Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am You seem to have the situation sussed, but just for confirmation...what you are experiencing is very common with Iambiguous.

Cheers for the heads-up, Iwannaplato. Yep, I think I've got things sussed out well enough (on which more, perhaps, later), but it's good to get your confirmation.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm As for me agreeing with [Harry's proposed functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour --HB]...

[Snip repeat quoted content --HB]

Would [others --HB] agree that I am agreeing with him here? I certainly do not think that is the case.

OK, so, after your first writing that we agree on it, you now take back your agreement with the functional definition that I proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour: roughly, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".

Wait. What exactly are you saying that you and I agree on here?

What I am noting here...

But what I imagine instead is taking those definitions and deductions out into the world of human interactions that come into conflict over things like abortion and guns and human sexuality. Okay, we agree that morality is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others". Okay, but now we are outside of an abortion clinic where flesh and blood human beings on both sides of the issue are in a fierce confrontation over what is unfolding inside the clinic itself.

One side insisting that right behavior in sync with good character entails that the abortion clinic must be shut down. Meanwhile the other side insists that if the state is permitted to force women to give birth great harm and suffering can result with significant negative consequences for the only gender around that is actually able to get pregnant.

Whose "functional definition"? And out in the real world, how will legislating that definition impact the lives of either the unborn or the pregnant women?

...is that if we did agree on the points you raised in your philosophical assessment above, how would that then be applicable outside the abortion clinic? Or in regard to henry buying and selling weapons of mass destruction.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amWhich functional definition, then, do you propose instead?

Functional: "of or having a special activity, purpose, or task..."

Now, that activity, purpose or task might revolve around having or performing an abortion. Or around buying and selling weapons of mass destruction. Or around coming out to the world as a transgender.

In other words, in regard to "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", who does get to define morality functionally here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm From my frame of mind, you were suggesting we merely assume that someone who abuses children was not a psychopath or a sociopath. I was noting that in fact many of them are. The psychopath because of a brain affliction that renders the abuse "beyond his control" and the sociopath because in a No God world his life has unfolded such that he derives actual pleasure or fulfilment from the abuse.

So...you point out to them that because child abuse is repugnant to you that makes it objectively immoral? That inherently/necessarily it ought to be repugnant to them too?

Then back to the anti-abortion folks arguing that because aborting unborn babies is repugnant to them, that makes it objectively immoral and thus the pro-choice folks are obligated [philosophically, deontologically] to find it repugnant as well?

Same with embracing the buying and selling of henry's weapons of mass destruction and his belief that transgender men and women are mentally ill? Because this is what he believes "in his head" "here and now" that makes it morally objective? Only the behaviors he finds repugnant count?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amI've told you that behaviour can be assessed against a moral standard regardless of whether or not I or anybody else feels repugnance for that behaviour.

Note to others:

What do I keep missing here? Whose moral standard [functional or otherwise] in regard to abortion, gun control and transgender politics?

Also, what exactly is his argument regarding my point that some people feel repulsed at the thought of aborting an unborn baby while others are repulsed at the thought of a government forcing women to give birth. And my point that as individuals we come to acquire particular political prejudices existentially given the life that we lived. That in using the tools of philosophy there does not appear to be a deontological argument [that I'm aware of] resolving the abortion conflagration that never stops evolving politically over time.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amCan you please, then, stop misrepresenting me on this?

One possible translation: will you please start agreeing with me on this?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amI largely disagree with your claims re psychopaths and sociopaths, but, to avoid losing focus, I'll defer further comment on that until we've hashed out a functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour.

Again, Harry, I suspect that with objectivists of your ilk, nothing is finally "hashed out" until someone finally agrees with your own "rooted existentially in dasein" moral and political prejudices.

ME:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"

Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.

Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?

YOU

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amNone of that responds directly to my question, to which I'd added conditions re psychopathy, sociopathy, and getting caught so as to deal with your prior objections.

Can you please respond directly to the above-quoted question with a straightforward yes or no?

Here we are "stuck" then. Because I do believe my points above respond substantively to your question. Instead, from my frame of mind, you are the one who keeps wiggling out of responding substantively to my points.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm I asked you above if, like henry, your own moral philosophy includes a religious or spiritual font.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amAt this point, I'm simply trying to establish that at least some objective moral truths exist. That can be established regardless of whether or not God exists.

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle it is then.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:21 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am You seem to have the situation sussed, but just for confirmation...what you are experiencing is very common with Iambiguous.

