Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:48 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:31 pm I think a good case can be made that this thread is the work of a Straw Nihilist...

By all means henry, join in. You seem to revel in me making a fool out of you.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:08 pm
Now, either Iwannaplato will encompass his own take on nihilism in the same manner or he won't. in regard to abortion or in regard to an issue that is of particular importance to him.

I did weigh in on abortion in relation to how a pure/true nihilist would view it, with provisos for the potential differences between nihilists, given what they desired in that situation.
viewtopic.php?p=606746#p606746
IOW I met your request. But, you ask for it again as if it never happened. I mean, that's ok. My doorbell isn't working today for some reason also. That is...such things are a part of life.

Did I do it 'in the same manner'. It can't be done in the same way because you are not a pure/true nihilist. You are torn up about it. You are convinced by opposing moral arguments and you can't reconcile them. They are not convinced at all, to any degree, by either or any of the arguments around abortion. They don't believe in morals. They are moral anti-realists. They also don't hold to your is ought distinction, since they are also epistemological skeptics. But, I did give their take on abortion and Mary.

And as I said: this does nothing magical.

I'm not a pure/true nihilist. But if someone comes along who identifies as that and they disagree with me. Great, we'll have a chat about that. But the ones I have known, I think my description fits well. I also cited sources for how the term is used and what they believe.

You don*t bother to agree; disagree; interact with what I wrote about them. Is this laziness? Is it just the desire to get people jumping when you say jump? Do you want an endless dialogue? I don't know. But since your arrival you have just been a dialogue partner who does things that don't interest me. You can raise interesting issues and quote interesting people. But when it comes to the interaction itself, it's useless to me and really has a deadendy feeling, whether that is your intention or not.

And those are the parts of your responses that I understand.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:08 pm
Now, either Iwannaplato will encompass his own take on nihilism in the same manner or he won't. in regard to abortion or in regard to an issue that is of particular importance to him.

I did weigh in on abortion in relation to how a pure/true nihilist would view it, with provisos for the potential differences between nihilists, given what they desired in that situation. IOW I met your request. But, you ask for it again as if it never happened. I mean, that's ok. My doorbell isn't working today for some reason also. That is...such things are a part of life.

If you say so.

I'll just leave it to others here to decide for themselves if you either did or did not meet my request.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:08 pm
Now, either Iwannaplato will encompass his own take on nihilism in the same manner or he won't. in regard to abortion or in regard to an issue that is of particular importance to him.

I did weigh in on abortion in relation to how a pure/true nihilist would view it, with provisos for the potential differences between nihilists, given what they desired in that situation. IOW I met your request. But, you ask for it again as if it never happened. I mean, that's ok. My doorbell isn't working today for some reason also. That is...such things are a part of life.

If you say so.

I'll just leave to others here to decide for themselves if you either did or did not meet my request.

Hallucinating a gallery that could give a shit, it seems.
viewtopic.php?p=606746#p606746

And I wrote more in my penultimate post.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:09 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:06 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:47 pm I did weigh in on abortion in relation to how a pure/true nihilist would view it, with provisos for the potential differences between nihilists, given what they desired in that situation. IOW I met your request. But, you ask for it again as if it never happened. I mean, that's ok. My doorbell isn't working today for some reason also. That is...such things are a part of life.

If you say so.

I'll just leave to others here to decide for themselves if you either did or did not meet my request.

Hallucinating a gallery that could give a shit, it seems.
viewtopic.php?p=606746#p606746

And I wrote more in my penultimate post.

My Stooge! He's back!!

Moe, as I recall.

Further when you responded to my description you said....

He or she might take a position analogous to Wittgenstein's suggestion that, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". It's futile to discuss and debate the morality of abortion because language in a No God world [philosophical or otherwise] is not able resolve anything.

Sure, as if, well I said that also in different words. It's odd, you say this as if it disagrees with what I wrote. It fits. It's like you saw what I wrote, decided you had to disagree or label it negatively, which you also did, but then wrote something that fits in perfectly.

