nihilism and the language of interpretation

[d63]

Always a pleasure walking into the group hug, Joe.

[iambiguous]

Now as far as the political, I would put forth a revision of a point made by Will Durrant whose History of Philosophy was my first introduction to philosophy and who I know you are familiar with because you’ve quoted him before. But, in it, he pointed out the 5 concerns of philosophy:

Metaphysics, Logic, Ethics, Aesthetics, and Politics

And while he may not have done it intentionally, he did put them in their proper order in that the list works from the core to the more surface-like and immediate.

In my view, politics always takes precedence. Why? Because politics revolves around settling the most important question of all: who gets what given that we live in a world where not everyone gets everything.

Politics revolves around power. And power revolves around the wherewithal -- economic military police -- to enforce a particular means of production [and "social order"] geared to sustaining those things we need literally to survive: food, clothing, shelter, a stable environment in which to reproduce and the capability to defend all this from those [and they are always out there] who will attempt to take it away.

Only when we a able of support a division of labor able to sustain folks like philosophers are the other questions probed more, uh, "professionally"?

If you think about it, the nihilistic perspective, or nihilism, is ultimately a metaphysical/ontological issue in that it has to assume an underlying nothingness to everything. You, yourself, bring in the metaphysical issue of a world without God.

On my own list of priorities, nihilism as a "philosophical" issue is generally down near the bottom. And for those 3.5 billion folks around the globe who struggle to subsist [from day to day] on the equivalent of $2 or less, pondering "nothingness" [or an "essentially absurd and meaningless world"] is a luxury they can hardly afford. They have Gods for that.

[d63]

In my view, politics always takes precedence. Why? Because politics revolves around settling the most important question of all: who gets what given that we live in a world where not everyone gets everything.

Politics revolves around power. And power revolves around the wherewithal -- economic military police -- to enforce a particular means of production [and "social order"] geared to sustaining those things we need literally to survive: food, clothing, shelter, a stable environment in which to reproduce and the capability to defend all this from those [and they are always out there] who will attempt to take it away.

Only when we a able of support a division of labor able to sustain folks like philosophers are the other questions probed more, uh, "professionally"?

On my own list of priorities, nihilism as a "philosophical" issue is generally down near the bottom. And for those 3.5 billion folks around the globe who struggle to subsist [from day to day] on the equivalent of $2 or less, pondering "nothingness" [or an "essentially absurd and meaningless world"] is a luxury they can hardly afford. They have Gods for that.

Well, politics is the most immediate to our concerns. And that would give it a certain amount of privilege. My point only goes to the relationship between the different concerns of philosophy. However, I think in the process of dealing with our political/social concerns, we will have worked our way through all 4. To make political assertions, we have to, at some point or other, consider the values involved. And to make our conclusions work, we have to establish some kind of epidemiological foundation for them. And as you suggest yourself, as concerns religion, it also helps of we establish some kind metaphysical basis for our conclusions, even if that means no metaphysics.

But the political/social being the most immediate, we almost always start there.

[iambiguous]

I tend to focus on the question, "how ought I to live?", where "ought" revolves around moral and political values rooted in dasein rooted in a particular world rooted in the evolution of political economy historically.

If you answer, "why ought I live?", the 'how' becomes apparent.

No, not necessarily. It is easy enough to answer why: for all of the many things that bring me pleasure and satisfaction: delicious food, fine music, lasting friendships, great art...

But in pursuing these things we often find ourselves bumping into others...or even bumping into ourselves. There are any number of variables able to be configured [and then endlessly reconfigured] into any number of mental, emotional and psychological reactions; and any number of social, political and economic permutations.

But how ought we to go about this in a world as complex, precarious and problematic as the one we live in?

...how do you define 'dasein'?

As a profoundly problematic point of view situated out in a particular world rooted in a particular historical, cultural and experiential context awash in contingency, chance and change.

Nihilism here [for me] is less about the absense of meaning and more about the extent to which what we think we believe is true can be demonstrated to be applicable to others. Or even to all.

What do you mean by 'applicable to others'? That others can agree? That others can't deny? That you believe it applies?

There are things that we believe are true because they are in fact true. They are in fact true for everyone. Again: mathematics, the laws of physics, analytical truths, things true by definition, empirical truths etc..

The example I use:

"Mary had an abortion".

There either is a particular Mary who had a particular abortion or there is not. Someone may insist she did when she did not but we generally have ways to demonstrate this is wrong. Though not necessarily.

That part of Mary's identity -- her name, her gender, her unwanted pregnancy, her abortion etc. -- can be established as either/or.

But her value judgments regarding abortion and the value judgments of others reacting to the undisputed fact of it cannot be established as either right or wrong.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

From Mark T. Conard's "God, Suicide, and the Meaning of Life" [in Woody Allen and Philosophy]:


In September, Lloyd, a physicist, explains to Peter what he does for a living. He didn't work on the atomic bomb, he tells Peter, but rather on 'Something much more terrifying than blowing up the planet'. Peter asks, 'Is there anything more terrifying than the destruction of the world?'

Lloyd replies:

'Yeah---the knowledge that it doesn't matter one way or the other, that it's all random, radiating aimlessly out of nothing, and eventually vanishing forever. I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about the universe. All space, all time, just a temporary convulsion. And I get paid to prove it.'

And:

After Lloyd explains that he is paid to prove that the universe is meaningless, that it doesn't matter one way or the other whether or not we destroy the world in an atomic holucaust, the scene [remarkably] concludes thus:

'Peter:

You feel so sure of that when you look out on a clear night like tonight and see all those millions of stars? That none of it matters?