Cheers for the heads-up, Iwannaplato. Yep, I think I've got things sussed out well enough (on which more, perhaps, later), but it's good to get your confirmation.

Who says there has to be only three Stooges?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm As for me agreeing with [Harry's proposed functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour --HB]...

[Snip repeat quoted content --HB]

Would [others --HB] agree that I am agreeing with him here? I certainly do not think that is the case.

OK, so, after your first writing that we agree on it, you now take back your agreement with the functional definition that I proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour: roughly, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".

Wait. What exactly are you saying that you and I agree on here?

*Facepalm*

It's up to you, not me, to say whether or not you agree. And that with which you're either agreeing or disagreeing is the functional definition I've proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour. It's all there in what you quoted. What's so hard about this?

So, again: do you agree that, functionally, (morally) "right" behaviour is defined, roughly, as, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others"? Yes or no?

If you don't agree, then what do you think a correct functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour is?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm ...is that if we did agree on the points you raised in your philosophical assessment above, how would that then be applicable outside the abortion clinic? Or in regard to henry buying and selling weapons of mass destruction.

You missed your chance to discuss that with me. You never took up my offer, and it's now expired.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm In other words, in regard to "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", who does get to define morality functionally here?

The speakers of the English language - and of those languages which have a corresponding word - as a whole. I'm contending that that roughly is what speakers of the English language mean in functional terms by (morally) "right" behaviour. I'm also contending that there are sound reasons for that: that morality is not merely "defined into existence" as you exclaimed in an earlier post.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amCan you please, then, stop misrepresenting me on this?

One possible translation: will you please start agreeing with me on this?

I'll take that as a, "No, misrepresenting you serves my purposes better."

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amNone of that responds directly to my question, to which I'd added conditions re psychopathy, sociopathy, and getting caught so as to deal with your prior objections.

Can you please respond directly to the above-quoted question with a straightforward yes or no?

Here we are "stuck" then.

In other words: you refuse to respond with a straightforward yes or no to a straightforward question which is crucial to your claim that there are no objective moral truths.

If anybody else evaded such an important question as much as you've evaded this one, you'd have labelled them Mr Wiggle.

Here the question is again, with the expectation of a straightforward answer:

Given a rough functional definition of "right" behavior as "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", is it objectively wrong for a person who is not a psychopath or a sociopath - and who is otherwise unremarkable and sane - and who subsequently gets caught for it, to torture and slaughter an innocent child for fun?

Yes or no?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amAt this point, I'm simply trying to establish that at least some objective moral truths exist. That can be established regardless of whether or not God exists.

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle it is then.

Nope. Staying focussed on what's relevant is what it is.

P.S. If "functional definition" is a confusing or inappropriate term in this context, then let's replace it with "working definition".

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 am

OK, so, after your first writing that we agree on it, you now take back your agreement with the functional definition that I proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour: roughly, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".

Wait. What exactly are you saying that you and I agree on here?

*Facepalm*

It's up to you, not me, to say whether or not you agree. And that with which you're either agreeing or disagreeing is the functional definition I've proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour. It's all there in what you quoted. What's so hard about this?

So, again: do you agree that, functionally, (morally) "right" behaviour is defined, roughly, as, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others"? Yes or no?

Again, from my frame of mind, simply unbelievable.

Embarrassing even?

I post this...

But what I imagine instead is taking those definitions and deductions out into the world of human interactions that come into conflict over things like abortion and guns and human sexuality. Okay, we agree that morality is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others". Okay, but now we are outside of an abortion clinic where flesh and blood human beings on both sides of the issue are in a fierce confrontation over what is unfolding inside the clinic itself.

One side insisting that right behavior in sync with good character entails that the abortion clinic must be shut down. Meanwhile the other side insists that if the state is permitted to force women to give birth great harm and suffering can result with significant negative consequences for the only gender around that is actually able to get pregnant.

Whose "functional definition"? And out in the real world, how will legislating that definition impact the lives of either the unborn or the pregnant women?

...in regard to that and you simply ignore my points again.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 amIf you don't agree, then what do you think a correct functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour is?

My point [over and over and over and over again] is those on both sides of the abortion, gun control and transgender debates will claim that their own "functionable/workable definition" is the optimal [if not the only] rational definition. And, further, they will insist it is not a definition derived existentially from dasein but one derived from their keen efforts as "serious philosophers" to nail down the deontological definition.