You also call it 'your pure nihilist' Well, no. I went with the general definition of pure or true nihilism. And more sources can easily be brought in to cover those points.

It's fine if you have some idiosyncratic definition and make this clear in a discussion, but don't attribute a generally accepted set of qualities for nihilism to me.

That's mystification.

It's just constant, this not really responding on your part. Mislabeling, using perjoratives for posts that have the same qualities as your posts, pretending things never happened and then universalizing your values. (we need) I mean, I was being generous when I said you were a partial nihilist.

Just because you didn't get the feeling or consequence you did not want does not mean other people failed in some way.

Apart from what I quoted above, you said the nihist as I presented it was showing political prejudices and attitudes caused by dasein. The latter point does not matter, even if true. That's their attitude about rights. That these are hallucinated. As far as political positions, yeah, so...they have a negative attitude about political positions and political authority. That's what they have. So, what. It's still their position. I did what you asked. You don't like it, but that's irrelevant. It didn't solve whatever you want solved, but that's irrelevant. That's not a failure on my part. Scream at the pure nihilists for not solving your problems.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:19 pm Further when you responded to my description you said....

He or she might take a position analogous to Wittgenstein's suggestion that, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". It's futile to discuss and debate the morality of abortion because language in a No God world [philosophical or otherwise] is not able resolve anything.

Sure, it's odd, you say this as if it disagrees with what I wrote. It fits. It's like you saw what I wrote, decided you had to disagree or label it negatively, which you also did, but then wrote something that fits in perfectly.

Again, down to earth.

Mary aborting Jane. A discussion [in a free will world] about whether the abortion was moral or immoral.

Someone embracing Wittgenstein above argues, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". So, he advises all to just walk away from the discussion because nothing can ever be resolved here.

Uh, philosophically?

Because out in the real world where actual flesh and blood women are confronted with actual flesh and blood fetuses, walking away isn't an option. Not for the pregnant women. And not for those who are part of the legal system if abortion where Mary resides is illegal.

Now, I've explained above why, as a moral nihilist, "I" am drawn and quartered in confronting abortion as a moral issue. What of Iwannaplato? What of those here who are moral objectivists? How do they go about demonstrating that the manner in which they react to Mary's abortion as a moral issue is [re Kant and others] the categorical and imperative obligation of all those who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous people.

Then the part where I suggest further that even among the objectivists, their moral convictions are derived existentially from dasein, rather than from some self-righteous "spiritual/religious" [God] or "intellectual/deontological" [No God] dogma.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:19 pmYou also call it 'your pure nihilist' Well, no. I went with the general definition of pure or true nihilism. And more sources can easily be brought in to cover those points.

Ah, defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence. Bring on your sources. Pertaining to the morality of abortion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:19 pmIt's fine if you have some idiosyncratic definition and make this clear in a discussion, but don't attribute a generally accepted set of qualities for nihilism to me.

That's mystification.

Whatever, given a particular context, that means.

Then, of course, making this all about me. How "technically" I'm, what, not a real philosopher like he is?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:19 pmIt's just constant, this not really responding on your part. Mislabeling, using perjoratives for posts that have the same qualities as your posts, pretending things never happened and then universalizing your values. (we need) I mean, I was being generous when I said you were a partial nihilist.

Just because you didn't get the feeling or consequence you did not want does not mean other people failed in some way.

Again, by all means, let others decide the extent to which our renditions of nihilism/moral nihilism come closest to what one would expect from a "serious philosopher".

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:54 pm Again, down to earth.

Mary aborting Jane. A discussion [in a free will world] about whether the abortion was moral or immoral.

Right. A pure nihilist is a moral anti-realist. What is it you do not understand?

Because out in the real world where actual flesh and blood women are confronted with actual flesh and blood fetuses, walking away isn't an option. Not for the pregnant women. And not for those who are part of the legal system if abortion where Mary resides is illegal.

