compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

Your threads get hundreds of views because the site is flooded with bots. You think people read this tripe?

It's kinda cute that you think you have an audience haha. Hundreds of views

[iambiguous]

Ok, too stupid to change it is. I thought that might be the case.

And just to answer the "goals" question, you provided the answer yourself here:

A polemicist might employ such devices as red herrings, irony, dissembling, sarcasm, needling, poking and prodding, huffing and puffing, satire. But it's almost never meant to be personal. It's just a way to ratchet up a discussion and make it more invigorating, intriguing, stimulating.

Those are your own alleged aims in applying polemics. You haven't achieved those aims. Your conversations are not invigorating, intriguing or stimulating. If you were not stupid, you'd notice that now and consider leaving your silly "polemics" behind.

A simple way to make the conversations more invigorating, intriguing and stimulating would be if Iambiguous stopped repeating the same things over and over and over.

Perhaps that's just too obvious to point out.

Once again, the assumption is either that 1] I have free will, could opt not to repeat things here, but choose to anyway or 2] that I do not have free will, repeat things here as my brain compels me to and "choose" to post as I do in the only possibly reality.

Indeed, if that's the case, that would also explain why you moan and groan repeatedly about me here in turn. You are never able not to.

Uh-oh, we're stuck again.

[iambiguous]

Your threads get hundreds of views because the site is flooded with bots. You think people read this tripe?

It's kinda cute that you think you have an audience haha. Hundreds of views

So -- click -- let's pin this down.

Of the 4,051 Replies and the 145,285 Views this thread has garnered, how many of them were from bots?

[Flannel Jesus]

Your threads get hundreds of views because the site is flooded with bots. You think people read this tripe?

It's kinda cute that you think you have an audience haha. Hundreds of views

So -- click -- let's pin this down.

Of the 4,051 Replies and the 145,285 Views this thread has garnered, how many of them were from bots?

Of the replies, the majority were from you, me, iwannaplato and phyllo. Of the views... I'd be really surprised if many people outside of those 4 listed were regularly looking, the majority of the rest are probably bots.

Now, if that's your audience - those 4 people - you're not looking so hot. 1 person likes what you have to say, and that's you.

[iambiguous]

Your threads get hundreds of views because the site is flooded with bots. You think people read this tripe?

It's kinda cute that you think you have an audience haha. Hundreds of views

So -- click -- let's pin this down.

Of the 4,051 Replies and the 145,285 Views this thread has garnered, how many of them were from bots?

Of the replies, the majority were from you, me, iwannaplato and phyllo. Of the views... I'd be really surprised if many people outside of those 4 listed were regularly looking, the majority of the rest are probably bots.

Now, if that's your audience - those 4 people - you're not looking so hot. 1 person likes what you have to say, and that's you.

Come, Mr. Wiggle, how many folks who respond to or view my posts here are bots? Surprise one of us, okay?

Also, you note that no really serious philosopher would read the tripe I post, and yet over and over and over and over again, you and phyllo and iwannaplato do read it.

Now is your chance:

"We only read it because our brains compel us to!!!"

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm flattered that you think we're "serious philosophers". There's not a person who posts here who wouldn't be incredibly pretentious if they called themselves that.

Do you think you're a serious philosopher?

[iambiguous]

I'm flattered that you think we're "serious philosophers". There's not a person who posts here who wouldn't be incredibly pretentious if they called themselves that.

Don't be?

I'm more inclined to share Will Durant's rendition of that:

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

But here [for me] only in regard to morality and conflicting value judgments.

Do you think you're a serious philosopher?

Click.

I don't believe that philosophers in a No God world can seriously expect to pin down objective morality...other than from the "my way or the highway" perspective of one or another hopelessly conflicting One True Path here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[Flannel Jesus]

I have no idea how that's an answer to the question, but you are biguous after all

[Iwannaplato]

You mean, writing something other than "you could never not say that" and engaging with the words other people post?

That's not only repetition, it's also evasive. So, yes that gets double points for deinvigorating.

Note to nature: stooge mode engaged

I attribute this ridiculous comment you've made FJ to what neither you nor I fully grasp about this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

I trust my attibutions. I trust that my point is relevant. I trust my sense that you are focusing on me. I trust that my skepticism about us knowing now the answer to issues related to compatibilism is limited.

But when you say things, it's suddenly relevant to say: but what if that's all you ever could say. Or me.

[Iwannaplato]

I have no idea how that's an answer to the question, but you are biguous after all

Here''s the ironic thing. He managed to compliment you me and Phyllo. He quoted Durant.

Then there are the "serious philosophers" who tend to keep philosophy up in the intellectual "world of words" clouds.

