nihilism

[RCSaunders]

It's your case to defend. Not mine. I'm not here to patch up the holes in somebody else's "just-deserts-now" theory that quite frankly, I do not think holds water, and which I directly claim is not true.

'OK. My hypothesis was wrong.

Then I already have my point. For that was what I was saying. The figures I mentioned are good examples that show that there's no facile symetry between what people choose to do and what they get.

I am not offering to solve your problem for you, since you don't believe in things like God, judgment or eternity. Without God, for that matter, you can't even really believe in objective good or evil. So the problem cannot, in fact, be solved on the terms you accept, it would seem.

That that view is unpleasant to ponder and probably unliveable in practice is not anything I can fix on your terms.

I am not making any case and have no view here one way or the other. I'm only asking a question that for some reason you are going to great lengths to evade answering. What are you afraid of?

My only problem is your lying obfuscation and evasion. I can only assume you have no idea what you mean by "ought to get," beyond a belief that whatever thet got it was not appropriate (else you could provide what you thought was an example of an approprate "price," "karma," "payback," or "outcome."

So you're saying you just don't know and think you can cover it up with rhetoric about my views (which are irrelevant to the question and incorrectly described in any case). All you would have to do is identify what would be the right thing, "between what people choose to do and what they get," that you think they don't get. What would be the right thing for them to get?

If you don't know what they should get, how do you know they don't?

[iambiguous]

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

Well, there's the way the world either is or is not. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us. As close to an objective reality as we are ever likely to get. Well, excluding solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds etc.

Then in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, there's the way the world is and the way each of us as individuals would like it to be instead. The way some insist it ought to be instead. That's the part I root in dasein.

There's no "ought" in that explanation. To say that people "would like something to be X" does not mean it "ought" to be that way.

If I would like a Ferrari, that does not imply the world "ought" to give me one. Dreams are not duties.

Word games? Really, I can't make the distinction much clearer. You want the Ferrari. You can't afford to purchase one so you steal it. Now, ought that or ought that not be against the law? And if you believe it ought to be against the law how can that not be because you believe that stealing it is immoral...and ought to be punished.

It's a fact that Mary had an abortion. Whether someone insists it ought not to be a fact, it still is a fact. Objectively. Now, some insist that Mary ought to be arrested and charged with murder because they believe it ought to be against the law to either perform or have an abortion. Why" Because they believe that all rational men and women ought to believe that abortion is immoral.

Okay, Mr. Serious Philosopher, give us the argument that establishes that abortion, in fact, is immoral. As opposed to establishing that Mary did indeed in fact have the abortion.

How hard can it be to grasp this distinction?

And, however you feel about the morality of abortion "here and now"...

...you are acknowledging that in the event of yet newer experiences, newer encounters with other points of view down the road, you might change your mind once again.

Of course.

Dasein in a nutshell when it comes to moral and political prejudices.

But back up into the "general description analytical contraption" clouds you go...

All knowledge is probabilistic. The more evidence you have for a thing, the more justified you are in believing it. The less you have, the less so. And failure to change one's mind when the evidence weighs significantly against one is not rational.

At the same time, there is also a phenomenon called "learning." And when human being "learn," what it means is that they acquire additional evidence against their bad views, and additional evidence for their good ones. As time goes on, as more evidence accrues for the one or the other, one refines one's views, sharpens them, and accumulates information about them. There comes a time when the evidence for certain hyptheses is so great that it would take nothing short of a miracle to justify changing them, and such beliefs, we might say, are highly warranted and strong.

This would describe, for example, your own belief that the world is round. I would surely have to produce some really extraordinary evidence to justify you changing your view to the flat-earth theory, would I not? And that doesn't make you irrational to believe the earth is round. It simply means that you have strong evidence for it already by now, and won't easily change.

But can you say there would be NO possibility of you ever changing? Not if you're being rational. You would have to say that perhaps the odds against you changing your view were astronomical...but not utterly impossible. All human knowledge is only probabilistic. But some probabilities are far better than others.

Fine. Now make this applicable to the distinction I note between acquiring the knowledge and evidence needed to learn whether or not it is an objective fact that Mary had an abortion, and the knowledge and evidence one would need to acquire in order to learn whether the undisputed fact of the abortion itself is moral or immoral.

... how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

Mine rooted existentially in dasein,

You keep referring to this word, but as I asked you in the "dasein" thread you started (then apparently abandoned), how are you using that term? We know of at least seven, and perhaps twice as many possible definitions of it, and I have no idea which definition you want to own...or even if you have your own definition, which has nothing to do with how it has been used by others.

