For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
By firing off another off-point, speculative, ad hominem screed?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 2:32 pm What I try to do -- standing as *witness* to the personal conflict...
If I was to cast a dog as Freud in a Disney flick, he would be a St. Bernard and not a terrier. Don't be surprised to see it happen, considering how and what kids are taught these days.
If it's a Disney flick, then it would have to feature a non-binary blue cat that trans-identifies as a St. Bernard.
Actually Freud would be an attractive young woman with a father but no mother in sight.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 5:58 pmIf it's a Disney flick, then it would have to feature a non-binary blue cat that trans-identifies as a St. Bernard.
And it would crash at the box office.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 6:08 pmActually Freud would be an attractive young woman with a father but no mother in sight.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 5:58 pmIf it's a Disney flick, then it would have to feature a non-binary blue cat that trans-identifies as a St. Bernard.
And it would crash at the box office.
Ironically, Freud was an older male who hated his father. About his mom, we can only guess...but at least Freud didn't poke out his own eyes.Clearly, the only thing you demonstrate here is how shallow and lame your verbose story can be as you try to justify or prove your imaginative brilliant observer position and perspective.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 2:32 pm it appears that Lacewing is in acute rebellion against her own Christian formation in some sort of evangelical Christian community.
Well, as the Man said: “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown."Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 2:32 pm What I try to do -- standing as *witness* to the personal conflict that in fact expresses a far larger and wider ideological and metaphysical conflict -- is to present a way of seeing the essential struggle in somewhat different terms. For that reason -- and perhaps stupidly (?) -- through a reference to the Platonic Cave. So in this model Lacewing and Immanuel are down there is a *pit* where vision is impaired and where all these personal issues intrude and complicate the conflict. They believe that they are in profound and irreconcilable conflict. And perhaps if we see their struggle applied to the *outside world*, perhaps we have no choice but to entertain the idea of *irreconcilable differences*.
Personally, I have resolved a great deal of the conflict and contradiction in everything we have been discussing as religious and Christian by a sort of intellectual manoeuvre of *ascent* to a level or layer above the fray. I suggest that that gives me a vantage and an advantage that both Lacewing and Immanuel cannot seem to attain. Immanuel because he is locked into a *absolutist* position, and oddly Lacewing because she too, in her strange way, holds to a contrarian absolutism.
I can accept that he may show certain untoward traits, but the larger point -- the most important thing -- does not really have to do with Immanuel.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:45 pmYou are drawn & quartered and hopelessly confused by your own admission. You’ve been through everything (like Forrest Gump) and nothing is “real” for you. Now, you have a nihilistic position and seem to dedicate yourself to it.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:29 pmClick.
No, I am not in the least bit drawn and quartered [let alone hopelessly confused] regarding the preponderance of experiences in my life.
The either/or world is as applicable to me as to anyone else here.
On the other hand, for those of your ilk, value judgments themselves are no less a part of the either/or world.
Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".
Well, up in the philosophical and the ideological clouds, anyway.
Then straight back up into psycho-babble clouds...
Whatever that means? How about we zero in on a particular context involving morality and discuss it...existentially?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:45 pmBecause that is your state, and also the position that you believe is authentically existentially and philosophically the right one (the only proper one) there is no real sense in engaging with you.
Come on, AJ, even you must grasp that "conventional usage" evolves over time historically, culturally and experientially in regard to our value judgments.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:45 pmBut start with one definition. Can you name one action that you feel is noble? If only within conventional usage of the term.
Isn't that why objectivists of your kind will, one way or another, come to embody the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
The only thing that really changes -- God or No God -- is the particular "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" dogma that is clung to in order to anchor one's precious Self to the most comforting and consoling rendition of "one of us" vs. "one of them".
...and you "snip" out one fragment of it:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:33 pmWhat is important to you about these things? They seem relevant because you bring them up time and again. Can you explain why?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:09 pm Race, gender, sexual orientation, Jews and morality are all inherent manifestations of "biological imperatives".
Is there some specific question you have for me as one you define of an “ilk” different from your own? What?
...and Mr. Snippet is again reduced down to this:Well, we can ask folks of color and women and homosexuals and Jews and liberals why the thinking of those like Satyr -- and yourself? -- is important to them.
My own main focus of course is moral and political and religious objectivism itself. The points I note above.
In particular, when the objectivists among us are in a position of power. When they can enforce their own dogmas. All the way up to the Holocaust? With Satyr, however, it just comes down to him "disappearing" those at KT who won't join his clique/claque.
That's why in regard to both of you, I am interested not in what you believe about "one of them" but what actual political policies you would pursue if you were in a position of power in any particular community.
The part you avoid [with me] like the plague because it's simply not abstract enough for you.
Alexis wiggle, wiggle, wiggle Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 2:32 pm I wish to dedicate this post to our own Iambiguous and in the hope that Glorious Isis will round up all the pieces of his scattered and fractured Self and mend them all back together.
We can type without addressing anyone but we can't type without being read. That is the fundamental problem for you. The fundamental problem for me is how to satisfactorily end my own existence.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 8:28 pmI can accept that he may show certain untoward traits, but the larger point -- the most important thing -- does not really have to do with Immanuel.
So in addition to being a objective witness on a project of psychological inquiry, you're also a misunderstood prophet?Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 8:26 pm Well, as the Man said: “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown."
I think the Judge was fairly explicit. Thou shalt have no gods before me is rule number 1.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:43 pmI wouldn't say that, at all. Of course, I'm not the Judge...Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:13 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in God's eyes, between child abuse and atheism, the greater crime is atheism.
I suppose that's fair...although Atheists might protest that they have no "gods."Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 9:55 pmI think the Judge was fairly explicit. Thou shalt have no gods before me is rule number 1.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:43 pmI wouldn't say that, at all. Of course, I'm not the Judge...Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:13 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in God's eyes, between child abuse and atheism, the greater crime is atheism.
Doesn't sound fair to me. Of course, I'm not God, so I can't really condemn people to Hell for not being nice to me, let alone bowing to me. Oh well. Sucks not to be God.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 10:48 pmI suppose that's fair...although Atheists might protest that they have no "gods."Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2023 9:55 pmI think the Judge was fairly explicit. Thou shalt have no gods before me is rule number 1.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 3:43 pm
I wouldn't say that, at all. Of course, I'm not the Judge...