'Lloyd:

I think it's just as beautiful as you do, and vaguely evocative of some deep truth that always just keeps slipping away, but then my professional perspective overcomes me, a less wishful, more penetrating view of it, and I understand it for what it truly is: haphazard, morally neutral, and unimaginably violent.

'Peter:

Look, we shouldn't have this converstion. I have to sleep alone tonight.'

The exchange is remarkable not only because of Lloyd's description of the universe as 'haphazard, morally neutral and unimaginably violent', which is quite striking on its own; it's utterly remarkable becuase of Peter's seemingly incongruous response to that claim, that they shouldn't be having the conversation because he has to sleep alone. This is a wonderfully interesting and telling statement. It means, really quite cynically [or realistically, as the case may be] that relationships are important distractions, or buffers against the harsh nature of reality. In the film, Peter's romantic advances have been rejected by Stephanie, and thus that night he has nothing to distract him from the ugly truths about the universe which Lloyd is laying before him. The scene thus not only presents us with the view of a universe...devoid of meaning and value, but it also exposes the truth about our individual pursuits and romantic realtionships: that they're ultimately mere distractions, ways of deceiving ourselves about the awful truths of the universe and our lives.

And:

Since value and meaning could only be provided by, or exist as, some eternal and permanent feature of the universe, and since our individual projects and lives can by no means produce something eternal and permanent, these projects can never produce meaning and value. Consequently...these pursuits are---at best---mere distractions.


Is this true? Who knows, right? In the context of "all there is" your guess is as good as mine. But it is certainly not an irrational point of view. On the contrary, it is a perspective that can, in fact, be defended as a reasonable conjecture about the human condition.

And if it is a reasonable vantage point why not approach distractions more self-consciously? Why not seek them out...fall into them as a kind of antidote to Lloyd's speculations?

I know I do.

"Whatever works", I always say.

[iambiguous]

From James Edwards' The Plain Sense of Things:

Normal nihilism is just the Western intellectual's rueful recognition and tolerance of her own historical and conceptual
contingency. To be a normal nihilist is just to acknowledge that, however fervent and essential one's commitment to a particular set of values, that's all one ever has: a commitment to some particular set of values.

Moreover, and perhaps more disturbingly, to be a normal nihilist is to acknowledge that one oneself is just that set of values: one's very subjectivity, one's deepest sense of who and what one is, presents itself as nothing more than a constellation of some historical and contingent structures of interpretation. Even the 'I' that speaks or acts, the 'I' that reads and judges this very text, is a value, a structure of interpretation, a set of social practices...


Or, perhaps, most disturbingly of all, what happens when you come to conclude that each and every particular set of values is essentially interchangable with any other set of values?

Well, then you invent Gods or ideologies in which value judgments are said to be predicated on Reason.

[Faust]

Or, perhaps, most disturbingly of all, what happens when you come to conclude that each and every particular set of values is essentially interchangable with any other set of values?

What perhaps should happen is that such a person should try to find himself again, for his self is what he truly has lost.

[Moreno]

Or, perhaps, most disturbingly of all, what happens when you come to conclude that each and every particular set of values is essentially interchangable with any other set of values?

What perhaps should happen is that such a person should try to find himself again, for his self is what he truly has lost.

Ah, shit, if only I had been so concise.

[d63]

Or, perhaps, most disturbingly of all, what happens when you come to conclude that each and every particular set of values is essentially interchangable with any other set of values?

What perhaps should happen is that such a person should try to find himself again, for his self is what he truly has lost.

This would seem to be the case. However, from the nihilistic perspective, one has no way of knowing that the self he has reclaimed has any more of a solid foundation than any other self he might claim. All the individual would know is that they seem to be a little more comfortable with that particular self for the time being. But this tells us nothing about what that original self might be, or even if the original self is necessarily the real self –that is given the importance of change.

The problem I have with it (and I make this criticism with all due respect) is that it assumes that the self can become some kind of final product rather than the process of becoming it always is. For example, how many serial killers do you suppose act under the justification that they have found themselves? In fact, there is every reason to believe that both Nazi Germany and Stalinistic Russia may have committed the atrocities they did under the assumption that they had re-found their selves as a nation.

That said, please do not take this as an underestimation of your intellect. You clearly mean well. And I have seen enough of your thought to know how impressive it can be.

Nor you, Moreno.

No, not necessarily. It is easy enough to answer why: for all of the many things that bring me pleasure and satisfaction: delicious food, fine music, lasting friendships, great art...

But in pursuing these things we often find ourselves bumping into others...or even bumping into ourselves. There are any number of variables able to be configured [and then endlessly reconfigured] into any number of mental, emotional and psychological reactions; and any number of social, political and economic permutations.

But how ought we to go about this in a world as complex, precarious and problematic as the one we live in?

One of the problems we tend to run into, as the intellectually curious, is that people tend to think we do this because we haven’t got something more social to do. Therefore, we find ourselves constantly bumping into people who seem to think that just because they happen to want to party (or be social with us), we should be automatically ready to drop what it is we are doing. We try to balance things out, between the extra Jouissance we seek out of point A to point B, but tend to find that the only balance others recognize is the more mundane forms with the extra pushed into the spaces it happens to allow us.

Where I tend to bump into myself is in having a large intellectual wish list (things that can be fulfilled such as a study of a certain philosopher or a creative experiment) and too little productive life left to fulfill it all. Because of this, I expend all kinds of energy on how I’m going to go about things rather than just doing them. This is why I tend to talk a lot about the bad faith of thinking we are going to come up with any system that will make things click along like some well oiled machine. At some point we have to lower our expectations otherwise nothing will get done.

