Fallacy of Subjectivity

[zinnat]

@iambiguous

In simplistic terms, perhaps.

Why that perhaps? Are you not sure about your dasein driven opinions?

But your example has little or nothing to do with the distinction I keep making.

Please explain that.

Again, do you consider my bitch rational or not, and why?

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?

Let us first decide whether she is rational or not. and, if we both find that she is also rational like us, i will certainly pass you invitation to her.

What on earth does this mean?!

Not only on the earth but under the sky also, this simply means that you/we have to decide first what is the exact definition of rationality, only then we would be able to judge whether anyone is rational or not.

But, you are avoiding this essential step, and want to judge one’s rationality as per one’s opinions. That is putting horses behind the cart instead of ahead.

What if you are asking to any such person about his/her opinions, who is not rational (according to our heads) in the first place?

There are things that we can all understand objectively: Mary had in fact aborted her fetus. The fetus is dead. It is dead for everyone.

Again, my bitch can also deduce dead fetuses. Are you ready to consider her rational just because she can also realize this objectively?

What is the exact limit of the knowledge/intelligence/wisdom in rationality according to your head?

Now, if someone believes it is not dead but is now with God in Heaven, that’s the part where my own understanding of dasein kicks in. Existentially he has come to believe in God. And part of this includes believing [in his head] that aborted babies go to Heaven.

But: How does he in fact demonstrate this?

How does he in fact demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was immoral?

Again: You tell me.

Again, all these things can be discussed only when you agree with my conditions, otherwise not.

For now, we are going to limit our discussion only to how one ought to post at ILP, and we are trying to finalize the definition of rational people for that.

But, you still did not answered my question; why are you repeating note to others even on those issues which are related to the heads only?

I hope that you would not avoid answer next time.

This has almost nothing to do with the distinction I am making.

On the contrary, it is very much related to what you said. I will explain that below.

I am merely noting that we are able to point to personal experiences in our lives that lead us to believe that certain behaviors are reasonable/moral or unreasonable/immoral. Each and every individual will have his or her own set of behaviors, experiences and moral narratives.

Agreed.

My distinction instead revolves around the difference between 1]those who have in fact come to grasp the implications of that but have concluded in turn that, in using the tools of philosophy, we can discern our actual obligations as rational/moral individuals and 2] those like me who are entangled in my dilemma above.

Now, we are back to square one again, as you are now proposing to leave the decision making on those who are rational enough to use the tools of philosophy. Right!

That is why i am asking you again and again that you have to define and find rational people before anything else.

So, again, are you ready to consider my bitch also rational, or not, and why?

zinnat wrote:

Iamb, having disagreement with someone does not entail that i must have been in dilemmas. Do you not understand the difference between the two? Secondly, how a subjectivist like you can ever reach to that conclusion that i am in any sort of dilemma? Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist? What if only you are in the dilemma and i am able to see things clearly, at least more than you, if not up to the end? Are you aware of my daseins?

Iamb, you did not answer my above mention question but avoid it. Please answer it next time.

They can provide me with examples from their own lives such that when their values come into conflict with others, they are able to demonstrate that their own behaviors reflect the most rational/reasonable frame of mind. They either will or they won’t. They either can or they can’t.

What purpose that would serve? If they tell about daseins, would you leave yours and accept their version? And,if not, why are you asking them to tell their daseins?

Instead, like you, they generally dodge this part altogether:

Instead, it is not me but you, who are dodging the discussion about fallacy of subjectivity all along by not agreeing to my petty condition.

Note to others:

Does he or does he not keep wiggling out in confronting his own inability to respond to this distinction?

Perhaps some of you might be willing to address it. At least provide him with examples of how it might be tackled.

[b]Note to others - I am ready to leave the decision to others, but only those whom are considered rational by both of us. Or, if Iamb agrees that all posters are rational here. I am ready to have voting on this. Not only that, i am ready to leave this exclusively to the mods also, if Iamb agrees and considers all mods rational.

