Pagan morality

[Iwannaplato]

Yo, Maia! You're up!!

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if you make up a bunch of stuff about paganism and don't understand the differences between virtue ethics and deontology. Nor does it matter that you repeat the same psychology 101 'analysis' of people with different beliefs than yours. None of that matters, because......well, that's unclear. In any case, none of it matters to you.

That important distinction, you proposed, between the hard and the soft sciences, in another thread, ought to well include a disctinction between fantasies about the motivations of others being fine in the soft sciences as long as the person occasionally claims they are not an objectivist.

The wall of making up psychological stuff up in the clouds seem to be ok.

[iambiguous]

Yo, Maia! You're up!!

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if you make up a bunch of stuff about paganism and don't understand the differences between virtue ethics and deontology. Nor does it matter that you repeat the same psychology 101 'analysis' of people with different beliefs than yours. None of that matters, because......well, that's unclear. In any case, none of it matters to you.

We'll need a context, of course.

How about if Maia [who is posting again at ILP now] chooses one. We can then explore how Pagans of her ilk connect the "spiritual dots" between 1] Nature, 2] the Goddess, and 3] the existential parameters of their own life historically, culturally and experientially. And then how, in turn, moral nihilists of my ilk suggests instead that -- click -- objectivists of her ilk "think up" this Intrinsic Self in order to "transcend" dasein and the fractured and fragmented arguments I make in my signature threads.

From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism". The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling security banket. And, then, with any luck, taking that all the way to the grave.

Unless, of course, they're right. And I'm here in part because I am hoping to find someone like her who might actually prompt me to yank myself up out of the grim philosophical hole I've dug myself down into.

In other words, while Maia does acknowledge that [like me] her moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein [and are therefore ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information] she [along with those like gib from ILP] genuinely believe that they are in sync with this Real Me and that the Real Me [through the Goddess, through Nature] really does grasp [f only intuitively, spiritually] the most psychologically uplifting frame of mind. Maia is just not able "here and now" to connect those dots further to what many others here insist is the one and the only One True Path to enlightenment...a God, the God, their God.

Maia, however, doesn't appear to embody an "or else" component. Other than her willingness to respond more positively to those who more or less believe their own rendition of the same thing.

That important distinction, you proposed, between the hard and the soft sciences, in another thread, ought to well include a disctinction between fantasies about the motivations of others being fine in the soft sciences as long as the person occasionally claims they are not an objectivist.

Sure, any number of these folks...

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

...might argue that everyone else is indulging in fantasy. Why? Because they really, really do believe that "somehow", given their own highly improbable explanation for the world around us and our place in it...only their own more or less dogmatic convictions encompass the human condition.

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times entirely conflicting assessment of Enlightenment and yet almost each every one of them still insisting it is their path alone.

[Iwannaplato]

Yo, Maia! You're up!!

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if you make up a bunch of stuff about paganism and don't understand the differences between virtue ethics and deontology. Nor does it matter that you repeat the same psychology 101 'analysis' of people with different beliefs than yours. None of that matters, because......well, that's unclear. In any case, none of it matters to you.

We'll need a context, of course.

Oh, dear. You didn't understand the context.

How about if Maia [who is posting again at ILP now] chooses one. We can then explore how Pagans of her ilk connect the "spiritual dots" between 1] Nature, 2] the Goddess, and 3] the existential parameters of their own life historically, culturally and experientially. And then how, in turn, moral nihilists of my ilk suggests instead that -- click -- objectivists of her ilk "think up" this Intrinsic Self in order to "transcend" dasein and the fractured and fragmented arguments I make in my signature threads.

So, you think she is a pagan to transcend dasein and YOUR(?) arguments??

From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism".

So, if someone focuses on your behavior in the thread, they are making it about you. But when you call out someone and psychoanalyze them - individually or a general shot at most people - this isn't making the thread about them. Are you by any chance compelled by determinism to see the hypocrisy?

The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling security banket. And, then, with any luck, taking that all the way to the grave.

