the queen is dead

[attofishpi]

I find it rather odd that a fellow with such beliefs about panpsychic god computers in a cyberdimensional war between good and evil, would find a simple theory about royalty involved in ritual murder to be Incredible.

not sayin' it's true. i highly doubt it's true. im just noting on what basis Christians consider a theory plausible or not.

justifiable true belief is a strangely difficult thing for Christians I've observed.

U comprehend F A about reality.

Pisses me off with this concept of G v E

2.0 מָשִׁיחַ

[promethean75]

a role appointed by god. that's what homegirl on TV said about the monarchy. that they believe the king was just appointed by god.

now do you reckon monarchies were formed by wealthy people who were really, honestly attempting to do what they thought they were instructed to do by god... or do you reckon wealthy people with ruling power adopt or invent religious beliefs that justify and benefit their already existing political power? this one is a no-brainer.

[promethean75]

to be fair, liz II was a cutie and even a mechanic at one point.

i suppose we're all a bit like the queen. sexy and vivacious in our twenties and thirties only to finally become dreadfully old, ugly and buggered.

This is the Elizabeth we shall remember.

https://youtube.com/shorts/RZlYBbyrkvE?feature=share

[iambiguous]

What I mean to say is that I think our *modernity* and our *modern perspectives* are simply not really that expansive and free-ranging but rather narrow and to a degree controlled by the politically-correct mood.

What do you think of that statement?

Again, I'd argue that whatever any particular individual thinks is the "politically correct" position to take in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death, it is no less rooted existentially in dasein as I explore that 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

Unless of course someone here is able to provide us with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] able to be demonstrated as encompassing the essential moral, political and spiritual truth.

[iambiguous]

Not interested. Not even a little.

Absolutely shameless!!!

You don't believe in "shame." It's all , remember?

What I believe is that, given a free will world, what some insist is shameful, others insist is not.

Then there are objectivists of your ilk who insist that shame ever and always revolves around the existence of the Christian God. But then are absolutely shameless when it comes to actually demonstrating that He does in fact exist.

The videos please!!

And, in regard to value judgments that swirl around our reactions to the queen, they command us all to ask "How Would Jesus React?"

While at the same time completely ignoring the point I raised here:

Okay, so you are agreeing that your assessment of her is just your own personal opinion. That others may have completely different or negative opinions of her. That there is no intellectual or moral foundation that we can turn to -- religious or secular -- in order to determine how rational and virtuous men and women ought to react to her. Either in regard to her life or her death.

Kant and others like him are irrelevant here.

That, in other words, for all practical purposes, you're right from your side and they're right from theirs.

Instead, we get this...

Well, I'll show why your objection is remarkably dumb. Don't say you didn't ask for it.

You ought to know, if you don't, that not all opinions are obligatory. If one person likes vanilla and another likes chocolate, then neither is logically compelled to say the other is obligated to agree with him. And opinions, left by themselves, have no further implication than that.

But some opinions are also good opinions, and relate to truth, while others are bad, and relate to falsehood. The opinion that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "dasein,", is strongly justified by your total inability to define your term, for example. So that's a warranted opinion, and probably everybody should share it. Likely, everybody does.

Note to others:

Please translate this for us so that it bears at least some resemblance to the reason I created this thread. As usual, he speaks of "good opinions" as though they surely revolve entirely around his own. And then of course back to destroying my argument regarding dasein [and our individual reactions to the queen's life and death] by pointing out I refuse to define it. I note in depth how my own existential understanding of it pertains to our reactions to the queen, but that's not a definition.

Indeed, no doubt, we should ask, "How Would Jesus Define It?"

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely shameless!!!

You don't believe in "shame." It's all , remember?

What I believe is that, given a free will world, what some insist is shameful, others insist is not.

So it's not shameful. Plausibly, there's only what Biggie wants to imagine is shameful, and stuff everybody else knows is not.