But, i have only one condition. Iamb has to define rationality in the first place, and explains me why he considers anyone rational.[/b]

See iamb, i am all in for your note to others. Now, tell me which option suits best to you! You would not find more liberal opponent than me, ever.

zinnat wrote:
Precisely. That is what i am telling you all along. If you want something from me, you also have to give something to me in the exchange. Otherwise, you can go to your way and i will go towards mine, end of the story.

If you are not ready to toe my line, why are you expecting me to toe to yours one? I am as spoiled, stubborn and intellectual cheat ( though, only in this thread) as you. Let me see how are you going to handle a person like yourself on the ground.

Iamb, you did not address above mentioned portion also.

Actually, you know that your ideology is so lame that it cannot stand on its own, and that is precisely why you are not willing to agree to my condition of not bringing others between us. You know that you need borrowed crutches all the time.

Note to others - Can Iamb has any other reason for not agreeing with such a petty condition of mine?

Iamb, you did not address above mentioned portion also.

Suppose Trump does go on to win the presidency. He does in fact become the president of the United States. Trust me: If someone points this out at the time, I will believe him. My “grooting” points are completely irrelevant to that which can in fact be demonstrated as true objectively. But what if this same person points out that this is also what ought to have happened in turn. Am I obligated as a rational human being to concur? How would anyone be able to tear down the barrier here between what in fact does happen and all of the conflicting and contradictory reactions that we will have to the fact of it?

Now, will you wiggle out of responding to this too?

[u]There is no wiggling out from my end. I am merely setting a mutually acceptable base line for further discussion.

First of all, we have to define rationality.
Then, we have to find rational people.
Then, we will ask them how one ought to post at ILP.

Only then, we would be able to discuss anything else. Otherwise, the discussion would not serve any purpose, because you keep behaving according to your dasein, and me as mine, and as the result, we would keep arguing merely on how one ought to post at ILP, instead of how one ought to live.

Or, if you want to bypass all that, agree to my terms and your wish would be granted immediately.[/u]

Note to others - Please decide whether my approach is right or wrong!

How am I not doing so? Sure, I invite others to offer arguments able to demonstrate that either my rationale or yours reflects the more reasonable assessment of the situation.
In other words, such that this argument reflects the objective truth rather then [subjectively] a personal opinion or a political prejudice.

The ball is always in/on the court. What we squabble about instead is who is able to put it through the hoop.

I have already given my consent to your proposal regarding this. Not only that, i have provided you many options there also to choose. You cannot complain now.

What on earth does his point have to do with mine?

It is related to you by all means, and you and others also understand this very well. This playing innocence of yours does not appeal anyone. All posters at ILP very well understand when anyone is merely pretending and when he is actually innocent. You will realize this too, if you ever agree to voting or any other kind of arbitration.

Iamb, you are not as smart as you think. And, others are also not as fool as you think.

And zinnat either does or does not believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.

And, if he does, then this God must be factored into any behavior that he chooses. After all, pertaining to most Gods, immortality and salvation itself is at stake.

Again, we are not discussing god here but how one ought to post at ILP, and god has not given any direction regarding that.

I am of the belief that ILP does in fact exist. Objectively. That this thread does in fact exist. Objectively. That we are in conflict regarding the manner in which I posted above on this thread pertaining to an exchange you had with [as I recall] Moreno. Objectively.

But, when i gave your objective argument to by bitch, she refused to acknowledge it as an objective proof. She claimed that it is merely in my head. She also asked to show ILP and this thread on the ground. How am i supposed to convince her that ILP exists in reality?

But: In my own subjective opinion, it is reasonable for me to comment on an exchange between others on this thread. And not to just confine myself to our to-to-one exchange. And I explained why above.

But, in my subjective opinion, that is not reasonable. Like you, i cannot help it either. So, now what?

And I am not interested in setting up my own set of rules here. Basically, I am willing to take my chances with no rules at all. But that frame of mind is no less embedded in dasein.

And, my frame of mind for making rules is embedded in my dasein.

