Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:58 amCome 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.

The number of people who claim that they have answers to all relevant questions pertaining to how ought one to live is pretty much zero. That alone tells us that they are still looking for answers. Moreover, just because they have answers to certain questions does not mean they are closed to the possibility of being wrong and that they have no interest in hearing what others who disagree with them think. There are people like that but not everyone is like that

Your number one problem is that you're hostile. You are constantly trying to portray other people as charlatans. Your number two problem is that you're a stubborn, closed-minded, individual. You have little to no desire to hear what those who think differently than you do think. Your number three problem is that you subscribe to moral subjectivism ( "There are no right and wrong answers", "All things can be rationalized." ) The fact that you're a moral subjectivist is the least of your problems. Your main problem is your hostility.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:58 amThe proof regarding what?

Proof regarding anything. Any attempt to prove anything to you is pointless if we don't what you'd accept as proof.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:40 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 1:58 amCome 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.

The number of people who claim that they have answers to all relevant questions pertaining to how ought one to live is pretty much zero.

Well, not counting these folk...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...perhaps.

But again let's bring this down to Earth. In regard to a moral conflagration of note, one that is of particular importance to you, do you yourself subscribe more to the "my way or the highway"/"one of us vs. one of them" mentality or the "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine"/"let's negotiate and compromise" frame of mind.

Are you yourself willing to acknowledge that given new experiences, new friendships and access to new information and knowledge, you may well change your mind completely regarding one of your moral convictions "here and now".

And, as I broached with henry, can you note instances from the past where you admitted that you were wrong about important moral convictions, thus acknowledging that you may well be wrong about them today?

How close to or far away from objectivism are you here?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:40 amThat alone tells us that they are still looking for answers. Moreover, just because they have answers to certain questions does not mean they are closed to the possibility of being wrong and that they have no interest in hearing what others who disagree with them think. There are people like that but not everyone is like that.

Sure, that's always true. But with some like Satyr and the KT clique/claque [as well as some posters here] I find it very, very hard myself imagining them being open to anything even remotely significant by way of going to the other side.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 2:40 amYour number one problem is that you're hostile. You are constantly trying to portray other people as charlatans. Your number two problem is that you're a stubborn, closed-minded, individual. You have little to no desire to hear what those who think differently than you do think. Your number three problem is that you subscribe to moral subjectivism ( "There are no right and wrong answers", "All things can be rationalized." ) The fact that you're a moral subjectivist is the least of your problems. Your main problem is your hostility.

That's your rendition of me. And I suspect a lot of it revolves around politics. You just don't like what I argue so it becomes all about me personally.

Though again just say the word and we can explore our respective philosophies of life with nothing in the way of polemics or huffing and puffing from my end.

Satyr in a nutshell?

Satyr wrote:The Polish autistic maggot here assumes he knows what I am saying....and his response proves that he is, as always, clueless.
90 IQ has its drawbacks.
Full of condescending remarks and insults...but no warning no censorship by f-Jesus....because he's just another retard, attacking the baddie satyr...so who cares.

Polack assumes that I've replaced 'god' with 'nature' like Spinoza, perhaps?
He cannot understand 'facilitates' but twists it to mean what he wants it to eman....so that he can then critique what he cannot understand.
His obsession with Satyr is obvious....like a little girls with a crush following the boy around making fun of him so that he can look her way.

No stupid Polack, facilitates does not mean intends...
It makes easier....it increases the possibility (probability) of a positive outcome to emerge.
Morality makes it easier for heterosexual and cooperative survival and reproductive strategies to continue....it is useful...it offers an advantage....
Get it dumb Polack?

He wants to be thought of as a truly serious philosopher. And it is true that at KT there is very little social media chit-chat going on. But then over and over again vile of this sort. He needs to believe that it is others who are obsessed with him and not him with them. But he is simply unable to keep the rage contained. How dare others not think as he does!!

I have once again triggered the "Daemon" in him. And to the point now that there he is posting the vile over at ILP ...in May! In other words, for those here who know the routine, Satyr/Lorikeet has posted at ILP only once a year...Decembers. And for years now.

Why the exception now?

Of course, in my view, the answer to that is rooted existentially in dasein as well.

And perhaps now he'll delve down introspectively into his very "soul" and address it.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 4:35 pm Of course, in my view, the answer to that is rooted existentially in dasein as well.

I had this question: Does astrology enter into this? I get Dasein and all that. But that is earthly stuff. What if there is a cosmic or even a *celestial* factor?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm*It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:06 pmNo, it revolves around the points I make on these two threads:

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

I'm gonna regret this. I told you I wasn't goin' there and that you oughta bring that stuff here.

But, okay, let's see what's there.

reading, copying, pasting

Alright, I read your openings in each thread. here's what stood out...

Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

See, this part sounds a lot like dasein, to iam, means...the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean?

Pretty clear to me, havin' tussled with you across many threads, you believe it's self-delusion.

This part...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

...is familiar. You've posted it, here, more than a few times along with this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

and this...

