And same thing again. Ignoring the thing I said to pivot the conversation back to your Kafka trap.
Right, like I can’t make the same sort of accusation regarding all of the things that you ignore from my posts.
What you want of course is the right to bitch and moan about the lack of intelligent discussion here at ILP, but only if you get to say what constitutes intelligent discussion.
I have given you ample opportunity to bring your [no doubt] epistemologically sound arguments out into the world of actual flesh and blood conflagrations. For instance, the stuff we read about in the news day after day after day.
You either will or you won’t.
Let others then decide for themselves who makes the better argument. And by that I mean effectively intertwines words and worlds.
You can’t make the same sort of accusation if you actually know what a Kafka trap is. But yes, of course you can reverse the impact of my sentences by switching a couple words around to make it seem as though I’m guilty of the thing I accuse you of- that’s like, one of the three kinds of posts that you do here.
Yes, I did, and others have, and we all see how you respond when that happens. That’s why the only conversation you get here now is of the “What’s wrong with Iambiguous” kind. We didn’t all conspire behind your back to merely pretend that you’re insufferable and irrational, you know.
Okay, explain to me what a Kafka trap is. And then note how it is applicable to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Also, note that Gib has started a new thread in the philosophy forum. It will revolve around those who have perused the OP above and are then willing to discuss a] the manner in which they do not agree with my reasoning and b] the manner in which it is not applicable to their own value judgments when they come into conflict with another.
Hope to see you there.
Okay, note where you did in fact bring your own philosophically sound argument regarding the nature of human identity – “I” as it pertains to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments – down to earth such that it revolves around a moral or political conflagration of note.
I missed it.
Again, my aim here is not to explore whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives who are right about an issue like abortion, but to explore instead…
1] the manner in which any particular individual’s point of view here is embedded in my understanding of dasein above
2] the manner in which individuals on both sides of the issue embrace conflicting goods such that in using the tools of philosophy ethicists are unable to establish [deontologically] our moral obligation as rational human beings
3] the manner in which out in the real world what ultimately counts is not necessarily who is right or wrong, but who has the political and economic power to enforce his or her agenda
As for the threads that revolve around me, I speculate that the motivation behind them lies in the manner in which my attack on objectivism [the “objectivist mind”] is starting to become all that much more effective.
I really bother some folks here, don’t I? After all, they do have so much to lose if my point of view is reasonable.
Right?
In other words, I’ve been there myself. My own objectivism has bitten the dust. Or perhaps someone here might succeed in yanking me up out of my dilemma above.
Also, I can just imagine the reaction of folks when the ideas of Nietzsche first began to percolate all those years ago. I mean, what if his arguments are reasonable?
It’s just that I don’t exclude the ubermen [the KT crowd] from my own narrative.
We all got together and decided. You’ve lost all the arguments.
Seconded.
A Kafka trap is a situation in which a person is accused of being X through their denial of X. In this case, the X is ‘objectivist’: you demand a person to justify their epistemology in a very particular way by responding to a very particular challenge, the point of which is so that no matter how they respond, you can say “That’s just the kind of thing a dirty objectivist would say!”. You do this repeatedly- bait a person into answering questions so you can characterize the ‘type of person’ they are and dismiss them thusly, instead of rationally interacting with the things they said.
Remember, I don’t give a fuck about you or your arguments or anything you think about philosophy. Your meaning of dasein holds no interest to me, and will not be read by me. All I want to do is ignore you or mock you, subject to my whims moment to moment. The reason is, when we tried to have a rational conversation, you abandoned the conversation to attempt to kafka-trap me instead. Avoiding my points to instead say things like, ‘and here ladies and gentlemen, we see the objectivist’s behavior with regards to X’ is an immediate guarentee that I will never, ever, take you seriously as an intellectual. Replace ‘objectivist’ with ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ or ‘bigot’ or any other buzzword, and it’s clear that you have not evolved one iota from the high-school caliber of leftist who tries to ‘win arguments’ by finding dismissive categories in which to box every ‘opponent’ they come across. You’ve merely swapped out the usual categories that would brand you as a thoughtless internet lefty thug with categories pulled from phenominalism in order to make you seem superficially more sophisticated as your tactics remain the same.
Of course you could also say that about the Nazis and the Jews.
And this pertains to the argument that I make in the linked thread…how?