Just deduced [defined] into existence? Nope.

If that is true, it means that we will never able to decide how one ought to post at ILP?
And, if that is also true, we would never able to even discuss how one ought to live?
Right or wrong?

Okay, note an example of a value judgment of yours that came into conflict with another’s. If you do not construe your value here to be “absolutely objective”, how then did you make the distinction “out in the world” between you being right from your side and him or her being right from theirs?

Another words, provide us with your own rendition of Groot #2.

Again, leave all that for later. Let us first decide how one ought to post at ILP, or define rationality and find rational people to decide that for us.

So you assert. But: that is basically the extent to which you demonstrate it. In my opinion, of course.

Yes, as i assert, of course, according to my head. Do i not have that right like you?

I gave my reasons for posting as I do above, you gave yours. Now what? How would the puzzle be solved such that all reasonable/rational men and women would either embrace your point of view or mine?

Or come up with an optimal argument all their own.

There are many other options still open for you, like general voting, mod’s opinion etc, if we can agree on the definition of the rational people. Or, you can leave the thread. Or, you can continue, if you want. Choose anyone that suits you the most. I am okay with all.

Yes, if we choose to interact with others, there will inevitably come a clash between disparate wants and needs. Both in terms of means and ends.

Then, choose the option of define rationality, finding rational people, and leave the dispute to those to decide for us.

The purpose revolves around the necessity to establish rules of behavior. Dasein is only relevant here to the extent that we do get into conflicts regarding what those rules ought to be. After all, who can reasonably argue that we don’t need them?

Does that not mean you are conceding that there must be some rules even regarding those issues also which are or the purely in our head types?

What I am looking for then is an argument able to transcend an intersubjective [political] consensus. In other words, able to articulate the whole objective truth.

But, when you claim that every in the heads only types of issue is merely the product of any particular dasein, and thus can be subjective only, how on the earth can you ever expect that to give you the whole objective truth?

Obviously: Down on the ground the carefully calibrated definitions and deductions collide head on with contingency chance and change. With dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Each side claims to have demonstrated that their own values reflect the optimal frame of mind. But only because they start out with a conflicting set of premises.

For example sport hunting: debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index … _for_sport

Both sides are able to make arguments that the other side may or may not be able to [in part] deflect. But neither side’s arguments can ever be entirely refuted. Not all of them. Instead, there are conflicting goods [conflicting assumptions] that tend to be rooted in the lives that men and women have actually lived. And then within any particular community laws will be enacted reflecting the power [at any given time] of the different sides to enforce their own political agenda.

All that still does not answer my question, thus i am repeating it-

zinnat wrote:
But, when any one argues the same in the case of morality or even god, you ask them to demonstrate everything on the ground, otherwise you declare those people philosophically naive and stupids. Why?

Then we are both in the same boat. We agree that sans God there does not appear to be a truly demonstrable manner in which to make distinctions like this such that it can be demonstrated in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to behave as all rational men and women are obligated too.

And, again, that’s before we get to the arguments that revolve around folks who are imprisoned for murdering others. In other words, contexts in which the consensus is not more or less overwhelming.

But, where are we in the same boat? Did not accepted that you consider jaywalking not as hideous crime as a murder?
Explain me how a subjectivity like you can ever conclude that without relying on objectivity?

I don’t believe in God. Do you?

If you do not believe in the god, how you concluded that a jaywalker is not worthy of capital punishment?
By the way, i consider Nietzsche your the God, not anyone else. Did he told you that only a murderer should be hanged!

I am simply noting the difference between being able to demonstrate that Joe did in fact jaywalk [there is an actual video of him jaywalking that can be in turn demonstrated to be genuine], and whether jaywalking ought to be a capital offense. In the first instance it makes no difference what the “consensus of opinion” is. He did in fact jaywalk. In the second the consensus may be overwhelming that he not be executed for jaywalking but that [in my view] is not the same thing as demonstrating philosophically that it is necessarily irrational or illogical or immoral to execute him for jaywalking. Here you need God or some secular equivalent.

