K: ok, not really where I want to go with this, but sure why not…
a little philosophy history: from 1910 to 1913, Russell and Whitehead wrote
the Principa Mathematica… this was their attempt to describe a set of
Axioms and inference rules in Symbolic logic from which ALL mathematical
truths could in principle be proven… As such this ambitious project is of
great importance in the history of Mathematics and philosophy… thank you wiki…
anyway, their attempt was to create the basis for which all statements
be grounded in… in other words, their goal was to create a language
for philosophy to use in its attempts to discover the world…the notion
that math and numbers are the basis of the world has been around since
Pythagoras and this was reinforced by Plato and Aristotle…
so they, Russell and Whitehead envisioned that this mathematical language
to be THE language of philosophy…(btw Wittgenstein shared until he went
into a different direction but he shared this idea of language being central
to philosophy) the Principia Mathematica (or as we shall call it, PM)
is the basis for the logical positivism movement that has dominated
philosophy since 1913… and yet, can anyone here tell me…
have the logical positivist solved any major philosophical problem?
for example, have the logical positive answered the question of
who are we? what is our purpose? What is the meaning of life?
NOPE… now we have philosophers such as Quine who
was voted the fifth best philosopher in the last two centuries,
and he did his work in formal logic and philosophy, and who followed this
path of logic and math being the basis of philosophy and yet can
anyone here, without looking it up, tell me what was Quine
contributions to philosophy, in other words, he may have done
great work in logic but it didn’t answer any of the great questions
that have plague people since the beginning of time…
it is logic chopping but not any type of philosophy that answers
people’s questions about life…this is what I mean by logic being
sterile… it doesn’t answer any of the questions that we
need answered as human beings…what is the point of life?
logic can’t answer that question… and so that in part, is why
philosophers and philosophy has been relegated to the back page
of people’s concern… now don’t get me wrong, logic does
have place as a TOOL, but only as a TOOL, it cannot solve
the big questions in life…now logic as a TOOL, has
been a part of the creation of the modern world of science and
technology and medicine but even that leaves one with the
question… how does all this great technology, like cell phones
and computers and airplanes, make us better human being or even
make us aware of the questions that we as human beings need to
be aware of, which is the eternal questions of philosophy…
what is the point of life? what is the meaning of life?
how can I be happy? is happiness even the point of life?
what is justice? All our great technology and all of our logic
cannot answer those questions… How do we find justice?
how would you use logic to answer that question? Logic is only
the tool used to organize your thoughts to think about justice,
it is not the tool you use to discover what is justice and there
is a difference between the tool you use and the material
used to find out what is justice… a hammer is a tool and
quite a useful tool to build a house, but a hammer is not
the building material needed to build the house, don’t
mistake the building material needed to build something with
the tool needed to build the house… the search for justice
need a building material but logic is not that building material,
it is a tool that helps one use that building material…
I have no idea if this helps at all, but its what I got…
Kropotkin
K: I am impressed you had to go back over 2500 years to find an argument for logic,
as I have stated multiple times, logic is a tool, but ONLY a tool…
it is a tool to discover flaws in arguments and yet, and yet logic cannot
discover what is beauty or what is important in life or describe love…
Logic has very limited uses and that needs to be understood…
the logical argument for god uses logic… Aristotle unmoved mover
and yet that doesn’t “prove” that god exists, it is a logical argument
that has no basis in reality… you can show me by logic, I have a $100
bill in my wallet and yet, there isn’t a $100 bill in my wallet in reality…
(I am married with child and haven’t had a $100 dollar bill in my wallet in years
because my wife and or daughter would “borrow” it)
using logic to prove something doesn’t mean that something exists,
it is a logical argument that uses words to show how something
could exist, but doesn’t necessarily mean that something actually exists…
I am not against logic, but I must point out it limited uses and how
by the use of logic, it cannot lead us to any truth we exists in…
Kropotkin
K: my apologies… I have been distracted by other concerns here and have failed to give this
proper thought…I shall think and get back to you…
From my perspective, this observation is true objectively to the extent that you are able to demonstrate that all rational human beings are obligated to think the same. That, pertaining to murder and the killing of others, you can never be deemed rational unless you think about them in the Right Way. But, of course, once you bring God into it, all such “demonstrations” become rather…problematic?
