous wrote: And arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that some things are good and some things are bad is not nearly the same [to moral nihilists of my ilk] as actually demonstrating how, in regard to issues like abortion, gun control and human sexuality, this is in fact the case.
And yes, over and again, I focus in on what I construe to be the potential dangers of both moral objectivism and moral nihilism. And how, in fact, is human history to date [in a free will world] not but the endless and ongoing embodiment of both mentalities?
Come on, you and I both know there are any number of moral objectivists among us who seem convinced that what they do believe "in their head" about the morality of abortion and guns and human sexuality constitutes all the evidence that is necessary to make it true. Those are the folks my arguments are aimed at.Iwannaplato wrote: Well, duh. I don't know where you got the impression I didn't understand you objections and moral antirealists or nihilists in general think those are the same. I mean, seriously, duh. It is amazing how much you find excuses to repeat yourself. You made the case against objectivism/moral realism/etc. all over the place.
Look at Harry Baird. He seems convinced that if certain behaviors are repugnant to him that makes them immoral.
With you, it's grappling with how, given an issue like the three above, you either are or are not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am.
Then this part:
In my view, this is what most perturbs the moral objectivists among us. They are always eager to take on those from the "other side"...those who share their belief in the One True Path regarding abortion and gun control and transgender politics, but...but insist that "it's my path not yours".
What I question is not what they believe so much as how "subjectively, rooted in dasein" they came to acquire their moral and political prejudices given the lives they live out in particular worlds historically, culturally and in terms of their own particular trajectory of "personal experiences". What if their value judgments really are more "existential contraptions" than components of one or another religious script or ideological dogma or deontological philosophy or assessment of nature?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amBut you do cast the objectivists as bad. Since you do not share their objectivism you are at the very least not bad like they are. You also cast people who disagree with you in moral terms, all the time, in precisely the ways moral realists do. Shameless, is one example. That's an old moral judgment. Not only has one done something bad, one feels no guilt or shame about it, doubling the badness.
Come on, for decades I was myself an objectivist. Both God and No God. And I certainly did not construe myself to be a bad person then.
Again and again and again: this is your iambiguous. It is not my own considerably more complex, convoluted -- even contradictory -- understanding of my own motivations and intentions here.Iwannaplato wrote:Right, then you were an objectivist. But since you have become whatever you are now, you judge people just like objectivists do, only the group you consider bad is objectivists.
You are responding as if I said 'You have always considered objectivists bad, even when you were one.'
It is this kind of not really reading or thinking that adds to the waste of time communicating with you. You make up strawmen and half-straw men all the time.
And, truly, if you do believe it is a waste of time communicating with me then try this: stop responding to my posts.
After all, with very, very few exceptions, I only respond to you when you seem convinced it is vital to expose me to others. To explain me to others.
From my own clearly subjective frame of mind you are just another "serious philosopher" intent on keeping the discussions up in the intellectual contraption clouds. Like AJ and Harry. The only time they come down, in my view, is to espouse their own objectivist moral and political dogmas.
And, yes, I do believe that if they were ever able to acquire power in any particular community, they could be quite dangerous to those who refuse to toe their own moral and political line.
On the contrary, I was intent on saving souls and on overthrowing what I construed to be an amoral, exploitative, "show me the money", "me myself and I" ruling class. And while you are certainly entitled to post your own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of me here I'm also permitted to note that I don't recognize your own iambiguous much at all. Though, sure, in polemicist mode I'm likely to post many things that rub others the wrong way. That's what makes the exchange provocative.
More to the point [mine] is the extent to which "I" construe my own arguments here as problematic. After all, I don't exclude my own point of view from my own assessment of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529Iwannaplato wrote:Obviously I already noticed you don't agree about what others note is problematic about your communication. It's clear in a number of my posts to you. For example, where I point out your not the least fractured and fragmented about this possibility. Again you are writing as if I need to be told you don't agree.
Though, again, if you are convinced this is not the case at all and that works for you in "exposing" me to others here, so be it. Post what you will about me.
And, if others want to go there, let them note an issue and a context in order for us to explore our respective moral philosophies at the existential intersection of identity [dasein], value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy [power].
Okay, but that still doesn't stop you from going there. A new discussion pertaining to a conflicting good of note, a context, and an exchange between us in which you can substantiate your accusations against me.Iwannaplato wrote:More repetition.
And, besides, like I'm the only one here who repeats points. Like every single post from you imparts information and knowledge you have never brought up before.
And the irony is that this moral nihilist is always encouraging others to choose "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".
Yes, ironic because from the frame of mind that many embrace, a nihilist is often portrayed as a truly dangerous radical, an anarchist on steroids, an anything goes sociopath, a Hitler or a Stalin that sent millions to the grave.Iwannaplato wrote:Well, it's good you realize it's an irony.
Few associate them with "democracy and the rule of law".