But, how all that resulted in asking me to prove that jaywalker should be hanged?
Gone with the objectivist flow!

Unless of course I’m wrong. And, regarding discussions like this, I am always willing to acknowledge that I may well be.

Of course, you are wrong most of the times, but contrary to your claim, you are not willing to admit it ever.

with love,
sanjay

[iambiguous]

@zinnat

@iambiguous

In simplistic terms, perhaps.

Why that perhaps? Are you not sure about your dasein driven opinions?

Again and again and again and again: I am certain of things that all of us seem [objectively] able to be certain about: mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of languages.

Dasein [as I understand it here and now] revolves only around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world of conflicting behaviors.

And not as dogs discuss this, but as we do.

But your example has little or nothing to do with the distinction I keep making.

@zinnat

Please explain that.

Again, do you consider my bitch rational or not, and why?

The bitch is rational to the extent that we can speak of rational behavior in animals that are driven more [considerably more] by instinct.

It might be like speaking of human behavior as rational in a world entirely governed by the immutable laws of matter. A wholly determined world in which no living [or non-living] entity can do other than as it must.

Now, point this out to your bitch and let us know how she responds.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?

@zinnat

Let us first decide whether she is rational or not. and, if we both find that she is also rational like us, i will certainly pass you invitation to her.

Are you going to respond to this…

[b][i]But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such that it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?[/i][/b]

…or not?

Now, if someone believes it is not dead but is now with God in Heaven, that’s the part where my own understanding of dasein kicks in. Existentially he has come to believe in God. And part of this includes believing [in his head] that aborted babies go to Heaven.

But: How does he in fact demonstrate this?

How does he in fact demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was immoral?

Again: You tell me.

@zinnat

Again, all these things can be discussed only when you agree with my conditions, otherwise not.

Note to others:

This way [of course] he never has to address the points that I raised on 4/1 above.

@zinnat

For now, we are going to limit our discussion only to how one ought to post at ILP, and we are trying to finalize the definition of rational people for that.

But, you still did not answered my question; why are you repeating note to others even on those issues which are related to the heads only?

I hope that you would not avoid answer next time.

Note to others:

When an objectivist of zinnat’s ilk is reduced down to charging folks like me with avoiding answers to their questions what they mean is that the answers that you give to any question are not the one that they would give. Heads they win, tails you lose. Let’s call it, say, the Satyr/Lyssa Syndrome.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

As for all the rest:

me [from zinnat’s perspective]: blah, blah, blah
zinnat [from my perspective]: blah, blah, blah

The substantive points that I raised on 4/1 remain dangling…unanswered.

Shall we take them to a new thread?

[James_S_Saint]

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

[iambiguous]

@James S Saint

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

Notice how James immediately brings this all down to earth regarding behaviors of his own that come into conflict with others.

Not.

[James_S_Saint]

@iambiguous

@James S Saint

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

Notice how James immediately brings this all down to earth regarding behaviors of his own that come into conflict with others.

Not.

Notice how Bigus immediately attempts to make it personal when he has nothing relevant with which to counter.

[zinnat]

@iambiguous

@zinnat

@iambiguous

In simplistic terms, perhaps.

Why that perhaps? Are you not sure about your dasein driven opinions?

Again and again and again and again: I am certain of things that all of us seem [objectively] able to be certain about: mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of languages.

That is why i told earlier you that neither you are as intelligent as you think nor others are as fool as you think. Allow me to make you realize how naive your above mentioned claims are, besides how much they contradict your in the mind only/on the ground type of philosophy.

Contrary to what you think, there is no objectivity whatsoever involved neither in maths nor in languages. These are ontologies based on certain premises, which are not truly objective, though objective enough to serve the purpose in the most of the occasions. Besides that, both exist in the minds only, not on the ground.

Can you provide me any on the ground proof of either of maths or the languages? I openly challenge you that you would be never able to that in your life.

