Philosophy Now Forum

Hi, umm, becky here, umm, yeah, I think biggy is like totally cool yeah and like, umm, he's like pretty deep and all yeah? Like, he's taught me all about, like, Dasein, and like, I'm still not quite sure what it means cause it's just like SOOOO deep ya know? So yeah. Hi!

ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC!!!

Well Becky, is it pathetic? Is it shameless?

What do you think of asking questions of the 'audience'?

What do you think of calling people stooges?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:53 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:43 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:18 pm Note to others:

Sure -- click -- make up your own minds regarding his post.

Me, I'm still feeling justified in coming back around to this:

Absolutely shameless!!!

Yeah, yeah. I know you feel justified in not acknowledging I knew stuff and could find examples and you were wrong. Feel justified.
Iambiguous is feeling justified.
Well, that's news.

Oh, yes, you probably don't need to tell people to make up their own minds.

I responded to the points you raised above regarding the Ponderer's Guild. You "snipped" that part away.

LOL.
The point was that they had similar reactions to you that people have here. You said I had no idea what I was talking about, but lo, I did.
You couldn't manage to acknowledge that.

It's not like I'm surprised or anything.

Well biggie taught me that, like, if someone's being a stooge, you should like totally call them a stooge. I guess that makes sense, right? Sometimes I think, like, the stooges are asking, like, reasonable questions or something? But he tells me I'm wrong and I believe him, so like, I guess he's just totally way smarter than me, ya know?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:06 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:53 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 10:43 pm
Yeah, yeah. I know you feel justified in not acknowledging I knew stuff and could find examples and you were wrong. Feel justified.
Iambiguous is feeling justified.
Well, that's news.

Oh, yes, you probably don't need to tell people to make up their own minds.

I responded to the points you raised above regarding the Ponderer's Guild. You "snipped" that part away.

LOL.
The point was that they had similar reactions to you that people have here. You said I had no idea what I was talking about, but lo, I did.
You couldn't manage to acknowledge that.

It's not like I'm surprised or anything.

Again, from my post above...

...there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.

But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself? Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.

In other words, we spun ourselves around and around as well. Just as Maurice and the twins spun Nicholas around, they acknowledged they had to make adjustments to his own behaviors and reactions as well.

Also, I noted the reason why, in my view, the objectivists among us react to me as they do...there and here:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing as well. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

Then this part:

With you, however, I am most curious regarding the extent to which, 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
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...you either share or reject my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment and conclusions.

Are you or are you not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods? Given that, as with me "here and now" you do not believe in the existence of a God, the God.

In other words -- click -- discussing what mere mortals in a No God world think about all this with someone like phyllo. To the best of my knowledge, he still believes in his own rendition of God and objective morality. How about exploring that with him here. Given free will of course.

Snip, snip, snip.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:21 pm
Then this part:

You've been writing on philosophy forums for 20 years at least, when are you going to start writing like an adult? What do you mean "then this part"? WHAT ABOUT this part? You're showing us this part for what reason? Write a complete sentence that represents your thoughts. "Then this part" does not do that, that's how children write.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:02 pm Hi, umm, becky here, umm, yeah, I think biggy is like totally cool yeah and like, umm, he's like pretty deep and all yeah? Like, he's taught me all about, like, Dasein, and like, I'm still not quite sure what it means cause it's just like SOOOO deep ya know? So yeah. Hi!

What on Earth does any of this have to do with the points I make pertaining to the Philosophy Now articles I explored above?

Hell, I could have stayed at ILP if this sort of "gotcha!" mentality was what I was looking for.

Instead, I can only garner at least some measure of satisfaction in being able to reduce these particular Three Stooges down to the clown car antics they pursue here. At least with me.


Now that's entertainment!

He doesn't like my Becky hat

Flannel Stooge wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:34 pm He doesn't like my Becky hat

The irony here regarding drivel of this sort is that I'm still no less convinced the Stooges are themselves compelled to post it.

