Fallacy of Subjectivity

James_S_Saint · May 1, 2016, 6:01am

He blindly accuses, thus asserting righteousness.

zinnat · May 2, 2016, 8:57am

Iamb,

Sorry for the delay. Not getting enough at a stretch time to reply you. Maybe tonight or tomorrow morning.

With love,
Sanjay

zinnat · May 3, 2016, 4:14am

iambiguous:

zinnat:

iambiguous:

But: Where does one draw the line between asserting what one thinks and insisting that all rational men and women are obligated to think the same? Isn’t that basically my point here? What can be defended epistemologically [relating to “the nature and scope of knowledge”] and what is more reflective of a personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein and embedded in conflicting goods out in a world rooted in political economy.

But, before you draw such a line, do you not need to define rational people in the first place? And, how from your subjective POV, you can ever decide who is rational and who is not?

Okay, define “rational people” and note, pertaining to a moral conflagration like abortion, how one would make a distinction between a rational and an irrational argument.

Why are you asking me to define rational people? I do not need any, that is why i am insisting you keeping discussion as one to one. I did not raised the point of rational people but you. You need them to support yourself (still call yourself a subjectivist), thus define and find them. Put your definition of rational people forth, then i will see what to do that that.

And I have in fact decided that those who argue that “a woman with an unwanted pregnancy should go to the dentist to have an abortion” are not rational people.

You would agree, right?

Yes, I certainly agree but in that case, your list of rational people would unfortunately include objectivists like me. So, are you ready to consider me as a rational person like you and give some weight to my opinions, even if those are going to against yours?

zinnat:

Like, in this very thread, can you decide whether you are rational or me?

I can only note [time and again] the distinction that I make between things we claim to know or to believe are true on this thread that seem able to be confirmed as that which all reasonable men and women are obligated believe or claim to know as true, and those arguments which seem [to me] to be just subjective/subjunctive opinions or political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein and conflicting goods.

One more example of typical scholastic subjectivity, where mere one line covers the whole para!

Again, before saying all those big words, simply tell me how you are taking finding of rational people as a given? What if i disagree with your definition of rational people?

Thus, first define and find those, then we will see what to with their rationality.

zinnat:

Iamb, your version of subjectivity is useless as far as real on the ground life and issues are concerned. It can never address the most pertinent question - How one ought to live his real life. Yes, it is certainly good you trademark in the head only rhetoric.

But that is precisely my point!!

Not at all, you only talk about that point but never use it on yourself.

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.

That’s precisely [u][b]why[/u][/b] I ask objectivists of your ilk to note how it is [u][b]not[/u][/b] applicable to them when their own value judgments come into conflict with others.

Go ahead, give it a go.

Again, all this will be on the agenda only when you comply with my conditions, not before that. You can keep asking but my answer will always be the same.

Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree regarding what it means to bring the OP “down to earth”.

Not at all. we have the same understanding of the term of “down to earth”. Actually, my version is more grounded than yours. You are talking about how one ought to live, but i am talking about more immediate concern; how one ought to post at ILP.

Note to others - Please decide whose concern is more grounded!

zinnat:

Note to others - Iamb openly accepted in this thread that he cannot decide which one of us is right or rational in his approach here? Means, he cannot decide such a petty issue by his subjectivity, and yet want to talk about big and complex moral issues? It is not a joke?

Come on,

Iamb, i know exactly what this come on means for you and why are you asking that. You are asking me to leave unnecessary shystering ( i do not know whether that is used as verb or not) and behave like a normal poster. But, i would not, at least in the thread. You have to realize that other posters feel the exactly the same for your circular shystering, but you never comply with their sincerecome ons, and keep repeating your Grooted lines.

until someone is actually able to grasp the totality of “human reality” and “human existence” itself, we are all just speculating about these things. In the interim, my aim is to yank your own scholastic, analytical claims regarding subjectivity down off the sky-hooks here in the philosophy forum and note how they seem to have very little relevance to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from dasein that are discussed in the society and government forum.

But, at the same time, when i am yanking, you are feeling uncomfortable and asking come on!

But, sure, I am more than willing to allow others to decide for themselves which of us is more inclined to connect the dots in that regard on this thread.

Note to others - Please decide whether a hardcore subjectivist like Iamb has any right to ask others to decide purely in the heads issue or not, and how these repeated calling of him to others to intervene and decide are any different from asking help from authorities or implementing morality?

All I am doing here is asking others…

zinnat:

The first question is why a subjectivist like you are asking others to decide morality, in the first place?

I’m not asking them to “decide morality”, I’m asking them to note how my dilemma above is not applicable to them.

Keep your dilemma to yourself. Why bother others as far as i am willingly here to listen to you?

And I am asking them to react to the distinction that I make between those things we do seem able to demonstrate are in fact true objectively for all of us [Donald Trump swept the Republican primaries last night] and those things which seem [to me] more reflective of subjective opinions/political prejudices instead [Donald Trump’s polices embody rationality and virtue].

Again, when you are sure from your subjective POV that such dilemma can never be addressed objectively, why asking others in the first place, unless you are ready to believe in their objective opinions. And, if you are going to call their objective/subjective opinions merely as the manifestations of their heads rooted in their daseins, what is your purpose of asking others?

How, given the argument you made in the OP, would you react to this distinction? Where are the “fallacies of subjectivity” in that discussion?

Again, leave it to when we actually discuss subjectivity.

