nihilism

[Fairy]

Oh come on. The answer is obvious. Pain is subjective

I agree.


And before I resume discussion here; I would just like to show my appreciation for all those who stepped up with their super rational, logical, emotionally intelligent, un-bias, impartial comments made in response to the Harbal & Fairy saga, that IC seemed to want to turn the pain of that past and gone shit-show into a PHILOSOPHY now about ''evil '' being an objective moral truth. ( shocking I know ) but then what else would be expected of such the likes of the greatest know-it-all philosopher to have ever lived, famously known as Immanuel Can, no less.

I particularly commend Iwannaplato for his admirable impartial intelligent understanding of what constitutes the human emotional condition that often manifests as uncontrolled reactionary behaviour to being on the receiving end of extreme emotional pain, that in my case, just happened to be coming from numerous sources, and not just the H issue.. which when combined as they did that night, developed into a potent cocktail of emotional release just wanting out, and which unavoidably snowballed out of control, just an inevitable part of what makes everyone, no one excluded, just a normal human being.

I would like to thank again... not only Iwannaplato, but also Alexis Jacobi, jasonlava and Alexiev ..for their super intelligent, un-bias, impartial counter-comments on the issue. An issue that was obviously being dominated and spiralling out of control by an unambiguous, unassailable dictator we all know as the abominable usual suspect that is Immanuel Can ..that self-proclaimed holy self-righteous Godman.

[Gary Childress]

in principle his assertion (about moral objectivity) is actually sound.

What is sound, that if there is no God then there's no such thing as morality? What if there is no God?

[Fairy]

in principle his assertion (about moral objectivity) is actually sound.

What is sound, that if there is no God then there's no such thing as morality? What if there is no God?

'Sound' is a subjective idea, that can have more than one meaning, or interpretation of what it is.

I don't know what AJ meant by sound when he used it, but I have my own interpretation of the idea, if you are interested, Gary?

[Gary Childress]

in principle his assertion (about moral objectivity) is actually sound.

What is sound, that if there is no God then there's no such thing as morality? What if there is no God?

'Sound' is a subjective idea, that can have more than one meaning, or interpretation of what it is.

I don't know what AJ meant by sound when he used it, but I have my own interpretation of the idea, if you are interested, Gary?

In logic sound means a valid argument with true premises. In other words, something that cannot be denied. If he means that, then I'm not seeing it.

[Fairy]

What is sound, that if there is no God then there's no such thing as morality? What if there is no God?

'Sound' is a subjective idea, that can have more than one meaning, or interpretation of what it is.

I don't know what AJ meant by sound when he used it, but I have my own interpretation of the idea, if you are interested, Gary?

In logic sound means a valid argument with true premises. In other words, something that cannot be denied. If he means that, then I'm not seeing it.

Will have to wait if AJ is willing to divulge his definition of what he meant by ''Sound'' to get a clearer picture.

We can only interpret what other people mean while engaging in philosophical discourse, there are many ways to interpret what someone is saying, without really knowing what was actually meant....except what was assumed, or guessed, or even speculated by the reader.

So it's always a good thing to ask for clarification; as Age would very rightly and wisely emphasize.

[Belinda]

If not, then why, exactly, were you making your personal business public here? Why didn't you go to a friend, a clergyman, a therapist, a suicide hotline, a doctor...somebody who was actually relevant to your needs, and with whom you could have retained an expectation of personal privacy and confidentiality? Why splash your misery out upon strange people, many of whom don't even live in your country?

All good stories are about individuals. Also, when individual stories stimulate philosophical discussion, they make it more interesting. Who doesn't like that kind of thing?

I don't deny that watching Fairy and Harbal may have entertained some folks. People are entertained by all kinds of things. But it's not philosophy. And it has very dubious status as a contribution to the search for "wisdom," which is putatively what "philo-" "-sophia" is supposedly about.

