Dasein/dasein

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let them mull that over, agree on one and get back to us.

Though I think you won’t — you couldn’t — I think your response to what the Most Subtle Master Satyr wrote (alabado sea su nombre!) and my meagre comments in response.

Do you have anything to say when a substantial, reasonably thought-out summation is offered?

That would be the upfront way to proceed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But, okay Mr. Serious Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, Mr. Political Scientist, was the US involvement in Vietnam objectively rational or irrational, objectively moral or immoral? Leaving aside the fact that the US military botched it and couldn't get the job done, was the war itself justified?

Was the Holocaust justified? Well, ask the Nazis. Is raping and killing a child justified? Well, ask the sociopath.

Take that question (preferably about Vietnam) and start a thread. I will happily share my thoughts.

You do better to focus on one general question, not a knot of 5-6.

It is less-than-proper to deviate in this thread to such an important topic. It deserves its own.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Iambiguous: do you prefer serious or non-serious philosophers and philosophy?

Do you recognize philosophy as a serious endeavor?

[iambiguous]

For those who just can't get enough of what I am able to reduce him down to: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198441

Indeed, I have so flustered him this time that it's now Christmas on May Day there.

[iambiguous]

We'll need a context of course.

Let them mull that over, agree on one and get back to us.

Otherwise, they could not possibly be more alike in projecting to the world as the quintessential Serious Philosopher. I can easily imagine both of them sitting back and imagining others reading what they post and simply marveling at how "erudite" they are.

Still, why won't AJ post there? Again, I suspect, he notes a few things that he would challenge Satyr regarding. And this would risk breaking up their tag team assault on me.

Though I think you won’t — you couldn’t — I think your response to what the Most Subtle Master Satyr wrote (alabado sea su nombre!) and my meagre comments in response.

Do you have anything to say when a substantial, reasonably thought-out summation is offered?

That would be the upfront way to proceed.

Again, given what context?

How about...

Resolved: the Nazis were actually misunderstood.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, given what context?

How about...

Resolved: the Nazis were actually misunderstood.

You amaze! You have opportunities to discuss, in detail and sincerely, the issues that seem important to you, and what you do is play games. Now at least you might grasp why I cannot take you seriously.

[iambiguous]

But, okay Mr. Serious Philosopher, Mr. Ethicist, Mr. Political Scientist, was the US involvement in Vietnam objectively rational or irrational, objectively moral or immoral? Leaving aside the fact that the US military botched it and couldn't get the job done, was the war itself justified?

Was the Holocaust justified? Well, ask the Nazis. Is raping and killing a child justified? Well, ask the sociopath.

Take that question (preferably about Vietnam) and start a thread. I will happily share my thoughts.

You do better to focus on one general question, not a knot of 5-6.

It is less-than-proper to deviate in this thread to such an important topic. It deserves its own.

Nope, I'll stick with this thread. Why? Because my whole point is that value judgments such as this are rooted existentially in dasein.

Ask a capitalist if wars against Communists are rational. Ask a socialist.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5002 ... apitalism/
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1472 ... socialism/

Both sides, starting with different assumptions about the human condition, are able make reasonable arguments that the other side can't simply make disappear.

Which is probably why in most modern industrial states, aspects of both political economies are employed "for all practical purposes". Wall Street meet the Welfare State.

Still, the fanatics at both ends of the political spectrum will still staunchly insist that it's got to be all of one and none of the other.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous: do you prefer serious or non-serious philosophers and philosophy?

Do you recognize philosophy as a serious endeavor?

Over and over and over again...

My own interest in philosophy revolves by and large around the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

Sure, there's a place for going up into the technical clouds and discussing ethics as it pertains to things like logical thinking and epistemologically sound arguments.

All I ask of those who go there is to bring their conclusions down out of the theoretical clouds and note how in their view they are applicable given a particular set of circumstances in which there are often conflicted value judgments.

This thread merely focuses in on human identity as a component of this.

[iambiguous]

Of course, the coward and hypocrite, Karen, will not come and engage me....she only talks the talk....keeping it on the skyhooks....never bringing it down to earth in the here and now.
All she can do is try to save face using her Karen methods:
Look what I've reduced him to.
Huffing and puffing

It true. The last time he made an appearance at ILP, I went about the business of simply making a fool out of him. It's all but effortless now because no one...and I mean no one...is more inept at repartee than he is. It's just excruciating reading posts from him where he attempts to be "clever".

Also, I had decided to pull back from the huffing and puffing. It just didn't entertain me as it once did when, regarding those like pheneutria, turd and others, they could thump me as good as I could thump them.

I mean why on earth would I engage in a substantive philosophical exchange with someone who posts things like he did above?!!