In other words, you’re right in pointing out the apparent futility of figuring out how we ought to go about it. About the only thing we can do is keep trying to go about it.

In my view, politics always takes precedence. Why? Because politics revolves around settling the most important question of all: who gets what given that we live in a world where not everyone gets everything.

Politics revolves around power. And power revolves around the wherewithal -- economic military police -- to enforce a particular means of production [and "social order"] geared to sustaining those things we need literally to survive: food, clothing, shelter, a stable environment in which to reproduce and the capability to defend all this from those [and they are always out there] who will attempt to take it away.

Only when we a able of support a division of labor able to sustain folks like philosophers are the other questions probed more, uh, "professionally"?

Given that we are facing a slow motion coup, the implementation of an aristocracy/oligarchy, that we are looking the Beast in the face (if there ever was a candidate for one), I would say that, yes, this is the most important issue we face. But if we are to kill it, we have to drive our swords to its very heart: from the political/social to the ethical/aesthetic to the epistemological/logical to the metaphysical/ontological assumptions upon which it bases itself. You have to consider here that Capitalism has wound its spindly little fingers into every aspect of our existence. (Consider, for instance, the popular notion of us being little more than meat-bots or to reduce aesthetics to something that can be confirmed objectively –as if it were all like a machine that can be controlled.) And it is up to us, as the intellectually curious (our only worthy goal), to untie the knots it has formed, to undermine the assumptions. It is our very raison de etre. The only other alternative is playing lip-service to it, to play the intellectual equivalent of a bitch and lapdog. We have to decide (given the predicament of philosophy in corporate sponsored universities) whether we want to be house slaves (as Malcome X put it in harsher terms) or heroic in our pursuit.

I don't hate Capitalism because it exists; I hate it because it perpetually seeks to make us dependent on it. It is the most insidious drug dealer there is on the face of the earth.

[iambiguous]

Or, perhaps, most disturbingly of all, what happens when you come to conclude that each and every particular set of values is essentially interchangable with any other set of values?

What perhaps should happen is that such a person should try to find himself again, for his self is what he truly has lost.

Ah, shit, if only I had been so concise.

Well, let's just say there is more than one way in which to think about "self". Even more than one way in which to think about it concisely.

[iambiguous]

...from the nihilistic perspective, one has no way of knowing that the self he has reclaimed has any more of a solid foundation than any other self he might claim. All the individual would know is that they seem to be a little more comfortable with that particular self for the time being. But this tells us nothing about what that original self might be, or even if the original self is necessarily the real self –that is given the importance of change.

Well put. But you don't need to throw up your hands in despair and say, "It's all hopeless!". You just recognize what it means to be dasein situated out in a particular world interacting with others in a particular political economy. Capitalism, in our case.

[d63]

...from the nihilistic perspective, one has no way of knowing that the self he has reclaimed has any more of a solid foundation than any other self he might claim. All the individual would know is that they seem to be a little more comfortable with that particular self for the time being. But this tells us nothing about what that original self might be, or even if the original self is necessarily the real self –that is given the importance of change.

Well put. But you don't need to throw up your hands in despair and say, "It's all hopeless!". You just recognize what it means to be dasein situated out in a particular world interacting with others in a particular political economy. Capitalism, in our case.

Wouldn't think of it.

Well put as well.

That said, I'm almost certain there is a deeper level that we can push towards that works through Dasein to Capitalism. I know that the nihilistic perspective leads to connotations of hopelessness for a lot of people. But I tend to see it as an open opportunity.

I've seen too many amateurs make the mistake of turning it into a teleology to imagine us making such a mistake.

[d63]

Only when we a able of support a division of labor able to sustain folks like philosophers are the other questions probed more, uh, "professionally"?

This is a key issue here. People tend to think that the more socialist among us are about taking wealth from those that work and simply give it to the poor. We recognize the value of incentive as much as anyone. And we are not out to strip the rich of all their assets and distribute BMWs in the ghettos. What the less articulate and more superficial among us completely miss out on is that Marx was an intellectual and quite ecstatic about being one. He loved the life of the mind and being productive and simply wanted to create a society in which everyone could experience what he did. This is why he imagined a world in which one could be cabinet maker in the morning, a fisherman in the afternoon, and a writer at night. He wanted a world in which people could realize their full potential and not have that energy sapped away by the mundane and the banal. (Of course, the rich have stolen the decision from us as to what should be considered mundane and banal while being the the main perpetrators of it -note their intense hatred of PBS and NPR.) It had nothing to do with giving people money so they can sit around and watch reality TV all day. It had nothing to do with helping people who simply will not help themselves. The most a respectable Marxist would want for them is subsistence, and mostly to keep them off the back of those who are actually working towards something. What he was opposed to, however, was the innate fascism of allowing the undesirables, those who just didn’t seem productive enough to consume, to just die off.

In this sense, he anticipated Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the notion of self-actualization.

[Moreno]

Ah, shit, if only I had been so concise.

Well, let's just say there is more than one way in which to think about "self". Even more than one way in which to think about it concisely.

Sure, there are many ways. I suppose over a day I mentally mutter about my self in a number of contradictory ways. My majority vote does agree with Faust's assessment. I don't think we can really believe that our morals are arbritrary. We can have moments of this meta-level thinking, however, and we can identify with these moments, but other people live with the person who actually has the set of values we have. They experience how these values influence our emotional reactions, our actions, or speech, our facial expressison, our judgments, stated or not.

This self-transcendence, if truly believed, seems to me a kind of detachment from the self. Whether or not there are other conceptions of the self - even ones that flit through my mind, this builds from the main one I have. What else would Faust or I do but answer from our conceptions of selves?