Or, rather, pertaining to the “demonstrations” I have come upon of late. Here, for example.
Each individual is a “subject”. Out in a particular context, he or she has come to embody a particular existential relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world”.
And, again, to the extent that what we believe [or claim to know] is true “in our head” is able to demonstrated as that which all reasonable/rational folks are obligated to believe/know, is the extent to which it would appear to reflect an objective truth.
Or so it seems to me.
How many of us will argue that it is not true objectively that you have submitted this particular post in this particular thread in this particular philosophy venue?
As opposed to those who might well argue that the analysis itself is wrong? It is “illogical” say, or it is not “epistemologically sound”. And that’s just pertaining to a bunch of words telling us what another bunch of words mean.
Now, a particular Marxist is a particular subject who believes that the manner in which she construes the evolution of political economy over the course of human history commands all rational men and women to subscribe, in turn, to the manner in which this is embedded in “science”.
Thus Hegelian idealism is flipped upside down and becomes materialism. The final synthesis it is argued doesn’t just explain history, it changes it. Into Communism.
Only it hasn’t quite turned out that way has it? So, sure, some Marxists [as objectivists] will still insist that the science is sound but that we have failed to embody it soundly.
But [as with all other political objectivists] the Marxists [here and now] are burdoned with the task of demonstrating why and how what they believe “in their head” is in fact what all rational human beings are obligated to believe too.
So, are there any Marxists that you know who have actually accomplished this? Any more than any Randian Objectivists who have turned capitalism into a metaphysical truth.
I don’t/won’t become bogged down in these historical quagmires. Not anymore. Instead, I ask both the Christians and the Marxists to encompass their own value judgments in particular conflicts such that they are able to effectively respond to the manner in which I have come to construe these conflicts from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. How would they suggest to me [for all practical purposes] a way in which to untangle myself from this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
How are they not themselves entangled in it when confronting the values of others.
From my perspective, the scariest relativists are still those who eschew all ideological/teleological dogmas and insist that, in a world sans God, self-gratification is their own font of choice.
Really, what can we say to them [as philosophers] that will render this assumption as necessarily irrational?
But I no longer have a set of unchanging principles. I do not construe moral nihilism to be the “final synthesis”. On the contrary, it is but one more “existential contraption” that “here and now” seems reasonable to me. But I would never argue that the asssumptions I make regarding dasein, conflicting goods and political economy do in fact demonstrate what all rational human beings are obligated to think the same.
Sure, you can say…
Indeed, others have argued much the same. And, true enough, given the limitations of logic [as you are seeking to explore here – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … t=192254it ] it is easy enough to get bogged down in one or another “language game”.
Again, all of this is largely abstract. With respect to an issue like the death penalty, what does it mean to say that “for the most part, people are good”; they want to do “the right thing”.
How does noting this make the manner in which I construe value judgments – subjectively, subjunctively – as the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy less relevant? I am suggesting that, even though “here and now” you believe “X” about the death penalty, new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge might well persuade you to believe “Y” or “Z” someday instead.
The objectivists however insist that through God, through Reason or through Nature, it is possible to obviate dasein and conflicting goods; and then to arrive at the optimal frame of mind such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think like “one of us”.
And even here, political economy gets the final word. In other words, what counts is not what you believe is moral, but what – through moral prescriptions and legal proscriptions – you are able to enforce in any particular community.
The bottom line will always revolve around power. Either embodied [historically, culturally] in might makes right, right makes might or in democracy.