Why? Because it can be demonstrated.

zinnat:

No, it cannot, ever. Explain how anyone else can settle this issue? How will he/she reach to an objective conclusion regarding our dispute? And, how that conclusion will not be his/her subjective opinion rooted in desein?

But my point is precisely the opposite: that our disputes on this thread cannot be settled. Or, rather, that I have not come upon an argument so far that would appear to settle it. In other words, an argument such that all reasonable men and women are obligated to either embrace your rationale here or my own for either continuing or not continuing our one-to-one exchange from 4/1 above.

Iamb, you are saying the same thing what i said, not the opposite.

But, as usual, you did not answer my question, or rather unable to answer that, thus wrote your Grooting lines and walk away. You repeated me instead of answering me.

I am asking you again, explain how anyone else can settle this issue? How will he/she reach to an objective conclusion regarding our dispute? And, how that conclusion will not be his/her subjective opinion rooted in deseins?

In other words, you are pronouncing my “defeat” here merely by asserting that your own argument is the most rational.

Yes, certainly, unless you prove otherwise.

Rooted [no doubt] in another rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal argument
3] I have access to the ideal argument because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

[let’s call this one Groot #3]

Yes, i certainly will whenever you write that again.

Just as I am trying to make you [and others] realize this: that the manner in which you claim to capture subjectivity “epistemologically” has profound limitations applicable to the question, “how ought one to live?”. In other words, in order to be thought of as both rational and virtuous.

Out in the world of actual social, political and economic interactions.

zinnat:

Iamb, if you, from your subjective POV, cannot ever decide such a petty issue like how one ought to post at ILP, how on the earth you can even think of going to bigger issues like how one ought to live?

But that is what I’m here for: to find an argument that might convince me that conflicts like this are within the reach of those who claim to have mastered the tools of philosophy.

But, here in this thread, because of playing a subjectivist just like you, my claim is mere that my decision of not resuming the OP discussion is rooted in my dasein, which is different from yours, thus i am going to stick to that, whether that is right or wrong from the POVs of other’s daseins. I am not making any claim here that i have mastered the tools of philosophy. But, it is you who have concluded that others have mastered, that is why you are asking them again and again to settle objectively in your note to others.

Secondly, again, if you want to find or discuss the arguments with me which you wish, agree with my dasein regarding posting at ILP.

I have merely noted that there does not appear to be a rule for posting here that would make what I did in violation of the rules.

True. I did not make any such claim either.

Objectively as it were. Instead, it revolves subjectively around our individual arguments regarding whether this is something that a poster ought or ought not to do.

That is the conclusion of mere your head only, not the heads of all, especially mine.

But, okay, fine, then given that i am not going to change my stance, either you have to leave the thread of agree with my terms. Or, as a third option, we can continue discussing iamb, the person. It seems to me that your are most interested in the third option. I am fine with that too.

You gave your reasons for eschewing this practice and I gave my reasons for utilizing it. So, what is the objective argument that resolves it once and for all.

You tell me. You are the most intelligent poster around. All others are naive, especially objectivists like me.

Or, are you ready to concede that this cannot be settled, ever?

Aside from you merely asserting that your argument is the better one.

What…necessarily so?

Yes, i am certainly asserting, but why should i not assert?

If i am an objectivist, i have all the right to claim that my argument is the better one, because it is decided objectively by me. Right!
And, If i am a subjectivist, i also have the same right to stick to my argument because it is rooted in my dasein. Right!

Now, Iamb, which version do you like more!

And I have never argued for “no morality whatever” in “real life”

zinnat:

Good. Seeing no escape, you are slowly withdrawing from your stance. It looks to me that my efforts are not going completely in vain.

I see “no escape” in the sense that if men and women choose to interact socially, politically and economically, they must establish rules of behavior in order to sustain the least dysfunctional community. Why? Because wants and needs ever and always will come into conflict. But how, in noting that, am I then withdrawing from my stance that these rules of behaviors will come to embody dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

But, following daseins is not the same as following morality. Morality means which is decided collectively, which may be different from many individual daseins regarding many issues.

Secondly, coming back to the posting issue, there are already rules at ILP regarding posting, but still those cannot decide whether your sniping kind of posting or putting conditions by me to resume discussion regarding OP here, is justified or not. How are going to decide that collectively at ILP, by voting!

Can you name but a single instance from your own life where these crucial components of my own moral philosophy were not relevant?

My dear subjectivist friend, your moral philosophy is as useless as it can be, for the simple reason that you are not putting any philosophy forth n the first place. You are rather undermining the whole of philosophy by claiming that nothing can be known objectively ever. Thus, irrespective of what you think about philosophy, there are no crucial components there.

Can you intertwine the argument that you make in the OP in but a single context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with another’s?

But then this:

I have merely argued that any one particular individual’s moral narrative/agenda is rooted [largely] in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

zinnat:

True, i do not disagree with that either.

Really? Then how are you not in turn entangled in my dilemma above?

There no dilemma because there is also an intention to solve it, and move on, instead of shouting from the roof all the time like you that there is a dilemma. All depends on the intention. Moving on may lead to wrong directions sometimes but that is still better option than merely keep repeating that there is dilemma.

zinnat:

But, do you also agree that all individual narratives cannot considered at par, and some may be more closer to reality and helpful in deciding issues?