But I suppose you must have known from the start that Fairy was lying about the homicide/suicide threat, and that may have allowed the distance from the event to make a mild amusement, instead of concern, the proper response. Let me suppose so, for the sake of charity. For me, it was best to be careful not to incite any possibility of it becoming a crisis. So I did not share the sense of amusement, and afterward, was annoyed by the manipulative, selfish and narcissistic nature of the performance. Maybe we had different experiences of that. But maybe both were legit, let's say.

What's relevant philosophically is the claim that there are no objective values. Fairy's dramatic performance presupposed agreement. In other words, it clearly took for granted that all right-thinking people would be drawn to sympathize. So Fairy was leaning on the assumption that her appeals would invoke a sense of moral compulsion. But why should she think so, since she also claims that there can be no moral duties, no moral rightness, no moral obligations, no moral consensus, not even a set of stable moral criteria of judgment...just total subjectivism?

Philosophically, that just doesn't add up.

What you don't understand Immanuel, is that gossip is and always was part of the social fabric , and gossip can be beneficial like Alexiev says, or gossip can be malevolent. It's the intention of the gossipers that may be either malevolent or beneficial , not gossip itself.

[Belinda]

But sexual attraction is not love.

It can be both part of love and an expression of love.

Romantic love is not love.

How so?

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

What does 'glorify' in this context mean? And, then, once we have that, why is glorifying romantic love for another person silly and enslaving?

And I suppose, then, also, what is love, to you?

Romantic love is a myth in the sense of a big and complex idea that fits in with society's needs at a given time in history and a given place in geography. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myths_of_romantic_love

https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of ... alth-70803

[Immanuel Can]

All good stories are about individuals. Also, when individual stories stimulate philosophical discussion, they make it more interesting. Who doesn't like that kind of thing?

I don't deny that watching Fairy and Harbal may have entertained some folks. People are entertained by all kinds of things. But it's not philosophy. And it has very dubious status as a contribution to the search for "wisdom," which is putatively what "philo-" "-sophia" is supposedly about.

But I suppose you must have known from the start that Fairy was lying about the homicide/suicide threat, and that may have allowed the distance from the event to make a mild amusement, instead of concern, the proper response. Let me suppose so, for the sake of charity. For me, it was best to be careful not to incite any possibility of it becoming a crisis. So I did not share the sense of amusement, and afterward, was annoyed by the manipulative, selfish and narcissistic nature of the performance. Maybe we had different experiences of that. But maybe both were legit, let's say.

What's relevant philosophically is the claim that there are no objective values. Fairy's dramatic performance presupposed agreement. In other words, it clearly took for granted that all right-thinking people would be drawn to sympathize. So Fairy was leaning on the assumption that her appeals would invoke a sense of moral compulsion. But why should she think so, since she also claims that there can be no moral duties, no moral rightness, no moral obligations, no moral consensus, not even a set of stable moral criteria of judgment...just total subjectivism?

Philosophically, that just doesn't add up.

What you don't understand Immanuel, is that gossip is and always was part of the social fabric ,

What nonsense. Of course I understand that. And of course it was. Who cares? Prostitution has also "always been a part of the social fabric," as has slavery, graft, corruption, disease and sewage. Are you advocating they be encouraged here?

So that doesn't make it suitable for a philosophy forum. We're supposed to be here to be intelligent, relevant, logical and working on philosophical problems, not airing our personal underwear to each other, or gossiping like idiot old ladies.

[Fairy]

Fairy's dramatic performance presupposed agreement. In other words, it clearly took for granted that all right-thinking people would be drawn to sympathize. So Fairy was leaning on the assumption that her appeals would invoke a sense of moral compulsion. But why should she think so, since she also claims that there can be no moral duties, no moral rightness, no moral obligations, no moral consensus, not even a set of stable moral criteria of judgment...just total subjectivism?

Wrong assumption, Sorry. I wasn't appealing or petitioning for any favourable outcomes in the moment. Do you know what being in the MOMENT actually means IC ?

You assumed Fairy was expecting right-thinking people would be drawn to sympathise that night. Nope, sorry that's just silly.

