Pagan morality

[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?

You really want to get into that with him?

Just curious what the whole deal is about. Many differences are reconcilable but many differences are just irreconcileable, what's fascinating about it (I don't find it fascinating at all) and what does "resolve" even mean?

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

Just curious what the whole deal is about. Many differences are reconcilable but many differences are just irreconcileable, what's fascinating about it (I don't find it fascinating at all) and what does "resolve" even mean?

Great questions, but iambiguous is true to his name and is not prepared to give clarifying answers. I have never seen someone raise questions like you've raised who later found themselves with anything remotely like a genuinely clarifying answer from biggy later.

No doubt he'll respond to you with an answer full of opaque idiosyncrasies, talking about remmy's rule or pangal's todger.

[Maia]

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.

+++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.+++

Some years ago I recommended The Wicker Man to him, primarily because of the beautiful folk music in it written by Paul Giovanni, and also because of its hilarious parody of Paganism (not to mention Christopher Lee's voice). But since then he seems fixated on using it as an example of what a real Pagan community might be like, even though, on some level, he also seems to know full well that it's fiction. It's difficult to know how to respond to that other than continually trying to explain how real Pagan communities work, and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

[Flannel Jesus]

..and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

The problem with trying to explain things to iambiguous is he would rather not understand.

[Maia]

..and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

The problem with trying to explain things to iambiguous is he would rather not understand.

It's a shame really, but that's life, I suppose.

[Iwannaplato]

and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

It does take a special kind of approach to elicit such feelings in a philosophy forum.

[Maia]

and there's only so many times I can do that before losing the will to live.

It does take a special kind of approach to elicit such feelings in a philosophy forum.

He has clearly honed his skills over many, many decades.

[promethean75]

I've spoken of the origins of Biggs before, and i will speak briefly about it again for those who did not hear.

A long long time ago (2002) in a forum far far away (yahoo philosophy cafe), Biggs and a team of christians and objectivists numbering around five or six and led by a mexican kantian objectivist lawyer with a lesbian basketball playing daughter, engaged in a year long forum war that shook the very earth itself. I remember being a forum newb and never seeing anything like it before. I watched Biggs become an animal over that year. He had to, to survive. And although many years have passed, i don't think Biggs ever came back from that war. A soldier of philosophy who knows no other kind of life... how would he even adjust back into society?

No. Biggs belongs on the forum front where the action is, where he feels alive, where he can remember all the sacrifice and glory of those days past when Biggs was doing what he does best; defending subjectivism and nihilism from the tyranny of self righteous charlatans, sophists and objectivist swindlers.

[Atla]

I've spoken of the origins of Biggs before, and i will speak briefly about it again for those who did not hear.

A long long time ago (2002) in a forum far far away (yahoo philosophy cafe), Biggs and a team of christians and objectivists numbering around five or six and led by a mexican kantian objectivist lawyer with a lesbian basketball playing daughter, engaged in a year long forum war that shook the very earth itself. I remember being a forum newb and never seeing anything like it before. I watched Biggs become an animal over that year. He had to, to survive. And although many years have passed, i don't think Biggs ever came back from that war. A soldier of philosophy who knows no other kind of life... how would he even adjust back into society?

No. Biggs belongs on the forum front where the action is, where he feels alive, where he can remember all the sacrifice and glory of those days past when Biggs was doing what he does best; defending subjectivism and nihilism from the tyranny of self righteous charlatans, sophists and objectivist swindlers.

Imo subjectivism has already 'won' in the West, why did he even feel the need to fight like that?

[Maia]

I've spoken of the origins of Biggs before, and i will speak briefly about it again for those who did not hear.

A long long time ago (2002) in a forum far far away (yahoo philosophy cafe), Biggs and a team of christians and objectivists numbering around five or six and led by a mexican kantian objectivist lawyer with a lesbian basketball playing daughter, engaged in a year long forum war that shook the very earth itself. I remember being a forum newb and never seeing anything like it before. I watched Biggs become an animal over that year. He had to, to survive. And although many years have passed, i don't think Biggs ever came back from that war. A soldier of philosophy who knows no other kind of life... how would he even adjust back into society?

No. Biggs belongs on the forum front where the action is, where he feels alive, where he can remember all the sacrifice and glory of those days past when Biggs was doing what he does best; defending subjectivism and nihilism from the tyranny of self righteous charlatans, sophists and objectivist swindlers.

Interesting...

[promethean75]

As long as Platonic nominalists and objectivist ne'er-do-wells roam the erf, we need soldiers of perspectivism (subjectivism essentially) to bring the fight to em, Atla, or we risk losing everything. Life, dignity, country, our wits, everything.

[Atla]

Sounds like he was deeply hurt by objectivists earlier in his life, and as an autistic he didn't know how to cope?

[Iwannaplato]

As long as Platonic nominalists and objectivist ne'er-do-wells roam the erf, we need soldiers of perspectivism (subjectivism essentially) to bring the fight to em, Atla, or we risk losing everything. Life, dignity, country, our wits, everything.

It's great that one doesn't have to lose hyperbolic us-them thinking as a subjectivist, nor the 'or else.'

[iambiguous]

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?

From my frame of mind [here and now of course], our world is awash in human pain and suffering. Decade after decade, century after century, millennium after millennium. But not so much because people are fascinated by conflicting goods [that's what God and religion are for], as because others are far more fascinated with imposing their own "rules of behavior" on others in order that the community truly does become -- in their heads -- the best of all possible worlds.