Absent that, I can't even say what you mean by "dasein." So could you please tell me?

I have attempted to do that repeatedly. You just don't "get" it.

Start with the OP on these two threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Then in regard to abortion [or any other moral conflagration that you choose given a free will world] let's explore our respective moral philosophies. Mine revolving around moral nihilism, yours revolving around...the Christian God?

[popeye1945]

Nihilism is frightening but true if one is aware that biological consciousness is the creator of all knowledge, all meaning, and that the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. We might be the smartest species but we certainly are not equivalently brave when it comes to facing reality, gimme that old-time religion---lol!! Someone in this thread said that all is permitted in the absence of a god, in fact, "All is good and right with god, only to man are somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus The belief that there is objective meaning in and of itself leads people to live their lives allowing life to just happen to them, if they were aware that they are creators I believe they would attempt to live more authentic lives. The denial of this fact leads to a self-infected lobotomy and a belief in the supernatural, read religion. Indeed if humanity is to survive its a necessity that it grows up, as Eintein put it. Ignorance is much more dangerous than is knowledge, the world cannot afford the over abundance of ignorance presently embraced by humanity.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm only asking a question that for some reason you are going to great lengths to evade answering. What are you afraid of?

Not a thing.

I was simply noticing that you lost the track of your own initial questions, and had to be dragged back, kicking and screaming...and I was curious as to why.

So you're saying you just don't know

Only God knows what a person actually "deserves." That's the point.

But God Himself states that there is not a facile fit between what a person does in this life, and what he gets in this life. It's quite manifest that injustices go on in this life, all the time....and the Bible says that that realization is not an illusion, but is the truth...in this life.

See, for example, Psalm 73. If you ever doubted that God knew all about the apparent imbalances of justice in this life, that should put your mind to rest on that point. And it's far from the only passage that does that.

But the Christian perspective is this: that this life is not all there is, and that injustices here are all remedied there. Or, as Shakespeare has so poignantly put it:

In the corrupted currents of this world,
Offense's gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above.
There is no shuffling, there the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.

So there you go. There's your answer. The answer to life's injustices is not some "karma" or "balance" or "quid pro quo" here, on Earth; it's Divine Judgment and ultimate justice.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

Well, there's the way the world either is or is not. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us. As close to an objective reality as we are ever likely to get. Well, excluding solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds etc.

Then in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, there's the way the world is and the way each of us as individuals would like it to be instead. The way some insist it ought to be instead. That's the part I root in dasein.

There's no "ought" in that explanation. To say that people "would like something to be X" does not mean it "ought" to be that way.

If I would like a Ferrari, that does not imply the world "ought" to give me one. Dreams are not duties.

Word games?

Not at all. If you know Ethics, you know that the "is-ought" problem is the biggest philosophical problem there is in that field. Yet you blew by it as if it didn't exist.

Okay, Mr. Serious Philosopher, give us the argument that establishes that abortion, in fact, is immoral.

I've done this, repeatedly, on the appropriate thread. I refer you to that.

Dasein in a nutshell when it comes to moral and political prejudices.

I've asked you repeatedly to define your particular understanding of what "dasein" means. You seem to use it in every context where you run out of answers, but since you never say what you mean by it, nobody can tell whether or not you're merely being evasive.

I have to think you actually have any specific understanding of it at all. If you did, you would surely just define it for us.

Unless you do, just know that you're not communicating anything by lapsing back to it.

... how can you posit any kingdom of ends among mere mortals without a transcending font to turn to in order to settle disputes?

Mine rooted existentially in dasein,

There it is again!

Nobody has any idea what you mean. Time to define your term.

[RCSaunders]

I'm only asking a question that for some reason you are going to great lengths to evade answering. What are you afraid of?

Not a thing.

I was simply noticing that you lost the track of your own initial questions, and had to be dragged back, kicking and screaming...and I was curious as to why.

So you're saying you just don't know

Only God knows what a person actually "deserves." That's the point.

But God Himself states that there is not a facile fit between what a person does in this life, and what he gets in this life. It's quite manifest that injustices go on in this life, all the time....and the Bible says that that realization is not an illusion, but is the truth...in this life.

See, for example, Psalm 73. If you ever doubted that God knew all about the apparent imbalances of justice in this life, that should put your mind to rest on that point. And it's far from the only passage that does that.

But the Christian perspective is this: that this life is not all there is, and that injustices here are all remedied there. Or, as Shakespeare has so poignantly put it:

In the corrupted currents of this world,
Offense's gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But 'tis not so above.
There is no shuffling, there the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence.