What Will Durant called "the epistemologists":

And then he says

Also, you note that no really serious philosopher would read the tribe I post, and yet over and over and over and over again, you and phyllo and iwannaplato do read it.

So, we're not serious philosophers, a pejorative category in Iambiguous' world.

[Iwannaplato]

Also, you note that no really serious philosopher would read the tribe I post, and yet over and over and over and over again, you and phyllo and iwannaplato do read it.

This forum combines two things: collaborative (at least potentially) mulling over philosophical issues AND interacting with different styles of, well, interacting.

As far as the latter:

Forums like this one are not moderated like, say, Philosophy Forum as one example. This means that a wide range of styles - using the term generously and loosely and including my own - tones, and foci arise. And some really odd characters also. They wouldn't last at Philosophy Forum, they'd get moderated out. This allows me to focus on both those things.

This can be seen negatively and there are times I want to engage in other forums.

But here, I get to interact with people, yes about ideas but also in relation to character and interpersonal dynamics. I encounter people who communicate in ways that are similar to how people communicate out in the world. How they deal with criticism, how they shift the onus away from themselves, how much respect they have for the purported goals, how they treat me, how much they listen (read) and so on. Do they actually respond to other people? Do they see only their own needs, while presenting otherwise? Does what they say make sense?

They may not realize how they treat others and the ideas of others or the conversation, but there it is, down to earth, real dynamics and problems. The stuff the epistemologists as Durant labels them, would look down on. But not me. I think there's real grist for the mill there.

You, for example, present regularly a set of interpersonal patterns that I have encountered IRL, though perhaps not with such consistency. The internet is slowed down communication. And there is also a record. A colleague at work, a boss, someone in line at the grocery store, a quasi-friend, a family member...generally, unless it is email exchanges, the relationship is fast, scattered and unrecorded.

Here one can check the interaction in detail as if one had a photographic memory.

This is useful. Because I will encounter people who engage in similar patterns as you, and Age and IC and Veritas, as some examples, do.

Here, I can see the whole process in slo-mo. I can try to engage with the problems and see what happens - in the dynamic, in the other person, in myself.

I've noticed that I notice interpersonal dynamics and deal with them better now. There are other processes in my life that contribute to this improvement, but I think a modest portion of that, a minority portion has to do with zooming in on these dynamics as one can do here.

And all in the context of topics I want to think about, sometimes.

For example VA who interacts rather terribly does manage to bring in interesting angles in his defense of objective morality. It's disorganized, chaotic posting, but nevertheless I think the issues are important and where the chaos goes can be quite interesting. AND THEN on topic of this, the way he interacts with others includes a bunch of patterns that are problematic and, as I say above, match patterns I will meet and have met IRL.

So, it's win win. Now this can be frustrating and irritating, but then of course. It would have to be. It entails learning about my own habits and how people's evasions, disrespect, denials, smokescreens, lack of any real interest in others and so on can get at me. But here, it's not a matter of getting through the day with a toxic boss. Here I can go all pedagogical with myself and the stakes are low.

And all of this is very down to earth. Real humans dealing with each other as they do. Or can't manage to do. It's not just about life, it is a slowed down part of life. People are issues to each other. And there are forums where this aspect is frowned on so much that one actually complain to the moderators that people are making one the issue.

But of course, often when one is made the issue, it is due to how one has treated others.

If I solely want to test out a thesis and its justification, well there are likely better places to do that. Where one can focus on the philosophical issue without as many distractions around interpersonal dynamics.

And of course there's the foe function. If you are being made an issue of and don't want that, there's this tool instead of moderation.

So, as we were.

[iambiguous]

I'll do a little "snipping" of my own...

But here, I get to interact with people, yes about ideas but also in relation to character and interpersonal dynamics. I encounter people who communicate in ways that are similar to how people communicate out in the world. How they deal with criticism, how they shift the onus away from themselves, how much respect they have for the purported goals, how they treat me, how much they listen (read) and so on. Do they actually respond to other people? Do they see only their own needs, while presenting otherwise? Does what they say make sense?

What would make sense to me is you and I focusing in on a particular moral conflagration; and then pertaining to ethics, religion and determinism we explore each other's frame of mind "here and now". That way as the new exchange unfolds you can point out specific examples of the things you accuse me of.

At the same time, in my view, when someone complains about how others...

"...deal with criticism, how they shift the onus away from themselves, how much respect they have for the purported goals, how they treat me, how much they listen (read) and so on. Do they actually respond to other people? Do they see only their own needs, while presenting otherwise?"

...what they are often complaining about instead is that others don't share their own assessments, their own set of premises, their own conclusions.