Most of the intellectuals do not understand this( i was included in that list too), but maths is not perfect, but merely approximately perfect. Though, it has that much perfection that it is workable for the masses. I came to this realization after coming at ILP when i had conversation with James. And, unlike you, i not only accepted my mistake but corrected it too without letting my ego to come in between.

[u]Just like you, I also would have argued with him just for the sake for arguing or defending my ego, but i did not. I did not hesitated for a moment as soon as realized that i was wrong and he was right. And, also unlike you, i did not kept repeating like parrot that show me everything in the ground, because mental constructs cannot be shown on the ground in many cases.

To me, that is precisely what objectivity is. And, that is why i can learn and you cannot. And, that precisely why my approach is right and yours is wrong.[/u]

Dasein [as I understand it here and now] revolves only around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world of conflicting behaviors.

And not as dogs discuss this, but as we do.

How you concluded that the dogs do not discuss this? Have you crowed in their minds? My guess is that they also discuss subjectivity/objectivity like us.

But your example has little or nothing to do with the distinction I keep making.

@zinnat

Please explain that.

Again, do you consider my bitch rational or not, and why?

The bitch is rational to the extent that we can speak of rational behavior in animals that are driven more [considerably more] by instinct.

It might be like speaking of human behavior as rational in a world entirely governed by the immutable laws of matter. A wholly determined world in which no living [or non-living] entity can do other than as it must.

Now, point this out to your bitch and let us know how she responds.

I gave her your explanation and she responded--------

She says that what you are calling instinct in her case, is how different from what you call dasein in the case of humans?
Are humans not driven by their instincts?
Why two different terms for the same phenomenon?
She is claiming as she can also deduce on the ground objectivity like you, how on the earth she is not rational but only you are!

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that?

Yes, she may join but she is also of the opinion that we humans uselessly keep discussing only in our heads issues only, which are of no use for her. she is interested only on the ground issues.

And how would those of our own species debate this here such it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?

Being an ardent follower of Nietzsche like you, she is not interest in ethics. She says that such things use to exist on the minds of humans like you. She wants to be an Ubermensch and follow her will to power.

@zinnat

Let us first decide whether she is rational or not. and, if we both find that she is also rational like us, i will certainly pass you invitation to her.

Are you going to respond to this…

[b][i]But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such that it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?[/i][/b]

…or not?

Iamb, as usual, you again avoided the first step and wants to jump on the second one.

Before inviting her to join ILP, do we not have to decide whether she is worthy for that or not! But, you do not want to do that and start a discussion with with before that. This is not how things are done on the ground in the real life.

Do we select and train soldiers before sending them to the battlefield, or just send anyone on the battlefield and then later decide by judging his performance there whether he should be considered a solider or not!
Why you always keep putting horses behind the chariot always?
Is this all you have learned from from your dasein of Vietnam war?
Why you do not follow your dasein in you dasein philosophy?

Note to others : please decide whether our dasein philosopher is more naive or more hypocrite!

Now, if someone believes it is not dead but is now with God in Heaven, that’s the part where my own understanding of dasein kicks in. Existentially he has come to believe in God. And part of this includes believing [in his head] that aborted babies go to Heaven.

But: How does he in fact demonstrate this?

How does he in fact demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was immoral?

Again: You tell me.

@zinnat

Again, all these things can be discussed only when you agree with my conditions, otherwise not.

Note to others:

This way [of course] he never has to address the points that I raised on 4/1 above.

Again, if you are so willing to have that discussion going, why do you not agreeing with my that much petty condition? Why are you so afraid? Does your Grooting philosophy cannot stand on its own?

@zinnat

For now, we are going to limit our discussion only to how one ought to post at ILP, and we are trying to finalize the definition of rational people for that.

But, you still did not answered my question; why are you repeating note to others even on those issues which are related to the heads only?

I hope that you would not avoid answer next time.

Note to others:

When an objectivist of zinnat’s ilk is reduced down to charging folks like me with avoiding answers to their questions what they mean is that the answers that you give to any question are not the one that they would give.