It's beyond their control.

Unless, of course, it's not. And, if it's not, then how embarrassed ought they to be?

Why are you hiding your fake friends?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:21 pm ...there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.

Lovely, but that forum had people who called you out on similar shit you pull here. You said I didn't know squat, asked for examples. I knew squat and gave examples.

But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself?

No one is asking you to do that. You brought up that damn forum, yourself. When I showed the quotes to back up my assertion, you started to argue with the quotes.

Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.

Well, if that's the case, they seemed pretty irritated with you and were saying things that people say here.

In other words, we spun ourselves around and around as well. Just as Maurice and the twins spun Nicholas around, they acknowledged they had to make adjustments to his own behaviors and reactions as well.

I find it hard to believe you think that anyone not you could make sense of that.

Also, I noted the reason why, in my view, the objectivists among us react to me as they do...there and here:

Which is a different topic. Yes, Iknow, it is not possible, in your view, ever to admit when someone else if correct about something you've done or how others have reacted to you.

In the abstract yes, in practice never.

About your own behavior you are up in the clouds. Here on the ground with other people, anyone who criticizes what you do here is a Stooge and you know their psychology.

See, what you did here.

You assert I don't know and can't show.
But I did know and I could show.

So, you start making long posts about other stuff, related, sure, but other stuff. Or spouting near gibberish.

Jeez, I would have been gracious if you could have managed to admit you were wrong about that.
Instead you dig in and flail around instead of admitting really quite obvious stuff.
For reasons unknown.

OK, fine. Again, I am neither surprised nor holding my breath. You feel justified. I believe you feel that way.
Other people will make up their own minds or there are not other people than us four reading this.
Compatibilism awaits.

Here to show I give up on you admitting the obvious, my post after this one will be on topic - Compatibilism - and have nothing to do with you.

Several compatibilists have suggested that freely willed actions issue from volitional features of agency that are sensitive to an appropriate range of reasons (see Dennett 1984a; Fingarette 1972; Gert & Duggan 1979; Glover 1970; MacIntyre 1957; Neely 1974; and Nozick 1981). Agents who are unresponsive to appropriate rational considerations (such as compulsives or neurotics) do not act of their own free wills. But agents who are responsive to some range of rational considerations do. This view has been artfully refined in recent years by Fischer (1987, 1994), and subsequently, Fischer and Ravizza (1998). (For a more advanced discussion of Fischer and Ravizza’s view, which many regard as the gold standard for contemporary compatibilism, see section B of the supplement Compatibilism: The State of the Art.)

I am taking this to mean that for some it is useful to think in terms of flexibility in relation to reasoning. These compatibilists are saying that if you are compulsive or neurotic, then you cannot freely choose your acts, but if you can be given good reasons for choosing act A over act B, then you are free.

To me I don't see this taking a bite out of metaphysical determinism. You have causes that you approve of and causes that you do not approve of, but there is no metaphysical freedom. Why is response to good reasoning less a compelling deterministic chain.

But perhaps what they mean is that if you are reason sensitive, then you can be judged by your moral acts. They are not arguing an ontological difference, but rather a kind of competence to make good decisions and if you don't you re culpable in ways the compulsives are not.

I do have sympathy for this idea. Regardless of what is the case - free will, determinism, indeterminism of some kind - there are people who it makes me queasy if they were sent to prison for crimes I would be happy to see others sent to prison over. There could be many reasons for my different reactions, but the ones I am thinking of in this context have to do with competence. What to do with violent but not competent to reason people is not easy, but I understand on a gut feeling level the sense that there are significant differences.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:21 pm ...there are few forums where I have posted that over time did not generate Stooges.

Lovely, but that forum had people who called you out on similar shit you pull here. You said I didn't know squat, asked for examples. I knew squat and gave examples.

And I responded to those examples above. And "shit" here is always in the mind of the beholder.

