Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:13 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:22 pm
Let's call it, say, The Super Bowl Syndrome. Where the commercials themselves are actually worshipped and adored!!

That Syndrome goes right back to the caves because the essence of what's going on there, with the sports mania, is pitting skill against skill. Men have always done that with one another. Women do it too, in their own way since they can't possibly compete with men in sports, can they.

Can we quote you on that?

If you can take it higher.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:21 pm If you can take it higher.

Higher meaning closer to how you think?

Me, whether in regard to the Super Bowl or anything else where value judgments come into conflict, I recognize that my own reaction is but an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein. There is no way in which to determine [philosophically or otherwise] how one ought to react to it.

Well, in a No God world anyway.

And you can quote me on that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:06 pm Me, whether in regard to the Super Bowl or anything else where value judgments come into conflict, I recognize that my own reaction is but an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein. There is no way in which to determine [philosophically or otherwise] how one ought to react to it.

Commentary:

That qualifies as higher (whatever it means.) Ahem.

What is that word you keep using, anyway.

You left something out. I said, if you could take my quote higher. But you left out my quote, didn't you? And, attribution means that you use my name. Not only do I see no quote, I don't see Walker anywhere by your transmission. You almost got it right. If you quoted me, then commented, well there you go. It's spelled out. Shape up, private imabiguous.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dokG0oAPdYA
The studio version is as slick as it gets.

(I took the liberty)

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:06 pmThere is no way in which to determine [philosophically or otherwise] how one ought to react to it.

There is a way. Everyone knows right from wrong, at the moment of truth. When you do wrong, you know it. After the doing, your reaction is to either face the truth or to keep lying to yourself, and that's a choiceless affair because although the truth seen (apprehended) can't be unseen, it can be ignored.

I recognize that my own reaction is but an existential contraption rooted subjectively in dasein.

You keep using that word.

An existential reaction is one rooted objectively in perpetuating the existence of the body (stayin' alive, stayin' alive). In other words, if you attack a homeowner with a bazooka, then if there's any reaction from the homeowner it's likely to be both existential, and retaliatory. If there's no reaction, then the actual result likely matches your intended result, but not exactly, because now you need to live with the guilt of what you did. You need to find an existential rationalization to again act normally in society.

Take it higher.

Interesting backstory to the tune.
Electric Avenue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-KwOPh_haQ

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:24 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 6:06 pmThere is no way in which to determine [philosophically or otherwise] how one ought to react to it.

There is a way. Everyone knows right from wrong, at the moment of truth. When you do wrong, you know it. After the doing, your reaction is to either face the truth or to keep lying to yourself, and that's a choiceless affair because although the truth seen (apprehended) can't be unseen, it can be ignored.

And on and on and on....



Note to others:

You can't say I didn't try, right?

But it's always the same with these particularly fanatic moral objectivists. You can take things "higher"...but only if you agree with them.

"Everyone knows right from wrong, at the moment of truth". Not sure what that is? Ask the Walkers of the world, they'll tell you.

All I can do is to point out just how many Walkers there are in the world. God and No God:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

And each Walker on each of these One True Paths will preach the gospel of taking things "higher". Of reaching that "moment of truth".

For the No God fanatics, it's morality on this side of the grave. But for the God fanatics it's that plus immortality and salvation on the other side of it too.

Now, surely, there must be a part of our Walkers here, and all the other Walkers there, able to grasp just how slim the odds are that they are right and all the other ones are wrong.

But, of course, they almost never do. Or they do but only in switching to other objectivist fonts. Like I did for years.

Instead, as with me back then, the point isn't what you believe for the Walkers but that what you believe comforts and consoles you. Over and again: the psychology of objectivism.

So, yeah, I get the Walkers of the world. And because for years and years I was one of them myself. And, trust me, I'd like to be again if one of them is actually able to convince me that not only is there a One True Path "for real", but there must be because they are already on it.

Instead, I almost always get the Walkers that we have here. Well, if you know what I mean. And, if so, go ahead, you try to explain it to them.

I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything.

-THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

Skepticism is the sadism of embittered souls.

- EMIL CIORAN

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 3:53 pm

Note to others:

You can't say I didn't try, right?

You didn't try.
You didn't try to go high.
Know why?
'Cause when you're stuck down in the mud, energy expended to elevate is greater than what's gained by change.

You may quote me. I suggest the last line, the one that ends with "change."

Everyone is an asshole for that one special someone, but some need to be more. Some aspire to be an asshole for everyone: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

This can be accomplished by working a theme the way a dog works a ham bone, keeping in mind that for effective transmissions most folks are most fascinated with the bad and the ugly assholes even though the pious good can really stink since after all, everyone includes only all the humans, which is fortunate for the afore mentioned who need to be more of what they are.

Some wear the theme well, such as the plaintive wailing of the good sophomoric types of all ages who eternally wonder with each new crop of the emancipated, “Why does it have to be this way?”

Ugh. “Gag me with a spoon,” said Moon Unit Zappa.

Note to others ...

He's finally been noticed.
With luck, he should get over the thrill.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 3:53 pm But it's always the same with these particularly fanatic moral objectivists. You can take things "higher"...but only if you agree with them.

I invite you to take this quote higher. Please.

Paradoxically, in this dimension transcending linear time sequencing causes commentary to precede inevitability.

Tough to do without context, but that's where you come in, citizen philosopher. Flesh it out. Look around, see what can be found.

A reminder...

Please note:

1] only one quote per day
2] preferably somewhere in the general vicinity of philosophy
3] absolutely nothing from The Onion

Also...

4] take the quotes higher

For example:

"Paradoxically, in this dimension transcending linear time sequencing causes commentary to precede inevitability." Walker

No need to be too particular. Too soon it will all end, or to be particular, too soon nothing will remain as it is.

.







.









.