This is no less fixed than answering without committing to a notion of self. That is simply another committment.

[iambiguous]

I don't think we can really believe that our morals are arbritrary. We can have moments of this meta-level thinking, however, and we can identify with these moments, but other people live with the person who actually has the set of values we have. They experience how these values influence our emotional reactions, our actions, or speech, our facial expressison, our judgments, stated or not.

Morals are not arbitrary in the sense they come and go out of the blue...or are accepted or rejected on a whim. But they are situated out in a particular world situated in a particular historical and cultural context that evolves and changes over time; and each individual experiences his or her life in this "thrown" manner.

Again, I think d63 summed it up in a particularly insightful manner:

...from the nihilistic perspective, one has no way of knowing that the self he has reclaimed has any more of a solid foundation than any other self he might claim. All the individual would know is that they seem to be a little more comfortable with that particular self for the time being. But this tells us nothing about what that original self might be, or even if the original self is necessarily the real self –that is given the importance of change.

But even here we will no doubt understand the meaning of these words differently.

The original self depends in large part on when and where you are born. What were you taught to believe? what experiences did you have? what information about the world did you come upon? etc.

And that then excludes all the things you were not taught, all the things you did not experience, all the informations you did not come upon.

How then does this fundamental existential reality [that we all live] effect the manner in which we come to acquire and sustain an identity?

An extreme case here is North Korea. "I" is indoctrinated there from the cradle to the grave.

But suppose someone there escapes to South Korea. His or her options will, over time, increase dramatically. But is there a way, using the tools of philosophy and science, to acquire and then "perfect" an indentity so as to behave in the most rational and moral manner. A nihilist [like me] says no. They can make an effort to think things through intelligently; they can reject gods and ideologies and whole objective truths; they can read the works of philosophers and scientists to make more reasoned choices.

But eventually they will bump into their own version of my version if they grasp the manner in which moral nihilism prevails here. But not necessarily destructively. In my view, democracy and the rule of law is rooted in the nilhilistic sense that philosopher-kings and scientistic sorts are actually the bane of social interaction not the salvation.

You note that...

What else would Faust or I do but answer from our conceptions of selves?

Well, once one recognizes the manner in which "I" is embodied in dasein, one accepts the implications of that regarding value judgments. But that can, of course, become the slipperiest of slopes. There is no exit here. Not until you die.

Or so it seems to me.

[Moreno]

Morals are not arbitrary in the sense they come and go out of the blue...or are accepted or rejected on a whim. But they are situated out in a particular world situated in a particular historical and cultural context that evolves and changes over time; and each individual experiences his or her life in this "thrown" manner.

Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you though they were random.

But even here we will no doubt understand the meaning of these words differently.

The original self depends in large part on when and where you are born. What were you taught to believe? what experiences did you have? what information about the world did you come upon? etc.

Including then, these beliefs. So these are also arbritrary or should be considered so - not in the sense of being random, but just another set of culturally receieved ideas. But these are not considered this way. These are considered true and used to undermine other beliefs. Sure, when challenged, you are capable of 'doubting' these ideas. But really you don't and not in the same way.

And that then excludes all the things you were not taught, all the things you did not experience, all the informations you did not come upon.

How then does this fundamental existential reality [that we all live] effect the manner in which we come to acquire and sustain an identity?

An extreme case here is North Korea. "I" is indoctrinated there from the cradle to the grave.

One dasein is like anyother. You have nurture molding nature. I don't see how North Korea is an exception or an extreme example of this. It is just another. Unless you have some objective ground from which you can see 'that is indoctrination and this is not so much indoctrination'.

IOW you contradict yourself here. You move in and of out claims that are implicitly objective to your philosophy where you claim you cannot really know. You label one set of experience indoctrination. Even without determinism, but certainly with it, the distinction is a value judgment.

But suppose someone there escapes to South Korea. His or her options will, over time, increase dramatically. But is there a way, using the tools of philosophy and science, to acquire and then "perfect" an indentity so as to behave in the most rational and moral manner.

Seriously, to behave in the most rational manner would be irrational. Why undermine all the non-rational tools you have? In fact you can't, but you can strive to and be split all the time trying.

What else would Faust or I do but answer from our conceptions of selves?

Well, once one recognizes the manner in which "I" is embodied in dasein, one accepts the implications of that regarding value judgments.

To me it seems like here you engage in objective speak and certainty, building from apriori assumptions.

And I am not trying to get you to say 'it seems' more often. This just seems like political correctness. You have an ontology just like all the rest of us. Your ontology leads you to think that your morals are a product of culture and in this sense arbritrary. And yet despite this you go ahead and act in the world based on arbritrary morals. You act and affect others with these values, but you at the same time claim they are arbritrary.

I cannot see how this can be anything else but hypocrisy.

If I truly thought my values were simply caused by culture, I would no longer have them. I would not have any.

One could act as if one had values, at that point, and consider it all rather ironic, but why bother?

[iambiguous]

The original self depends in large part on when and where you are born. What were you taught to believe? what experiences did you have? what information about the world did you come upon? etc.

Including then, these beliefs. So these are also arbritrary or should be considered so - not in the sense of being random, but just another set of culturally receieved ideas. But these are not considered this way. These are considered true and used to undermine other beliefs. Sure, when challenged, you are capable of 'doubting' these ideas. But really you don't and not in the same way.

What is arbitrary [to me] is when and where each of us is "thrown" into the world at birth. Unless, of course, there is a God.

And dasein seems like a reasonable manner in which to understand the nature of human identity. Or, at the very least, it is an important factor in understanding it. But I don't view it as undermining "I" so much as situating it out in a particular world that one lives in.