Of course. Are you blaming me for this? Did your posts protect them? help them? Help society? Does your version of nihilism help these women? Or perhaps this wasn't some kind of accusation, just somethng tossed in as if part of an argument or criticism. No, no. It's ok, don't make such things clear. Let implications hang in the air. The implication seems to be, at the very least, I somehow don't realize that real people suffer around this and other issues in the real world. And why do you assume this? Because I defined pure nihilists as moral antirealists, epistemological skeptics, skeptics of all authorities and as considering life meaningless. Somehow this entails I need to be reminded that women and others are suffering out there. What a bizzarre assumption.

Now, I've explained above why, as a moral nihilist, "I" am drawn and quartered in confronting abortion as a moral issue.

Yes, so you've said. And why 'as a moral nihilist'??? I mean one could be a moral realist and be 'drawn and quartered'. One could not be sure what position is right. Or have mixed feelings about the issue to this degree while being a moral realist. Moral realists can feel torn about all sorts of issues. Medical issues, military issues, political budget issues...there are so many issues where sacrifice here may help others here and people feel torn between core attitudes and values, despite being non-nihilists. They could and do present many issues as you sometimes present the abortion issue with an argument for one policy/law/decision followed by a different one that would lead to a different conclusion.

And given that you seemed to think I needed to be reminded that real women suffer around this issue...perhaps you need to be reminded - since you constantly tell us about your suffering around this issue - that your drawn and quartered is humorously melodramatic given that you are not these women, not a woman who will die in an amateur abortion and so on. How useful is this kind of moral grandstanding, implying that others don't realize real women are involved? and how ironic coming from a nihilist when you do it in relation to others here.

Ah, defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence. Bring on your sources. Pertaining to the morality of abortion.

I already quoted a source. Notice that you can't even manage to say my definition is incorrect. Or come with a source yourself. Pure/true nihilists (and in fact nihilism in general) is defined as I said in my first post on the topic. Of course it does not resolve the morality or immorality of abortion. It is a moral antirealist stance. And who the fuck said that what I wrote led to a resolution of the issue. (re:"defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence") YOu just make shit up. Perhaps you think this style of dialogue is useful somehow. Or maybe, since you are nihilist of some kind, you just think it's fun to make up the positions of the people you are discussing things with. Why don't you stop that kind of behavior and see if the discussion improves? by your own criteria for improvement. It's unpleasant behavior in any case for me.
If I say that you with regularity imply and state strawman arguments in relation to me, will this also be construed as my saying you are not a 'real philosopher' whatever the fuck that means. Or does it simply mean I am pointing out that you make up shit? If we disagree about the meaning of a term that means we disagree about a term, so you can take your mindreading pretenses and practice them on someone else.

Then, of course, making this all about me. How "technically" I'm, what, not a real philosopher like he is?

Put words I didn't and don't use in my mouth. Heck, some kind of pejorative concept I don't use with any words, those or others. You just make shit up.

Again, by all means, let others decide the extent to which our renditions of nihilism/moral nihilism come closest to what one would expect from a "serious philosopher".

Make up more words I did not use, hell concepts I don't use You just make shit up.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:54 pm Again, down to earth.

Mary aborting Jane. A discussion [in a free will world] about whether the abortion was moral or immoral.

Someone embracing Wittgenstein above argues, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". So, he advises all to just walk away from the discussion because nothing can ever be resolved here.

Uh, philosophically?

Right. A pure nihilist is a moral anti-realist. What is it you do not understand?

From my own subjective perspective, it's not what I don't understand, it's how you would explain being a "pure nihilist who is a moral anti-realist" here to Mary. As opposed to how I would explain moral nihilism as I understand it to her. I would tell her that I agree with Wittgenstein above given a No God world, but that when we choose to interact with others in a community where unwanted pregnancies occur, one way or another, laws have to be enacted either proscribing or not proscribing abortion. And if someone is involved in a particular context where an abortion does happen, what choice do they have but to take an existential leap to a particular moral and political prejudice? I'd try to explain to her how here "I" am "fractured and fragmented" in my own reaction to it. Given the arguments I raise in the threads above.