But, again, what in particular was the context pertaining to Cioran and Sagan? I'm not going to invest hours myself going back there in order to...deconstruct myself?

No one is asking you to do that. You brought up that damn forum, yourself. When I showed the quotes to back up my assertion, you started to argue with the quotes.

As I noted...

The irony here is this: that over at ILP, Moe once "exposed" me by going all the way back to my exchanges at the now defunct Ponderer's Guild.

In other words, I brought it up because the shit I get from the Stooges here is not all that far removed from the shit I got from the Stooges there. Or is everyone here expected to subscribe only to your own rendition of shit? Me, I acknowledge over and again that my own assessment here [in regard to value judgments] is no less but the existential embodiment of dasein.

Besides, those you are convinced are challenging me there [all those years ago] may well have been posts contributed by Julian and Rebecca.

Well, if that's the case, they seemed pretty irritated with you and were saying things that people say here.

I guess we'll never know then, will we? The B tells me that she was certainly not Victor back then. But we both agree that with Julian, it is not at all out of the question. Julian was always Maurice and Rebecca and I were the twins.

In other words, we spun ourselves around and around as well. Just as Maurice and the twins spun Nicholas around, they acknowledged they had to make adjustments to his own behaviors and reactions as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pmI find it hard to believe you think that anyone not you could make sense of that.

Noted.

Also, I noted the reason why, in my view, the objectivists among us react to me as they do...there and here:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pmWhich is a different topic.

To you, perhaps, but certainly not to me. I've been tangling with objectivists online now for over 20 years. And those are the three main narratives that most pissed them off. They become "Stooges" however only when, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, I construe their reactions to my posts as focusing far more on making me the issue. It's a judgment call.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pmYes, Iknow, it is not possible, in your view, ever to admit when someone else if correct about something you've done or how others have reacted to you.

In the abstract yes, in practice never.

About your own behavior you are up in the clouds. Here on the ground with other people, anyone who criticizes what you do here is a Stooge and you know their psychology.

See, what you did here.

You assert I don't know and can't show.
But I did know and I could show.

As with phyllo, it looks like we're "stuck". There's your rendition of me that I don't recognize at all, and my rendition of you that, no doubt, you don't recognize at all.

Now, again, how about this part:

With you, however, I am most curious regarding the extent to which, 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
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...you either share or reject my own "rooted existentially in dasein" assessment and conclusions.

Are you or are you not "fractured and fragmented" in regard to conflicting goods? Given that, as with me "here and now" you do not believe in the existence of a God, the God.

Seriously, let's focus in on a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you. Then -- click -- we can explore in depth our respective moral philosophies. In the Applied Ethics forum.

A civil and intelligent exchange.

If nothing else you can, in a civil and intelligent manner, note specific instances of all your complaints about me.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:42 am
A civil and intelligent .

If nothing else you can, in a civil and intelligent manner, note specific instances of all your complaints about me.

He's already done that.

You don't get the benefit of civil and intelligent exchanges anymore, every time people tried to interact with you in a civil way it was always you who bared your fangs first. No matter how civil people are with you, it's never long before you call people stooges or say other insultingly dismissive things to them. It's completely bizarre to hear you ask for a civil and intelligent exchange now, after other people begged for that from you so many times. You failed at that. You are a failure at that. You don't know how to do it. You're too defensive, too insulting, too insecure, too narcissistic - you can't do it.

Don't be surprised that people are done being civil to you, you're a fucking ass hole.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:42 am In other words, I brought it up because the shit I get from the Stooges here is not all that far removed from the shit I got from the Stooges there.

OK, this is getting surreal. I say that people there had the same kinds of reactions to you.
You tell me I don't know squat and tell me to show you examples.
I show you examples, but somehow I am shameless and wrong....
and here you say it yourself precisely. There were Stooges there also. And why would you call them Stooges, because they were reacting to you in ways that make you call people Stooges.