I am not expecting you to give answer what i want. That would be last thing on the earth that i can expect. But, i want you to answer, whatever you want.

Note to others: Please decide whether which one of us is right in his claim?

Heads they win, tails you lose.

But, my dear iamb, it is not me but you who is not ready to spin to coin and keep assuming in your mind what will happen later. First spin the coin, then see what happens.

Let’s call it, say, the Satyr/Lyssa Syndrome.

I do not want to talk about others here, irrespective of whomsoever they may be. Let us limit it to a dual only.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

Yes, of course, as always.

As for all the rest:

me [from zinnat’s perspective]: blah, blah, blah
zinnat [from my perspective]: blah, blah, blah

Again, have you forgotten here your dasein philosophy here? How you concluded that it is blah, blah, blah for me too. No, it is not. I am quite serious here and doing all this for a purpose. Though, you know better about yourself.

But, If you really believe what you said above, why are you that much interested in keep posting! You should have been left the thread long ago.

The substantive points that I raised on 4/1 remain dangling…unanswered.

Shall we take them to a new thread?

If whatever i say is nothing but merely blah, blah and blah for you, what purpose the other thread would serve?
Is one thread is not enough for all that bah, blah and blah!

Note to others : Please note the mindset of Iamb here, that how much respect he has for the daseins of others. Whatever others use to say, is nothing but a blah, blah and blah for him.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

Iamb,

As you are on the losing side here at this discussion with me, which is evident from your continuous shorten replies, and you avoidance of addressing of many points/questions that i raised. But, i would not let that happen. I will constantly keep remind you and others too.

Note to others ; please note how Iamb is not able to address my many points.

1 . But, you still did not answered my question; why are you repeating note to others even on those issues which are related to the heads only?

2 . Iamb, having disagreement with someone does not entail that i must have been in dilemmas. Do you not understand the difference between the two? Secondly, how a subjectivist like you can ever reach to that conclusion that i am in any sort of dilemma? Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist? What if only you are in the dilemma and i am able to see things clearly, at least more than you, if not up to the end? Are you aware of my daseins?

3 . What purpose that would serve? If they tell about daseins, would you leave yours and accept their version? And,if not, why are you asking them to tell their daseins?

4 . Note to others - I am ready to leave the decision to others, but only those whom are considered rational by both of us. Or, if Iamb agrees that all posters are rational here. I am ready to have voting on this. Not only that, i am ready to leave this exclusively to the mods also, if Iamb agrees and considers all mods rational.

But, i have only one condition. Iamb has to define rationality in the first place, and explains me why he considers anyone rational.

See iamb, i am all in for your note to others. Now, tell me which option suits best to you! You would not find more liberal opponent than me, ever.

5 . Precisely. That is what i am telling you all along. If you want something from me, you also have to give something to me in the exchange. Otherwise, you can go to your way and i will go towards mine, end of the story.

If you are not ready to toe my line, why are you expecting me to toe to yours one? I am as spoiled, stubborn and intellectual cheat ( though, only in this thread) as you. Let me see how are you going to handle a person like yourself on the ground.

6 . There is no wiggling out from my end. I am merely setting a mutually acceptable base line for further discussion.

First of all, we have to define rationality.
Then, we have to find rational people.
Then, we will ask them how one ought to post at ILP.

Only then, we would be able to discuss anything else. Otherwise, the discussion would not serve any purpose, because you keep behaving according to your dasein, and me as mine, and as the result, we would keep arguing merely on how one ought to post at ILP, instead of how one ought to live.

Or, if you want to bypass all that, agree to my terms and your wish would be granted immediately.

Note to others - Please decide whether my approach is right or wrong!

7 . But, when i gave your objective argument to by bitch, she refused to acknowledge it as an objective proof. She claimed that it is merely in my head. She also asked to show ILP and this thread on the ground. How am i supposed to convince her that ILP exists in reality?

8 . If that is true, it means that we will never able to decide how one ought to post at ILP?
And, if that is also true, we would never able to even discuss how one ought to live?
Right or wrong?