Okay, what does your "pure nihilist" note to her?

Because out in the real world where actual flesh and blood women are confronted with actual flesh and blood fetuses, walking away isn't an option. Not for the pregnant women. And not for those who are part of the legal system if abortion where Mary resides is illegal.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm Of course. Are you blaming me for this? Did your posts protect them? help them? Help society? Does your version of nihilism help these women?

Huh? Where is this coming from? My point is that each of us here has his or her own philosophical understanding of moral nihilism. But how "for all practical purposes" do we integrate that into actual contexts where women we know and care about choose abortion. Or are uncertain about it.

Then [for me] more of the same:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm Or perhaps this wasn't some kind of accusation, just somethng tossed in as if part of an argument or criticism. No, no. It's ok, don't make such things clear. Let implications hang in the air. The implication seems to be, at the very least, I somehow don't realize that real people suffer around this and other issues in the real world. And why do you assume this? Because I defined pure nihilists as moral antirealists, epistemological skeptics, skeptics of all authorities and as considering life meaningless. Somehow this entails I need to be reminded that women and others are suffering out there. What a bizzarre assumption.

This may be profoundly relevant to you in discussing the abortion with Mary, but I'd go about it differently myself. Focusing more on my uncertainty, ambiguity, ambivalence and the like. Noting to Mary that to the best of her own ability, she has to think her decision through and [perhaps] she can reach a less fractured and fragmented conclusion instead.

Now, I've explained above why, as a moral nihilist, "I" am drawn and quartered in confronting abortion as a moral issue. What of Iwannaplato? What of those here who are moral objectivists? How do they go about demonstrating that the manner in which they react to Mary's abortion as a moral issue is [re Kant and others] the categorical and imperative obligation of all those who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous people.

Then the part where I suggest further that even among the objectivists, their moral convictions are derived existentially from dasein, rather than from some self-righteous "spiritual/religious" [God] or "intellectual/deontological" [No God] dogma.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pmYes, so you've said. And why 'as a moral nihilist'??? I mean one could be a moral realist and be 'drawn and quartered'. One could not be sure what position is right. Or have mixed feelings about the issue to this degree while being a moral realist. Moral realists can feel torn about all sorts of issues. Medical issues, military issues, political budget issues...there are so many issues where sacrifice here may help others here and people feel torn between core attitudes and values, despite being non-nihilists. They could and do present many issues as you sometimes present the abortion issue with an argument for one policy/law/decision followed by a different one that would lead to a different conclusion.

Again, bring all of those issues up with Mary. Or with any other actual flesh and blood woman you know dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. See what seems relevant and sticks and what doesn't.

But the crucial distinction I always come back to is this: that however one wants to encompass nihilism intellectually in the is/ought world, it is far removed from the moral objectivists among us who insist that how they construe the ethical parameters of abortion is how all others must construe it if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm And given that you seemed to think I needed to be reminded that real women suffer around this issue...perhaps you need to be reminded - since you constantly tell us about your suffering around this issue - that your drawn and quartered is humorously melodramatic given that you are not these women, not a woman who will die in an amateur abortion and so on. How useful is this kind of moral grandstanding, implying that others don't realize real women are involved? and how ironic coming from a nihilist when you do it in relation to others here.

I had one personal experience with a close friend [Mary above] in which I did agonize over her abortion. Why? Because John was also a close friend. And he introduced me to the "other side" of the coin.

