Philosophy Now Forum

jamesconroyuk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 10:28 pm Easy now cowboys and cowgirls...

Have I walked into the middle of a lover's tiff?

Just for the record, some here [and others there] have accused me of being obsessed with Satyr. It's actually just the opposite.

I first encountered him years ago at ILP. By then though the "war" between ILP and KT had resulted in him being banned. Why? Because he simply cannot, will not tolerate anyone who refuses to agree with everything that he says. He is the personification of the didactic/pedantic bully.

I became a "user" at KT. I would effectively challenge his arrogant, autocratic dogmas until one day I came upon this:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

He tossed me into the "dungeon". Where over and over and over again I continued to make a fool out of him.

Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.

There are so many preposterous claims he makes about me here...and I suspect that he knows it. He just can't help himself though. He seethes when someone dares to challenge him. Most here know what I am talking about.

Then, as with AJ, he refuses to go anywhere near here:

Now, what is still of interest to me is how [Satyr] and others of his ilk here would enforce [politically, legally] their own dogmatic "natural" philosophy. In other words, if they encompassed that power here in America.

Then the part where I ask him to note what Hitler got right and what Hitler got wrong regarding his own views on race.

So, why "she" above when I'm a he?

Well, he often accuses me of "arguing like a woman."

jamesconroyuk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 10:28 pm I'll be completely honest, I didn't have the time read or unpack most of that - I really don't have time to ego-stroke in forums like you guys do, or comb through long lists of quotes taken out of context.

jamesconroyuk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 10:28 pmAbortion is murder. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs a good dressing down.

"My body my choice" - my backside.

jamesconroyuk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 28, 2025 10:58 pm I often face accusations of either being in some way "Randian" ( i.e. Morally Objectivist ), or another popular one is that it's a "Naturalistic Fallacy" ( i.e. Hume's Guillotine )

Neither are true and miss the point...

My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE.

No "Is-Ought" - just is.

Not morally prescriptive in any way.

Good = positive value.

Bad = negative value.

No one has ever defined these any differently - they just get caught up in what their perception of positive value is.

Plants judge value. They judge sunlight to have positive value ( i.e. it's Good )

Refer to the trifecta - thats a great ocean floor to start from with any judgement - and it's undeniable.

This isn't my opinion - it's a fact.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Tue Apr 29, 2025 1:26 am Mary....words refer to actions...not more words.
You want words to refer to more words...like free-will.
Like morality...don't ya, Miss Land?

Words OUGHT to refer to other words.
Then your collectivism might become reality....
Then abortions will have no impact...

You want words to remain up in the clouds, dear.
You refuse to connect them to reality.

You want gender, and race to remain a social construct.
Just words referring to other words.....not to behaviors, to actions...to something all can independently perceive.

Like Dasein....you want it to mean whatever the fuck you want it to mean....because connecting it to reality will take that away from you, won't it?
You want words to remain theoretical, abstract, because then, a nit-wit, like you can believe whatever bullshyte she wants, and will not have to defend it.
Because whomever makes you doubt the crap in your subjective head, is imposing themselves upon you....mind-raping you.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Tue Apr 29, 2025 12:24 pm Why does Mary refuse to use words, representing concepts, to anchor them within a shared reality?
She bitches about it all being abstract, vague, "words referring to words," "up in the clouds," using her feminine terminology...
But she refuses to bring it down to earth.
Her feminine version is based on Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir's adaptation of Dasein, as circumstantial - I forget the term they used, but it amounted to the same.
Sartre's Being and Nothingness was a rip-off of Heidegger's Being and Time...Sartre being a Marxist and Heidegger having flirted with Nazism.
But Sartre believed in free-will.... That's a problem for Miss Land.

So, what does Mary consider "bringing it down to earth"?
She means placing it in a circumstance - a context - where emotions become a factor, because Mary cannot rationalize her postmodern positions.
She learned the technique from postmoderns, who trained her into the linguistically subversive methods of neo-Marxism, i.e., postmodernism - according to the Frankfurt School manual.
In her feminine mind, placing abortion, for instance, within the contexts of a "poor woman" who made a mistake and got impregnated by a man she, later, changed her mind about, is how she can usurp reason with emotion.

But, again, why does she refuse to use words to connect concepts with perceptible, independently, falsifiable, actions?
Concepts like 'will', or 'morality' or 'race/ethnicity', or 'sex/gender,' or 'beauty', or 'man/woman.'
The answer is simple and in line with postmodernism and how it treated the cocnept 'woman.' Gender.
Because if we use words, as they were originally used, to anchor concepts within perceptible experienced reality, it would deny her postmodern tactic of subjectively defining these words, and then accusing anyone who attempts to correct her definition and erroneous use, of being an authoritarian, imposing their will upon them.
She cannot allow error to prevent her from attaining her naive, idealistic goals.
If concepts remain "up in the clouds" they can mean anything...to anyone...at any time - they remain entirely and completely subjective.
Nobody is wrong, because it is all subjective.

If, for example, we anchor 'morality' upon independently verifiable actions, behaviors we can observe in man and many other species, she cannot then define the cocnept in a way that will support her collectivist objectives.
She cannot claim to be amoral, whilst being obsessed with Nazis, ignoring the atrocities perpetrated by communists, most of which were Jews, in the Holdomor, for instance....nor can she pay any attention to the ongoing ehtnic cleansing in Palestine. She can amorally imply that Nazis are evil......the only evil ever in the history of mankind...without having to explain the contradiction, because she refuses to define morality.
Defining words would deny her the feminine tactics she is employing.

She, an amoralist, who does not believe we have free-will, a choice. accuses Nazis of what, exactly?
And why only the Nazis?....why does she continuously refer to that period of time, when there are plenty of other atrocities?
Because Nazism is the nemesis of Marxism.
Hitler believed that the Jews created communism, and communism was his enemy. That's why he made them his enemies.

Why then, does she obsess over Ayn Rand, a Jewess, ironically, and her Objectivist philosophy?
Because Rand represents the other Marxist nemesis...Capitalism.
Objectivism is a pro-Capitalism manual.....and so Objecivists are her other targets....
They also have no choice....and she hates capitalism for what reason, if she's an amoralist?
Expoloitaiton? On what grounds is exploitation 'bad' if she's an amoralist?
On what ground does she despise objectivism and Nazism? if she's an amorlaist and nobody has a choice?

We see here the contradictions created when she attempts to ground her delusions in reality.

Just look at how obsessed she's become with the cocnept "Dasein."
It doesn't matter how Heidegger used it, or defined it.....it remains abstract enough for her to define it in her own subjective way.
That's the point.
Defining any cocnept by attaching it to actions, would expose her motives and the quality of her mind....
In this way she need not read nor understand what Heidegger wrote...since it's all subjective, you see?
Her understanding is as good as any other.
It's all subjective...or it OUGHT to be so.

Anchoring concepts in reality places her in "a one way" situation...that is it limits her, and necessitate understanding. In this way she can remain as obtuse and ignorant as she wants, whist peddling her Utopian Collectivism, by subverting all perspectives that resit her postmodern objectives.

She wants words to refer only to other words....and for them to remain as abstract as possible.

It is true that we have formal logic as taught in university logic courses, while morality can scarcely claim anything comparable (though there is deontic logic).

But the logic and morality I am talking about are pre-formal—they are embedded in our natural competence at dealing with the world and are probably innately based.

Logical reasoning existed before Aristotle tried to codify it, and morality pre-dates attempts at explicit refined statement. These are primitive forms of human competence, not dissimilar to language competence before grammarians came along.

The distinction between logic and morality is relatively recent and may not have been salient to early humans. We know quite well what is meant by the “ethics of belief”, and we are not shy about pointing out fallacies in other people’s moral reasoning. Sound reasoning is sound reasoning—and it is what we should be aiming at.

The distinction between logic and morality is not as sharp as we tend to think these days (I suspect it is less sharp in the ancient world than in the post-Christian word). Shoddy logical reasoning is deplored, as immoral action is. You should keep your promises and you should follow modus ponens; we can worry about fine points of logic versus morality later. If we suppose that animals possess rudimentary forms of logic and morality, are they really distinct modules in the animal mind? Logic and morality bleed into each other.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 10:08 pm If morality had as its focus its proper subject, there would be no moral relativism. In a global village, morality needs to be based upon human commonality, and that commonality is our common biology. Morality is about the security and well-being of the individual and the collective individuals of all societies. It's time to let go, as far as morality is concerned, of the differences of age-old mythologies/religions and cultural differences, as they might interfere with the creation of a common global morality. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, so it should be the creator of a common global morality.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 2:12 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 10:08 pm If morality had as its focus its proper subject, there would be no moral relativism. In a global village, morality needs to be based upon human commonality, and that commonality is our common biology. Morality is about the security and well-being of the individual and the collective individuals of all societies. It's time to let go, as far as morality is concerned, of the differences of age-old mythologies/religions and cultural differences, as they might interfere with the creation of a common global morality. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, so it should be the creator of a common global morality.

But there was more than biological morality going on when a few Australians entered the water beside a great white shark to rescue it from being stranded.
(Guardian this morning)

Where does prudential reasoning fit? It is surely only logical (rational) to consider one’s own future wellbeing—so we might assign prudence to logic. But prudence is also behaving well to one’s future self, so that it falls within morality.

Some moralists have even supposed (I think rightly) that prudence is a special case of morality—we have moral duties towards ourselves, as one sentient being among others. So prudential reasoning is both logical and moral—it has a foot in both camps.

Or should we say that the idea of a dualism of camps is mistaken? Isn’t the line more blurred than contemporary culture recognizes? We think there is no morality in logic textbooks and that moral issues can’t be resolved by formal logic: but that is surely too narrow a view of both fields. Logic is up to its ears in normative notions, and morality is a domain of logical reasoning.

If you are trying to resolve a complex moral issue, such as abortion or animal rights, you will find yourself invoking principles drawn from logic and from normative ethics—as we currently understand those fields. But from a ground level perspective these distinctions are blurred and irrelevant: you are just reasoning with whatever bears upon the topic.

You are applying your logical and moral competence to a real world problem with a view to doing what is right.

When you avoid deriving an “ought” from an “is” are you doing logic or morality? When you declare that all sentient beings have rights is that intended as a moral principle or a logical one? It functions as an abstract axiom used to draw conclusions—it is irrelevant whether it crops up in a standard logic text (they don’t even include modal logic).

We shouldn’t have too narrow a view of logic, and we shouldn’t neglect the abstract character of much moral reasoning. I am inclined to say simply that moral reasoning just is logical reasoning—logical reasoning about questions of value.