Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 3:46 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:46 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:43 pm

"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Now, from my frame of mind, dasein revolves historically, culturally and interpersonally around human interactions in the is/ought world. As they pertain to the value judgments we acquire existentially given the points I raise in the OPs here:

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

Thus, given a particular moral conflagration of note, how is this not applicable to the moral objectivists among us?

Whereas components of our lives -- demographics, circumstances, empirical facts, etc. -- derived from the either/or world are generally applicable to everyone. Dasein here revolves largely around the "facts of life". While in the world of conflicting goods, "I" is considerably more problematic.

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

And while there are dozens and dozens of One True Paths out there from which to choose, each and every one on their own path here will insist that all of the others are wrong. Only their own moral narrative and political agenda count.

Go ahead, ask them.

Stop whining about life and just deal with it

Absolutely shameless!

If nature does say so itself.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 3:46 am Stop whining about life and just deal with it

Absolutely shameless!

If nature does say so itself.

What nature? Are you the spokesman for nature?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 8:50 am
Sam Harris is a determinist. He doesn't believe in free will. Not even compatibilist free will. He believes what pretty much all determinists believe: the future causally follows from the past, just pure physics.

Why do you care so much about what Sam Harris thinks?

Again...

Well, in that case will Sam Harris agree that even though he makes the arguments that he does about all of this -- both in and out of debates with others -- he flat out agrees that his arguments and their arguments unfold in the only possible manner that they ever could have? And though some might be compelled by their own brains to argue that Sam won or lost these debates, they too are simply reacting to them on cue.

It's not like in the middle of a debate with a Christian he reminds everyone that he is an atheist and is arguing what he does solely because he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise. That Christians are Christians only because they were never able not to be.

Instead, when I've watched him debate others, he comes off just as those who are staunch libertarian atheists might: attacking religion as though in a free will world the atheists can finally come together to rid the world of the scourge that is God and religion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:11 pm Are you saying he should remind people that he is an atheist and he was never able to freely opt to do otherwise? Or that he should be acting differently because he believes in determinism?

Actually, I'm suggesting that from time to time he needs to remind himself of this: that everything either side proposes in these debates they propose solely because they were never able not to. And if that is the case, there are no winners and losers given the manner in which the free will folks would encompass that.

It's like you're watching a baseball game in which every inning unfolds mechanically on cue given the only possible sequence of behaviors. They all unfold only as the ever could have. So, in the end there's a "winner" and a "loser", but what does that actually mean given the only possible reality?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:11 pmIt often seems like there is some unstated conclusion or argument in your posts.
In a determinist universe atheists could come together to rid the scourge that is God as they would view it. Perhaps they will.

Okay, they do come together and the world is rid of God and religion. But this was never going to not happen in the only possible reality. So, sure, they might slap each other on back in celebration...but if they do, this too is only another inherent manifestation of the immutable laws of matter.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:11 pmIOW if I read the above it seems like you are saying Christians will always be because of determinism. I don't know how you know that if that's what you're saying.

Huh?

No, seriously. To the extent that Christians will always be depends on the extent to which the laws of matter down here oin Earth sustain their existence. But they will be or not be such that it is beyond the control of inidivulal Christians themselves. They are only just more dominoes toppling over on cue.

And what difference does it make what either one of us knows "here and now" in our heads if what we do know we could never have not known?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:18 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:46 am Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.

Right, I'm no less an objectivist myself. But I don't divide up the world between those who think as I do about free will, determinism and compatibilism and the fools. Instead, over and again, I acknowledge that...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:18 amAnd, yes, yes, you are the first to admit you beliefs are based on....dasein....etc.

Yes -- click -- I do.

As though that were just a trivial component of my own fractured and fragmented assessment of morality and religion and the Big Questions. Though, sure, compelled or not, if that allows you to sustain the belief that "I got him!" for the rest on your tag team here -- those in Stooge mode -- fine, I can live with that.

You want to be the guardian of "the facts" here? Okay, you "win".

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:19 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:46 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:43 pm
"Dasein" has got to be one of the most unclear word choices he could use there. But that's fully in character.

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Now, from my frame of mind, dasein revolves historically, culturally and interpersonally around human interactions in the is/ought world. As they pertain to the value judgments we acquire existentially given the points I raise in the OPs here:

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

Thus, given a particular moral conflagration of note, how is this not applicable to the moral objectivists among us?

Whereas components of our lives -- demographics, circumstances, empirical facts, etc. -- derived from the either/or world are generally applicable to everyone. Dasein here revolves largely around the "facts of life". While in the world of conflicting goods, "I" is considerably more problematic.

Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

And while there are dozens and dozens of One True Paths out there from which to choose, each and every one on their own path here will insist that all of the others are wrong. Only their own moral narrative and political agenda count.

Go ahead, ask them.

How is any of that a response to what I said?

People don't like your "take on dasein" because it's not clear what you mean. Most of the time you think people don't like you because you have these amazing and challenging ideas, that's not the case, people just don't like how vague you are when communicating them, or how any time they try to talk to you you can't seem to focus on the conversation.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:19 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:46 am

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

How is any of that a response to what I said?