You admit there were people reacting in similar ways. That's issue one. That was my claim and I demonstrated and here above you confirm it without every acknowledging this.

A different though related issue is whether all the people with similar reactions over the years were right or wrong. But you couldn't manage to acknowledge the first issue. The easy one to check and demonstrate and which you confirm above was the case, as I said it was.


(As an asside: the whole 'explanation' with you and your friends spinning around back then hasn't even convinced you, see the quote above. It was a near gibberish non-defense, which you yourself don't even buy or there wouldn't have been what you call Stooges back then)

Or is everyone here expected to subscribe only to your own rendition of shit?

I don't think there is an everyone I can see the downside for you of you thinking all these 'views' mean that people other than a tiny handful of people are actually reading this. And if you think you actually responded well to my posts, and that all these people are reading this exchange, there's no problem.

Me, I acknowledge over and again that my own assessment here [in regard to value judgments] is no less but the existential embodiment of dasein.

As noted, you do this in the abstract, up in the clouds of abstraction, you concede with no context that you might have a distorted view. It never leads to anything practical.

But when it comes to an actual interaction, a specific one with another person, you never admit that your behavior in these forums is what people say it is in any particular instance. Even when, for example above, you actually confirm the claim that I made earlier where you said I didn't know squat.

I haven't even seen you consider it. You name call and then mind read and play to the gallery.

In other words, we spun ourselves around and around as well. Just as Maurice and the twins spun Nicholas around, they acknowledged they had to make adjustments to his own behaviors and reactions as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pmI find it hard to believe you think that anyone not you could make sense of that.

Noted.

Also, I noted the reason why, in my view, the objectivists among us react to me as they do...there and here:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:57 pmWhich is a different topic.

To you, perhaps, but certainly not to me. I've been tangling with objectivists online now for over 20 years. And those are the three main narratives that most pissed them off

.
Or that's a story you tell yourself to soothe yourself when you are criticized for how you interact with people

You seem utterly incapable of considering that.

They become "Stooges" however only when, from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, I construe their reactions to my posts as focusing far more on making me the issue. It's a judgment call.

And notice how here you make no mention of that fact that they, we, are specifically talking about the way you interact with other people. The only possible narratives you present and it seems even can manage to consider at all, have to do with the other people's psychology.

Supposedly you are fractured and fragmented. Supposedly you think we may or may not know things and our viewpoints are affected by dasein. And yet despite decades of putting forward these positions
in any specific, concrete interaction with others
you only find and present narratives where other people have the problems.

IOW your own philosophy has no affect on you when it comes to your own behavior and interactions.

There are these up in the clouds, after the name calling and mindreading.

As with phyllo, it looks like we're "stuck".

I'm not stuck. To be stuck in relation to you 1) it would mean that I have some expectation you'll shift. I don't. I don't rule it out, but I'm not waiting on it. In fact I took the conversation back to compatibilism. If you're expecting me to fall for this distracting bullshit, you may well be stuck.

Seriously, let's focus in on a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to you.

Yes, lets' talk about Gaza or abortion or...some other issue, which is up in the clouds for us here and now. Some general huge topic.

I'm sure in a dialogue with someone who can't manage to consider a very minor moral issue that he has something to concede on, we'll really get somewhere.

And I'm sure the same kinds of behavior on your part that the three of us and many others through time have reacted to will not come up in the coming dialogue.

I'm not sure why I'm sure of this. In fact I'm not.

If nothing else you can, in a civil and intelligent manner, note specific instances of all your complaints about me.

Asked and answered. Said and done.

The fact that you, here and at ILP, (and Lorikeet over at ILP) are generally posting to the air has nothing to do with how you guys behave.
I'm convinced.

As you say, you're stuck. I'd be stuck if I expected you to admit something. But I don't.

You could respond to the post I made about compatibilism. It's not about you.