Then once the Kingdoms of Ends have been both proclaimed and "established" by the powers that be, it then comes down to the means employed to attain, maintain and then sustain it, right?

Pick one of these cultural and historical options:

1] might makes right: "because we say so"
2] right makes might: "because those of us in power all agree a universal morality is within the reach of human beings. Why? Because we have already found it.
3] democracy and the rule of law: "there is a universal morality and it is ours, but we are willing to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in order to sustain a distribution of political power that revolves more around fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power."

Then those like me [fractured and fragmented], convinced that moral absolutes are not within the reach of mere mortals in a No God world. And, further, that only existential leaps of faith ever subject to change can sustain at least some semblance of a "conviction".

Unless, of course, we're wrong.

From my frame of mind, those like Maia basically embody their very own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism". As I once did myself for many, many years. The main point is not what they believe but that what they believe allows them to sustain one or another comforting and consoling philosophy of life...a rather didactic security banket as it were. And, then, with any luck, they'll take 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.

Here we go again, in my view: Stooge Stuff. On the other hand [ever and always it's seemed to me], Stooge Stuff only from my own hopelessly prejudiced moral and political "convictions". In other words, going all the back to when I was an objectivist myself. And, as such, construed to be a Stooge by others.

It's just that a few years ago, I basically abandoned [almost altogether] polemics, "huffing and puffing" and provocative exchanges. Many sinply construed them as "ad homs"...personal attacks from "the troll". Also, I can count on one hand those who not only did grasp the nature of provocative exchanges as I do but have also acquired the wit to come after me as effectively as I came after them. In other words, those for whom a clever repartee is just as important as intelligence in the exchange.

Really, over the past 10 years, the only poster [here or there] I eagerly awaited these "words for swords" exchanges was, Phoneutria. Only she might just as well have been an FFO herself.

That, however, is often how it works in philosophical exchanges. If from my own frame mind, I don't believe [someone] responded to my points above in a satisfactory manner, I can only keep trying to dig a little deeper. Accepting that [as I noted to Maia], my failure to grasp another's point 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 original framing of paganism, you simply move on as if it doesn't matter.

So, given all of these "failures to communicate" among us [and among philosophers down through the ages], what other option is there but to keep trying to narrow the gaps? I just emphasize how these attempts must revolve [eventually] around the actual existential conflicts that have pummeled us. And no matter how far back you go in the Way Back Machine.

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.

From my own frame of mind, this is nothing short of ludicrous. In fact, it's something I would expect from one of the pinheads here. While still emphasizing, however, that it is no less a hopelessly subjective "personal opinion" as well.

Over and over again, above and elsewhere, I attempt to justify my own understanding of moral nihilism given the "rooted existentially in dasein" arguments I sustain in my signature threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

But: any number of folks over the years have insisted that none of it justifies what "I" have come to conclude. Why? Because it is at odds with what they claim embodies justification given conflicting goods.

Iambiguous to Maia:

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.

I have never mocked Maia. Although, sure, even here "I" can be no less "fractured and fragmented". But if it is crucial for him to construe my exchanges with her as mocking, so be it. Next, however, he'll be accusing me of treating her as just another...Stooge?

Maia...the pinhead?

[iambiguous]

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?

From my frame of mind, however, that doesn't obviate the factors I noted above. Do most people connect with others around them socially, politically and economically because they've taken the time to thoroughly investigate human interactions anthropologically, scientifically, philosophically, spiritually, introspectively etc., and concluded that their own path really does reflect the best of all possible human connections?

Or, given just how many conflicting One True Paths there are to choose from, doesn't it make more sense that, perhaps, in living what may well be very different lives [demographically and otherwise] in very different and ever evolving contexts, the manner in which I construe dasein here is a more reasonable point of departure.

Most important [to me] is that just because I don't understand your points, that doesn't make them wrong.

Given particular contexts such as abortion, nihilism and sexuality.

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

Yes, and over and again I wasn't satisfied with your answers. Anymore, no doubt, then you were satisfied with mine. I speculate however that you are missing my points because you don't want to believe they may be applicable to you. Whereas if you are able to convince me that I too am in possession of an intrinsic/intuitive Self [and it can be any "Ism" at all, not just Paganism] then up out of the hole I may actually be able to clamber

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.

No, my point is to make a distinction here between those who argue that there is a best of all possible worlds because they have already either discovered it or invented it themselves...and those who do not.

In other words, those who divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. Those who anchor their own moral prescriptions and prosriptions to one or another rendition of "or else". And "for all practical purposes" this can run the gamut from being banned in places like this to being sent to a reeducation camp. Or even a death camp.

Which, if I understood you correctly, is not at all your own intention here. You seem to have moral convictions that you embody "here and now", but you're not arguing in turn that others should think or feel or behave like you do because how you think, feel and behave really is the only One True Path. I recall how we both seemed to embrace the conviction that doing the least harm to others is of most importance. It's just that I am no less fractured and fragmented here as well.

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

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

Again, existentially, is this another example of a "failure to communicate" gap between what I had intended to convey to you and how, instead, you interpreted my intentions otherwise?

I was referring back to the part where my own life has more or less imploded while those who are younger than I am have far more options to choose from. And it is then [in having options] one is most likely to encounter an experience that changes them forever.

So, I suggested that you go about living your life on your own terms until, perhaps, you do stumble into a set of circumstances that actually does challenge your sense of reality in profound ways. Like, for me, before and after Song Be. Or before and after William Barrett. Or before and after Mary and John. Or before and after Supannika.