And, on the contrary, I am far more interested in how those who seem to embrace one or another intellectual [epistemological] contraption regarding conflicting value judgments, are able to flesh that out pertaining either to their own life or to a moral conflagration we are all familiar with.
As I noted elsewhere…
[b][i]From my perspective, an objectivist frame of mind embodies this:
1] the belief that his or her own point of view reflects a rational, objective understanding of the “real me”, and is not embedded existentially, subjectively in dasein and…
2] the belief that the manner in which they embrace a set of moral values [or political ideals] reflects the most [or the only] rational manner in which to construe both “real life results” and our reaction to the consequences of them.[/i][/b]
This is either applicable to you or it’s not. All I ask of the objectivists [as I understand the meaning of the word] is that we bring this down to earth pertaining to their own life or a moral conflagration we are all familiar with.
Okay, fine. That is your prerogative. But that is not going to stop me from noting that in my own opinion you are but one more run-of-the-mill political objectivist. And then giving my reasons why I believe this. And, in turn, the reasons why I believe that moral and political objectivism has the potential to be dangerous “out in the world” and “for all practical purposes”. Just as I readily acknowledge in turn that moral nihilism [my own frame of mind] has the same potential.
Note to others:
When objectivists react to me in this manner, I begin to sense just how vulnerable they are to the points that I raise. Also, that by “rational conversation”, they almost always mean agreeing with them.
And this from the man who claims that his primary interest here revolves around engaging in real philosophy. Come on, how far removed is this from folks like Satyr in huff and puff mode?
Indeed. iambiguous is a big proponent of democracy. Since most of us who have an opinion on the matter disagree with him, he should admit he is wrong.
Otherwise, he would be arguing for “right is might”.
Or if he tried to enforce his positions on us, he would be doing “might is right”.
Obviously, according to his own positions, iambiguous’s only rational recourse of action is to admit he is wrong, otherwise he would be un-democratic. I bet he won’t do that though.
And indeed, iambiguous used the same criticism of democracy that I did… the majority imposing themselves violently upon a minority, his example being about Nazis and Jews, where presumably the majority that is Nazis decided to democratically wipe out the minority that are Jews (yeah, I am interested in his exchange with Uccisore so I clicked display), my example being about rapist pedophiles democratically deciding to rape the minority that is a child.
Apparently, democracy is great and all… as long as the majority supports his own values and opinions. When it doesn’t, then it becomes violent and no different than might is right (as he is indicating with his Nazi and Jews example) and it is righteous to rebel against it! Which is the same fucking point I made, that might is at the core of all rights, even democracy, and that he refused to acknowledge.
One could go on for days on how many times iambiguous has done shit like that.
Do you even have a clue as to how democracy works?
For one thing, it starts with the assumption that, using the tools of philosophy, it is not possible to determine rationally/essentially/objectively etc., whether or not I either won or lost the argument.
Not pertaining to my point that “out in the world of human interactions” conflicting value judgments revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At best a vote might be taken and a consensus forms that I had either won or lost.
But that is certainly not the same thing as demonstrating that in fact I am either right or wrong. That would be analogous to saying that because Barack Obama was democratically elected to be president of the United States his policies must be the right ones.
As for might makes right, if that prevailed then those in position of power here who do disagree with me could simply ban me from the site.
For example, in the manner in which, if you disagree with Satyr in the agora at KT, he will ban you to the dungeon. And then boast about how he still lets you post there.
Instead, democracy prevails here in that everyone is permitted to read my opinions and decide for themselves if they are reasonable or not. But no one is required to. And certainly no one is required to agree with them.
Indeed, it wasn’t all that long ago when I didn’t agree with them myself. And I am ever open to the possibility that I may not agree with them again.
This is a complete distortion of my take on of democracy. Democracy revolves around setting up a legal scaffolding whereby conflicting political factions agree to engage each other within the context that is the rule of law.
To the extent that one faction dismantles it and chooses instead to employ violence to attain [or to sustain] its own agenda is the extent to which it stops being democratic.
I merely note how the political superstructure here was understood by folks like Marx and Engels to be reflective of the manner in which they came to understand the historical evolution of political economy.
That democracy is practiced within any particular human community says nothing at all about whether the policies of those in power are necessarily either right or wrong morally.
Or necessarily reflect the “political ideal” or the “superior judgment”.
Instead, that’s the concrete block mentality of people like you.