The first sentence in his response is incredible.

What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein 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

Now, if, in regard to their own value judgments, that is not applicable to them, let them commence a new exchange with me regarding human morality in a free will, wholly determined or a compatibilist universe.

"WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!!", they'll exclaim.

"That" being construed in very different ways.

But all that's left is to either try again, or to move on to others.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 10:33 pm Actually, I'm suggesting that from time to time he needs to remind himself of this: that everything either side proposes in these debates they propose solely because they were never able not to. And if that is the case, there are no winners and losers given the manner in which the free will folks would encompass that.

Why would he 'need to remind himself this?

It's like you're watching a baseball game in which every inning unfolds mechanically on cue given the only possible sequence of behaviors. They all unfold only as the ever could have. So, in the end there's a "winner" and a "loser", but what does that actually mean given the only possible reality?

Yeah, it's all determined in advance. It's determinism.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:11 pmIt often seems like there is some unstated conclusion or argument in your posts.
In a determinist universe atheists could come together to rid the scourge that is God as they would view it. Perhaps they will.

Okay, they do come together and the world is rid of God and religion. But this was never going to not happen in the only possible reality. So, sure, they might slap each other on back in celebration...but if they do, this too is only another inherent manifestation of the immutable laws of matter.

Yes, that's deteminism. Again, it still seems like there's something you're not saying. Are you saying they're dumb to celebrate?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 9:11 pmIOW if I read the above it seems like you are saying Christians will always be because of determinism. I don't know how you know that if that's what you're saying.

Huh?

No, seriously. To the extent that Christians will always be depends on the extent to which the laws of matter down here oin Earth sustain their existence. But they will be or not be such that it is beyond the control of inidivulal Christians themselves. They are only just more dominoes toppling over on cue.

And what difference does it make what either one of us knows "here and now" in our heads if what we do know we could never have not known?

Why don't you try that as a statement? You seem to believe that nothing matters if there is determinism, but you don't actually say it. Maybe you don't believe that, but all I can say is it seems like you believe nothing has any meaning if there is determinism, but for some reason you can only imply or express implied incredulity anything else could be true, but you won't state it.

Do you believe that? If so, why not state it?
If not, then I am not sure what you point is, if any.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 2:46 am Agan, I suspect the objectivists among us eschew my take on dasein because the very last thing they want is to be "fractured and fragmented" themselves. Instead, they attach their precious egos to one or another "my way or the highway" dogma, allowing them to divide up the world between "one of us", the rational and virtuous few and "one of them", the irrational and immoral many.

Which, ironically, is how you are dividing up the world also, right inside the above accusation.[/quote]

Right, I'm no less an objectivist myself.

OK. I actually was more focused on the dividing up people in two groups, just as you are saying they are. But, hey, if you are no less an objectivist than them...how can I say this: much of your communication has been misleading.

But I don't divide up the world between those who think as I do about free will, determinism and compatibilism and the fools. Instead, over and again, I acknowledge that...

Right, you don't divide up the world THAT way into the virtuous and the immoral, irrational many. You divide them up around objectivism and non-objectivism. I'm not sure what the big improvement is.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:18 amAnd, yes, yes, you are the first to admit you beliefs are based on....dasein....etc.

Yes -- click -- I do.

As though that were just a trivial component of my own fractured and fragmented assessment of morality and religion and the Big Questions.

It's not trivial, which I did not say. I did not say it was trivial. However, since you complained about objectivists dividing the world up in, those two categories that you yourself divide the world up into, it is ironic and hypocritical. Because you could be fractured and fragmented and non-objectivists AND NOT DO THAT.

Though, sure, compelled or not, if that allows you to sustain the belief that "I got him!" for the rest on your tag team here -- those in Stooge mode -- fine, I can live with that.

That's a non-statement. It means nothing. It's as if you have no opinion.

You want to be the guardian of "the facts" here? Okay, you "win".

What??
I pointed out the hypocrisy.

Just because you celebrate victories over people, don't assume others function that way.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:21 amYes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

What on Earth is being suggested here? That in the past I may have been entirely entangled in determinism, compelled to think, feel, say and do solely what my brain compelled me to [as in my dreams] but "somehow" in the present and in the future I can learn not to be? As though "somehow" the laws of matter pertinent to the past are no longer pertinent to the present and the future?

Or, again, sure, the part I keep missing. Being as fractured and fragmented regarding free will as "I" am regarding morality and religion, I flat-out agree that the problem here may well be me instead. After all, among other things, I actually take "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" and the "Benjamin Button Syndrome" seriously myself.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:58 am Me:

Text by Iambiguous

Him:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:21 am 'Response' posts by Iambiguous:

[Text from a post in response to Iambiguous]

[quoted by Iambiguous]

Then...

Text by Iambiguous as if in response. The text must:
1) repeat or paraphrase things Iambiguous has said many times before
2) NOT in any clear way or any way at all respond to what the person has written.
3) complain about objectivists and/or the No God World.
4) imply or state that someone, who hasn't - has taken the position that brains are - unlike the rest of matter, autonomous

When this is pointed out, call the pointer-outer a Stooge.
Rinse and repeat.