Again, just ask them:

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

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm ...is that if we did agree on the points you raised in your philosophical assessment above, how would that then be applicable outside the abortion clinic? Or in regard to henry buying and selling weapons of mass destruction.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 amYou missed your chance to discuss that with me. You never took up my offer, and it's now expired.

Again, simply embarrassing. On the other hand, based on my many experiences with moral objectivists of your ilk, it's quite possible you do not even grasp why it is embarrassing to wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually responding to the points I raise. I suspect that on some level you recognize just what is at stake for your own "Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do" frame of mind if you do confront the implications of my own argument.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 amWhich functional definition, then, do you propose instead?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:03 pm In other words, in regard to "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", who does get to define morality functionally here?

Functional: "of or having a special activity, purpose, or task..."

Now, that activity, purpose or task might revolve around having or performing an abortion. Or around buying and selling weapons of mass destruction. Or around coming out to the world as a transgender.

In other words, in regard to "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", who does get to define morality functionally here?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 3:08 amThe speakers of the English language - and of those languages which have a corresponding word - as a whole. I'm contending that that roughly is what speakers of the English language mean in functional terms by (morally) "right" behaviour. I'm also contending that there are sound reasons for that: that morality is not merely "defined into existence" as you exclaimed in an earlier post.

Come on, Harry, you know that there are those on both sides of these issues that speak English. And their own functional/workable definition of a moral truth just happens to reflect their own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices. Henry speaks English right?

But are you trying to have it both ways? You insist that I first define functional morality and that morality is, in fact, not merely defined into existence. And I agree. It comes into existence historically and culturally out in any number of very, very different communities coming to very, very different conclusions regarding what functions and works best for them in regard to the community standards encompassing both moral prescriptions and proscriptions.

ME:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"

Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.

Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?

YOU

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 amNone of that responds directly to my question, to which I'd added conditions re psychopathy, sociopathy, and getting caught so as to deal with your prior objections.

Can you please respond directly to the above-quoted question with a straightforward yes or no?

Note to others:

How is this...

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

...not a substantive reaction to his question?

And, of course, as a moral objectivist -- re God? -- "yes" or "no" is the only acceptable answer. That some will say "yes" and others will say "no" to child abuse and abortion and gun control and transgender politics then allows him to divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

Just like henry. And...just like iwannaplato?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 am At this point, I'm simply trying to establish that at least some objective moral truths exist. That can be established regardless of whether or not God exists.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle it is then.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:20 am Nope. Staying focussed on what's relevant is what it is.

Huh? What could possibly be more relevant in discussing objective morality than the question of God's existence?!!!

That some will say "yes" and others will say "no" to child abuse and abortion and gun control and transgender politics then allows him to divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

Or between the objectivists [the bad guys, the denial guys] and the brave isolated nihilist [the good guy, the victimized] facing his fragmentation which no one else is brave enough to face without running away or huffing and puffing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:15 pm

And, of course, as a moral objectivist -- re God? -- "yes" or "no" is the only acceptable answer. That some will say "yes" and others will say "no" to child abuse and abortion and gun control and transgender politics then allows him to divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

Or between the objectivists [the bad guys, the denial guys] and the brave isolated nihilist [the good guy, the victimized] facing his fragmentation which no one else is brave enough to face without running away or huffing and puffing.

This is what I call a "retort".

Right, phyllo?

Though again we will need a context.

Here, of late, henry quirk -- remember him? -- and I were discussing abortion, gun control and transgender politics.

Now, from my frame of mind, the objectivists are the ones who call those who refuse to think exactly as they do the bad guys...the ones who are in denial regarding how the human condition really unfolds.

Start here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- for example.

Whereas nihilists of my ilk are construed by me as neither good nor victimized. On the contrary, they are fractured and fragmented even in regard to nihilism itself. They conclude "here and now" that in a No God world their existence itself is essentially meaningless and purposeless, drawn and quartered morally, and doomed inevitably to topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Me brave? No way. Above all else [as I have noted before] I want someone to bring me back to the One True Path that leads to immortality and salvation.

As for huffing and puffing, over and again I have made it clear that yes I have a propensity for polemics. But I will be more than willing to dispense with it in an entirely civil exchange.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:42 pm And, of course, as a moral objectivist -- re God? -- "yes" or "no" is the only acceptable answer. That some will say "yes" and others will say "no" to child abuse and abortion and gun control and transgender politics then allows him to divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:15 pm Or between the objectivists [the bad guys, the denial guys] and the brave isolated nihilist [the good guy, the victimized] facing his fragmentation which no one else is brave enough to face without running away or huffing and puffing.

