The Grand Scheme

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:49 pm

shellytrokan wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
shellytrokan wrote:Value and knowledge are the problem of reality. Knowledge can't be first, but value being first means no knowledge.

it means no objective universal synthetic knowledge. Which was obvious to begin with, except to psychos/prophets/etc.

It also means absolute analytic knowledge. It means we can begin to think.


For what purpose?

Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.

And what is the means of the beginning?

Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 ... as-all-law
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:59 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Fixed Cross

AD:I say that people who are loving passionately and truthfully are the sanest beings.

What do you mean HERE by truthfully? It's kind of ambiguous to me.

FC: Have you gotten so used to fools that you refuse to think for yourself about a phrase you read? I know you havent.


We are all fools at times Jakob. I know that I am. You are also in that category at times.
You might have understood that I was asking that question because I was, in actuality, thinking for myself.
Is "with proper discernment" and "right reason" included in your meaning of "truthfully"?
Sometimes people who love in "your" way are not the sanest - they may be unbalanced, dependent and lacking in compassion. It just depends on how they think. Is it real or is it delusional?

Well Arc, truthfully certainly doesnt mean "agreeing with me".
It means all you think it means. Indeed, the aphorist does not explain his choice of words, he chooses his words because of how he expect the reader to struggle with them. It is the struggle with words that leads to thought - belief in words is the opposite.

No word actually means something isolated. We know words subconsciously as the context in which we have seen it used most often.

I am actually very much not arrogant, as i refuse to spell things out for intelligent people.
I dont believe in that.


I don't know, Jakob, but I don't consider it to be arrogance to answer a question which leads to more clarity.
On the other hand...............

And surely Ive been generous in my responses, when they were to a particular point.
('this is vague' is an extremely vague and unspecific non-point, and I know Erik understands more than he tends to let on - likely because he's been conditioned a bit by Satyr and others who frown on intelligence)

that is what aphorisms require... confidence in the reader.
whether warranted or not in any particular case....


Freddie's aphorism or whatever you wish to call it" "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!" comes to mind. In and of itself, I'd say it requires a lot more thought than given.
Like the buddhists' "Life is suffering".
The way I look at it, what aphorisms require is "thoughtfulness" in the reader.

Then we look at it the same way after all.
I did not care to explain the aphorism, as the aim was for it to provoke thought. That thought is the real value.

But Im not talking to you as your valuing is already philosophized.


I may be being dumb here, but that might be taken in more than just one way. Care to elaborate?

Ive seen you grow and become tougher and more subtle in 5 years. It's been good to watch.

you see that is the effect of an aphorism. Thought, and then (dis)agreement.

Yes, I know this...but not always disagreement but exploring further possibilities, painting the canvas a bit more. But your so-called aphorism was atypical. A few words which provoke thought [don't] an aphorism make]. But anyway this thread isn't about how aphorisms are seen.
Would you call a camel a horse because it too has four legs, Jakob?

No, I wouldn't But I would call an aphorism an aphorism when it is an aphorism. Which is what I did.
It's evidently too dense and subtle for most - which is the point of an aphorism, to challenge the highest readers.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby shellytrokan » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:04 pm

For what purpose? [/quote]
Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.

And what is the means of the beginning?

Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.

Can you elaborate on that second answer?
shellytrokan
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:37 pm

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:04 pm

Also, Arc -
What doesn't kill me makes me stronger
isn't an aphorism, but a maxim.
To 'problematize' "value"
is fully aphoristic.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:09 pm

shellytrokan wrote:
Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.


Can you elaborate on that second answer?

Yes, also this is why I posed the links - they are elaboration and even explication.

We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical 'element' but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.

All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, "A"="A", which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:15 pm

"A" >< "A"

that is how it works. Much more stable, hence, much deeper, hence more dynamic.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:28 pm

"A"><"A" means:
every instance "A" (rather than "object "A"") is unequal to nothing in by the same measure that the next [i]instance "A" is.
But the instances aren't equal to each other; they are only equally unequal to 'zero'.
Because 'zero' doesnt posit any criteria, this does not mean that the two instances have any true bearing upon each others natures.

It is foremost a prudence in identifying; quite obviously, by strictly analytic standards, "this equals that" is per definition an error. If it would equal it, you could not possibly differentiate them to put an "=" in between.

