Philosophy Now Forum

that's a good question. why should we think that all rational people should not think that all rational people would think that rational people should think like them, biggs?

Standin' by your man:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:23 pm

you are either able to demonstrate that what you think about [God and fascism] all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are obligated [re Kant] to think as well, or you're not.

You know, you've never demonstrated that what you think (dasein, bein' fractured, nihilism, etc.) is what anyone -- rational or not, virtuous or not -- ought to think.

Oh, well, it is henry, after all...

Over and over and over again, I note that I am not able to demonstrate that what "I" think about nihilism in the is/ought world is something that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think in turn.

Just the opposite!!

Instead, I note that given my own subjective assumptions rooted existentially in dasein, personal opinions derived from the conjectures I make 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

...I find myself "fractured and fragmented" given that I have concluded "here and now" that, at best, my own value judgments are just moral and political prejudices.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:23 pmYou sorta just start from the unjustified place that your stuff is the default and all us fulminators ought to defend our stuff.

Why are all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women obligated to think as you do, about anything?

Unbelievable. Henry has been here far longer than most of us. Over 13,000 posts and without breaking a sweat I manage over and over again to reduce him down to reminding us that his mind is quite...muddled?

Ironically enough, in my view, it is precisely the muddled minds of so many millions of Americans that may well bring about Trump's own authoritarian agenda.

You know, if "I" do say so myself.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 7:04 pm i got this, biggs.

biggs has made it abundantly clear that he is fractured and fragmented and unable to take an official side in anything, as he claims to understand why opposing ideas might seem rational to those who hold them; pro-lifers and pro-choicers, free marketers and socialists, heterosexuality and homosexuality, etc.

Exactly. Not only that but even this frame of mind itself is subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

Instead, it's when I speculate that my own thinking is also applicable to the objectivists like henry, that the "attacks" come. And of course they will! After all, the objectivists have in some cases spent years and years convincing themselves that they are indeed in sync with the Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

They have their center of the universe God or No God font. It's the source of all the comfort and consolation they have sustained in being able to anchor I to a moral and political and spiritual foundation.

Sure, they recognize there are hundreds and hundreds of other objectivists out there all claiming that it's their own One True Path all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to be on. But because their motivation, in my view, revolves around what I call the "psychology of objectivism" they are all able to convince themselves that their path really is the One True Path.

After all, look at how many times in the past I was on one myself!!

FYI...

Over at ILP, gib commenced a thread that explores our thinking about all this: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... 2085130bd6

The context he provides revolves around the trucker protest that unfolded in Canada some months ago.

If you ignore the Kids "contributions" and concentrate only on the exchanges between myself and gib and Maia and Magnus Anderson, it reflects the closest I've come with someone [gib] to actually being understood in regard to dasein.

He shares my belief that what we think about value judgments of this sort is problematic and can't really be trusted. But he has access to an "emotional self" that allows him to avoid being fractured and fragmented. And 15 pages into it I still don't really understand how "for all practical purposes" this works for him.

It certainly doesn't work for me.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 am

Nuthin', as usual.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 4:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 5:04 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:38 pm

Again, you believe this. It comforts and consoles you to believe it. But this is a philosophy venue. And, in my view, you do not really attempt to respond to the points I raised above. Either in regard to God or in regard to such ideological equivalents as fascism.

Instead, it is more like a reply one might expect to come across in church, or among like-minded friends or around the family dinner table.

That's your prerogative of course. It's just not what I'd expect to encounter in a philosophy discussion forum.

I disagree that a person ought not share their metaphysical speculations on a philosophy forum. I've heard plenty of metaphysical statements made on this forum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against metaphysical speculation. Especially in a philosophy forum. After all, some questions evoke thoughts that swirl around the very mystery of existence itself. And, indeed, that's why Gods and political ideologies are invented...over and over and over and over and over and over again. Human history let's call it.

But in regard to speculation and conjecture about a God, the God, my God, or a fascism, the fascism, my fascism, you are either able to demonstrate that what you think about them all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women are obligated [re Kant] to think as well, or you're not.

Right?

The world is what it is for all to observe. And either there is a God or there is not. From that point, we can only wonder. And if there is God, then either God is OK with certain behaviors or else s/he is not. I assume things like murder, jealousy, anger, greed, lust and cheating on a spouse would not be OK. But that might just be me I suppose. Or what do you think a God is (would be) or isn't (wouldn't be) OK with?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:26 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 am

Nuthin', as usual.

Come on, henry, at the very least you might make an attempt to make me regret these...

Unbelievable. Henry has been here far longer than most of us. Over 13,000 posts and without breaking a sweat I manage over and over again to reduce him down to reminding us that his mind is quite...muddled?

...words.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:31 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:26 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:44 am

Nuthin', as usual.

Come on, henry, at the very least you might make an attempt to make me regret these...

Unbelievable. Henry has been here far longer than most of us. Over 13,000 posts and without breaking a sweat I manage over and over again to reduce him down to reminding us that his mind is quite...muddled?

...words.

Why?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:33 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:31 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:26 am

Nuthin', as usual.

Come on, henry, at the very least you might make an attempt to make me regret these...

Unbelievable. Henry has been here far longer than most of us. Over 13,000 posts and without breaking a sweat I manage over and over again to reduce him down to reminding us that his mind is quite...muddled?

...words.

Why?

Well, for much the same reason that objectivists of your ilk have attempted to do so down through the years: to thump me as effortlessly as I thump them.

Ask around, okay?

You are not faring well at all with me here. I mean, you're right up there with IC!!

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 3:35 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:33 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:31 am

Come on, henry, at the very least you might make an attempt to make me regret these...



...words.

Why?

Well, for much the same reason that objectivists of your ilk have attempted to do so down through the years: to thump me as effortlessly as I thump them.

Ask around, okay?

You are not faring well at all with me here. I mean, you're right up there with IC!!

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

What Henry and IC have in common is they both believe that there is an actual animating force which is a thing.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:23 am "How big a threat is this?"

i dunno man but i think the American constitution would prevent any possibility of a genuine fascist government. the country is a reasonably solid representational democracy that holds legitimate elections. and even if elections are rigged to keep or put a party member in power, this wouldn't matter unless changes or amendments to the constitution came with it. meaning our basic rights are in no more danger by a house and court full of republicans and a sitting republican president than otherwise. they still gotta alter the constitution to create and have real autocratic political power.

All governments have the ability to declare a "state of exception". All they need is the right amount of dysinformation and they can engineer a suspension of democracy and the constitutions.

Well, for much the same reason that objectivists of your ilk have attempted to do so down through the years: to thump me as effortlessly as I thump them.

That's no answer. And: you've thumped no one here (and have been thumped repeatedly).

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

You are. As usual.

What Henry and IC have in common is they both believe that there is an actual animating force which is a thing.

Yes. The mind, spirit, soul (pick your placeholder).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 1:21 pm

What Henry and IC have in common is they both believe that there is an actual animating force which is a thing.

Yes. The mind, spirit, soul (pick your placeholder).

Any of the above. People used to believe in the vital spark or life force.