Though again we will need a context.

Here, of late, henry quirk -- remember him? -- and I were discussing abortion, gun control and transgender politics.

Now, from my frame of mind, the objectivists are the ones who call those who refuse to think exactly as they do the bad guys...the ones who are in denial regarding how the human condition really unfolds.

Often they do. Though of course objectivists could be of some gentle, pacifistic nature and believe all souls are good deep down. Objectivism or really moral realism just means that some things are morally good and some things are not. It does not have to entail an us them stance or simple splitting of humanity into two groups. Though this is certainly popular and more common amongst moral realists. But the point is that you also divide the world into two groups and judge the objectivists heavily. For example, often bringing up Hitler or the Taliban, the assumption on your part that these are very bad people whom you are associating with objectivists in general.

Whereas nihilists of my ilk are construed by me as neither good nor victimized.

But you do cast the objectivists as bad. Since you do not share their objectivism you are at the very least not bad like they are. You also cast people who disagree with you in moral terms, all the time, in precisely the ways moral realists do. Shameless, is one example. That's an old moral judgment. Not only has one done something bad, one feels no guilt or shame about it, doubling the badness.

On the contrary, they are fractured and fragmented even in regard to nihilism itself.

And there, precisely is the victimization. Also, sometimes,victimization from others, in the posture of 'one treated badly because others cannot handle the truth.'

Me brave? No way.

I'm not asserting you are brave, but rather posing as if you are. When people disagree with you or because of your behavior stop interacting with you, you psychoanalyze these reactions as fear based.

Get that: 'they cannot face what you have faced.' You have managed to face it, even if it plagues you. They can't. You can. You've been implying for years that you are braver than other people. You can face what they cannot face (and you mindread motives into their reactions to your posting habits based on this hypothesis.

The context was your talking about the objectivists dividing the world into two groups and what is obvious: you do this also.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:42 pm And, of course, as a moral objectivist -- re God? -- "yes" or "no" is the only acceptable answer. That some will say "yes" and others will say "no" to child abuse and abortion and gun control and transgender politics then allows him to divide up the world between "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:15 pm Or between the objectivists [the bad guys, the denial guys] and the brave isolated nihilist [the good guy, the victimized] facing his fragmentation which no one else is brave enough to face without running away or huffing and puffing.

Though again we will need a context.

Here, of late, henry quirk -- remember him? -- and I were discussing abortion, gun control and transgender politics.

Now, from my frame of mind, the objectivists are the ones who call those who refuse to think exactly as they do the bad guys...the ones who are in denial regarding how the human condition really unfolds.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amOften they do. Though of course objectivists could be of some gentle, pacifistic nature and believe all souls are good deep down. Objectivism or really moral realism just means that some things are morally good and some things are not. It does not have to entail an us them stance or simple splitting of humanity into two groups. Though this is certainly popular and more common amongst moral realists. But the point is that you also divide the world into two groups and judge the objectivists heavily. For example, often bringing up Hitler or the Taliban, the assumption on your part that these are very bad people whom you are associating with objectivists in general.

Moral realism? I explored that here: viewtopic.php?p=646802&hilit=moral+realism#p646802

And arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that some things are good and some things are bad is not nearly the same [to moral nihilists of my ilk] as actually demonstrating how, in regard to issues like abortion, gun control and human sexuality, this is in fact the case.

And yes, over and again, I focus in on what I construe to be the potential dangers of both moral objectivism and moral nihilism. And how, in fact, is human history to date [in a free will world] not but the endless and ongoing embodiment of both mentalities?

But...

But, what if, like me, you are "fractured and fragmented" even in regard to that?

In my view, this is what most perturbs the moral objectivists among us. They are always eager to take on those from the "other side"...those who share their belief in the One True Path regarding abortion and gun control and transgender politics, but...but insist that "it's my path not yours".

What I question is not what they believe so much as how "subjectively, rooted in dasein" they came to acquire their moral and political prejudices given the lives they live out in particular worlds historically, culturally and in terms of their own particular trajectory of "personal experiences". What if their value judgments really are more "existential contraptions" than components of one or another religious script or ideological dogma or deontological philosophy or assessment of nature?

Whereas nihilists of my ilk are construed by me as neither good nor victimized.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amBut you do cast the objectivists as bad. Since you do not share their objectivism you are at the very least not bad like they are. You also cast people who disagree with you in moral terms, all the time, in precisely the ways moral realists do. Shameless, is one example. That's an old moral judgment. Not only has one done something bad, one feels no guilt or shame about it, doubling the badness.