I believe that it certainly seems more reasonable, for example, to impose the death penalty on those who commit cold blooded first degree murder rather than on those who jaywalk or litter.

Are you saying that you agree that grading or daseins and thus derived actions is possible!

If so, please explain me from your dasein POV, how you concluded that jaywalking should not attract death penalty like cold blooded murder?

But how is this established, say, ontologically? Let alone establishing beyond all doubt that capital punishment itself either is or is not something that all rational men and women are obligated to espouse.

As i asked above, first establish your above said premise, only then you have the right to discuss its ontology, not before that.

zinnat:

And, if you do not agree and claim that all will be on the same value, how on the earth can you ever argue that there can be even some morality, as you accepted above?

We have “some morality” because, once again, there is no getting around the fact that rules of behavior must to established within any human community. It then just becomes a question of whether these rules revolve more around might makes right, right makes might or democracy.

Within the context of political economy of course.

If that is true, why are you discussing all that (subjectivity/objectivity)?
Why you responded even the OP, in the first place?
And, then, why keep repeating your note to others?
Do i not have the might/right to decide what to do in my thread and whether i resume discussion regarding OP or not?
Then, why do you not leave this thread and go away?

With love,
Sanjay

iambiguous · May 3, 2016, 3:43pm

No, I take an existential leap to a particular political prejudice. It’s all encompassed here [with regard to abortion] in Groot #2:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
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.

In other words, I choose/decide while entangled in Groot #1:

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.

Now, when will we ever be apprised of how a value judgment of your own came to evolve over the years out in the world rather than up in the clouds? And how, when it comes into conflict with others, are you not entangled in my own particular dilemma?

Note to others:

I wait patiently for him to connect the dots between his own political prejudices expressed in the government/society forum and the manner in which he encompasses the “fallacy of subjectivity” here in the philosophy forum.

In other words, without basically coming to embody Groot #3:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

zinnat · May 4, 2016, 1:59am

Yes.

I am Groot 1.

iambiguous:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
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 am Groot 2.

I am Groot 3.

Iamb, seriously, you actually need not to cut and paste those same lines again and again, at least with me and in this thread. Grooting symbols will get the job done.

with love,
sanjay

iambiguous · May 5, 2016, 5:54pm

First [of course] let’s get this out of the way:

Groot #1

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.

Groot #2

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
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.

Groot #3

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

I define [construe] a rational person as someone who is able to demonstrate that what she believes is true “in her head” is in fact true objectively for all of us. Thus if she says that Mary had an abortion and Mary did in fact have an abortion she is being rational. In this instance, I would deem her to be a rational person.

But: Suppose she says that Mary’s abortion is immoral. Is she being rational now? In this instance is she a rational person?

You tell me.

To wit: Whatever that means!

No, I will not keep it to myself. It reflects a fundamental conundrum in my life whenever I am faced with having to choose one rather than another value.

Note to others:

Why does zinnat refuse to note how he is not himself entangled in this dilemma when his own value judgments come into conflict with others? Why does he refuse in turn to note how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is not applicable to him – pertaining either to his own interactions with others or in regard to an issue [familiar to all of us] in which there clearly are folks on opposite ends of the moral/political spectrum.

Over and again I note that am not arguing that this cannot be addressed objectively, only that I am not able to assess it objectively myself.

Now, let’s get back to the distinction I make between Trump winning the primaries and Trump’s policies embodying rationality and virtue.

React to that distinction given the argument that you make in the OP.

But you refuse to. Why? Because I will not toe your line regarding the most reasonable manner in which to post on this thread!! That way [of course] you can ever avoid a more substantive exchange.

My argument is that I do not believe “in my head” that it can be resolved. Why? Because we both make points that can be seen as reasonable given the assumptions that they are based on. But that is not the same as asserting that it cannot be resolved. All I can do is wait for an argument that is able to demonstrate it [for me] in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that in fact our dispute here does exist.

I understand that. If you lived alone on an island somewhere there would be no need for morality.

Well, unless you count God.

Sans God, the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein would be largely moot. Why? Because there would be no conflicting goods. No political economy. It wouldn’t be necessary to delve into why you believe [or behave] as you do because there is no one else around to question or to challenge it.

I’ll try capital letters and color:

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT “NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY EVER”. I WOULD ARGUE INSTEAD THAT MATHEMATICS, THE LAWS OF NATURE, THE EMPIRICAL WORLD AROUND US, THE LOGICAL RULES OF LANGUAGE ETC., CAN BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY. I DO NOT EVEN ARGUE THAT IDENTITY AND MORALITY CANNOT BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY. I ARGUE ONLY THAT GIVEN THE MANNER IN WHICH I CONSTRUE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DASEIN AND CONFLICTING GOODS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOES IN FACT EXIST.

And then I ask folks like you to note how, when your own value judgments come into conflict with others, you are able to embody what you deem to be objective morality. The rational, ideal, virtuous behaviors objectivists can never get enough of.

In other words, the part that you avoid altogether. And the manner in which you refuse to connect the dots between values defended in the government and society forum and the manner in which you construe the “fallacy of subjectivity” in the OP in the philosophy forum.

I’m saying that in any given community, it is necessary to judge behaviors in order to mete out rewards and punishments. And that a concensus will be drawn that is graded from most to least favorable and unfavorable behaviors. But that it does not appear possible [philosophically] to demonstrate which particular hierarchy reflects the optimal [most rational] gradation.