Whereas for any number of moral and political objectivists "democracy and the rule of law" must be replaced with their own rendition of "right makes might". Again, God or No God.
No, I merely note that "here and now" I believe that "moderation, negotiation and compromise/democracy and the rule of law" is preferable to "might makes right" and "right makes might".Iwannaplato wrote:And then there are the objectivists, which you are also in part, who think that moderation, negotiation and compromise are objective goods. But they get batched in the category of those who are like Hitler and the Taliban.
And that, given human history to date, between the last two, it's a toss-up as to which frame of mind is the most dangerous.
Again, though, we'd have to note a context, and examine all three perspectives politically and legally.
Then ever and always this part:
Though, again, the world is, by and large, ruled by those who own and operate the military industrial complex, Wall Street, K Street, thug regimes like Russia and China and the various theocracies. As Mr. Zimmerman once surmised...
"Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid"
Iwannaplato wrote:And there, precisely is the victimization. Also, sometimes, victimization from others, in the posture of 'one treated badly because others cannot handle the truth.'
That's your me again. And handle what truth?
A teeny, tiny handful of posters have come over to my frame of mind. A miniscule percentage of the hundreds of objectivists I've encountered over the years going back to The Ponderer's Guild, the Cafe Philo, Yahoo Groups and the very first, Friends of Brainstorm at MSN.Iwannaplato wrote: Really? Come on. You don't remember saying that you got to a number of different posters here and elsewhere, that the reason they left was because they faced cognititive dissonance or felt their own inlikings of your fractured and fragmented state.
You have no memory of doing that a good number of times. Whether you're a liar or self-deluded I don't know or care.
Please note where I seemed to suggest instead that many, many have done what you claim I managed to accomplish and bring about.
iambiguous wrote: Me brave? No way. Above all else [as I have noted before] I want someone to bring me back to the One True Path that leads to immortality and salvation.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amI'm not asserting you are brave, but rather posing as if you are. When people disagree with you or because of your behavior stop interacting with you, you psychoanalyze these reactions as fear based.
Again, I don't doubt that "here and now" this is the reality for you "in your head". And, if that allows you to think, "I got him!", fine, so be it. But I'm still allowed to demur.Iwannaplato wrote:I would feel sympathy for you if I truly believed you can't remember doing these things. And they have been pointed out in context by people and it did not lead to the slightest concession on your part.
To wit...
Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.
Iwannaplato wrote:Those are not mutually exclusive. One can hallucinate convenient psychological interpretations of why others criticize you or stop communicating with you AND also hope that one of them will bring you out of your existential pain.
So, that was just a BS rationalization.
And you should note that when you deny the possibility of X by pointing at your behavior Y, generally speaking you are assuming X and Y are mutually exclusive. You did this at least twice in this last response. And they are not mutually exclusive. You were an objectivist who did not think you were bad. Later your philosophy changed and, yes, then you started to divide the world into the bad objectivists and yourself. Sometimes having three categories with the nihilists you also consider bad as the third category. No contradiction. I describe your behavior in terms of good guys and bad guys NOW and you explain that this can't be true because you were an objectivist who didn't think he was bad THEN.
After that you explain that you wouldn't psychoanalyze and mindread objectivists and others for being critical of you because you want them to have an answer you would believe in. Again, not mutually exclusive in the least.
You have some basic confusions about what is mutually exclusive.
Note to others: you tell me what you think this means in regard to me here. It goes way over my head.Again, you'll have to note examples of this. Or engage with me in a new discussion pertaining to value judgments, conflicting goods, dasein, etc.,. And then, given a particular issue/context, one by one you can note all of the things you accuse me of.
No, seriously.
Given a particular issue like abortion, guns and transgender politics, and my own "fractured and fragmented" "I" in the is/ought world, how do you suppose he is describing me here?
Iwannaplato wrote:Get that: 'they cannot face what you have faced.' You have managed to face it, even if it plagues you. They can't. You can. You've been implying for years that you are braver than other people. You can face what they cannot face (and you mindread motives into their reactions to your posting habits based on this hypothesis.
Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.
And the beauty of the human condition is that it doesn't even have to be true. I just have to convince myself that it is.
Words on a screen, given my current circumstances, are basically all I've got now. And, yes, given truly dramatic experiences in my life and the arguments of others, I have changed my mind about important things over and over and over again. That is my point. To those like Gib with his deep down inside Emotional Self and Maia with her Spiritual Self and MagsJ with her Intrinsic Self, they are able to sustain some measure and comfort and consolation regarding their own value judgments. They can convince themselves that no way will they ever be "fractured and fragmented"!Iwannaplato wrote:Yeah, via words on a screen. Though I will bet that if you look back on how your paradigmatic changes took place they came after real life experiences: wars, abortions, and more chronic, regular experiences where those paradigms just did not seem to fit the world as you experienced it. But here you'll go on hoping that someone's argument will convince you.
I'm just curious to explore your own rendition of that.