Or in an ever shifting amalgamation of all three.
instead of attacking the whole argument, I shall break it down to
make it easier to understand…I shall start with Conflicting goods…
as everyone seems to have a different definition, we should understand
what we means by conflicting goods…
now conflicting goods can have multiple meanings…
the word “goods” seems to be the sticking point…
are “goods” values such as honor or love or justice
for example, as a liberal, I want justice to be the primary
value of America and a conservative will want security as
the primary value to be pursued, these are conflicting values,
is this what we mean by conflicting goods?
or perhaps, again as a liberal, I want the focus of American policy
to be on the 99% of Americans, not on the 1%… conservatives clearly
want and push for American policy to be about the 1% and not on the 99%
of Americans…is this the conflicting goods theory in action?
can be…
or does conflicting goods actually mean, conflicting goods…
we have to understand what we mean to attempt to reach an answer…
so do one of these attempts actually come close to being an
answer to the question of “conflicting goods” or is the goods just another
word for values?
Kropotkin
Sure, we can spend time trying to pin down precisely what “good” means. How to define it. What the precise parameters of it are when we discuss that which we either can or cannot know about it.
On the other hand, long before the advent of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”, men and women interacted in one or another historical/cultural/experiential community in which “rules of behavior” were established [either as moral prescriptions or legal proscriptions] such that some behaviors were seen to be “good” for the community while other behaviors were seen to be “bad”.
But: Why one and not the other? And how, as individuals, do we come to embrace one frame of mind and eschew the other?
All I do here is to ask those who have in fact thought about “good” and “bad” as “serious philosophers” to bring their own scholastic, theoretical assumptions down to earth. To, in other words, embed their “analysis” into an actual existential context that we would all likely be familiar with.
What particular policy in what particular context seen from what particular point of view? This sort of rhetorical outburst is all hopelessly abstract to me. The conservative objectivist basically do the same thing. They simply align it with their own rendition of the “good”.
More abstraction.
Again, choose a particular issue – abortion, capital punishment, gun control, gender roles, sexuality, animal rights etc. – and describe that which you construe to be good behaviors regarding it.
Are you or are you not able to demonstrate that all reasonable/rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to share your point of view?
And how did you arrive at your own convictions in such a way that the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here is largely moot.
I wrote a long and detail response to your post and the cat stepped
on the computer and poof, its gone… so I shall try against tomorrow
as this is my day 10 of 10 straight days of working…
Kropotkin
Ouch.
I always create any particular long posts in WordPad first.
And I haven’t worked now in years. Though that’s the bad news.
I’ll do you a favor Peter:
Iambiguous thinks that being skullfucked while you are still alive is a conflicting good…
"It’s all good man! Peace out! I’m a lover, and I agree with all of you, so how in this scary universe, can anyone disagree with me?? I’m scared shitless, but now everyone is my friend because “it’s all good”
“Yeah, I’m that hippy asshole!”
I know, I know, Peter: more Kidstuff.
It’s all but destroyed the place, right? Well, if it hasn’t already.
I am winging it today…
one of your comments is about people sharing viewpoints…
I don’t expect people to share my viewpoint… what I want is people
to understand their own viewpoint… it is quite clear from reading post
from UCCI, and wyld and turd and other like minded individuals is that they
haven’t advanced from their parents viewpoints… I am willing to bet dollars to donuts,
(whatever the hell that means) that they haven’t changed from or
challenged their parents ideology…this is important part of becoming who you are
as a human, which is one of my main idea’s, challenging from or changing from your
parents ideology…
I do not expect people to come to the same conclusion I do and I don’t
think my conclusions is necessarily even the right conclusions…
I am not vain enough to think I have the right answers or the right truths…
as I have said before, my truths are my truths…
I think however, in broad stokes, not in specific details,
people can agree with certain aspects of what I believe in…
man is a social creature…
we exist in groups, not solitary
for the most part, human will do the right thing…
(however you define the right thing be it helping your fellow human being
or giving money or goods to charity, whatever that common good is)
people want peace and prosperity and to enjoy the benefits of that peace and prosperity…
and the idea of common good is an important one… we do not exist alone and we
don’t prosper or suffer alone… we do share our human heritage be it in success or
in failure…
we share our human heritage be it in families or friends or even here on ILP…
humans are about expressing, be it feelings, be it intellectual, be it in art,
we share who we are in those modes of action…we even share in marching
as I see hundreds of thousands doing today in many cities around the world…
that is a form of sharing our human heritage… we exist together…
I believe in those basic values…
I can’t expect everyone to share those values in that order…
my truths are my truths…