Come on, for decades I was myself an objectivist. Both God and No God. And I certainly did not construe myself to be a bad person then. On the contrary, I was intent on saving souls and on overthrowing what I construed to be an amoral, exploitative, "show me the money", "me myself and I" ruling class.

And while you are certainly entitled to post your own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of me here I'm also permitted to note that I don't recognize your own iambiguous much at all. Though, sure, in polemicist mode I'm likely to post many things that rub others the wrong way. That's what makes the exchange provocative.

And, if others want to go there, let them note an issue and a context in order for us to explore our respective moral philosophies at the existential intersection of identity [dasein], value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy [power]. Or scrap the polemics and go the civil route.

And the irony is that this moral nihilist is always encouraging others to choose "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".

Whereas for any number of moral and political objectivists "democracy and the rule of law" must be replaced with their own rendition of "right makes might". Again, God or No God.

Though, again, the world is, by and large, ruled by those who own and operate the military industrial complex, Wall Street, K Street, thug regimes like Russia and China and the various theocracies. As Mr. Zimmerman once surmised...

"Democracy don't rule the world
You better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid"

On the contrary, they [moral nihilists of my ilk] are fractured and fragmented even in regard to nihilism itself.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amAnd there, precisely is the victimization. Also, sometimes,victimization from others, in the posture of 'one treated badly because others cannot handle the truth.'

That's your me again. And handle what truth? Given what particular context construed from what particular point of view?

Me brave? No way. Above all else [as I have noted before] I want someone to bring me back to the One True Path that leads to immortality and salvation.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amI'm not asserting you are brave, but rather posing as if you are. When people disagree with you or because of your behavior stop interacting with you, you psychoanalyze these reactions as fear based.

Again, you'll have to note examples of this. Or engage with me in a new discussion pertaining to value judgments, conflicting goods, dasein, etc.,. And then, given a particular issue/context, one by one you can note all of the things you accuse me of.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amGet that: 'they cannot face what you have faced.' You have managed to face it, even if it plagues you. They can't. You can. You've been implying for years that you are braver than other people. You can face what they cannot face (and you mindread motives into their reactions to your posting habits based on this hypothesis.

Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.

And the beauty of the human condition is that it doesn't even have to be true. I just have to convince myself that it is.

If anything's embarrassing, in hindsight it's having been optimistic about the possibility of reasonable discussion with a man who literally believes that torturing and slaughtering innocent children for fun can be morally justified.

If, iambiguous, you were here to do philosophy, then you would have been interested in working together to clarify up front what we mean by "moral" (or immoral) and "right" (or wrong) behaviour and choices in the first place, and how we could come to such radically different conclusions. You would then have had no problem with straightforwardly answering the straightforward questions that I put to you in this respect - questions which, despite your dogged, repetitive copy-pasting of unclear quotes of yourself, remain unanswered.

But what you do on these forums isn't philosophy. It's theatre.

It's a performance.

Participants get to choose which version of the script is followed. If they choose "Explain why there really are moral truths", then they're cast in the role of "Serious philosopher-pedant on a skyhook contraption up in the intellectual clouds". If they instead choose "Explain the moral truth in a specific real-world conflict", then they're cast in the role of "Slave to arbitrary moral predicates compelled by arbitrary life experiences".

Rooted Existentially in Dasein is a tragicomedy. Its protagonist lurches from objective moral conviction to objective moral conviction, finally reaching the objective moral conviction that there are no objective moral convictions. His own story serves as the argument for this final conviction, bootstrapping itself out of subjectivity into the paradigmatic objective moral experience.

This is the archetypal story of the man who, in his attempt to escape his own nature, only runs headlong into its embrace. He gets worked up; he fulminates fiercely and fanatically; he wiggles vehemently and vociferously. That is its tragedy. The comedy is that he fails to recognise it.

The play, no doubt, will go on. I choose to exit stage left.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 5:53 pm Moral realism? I explored that here: viewtopic.php?p=646802&hilit=moral+realism#p646802

Irrelevant.

And arguing [philosophically or otherwise] that some things are good and some things are bad is not nearly the same [to moral nihilists of my ilk] as actually demonstrating how, in regard to issues like abortion, gun control and human sexuality, this is in fact the case.