But "shame" is not a word that can have any meaning to Biggie, even though he doesn't know it. To be "ashamed," one has to have done something that occasions disgrace before others. But as Biggie says, that's all subjective and personal, all...to use his favourite term, dsein.

So nobody ever has any actual warrant to be "ashamed." Nobody has to care what anybody else thinks.

Biggie's using language to which he has disentitled himself. For shame!

[iambiguous]

You know, since you approach everything from one narrow direction, I gave you a gift. You're just begging for someone to claim that there is only one reaction so that you can jump on him/her. You're welcome.

Back again to this:

Huh?!!

I opened this thread with this post:

...philosophically or otherwise, is there a way to pin down how all rational men and women are obligated to react to [the Queen's death]?

Or, instead, will our individual reactions to it be predicated more on the existential trajectory of our lives? Some being indoctrinated as children and then accumulating personal experiences and relationships as adults that predispose them to be gladdened by it, or saddened by it, or to be completely indifferent to it.

And I've always made it abundantly clear there can be as many paths to reacting to Queen Elizabeth's life and death as there are people.

In fact, only those who insist that how they react to it here themselves is the one and the only true path are instead prime examples of a narrow frame of mind.

Hell, I'm even assuming that free will is the reality here.

Again, I can't help but wonder what's happened to you. The phyllo I engaged all those years ago when ILP was an actual philosophy venue never seemed as, well, shallow as the phyllo of late.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Your narrow direction is fishing for objectivists. Which is what you're doing in this thread.

When one takes the bait and responds, then you go on the attack ... pushing your point of view ... dasein, fractured and fragmented, uncertainty, the gap, everybody is right based on their assumptions. (Well, everyone except objectivists.)

Sigh...

How many times have I noted that my main interest in philosophy revolves around this question:

"How ought one to live -- rationally, morally -- in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

This and connecting the dots existentially between "morality on this side of the grave" and "immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave".

Yes, in regard to this, I believe that the moral, political and theocratic objectivists among us can be very, very dangerous once they acquire power. I quote human history to date for example.

So, I'm always on the prowl for them. To challenge them for example. And, okay, for those I construe to be fulminating fanatic pinheads, to make fools of them. Well, when they're not making fools of themselves.

But then they might end up convincing me that their own path really is the one true path.

My "win/win" frame of mind. Either they succeed in bringing me up out of my "fractured and fragmented" hole, or I succeed in bringing them down into it.

[iambiguous]

You don't believe in "shame." It's all , remember?

What I believe is that, given a free will world, what some insist is shameful, others insist is not.

Then there are objectivists of your ilk who insist that shame ever and always revolves around the existence of the Christian God. But then are absolutely shameless when it comes to actually demonstrating that He does in fact exist.

The videos please!!

And, in regard to value judgments that swirl around our reactions to the queen, they command us all to ask "How Would Jesus React?"

While at the same time completely ignoring the point I raised here:

Okay, so you are agreeing that your assessment of her is just your own personal opinion. That others may have completely different or negative opinions of her. That there is no intellectual or moral foundation that we can turn to -- religious or secular -- in order to determine how rational and virtuous men and women ought to react to her. Either in regard to her life or her death.

Kant and others like him are irrelevant here.

That, in other words, for all practical purposes, you're right from your side and they're right from theirs.

Instead, we get this...

Well, I'll show why your objection is remarkably dumb. Don't say you didn't ask for it.

You ought to know, if you don't, that not all opinions are obligatory. If one person likes vanilla and another likes chocolate, then neither is logically compelled to say the other is obligated to agree with him. And opinions, left by themselves, have no further implication than that.

But some opinions are also good opinions, and relate to truth, while others are bad, and relate to falsehood. The opinion that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "dasein,", is strongly justified by your total inability to define your term, for example. So that's a warranted opinion, and probably everybody should share it. Likely, everybody does.