Encompassed in turn in a scene from Woody Allen's Another Woman:

Man: How arrogant! How self-centered and feelingless!
Woman: I told you I didn't want a baby!
Man: What do you mean, "didn't want a baby"? It was partly mine!
Woman: Except it's my life that gets derailed. You go on doing what you want and I have to stop and bring it up.
Man: But we'd share the responsibility.
Woman: You know it would devolve down to me.
Man: I wanted this baby!
Woman: I told you, it was not part of my plan.
Man: But you [aborted it] it without consulting me.
Woman: Consulting you?! It's my baby! Do I have to consult you for every move I make? It's only your ego that's hurt.
Man: You said you wanted children.
Woma: I do, but not now.
Man: I don't have the future stretched out in front of me indefinitely.
Woman: It's easy for you to say. You've done your work. I'm just starting out, trying to make something of myself!
Man: But you could do it without asking me! Or giving me a chance to argue you out of it!
Woman: I didn't want to be argued out of it. We've talked this to death! lt was unwanted! Do you want to bring a child into this world? Really, you're the one that hates it so much, forever lecturing me on the pointlessness of existence.
Man: I hate you so! To be capable of such a lack of feeling! Knowing how I felt!

From this experience [along with William Barrett's Irrational Man], my own moral objectivism began to crumble. Only I took it further. For Barrett, the conundrum was "rival goods", while for me it began to revolve more and more around the conclusion that there were no goods in the objectivist sense but only conflicting sets of subjective assumptions about good and bad.

Where you are going here still largely pertains [to me] to an exchange of general description intellectual contraption definitions and deductions.

Ah, defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence. Bring on your sources. Pertaining to the morality of abortion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm I already quoted a source.

Please note it again. A source that encompasses nihilism and abortion as I did above for Agent Smith? A source that encompasses nihilism and abortions as I did in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 ?

Then back to making it all about me:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pmNotice that you can't even manage to say my definition is incorrect. Or come with a source yourself. Pure/true nihilists (and in fact nihilism in general) is defined as I said in my first post on the topic. Of course it does not resolve the morality or immorality of abortion. It is a moral antirealist stance. And who the fuck said that what I wrote led to a resolution of the issue. (re:"defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence") YOu just make shit up. Perhaps you think this style of dialogue is useful somehow. Or maybe, since you are nihilist of some kind, you just think it's fun to make up the positions of the people you are discussing things with. Why don't you stop that kind of behavior and see if the discussion improves? by your own criteria for improvement. It's unpleasant behavior in any case for me.

If I say that you with regularity imply and state strawman arguments in relation to me, will this also be construed as my saying you are not a 'real philosopher' whatever the fuck that means. Or does it simply mean I am pointing out that you make up shit? If we disagree about the meaning of a term that means we disagree about a term, so you can take your mindreading pretenses and practice them on someone else.

Let's keep it focused on Mary. Or in regard to your own take on nihilism and morality pertaining another moral conflagration that is ever and always in the news.

Oh, spare me. What a time waster you are.

ME:

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:39 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:54 pm Again, down to earth.

Mary aborting Jane. A discussion [in a free will world] about whether the abortion was moral or immoral.

Someone embracing Wittgenstein above argues, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". So, he advises all to just walk away from the discussion because nothing can ever be resolved here.

Uh, philosophically?

Right. A pure nihilist is a moral anti-realist. What is it you do not understand?

From my own subjective perspective, it's not what I don't understand, it's how you would explain being a "pure nihilist who is a moral anti-realist" here to Mary. As opposed to how I would explain moral nihilism as I understand it to her. I would tell her that I agree with Wittgenstein above given a No God world, but that when we choose to interact with others in a community where unwanted pregnancies occur, one way or another, laws have to be enacted either proscribing or not proscribing abortion. And if someone is involved in a particular context where an abortion does happen, what choice do they have but to take an existential leap to a particular moral and political prejudice? I'd try to explain to her how here "I" am "fractured and fragmented" in my own reaction to it. Given the arguments I raise in the threads above.

Okay, what does your "pure nihilist" note to her?

Because out in the real world where actual flesh and blood women are confronted with actual flesh and blood fetuses, walking away isn't an option. Not for the pregnant women. And not for those who are part of the legal system if abortion where Mary resides is illegal.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm Of course. Are you blaming me for this? Did your posts protect them? help them? Help society? Does your version of nihilism help these women?