Well, duh. I don't know where you got the impression I didn't understand you objections and moral antirealists or nihilists in general think those are the same. I mean, seriously, duh. It is amazing how much you find excuses to repeat yourself. You made the case against objectivism/moral realism/etc. all over the place.

And from there until the next quotes below you just repeat what you have said thousands of times.

Whereas nihilists of my ilk are construed by me as neither good nor victimized.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amBut you do cast the objectivists as bad. Since you do not share their objectivism you are at the very least not bad like they are. You also cast people who disagree with you in moral terms, all the time, in precisely the ways moral realists do. Shameless, is one example. That's an old moral judgment. Not only has one done something bad, one feels no guilt or shame about it, doubling the badness.

Come on, for decades I was myself an objectivist

. Both God and No God. And I certainly did not construe myself to be a bad person then.

Right, then you were an objectivist. But since you have become whatever you are now, you judge people just like objectivists do, only the group you consider bad is objectivists.

You are responding as if I said 'You have always considered objectivists bad, even when you were one.'

It is this kind of not really reading or thinking that adds to the waste of time communicating with you. You make up strawmen and half-straw men all the time.

On the contrary, I was intent on saving souls and on overthrowing what I construed to be an amoral, exploitative, "show me the money", "me myself and I" ruling class.

And while you are certainly entitled to post your own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of me here I'm also permitted to note that I don't recognize your own iambiguous much at all. Though, sure, in polemicist mode I'm likely to post many things that rub others the wrong way. That's what makes the exchange provocative.

Obviously I already noticed you don't agree about what others note is problematic about your communication. It's clear in a number of my posts to you. For example, where I point out your not the least fractured and fragmented about this possibility. Again you are writing as if I need to be told you don't agree.

And, if others want to go there, let them note an issue and a context in order for us to explore our respective moral philosophies at the existential intersection of identity [dasein], value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy [power].

More repetition.

And the irony is that this moral nihilist is always encouraging others to choose "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".

Well, it's good you realize it's an irony.

Whereas for any number of moral and political objectivists "democracy and the rule of law" must be replaced with their own rendition of "right makes might". Again, God or No God.

And then there are the objectivists, which you are also in part, who think that moderation, negotiation and compromise are objective goods. But they get batched in the category of those who are like Hitler and the Taliban.

That's your me again. And handle what truth?

Really? Come on. You don't remember saying that you got to a number of different posters here and elsewhere, that the reason they left was because they faced cognititive dissonance or felt their own inlikings of your fractured and fragmented state.
You have no memory of doing that a good number of times. Whether you're a liar or self-deluded I don't know or care.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 amI'm not asserting you are brave, but rather posing as if you are. When people disagree with you or because of your behavior stop interacting with you, you psychoanalyze these reactions as fear based.

I would feel sympathy for you if I truly believed you can't remember doing these things. And they have been pointed out in context by people and it did not lead to the slightest concession on your part.

Look, if that's what you need to believe about me, fine. But the bottom line is that there's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone online actually able to bring me back to one or another One True Path again. Especially if it includes immortality and salvation.

Those are not mutually exclusive. One can hallucinate convenient psychological interpretations of why others criticize you or stop communicating with you AND also hope that one of them will bring you out of your existential pain.

So, that was just a BS rationalization.

And you should note that when you deny the possibility of X by pointing at your behavior Y, generally speaking you are assuming X and Y are mutually exclusive. You did this at least twice in this last response. And they are not mutually exclusive. You were an objectivist who did not think you were bad. Later your philosophy changed and, yes, then you started to divide the world into the bad objectivists and yourself. Sometimes having three categories with the nihilists you also consider bad as the third category. No contradition. I describe your behavior in terms of good guys and bad guys NOW and you explain that this can't be true because you were an objectivist who didn't think he was bad THEN.

After that you explain that you wouldn't psychoanalyze and mindread objectivists and others for being critical of you because you want them to have an answer you would believe in. Again, not mutually exclusive in the least.

You have some basic confusions about what is mutually exclusive.

And the beauty of the human condition is that it doesn't even have to be true. I just have to convince myself that it is.

Yeah, via words on a screen. Though I will bet that if you look back on how your paradigmatic changes took place they came after real life experiences: wars, abortions, and more chronic, regular experiences where those paradigms just did not seem to fit the world as you experienced it. But here you'll go on hoping that someone's argument will convince you. And perhaps you did go through one of your changes via argument in the past - most likely in real life physical contact with someone. But I think we both know from our online experiences that people actually changing a core belief from an argument or dialogue is as rare as a white crow. But people who engage in experiential and directly interpersonal processes, that's where change is more likely to happen.