Unless, of course, they're right. And I'm here in part because I am hoping to find someone like her who might actually prompt me to yank myself up out of the grim philosophical hole I've dug myself down into.

Well, then I'd suggest you try experiencing things with other people. The effectiveness of words on a screen in changing people's outlooks is extremely small. And if you can't go out - wheelchair bound - there are ways to learn via doing/participation even via the net.

Of course, there is the satisfaction of telling people their wall of words didn't change your mind as if this is evidence of something.

Maia, however, doesn't appear to embody an "or else" component. Other than her willingness to respond more positively to those who more or less believe their own rendition of the same thing.

So, her willingness to respond more positively to people who have similar ideas is an 'or else' component. It seems like you are taking a woman's lack of equal interest in you compared to others as an 'or else'. 'Other than....' Comes off a bit stalkery. (I know, only you should be able threads or posts about other people)

That important distinction, you proposed, between the hard and the soft sciences, in another thread, ought to well include a disctinction between fantasies about the motivations of others being fine in the soft sciences as long as the person occasionally claims they are not an objectivist.

Sure, any number of these folks...

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

...might argue that everyone else is indulging in fantasy. Why? Because they really, really do believe that "somehow", given their own highly improbable explanation for the world around us and our place in it...only their own more or less dogmatic convictions encompass the human condition.

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times entirely conflicting assessment of Enlightenment and yet almost each every one of them still insisting it is their path alone.

Hey, if you don't want to respond to a point someone makes, just be honest and don't respond. What you quoted has nothing to do with the point of mine you quoted. It's not what religious people say that undermines your distinction between the hard and soft sciences. It is what you say.

Above you say 'Sure, as if you accept something I said, but then bring up utter irrelevance.

Is psychoanalyzing people in an ad hom way a kind of 'or else'? This seems more significant than being more drawn to people who share an outlook as a 'trying to get someone to change their minds' strategy.

[iambiguous]

Yo, Maia! You're up!!

Yeah, it really doesn't matter if you make up a bunch of stuff about paganism and don't understand the differences between virtue ethics and deontology. Nor does it matter that you repeat the same psychology 101 'analysis' of people with different beliefs than yours. None of that matters, because......well, that's unclear. In any case, none of it matters to you.

We'll need a context, of course.

Oh, dear. You didn't understand the context.

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing. Then there are the religionists here who remind us that their own One True Path includes both immortality and salvation. And, in fact, even here different Pagans believe different things.

So [for me] back to not what one believes about religion but what one can demonstrate to others as rational and ethical behavior.

But that didn't happen. Why? Because, again, assuming I understood her own philosophy of life, deep down inside her is this Spiritual, Natural, Intuitive Self, that, through her own understanding of the Goddess and of Nature, "somehow" allows her to transcend dasein and "just know" that abortion is immoral.

But then the part where others within a particular Pagan community accept abortion as moral instead. Why? Because they "just know" that it is deep down inside.

Maia noted that, unlike the manner in which Pagans were portrayed in films like The Wicker Man [the original] and Midsomer, where all of the community members seemed to be in sync with what true Paganism entails, the Pagan communities she interacts in includes others who might by anywhere at all up and down the moral and political spectrum. But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

What's crucial from my frame of mind is distinguishing between those who either are or are not in a Pagan community itself.

How about if Maia [who is posting again at ILP now] chooses one. We can then explore how Pagans of her ilk connect the "spiritual dots" between 1] Nature, 2] the Goddess, and 3] the existential parameters of their own life historically, culturally and experientially. And then how, in turn, moral nihilists of my ilk suggests instead that -- click -- objectivists of her ilk "think up" this Intrinsic Self in order to "transcend" dasein and the fractured and fragmented arguments I make in my signature threads.

So, you think she is a pagan to transcend dasein and YOUR(?) arguments??

Is that what you really believe I am suggesting here? It might actually be quite the opposite. From my frame of mind religions exist in order to allow mere mortals to believe -- to believe -- that dasein [and my arguments] can be transcended.