And, no, I won't doubt this until someone comes up with an even more reasonable explanation. Some choose God. Some choose science. Some choose ideology. Some choose no [free] choice at all: determinists.

I can only claim to know what I think I know in the here and now.

An extreme case here is North Korea. "I" is indoctrinated there from the cradle to the grave.

One dasein is like any other. You have nurture molding nature. I don't see how North Korea is an exception or an extreme example of this. It is just another. Unless yo the same sameu have some objective ground from which you can see 'that is indoctrination and this is not so much indoctrination'.

The crucial difference between North Korea and say, Canada, is the part where the indoctrinated children become more autonomous adults. In North Korea, they will still tend to believe the same thing from the cradle to the grave. Why? Because, by and large, they are never really exposed to any alternative narratives. Not so in Canada.

IOW you contradict yourself here. You move in and of out claims that are implicitly objective to your philosophy where you claim you cannot really know. You label one set of experience indoctrination. Even without determinism, but certainly with it, the distinction is a value judgment.

I don't get your point. Indoctrination is where others cram I down your throat. All of us more or less experience this as children. But in places like Canada, America, Britain, Sweden etc. we come into contact with other ways [once we pass out of childhood] in which to reconfigure "I" over and again. My point would be only to suggest there is no one Rational or Moral end point to reach.

But that speculation must acknowledge the possibility there may well be other more reasonable explanations for identity that I have not come upon yet--- or that I have but have not understood yet.

But suppose someone there escapes to South Korea. His or her options will, over time, increase dramatically. But is there a way, using the tools of philosophy and science, to acquire and then "perfect" an indentity so as to behave in the most rational and moral manner.

Seriously, to behave in the most rational manner would be irrational. Why undermine all the non-rational tools you have? In fact you can't, but you can strive to and be split all the time trying.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. It may seem rational to John to claim that who he thinks he is reflects the optimal human being. But that would not seem reasonable to me. Although, again, if John believes this and lives out his life acting as though it were true then for him it is.

And others may have to absorb the consequences of his belief.

Well, once one recognizes the manner in which "I" is embodied in dasein, one accepts the implications of that regarding value judgments.

To me it seems like here you engage in objective speak and certainty, building from apriori assumptions.

Yes, it seems this way because I my arguments inflect that sort of certainty. But the assumptions I embrace may well be wrong. Just as the assumptions I once held regarding Christianity, Objectivism and Marxism were shown to be wrong. But maybe they aren't wrong at all. Maybe I should not have abandoned them. I just don't see how thinking like this can ever be completely yanked out of the manner in which I think about it now as dasein. This is now what seems to be the most rational narrative to me.

I can only come into places like this to be talked out of it.

If you say my thinking is "ontological" I don't agree. But how would we demonstrate definitively that it either is or it is not?

Call me a hypocrite if you must. But I don't get what you mean by that. So, as I note to Mo, you can either try to to reconfigure your argument so that I do get it...or give up and move on to others.

Or, as some suggest, I am arguing in bad faith...or as a troll. Which is not true at all. But how would I go about proving it?

If I truly thought my values were simply caused by culture, I would no longer have them. I would not have any.

You come into the world in a particular culture embedded in a particular historical era. And that will be crucial for a number of years in creating how others come to tell you "who you are". I is molded and manipulated into a particular point of view.

But in many cultures in this particular historical era [which includes the Internet] you have access to lots and lots of other cultural narratives. And, if you study history, you have access to even more going back in time.

So, which narrative should you choose? All you can do is to think it through to the best of your ability and choose a set of behaviors that, here and now, you deem the most reasonable. But so much here will always be subject to contingency chance and change.

One could act as if one had values, at that point, and consider it all rather ironic, but why bother?

Yes, that in part is what it means to be an ironist. But we bother because we choose to interact with others. Is there another alternative? Yeah, you can choose to live alone and apart from others.

[Moreno]

What is arbitrary [to me] is when and where each of us is "thrown" into the world at birth. Unless, of course, there is a God.

Sure, I get that.

And dasein seems like a reasonable manner in which to understand the nature of human identity.

I assumed you saw it as reasonable since you argue for it being the case.

Or, at the very least, it is an important factor in understanding it. But I don't view it as undermining "I" so much as situating it out in a particular world that one lives in.

It seems to have undermined self-identification.

And, no, I won't doubt this until someone comes up with an even more reasonable explanation.

Good, you admit you do not doubt it. You are where you were thrown. You view your morals as results of being thrown - but allow yourself for some reason to act in the world on them - but have decided not to doubt your model of reality or more importantly, see how it splits you from yourself.

I can only claim to know what I think I know in the here and now.

yes, that is what you claim, but you act in the world as a progressive. Which has effects on real people. But you don't notice this as a claim.

The crucial difference between North Korea and say, Canada, is the part where the indoctrinated children become more autonomous adults. In North Korea, they will still tend to believe the same thing from the cradle to the grave. Why? Because, by and large, they are never really exposed to any alternative narratives. Not so in Canada.

In Canada they end up with a mish mash of philosophies and live out there lives as distracted consumers.

I don't get your point. Indoctrination is where others cram I down your throat. All of us more or less experience this as children. But in places like Canada, America, Britain, Sweden etc. we come into contact with other ways [once we pass out of childhood] in which to reconfigure "I" over and again. My point would be only to suggest there is no one Rational or Moral end point to reach.

so it seems to me you are claiming to have an objective criterion to prefer one set of morals to another.