Yes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

Shameless

Note to any stooges: doo doo de loo doo

Doo doo

Absolutely blameless!!!

If nature says so itself.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 11:08 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:21 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 7:19 am

How is any of that a response to what I said?

The first sentence in his response is incredible.

What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein in the OPs here:

Here was the first sentence I was referring to...

Okay -- click -- we "somehow" acquired free will in what I construe to be a No God universe.

Flannel Jesus never asserted anything like this, yet this was your response. In fact, he has very clearly, when this issue has come up earlier, said that he does not believe that to be the case.

Yet you respond as if he has just asserted it, which he didn't.

It's nuts.

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

Now, if, in regard to their own value judgments, that is not applicable to them, let them commence a new exchange with me regarding human morality in a free will, wholly determined or a compatibilist universe.

"WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!!", they'll exclaim.

It seems like here your reaction is. I don't really care if it made any sense what I said the Flannel Jesus had nothing to do with what he wrote or believes even if it seemed to indicate it did.

If you are going to point this out, then you have to explain all this other stuff until I am satisfied and demonstrate your innocence of objectivism or whichever of your various bête noire of your those links would take me to.

You do all this instead of either saying 'yeah, you're right, it didn't fit Flannel Jesus'
or
Here's why it does fit Flannel Jesus'

But you don't do this.

It's shameless Stooge shit. It doesn't bother you at all that you imply and accuse people of things that have no relevence to what they wrote.
It doesn't bother you that your response really had nothing to do with what he said. That it's a faux response.
That is precisely shameless, as FJ cannily pointed out.

For someone who claims to be unsure of everything, you're quite convinced other people are always the problem.



"That" being construed in very different ways.

But all that's left is to either try again, or to move on to others.
[/quote]

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 11:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 9:21 amYes, in a determined universe, he can't help but have done this in the past. Some people, even in a determined universe, learn, when such patterns are pointed out, to improve responses; some don't. These two subsets of people will be, often, treated quite differently.

What on Earth is being suggested here? That in the past I may have been entirely entangled in determinism, compelled to think, feel, say and do solely what my brain compelled me to [as in my dreams] but "somehow" in the present and in the future I can learn not to be?

No, you could learn to actually respond to people's posts,f or example.
Just like some kids learn how to ride bikes.
I never said anything about somehow learning to not be determined.
In a deterministic universe some people will learn when confronted by their mistakes, assumptions, poor interaction skills. Some won't.
You seem to be in the latter group.
It has nothing to do with anyone stepping out of determinism.
I don't know why you see this ghost everywhere. I don't know if you can learn from us when we tell you that's not what we believe or have said.

As though "somehow" the laws of matter pertinent to the past are no longer pertinent to the present and the future?

You seem to see this assertion everywhere. I did not mean that.

Or, again, sure, the part I keep missing. Being as fractured and fragmented regarding free will as "I" am regarding morality and religion, I flat-out agree that the problem here may well be me instead. After all, among other things, I actually take "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" and the "Benjamin Button Syndrome" seriously myself.

Or you're not a very good reader. Shall I now expect that for the next few months you will say that I said one could be utterly determined and grow our of that?

No, I was saying that some people regardless of whether they are determined or free, I don't know which is the case, seem to be able to learn/change from feedback. You seem utterly incapable of that. Some can learn. Others can't. Yes, if determinism is the case, it was always going to be that way. You would always reach a stage where you can't learn anymore.

And if I have a clock that the hour hand doesn't move on, I may say, that clock don't work. It's useless as a clock - determined universe, not determined universe. It's still a broken clock. With the clock, well, I don't point this out to the clock.

But it's hard for me to give up on humans. It's a weakness of mine.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 11:08 pm
What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein 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 have no idea why you think anybody cares about "encompassing" anything about dasein. Every time you say something is "rooted existentially in dasein", there's a less pretentious way of phrasing that that doesn't use your own personal invented jargon.

But you are iambiguous, so you will always prefer to use your own personal jargon over choosing more clear types of communication, and then you'll blather on about "encompassing" all that silly shit later. "Encompass" lmao.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 10:27 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 11:08 pm
What else is there but for me to remind the Stooges here that -- click -- I encompass my own understanding of dasein 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 have no idea why you think anybody cares about "encompassing" anything about dasein. Every time you say something is "rooted existentially in dasein", there's a less pretentious way of phrasing that that doesn't use your own personal invented jargon.

But you are iambiguous, so you will always prefer to use your own personal jargon over choosing more clear types of communication, and then you'll blather on about "encompassing" all that silly shit later. "Encompass" lmao.

You aren't suggesting such useless words as 'explain' or 'describe' could have been used???

In any case 'encompass' carries positive connotations, explain and describe are neutral.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2023 10:38 amYou aren't suggesting such useless words as 'explain' or 'describe' could have been used???

In any case 'encompass' carries positive connotations, explain and describe are neutral.

You only think that cause you're rooted existentially in dasein. My feelings on the matter are encompassed here:

https://youtu.be/-W2xedNY4Xg?si=x0hYVB7wC6QxF6F6