Yes, Iamb is quite right. I asked a simple question a few posts back. He wrote a rather long post bringing up a lot of extraneous stuff and as far as I could tell did not answer the question. I mentioned this and he then posted what seemed possibly like and answer, which I paraphrased to see if it was the case. He opted not to confirm here.
He did, however, raise one of his perennial issues, which I was not interested in answering, however odd this may seem to him, me not being just like him.
Yes, I know. You personalize people and assess them psychologically. If I am a nihilist but am not as fractured as you I have some ideology that comforts me and you know what it is. You open the door to ad psychological stuff and then complain when you get responses in the same vein. Welcome to concrete reality. A place where even your actions and behavior and psychology may become the focus. Where other people are not just ideas in your head with the task of fixing your hole.
To be clear, I wanted to understand the answer to a question that had three possible answers: yes, no and I don’t know. The first time it elicited an extremely long answer that could not be interpreted as any of these. The second time, he did seem to make an effort to answer, though, I can’t be sure since he did not confirm my interpretation. I wanted no specific answer, but yes, I did sin on the side of wanting an actual direct response about what he thought was the case.
Okay, let’s assume I failed to answer this simple question of yours. Pease note the question again, so that you can explain to us in more detail why you believe I did not answer it. And then “possibly answered it”. What does that mean?
And note just a couple of the points I raised above that in your view are extraneous. What do you mean by this?
I don’t know how make it any clearer.
Objectivists react to me as they do here because I am clearly confronting them with a frame of mind that, if applicable to them, brings their own understanding of the “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do” crashing down. The last thing they want to believe about their own value judgments is that they are existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
But you, like me, are not a moral objectivist. We consider ourselves to be pragmatists…in however differently we have come to understand the meaning of that word.
But it’s that difference that most intrigues me.
My own understanding of it [as related to you on another thread] revolves around this:
With me I never feel completely comfortable regarding my own existential leap to a particular political prejudice. Why? Because I recognize [here and now] how my value judgments are just existential contraptions rooted in dasein. And that even to the extent I am able to convince myself that [in my case] the liberals have the better argument, my understanding of conflicting goods then forces me to accept that I accept this only because I have become predisposed existentially to embrace the assumptions made in the liberal arguments. An argument encompassed of late in my exchange with Peter Kropotkin regarding individual reactions to capitalism.
I’m merely grappling to understand how, when confronting contexts in which your own values are challenged, you do not react like this. You seem to just accept it better than I am able to.
So only to the extent that you note actual contexts in which these potential confrontations might crop up, will I come closer to understanding your own frame of mind.
No, objectivists react to you because your entire philosophy abrogates all responsibility, and also like a dominance brainwasher, to get everyone to say that 2+2=5, while all of your actions prove that you believe 2+2=4.
Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise… shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims