Philosophy Now Forum

The LA riots were touched off by cops bein' acquitted for usin' excessive force (nightsticks thumpin' on unarmed King's skull). Guns didn't figure into at all (except, later, where folks defended themselves and their property).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:29 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 9:45 pm
Of course, being "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am, that doesn't apply to me. Other than in terms of the admitted political prejudices that I came to espouse over the years.

You lost me here.

Is there any particular reason you characterized yourself as fractured and fragmented?

Why have you enclosed the I in quotes? Are you saying “so called”?

In regard to an issue like gun control, there are those on the left and the right who insist that the manner in which they think about it reflects the optimal or the only rational assessment. Some, like henry, are particularly fierce and fanatical about it.

Me, I note two things:

1] that how we come to acquire our subjective value judgments is rooted existentially in the lives that we live...historically, culturally, personally

2] that both sides of an issue like this -- https://gun-control.procon.org/ -- are able to make reasonable arguments merely by having them revolve around different sets of assumptions...big government/small government, I/we, nature/nurture, idealism/pragmatism, capitalism/socialism, right makes might/democracy and the rule of law. Frames of mind that, to me, are also rooted existentially in dasein

The meaning of which I encompass in these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Culminating [for "me"] in this:

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 10:29 pmWhat is it that doesn’t apply to you?

The capacity to frame an issue like gun control as the fulminating fanatic objectivists do: my way or the highway...one of us [the good guys] vs. one of them [the bad guys]...either/or.

Henry is even willing go the full-blown Ruby Ridge route.

Me, in recognizing the existential component of my own value judgments, I acknowledge [to myself] that had my life been very different, I might be here even more fanatical about gun rights than henry. And in not being an objectivist myself anymore, I am able to note that both sides do have reasonable arguments to make about guns, about the Second Amendment.

So, I find myself far more ambivalent and uncertain about the issue...drawn and quartered in conflicting directions.

In fact, in my view, this is precisely what disturbs those like henry most about my own "here and now" conclusions: what if they are applicable to them too?

What if their own arrogant and authoritarian dogmas begin to fracture and fragment? What if their precious Self, from which they derive so much psychological comfort and consolation in always being right, begins to crumble? After all, it did for me. I know what is at stake in becoming a moral nihilist.

Very helpful. Thank you.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:02 pm Very helpful. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I should add though that even though I construe henry to be a fulminating fanatic objectivist, he insists that he is not. Not really. He tells me that he has been wrong about "big stuff" issues like gun control in the past. Indicating, of course, that he could be wrong about them in the present. Now, he insists that it is extremely unlikely that he is wrong about the "big stuff" today. But in regard to gun control I can't get him to pin down the distinction between the objectivist as I understand it and what he thinks he is.

My contention revolves around the simple observation that in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change, we can never be certain of whether a new experience, a new relationship or access to new information and knowledge [maybe in a post here] will impact our thinking about right and wrong behavior.

Only the hardcore objectivists insist they are the exception here. But, again, in my view, that's because what they believe pales next to the requirement that what they believe is thought to be what all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Categorically and imperatively, as it were.

Just ask them.

Except for Ruby Ridgers and their kind, taxes are paid willingly even if begrudgingly by American citizens, including those who own guns.

The money that is paid in taxes is money that could buy property. In fact, that money may be viewed as property per se, inasmuch as it can fall under the ownership of someone. Yet this property is yielded to local, state and federal governments by gun mongers anyway.

I don’t think gun safety is about property, as has been posited here. It’s about guns.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:09 pm Except for Ruby Ridgers and their kind, taxes are paid willingly even if begrudgingly by American citizens, including those who own guns.

The money that is paid in taxes is money that could buy property. In fact, that money may be viewed as property per se, inasmuch as it can fall under the ownership of someone. Yet this property is yielded to local, state and federal governments by gun mongers anyway.

I don’t think gun safety is about property, as has been posited here. It’s about guns.

Yes, each of as individuals has come to our own "take" on things of this sort.

But, again, how, as individuals, given the life that we lived, did we come to that take? Why our take and not theirs?