Can't you see how you shift back and forth. If I press you on one end you become the other. Why can't you just admit you are like other humans: you believe certain things are wrong, period. Admitting this does not mean that you can't on occasion wax epistemological or anthropological and say 'though I am not sure how to justify this philosophically'. It's almost like the real you slips out and then gets denied. Oh, no. I don't really believe it is objectively better in the US and Canada than in NK.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. It may seem rational to John to claim that who he thinks he is reflects the optimal human being. But that would not seem reasonable to me. Although, again, if John believes this and lives out his life acting as though it were true then for him it is.

And others may have to absorb the consequences of his belief.

You lost me here. I merely meant that it is not optimal use of our skills to be rational about all actions and decisions. We don't have the time or information. We have intuition and it works. Imagine trying to run through a field rationally.

Yes, it seems this way because I my arguments inflect that sort of certainty. But the assumptions I embrace may well be wrong.

And you take back what you said. Why say it in the first place? What is the point of communicating your beliefs if when they are reflected back at you you deny them?

Just as the assumptions I once held regarding Christianity, Objectivism and Marxism were shown to be wrong. But maybe they aren't wrong at all. Maybe I should not have abandoned them. I just don't see how thinking like this can ever be completely yanked out of the manner in which I think about it now as dasein. This is now what seems to be the most rational narrative to me.

I can only come into places like this to be talked out of it.

At least those belief systems make claims and stand by them. So it is possible to move out of them. Yours is impervious. It can explain away anything. I can't see how you don't notice this. To me it makes the idea of being talked out of it ironic in the extreme.

If you say my thinking is "ontological" I don't agree. But how would we demonstrate definitively that it either is or it is not?

Call me a hypocrite if you must. But I don't get what you mean by that. So, as I note to Mo, you can either try to to reconfigure your argument so that I do get it...or give up and move on to others.

Or, as some suggest, I am arguing in bad faith...or as a troll. Which is not true at all. But how would I go about proving it?

I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, nor do I think you are a troll. But there is no way to reach you because of the nature of your beliefs, but you communicate as if you can be reached. Marxism has been tested in many ways. We cannot test your paradigm, because it can explain away anything. It is not falsifiable.

You come into the world in a particular culture embedded in a particular historical era. And that will be crucial for a number of years in creating how others come to tell you "who you are". I is molded and manipulated into a particular point of view.

But in many cultures in this particular historical era [which includes the Internet] you have access to lots and lots of other cultural narratives. And, if you study history, you have access to even more going back in time.

So, which narrative should you choose? All you can do is to think it through to the best of your ability and choose a set of behaviors that, here and now, you deem the most reasonable. But so much here will always be subject to contingency chance and change.

Which makes you a very specific kind of human, with a very specific, and rather minority, way of looking at the world. You are a product of Western intellectual skepticism - in this area - with an architecture of the self taken out of the Abrahamic traditions with it's great mistrust of intuition and the passions. This is a very select group, with a select set of beliefs, beliefs that lead to a certain lifestyle and have specific affects on others.

One could act as if one had values, at that point, and consider it all rather ironic, but why bother?

Yes, that in part is what it means to be an ironist. But we bother because we choose to interact with others. Is there another alternative? Yeah, you can choose to live alone and apart from others

No, you missed the point. I am pointing out that you do not believe what you claim to believe. How can someone who believes his morals are arbritrary fight for them in the world? they would no longer be his morals. They would wither away. Just like my marriage would end if I thought any woman could be just as much my wife and be a fit.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous: And, no, I won't doubt this until someone comes up with an even more reasonable explanation.

Good, you admit you do not doubt it. You are where you were thrown. You view your morals as results of being thrown - but allow yourself for some reason to act in the world on them - but have decided not to doubt your model of reality or more importantly, see how it splits you from yourself.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. In my mind dasein seems like the most reasonable manner in which to understand identity. But: Also in my mind is the realization that what is in my mind now is always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. I live in the here and now and think about myself in the world here and now. But what about later?

For example, I was watching a documentary on the science channel speculating about a solar flare of such magnitude it could result in an immense blackout covering entire nations. If it covers mine that means on power, no electricity for months [even years] on end. How would that impact on the manner in which I and others think about ourselves when, suddenly, survival itself is at stake? How "progressive" will I be then?

I don't get your point. Indoctrination is where others cram I down your throat. All of us more or less experience this as children. But in places like Canada, America, Britain, Sweden etc. we come into contact with other ways [once we pass out of childhood] in which to reconfigure "I" over and again. My point would be only to suggest there is no one Rational or Moral end point to reach.

so it seems to me you are claiming to have an objective criterion to prefer one set of morals to another.

If you call my suggestion that there is no objective criterion an objective criterion itself I point to Wittgenstein's suggestion that we can use language only up to a point in discussing things like this. I seem to make a claim but I don't construe it as a claim in the manner in which others might. It is a claim rooted in dasein subject always to new experiences that might result in a conflicting claim.

I do not believe certain things are wrong period. Not if by "period" you mean wrong necessarily. Or objectively. I don't think this is true of any behavior that can be rationalized in a world without God.

Assuming, for example, the Batman shooter in Aurora is not insane, he rationalized what he did. It was something he wanted to do if only because he equates morality with an utterly narcissistic sense of self-gratification.

This, in my view, is what folks like Dostoevsky grasped before making their Kierkegaardian leap of faith to God. You need God here. I don't see anyway around that.

It may seem rational to John to claim that who he thinks he is reflects the optimal human being. But that would not seem reasonable to me. Although, again, if John believes this and lives out his life acting as though it were true then for him it is.

And others may have to absorb the consequences of his belief.