I'll leave it here.

Iambiguous wrote: This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

It seems to me that whether in a Yes-God World or in a No-God World the nature of the problem does not in fact change that much.

The problem that you have identified, and as some say are *stuck* in, is not one that all of us are unfamiliar with. And that whether we are believers or no believers in God (the transcending font as you charmingly put it)(and funnily there is actually a font named Transcend).

I have myself, in my own strange ways, grappled with the problem, and in lots of interchanges with Harry (mostly by email but also on another defunct forum) have presented what I think corresponds to your *fractured and fragmented* position. Once, I was an adamant *supporter* of Israel's conquest (a sort of reconquest) of Palestine. I saw clearly that in order to take that position I would have to *justify* a bold, barefaced conquest (robbery, displacement, and likely the eventual annihilation) of the conquered people. It seemed a paradigmatic example of *what actually goes on* in all places, and all times. It just so happened that this particular instance was ultra-modern, and for this reason (for the opponents) ultra-problematic and (for the proponents) one that required amazing feats of rhetorical gymnastics.

Contemplating the issue then, it seemed conclusive that there is no dimension of human life on the planet, anywhere, that is not riddled with problems on top of problems that really cannot be resolved decisively. It seemed to me, then, that the greater degree of what I termed *ownership interest* in material affairs and enterprises in this world, the more *complicit* one was -- unavoidably. There is no action that a life form takes (I reasoned through reference to ecological models) that did not seek its own advantage or advance at the cost of other life forms.

The simple example is cultivation of the soil. It is the human activity most associated with sane, benign and productive human effort, and yet it is in fact immensely problematic when examined. It involves destruction and displacement of life forms and ecological systems but where it is successful is the basis of entire cultural systems. Take as an example the conquest of the pristine Mississippi Basin, one of the largest virgin ecological systems that remained. The conquest and cultivation of it created the economic base that allowed the USA to come into existence and prosper. It is said that the annihilation of the Native peoples was the great crime but in fact there is another sort of *crime* that is far more significant: the destruction of en entire ecological system (equal in many ways to that of the Amazon Basin today).

So I explained *The World* by having such a reference, but moreover one where one clearly had one's own self-interest which entered into the picture and determined how one chose to adjudicate it morally.

So you can see, through these examples, that I establish a paradigm that is rooted in *problem*. If this is so then the nature of the world, and the nature of the problems and conflicts that we will always face, from now until life ends (here), is one that undergirds existence. There is no way around it, and there is no way out of it.

So 'fracture' and 'fragmentation' are terms that need to be examined. First, when Iambiguous uses the term, he means in relation to his former Christian conviction. That is to say when he adopted that specific worldview which, I suppose, we'd have to label the Genesis Model. He defines a problem that is post-Christian but also rooted in Americanism. However, I would suggest that this is a superficial encapsulation of the problem -- the real problem -- which is as I have outlined it: there is no way to *circle a square* -- to get harmony from disharmony, peace from chaos, etc.

The individual has been placed in an impossible situation and in relation to that essential problem has to make choices. If he can, or if someone can, wave a wand, or a branch, or a cross, or holy water, or recite liberating mantras over him, and absolve him of his complicit condition, then psychologically he might get along (having been *absolved*).

He can therefore *imagine* absolution, and he can also really & honestly believe that it had been granted by a higher metaphysical power, but this changes nothing about the core situation. Now, perhaps genuine 'absolution' is offered I really do not know. But there we see how metaphysical truths or facts enter into the dynamic. On one hand (perhaps) as real effects from some invisible reality, but also it must be said as neurotic solutions, and therefore false solutions, to a crazy-making problem: life itself, reality itself.

My own view, or understanding if you wish, does not and I think cannot negate that we are (that we must be) in a Yes-God world and I understand the evidence to be that we are confronted with the problem. The *problem* circumscribes and contains and conditions us, and the problem is infused with moral tension. The moral problem is one of infused intensity. To the degree that there is human awareness (and everything depends on that honed awareness so that without it human being descends to a state of non-comprehension) the greater the moral tension that rises up in the individual.

I think I grasp the atheist's argument, of course (who doesn't?) and it is really quite compelling overall. Nevertheless my own *strategy* in regard to the Question is resolved, to some degree, by defining God as *existing* in the realm of metaphysical principle. Now, who is aware of this? And who could even become aware of this (the realm of the metaphysical)? The metaphysical country is one that has to be discovered because it is hardly evident in the as-it-is world. Discovered or invented? I must say discovered because, in my way of seeing, it all had to be latent and is latent within the creation and manifestation itself.

Dasein and World: Heidegger’s Reconceiving of the Transcendental After Husserl
Niall Keane

Beyond Husserl: Heidegger’s Phenomenological Analysis of World

Pushing against Husserl, there is a phenomenologically rich account of experience in Heidegger’s early analysis of ‘things’ as it pertains to the possibility of relating their worldly-character to what he terms the “original science of life”. This is carried out in a manner that is not about determining ‘things’ as cultural, spiritual, or natural objects that stand over against subjects as agents of cognition.

They just can't help themselves? Ever and always assessments of this sort have to be couched in the vernacular of the "serious philosopher".

Really, in regard to your own interactions with others in which "things" are construed from conflicting points of view, how do you describe them as "cultural, spiritual or natural" objects that "stand over" your own subjective agency.

Whose "worldly-character" might prevail?

And how do you imagine Heidegger himself relating this particular world of words to the rise of fascism in Germany at the time?

Or is noting things of this sort when philosophy ceases to be serious?

His discussion of the experience of things is focused instead on regaining a sense of the affective and event like nature of worldly experience. It is also focused on the meaningful interconnectedness that exists between things and our openness towards this meaningfulness, as well as how this has been arguably lost in Husserl’s insistence on the unworldly character of transcendental consciousness in its constituting transcendent reality as unities of meaning for consciousness.

Of course, existentially, how one construes the meaning of the "unworldly character of transcendental consciousness in its constituting transcendent reality as unities of meaning for consciousness", might make all the difference in the world, right?

After all, it assumes that there is a "transcendent consciousness" intertwined "somehow" in a "transcendent reality" that philosophically can be connected to one or another assessment of phenomenological interactions between mere mortals...socially, politically and/or economically?

Anyone here care to go there given a particular context?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 am If anything's embarrassing, in hindsight it's having been optimistic about the possibility of reasonable discussion with a man who literally believes that torturing and slaughtering innocent children for fun can be morally justified.

So, once again, rather than respond to the points I raise in my posts above...

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"

Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.

Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?

...you choose to "wiggle, weiggle, wiggle" instead in the general direction of making this all about me.

Below of course you reveal your true intention...to bring me up into the "philosophical clouds" that you and AJ and iwannaplato and others here are more than eager to swap definitions and deductions in. Didactically and/or pedantically?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 amIf, iambiguous, you were here to do philosophy, then you would have been interested in working together to clarify up front what we mean by "moral" (or immoral) and "right" (or wrong) behaviour and choices in the first place, and how we could come to such radically different conclusions. You would then have had no problem with straightforwardly answering the straightforward questions that I put to you in this respect - questions which, despite your dogged, repetitive copy-pasting of unclear quotes of yourself, remain unanswered.

Yes, that in my view, basically describes you here from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind.

Then full-blown Stooge:

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 amBut what you do on these forums isn't philosophy. It's theatre.

It's a performance.

Participants get to choose which version of the script is followed. If they choose "Explain why there really are moral truths", then they're cast in the role of "Serious philosopher-pedant on a skyhook contraption up in the intellectual clouds".

Then whatever on Earth this might possible mean:

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 amIf they instead choose "Explain the moral truth in a specific real-world conflict", then they're cast in the role of "Slave to arbitrary moral predicates compelled by arbitrary life experiences".

Note to others: you tell me...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 am Rooted Existentially in Dasein is a tragicomedy. Its protagonist lurches from objective moral conviction to objective moral conviction, finally reaching the objective moral conviction that there are no objective moral convictions. His own story serves as the argument for this final conviction, bootstrapping itself out of subjectivity into the paradigmatic objective moral experience.

This is the archetypal story of the man who, in his attempt to escape his own nature, only runs headlong into its embrace. He gets worked up; he fulminates fiercely and fanatically; he wiggles vehemently and vociferously. That is its tragedy. The comedy is that he fails to recognise it.

...what on earth you make of this.

I challenge anyone here to connect the dots between what you think he means here and the discussion henry -- remember him? -- and I were having in regard to abortion, gun control and transgender politics at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and conflicting goods.

On the other hand, this part...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:44 am The play, no doubt, will go on. I choose to exit stage left.

...I am more than familiar with. It's the part where objectivists of your ilk recognize the need to get me out of their head. And pronto.

While their own "serious philosophy" precious Self is still intact.