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Seems to me, you don't actually believe there is a real you to sync up with. And how would that work anyway? what would you be syncing up with your real you? Your false you?

Satyr wrote:Censorship kills participation....look at the US.
Nobody cares to vote....because uniformity of thinking has been achieved after decades of brainwashing.

You want this for ILP...I get it

He actually posted this as Lorikeet at ILP. And, I suspect, without a shred of irony.

Here's someone who created a "dungeon" over at KT to toss all of those who were effectively challenging him in the Agora [or whatever it was called back then]. But at least you could still post there, if prohibited from posting in the main forums.

But then he deleted the dungeon altogether and simply banned those who dared to challenge him. Though still permitted to be a "user", I'm confronted with this:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

Oh, sure, he insisted it was only to rid KT of the "morons". But never would he dare to admit [even to himself] that his definition of a moron is "someone idiotic enough to challenge me".

He now claims that he's ready to take on challengers at ILP. But anyone foolish enough to take him up on that is soon pummeled in a barrage of declamatory slime.

And while mocking the "uniformity of thinking" going on at ILP and in America, it is actually KT where the thinking could not possibly be more uniformly in sync with...his.

Still, what fascinates me most about those like him are not those truly intemperate displays of insufferable arrogance but, again, what is it about his life that prompted him existentially to become that way. What experiences did he have that made him want to take his failures and frustrations out on everyone else?

What makes him a "Daemon"? Oh, and what is it about Hannibal Lector that gives him a hardon? Is he, uh, a cannibal too?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:06 pm Oh, and what is it about Hannibal Lector that gives him a hardon? Is he, uh, a cannibal too?

This may require a separate thread however I am seriously considering cannibalism as a solution to many many different (but interconnected) woes. The more that I study it — subjectively and objectively — I tend to find it morally defensible.

Even in a no-god world. But also especially.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:06 pm Still, what fascinates me most about those like him are not those truly intemperate displays of insufferable arrogance but, again, what is it about his life that prompted him existentially to become that way. What experiences did he have that made him want to take his failures and frustrations out on everyone else?

Three Iambiguoses is a psychological handful by all measures. Four will quickly put one in psycho-territory.

We just don’t know what Master Satyr had to deal with. Did you have multiple user names?!?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:48 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:06 pm Oh, and what is it about Hannibal Lector that gives him a hardon? Is he, uh, a cannibal too?

This may require a separate thread however I am seriously considering cannibalism as a solution to many many different (but interconnected) woes. The more that I study it — subjectively and objectively — I tend to find it morally defensible.

Even in a no-god world. But also especially.

The difference between cannibalism and the slave trade is table settings. Do go ahead and make a case for capitalism that does not involve eating other people, other animals, and the living environment.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 11:45 ammake a case for capitalism that does not involve eating other people, other animals, and the living environment.

Which capitalism?

*Free enterprise?

State capitalism/socialism?

Ancap?

The West's iteration?

The East's iteration?

So many flavors...




*not really capitalism at all

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:48 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 2:15 pm*It seems to me, dasein, to iam, means far more: he believes the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man. He's said as much, multiple times, across multiple threads.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:06 pmNo, it revolves around the points I make on these two threads:

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

I'm gonna regret this. I told you I wasn't goin' there and that you oughta bring that stuff here.

But, okay, let's see what's there.

reading, copying, pasting

Alright, I read your openings in each thread. here's what stood out...

Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

See, this part sounds a lot like dasein, to iam, means...the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man

No, it means that given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn. But then those who follow their own "dictates of Reason and Nature" ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...convince themselves that only their own path is the One True Path.

In fact, in my view, that's what the God world folks and the deontological philosophers do...swap out the "rooted existentially in dasein" man for the man said to be "one of us". The good guys, the smart guys.

Now, taking that into account, henry, read the two OPs again.

Oh, and don't forget to remind yourself of the extent to which the OP here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is applicable to those like you.

Thus...

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean?

That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:48 pmPretty clear to me, havin' tussled with you across many threads, you believe it's self-delusion.

No, henry, it's not a self-delusion. It's a recognition that in regard to things like abortion and guns and human sexuality, those on both sides are able to make arguments that the other side is not able to just make go away. Their points are reasonable given conflicting sets of assumptions regarding the "human condition":

...our own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:48 pmThis part...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

...is familiar. You've posted it, here, more than a few times along with this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

and this...

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 6:48 pmSeems to me, you don't actually believe there is a real you to sync up with. And how would that work anyway? what would you be syncing up with your real you? Your false you?

Of course, in dozens and dozens of ways there is a real me: my age, my height, my weight, my residence, my past experiences, the people around me, the things I do from day to day, the world of nature. The either/or world. But in regard to my value judgments what is the real me? Given the points I raise in the OPs above? What is your real me there?

Note to others:

Look, henry is no pinhead. He's intelligent and articulate. But, sometimes I just can't help but to suspect a..."condition"? You know, if it's more than the "psychology of objectivism".