Huh? Where is this coming from? My point is that each of us here has his or her own philosophical understanding of moral nihilism. But how "for all practical purposes" do we integrate that into actual contexts where women we know and care about choose abortion. Or are uncertain about it.

Then [for me] more of the same:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm Or perhaps this wasn't some kind of accusation, just somethng tossed in as if part of an argument or criticism. No, no. It's ok, don't make such things clear. Let implications hang in the air. The implication seems to be, at the very least, I somehow don't realize that real people suffer around this and other issues in the real world. And why do you assume this? Because I defined pure nihilists as moral antirealists, epistemological skeptics, skeptics of all authorities and as considering life meaningless. Somehow this entails I need to be reminded that women and others are suffering out there. What a bizzarre assumption.

This may be profoundly relevant to you in discussing the abortion with Mary, but I'd go about it differently myself. Focusing more on my uncertainty, ambiguity, ambivalence and the like. Noting to Mary that to the best of her own ability, she has to think her decision through and [perhaps] she can reach a less fractured and fragmented conclusion instead.

Now, I've explained above why, as a moral nihilist, "I" am drawn and quartered in confronting abortion as a moral issue. What of Iwannaplato? What of those here who are moral objectivists? How do they go about demonstrating that the manner in which they react to Mary's abortion as a moral issue is [re Kant and others] the categorical and imperative obligation of all those who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous people.

Then the part where I suggest further that even among the objectivists, their moral convictions are derived existentially from dasein, rather than from some self-righteous "spiritual/religious" [God] or "intellectual/deontological" [No God] dogma.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pmYes, so you've said. And why 'as a moral nihilist'??? I mean one could be a moral realist and be 'drawn and quartered'. One could not be sure what position is right. Or have mixed feelings about the issue to this degree while being a moral realist. Moral realists can feel torn about all sorts of issues. Medical issues, military issues, political budget issues...there are so many issues where sacrifice here may help others here and people feel torn between core attitudes and values, despite being non-nihilists. They could and do present many issues as you sometimes present the abortion issue with an argument for one policy/law/decision followed by a different one that would lead to a different conclusion.

Again, bring all of those issues up with Mary. Or with any other actual flesh and blood woman you know dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. See what seems relevant and sticks and what doesn't.

But the crucial distinction I always come back to is this: that however one wants to encompass nihilism intellectually in the is/ought world, it is far removed from the moral objectivists among us who insist that how they construe the ethical parameters of abortion is how all others must construe it if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm And given that you seemed to think I needed to be reminded that real women suffer around this issue...perhaps you need to be reminded - since you constantly tell us about your suffering around this issue - that your drawn and quartered is humorously melodramatic given that you are not these women, not a woman who will die in an amateur abortion and so on. How useful is this kind of moral grandstanding, implying that others don't realize real women are involved? and how ironic coming from a nihilist when you do it in relation to others here.

I had one personal experience with a close friend [Mary above] in which I did agonize over her abortion. Why? Because John was also a close friend. And he introduced me to the "other side" of the coin.

Encompassed in turn in a scene from Woody Allen's Another Woman:

Man: How arrogant! How self-centered and feelingless!
Woman: I told you I didn't want a baby!
Man: What do you mean, "didn't want a baby"? It was partly mine!
Woman: Except it's my life that gets derailed. You go on doing what you want and I have to stop and bring it up.
Man: But we'd share the responsibility.
Woman: You know it would devolve down to me.
Man: I wanted this baby!
Woman: I told you, it was not part of my plan.
Man: But you [aborted it] it without consulting me.
Woman: Consulting you?! It's my baby! Do I have to consult you for every move I make? It's only your ego that's hurt.
Man: You said you wanted children.
Woma: I do, but not now.
Man: I don't have the future stretched out in front of me indefinitely.
Woman: It's easy for you to say. You've done your work. I'm just starting out, trying to make something of myself!
Man: But you could do it without asking me! Or giving me a chance to argue you out of it!
Woman: I didn't want to be argued out of it. We've talked this to death! lt was unwanted! Do you want to bring a child into this world? Really, you're the one that hates it so much, forever lecturing me on the pointlessness of existence.
Man: I hate you so! To be capable of such a lack of feeling! Knowing how I felt!