As for me demonstrating that jaywalking is not deserving of the death penalty I can just as easily ask you to demonstrate that it is not.

The point is that if for any particular personal reason an individual believes “in his head” that it deserves to be, how does the philosopher demonstrate that this point of view is necessarily irrational?

Let alone how those on either side of the issue pertaining to cold blooded murder are able to demonstrate that capital punishment is either moral or immoral, reasonable or unreasonable.

I pursue this over and again because [of course] I may well be wrong regarding the manner in which I connect the dots [here and now] myself.

And I know this because I have changed my mind so many times in the past regarding these relationships. It’s just that, before, in embracing one or another rendition of the objectivist mind, I was always expecting not to. Now I understand more clearly how, given new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., I could change my mind again.

phyllo · May 5, 2016, 6:36pm

Well, that’s just silly.

A vast majority of things in your head is not demonstrable.

I wrote something on a piece of paper to today … there is no way that I can demonstrate it happened today … to anyone. If I destroy the paper, then even the marks which might be traced back to me, will be gone.

And explain why a rational person must also have the ability to make these sorts of demonstrations. Why can’t a person be rational and also be completely incompetent at making such demonstrations?

You are just redefining the word ‘rational’.

James_S_Saint · May 5, 2016, 10:52pm

Bigus considers defining words to be cheating and/or irrational, especially the word “irrational” (and probably the word “cheating”).

zinnat · May 9, 2016, 4:56am

iambiguous:

First [of course] let’s get this out of the way:

Groot #1

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.

Groot #2

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
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.

Groot #3

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

With pleasure.

Note to others - Please note down these Groots of Iamb for the future.

That is the greatest definition of the rational people that i have seen ever. You certainly deserve an applause for that.

In simple terms, you are saying that all those who can see, hear, touch smell are rational people.
My bitch also knows that my neighbor’s bitch has delivered puppies. Is my bitch is also rational?
Should i ask her to join ILP also?

Let us agree and find rational people before that.

Do such a great scholastic subjectivist like you not know what it means?

Iamb, you are contradicting yourself here.

Have you forgotten your dasein (Grooting) philosophy now? As per your claim, if, like you, everyone else is also a product of their daseins only, how on the earth you are expecting them to understand your dasein? Are not they compelled to think according to their daseins only?

Then, why this yours repeated note to others?

Note to others -

[u]Why on the earth and under the sun, a subjectivist like Iamb is refusing to stick to his own premise that everyone is product to his own dasein in my case?

Why he is assuming that i must have been faced the same daseins as his ones, thus i must have the same dilemmas as he is facing?

Why he is not unable to understand that my daseins may have enabled me deduce things objectively?

And, how he can claim for sure that he is right and i am wrong?[/u]

Iamb, having disagreement with someone does not entail that i must have been in dilemmas. Do you not understand the difference between the two? Secondly, how a subjectivist like you can ever reach to that conclusion that i am in any sort of dilemma? Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist? What if only you are in the dilemma and i am able to see things clearly, at least more than you, if not up to the end? Are you aware of my daseins?

Then, is it not your problem only? And, if so, when anybody else ever tries to help you in solving your problem, you simply dismiss them by claiming that all is in merely in their heads? Maybe you are now beyond repair, like a last stage cancer?

For all that, you have to agree with my terms, which seem to be justified according to my head.

Not, at all. It is you who are refusing, not me.

Precisely. That is what i am telling you all along. If you want something from me, you also have to give something to me in the exchange. Otherwise, you can go to your way and i will go towards mine, end of the story.

If you are not ready to toe my line, why are you expecting me to toe to yours one? I am as spoiled, stubborn and intellectual cheat ( though, only in this thread) as you. Let me see how are you going to handle a person like yourself on the ground.

Not at all. It is you who are avoiding the actual discussion.

Actually, you know that your ideology is so lame that it cannot stand on its own, and that is precisely why you are not willing to agree to my condition of not bringing others between us. You know that you need borrowed crutches all the time.

Note to others - Can Iamb has any other reason for not agreeing with such a petty condition of mine?

No one can ever make you believe either if you just keep repeating your Grooting philosophy all the time instead of listening to others.

If it can be resolved is such a way which can be acceptable to both parties, why are you not doing it right now?

That is precisely i want to hear from you.

As you are ready to wait till the demonstrable rational settlement , i am also waiting exactly for this. Let us first wait for the rational and mutual settlement for how one ought to post at ILP, only then we would be able to set the guidelines for the settlement of how one ought to live. What is wrong in it?

But, it is you who is jumping the gun besides accusing me of avoiding meaningful discussion. What i am doing here, is sorting out the mutually acceptable methodologies to have a meaningful discussion. I do not want you to keep repeating your famous Grooting phrases like in the head only, rooted in dasein etc.

Let us first find out (if both sides intentionally play a stubborn and cheat subjectivist instead of one only ) by arguing over how one ought to post at ILP, whether any argument can be settled ever or not. If that becomes possible, we will move on to how one ought to live for sure.

But, if we can cannot settle such a childish dispute, how on the earth you are expecting to settle bigger and more complex issues? And, what purpose that discussion would serve except wasting our time and memory at ILP servers?

Note to others - Please decide whether i am right in my approach or wrong!

Having said that, i am still ready to give that how one ought to live discussion a shot, but only when you agree with my terms, not otherwise. The ball is now in your court.

Exactly.