He's not even embarrassed by it!!!

[Magnus Anderson]

Iambiguous: do you prefer serious or non-serious philosophers and philosophy?

Do you recognize philosophy as a serious endeavor?

He's not complaining about serious philosophers. He's complaining about "serious" philosophers i.e. philosophers who appear serious, or at least, try their best to look serious, but aren't really. We call them charlatans. We also call them pseudo-intellectuals. They are also known as sophists. They are frequently French but they can also be of any other nationality ( German, American, etc. ) Biggy and his favorite philosopher Kevin Durant call them "epistemologists". I am not sure they understand what epistemology is. But then, Kevin Durant is not a philosopher. Jaylen Brown is. So you can't expect better than that.

[Magnus Anderson]

My own interest in philosophy revolves by and large around the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

That's pretty much the question everyone is trying to answer.

All I ask of those who go there is to bring their conclusions down out of the theoretical clouds and note how in their view they are applicable given a particular set of circumstances in which there are often conflicted value judgments.

That's what you think you're doing. You think you're James Randi of philosophy forums ( your own words. ) What did James Randi do? As far as I can recall, he went around asking people who make supernatural claims to prove them. Obviously, you think you're someone who's going around asking people who make claims pertaining to moral issues to prove them. But the problem is that you don't know what constitutes a proof. In other words, you can't assess the quality of a philosophical argument. What you're doing instead is you're trying to pull people into pointless conversations with you in an effort to portray them as charlatans ( regardless of whether or not they are charlatans ) and to preach moral subjectivism i.e. the idea that the truth value of moral proposition is whatever you want it to be. "Mary is right from her side, John is right from side. They are both right. It's not either / or. This is not an either / or world!"

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nope, I'll stick with this thread.

Have it your way. Yet unless it is in a separate thread you'll be on your own.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My own interest in philosophy revolves by and large around the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

I mentioned Joseph Mitchell's Joe Gould's Secret. More and more some aspects of your philosophical neurosis remind me of the protagonist of that story.

It is really a non-question or, as I say, the quintessential neurotic’s trap. There is no answer and you know it. The question is your trap. You have no answer of any sort. And you know you will never answer it and any answer proffered you adeptly shoot down. Tricky! You are stuck in debilitating indecision.

But I know the answer to the question. I have the answer. I solved it looooonnngggg ago.

[iambiguous]

My own interest in philosophy revolves by and large around the question, "how ought one to live morally in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?"

That's pretty much the question everyone is trying to answer.

Come on, you know damn well there are posters here [and there] who are adamant that their days of trying to answer it are long gone. They have answered it. Objectively.

Or, for those like you...logically.

God or No God, just ask them for the answer. About abortion, about guns, about homosexuals. More to the point [mine] dare to insist to them that it is your answer instead. Still, what disturbs them [on either side] about me is that I suggest that in a No God world there is no Right or Wrong answer. Philosophically or otherwise. That, as Nietzsche suggested, in a No God world, we are beyond Good and Evil. All things can be rationalized...and all the way up to mass murder and genocide.

All I ask of those who go there is to bring their conclusions down out of the theoretical clouds and note how in their view they are applicable given a particular set of circumstances in which there are often conflicted value judgments.

That's what you think you're doing. You think you're James Randi of philosophy forums ( your own words. ) What did James Randi do? As far as I can recall, he went around asking people who make supernatural claims to prove them. Obviously, you think you're someone who's going around asking people who make claims pertaining to moral issues to prove them. But the problem is that you don't know what constitutes a proof.

The proof regarding what? Again, stop your wiggling and note one of these proofs in regard to a conflicting good most here will be familiar with. Describe the argument such that all of us will agree that no reasonable person could possibly not think exactly as you do.

Claims of the supernatural are entirely different from claims about objective morality. We all agree that pregnancy is as a result of sexual intercourse. A natural thing. But is it natural or unnatural to abort the unborn. After all, in the form of miscarriages and still births, nature is aborting human life all the time.

In other words, you can't assess the quality of a philosophical argument. What you're doing instead is you're trying to pull people into pointless conversations with you in an effort to portray them as charlatans ( regardless of whether or not they are charlatans ) and to preach moral subjectivism i.e. the idea that the truth value of moral proposition is whatever you want it to be. "Mary is right from her side, John is right from side. They are both right. It's not either / or. This is not an either / or world!"

Again, simply preposterous. What I'm pointing out is that the anti-abortion folks insist that the quality of the pro-choice arguments is inferior to their own. Their argument is necessarily rational and moral and the other side's argument is not.

Just cue God or one or another secular Humanist dogma.

[iambiguous]

Nope, I'll stick with this thread.

Have it your way. Yet unless it is in a separate thread you'll be on your own.