If goods conflict, then there can’t be any good. If they don’t conflict, then there is good and less good; bad.
To say that goods conflict is to say your argument conflicts it’s own purpose.
For example, dasein and anti dasein would be equally good for you… But since this refutes your argument and reason for posting… We can use meta logic to determine that you are getting value out of contradicting yourself, and the value is that it is a sign of conspicuous consumption in the animal kingdom, which provides the conceptual illusion that you are superhuman by destroying rationality and surviving … That’s your whole shtick here…
A bit too abstract for my taste. Let’s bring it down to earth.
In the abortion wars, there are those who claim that the “good” is the birth of the baby. Others, however, claim that the “good” is the right of a woman to choose.
Out in the real world in other words.
Now, in the manner in which you make your point above, how would you address these “conflicting goods”? And how would the manner in which you arrived at your own political prejudice not be the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Note to others:
This is typical of what the “analytic mind” often construes to be an “example”. “Meta-logic” indeed! What “on earth” is this supposed to mean?!
Hey now, don’t criticize analytic thought on the basis that Ecmandu is incoherent. He’s not really an example. Using the term ‘meta-logic’ as code for ‘here’s the part where I make shit up and you don’t question it’ is hardly analytic!
Meta logic is using it’s own system to check it’s own veracity on its own terms… I have the type of mind James is alluding to with this thread!
Obvious, dasein is a philosophy if conflicting goods…
Goods can only conflict if they are eternally equal …
Which means there is no good… Dasein is put forth as good, therefore it refutes it’s own internal logic using meta logic, I ambiguous calls this “too abstract” lol!!! And Uccisore calls it incoherent!!!
Actually, am I here to do all of your homework for you???
Uccisore argues that people choose life over consent, however the argument on a meta level has consent trumping life, therefor calculations for consent are the highest priority or the argument defeats the consent of itself.
Therefor, ethical suicide wins as a life affirming argument…, and again, Uccisore looks like a 2 year old in a debate.
He said as an ad hom, that I can’t even ADD numbers … I’m one of 4 people in all of human history who found a way to order the rational numbers … Sure I make mistakes too, but what has Uccisore contributed to math???
You stated that people made a value judgment that life is more important than suffering (consent violation) in most (my word to cut you some slack) cases, at least from the governmental level. You saw two equally conflicting goods, where there is in fact a factual answer for one over the other.
You slipped a bit by saying that sometimes people choose the wrong one, but made an odd argument, that because they chose it, it is good… (Contradiction)
As much as you like to tease me for sport … And your post is only 5 back or so, you argue like a child.
Saying I couldn’t even add definitely fits that !!!
My method for ordering the reals may not be in Wikipedia yet, but I discovered the mirroring technique, there are only three others known.
Dasein by definition, in order to work, requires eternally CONFLICTING goods… Which means neither one is good, which means there is no dasein (a thought put forth as good)
Yeah, that’s the sentence you read. If you go on to the sentences you didn’t read, it becomes obvious to any adult human being that I was using it as a hypothetical, saying that these people aren’t necessarily correct, and that other people may conclude the opposite.
I was absolutely not making any sort of argument about life v consent.
Again, this should be obvious to any adult who actually read the entirety of the post you’re talking about.
Why do you keep ‘replying’ to posts of mine without reading them fully? I call you out on it every time, and it just makes you look stupid.
I’m an adult, I read it, I did not misread the meta context of your post, which was “I’m writing this to defend dasein”. It’s not my fault of the whole thing looked moronic for that attempt…
The concept destroys itself using it’s own logic…
That’s called a meta logical analysis, and you made fun of me for using that term… Your post was word salad, which is what you accused me of.
Instead of engaging what you imagine the ‘meta context’ of people’s posts to be, how about you engage the actual words they wrote in reality? Ah, but you answer my question down here:
So you admit you didn’t understand what I wrote. Thank you.
Uccisore, you wrote your entire reply and the one after that just to call me an idiot for saying that, and this is the key word here, CONFLICTING goods is an oxymoron on every level…
That was the whole point if your post!!?
Given that context, yes, your post was gibberish!!!
Conflicting goods is NOT an oxymoron. Sadly, you didn’t comprehend my explanation as to why, so you utterly failed to interact with it. First you called it an argument for prefering life over consent, which it was not. Then you called it a defense of dasein, which it is not, then you called it word salad, which it is not.
This all could have been avoided by simply reading what I wrote before replying to it, or asking me to clarify the parts you didn’t understand.
Anyway, I’m not discussing it any further with you than this- you’re both irrational and dishonest, so there’s nothing to be gained from it.
The post in question, since now you’re calling me a liar …
The question is not whether people can come to varied conclusions, the question is whether as I stated before this … Goods necessarily conflict!!!
The only way goods can necessarily conflict is if they are equally good but opposed.
You would have done well to state that people have different preferences, like broccoli or Brussel sprouts, but these are not opposed, however, you basically made this argument by using a freedom vs. wealth argument.
Again, there is no dasein here…
Wealth is the consistency of an argument, freedom is the ability to deny the obviously true, so clearly in order for the argument to not contradict itself, freedom is restrained !!! This is my whole point!!!
Sorry if I came off rude, but you have done nothing to refute my original statement that dasein is an oxymoron by definition.
Even if we could prove axiomatically that there really was a conflicting good, we can prove that they cancel each other out so that they cannot have the quality of good, because of the oxymoronic nature of defining conflict as good amongst other things.
Oh look, you actually read the words I wrote this time and are attempting to respond to them. If only you would have done that the first time instead of turn this into a irritating shit show like you always do, maybe you’d be getting a substantive reply from me.
Actually, I answered your suicide example first - I did respond to you using it as an example of dasein and ignored the wealth one, I did read your post.
The suicide one is solvable as a consent issue, in contrast to the “dasein” of life, they are inseparable and I proved it… No dasein there…
I kept pressing my point that if goods conflict, then goods that don’t conflict are just as good as goods that conflict (because of anti-dasein) remember when I said that??? That means goods that don’t conflict aren’t better than goods that do conflict, which means the resolution of dasein isn’t better than dasein, or vice versa… Which means dasein isn’t a better theory than non dasein, which is saying nothing at all. That’s called meta logic!!