From this experience [along with William Barrett's Irrational Man], my own moral objectivism began to crumble. Only I took it further. For Barrett, the conundrum was "rival goods", while for me it began to revolve more and more around the conclusion that there were no goods in the objectivist sense but only conflicting sets of subjective assumptions about good and bad.

Where you are going here still largely pertains [to me] to an exchange of general description intellectual contraption definitions and deductions.

Ah, defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence. Bring on your sources. Pertaining to the morality of abortion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pm I already quoted a source.

Please note it again. A source that encompasses nihilism and abortion as I did above for Agent Smith? A source that encompasses nihilism and abortions as I did in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 ?

Then back to making it all about me:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:20 pmNotice that you can't even manage to say my definition is incorrect. Or come with a source yourself. Pure/true nihilists (and in fact nihilism in general) is defined as I said in my first post on the topic. Of course it does not resolve the morality or immorality of abortion. It is a moral antirealist stance. And who the fuck said that what I wrote led to a resolution of the issue. (re:"defining and/or deducing the resolution to all of this into existence") YOu just make shit up. Perhaps you think this style of dialogue is useful somehow. Or maybe, since you are nihilist of some kind, you just think it's fun to make up the positions of the people you are discussing things with. Why don't you stop that kind of behavior and see if the discussion improves? by your own criteria for improvement. It's unpleasant behavior in any case for me.

If I say that you with regularity imply and state strawman arguments in relation to me, will this also be construed as my saying you are not a 'real philosopher' whatever the fuck that means. Or does it simply mean I am pointing out that you make up shit? If we disagree about the meaning of a term that means we disagree about a term, so you can take your mindreading pretenses and practice them on someone else.

Let's keep it focused on Mary. Or in regard to your own take on nihilism and morality pertaining another moral conflagration that is ever and always in the news.

HIM:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:32 am Oh, spare me. What a time waster you are.

Let's call it the Karpel Tunnel Syndrome.

From ILP:

HumAnIze wrote: I remember trying to read Nagel, was not impressed. Couldn't get past the constant errors.

Great, just what we need here, another "my way or the highway", "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" objectivist.

So...

Not sure if you are in error?

Well, do you agree with HumAnIze about nihilism and Nagel? No? Then you are in error.

HumAnIze wrote: Nihilism is a psychological reaction to what are otherwise philosophical questions/problems. When you attempt to address the problems in your life philosophically, as everyone does even if only to a very minimal degree, you will eventually reach a limit. This limit represents a cognitive ideational limit within and as your own mind. The proper response is to keep pushing and developing your ideas, expand your philosophy, make it better. Learn more truth.

But many people don't know how to do that or have an instinct not to, for whatever reason. So they revert to mere psychology and start warping their own personality, emotions, motivations etc. in order to try and cope with their own cognitive limitations that prevent them from solving the problems at hand.

Okay, let's bring this down to earth. For me, nihilism revolves around the is/ought world. That's why I call myself a moral nihilist.

With the either/or world of math and science and nature and the empirical world around us and the logical rules of language, I'm not a nihilist at all. Nihilism doesn't come into play here in my view until we get to sim worlds, dream world, solllipsism and the Matrix.

So...

Let HumAnIze choose a particular context -- Mary, Jane and abortion being my own personal favorite -- and we can dig in regarding nihilism and our respective moral philosophies.

In regard to the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?" I make the philosophical assumption that, in a No God world, the arguments I make in my signature threads are reasonable.

