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.
Clearly, it depends on the extent to which, after running your values [here and now] through “humans being social” you come to champion particular political prejudices which you then embrace by championing in turn a “one of us” [the good guys] vs. “one of them” [the bad guys] mentality.
And then the extent to which you either do or do not recogninize that intelligent and articulate liberals and conservatives are able to pose a set of assumptions that result in reasonable arguments that adequately defend clearly “conflicting goods”.
And then the extent to which you acknowledge the role of political economy as this pertains to the power necessary to actually enforce a particular legal agenda.
Admittedly, I really haven’t made much of a distinction between you and folks like Uccisore when it comes down to defending particular sets of behaviors relating to particular conflicted goods re the day to day liberal vs. conservative conflagrations that pop up as a result of the Trump presidency.
But, sure, no doubt about it, perhaps I am at fault here for not recognizing more of a distinction.
In that case, this revolves more around the extent to which you do not see yourself as being entangled in 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.
Or, perhaps, as being considerably less entangled in it than I am. In other words, that you don’t see you own value judgments as “existential contraptions” nearly as much as I do.
I am far more inclined to see both sides as being able to concoct arguments that can be construed by reasonable men and women as reflecting a “priority” point of view.
In other words, if you argue that babies have a “natural” right to be born then the priority ought to be in restricting or outlawing abortions. If, however, you argue that women have a “political” right to abort, then the priority ought to be in legislating an agenda whereby women are not forced to give birth.
And there are pro and con arguments like this relating to all of the other conflicts in which liberals and conservatives find themselves in opposition.
And neither liberal nor conservative idealists have a definitive argument when confronted with the sociopaths [or the global economy nihilists] who argue that in a Godless universe morality ought to revolve by and large around self-gratification.
Yes, but folks like Marx and Engels concocted an alternative materialist narrative that roots capitalism organically/dialectically in the evolution of economic production going all the way back to nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes. Which is a considerably more objective account of the “human condition”. But to what extent is it also a “scientific” analysis of all these many variables? Here it obviously comes up short. And the rest as they say [so far] is history.
And my point revolves far more around the extent to which you believe that your account of capitalism can be demonstrated to be an essential or objective understanding of human interactions over the centuries. In other words, that all rational and virtuous men and women are in fact obligated to think about it as you do.
From my frame of mind, this is true only to the extent that you focus in on a particular conflicting good [political issue] and discuss the extent to which you embrace either a “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine” frame of mine or embrace instead the “one of us” vs. “one of them” dichotomy.
And then the extent to which you root your own ideals/values here in God or in political ideology or in a particular rendition of what is said to constitute “natural” behaviors.
Well, to the extent that I would agree [and I largely do] you are arguing more for a “you’re right from your side, I’m right from mine” mentality. Then what’s left is to explore the extent to which our individual values are rooted more in dasein or in philosophy. Which perforce focuses in on the extent to which [as you noted on another thread] moral and political discourse either can or cannot be in sync with logically and epistemologically sound arguments.
Okay, from my frame of mind you are acknowledging that your value judgments, in a world of contingency chance and change, are basically just particular political prejudices that you subscribe to here and now and that, given new experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., you may well change your mind.
If that is the case then you are clearly not an objectivist as I understand the meaning of the world. And I was wrong to call you one.
I have always acknowledged this. Over and again on various posts I have noted how, over the course my life [my lived existence], “I” have embraced any number of conflicting moral/political agendas.
Thus my liberal persona today is but one more existential fabrication/contraption. And I am no less entangled in my dilemma above.
Would you describe your own values in the same manner?
Which is why I always suggest that you note a particular value such that we explore the extent to which your narrative is or is not in turn an existential contraption embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
As opposed to a frame of mind in which you argue that all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as you do.
Admittedly, I may well be reacting to you more in the manner in which folks like Uccisore and Turd caricature you then in the manner in which you really are.
Iambiguous,
You’re just basically using the old “you could have been born as anyone, so how can you stand to judge anyone if you really think about that clearly”
Argument.
Here’s the deal with that argument …
You weren’t born as anyone, you were necessarily born as you… And who you may be, from this lottery may be someone who can solve at least one objective something, and if you were them, your whole argument comes crashing down.
People have pointed out many times to you that just because you haven’t found an objective truth, doesn’t mean there isn’t one …
Aside from basic arguments like: if everything is subjective, then subjectivity is subjective
Since the only other option is objectivity … And the objectivity of objectivity leaves only objectivity; by very rudimentary logic, objectivity, through process of elimination is the only possibility
I thought this through, went back to Ecmandu’s post, and have come to conclude that you may well have a point. If barely.