Anyway, in regard to things like God or abortion or guns or the transgender movement, I wish he would note his own existential trajectory over the years. As I did above. The personal experiences he had, the people he knew, the stuff he read, etc., contributing to his own set of political prejudices. How are they not rooted in dasein as I understand it?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:48 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:06 pm Oh, and what is it about Hannibal Lector that gives him a hardon? Is he, uh, a cannibal too?

This may require a separate thread however I am seriously considering cannibalism as a solution to many many different (but interconnected) woes. The more that I study it — subjectively and objectively — I tend to find it morally defensible.

Even in a no-god world. But also especially.

My point however revolves not around what any particular one of us "here and now" thinks about it, but the fact that reasonable arguments about it can be made both pro and con:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

And neither side seems able to rebut the other side's points until one side or the other establishes [philosohically or otherwise] the argument all men and women said to be rational and virtuous are obligated to embrace.

Unless, of course, you are an objectivist here. Then [God or No God] it's either "my way or the highway". You are either one of us [the smart, serious philosophers] or one of them [the morons].

The classic example being Satyr's clique/claque at KT. Only it's that way because those who disagree with him are kicked out of the discussions. Why? Well, for being morons of course.

Then those like me who are "fractured and fragmented". Those who recognize that given the context both sides can make good points and you just can't seem to decide definitively which side is the One True Path.

Then the part where I argue that how one feels about it subjectively seems clearly to be rooted existentially in the life experiences that one has had.

Finally, the recognition that in world awash in contingency, chance and change -- the Benjamin Button Syndrome -- new experiences, new relationships and new information and knowledge may result in you changing your mind.

Bullshit!!

Right, Satyr?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:52 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:06 pm Still, what fascinates me most about those like him are not those truly intemperate displays of insufferable arrogance but, again, what is it about his life that prompted him existentially to become that way. What experiences did he have that made him want to take his failures and frustrations out on everyone else?

Three Iambiguoses is a psychological handful by all measures. Four will quickly put one in psycho-territory.

Of course: whatever that means.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 8:52 pmWe just don’t know what Master Satyr had to deal with. Did you have multiple user names?!?

Nope. I chose camus666. Albert Camus being my favortite philosopher and 666 being the title of my [at the time] favorite album by Aphrodite's Child.

But everyone knew it was iambiguous from ILP.

And, again, he dealt with me by first kicking me into the Dungeon and then "disappearing" me altogether from any discussions at all.

Now, explain to me again why you won't post there yourself. Unless, of course, you already do under a different "user" name:

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 4:07 pm

Now, taking that into account, henry, read the two OPs again.

I did. This...

Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

...still seems, to me, just an awfully wordy way of sayin' the individual is nuthin' more than the product of experience. Swap out experiences: you'd have a new man.

And this...

given all of the different worlds that any particular individual might fortuitously be born and raised in historically, culturally and experientially, their experiences [as children and as adults] can be vastly different from others. Such that what they come to believe about things like abortion and guns and transgender folks can be widely divergent in turn.

...doesn't help to change my mind.

Oh, and don't forget to remind yourself of the extent to which the OP here...is applicable to those like you.

We did this already. My responses disappointed you. I kept rejectin' your assumptions (indoctrination, conformity, proselytization, jihad).

The individual is not a meat machine.

No, henry, it's not a self-delusion.

I'm sorry, i can't conclude that you see it otherwise.

in dozens and dozens of ways there is a real me: my age, my height, my weight, my residence, my past experiences, the people around me, the things I do from day to day, the world of nature.

In other words: I am a product, a kludge. These facts comprise me, these facts aren't about me.

But in regard to my value judgments what is the real me?

As I say: you don't actually believe there is a real you; the real you is just a construct. And how can you view yourself otherwise? You lean toward determinism, lean toward the idea man is a meat machine. It makes perfect sense you'd see yourself as a product and nuthin' more. Question is: why don't you just commit to the position you seem to find most plausible (determinism/materialism)?

Given the points I raise in the OPs above? What is your real me there?

We did this already. My responses disappointed you. I kept rejectin' your assumptions (indoctrination, conformity, proselytization, jihad).

I'm not a meat machine. And, yes, you'll want evidence. I did that already too. However, as you like, you can refer to my article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em) thread. Not everything there is evidence, but some pieces are. We can, if you read some of those relevant pieces, discuss them.

I just can't help but to suspect a..."condition"?

And what might that be? Me, I say it's just good, old-fashioned eleutheromania. A professional might say I'm oppositional. Popeye sez I'm just a reactive creature. What say you?

I wish he would note his own existential trajectory over the years. As I did above. The personal experiences he had, the people he knew, the stuff he read, etc., contributing to his own set of political prejudices.

To the extent I found, find, it necessary: I've done, do, that. I'm not, however, fractured, so I suffer no compulsion to lay out for inspection my facts (which are about me, but are not me).

How are they not rooted in dasein as I understand it?

Your dasein (concisely: the individual is a product) is a false doctrine.