Note to others:

Please translate this for us so that it bears at least some resemblance to the reason I created this thread. As usual, he speaks of "good opinions" as though they surely revolve entirely around his own. And then of course back to destroying my argument regarding dasein [and our individual reactions to the queen's life and death] by pointing out I refuse to define it. I note in depth how my own existential understanding of it pertains to our reactions to the queen, but that's not a definition.

Indeed, no doubt, we should ask, "How Would Jesus Define It?"

So it's not shameful. Plausibly, there's only what Biggie wants to imagine is shameful, and stuff everybody else knows is not.

But "shame" is not a word that can have any meaning to Biggie, even though he doesn't know it. To be "ashamed," one has to have done something that occasions disgrace before others. But as Biggie says, that's all subjective and personal, all...to use his favourite term, dsein.

So nobody ever has any actual warrant to be "ashamed." Nobody has to care what anybody else thinks.

Biggie's using language to which he has disentitled himself. For shame!

Absolutely shameless!!!

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I mean to say is that I think our *modernity* and our *modern perspectives* are simply not really that expansive and free-ranging but rather narrow and to a degree controlled by the politically-correct mood.

What do you think of that statement?

Again, I'd argue that whatever any particular individual thinks is the "politically correct" position to take in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death, it is no less rooted existentially in dasein as I explore that in the OPs here:

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

Unless of course someone here is able to provide us with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] able to be demonstrated as encompassing the essential moral, political and spiritual truth.

I found this interesting:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So if this is (still) true then I'd say that you are spinning in circles. And given the decisions you have made, unless you are proposing that these have been forced on you, will will spin forever.

The encompassing and essential moral, political and spiritual truths -- as they pertain the England and the deeply decadent period it is in, will be known and felt when they come to fruition. One usually only learns about the value of things when they have been lost, destroyed or disregarded. Then, within that realization and as a result, one sets about again defining what these are.

What I think you must understand is that the trajectory you describe as your own (the people who reoriented you in Vietnam, etc., and what you did thereafter) is now being confronted in our present. It seems to me that people want to know, need to know, in what these destructive and undermining processes originated.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I wanted to hear someone shout 'The Queen is dead, long live the King'. Do they still do that? Would they do it right after the event?

[promethean75]

I want princess Kate to be queen. That woman is sharp.

[promethean75]

That's every bit a Capricorn woman you guys. The fine wine thing. Look at the graceful but concentrated Saturnean presence and reserve, the easy confidence of her personality, the elegant beauty. She should totally be queen.

th-2758843830.jpg

th-1282884850.jpg

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Deep... Good looks are not a prerequiste for the job despite what shallow Americans think. There is also a big difference between being a 'Queen consort' and an actual Monarch.

[promethean75]

I should inform you that her ladyship completed schooling to receive the Maister o Arts from university.

[iambiguous]

Basically then, "democratic republics" are often defended not because they are in sync with the civics textbooks, but because they come to be seen as "the best of all possible worlds". More or less Machiavellian as it were.

And with them I agree -- largely. But as I say I think a political system (and our own) is really best seen as an odd hybrid. However, I think that democracies will always tend to decadence. Classic, principled Liberalism shows I think that it tends to degenerate. And when it degenerates there is needed a reform. And reforms involve different levels of applied unfreedom and shall I say punishment.

What, from my frame of mind, you have conveyed to me here is your our particular political prejudice. Just as you and others have their own particular prejudicies in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death.

My point, however, revolves more around how we come to acquire these subjective prejudices given the actual existential trajectory of the lives we lived.

And then the part where philosophers and ethicists and political scientists and sociologists and anthropologists, etc., come to recognize how our value judgments are, by and large, profoundly problematic fabrications -- existential fabrications -- rooted out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically and culturally. Starting with our indoctrination as children and then continuing on given our uniquely personal set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge.

What then when it comes down to reacting to the queen or to types of governments?

Me, I'm "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world because it seems reasonable to be so in a No God world. And all I can do is to note the arguments of those who are not fractured and fragmented themselves. And either they will convince me that there is no need to be fractured and fragmented in regard to value judgments or I will convince them that there is every reason in the world to be.