But until Maia and Pagans come around to their own rendition of Judgment Day, any number of other religionists here are not likely to be impressed.

From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism".

So, if someone focuses on your behavior in the thread, they are making it about you. But when you call out someone and psychoanalyze them - individually or a general shot at most people - this isn't making the thread about them. Are you by any chance compelled by determinism to see the hypocrisy?

That's your "iambiguous" here, not mine. Again, it is an entirely subjective assumption on my part. And if others here actually believe that "I" am any less fractured and fragmented about this than I am about conflicting goods and determinism, well, that is largely beyond my control, isn't it?

The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling security banket. And, then, with any luck, taking that all the way to the grave.

Unless, of course, they're right. And I'm here in part because I am hoping to find someone like her who might actually prompt me to yank myself up out of the grim philosophical hole I've dug myself down into.

Well, then I'd suggest you try experiencing things with other people. The effectiveness of words on a screen in changing people's outlooks is extremely small. And if you can't go out - wheelchair bound - there are ways to learn via doing/participation even via the net.
Of course, there is the satisfaction of telling people their wall of words didn't change your mind as if this is evidence of something.

We've been over this before. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths out there...most insisting that moral nihilism has nothing to do philosophically with "the search for wisdom".

Trust me: if someone here is able to convince me that there is but one true path out there -- and especially if they champion immortality and salvation -- I'll do whatever I can to be around them, to believe the same.

I want to be saved! But no fucking way am I going to go down the lists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
...and eliminate them all one by one.

How's that going for anyone here?

Let me ask you this:

If you believed that your own existence was essentially meaningless and purposeless, that objective morality is beyond the reach of mere mortals in a No God world and that death = oblivion...?

I WANT MY MIND CHANGED!!!

Instead, in my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, the reactions I get from most moral objectivists reflects instead their concern that my arguments may well end up pulling that objective morality rug right out from under them.

But not you, right?

Maia, however, doesn't appear to embody an "or else" component. Other than her willingness to respond more positively to those who more or less believe their own rendition of the same thing.

So, her willingness to respond more positively to people who have similar ideas is an 'or else' component.

Huh?

Just the opposite. She seems to focus more on a Pagan community that revolves far more around "I" than "we". Okay, but if there are 50 members in that community and all are permitted their own personal relationship with the Goddess and with Nature in regard to conflicting goods...what then?

It seems like you are taking a woman's lack of equal interest in you compared to others as an 'or else'. 'Other than....' Comes off a bit stalkery. (I know, only you should be able threads or posts about other people)

What else can I say here but, "huh?"

Not entirely sure where you are going with this but what does that have to do with anything pertaining to Maia's and my own understanding of nihilism?

Then back to this...

That important distinction, you proposed, between the hard and the soft sciences, in another thread, ought to well include a disctinction between fantasies about the motivations of others being fine in the soft sciences as long as the person occasionally claims they are not an objectivist.

Sure, any number of these folks...

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

...might argue that everyone else is indulging in fantasy. Why? Because they really, really do believe that "somehow", given their own highly improbable explanation for the world around us and our place in it...only their own more or less dogmatic convictions encompass the human condition.

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times entirely conflicting assessment of Enlightenment and yet almost each every one of them still insisting it is their path alone.

Hey, if you don't want to respond to a point someone makes, just be honest and don't respond. What you quoted has nothing to do with the point of mine you quoted. It's not what religious people say that undermines your distinction between the hard and soft sciences. It is what you say.

We are still in two very, very different discussions regarding how we respond to each other here. I often don't recognize myself at all in your posts pertaining to me. And no doubt the other way around.

[Maia]

+++Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.+++

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

[Flannel Jesus]

+++Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.+++

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

Love this response

[Iwannaplato]

+++Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.+++

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

Love this response

One issue this relates to for me is that objectivists can use moderation, compromise and negotiation in their interactions with others and non-objectivists need not use these approaches. Those nouns fit the political realm, but there are parallel ones in social and discussion situations that can also be used by objectivists. And then non-objectivists can be quite the opposite. I'd need to see research showing that objectivisits or pagans are less amiable or more 'or else' than nihilists, before this implicit assumption of Iambiguous' is taken seriously. Maia is anecdotal evidence, in any case, he might be wrong.