So there you go. There's your answer. The answer to life's injustices is not some "karma" or "balance" or "quid pro quo" here, on Earth; it's Divine Judgment and ultimate justice.

It is very difficult to believe you are really that thick. I have only one simple question which you have done everything in your power to evade answering. I don't care where or when, in this world or some other, or whether you call it, "justice," or, "retribution," or, "what one deserves," your floating abstractions, "Divine Judgment and ultimate justice," are just more evasions. The question is, wherever or whenever it happens, what exactly does Divine judgment or justice consist of? What is it, exactly, one gets when they get Divine judgement or justice. Do they get ice cream cones, ugly clothes, a headache, or are they forced to watch reruns of, "I Love Lucy,"-- or what?

[Immanuel Can]

"Divine Judgment and ultimate justice," are just more evasions.

You will think so only until you are there.

My counsel would be that you will want to be ready. To stand before one's Creator, giving one's own account, is not a position for the unprepared.

As for what justice will consist of, it will consist of whatever you have merited. Since I don't know you, and I don't know all that you've done or not done, or thought, or intended, I cannot say. God knows, and He can say.

This much is certain: justice will be exact.

[RCSaunders]

"Divine Judgment and ultimate justice," are just more evasions.

You will think so only until you are there.

My counsel would be that you will want to be ready. To stand before one's Creator, giving one's own account, is not a position for the unprepared.

As for what justice will consist of, it will consist of whatever you have merited. Since I don't know you, and I don't know all that you've done or not done, or thought, or intended, I cannot say. God knows, and He can say.

This much is certain: justice will be exact.

Then I can hardly wait. Apparently, according to you, Divine justice will be something pleasant and enjoyed by one and all. Nice to know!

Ah well. I knew you wouldn't tell the truth. I suggest you read the Bible. It has some very specific descriptions of so-called divine justice. Why would you evade them? Don't you believe them?

[Immanuel Can]

This much is certain: justice will be exact.

Then I can hardly wait. Apparently, according to you, Divine justice will be something pleasant and enjoyed by one and all. Nice to know!

You're very confident.

We'll see how that works out for you, I guess.

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things? There are.

"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

[iambiguous]

Nihilism is frightening but true if one is aware that biological consciousness is the creator of all knowledge, all meaning, and that the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject. We might be the smartest species but we certainly are not equivalently brave when it comes to facing reality, gimme that old-time religion---lol!! Someone in this thread said that all is permitted in the absence of a god, in fact, "All is good and right with god, only to man are somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus The belief that there is objective meaning in and of itself leads people to live their lives allowing life to just happen to them, if they were aware that they are creators I believe they would attempt to live more authentic lives. The denial of this fact leads to a self-infected lobotomy and a belief in the supernatural, read religion. Indeed if humanity is to survive its a necessity that it grows up, as Eintein put it. Ignorance is much more dangerous than is knowledge, the world cannot afford the over abundance of ignorance presently embraced by humanity.

Again, though, we need to discuss these things out in a particular world understood in a particular way given a specific set of circumstance in which we are all able to agree about some things [in the either/or world of empirical truths] but disagree about other things [in the is/ought world of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments].

Authentic lives then and there.

[iambiguous]

Wait, wait...what is "the is/ought" world? How do you get an "ought" out of your "is"?

Well, there's the way the world either is or is not. The laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world around us. As close to an objective reality as we are ever likely to get. Well, excluding solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, Matrix worlds etc.

Then in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments, there's the way the world is and the way each of us as individuals would like it to be instead. The way some insist it ought to be instead. That's the part I root in dasein.

There's no "ought" in that explanation. To say that people "would like something to be X" does not mean it "ought" to be that way.

If I would like a Ferrari, that does not imply the world "ought" to give me one. Dreams are not duties.

Word games?

Not at all. If you know Ethics, you know that the "is-ought" problem is the biggest philosophical problem there is in that field. Yet you blew by it as if it didn't exist.

Of course: Ethics. With a capital E. Ethics as defined and then deduced into existence didactically/theoretically/analytically in a world of words that make no real connection to the world of actual human interactions like the examples I noted above.

Thus, when I ask you to explore "the biggest philosophical problem there is in that field" as it pertains to an ethical conflagration that philosophers have never come close to resolving other than in an analytical "world of words", most objectivists blow by that time and again.

Okay, Mr. Serious Philosopher, give us the argument that establishes that abortion, in fact, is immoral.