You lost me here. I merely meant that it is not optimal use of our skills to be rational about all actions and decisions. We don't have the time or information. We have intuition and it works. Imagine trying to run through a field rationally.

But intuition is no less rooted in dasein. John may have an intuitive sense that abortion is "just wrong". Jane may have an intuitive sense that abortion is "just right". Why? Becasue their indoctination as children coupled with their own experiences predisposed them to these conflicting conclusions. And I have had discussions with [I believe] Faust regarding the limitations of reason here. But in the end it seems that reason is what we must fall back on when it comes to legislating [coercing] human behavior. But reason here in my view is rooted in Barrett's "conflicting goods". And, again, you need a God to resolve it.

Or so it seems to me.

...you take back what you said. Why say it in the first place? What is the point of communicating your beliefs if when they are reflected back at you you deny them?

I say what I do because if I choose to interact with others I have to have a moral and political narrative when what I want to do conflicts with what they want me to do instead.

I don't deny my beliefs. I situate them in dasein. And that is just another way of suggesting that what I think I believe now I may not believe later. And, again, I invoke Rorty's sense of "ironism":

From wiki:

Ironist (n. Ironism) (from Greek: eiron, eironeia) is a term coined by Richard Rorty to describe someone who fulfills three conditions:

She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;

She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;

Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.

— Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.

At least [Christianity, Objectivism, Marxism] make claims and stand by them. So it is possible to move out of them. Yours is impervious. It can explain away anything. I can't see how you don't notice this. To me it makes the idea of being talked out of it ironic in the extreme.

How could it be impervious to contingency, chance and change? I come in here one day and bump into an argument that changes my mind. If it happened before why not again?

But I will admit that, sans God [or Volchok's determinism], I can't imagine an argument that might supplant dasein as the starting point with respect to identity and value judgments.

But I really mean it when I say, "unless, of course, I'm wrong". I've had to accept that I was too many times in the past.

You come into the world in a particular culture embedded in a particular historical era. And that will be crucial for a number of years in creating how others come to tell you "who you are". I is molded and manipulated into a particular point of view.

But in many cultures in this particular historical era [which includes the Internet] you have access to lots and lots of other cultural narratives. And, if you study history, you have access to even more going back in time.

So, which narrative should you choose? All you can do is to think it through to the best of your ability and choose a set of behaviors that, here and now, you deem the most reasonable. But so much here will always be subject to contingency chance and change.

Which makes you a very specific kind of human, with a very specific, and rather minority, way of looking at the world. You are a product of Western intellectual skepticism - in this area - with an architecture of the self taken out of the Abrahamic traditions with it's great mistrust of intuition and the passions. This is a very select group, with a select set of beliefs, beliefs that lead to a certain lifestyle and have specific affects on others.

If there are folks who are not skeptical about the manner in which they view the world, I say this: Lets take those beliefs "out into the world" by focusing on the manner in which what you believe might come into conflict with what others believe.

How well will their certainty hold up "down here"?

One could act as if one had values, at that point, and consider it all rather ironic, but why bother?

Yes, that in part is what it means to be an ironist. But we bother because we choose to interact with others. Is there another alternative? Yeah, you can choose to live alone and apart from others

No, you missed the point. I am pointing out that you do not believe what you claim to believe. How can someone who believes his morals are arbritrary fight for them in the world? they would no longer be his morals. They would wither away. Just like my marriage would end if I thought any woman could be just as much my wife and be a fit.

I believe that what I claim to believe is always subject to change with respect to identity and value judgments. But not what I believe about things that [apparently] transcend dasein---math, the laws of physics, logic, empirical facts etc.

And you fight for what you believe because there will always be those out there ready, willing and able to force the issue. You have no choice unless, again, you choose to live apart from others.

And your marriage [any marriage] could end in a world of contingency, chance and change. Millions upon millions of them already have. Including mine. Why? Because life is existential. And it is often extremely existential with respect to emotional and sexual attraction.

[d63]

Yes, that in part is what it means to be an ironist. But we bother because we choose to interact with others. Is there another alternative? Yeah, you can choose to live alone and apart from others.

You using that in Rorty's sense, Ambig?

I believe that what I claim to believe is always subject to change with respect to identity and value judgments. But not what I believe about things that [apparently] transcend dasein---math, the laws of physics, logic, empirical facts etc.

But then Lacan points out The Real: that which transcends the Symbolic Order: Math, The Laws of Physics, Logic, empirical facts, etc.

and language.

If we share nothing, we at least share the desire to be edifying philosophers as compared to systematizing ones. Systems are for players and pussies: conformists; systems are only useful to the extent that they make us better nomads:

We use systems to allow us to play the systematizer’s game better than them.

Nomads don’t need a system to tell them when something is wrong or right. They just know it.

And your marriage [any marriage] could end in a world of contingency, chance and change. Millions upon millions of them already have. Including mine. Why? Because life is existential.

Now here’s an excellent example what we’re talking about here. When we start out to get married, we believe that being that other’s husband is exactly what we want to be –our original self. Of course, as all three of us have apparently found out, that was just a point in point A to point B: a state of self understanding at a given point in time. One that clearly changed at another point in time.

No, you missed the point. I am pointing out that you do not believe what you claim to believe. How can someone who believes his morals are arbritrary fight for them in the world?

Moreno, you fail to get the point of the nihilistic perspective. With all due respect, all you are offering here is a variation of the Skeptic’s Paradox. You are basically arguing that one cannot argue that there are no absolutes since, to do so, would be to argue an absolute. But it’s a faulty argument.