...VA who interacts rather terribly does manage to bring in interesting angles in his defense of objective morality. It's disorganized, chaotic posting, but nevertheless I think the issues are important and where the chaos goes can be quite interesting. AND THEN on topic of this, the way he interacts with others includes a bunch of patterns that are problematic and, as I say above, match patterns I will meet and have met IRL.

How about this...

You note examples where VA "does manage to bring in interesting angles in his defense of objective morality". Then, by all means, try to persuade him or her to join us in a discussion of an actual set of circumstances. I've tried doing this myself and all I got was a PM telling me that this would be a complete waste of time for him or her.

A "condition" perhaps?

And of course there's the foe function. If you are being made an issue of and don't want that, there's this tool instead of moderation.

Never use it. Instead, I simply avoid reading those who do not interest me. For any number of reasons. As I noted before, I rarely read anything from you here anymore unless it is a post directed at me. From my own entirely prejudiced frame of mind, you are not all the far removed from VA. What I deem to be a "serious philosopher" more intent on exploring morality, religion and the Big Questions up in the theoretical clouds. The FSK clouds?

But again, as with most other things of this nature [involving conflicting value judgments], different folks, different strokes.

The best of all possible worlds perhaps?

[Iwannaplato]

What would make sense to me is you and I focusing in on a particular moral conflagration; and then pertaining to ethics, religion and determinism we explore each other's frame of mind "here and now". That way as the new exchange unfolds you can point out specific examples of the things you accuse me of.

Well, I've done this before. But if you have a particular moral conflagration in mind, give it a shot. Probably best not to use your standard Mary abortion issue, since regardless of whether determinism or free will is the case, I don't have judgments of Mary. And I'd have no plans, either way, to 'hold her responsible'. I suppose if I was in the clinic where she got the abortion and it was private and you had to pay, well, I might hold her responsible for payment.

At the same time, in my view, when someone complains about how others...

"...deal with criticism, how they shift the onus away from themselves, how much respect they have for the purported goals, how they treat me, how much they listen (read) and so on. Do they actually respond to other people? Do they see only their own needs, while presenting otherwise?"

...what they are often complaining about instead is that others don't share their own assessments, their own set of premises, their own conclusions.

Yes, keep it in the abstract, up in the clouds. And notice how your generalization applies to you.

See, the point of that post was the challenge the implicit idea that your moral position on what you label Stooge behavior is Stoogy at all. And then that it's hardly a coincidence that you are posting in this type of forum and not one that more rigorously moderates. But there are forums where the moderators would take an active position on posters focusing on the person, so my suggestion is that in addition to posting here, you post in one of those.

How about this...

You note examples where VA "does manage to bring in interesting angles in his defense of objective morality". Then, by all means, try to persuade him or her to join us in a discussion of an actual set of circumstances. I've tried doing this myself and all I got was a PM telling me that this would be a complete waste of time for him or her.

I think his antirealism line is interesting and he's started hundreds of threads on it. He's not particularly good, in general at responding to specific points, but if you're interested in communicating with him about objective morality, there are a number of threads right now on the topic that he's started. I don't know why we need the middle-man steps of me bringing him here.

And I didn't bring him up because I'm proposing myself as an agent for him.

Never use it. Instead, I simply avoid reading those who do not interest me.

Well, there you go problem solved.

For any number of reasons. As I noted before, I rarely read anything from you here anymore unless it is a post directed at me. From my own entirely prejudiced frame of mind, you are not all the far removed from VA. What I deem to be a "serious philosopher" more intent on exploring morality, religion and the Big Questions up in the theoretical clouds. The FSK clouds?

I don't think you've got a good handle on your own posts and where they are in altitude.

[Iwannaplato]

So -- click -- let's pin this down.

Of the 4,051 Replies and the 145,285 Views this thread has garnered, how many of them were from bots?

Of the replies, the majority were from you, me, iwannaplato and phyllo. Of the views... I'd be really surprised if many people outside of those 4 listed were regularly looking, the majority of the rest are probably bots.

Now, if that's your audience - those 4 people - you're not looking so hot. 1 person likes what you have to say, and that's you.

Come, Mr. Wiggle, how many folks who respond to or view my posts here are bots? Surprise one of us, okay?

Also, you note that no really serious philosopher would read the tribe I post, and yet over and over and over and over again, you and phyllo and iwannaplato do read it.

Now is your chance:

"We only read it because our brains compel us to!!!"

Ah, I totally misread this post. Which caused at least a couple of false assertions on my part.

Now LOL!!!!!!

This video of a man farting....
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1m7dX_Zwt6c
has over 3.5 million views.

So, we know that your polemics are not quite as effective as farts. At least not yet. The century is young, I'll grant you that.