we can, I believe identify those share human values or we can call them
goods… now sometimes we have conflicting goods or conflicting values…
but if we have share human values, we can resolve those conflicting values…
by taking the long view… I have stated before, the basis of my view of
the “Human purpose” and that is simply that we have no other purpose then
to create and raise the next generation and give them a better life
then we had… this Darwinian idea is the basis of the “purpose”
of life… we only exist to carry on the species… so we can find share human values,
resolve conflicting goods, all on the basis of understanding of shared
understanding of our “purpose”… now I understand many will not accept or
even understand my idea of the purpose of the human race and I am not even
sure it is the right understanding but that understanding gives us a place to
begin our discussion of what is our purpose… it not object by any standard of
imagination… but I don’t think you can an objective standard of what our purpose
is or even if we have a purpose… but I do think you run idea’s through that idea…
is there a purpose in life and how do we find it thought the ideas we have…
the purpose gives us a “objective” standpoint through which we can discover
how to resolve conflicting goods, a standard in which we can begin to unite around or not…
once again I am not vain enough to think I have all the answers or that everyone must agree
with my understanding… all I ask is people take the time to think about it… what is our purpose
what does it take for us to fulfill that purpose…you can find another purpose and attempt
to discover what it takes for us to fulfill that purpose… you can begin to
think about our life in this manner… or not… but we have different objectives
with different goals and that is ok too…there is no objective or subjective…
there is just us and what do we do about that…
Kropotkin
Yes, one aspect of that which I construe to be the meaning of dasein [as it relates to objective or subjective points of view] is the part that revolves around when [historically] and where [culturally, experientially] we are thrown at birth and then raised in a particular family/community to embody particular moral and political narratives.
And, sure enough, many are indoctrinated as children to believe certain things and some of those folks will take this indoctrination with them all the way to the grave.
So, is this true of Uccisore, Turd and others here? Well, we’d have to ask them to examine that themselves.
Again, I root dasein and subjectivity/objectivity [as it pertains to my own value judgments] in this particular existential contraption:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Or just think of Trump’s children and Obama’s two girls. To what extent is all of this applicable to them? Of course in the modern world “I” is far, far, far more likely to come into contact with points of view at odds with what we were taught as children. For example conservatives come here and are confronted with liberal points of view. And the other way around. But few minds are ever changed, right?
And that [in my opinion] is where this comes in:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]
I call it the psychology of objectivism.
And yet to the extent that liberals and conservatives inflect [quite fiercely at times] a “one of us” vs. “one of them” frame of mind is the extent to which I suspect that [subjunctively] they hold “them” in contempt for not thinking as they themselves do.
And, sure, as Moreno would often point out, I can project in that manner myself. It’s just that I recognize my own value judgements “here and now” as [by and large] existential contraptions – as subjective/subjunctive fabrications embedded in my dilemma above.
Yes, and there is the liberal rendition of these “broad strokes” and the conservative rendition. There is the rendition rooted more in capitalism and the one rooted more in socialism. There is the rendition rooted in God, in political ideology, in political philosophy, in Nature.
Or in one of countless historical permutations.
I merely come back to the same distinction here with respect to the subjective/objective divide:
To what extent are you able to ascribe and then to demonstrate that what you believe [or claim to know] “in your head” as true is in fact true for all rational men and women?
I can only point out how utterly abstract [rhetorical, oratorical] this is. What does it mean out in a particular world pertaining to a particular context in which intelligent men and women can articulate profoundly conflicting value judgments relating to hundreds and hundreds of different behaviors embedded in enormously problematic sets of actual circumstances.
What else is there:
1] might makes right: the conservatives currently hold all the power in the legislative and exective branch of the federal government here in America
2] right makes might: conservatives hold this power because they ought to hold this power because a conservative agenda is inherently superior to a liberal agenda
3] democracy: the centrists in both camps are able to contain the objectivist extremists and one or another rendition of “moderation, negotiation and compromise” is sustained
In other words, these “basic values” that, with or without God, you and folks like Uccisore and Turd believe in, to what extent are they are derived essentially using the tools of philosophy and to what extent are they derived instead given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
And the only way to explore that more fully is to take those aspects embraced by either Liberals or Conservatives as essentially true and embed them in particular existential contexts in which actual conflicting behaviors are examined.