So, I will respond to the points that he raised. And to the extent that he is able to sustain an exchange that does not devolve into huffing and puffing or making me the argument – Kidstuff – we’ll see how it goes.
On the contrary, I recognize the manner in which I make a distinction here between subjective opinion and objective truth is, by and large, rooted in the existential contraption “I”.
As that relates to this particular subjective assessment: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Let’s bring this down to earth. I think that intelligent and articulate arguments can be made by those who embrace a woman’s right to choose an abortion and by those who oppose this right.
Now, is there a perspective such that all reasonable and virtuous men and women can [as philosophers] arrive at one’s deontological obligation here?
And what of those who argue that in a Godless universe, it is rational to conclude that morality revolves around self-gratification. If abortion is deemed to be in one’s own self-interest, that settles it.
Then if it is illegal to obtain an abortion in a particular community, the emphasis shifts to not getting caught in choosing to abort the baby. In fact one can even convince oneself that it is not really a baby at all, just a clump of cells.
Again, let’s choose a particular “conflicting good” and explore this more substantively.
Being “liked” is far, far removed from my motivation here. Instead, with respect to moral and political values, I am entangled in 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.
I ask: Is there a frame of mind that might succeed in yanking me up out of it? Is there a frame of mind such that my own particular “I” here is able to be anchored to a considerably more concrete sense of reality; such that I am able to convince myself as the objectivist do they are on the side of Good rather than Evil?
On the contrary, I responded to this point on the No Conflicting Good! thread:
Then he went I to say that he “loathed” me.
Abortion seems to be the only argument you have for your “philosophy”
This is objective.
If someone brings life into this world against their consent; then consent violation (the opposite of what everyone wants) is positively re-enforced.
As I just explained to Lyssa/Satyr over at KT:
With abortion, there are particular contexts in which the pregnant women did not choose to be come pregnant. For example, a defective contraceptive device or rape.
Or, sure, at the time she may have wanted the baby but then any number of circumstances might have changed in her life and she no longer does.
While [of course] the unborn baby never gives its consent to be aborted. In fact the unborn baby is oblivious to such things. So those in the pro-life movement speak on its behalf. They argue that the baby has a “natural right” to life that trumps [no pun intented] the “political right” of women to choose abortion.
So, objectively, cite the argument here that offers all rational men and women a deontological obligation to choose one rather than the other behavior.
Also, actually respond in depth to the points that I raised in my post above.
Note to Phyllo [and to other moral objectivists]:
Please feel free to join in the discussion. Let’s explore substantively those distinctions that philosophers might make between objective truths and subjective/subjunctive opinions.
Iambiguous, your point is extremely easy to refute.
The only people able to give consent for our lives is us.
I consent, if my mother doesn’t want me, to abort me. Because I know that if I’m born against her consent, I’m born into the scenario of consent violation, and would have been better never having been born.
You must understand something… Babies are just trinkets for self esteem to women… A little peice of jewelry they can brag about to their friends, and property of the state for governments so the rich can get richer … And the cuckolded men who worship women’s objectification of humans just to fit in.
Let me out it this way iamb… (Read above post as well). What kind if narcissistic arrogant asshole fuck would want to be born against their mothers’ will?
Guess what? The planet neither wants nor needs them.
Not sure where you are going with this. Are you arguing that until a baby grows old enough to grasp the meaning of “giving consent”, it is fair game to be killed?
Now, my argument – at its extreme – is that the sociopath may choose to kill the child [or anyone else] merely by rationalizing it. She convinces herself that in a Godless universe her own self-gratification is the moral font of choice. Then she is concerned only with not getting caught or punished.
Okay, “in your head” this might seem reasonable to you. But as soon as you choose to interact with others, you are going to come upon folks who do not see this as reasonable at all.
So, as a philosopher, what do you propose [as an argument initially] in order to reconcile or resolve these conflicting goods?
Now, the objectivist of course will insist that this is accomplished only when you come to think about everything as he does. Then he might point to a particular God, or a particular political dogma or a particular assessment of Nature.
And five will get you ten that it’s his.
Again, I don’t doubt that you believe this is true “in your head”. What I am curious about though is how you would actually go about demonstrating that all rational/virtuous men and women are in fact obligated to believe it too.
Starting, for example, now.
The capacity to disagree with anything doesn’t make your point…
The inability to have SOME solutions at that time don’t make your point either.
Birth as murder is seen as self defense in the eyes of the law, and self defense is recognized in law in every country on earth.
More to the point, my last post…
What kind of asshole, arrogant, narcissistic fuck would want to be born against their own mothers will??
Binding her to a life of torment??
Nobody wants more sadists here!
We execute sadists in certain contexts as adults.
Note to Phyllo:
Well, I tried, right?