I've done this, repeatedly, on the appropriate thread. I refer you to that.

No, in my view, what you have done is to provide us with your own subjective political prejudices regarding abortion and refused to really delve into how they were or were not derived from the manner in which I explore my own political prejudices in the OP on this ILP thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Indeed, to the extent that you do believe that, objectively, abortion is immoral, wouldn't that ultimately be derived from your own subjective, rooted in dasein existential "leap of faith" to the Christian God?

Dasein in a nutshell when it comes to moral and political prejudices.

I've asked you repeatedly to define your particular understanding of what "dasein" means. You seem to use it in every context where you run out of answers, but since you never say what you mean by it, nobody can tell whether or not you're merely being evasive.

I have to think you actually have any specific understanding of it at all. If you did, you would surely just define it for us.

Unless you do, just know that you're not communicating anything by lapsing back to it.

Ever and always: define, define, define!

As though there aren't words such that any defintions a "serious philosopher" might provide us with are only as relevant as the particular context in which his or her definition is used.

Thus: Define "Freedom". Define "Justice".

Instead, my main interest is in how words defined analytically are examined existentially out in the world of actual human interactions. The world of conflicting value judgments derived, in my view, largely from dasein and played out given the reality of political economy.

Mine rooted existentially in dasein,

There it is again!

Nobody has any idea what you mean. Time to define your term.

To "nobody":

I don't believe that a word like "dasein" as I understand its meaning can be reduced down technically to a precise "philosophical definition". I believe one can only attempt to convey its meaning existentially.

Thus as I noted above to IC:

Start with the OP on these two threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Then in regard to abortion [or any other moral conflagration that you choose given a free will world] let's explore our respective moral philosophies. Mine revolving around moral nihilism, yours revolving around...the Christian God?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course: Ethics. With a capital E. Ethics as defined and then deduced into existence didactically/theoretically/analytically in a world of words that make no real connection to the world of actual human interactions like the examples I noted above.

"Ethics," with a capital "E" is a discipline. The capital is no more insidious than the capital on the world "English."

dasein

You really can't help yourself, can you? You keep using this undefined word of yours.

Even Heidegger didn't do that.

Ever and always: define, define, define!

As though there aren't words such that any defintions a "serious philosopher" might provide us with are only as relevant as the particular context in which his or her definition is used.

No, the problem is the opposite: there are, in fact, as I have shown you, so many definitions for dasein that nobody can possibly guess which one you're trying to use.

Thus: Define "Freedom". Define "Justice".

No good philosopher would undertake a treatise on these terms without trying to define them.

But apparently, you would?

I don't believe that a word like "dasein" as I understand its meaning can be reduced down technically to a precise "philosophical definition". I believe one can only attempt to convey its meaning existentially.

Well, now, I warned you you couldn't bluff me on this. Now I gotta call "hogwash" on that.

There is no "conveying meaning existentially." That's pure jargon, grade A compost. One "conveys" in language; one cannot know what somebody else's "existential" experience "says" to them, if it ever "says" anything at all.

[RCSaunders]

This much is certain: justice will be exact.

Then I can hardly wait. Apparently, according to you, Divine justice will be something pleasant and enjoyed by one and all. Nice to know!

You're very confident.

We'll see how that works out for you, I guess.

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things? There are.

"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

If you really believe that you must be terrified, or does your God regard lies as some kind of virtue. Evasion of the truth is a lie. It's deceit, and last I checked, the Bible condemns deceit.

So I repeat the question, which you deceitfully evade:

If you believe the Bible, since it has some very specific descriptions of so-called divine justice, why would you evade them? Don't you believe them?

[Immanuel Can]

Then I can hardly wait. Apparently, according to you, Divine justice will be something pleasant and enjoyed by one and all. Nice to know!

You're very confident.

We'll see how that works out for you, I guess.

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things? There are.

"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he shall also reap."

If you really believe that you must be terrified...

If I believe what the Bible explicitly says, you mean? I would be, if I had done nothing about it, I suppose.

If you believe the Bible, since it has some very specific descriptions of so-called divine justice, why would you evade them?

I do not. I've been perfectly frank. I do not know exactly what you will or will not "reap," because I do not know you. But if you are not in any relationship with God, you will go to the Lake of Fire...and even there, there will be degrees of judgment. Not everybody gets the same degree, although none of it is good. What degree you get depends on what Christ said...what you "sowed."

Is that what you were fishing for? I couldn't tell.

[RCSaunders]

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things?

How could I? Degrees of, "what?" You have refused to say what, "these things," are?"