Iamb, i am not counting on God. Unlike you, i do not need borrowed crutches for help. I can enough strength to stand straight on my own legs. On the other hand, You have nothing in your arsenal except challenging the premise of the God, but i assure you that you will never get the chance to use your only weapon while fighting me.

Iamb, it is not me but you who is counting on the God, as you do nothing but always wait and expect your opponents to rely even mildly on the God, so you can challenge them to show your so called on the ground proof of the God. That is all you have done in your most of those 11000 posts at ILP. But, that tactics would not work in my case. I would never let that happen.

We do not need the God in settling how one ought to post at ILP. Do we? Let me see how you settles it!

BUT, BEING A SUBJECTIVIST,I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU, UNLESS YOU SHOW ME ON THE GROUND THAT YOU CAN SETTLE HOW ONE OUGHT TO POST AT ILP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

FINE, BUT NOT PERTINENT HERE, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DISCUS ONLY IN THE HEADS ONLY ISSUES. THE EMPIRICAL WORLD IS NOT GOING TO HELP US IN THAT. WE HAVE TO SOME OTHER WAY.

AGAIN, IF THAT IS TRUE, TELL ME HOW YOU PROPOSE TO KNOW/DECIDE OBJECTIVELY HOW ONE OUGHT TO POST AT ILP! AND, WE WILL USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY IN OBJECTIVELY FINDING OUT HOW ONE OUGHT TO LIVE.

NOTE TO OTHERS - PLEASE DECIDE IF I AM MAKING ANY UNJUSTIFIED DEMAND!

IAMB, I AM ASKING YOU TO SET THE RULES, SO YOU WOULD NOT ABLE TO VIOLATING THOSE.

NOW, YOU SAID THIS, BUT, IN THE SAME PARA, YOU HAVE THIS (BELOW MENTIONED) TOO -

PRIMA FACIE, BOTH LOOK OXYMORON. PLEASE ELABORATE IT FURTHER WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE SAYING.

IAMB, I AM NOT A SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHER LIKE YOU. SO PLEASE PUT YOUR HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE ASIDE, AND TELL ME IN SUCH A SIMPLE AND EASILY COMPREHENSIBLE LANGUAGE THAT A LAYMAN LIKE ME CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ACTUALLY.

DO YOU BELIEVE WHETHER OBJECTIVE MORALITY CAN BE DEDUCED OR NOT?
PLEASE ANSWER IN SIMPLE YES OR NO. THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.

But, where in this thread i ever claimed that my argument is absolutely objective? Instead of that, just like you, i am merely arguing that it is rooted in my own dasiens? Do you have problem with that too?

What happened in other sections is not pertinent here.

Thus, let us focus here only on how one ought to post at ILP, because that would set our base line for all further discussion. We have to solve that puzzle before anything else.

Now, if you do not mind, it is my turn to use darker and colored font.

[b][u]Iamb, you said that it is NECESSARY for some inevitable reasons to grade even those things which cannot be demonstrable empirically, right!

But, because of playing a cheat subjectivist here, i disagree even with that. I argue that that opinion of yours is merely rooted in your own dasien, and does not actually serve any purpose whatsoever on the ground to the society. Please explain me how this consensus driven behavior/morality serves any purpose.[/b]

[b]But, when any one argues the same in the case of morality or even god, you ask them to demonstrate everything on the ground, otherwise you declare those people philosophically naive and stupids. Why?

Going by your own argument, are you not also the same as they are? [/b]

[b]Great arguement by even greater subjectivist!

Iamb, have you forgotten that i am also a subjectivist here! I do not see any reason or need to treat a murderer or a jaywalker treating differently. Thus, treat then equally and fairly, means either hang of spare both, unless you provide me some demonstrable reasons.

Which Objective God of yours told you that only a murderer should be hanged and a jaywalker should not?

Secondly, have you realized that you have asked to prove the negative here!
How it is different from asking to prove that a unicorn does not exist?
And, how it is different from asking to prove that the God does not exist?
Can you prove that the God does not exist?[/b]

[b]Same thing here.

How does a philosopher demonstrate that not constructing an objective/consensus morality is not only irrational but also necessary to some other one’s head, even if that consensual morality may not be absolutely perfect/objective, and this argument of in one’s head only or dasein should not stretched beyond the necessary limit?[/b]

Note to others - Please note that Iamb is now using a typical objectivist’s augments like prove that the God does not exist.

Of course, you are wrong. But, that is not the problem. The actual problem is that you neither want to listen anyone honestly nor admit you are wrong, when it is required the most. You merely pretend to be honest sometimes when you see that it is not going to hurt your argument, just as you did above.

Changing the mind does not negate one’s objectivity, as far as intent to achieve the objectivity is there. But, as soon as one start believing that even grading is not possible/necessary even on non-demonstrable issues, he becomes a subjectivist/nihilist like you.

with love,
sanjay

Mictlantecuhtli · May 10, 2016, 1:12am

The all knowing objectivists have all the answers to make our lives better.

I’m so glad we have them around defining objective purpose and meaning for the rest of us.

These philosophical priests and hierophants are our collective salvation for paradise here on earth.

[Sarcasm]

zinnat · May 10, 2016, 2:09am

No, you have to read my posts carefully again.

Unlike some other objectivists, I never claim that I have attained complete objectivity in any vertical. My stand is merely that I will always keep looking for objectivity, or at least better option, if complete objectivity would not be possible for any reasons.