Let’s say you walk up to a skeptic and a nihilist and make that exact argument. Of course, both of them will immediately suspect something is wrong. The skeptic will do what they normally do and scrutinize and eventually realize that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one and go right on doing what they always did. The nihilist, on the other hand, will just glare at you and say:

Right. Nothing is engraved in stone, not even that nothing is engraved in stone.

In other words, the very fact that the nihilistic perspective nihilates even itself is only proof to those that embrace the nihilistic perspective.

Therefore, getting back to your point:

While there is no real foundation for any belief we can have; there is equally no foundation for not having that belief and feeling passionately about it. A true nihilist doesn’t need a foundation. This is because they know that foundations (epistemologies/metaphysical systems) are little more than the illusion of the powers that be, a product of their control of the given language game.

[d63]

That said, Moreno:

allow me to impress upon you the respect I have for you:


when I was describing my theory about the self as an emergent property in a non-linear feedback system with it's physiological infrastructure and its environment,


you pointed out the way it would just spiral off.....

(which, if you think about it, kind of supports the point me and Ambig are making(


That was impressive to say the least.


Just want you to know that a pissing contest is the last thing I would want to engage in with you.


Nor am I out to be your teacher or Guru. I'm quite sure you'll do fine on your own.

(not that you need me to tell you that(



I did.

[d63]

Anyway,


love ya man:






gotta go.....

[Moreno]

DG3

No, you missed the point. I am pointing out that you do not believe what you claim to believe. How can someone who believes his morals are arbritrary fight for them in the world?

Moreno, you fail to get the point of the nihilistic perspective. With all due respect, all you are offering here is a variation of the Skeptic’s Paradox. You are basically arguing that one cannot argue that there are no absolutes since, to do so, would be to argue an absolute. But it’s a faulty argument.[/quote]I am pretty sure I am not doing that, though I have in other settings. What I am getting at is that someone with iamb's philosophy is living as if his beliefs are correct - with all the attendant consequences of this - but speaking and writing as if one cannot know, that the beliefs are merely the product of where he has been thrown. I think this is an identity confusion, where an occasional thought at a meta-level is taken as who he is. IOW it is a confused identification.

Let’s say you walk up to a skeptic and a nihilist and make that exact argument. Of course, both of them will immediately suspect something is wrong. The skeptic will do what they normally do and scrutinize and eventually realize that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one and go right on doing what they always did. The nihilist, on the other hand, will just glare at you and say:

Right. Nothing is engraved in stone, not even that nothing is engraved in stone.

In other words, the very fact that the nihilistic perspective nihilates even itself is only proof to those that embrace the nihilistic perspective.

But it can't nihilate itself. Only in the abstract. People often confuse what they think with what they live. On paper you can nihilate nihilism, but not in life. In life you live absolutely, even if you absolutely hesitate between choices or always second guess or decline to decide one knows. Whatever one does or does not do is absolute. So the nihilist is simply advocating a different absolute lifestyle. But he or she think she is not like others because in the realm of ideas, ideas are undermined. They don't notice the inherent dualism and the immaculate conception (pun intended) in thinking they avoid something others do not.
Therefore, getting back to your point:

While there is no real foundation for any belief we can have; there is equally no foundation for not having that belief and feeling passionately about it. A true nihilist doesn’t need a foundation. This is because they know that foundations (epistemologies/metaphysical systems) are little more than the illusion of the powers that be, a product of their control of the given language game.

I'd be interested to see if iamb agrees with that.

In any case, my sense is that certain things people say they believe, it is actually more like they think they should believe it, but it is not something that people can actually believe except in occasional exceptional moments.

[Moreno]

That said, Moreno:

allow me to impress upon you the respect I have for you:


when I was describing my theory about the self as an emergent property in a non-linear feedback system with it's physiological infrastructure and its environment,


you pointed out the way it would just spiral off.....

(which, if you think about it, kind of supports the point me and Ambig are making(


That was impressive to say the least.


Just want you to know that a pissing contest is the last thing I would want to engage in with you.


Nor am I out to be your teacher or Guru. I'm quite sure you'll do fine on your own.

(not that you need me to tell you that(



I did.

Well, thanks for all that and I enjoy posts by both of you. I can't remember that particular instance, but one thing is I often test ideas, often challenging ones that I have that others come up with here. It allows me to see what happens when someone else defends an idea that is really mine, so nagging doubts I have can be fleshed out. I find myself having many beliefs, some contradictory about various issues. Most people present themselves as having one belief on every issue. I think that is delusional.

[d63]

That said, Moreno:

allow me to impress upon you the respect I have for you:


when I was describing my theory about the self as an emergent property in a non-linear feedback system with it's physiological infrastructure and its environment,


you pointed out the way it would just spiral off.....

(which, if you think about it, kind of supports the point me and Ambig are making(


That was impressive to say the least.


Just want you to know that a pissing contest is the last thing I would want to engage in with you.


Nor am I out to be your teacher or Guru. I'm quite sure you'll do fine on your own.

(not that you need me to tell you that(



I did.

Well, thanks for all that and I enjoy posts by both of you. I can't remember that particular instance, but one thing is I often test ideas, often challenging ones that I have that others come up with here. It allows me to see what happens when someone else defends an idea that is really mine, so nagging doubts I have can be fleshed out. I find myself having many beliefs, some contradictory about various issues. Most people present themselves as having one belief on every issue. I think that is delusional.

I know it seems silly to go to the effort. But I'm always uncomfortable contradicting someone I like jamming with on here.

It's always a little different on here (since we are what we post to each other) than, say, if we were doing it face to face. When we do it face to face, we are always dealing with what is more than an ideology.

And I totally agree with the last line. That is probably what makes them too easy to hate.