[iambiguous]

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

Well, let's just say that we remember our exchanges [here and there] differently. And how many times did I note this: that in not actually being you, in having virtually no "for all practical purposes" understanding of the life you've live, the odds were small to tiny that I would ever really grasp what you believe the way you believe it. And, sure, the other way around.

In fact, that is why I focus instead not on what we believe in regard to value judgments, but, instead, on how existentially we come to acquire particular spiritual and moral and political convictions.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

That, however, is often how it works in philosophical exchanges. If from my own frame mind, I don't believe you responded to my points above in a satisfactory manner, I can only keep trying to dig a little deeper. Accepting that, by all means, my failure to grasp your points may very well be a reflection of my own inadequacies instead.

And the points I raised with iwannaplato reflect that gap between us.

But: that doesn't mean I believe your answers were wrong.

Then this part:

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing The Right Thing. Then there are the religionists here who remind us that their own One True Path includes both immortality and salvation. And, in fact, even here different Pagans believe different things.

And:

But that didn't happen. Why? Because, again, assuming I understood her own philosophy of life, deep down inside her is this Spiritual, Natural, Intuitive Self, that, through her own understanding of the Goddess and of Nature, "somehow" allows her to transcend dasein and "just know" that abortion is immoral.

But then the part where others within a particular Pagan community accept abortion as moral instead. Why? Because they "just know" that it is deep down inside.

Maia noted that, unlike the manner in which Pagans were portrayed in films like The Wicker Man [the original] and Midsomer, where all of the community members seemed to be in sync with what true Paganism entails, the Pagan communities she interacts in includes others who might be anywhere at all up and down the moral and political spectrum. But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

What's crucial from my frame of mind is distinguishing between those who either are or are not in a Pagan community itself.

On the other hand, if you believe that you have in fact, adequately responded to those points then, sure, it is perfectly reasonable that you might want to cross me off the list of those who do understand you. And to move on to others accordingly.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

Fair enough. But then there is still the part where you connect the dots between Nature, the Goddess, and your intuitive, spiritual Intrinsic Self.

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

Though, sure, if you believe that is extremely unlikely, I certainly wouldn't blame you for moving on to others.

[Maia]

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

Well, let's just say that we remember our exchanges [here and there] differently. And how many times did I note this: that in not actually being you, in having virtually no "for all practical purposes" understanding of the life you've live, the odds were small to tiny that I would ever really grasp what you believe the way you believe it. And, sure, the other way around.

In fact, that is why I focus instead not on what we believe in regard to value judgments, but, instead, on how existentially we come to acquire particular spiritual and moral and political convictions.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

That, however, is often how it works in philosophical exchanges. If from my own frame mind, I don't believe you responded to my points above in a satisfactory manner, I can only keep trying to dig a little deeper. Accepting that, by all means, my failure to grasp your points may very well be a reflection of my own inadequacies instead.

And the points I raised with iwannaplato reflect that gap between us.

But: that doesn't mean I believe your answers were wrong.

Then this part:

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing The Right Thing. Then there are the religionists here who remind us that their own One True Path includes both immortality and salvation. And, in fact, even here different Pagans believe different things.

And:

But that didn't happen. Why? Because, again, assuming I understood her own philosophy of life, deep down inside her is this Spiritual, Natural, Intuitive Self, that, through her own understanding of the Goddess and of Nature, "somehow" allows her to transcend dasein and "just know" that abortion is immoral.

But then the part where others within a particular Pagan community accept abortion as moral instead. Why? Because they "just know" that it is deep down inside.

Maia noted that, unlike the manner in which Pagans were portrayed in films like The Wicker Man [the original] and Midsomer, where all of the community members seemed to be in sync with what true Paganism entails, the Pagan communities she interacts in includes others who might be anywhere at all up and down the moral and political spectrum. But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

What's crucial from my frame of mind is distinguishing between those who either are or are not in a Pagan community itself.