I am ready to be questioned/criticized regarding my objective claims, and willing to amend/change those also, if necessary. Those are not marks on the stone for me.

But, what I do not support is pending all grading/judgements by arguing that, as everything is subjective thus it is totally useless even to attempt for objectivity.

That ideology kills the very intent of improvent forever, thus dangerous. Trial and error is many times better option because it keeps the intent and thus the possibility of improvent alive.

With love
Sanjay

iambiguous · May 11, 2016, 3:13pm

Yes, but the vast majority of things that you claim to know or to believe are true in your head do not need to be demonstrated to others. Why? Because 1] they are either of no interest to them or 2] they do not impact on them.

What I focus on instead are those things that you believe or claim to know “in your head” and than act on such that consequences ripple out effecting others. Either [from their perspective] for the better or for the worse.

A conflict occurs. Then what can be demonstrated to in fact be true?

Sure, there may be a way in which to demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was in fact either a rational or an irrational choice, a moral or an immoral behavior. I have never denied that. Instead, I go looking for the argument that might convince me that philosophically such a conflict can be resolved deontologically. What would that argument sound like?

Whereas, pertaining to the fact of the abortion itself, what one believes in one’s head about it either is or is not in sync with the fact of it. And, pertaining to abortion as a medical procedure, the doctor either is or is not in fact successful in performing it.

How you define the word rational doesn’t make the fact of being rational any more or less so if you are able to demonstrate that what you do believe or claim to know is true in your head is in fact in sync with the world objectively. In other words, true for all of us.

The only caveat here is that until we are able to grasp Reality qua Reality or Existence qua Existence, we would seem to have no way in which to demonstrate [ontologically] anything at all.

iambiguous · May 11, 2016, 3:28pm

James considers defining words in exactly the same manner in which he does to be all that is necessary to, for example, bring the Real God into existence.

Or, down here, to differentiate Right from Wrong behavior.

You know, “scholastically”.

phyllo · May 11, 2016, 4:01pm

I was pointing out that the ability to demonstrate something has nothing to do with rationality.

Your definition of ‘rational’ person’ makes no sense.

That’s just obviously false. You can’t demonstrate anything that “you do believe or claim to know is true in your head” without using words. The definitions of the words is a critical aspect of the demonstration.

Using your crazy definition of ‘rational’, you might get a demonstration of something but it won’t be what everyone considers ‘rational’.

iambiguous · May 11, 2016, 6:41pm

In simplistic terms, perhaps.

But your example has little or nothing to do with the distinction I keep making.

The fact of the puppies existence is true for all of us. We can see, hear, touch and smell them.

Unless of course one is blind or deaf or lacking in the [biological] capacity to either touch or smell.

But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?

What on earth does this mean?!

There are things that we can all understand objectively: Mary had in fact aborted her fetus. The fetus is dead. It is dead for everyone. Now, if someone believes it is not dead but is now with God in Heaven, that’s the part where my own understanding of dasein kicks in. Existentially he has come to believe in God. And part of this includes believing [in his head] that aborted babies go to Heaven.

But: How does he in fact demonstrate this?

How does he in fact demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was immoral?

Again: You tell me.

This has almost nothing to do with the distinction I am making. I am merely noting that we are able to point to personal experiences in our lives that lead us to believe that certain behaviors are reasonable/moral or unreasonable/immoral. Each and every individual will have his or her own set of behaviors, experiences and moral narratives.

My distinction instead revolves around the difference between 1]those who have in fact come to grasp the implications of that but have concluded in turn that, in using the tools of philosophy, we can discern our actual obligations as rational/moral individuals and 2] those like me who are entangled in my dilemma above.

They can provide me with examples from their own lives such that when their values come into conflict with others, they are able to demonstrate that their own behaviors reflect the most rational/reasonable frame of mind. They either will or they won’t. They either can or they can’t.

Instead, like you, they generally dodge this part altogether:

Note to others:

Does he or does he not keep wiggling out in confronting his own inability to respond to this distinction?

Perhaps some of you might be willing to address it. At least provide him with examples of how it might be tackled.

Suppose Trump does go on to win the presidency. He does in fact become the president of the United States. Trust me: If someone points this out at the time, I will believe him. My “grooting” points are completely irrelevant to that which can in fact be demonstrated as true objectively. But what if this same person points out that this is also what ought to have happened in turn. Am I obligated as a rational human being to concur? How would anyone be able to tear down the barrier here between what in fact does happen and all of the conflicting and contradictory reactions that we will have to the fact of it?

Now, will you wiggle out of responding to this too?

How am I not doing so? Sure, I invite others to offer arguments able to demonstrate that either my rationale or yours reflects the more reasonable assessment of the situation.

In other words, such that this argument reflects the objective truth rather then [subjectively] a personal opinion or a political prejudice.

The ball is always in/on the court. What we squabble about instead is who is able to put it through the hoop.

Note to others:

What on earth does his point have to do with mine? Seriously. I am noting the obvious: that, alone and isolated from all others, dasein, as encompassed in the manner in which I construe it here, is not relevant.

And zinnat either does or does not believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.

And, if he does, then this God must be factored into any behavior that he chooses. After all, pertaining to most Gods, immortality and salvation itself is at stake.

What else: back to my distinction:

I am of the belief that ILP does in fact exist. Objectively. That this thread does in fact exist. Objectively. That we are in conflict regarding the manner in which I posted above on this thread pertaining to an exchange you had with [as I recall] Moreno. Objectively.