9 . Does that not mean you are conceding that there must be some rules even regarding those issues also which are or the purely in our head types?

10 . But, when you claim that every in the heads only types of issue is merely the product of any particular dasein, and thus can be subjective only, how on the earth can you ever expect that to give you the whole objective truth?

11 . But, when any one argues the same in the case of morality or even god, you ask them to demonstrate everything on the ground, otherwise you declare those people philosophically naive and stupids. Why?

12 . But, where are we in the same boat? Did not accepted that you consider jaywalking not as hideous crime as a murder?
Explain me how a subjectivity like you can ever conclude that without relying on objectivity?

Iamb, i hope that you will answer above mentioned points also along with the post i made above.

with love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

@James S Saint

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

True.

In simpler terms -

Objectivity is basally about keeping an honest, sincere and a continuous intent and efforts alive for betterment/perfection regarding all issues.

with love,
sanjay

[iambiguous]

@zinnat

Contrary to what you think, there is no objectivity whatsoever involved neither in maths nor in languages. These are ontologies based on certain premises, which are not truly objective, though objective enough to serve the purpose in the most of the occasions. Besides that, both exist in the minds only, not on the ground.

This sounds just like something a Serious Philosopher might say. You know, technically. On the other hand, for all practical purposes, mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of language etc., are construed by me [and others] to be true objectively for all men and women.

@zinnat

Can you provide me any on the ground proof of either of maths or the languages? I openly challenge you that you would be never able to that in your life.

Probably not, right? On the other hand, I can take one hamburger out of the frying pan and put it on a plate. Then I can take another hamburger out and put it on the plate. Then I can say, “there are two hamburgers on the plate.” And this is true objectively [as I understand it] for everyone.

But if Joe tosses the hamburgers in the trash can and says, “it is irrational and immoral to eat meat”, I would argue that this is just his own personal opinion reflected subjectively in a particular political prejudice.

A sort of “ordinary language” approach to these things.

Unlike the language that you and James have concocted “by definition”. Up in the stratosphere of scholastic bullshit. Unless of course it’s not.

Dasein [as I understand it here and now] revolves only around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world of conflicting behaviors.

And not as dogs discuss this, but as we do.

@zinnat

How you concluded that the dogs do not discuss this? Have you crowed in their minds? My guess is that they also discuss subjectivity/objectivity like us.

Note to others:
Am I meant to take this seriously?
Do you?

Are you going to respond to this…

[b][i]But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such that it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?[/i][/b]

…or not?

@zinnat

Iamb, as usual, you again avoided the first step and wants to jump on the second one.

Before inviting her to join ILP, do we not have to decide whether she is worthy for that or not! But, you do not want to do that and start a discussion with with before that. This is not how things are done [u]on the ground in the real life

.

Note to others:

What really, really, really important point is he making here that I keep missing?

@zinnat

Do we select and train soldiers before sending them to the battlefield, or just send anyone on the battlefield and then later decide by judging his performance there whether he should be considered a solider or not!
Why you always keep putting horses behind the chariot always?
Is this all you have learned from from your dasein of Vietnam war?
Why you do not follow your dasein in you dasein philosophy?

Note to others:

How is this not basically, well, babble?

Of course you train soldiers to be soldiers. But how do we then train philosophers to differentiate between a just war and an unjust war?

When do subjective opinions rooted in political prejudices become the “objective truth”?

And how does zinnat respond to this given the argument that he is making in the OP?

[iambiguous]

@zinnat

@James S Saint

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

True.

In simpler terms -

Objectivity is basally about keeping an honest, sincere and a continuous intent and efforts alive for betterment/perfection regarding all issues.

with love,
sanjay

Note to others:

Has anyone ever seen zinnat and James together at the same time and in the same place?

Seriously though, along with Phyllo, I have come to view them rather affectionately as “My Three Stooges”.

A tip of the hat to Tom Wolfe of course.

He said in jest.