On the other hand, if you believe that you have in fact, adequately responded to those points then, sure, it is perfectly reasonable that you might want to cross me off the list of those who do understand you. And to move on to others accordingly.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

Fair enough. But then there is still the part where you connect the dots between Nature, the Goddess, and your intuitive, spiritual Intrinsic Self.

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

Though, sure, if you believe that is extremely unlikely, I certainly wouldn't blame you for moving on to others.

Just try talking about something else, once in a while. It's not the end of the world, or anything.

[iambiguous]

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality.

Those are the contexts that *you* kept coming back to, not me.

Well, let's just say that we remember our exchanges [here and there] differently. And how many times did I note this: that in not actually being you, in having virtually no "for all practical purposes" understanding of the life you've live, the odds were small to tiny that I would ever really grasp what you believe the way you believe it. And, sure, the other way around.

In fact, that is why I focus instead not on what we believe in regard to value judgments, but, instead, on how existentially we come to acquire particular spiritual and moral and political convictions.

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences, but what I don't wish to do, and won't do, is to keep trying to answer the same old questions, over and over again.

That, however, is often how it works in philosophical exchanges. If from my own frame mind, I don't believe you responded to my points above in a satisfactory manner, I can only keep trying to dig a little deeper. Accepting that, by all means, my failure to grasp your points may very well be a reflection of my own inadequacies instead.

And the points I raised with iwannaplato reflect that gap between us.

But: that doesn't mean I believe your answers were wrong.

Then this part:

Again, with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.

So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!

But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing The Right Thing. Then there are the religionists here who remind us that their own One True Path includes both immortality and salvation. And, in fact, even here different Pagans believe different things.

And:

But that didn't happen. Why? Because, again, assuming I understood her own philosophy of life, deep down inside her is this Spiritual, Natural, Intuitive Self, that, through her own understanding of the Goddess and of Nature, "somehow" allows her to transcend dasein and "just know" that abortion is immoral.

But then the part where others within a particular Pagan community accept abortion as moral instead. Why? Because they "just know" that it is deep down inside.

Maia noted that, unlike the manner in which Pagans were portrayed in films like The Wicker Man [the original] and Midsomer, where all of the community members seemed to be in sync with what true Paganism entails, the Pagan communities she interacts in includes others who might be anywhere at all up and down the moral and political spectrum. But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

What's crucial from my frame of mind is distinguishing between those who either are or are not in a Pagan community itself.

On the other hand, if you believe that you have in fact, adequately responded to those points then, sure, it is perfectly reasonable that you might want to cross me off the list of those who do understand you. And to move on to others accordingly.

I have attempted, many, many times, to respond to all of the issues you raise above about Paganism, morality, and so on.

Fair enough. But then there is still the part where you connect the dots between Nature, the Goddess, and your intuitive, spiritual Intrinsic Self.

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

Though, sure, if you believe that is extremely unlikely, I certainly wouldn't blame you for moving on to others.

Just try talking about something else, once in a while. It's not the end of the world, or anything.

I didn't bring this thread back from the dead, iwannaplato did.

And, please, tell me what could possibly be more important to human beings -- from the cradle to the grave? -- than in speculating about such things as...

1] the meaning of life...the purpose of human existence
2] differentiating between behaviors to be rewarded and behaviors to be punished
3] connecting the dots between our behaviors on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" for all the rest of eternity
4] dasein [as encompassed in my signature thread]
5] The Gap and Rummy's Rules and the Benjamin Button Syndrome
6] the crucial importance of political economy

Given particular contexts such as abortion, nihilism and sexuality.

From my own entirely prejudiced frame of mind, you are just one of many moral objectivists here who have managed to convince themselves that they really are anchored to the best of all possible worlds.

Look, in our last exchange some months ago [either here or through emails[, I noted that, unlike me, you are still more or less in the prime of life. My own options on the other hand are considerably more imploded. I then suggested the possibility that one day you may well stumble upon a new experience, a new relationship, or gain access to new information and knowledge that actually does upend this "deep down inside me I just know" what is moral or immoral, spiritually sound or spiritually sullied.