But: In my own subjective opinion, it is reasonable for me to comment on an exchange between others on this thread. And not to just confine myself to our to-to-one exchange. And I explained why above.

And I am not interested in setting up my own set of rules here. Basically, I am willing to take my chances with no rules at all. But that frame of mind is no less embedded in dasein.

Just deduced [defined] into existence? Nope.

Okay, note an example of a value judgment of yours that came into conflict with another’s. If you do not construe your value here to be “absolutely objective”, how then did you make the distinction “out in the world” between you being right from your side and him or her being right from theirs?

Another words, provide us with your own rendition of Groot #2.

So you assert. But: that is basically the extent to which you demonstrate it. In my opinion, of course.

I gave my reasons for posting as I do above, you gave yours. Now what? How would the puzzle be solved such that all reasonable/rational men and women would either embrace your point of view or mine?

Or come up with an optimal argument all their own.

Yes, if we choose to interact with others, there will inevitably come a clash between disparate wants and needs. Both in terms of means and ends.

The purpose revolves around the necessity to establish rules of behavior. Dasein is only relevant here to the extent that we do get into conflicts regarding what those rules ought to be. After all, who can reasonably argue that we don’t need them? What I am looking for then is an argument able to transcend an intersubjective [political] consensus. In other words, able to articulate the whole objective truth.

Obviously: Down on the ground the carefully calibrated definitions and deductions collide head on with contingency chance and change. With dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Each side claims to have demonstrated that their own values reflect the optimal frame of mind. But only because they start out with a conflicting set of premises.

For example sport hunting: debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index … _for_sport

Both sides are able to make arguments that the other side may or may not be able to [in part] deflect. But neither side’s arguments can ever be entirely refuted. Not all of them. Instead, there are conflicting goods [conflicting assumptions] that tend to be rooted in the lives that men and women have actually lived. And then within any particular community laws will be enacted reflecting the power [at any given time] of the different sides to enforce their own political agenda.

Then we are both in the same boat. We agree that sans God there does not appear to be a truly demonstrable manner in which to make distinctions like this such that it can be demonstrated in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to behave as all rational men and women are obligated too.

And, again, that’s before we get to the arguments that revolve around folks who are imprisoned for murdering others. In other words, contexts in which the consensus is not more or less overwhelming.

I don’t believe in God. Do you?

I am simply noting the difference between being able to demonstrate that Joe did in fact jaywalk [there is an actual video of him jaywalking that can be in turn demonstrated to be genuine], and whether jaywalking ought to be a capital offense. In the first instance it makes no difference what the “consensus of opinion” is. He did in fact jaywalk. In the second the consensus may be overwhelming that he not be executed for jaywalking but that [in my view] is not the same thing as demonstrating philosophically that it is necessarily irrational or illogical or immoral to execute him for jaywalking. Here you need God or some secular equivalent.

Unless of course I’m wrong. And, regarding discussions like this, I am always willing to acknowledge that I may well be.

zinnat · May 12, 2016, 6:51am

Why that perhaps? Are you not sure about your dasein driven opinions?

Please explain that.

Again, do you consider my bitch rational or not, and why?

Let us first decide whether she is rational or not. and, if we both find that she is also rational like us, i will certainly pass you invitation to her.

Not only on the earth but under the sky also, this simply means that you/we have to decide first what is the exact definition of rationality, only then we would be able to judge whether anyone is rational or not.

But, you are avoiding this essential step, and want to judge one’s rationality as per one’s opinions. That is putting horses behind the cart instead of ahead.

What if you are asking to any such person about his/her opinions, who is not rational (according to our heads) in the first place?

Again, my bitch can also deduce dead fetuses. Are you ready to consider her rational just because she can also realize this objectively?

What is the exact limit of the knowledge/intelligence/wisdom in rationality according to your head?

Again, all these things can be discussed only when you agree with my conditions, otherwise not.

For now, we are going to limit our discussion only to how one ought to post at ILP, and we are trying to finalize the definition of rational people for that.

But, you still did not answered my question; why are you repeating note to others even on those issues which are related to the heads only?

I hope that you would not avoid answer next time.

On the contrary, it is very much related to what you said. I will explain that below.

Agreed.

Now, we are back to square one again, as you are now proposing to leave the decision making on those who are rational enough to use the tools of philosophy. Right!

That is why i am asking you again and again that you have to define and find rational people before anything else.

So, again, are you ready to consider my bitch also rational, or not, and why?

Iamb, you did not answer my above mention question but avoid it. Please answer it next time.

What purpose that would serve? If they tell about daseins, would you leave yours and accept their version? And,if not, why are you asking them to tell their daseins?

Instead, it is not me but you, who are dodging the discussion about fallacy of subjectivity all along by not agreeing to my petty condition.

[b]Note to others - I am ready to leave the decision to others, but only those whom are considered rational by both of us. Or, if Iamb agrees that all posters are rational here. I am ready to have voting on this. Not only that, i am ready to leave this exclusively to the mods also, if Iamb agrees and considers all mods rational.

But, i have only one condition. Iamb has to define rationality in the first place, and explains me why he considers anyone rational.[/b]

See iamb, i am all in for your note to others. Now, tell me which option suits best to you! You would not find more liberal opponent than me, ever.

Iamb, you did not address above mentioned portion also.