HumAnIze wrote: Nihilism is stupid and silly; just like radical skepticism and solipsism it is self-defeating. But what's interesting is that the adherents of these ideas are unable to understand how the ideas are self-defeating, I suppose because having integrated these into their own personalities they become unable to properly analyze them philosophically. They cannot be objective.

Nihilistic "philosophy" is a contradiction in terms. Philosophy is about expanding meaning and truth, not curtailing and retarding it.

Context please.

If to the conservative elements the nihilists were the curse of the time, to the liberals such as N.G. Chernyshevsky they represented a mere transitory factor in the development of national thought—a stage in the struggle for individual freedom—and a true spirit of the rebellious young generation. In his novel What Is to Be Done? (1863), Chernyshevsky endeavoured to detect positive aspects in the nihilist philosophy. Similarly, in his Memoirs, Prince Peter Kropotkin, the leading Russian anarchist, defined nihilism as the symbol of struggle against all forms of tyranny, hypocrisy, and artificiality and for individual freedom.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nihilism

Thomas Nagel
The Absurd

It may be objected that the standpoint from which these doubts are supposed to be felt does not exist---that if we take the recommended backward step we will land on thin air, without any basis for judgment about the natural responses we are supposed to be surveying. If we retain our usual standards of what is important, then questions about the significance of what we are doing with our lives will be answerable in the usual way. But if we do not, then those questions can mean nothing to us, since there is no longer any content to the idea of what matters, and hence no content to the idea that nothing does.

Back to why I point out time and again that abstract assessments of this sort can mean practically anything if they revolve solely around what we think he means by the words put in this particular order. Doubts about what given what particular set of circumstances? What "natural responses" in regard to what sequence of events? How about the mid-term elections in America? Your usual standards of what is important here or mine? Our usual significance or theirs?

Backward or forward here given what set of political prejudices?

But this objection misconceives the nature of the backward step. It is not supposed to give us an understanding of what is really important, so that we see by contrast that our lives are insignificant. We never, in the course of these reflections, abandon the ordinary standards that guide our lives. We merely observe them in operation, and recognize that if they are called into question we can justify them only by reference to themselves, uselessly. We adhere to them because of the way we are put together; what seems to us important or serious or valuable would not seem so if we were differently constituted.

In a word: dasein.

But how is this made clearer without illustrating the text? The liberals step back in regard to the Tuesday election result and see significance and insignificance quite differently from the backward steps the MAGA camp takes. After all, how many liberals and conservatives stepped back on Wednesday and did abandon their own political prejudices? Our standards are our prejudices. Though that is hardly a "useless" conclusion. Not out in the real world.

In fact, I'm the one emphasizing this part:

"We adhere to them because of the way we are put together; what seems to us important or serious or valuable would not seem so if we were differently constituted."

Dasein in a nutshell of course.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:39 pm

If to the conservative elements the nihilists were the curse of the time, to the liberals such as N.G. Chernyshevsky they represented a mere transitory factor in the development of national thought—a stage in the struggle for individual freedom—and a true spirit of the rebellious young generation. In his novel What Is to Be Done? (1863), Chernyshevsky endeavoured to detect positive aspects in the nihilist philosophy. Similarly, in his Memoirs, Prince Peter Kropotkin, the leading Russian anarchist, defined nihilism as the symbol of struggle against all forms of tyranny, hypocrisy, and artificiality and for individual freedom.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nihilism

I like the idea of a philosophical or political position as a transition position. Not necessarily for the individual. The individual might hold it for the rest of life. But that problems/trends/extremes in society might create philosophical positions that are helpful in context, but might be a problem if held as universal or objective truths for all time and locations. We tend to look at truth and positions on things are needing to pass the gauntlet of eternally appropriate and certain, whereas in their place and time they may be perfectly lovely. We view language as a container for truth. We have the mirror, representational model of truth. We beat our truths to death. What is someone's truth doing might be a better question (and one that certainly gets asked)? Perhaps what beliefs do is their truth - taking a bit of Zen ideas about assertions as pointing/inspiring rather than being truths.