And I am certain that any number of conservative folks would argue the very same. After all, not all of them resort to the sort of huffing and puffing I am able to reduce Uccisore, Turd and their ilk down to.
But it is when we leave the lofty acclamations behind and examine the stirring rhetoric “out in the world” of actual conflicted behaviors that, in my view here and now, we come closer to my own assumptions.
Basically, iambiguous thinks iambiguous has a checkmate on everyone philosophically.
He thinks everything is good from some perspective, which means that if you disprove his theory, you’re actually proving it, because it’s just another opposing good.
By defining everything that conflicts as good, iambiguous realized that he can be a cool guy to everyone “it’s all good, you’re all good”. In this scary world where nobody wants an enemy. It’s a childish form of sheltering. Then he realized that if everyone can like him, than every concept can like him too. And he realized that if someone disagrees with him, it also proves his point.
So I came at iambiguous with this:
Being skullfucked while you are still alive is not a conflicting good.
And he just ignored me by making a straw man , when I called him out on the straw man, he ignored me completely.
To understand iambiguous, he wants desperately the illusion that there is no conflict, no danger, no enemy, which is why he types this nonsense day after day after day
Wow, not bad for a Kid.
[size=50][though not good either][/size]
Now, pick one:
or
Ironic.
Peter Kropotkin"] I am winging it today…
one of your comments is about people sharing viewpoints…
I don’t expect people to share my viewpoint… what I want is people
to understand their own viewpoint… it is quite clear from reading post
from UCCI, and wyld and turd and other like minded individuals is that they
haven’t advanced from their parents viewpoints… I am willing to bet dollars to donuts,
(whatever the hell that means) that they haven’t changed from or
challenged their parents ideology…this is important part of becoming who you are
as a human, which is one of my main idea’s, challenging from or changing from your
parents ideology…
[/quote]
I: Yes, one aspect of that which I construe to be the meaning of dasein [as it relates to objective or subjective points of view] is the part that revolves around when [historically] and where [culturally, experientially] we are thrown at birth and then raised in a particular family/community to embody particular moral and political narratives.
And, sure enough, many are indoctrinated as children to believe certain things and some of those folks will take this indoctrination with them all the way to the grave.
So, is this true of Uccisore, Turd and others here? Well, we’d have to ask them to examine that themselves.
Again, I root dasein and subjectivity/objectivity [as it pertains to my own value judgments] in this particular existential contraption:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
I: Or just think of Trump’s children and Obama’s two girls. To what extent is all of this applicable to them? Of course in the modern world “I” is far, far, far more likely to come into contact with points of view at odds with what we were taught as children. For example conservatives come here and are confronted with liberal points of view. And the other way around. But few minds are ever changed, right?
And that [in my opinion] is where this comes in:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]
I call it the psychology of objectivism.
K: but how is your request to run everything through Dasein any different then my request
to think about humans being social? in other words, you insist on running everything through
just as subjective viewpoint as I do… as we both agree there is no objective, the question
becomes which subjective viewpoints do we run everything through? yours, mine, Ucci, Turds,
phyillo’s? I can’t create an objective viewpoint and neither can you and neither can anyone…
this means every single viewpoint ever given is subjective and whose among all those billions
of billions of subjective viewpoints should we give value to? listen to? give priority to? and more
importantly, why? you have your “psychology of objectivism” but the reality is, objectivism doesn’t
exist… we pretend in weak moment but it doesn’t exist and the question becomes, how do we
decide what is important when all we are given is subjective viewpoints…
I: And yet to the extent that liberals and conservatives inflect [quite fiercely at times] a “one of us” vs. “one of them” frame of mind is the extent to which I suspect that [subjunctively] they hold “them” in contempt for not thinking as they themselves do.
And, sure, as Moreno would often point out, I can project in that manner myself. It’s just that I recognize my own value judgements “here and now” as [by and large] existential contraptions – as subjective/subjunctive fabrications embedded in my dilemma above.