Firstly, Fairy did not take for granted any positive response may or may not come. If responses were to come, then Fairy had no idea, or awareness at the time what any response would be. I was simply expressing myself in the 'actual' moment, not even considering what any future responses in response were going to be.
If Fairy, on that night, already had prior-knowledge of what responses were going to be spoken; say like had they been awful, unkind, insensitive, non-sympathetic, or just ugly negative responses....what would it have mattered? it wouldn't have changed anything that flowed unimpeded out of my mouth that night. All I was doing in the moment was releasing my emotional pain on a forum that I know Harbal likes to read. That's all I cared about in the moment. I did not care about if or any responses came. Why was I doing it on the forum was because Harbal who loves to read this forum hurt me so I wanted to hurt him back, that's all that was happening in my head that night. H and F met on this forum, we formed an intimate relationship through this forum. If not for this forum I would never have met H

This forum was Harbal's other beloved, he told me this forum is where he loves to spend his time, and that it gave him a lot of meaning and purpose to his everyday real-time life.

I was an outpouring of painful emotion in the immediate moment, I wasn't even thinking about what responses I would get. So how could I have been taking for granted right-thinking responses? You could just as easily have juxtaposed by saying the opposite that I was expecting wrong-thinking people would be drawn to not sympathise with me.

I didn't even know what was going to come out of my mouth that night, it was all just flowing unimpeded as it was actually happening, I wasn't aware of what I was expected to say at any time prior to saying it, it all just came out like an arrow. And there was no way I could have acted any different than how it all happened just as it did. If I could have acted any different, then I would have, I could have chosen not to do it at all, so acting any different would have been impossible.

Yes, I intentionally used this forum to hurt Harbal, but not to expect responses, I simply didn't care about responses.

Fairy whined like a vineyard. And clearly, she expected us all to "tsk tsk" Harbal about it, and to "there there" her about it. (Why else would she think it was a "weapon" as she says.)

That's clearly WRONG to say that, because I didn't expect sympathy. You assumed I did when I didn't. For the exact same reasons I've given above.

I did say I was using my outburst as weapon against Harbal.. after I'd already received responses, not before the responses were given...I never once in the actual moment of the outburst said I was using it as a weapon on that actual night. So again, you are wrong to assume I was expecting sympathy when I clearly wasn't. But the fact that you clearly falsely believed otherwise, was a false assumption on your part, and not the real actuality of the situation on that night.

But subjectively speaking, why should we feel we "ought" to agree with her? Unless we all already know that what H. did was "bad," there's nothing to agree with. So Fairy was assuming we'd all know the common standard, and that we'd all feel we ought to adhere to it. She was behaving like an objectivist could, but no subjectivist reasonably can.

But no one reading was ever obliged to agree with anything, because nothing was expected of any reader to respond in any favourable way, that's why.

How on earth could I have been behaving like an objectivist or a subjectivist for that matter, when I wasn't even thinking at the actual time, or even expecting any for or against possible preferential responses, if any?

[Iwannaplato]

Romantic love is a myth in the sense of a big and complex idea that fits in with society's needs at a given time in history and a given place in geography.

There are myths about romantic love, but romantic love itself is not a myth. Yes, the phrase batches a complex set of feelings and thoughts, but there is a real pattern, just as the complicate batch of feelings and thoughts in parental love also fit into a set of patterns and are real. Yes, one can believe in some of the myths about romantic love, but that can be true about other abstract catergories like education or friendship. Nevertheless there are romantic feelings that are a kind of love and can often lead to include other kinds of love. A modern woman who attempts to fit a passionate love affair to the idea of Romantic Love should be more realistic as to her expectations. Culture certainly plays a role in how people interpret those feelings, but the feelings and thoughts are real and have real effects. They are also part of out evolutionary make up. Like most things there can be problems with added assumptions and interpretations and the myths about the pattern.

Note the first thing you said was a a rule.

To glorify romantic love for another person is silly and enslaving.