Is there a way -- scientifically, philosophically, theologically -- to concoct an ontological and teleological assessment of The Good that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace?

Sure. In fact, there have been hundreds and hundreds of such concoctions down through the ages. Right? Hundreds and hundreds of hopelessly conflicting One True Paths to objective morality on this side of the grave.

Sieg Heil!
Allahu Akbar!!
Christ is Lord!!!

And that's just three of them.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:42 pm
Sieg Heil!
Allahu Akbar!!
Christ is Lord!!!

- If you hear the first one hollered, it will be a chorus of thugs and not a solo, and you may be in a time warp.
- If you hear the second one hollered, run for your life.
- If you hear the third one hollered then unlike the first two, no problems for you other than those in your noggin.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:42 pm
Sieg Heil!
Allahu Akbar!!
Christ is Lord!!!

- If you hear the first one hollered, it will be a chorus of thugs and not a solo, and you may be in a time warp.
- If you hear the second one hollered, run for your life.
- If you hear the third one hollered then unlike the first two, no problems for you other than those in your noggin.

BTW, “Christ is Lord!!!” Is proclaimed passionately both by the devoted righteous and by the committed neo-Natzi. And they exist in reality, not just in the mind. So there are in fact circumstances where the 3rd cry is alarming, too.

- That's silly. No one feels a physical threat when someone hollers, "#3!"
- However, hollering "#2!" is often a prelude to a bomb blast.
- Everyone knows what hollering "#1!" is all about.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:16 pm - That's silly. No one feels a physical threat when someone hollers, "#3!"
- However, hollering "#2!" is often a prelude to a bomb blast.
- Everyone knows what hollering "#1!" is all about.

You missed the point: it depends on who’s yelling. If it’s a neo-Natzi from the extreme right, it could be scary, especially to a person of color.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:42 pm
Sieg Heil!
Allahu Akbar!!
Christ is Lord!!!

- If you hear the first one hollered, it will be a chorus of thugs and not a solo, and you may be in a time warp.

On the other hand, here in America there are any number Proud Boys and their ilk itching to bring it back around.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am- If you hear the second one hollered, run for your life.

On the other hand, not all Muslims are intent on slaughtering the infidels when they shout it.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am- If you hear the third one hollered then unlike the first two, no problems for you other than those in your noggin.

On the other hand, there are any number Christians who insists that if you don''t shout it, you will burn in Hell for all of eternity.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:15 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am- If you hear the second one hollered, run for your life.

On the other hand, not all Muslims are intent on slaughtering the infidels when they shout it.

- Not every human has the capacity for wet work.
- Tacit approval by Muslims is in the silence that does not condemn slaughtering.
- The Muslims who do the wet work, do shout #2!
- Shouting #2! probably happens before every Muslim slaughter, or rather, every slaughtering of infidels by a Muslim.

- Shouting #3! is never a prelude to a slaughter, because that would be a Severe Oxymoron.

Etymology of "slaughter."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slaughter

Slaughter may not be the appropriate word when used in relation to blowing folks to pieces with bombs, or shooting folks with bullets, when you examine the original intent of the word, back when folks were closer to nature and the natural processes of acquiring food, and not just cooking food.

They say those Muslim folks are building a big slaughter device in Iran for just such explicitly expressed slaughtering purposes, slaughter as more recently defined in history.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 11:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:15 am

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:45 am- If you hear the second one hollered, run for your life.

On the other hand, not all Muslims are intent on slaughtering the infidels when they shout it.

- Not every human has the capacity for wet work.
- Tacit approval by Muslims is in the silence that does not condemn slaughtering.
- The Muslims who do the wet work, do shout #2!
- Shouting #2! probably happens before every Muslim slaughter, or rather, every slaughtering of infidels by a Muslim.

- Shouting #3! is never a prelude to a slaughter, because that would be a Severe Oxymoron.

Oh Walker. You’re begging for ad homs now.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:44 pm
Oh Walker. You’re begging for ad homs now.

Naw. Folks are too cowed.