[u]There is no wiggling out from my end. I am merely setting a mutually acceptable base line for further discussion.

First of all, we have to define rationality.
Then, we have to find rational people.
Then, we will ask them how one ought to post at ILP.

Only then, we would be able to discuss anything else. Otherwise, the discussion would not serve any purpose, because you keep behaving according to your dasein, and me as mine, and as the result, we would keep arguing merely on how one ought to post at ILP, instead of how one ought to live.

Or, if you want to bypass all that, agree to my terms and your wish would be granted immediately.[/u]

Note to others - Please decide whether my approach is right or wrong!

I have already given my consent to your proposal regarding this. Not only that, i have provided you many options there also to choose. You cannot complain now.

It is related to you by all means, and you and others also understand this very well. This playing innocence of yours does not appeal anyone. All posters at ILP very well understand when anyone is merely pretending and when he is actually innocent. You will realize this too, if you ever agree to voting or any other kind of arbitration.

Iamb, you are not as smart as you think. And, others are also not as fool as you think.

Again, we are not discussing god here but how one ought to post at ILP, and god has not given any direction regarding that.

But, when i gave your objective argument to by bitch, she refused to acknowledge it as an objective proof. She claimed that it is merely in my head. She also asked to show ILP and this thread on the ground. How am i supposed to convince her that ILP exists in reality?

But, in my subjective opinion, that is not reasonable. Like you, i cannot help it either. So, now what?

And, my frame of mind for making rules is embedded in my dasein.

If that is true, it means that we will never able to decide how one ought to post at ILP?
And, if that is also true, we would never able to even discuss how one ought to live?
Right or wrong?

Again, leave all that for later. Let us first decide how one ought to post at ILP, or define rationality and find rational people to decide that for us.

Yes, as i assert, of course, according to my head. Do i not have that right like you?

There are many other options still open for you, like general voting, mod’s opinion etc, if we can agree on the definition of the rational people. Or, you can leave the thread. Or, you can continue, if you want. Choose anyone that suits you the most. I am okay with all.

Then, choose the option of define rationality, finding rational people, and leave the dispute to those to decide for us.

Does that not mean you are conceding that there must be some rules even regarding those issues also which are or the purely in our head types?

But, when you claim that every in the heads only types of issue is merely the product of any particular dasein, and thus can be subjective only, how on the earth can you ever expect that to give you the whole objective truth?

Obviously: Down on the ground the carefully calibrated definitions and deductions collide head on with contingency chance and change. With dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Each side claims to have demonstrated that their own values reflect the optimal frame of mind. But only because they start out with a conflicting set of premises.

For example sport hunting: debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index … _for_sport

Both sides are able to make arguments that the other side may or may not be able to [in part] deflect. But neither side’s arguments can ever be entirely refuted. Not all of them. Instead, there are conflicting goods [conflicting assumptions] that tend to be rooted in the lives that men and women have actually lived. And then within any particular community laws will be enacted reflecting the power [at any given time] of the different sides to enforce their own political agenda.

All that still does not answer my question, thus i am repeating it-

But, where are we in the same boat? Did not accepted that you consider jaywalking not as hideous crime as a murder?
Explain me how a subjectivity like you can ever conclude that without relying on objectivity?

If you do not believe in the god, how you concluded that a jaywalker is not worthy of capital punishment?
By the way, i consider Nietzsche your the God, not anyone else. Did he told you that only a murderer should be hanged!

But, how all that resulted in asking me to prove that jaywalker should be hanged?
Gone with the objectivist flow!

Of course, you are wrong most of the times, but contrary to your claim, you are not willing to admit it ever.

with love,
sanjay

iambiguous · May 17, 2016, 3:22pm

Again and again and again and again: I am certain of things that all of us seem [objectively] able to be certain about: mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of languages.

Dasein [as I understand it here and now] revolves only around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world of conflicting behaviors.

And not as dogs discuss this, but as we do.

The bitch is rational to the extent that we can speak of rational behavior in animals that are driven more [considerably more] by instinct.

It might be like speaking of human behavior as rational in a world entirely governed by the immutable laws of matter. A wholly determined world in which no living [or non-living] entity can do other than as it must.

Now, point this out to your bitch and let us know how she responds.

Are you going to respond to this…

[b][i]But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.

Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such that it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?[/i][/b]

…or not?

Note to others:

This way [of course] he never has to address the points that I raised on 4/1 above.

Note to others:

When an objectivist of zinnat’s ilk is reduced down to charging folks like me with avoiding answers to their questions what they mean is that the answers that you give to any question are not the one that they would give. Heads they win, tails you lose. Let’s call it, say, the Satyr/Lyssa Syndrome.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

As for all the rest:

me [from zinnat’s perspective]: blah, blah, blah
zinnat [from my perspective]: blah, blah, blah

The substantive points that I raised on 4/1 remain dangling…unanswered.

Shall we take them to a new thread?

James_S_Saint · May 17, 2016, 4:09pm

Being rational means being objectively subjective. All rationale is subjective. But objectively, one is either being rational or not.

The dasein world is the result of people being objectively irrational.

iambiguous · May 17, 2016, 5:53pm

Notice how James immediately brings this all down to earth regarding behaviors of his own that come into conflict with others.

Not.

James_S_Saint · May 17, 2016, 6:32pm

Notice how Bigus immediately attempts to make it personal when he has nothing relevant with which to counter.