That Intrinsic Self you embrace in order to anchor your life -- to anchor I -- to a psychologically comforting and consoling set of assumptions.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, let's just say that we remember our exchanges [here and there] differently. And how many times did I note this: that in not actually being you, in having virtually no "for all practical purposes" understanding of the life you've live, the odds were small to tiny that I would ever really grasp what you believe the way you believe it. And, sure, the other way around.

Then if so, why the Hell would you psychoanalyze her?

From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism". The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling security banket. And, then, with any luck, taking that all the way to the grave.

You seem to think there is some magical change in your behavior because you use phrases like 'from my perspective' before ad homs and insults.

That, however, is often how it works in philosophical exchanges. If from my own frame mind, I don't believe you responded to my points above in a satisfactory manner, I can only keep trying to dig a little deeper. Accepting that, by all means, my failure to grasp your points may very well be a reflection of my own inadequacies instead.

Sure, you can always ask questions, but amazingly you seem to miss how you are actually relating, person to person with her and others you disagree with.

And you did this on a general level through your misrepresentations of paganism earlier in the thread. When these are pointed out, it simply does not matter to you at all. You don't back up your orignal framing of paganism, you simply move on asi if it doesn't matter.

Iambiguous occasionally says 'from my perspective' and 'or I might be wrong' so there is no need to justify his claims, it's ok to pretend he is a mind-reader with individuals and groups.

Objectivists can't support their claims or haven't so far to his satisfaction, but he seems to consider his assertions in no need of justification at all.

I think: given how intelligent and articulate and astute I think you are, maybe, just maybe -- given my win/win mentality -- you might be the one enabling me to yank myself up out of the ghastly philosophical hole I've slipped down into over the years.

So, in a thread that mocks her beliefs in a general way [see early posts in this thread] and where you psychoanalyze condescendingly her beliefs functioning both as passive aggressive insult and ad hom, we get a 'please rescue me from my suffering' finale. She might be the only one that can help him out of his problems.

So, first we get a kind of Negging
Then we get the Emotional Blackmail, specifically The Preemptive Guilt Trip.

Iambiguous may well say that I am making him the issue. What he doesn't seem to notice is that his thread is centered on 'mindreading' of pagans [and in a number of ways misrepresenting them], in specific Maia, which is both insult and ad hom in context, and then bringing himself into the thread by asking Maia for a rescue.

The issue he supposedly wants to focus on is, of course, valid. And the amazing thing is, it can be discussed without doing the very things he both does but seems only to notice when others do them.

[Flannel Jesus]

I would suggest that it's rooted existentially in dasein. And other meaningless phrases.

[Atla]

But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

Why are you so fascinated by conflicting goods anyway and why do you want to resolve them?

[Flannel Jesus]

But if that's the case how are conflicting goods resolved when everyone is entitled to their own Intrinsic Self?

Why are you so fascinated by conflicting goods anyway and why do you want to resolve them?

You really want to get into that with him?

[Maia]

+++And, please, tell me what could possibly be more important to human beings -- from the cradle to the grave? -- than in speculating about such things as...

1] the meaning of life...the purpose of human existence
2] differentiating between behaviors to be rewarded and behaviors to be punished
3] connecting the dots between our behaviors on this side of the grave and the fate of "I" for all the rest of eternity
4] dasein [as encompassed in my signature thread]
5] The Gap and Rummy's Rules and the Benjamin Button Syndrome
6] the crucial importance of political economy+++

How about, for example, connecting with other people? That's more important, surely, than any of those things?

+++Given particular contexts such as abortion, nihilism and sexuality.+++

Well, as I said, I've discussed those ad nauseam.

+++From my own entirely prejudiced frame of mind, you are just one of many moral objectivists here who have managed to convince themselves that they really are anchored to the best of all possible worlds.+++

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

+++you are still more or less in the prime of life.+++

Still *more or less* in the prime of life? Thanks.