K: yes, you are embedded in your subjective viewpoint as I am embedded in my subjective viewpoint
as phillo is embedded in his viewpoint as is Turd and Ucci… so whose subjective viewpoint do
I give priority to?
I: Yes, and there is the liberal rendition of these “broad strokes” and the conservative rendition. There is the rendition rooted more in capitalism and the one rooted more in socialism. There is the rendition rooted in God, in political ideology, in political philosophy, in Nature.
Or in one of countless historical permutations.
I merely come back to the same distinction here with respect to the subjective/objective divide:
To what extent are you able to ascribe and then to demonstrate that what you believe [or claim to know] “in your head” as true is in fact true for all rational men and women?
K: I think and have stated multiple times that capitalism is a false religion because it is
based on the idea that the point and reason of existence is to make money and
have as many possessions as possible… both I have stated are wrong and for the reasons
I have given many times…capitalism is just another subjective viewpoint as is socialism
as is believe in god as is belief in nature is just another subjective viewpoint, which viewpoint
to I accept and which one do I reject and WHY? why this subjective viewpoint instead of that
subjective viewpoint?
I: I can only point out how utterly abstract [rhetorical, oratorical] this is. What does it mean out in a particular world pertaining to a particular context in which intelligent men and women can articulate profoundly conflicting value judgments relating to hundreds and hundreds of different behaviors embedded in enormously problematic sets of actual circumstances.
K: to my mind, they aren’t abstract viewpoints, they are subjective viewpoints but not abstract.
I cannot even begin to say this viewpoint is right for this different behavior or this actual circumstances…
the best we can do is lay out the general subjective viewpoint and hope to create standards to
follow based on this general subjective viewpoint, not on any specific behavior or circumstance…
I:
1] might makes right: the conservatives currently hold all the power in the legislative and exective branch of the federal government here in America
2] right makes might: conservatives hold this power because they ought to hold this power because a conservative agenda is inherently superior to a liberal agenda
K: I have rejected those subjective viewpoints for the reasons you may guess, because my
subjective viewpoints reject those subjective viewpoints…at no point can I claim to be objective
any more then the “other side” can claim to be objective… so who do we follow? and why?
3] democracy: the centrists in both camps are able to contain the objectivist extremists and one or another rendition of “moderation, negotiation and compromise” is sustained
In other words, these “basic values” that, with or without God, you and folks like Uccisore and Turd believe in, to what extent are they are derived essentially using the tools of philosophy and to what extent are they derived instead given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
K: once again, your subjective viewpoints of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy…
how are they any less subjective then my viewpoints?
I: And the only way to explore that more fully is to take those aspects embraced by either Liberals or Conservatives as essentially true and embed them in particular existential contexts in which actual conflicting behaviors are examined.
I: And I am certain that any number of conservative folks would argue the very same. After all, not all of them resort to the sort of huffing and puffing I am able to reduce Uccisore, Turd and their ilk down to.
But it is when we leave the lofty acclamations behind and examine the stirring rhetoric “out in the world” of actual conflicted behaviors that, in my view here and now, we come closer to my own assumptions.
[/quote]
K: don’t reject lofty rhetoric, oftentimes the day is carried by nothing more then lofty rhetoric…
you can’t apply specific rules to actual conflicted behaviors and conflicted goods without admitting
you are just bringing in your subjective bias, your subjective opinion… that is all we have here
and all we will ever have… subjective rhetoric…there isn’t anything else…
Kropotkin
Hmm…
Time and again of late you abandon exchanges like this one…
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=192063&start=75
…and pop into new ones with “retorts”.
Just out of curiosity, did James teach you this?
You ask for people to respond to you but when Ecmandu responds with a post that you call “not bad”, then you don’t engage with him.
That’s ironic.
You made some statements in response to what I had written and you ended with this:
You’re asking other people to comment on what I wrote. I didn’t realize that I was supposed to write more.
Why should I write more, if your response, so often, is that you don’t understand what I wrote or how it is pertinent to your points?
You know, it seems like a waste of my time.