Depending on what 'glorify' means, this certainly could be the case, but I see no rule there. There are many lovely relationships that started with people feeling romantic love and even where the romantic love is still a facet of the relationship even as other kinds of love develop over time. In fact, I think it's a natural process but one that can be messed up due to childhood experiences and, yes, myths that get overlaid on those feelings.

[Fairy]

So that doesn't make it suitable for a philosophy forum.

It might not be suitable in your personal self-biased opinion. Lets not forget, your the only one that's doing all the whining like a grapevine and complaining about the dead and gone in the here of today. And you do not seem to have any problem carrying on and on what you complain and whine about. Can you hear yourself lately, you were the one who brought back the Harbal and Fairy drama from the DEAD Do you still enjoy the art of necrophilia philosophy?

While this unsuitability doesn't suit you personally, it's not prohibited is it ??

We're supposed to be here to be intelligent, relevant, logical and working on philosophical problems, not airing our personal underwear to each other, or gossiping like idiot old ladies.

You mean like gossiping idiotic old men retelling over and over again a story about someone's personal dirty BS

Don't you think by now that's just an unintelligent, irrelevant, illogical thing to do, especially when you've already stated earlier a few pages back that YOU'D HAD ENOUGH...but clearly you haven't, have you?

Yep, I'm done.

No you are not. You are about as done as a raw piece of meat.

[Fairy]

Yep, I'm done.

I can't make it simpler, unless I confine myself to one-syllable words. So they're going to have to accept it or miss the point.

Either way, I'm past caring.

Liar.

[Iwannaplato]

We're supposed to be here to be intelligent, relevant, logical and working on philosophical problems, not airing our personal underwear to each other, or gossiping like idiot old ladies.

IC has done more than anyone to keep alive the discussion of 'personal underwear'.
Note also the misogyny, a running theme in IC's post for a long time.

There are forums where there is vastly less focus on the personal, far fewer playful posts, and more moderation. He can go off to Philosophy Forum if he wants that.

Of course they might object to his long-running insistence that he can mind-read and his sexism.

[Iwannaplato]

Yep, I'm done.

I can't make it simpler, unless I confine myself to one-syllable words. So they're going to have to accept it or miss the point.

Either way, I'm past caring.

Great. Nice self-serving binary thinking, by the way. It's just not possible you're wrong in your mindreading.
Everyone understood your mindreading attempt, some disgreed with your case.
What was hard to understand about your argument? Nothing. It's just that it only could lead to the conclusion that it might be true, not that it has to be. From there it's a psychic claim.

[Fairy]

Not obvious at all. Look at my last response to jasonlava, above. There's simply no deduction that runs from "I don't like pain" to "pain is morally bad." If you suppose there is, all you have to do is supply the missing premise.

I didn''t say pain was morally bad. On the contrary, I contrasted bad with evil (i.e. morally bad). Once again, this is so obvious that misunderstanding is either wilfull or stupid.

I find your ad hominems make you unworthy of serious conversation: that, and the difficulty you seem to have with even basic concepts. Continue as you please, and I shall happily ignore you.

There is no 'wrong' or 'right' or 'bad' or 'good' or 'evil' outside of their fictionally constructed concepts known by the human mind. Have you ever seen a human mind? 'You' is a made-up concept, a belief.

So what exactly, is this seer that has never been seen actually seeing in the physical external world? Answer is: The seer that has never been seen has absolutely no idea what is out there, or what is being looked at - not until the human mind that has never been seen slaps a mentally constructed label on it. It's a trickless trick. You the concept known may reject this truth.

Yes, people suffer, they hurt, they feel, they are destructive, they die horrible deaths, but so do all the other sentient animals on this planet earth, even plants and trees and all other forms of nature have some form of consciousness, otherwise they'd be lifeless, which they are not. Nothing living can be lifeless.
Only aliveness is known in this conception. Do you know what ''Conception'' means IC? it means concepts born. Only the mind is born, the mind that has never been seen, the mind that is only a concept known in this artificially constructed A.I. reality using SOUND heard as concepts.

It gets worse, but I won't go into the gory details. Wouldn't want to blow a gasket in you, imagine the mess.