And, you are correct, what you post cannot be tribe (or perhaps tripe). It's not possible. Look at the view numbers!

But it's good to know what your priorities are. Your defense of your tactics is view numbers. I'm rather stunned, seriously. I actually would not have guessed this as a motive. And perhaps I should have: these threads which have dozens of posts of yours in rows where no one interacts.

You're not actually interested much in communicating with others, it's view which are prioritized. They show the value of your polemics.

This actually explains a lot. (not kidding)

So, we take what Iamb says here at face value and it means he has no motivation to respond cogently with respect, read well, not be a hypocrite, make actual arguments, etc. His polemics are effective because his views are high. That's actually less interesting. I have been naive, for the most part. I did really wonder how he could never notice or admit a mistake. In the abstract, sure, he admits it's possible, but in actual specific interactions, it never happens that he notices. That fascinated me. But now I see it's a non-issue for him.

Or perhaps Iambiguous is just half-lying here rather than admit he has some problems with communication. Also boring.

I'm done.

[iambiguous]

What would make sense to me is you and I focusing in on a particular moral conflagration; and then pertaining to ethics, religion and determinism we explore each other's frame of mind "here and now". That way as the new exchange unfolds you can point out specific examples of the things you accuse me of.

Well, I've done this before. But if you have a particular moral conflagration in mind, give it a shot. Probably best not to use your standard Mary abortion issue, since regardless of whether determinism or free will is the case, I don't have judgments of Mary. And I'd have no plans, either way, to 'hold her responsible'. I suppose if I was in the clinic where she got the abortion and it was private and you had to pay, well, I might hold her responsible for payment

How about this...

Click.

You note a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you. You note your own moral convictions in regard to it. Now, deontologically, how close to or far away from objective morality do you imagine philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, can come in regard to making those crucial "for all practical purposes" distinctions between behaviors that are rewarded or behaviors that are punished?

At the same time, in my view, when someone complains about how others...

"...deal with criticism, how they shift the onus away from themselves, how much respect they have for the purported goals, how they treat me, how much they listen (read) and so on. Do they actually respond to other people? Do they see only their own needs, while presenting otherwise?"

...what they are often complaining about instead is that others don't share their own assessments, their own set of premises, their own conclusions.

Yes, keep it in the abstract, up in the clouds. And notice how your generalization applies to you.

Let's focus in particular on this part when we commence a new exchange regarding a conflicting good of note given our respective views on morality, religion and determinism.

See, the point of that post was the challenge the implicit idea that your moral position on what you label Stooge behavior is Stoogy at all.

Again, I'm not suggesting that my own reaction to what "I" construe to be Stooge behavior here is anything other than my own subjective vantage point. Given some measure of human autonomy. I'm sure there are those here just as convinced that I am the Stooge.

And then that it's hardly a coincidence that you are posting in this type of forum and not one that more rigorously moderates. But there are forums where the moderators would take an active position on posters focusing on the person, so my suggestion is that in addition to posting here, you post in one of those.

Oh, I see. In a properly moderated forum, those like me would never be permitted to post as I do here? Indeed, I was "banned for life" by Postmodern Beatnik in The Philosophy Forum. No warnings. Those moral objectivists there were just getting increasingly more perturbed by my own moral philosophy. They wanted me gone so I was gotten rid of.

How about this...

You note examples where VA "does manage to bring in interesting angles in his defense of objective morality". Then, by all means, try to persuade him or her to join us in a discussion of an actual set of circumstances. I've tried doing this myself and all I got was a PM telling me that this would be a complete waste of time for him or her.

I think his antirealism line is interesting and he's started hundreds of threads on it. He's not particularly good, in general at responding to specific points, but if you're interested in communicating with him about objective morality, there are a number of threads right now on the topic that he's started. I don't know why we need the middle-man steps of me bringing him here.

What I am interested in is in exploring his/her endlessly didactic technical assessments of theoretical ethics out in the world of actual moral conflagrations. And how that might be grappled with given free will or determinism. Or, in regard to "responsibility", compatibilism.

For any number of reasons. As I noted before, I rarely read anything from you here anymore unless it is a post directed at me. From my own entirely prejudiced frame of mind, you are not all the far removed from VA. What I deem to be a "serious philosopher" more intent on exploring morality, religion and the Big Questions up in the theoretical clouds. The FSK clouds?

I don't think you've got a good handle on your own posts and where they are in altitude.

More to the point, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein in the is/ought world and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, I don't believe it is possible for any of us to get a handle on a moral philosophy that does transcend the existential parameters of our lives.

It's just that given the manner in which "here and now" I am fractured and fragmented, I'm left to contemplate what I still don't really understand about this:

"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." John Fowles