"A" is something vastly different, in all real ways, to "A".
Only religious belief in language as coming from God the Absolute directly would cause a belief that the two instances of writing actually designate a reliable equation.
The very (f)act of writing two separate "A"s already points to what mathematics really is; a form of metaphor.

Theoretical math revolves around the fundamental asymmetries that produce the semblances of symmetry; this is why math is progressive, dynamic, creative. The same can be discovered in pure logic; this is what we will be pushing scientists to discover, when all this political madness takes one definitive turn or another.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:47 pm

Sauwelios wrote:You make a distinction between factual judgments and value judgments. I ask you: is that distinction itself a factual distinction? Is the distinction you make "between a rational assessment of the conflicting goods and the subjunctive reaction embedded in your emotional response" itself rational? You said: "From my perspective, one is a moral objectivist if they argue that one either ought or ought not to behave in a particular manner because it can be determined that particular behaviors either are or are not rational." Well, isn't distinguishing between factual judgments and value judgments, between rationality and "subjunctivity", as you do, itself behaving in a particular manner? And aren't you saying that that particular behaviour is rational? If so, can you demonstrate that?


Sorry, but I am still at a loss as to how all of this didactic "analysis" is applicable to the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.

Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting "judgments" that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.

If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?

What are we able to establish as "judgments" here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby shellytrokan » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical 'element' but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.

All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, "A"="A", which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.[/quote]

What you speak of correlates with my questions like teddy bears and planets, or television and national history. I believe that the atom doesn't exist, but the need of balance is that therefore any event doesn't exist - there was no Vietnam war, or is no Stonehenge, or no Oscars ceremony.
If one assumes that a war is real, what is it real relative to? The same with an American family, in any US state - whatever the event in the history of the family, what is the reality of that event relative to?
shellytrokan
 
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:37 pm

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:48 pm

The "dead" law of identity does not say that A's are one and the same A only that they are equal in relevant aspects. Kinda like what your "alive" law of disparity says.

It's interesting to note that you are replacing one kind of equality (identity) with another (same degree of inequality to zero.)
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:55 am

iambiguous wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:You make a distinction between factual judgments and value judgments. I ask you: is that distinction itself a factual distinction? Is the distinction you make "between a rational assessment of the conflicting goods and the subjunctive reaction embedded in your emotional response" itself rational? You said: "From my perspective, one is a moral objectivist if they argue that one either ought or ought not to behave in a particular manner because it can be determined that particular behaviors either are or are not rational." Well, isn't distinguishing between factual judgments and value judgments, between rationality and "subjunctivity", as you do, itself behaving in a particular manner? And aren't you saying that that particular behaviour is rational? If so, can you demonstrate that?


Sorry, but I am still at a loss as to how all of this didactic "analysis" is applicable to the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.

Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting "judgments" that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.

If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?

What are we able to establish as "judgments" here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?


Not so fast. You immediately fly from the meta-problem I confront you with, "down to earth", like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. (I know ostriches don't actually do that; but you do.)

You speak of "the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral." I ask: on what basis do you make that distinction?

You speak of "[v]arious combinations of reason and emotion." I ask: is this distinction between reason and emotion itself a rational or an emotional distinction?

You ask: "what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?" I pose the counterquestion: how does one establish a fact if one is not God? In the absence of God, is a "fact" not merely a consensus that may well be wrong? (Think of Descartes's "evil demon" here. By the way: if there is a God, then what's right is simply what He deems right--even as what exists is simply what He deems right to exist, what He wants to exist...)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:56 pm

Reading back a bit, I think this is crucial to what I've been getting at:

iambiguous wrote:[M]y point has always been to make the distinction between that which seems (to me) embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, i.e. value judgments, and that which seems true for all of us, i.e the laws of nature, the actual empirical world that we live in.


Surely "all of us" here means "all accountable (responsible, 'sane') human beings" or something like that. Surely it's not necessarily true for a young child, or a mentally challenged person, or a wallaby. Just as those for whom "the laws of nature" seem true is a certain group of living beings, then, so there are apparently subgroups within that subgroup: some to whom it seems true that abortion is always wrong, others to whom it seems true that forcing a woman to bear a child is always wrong, etc. "Homo sapiens" is simply a subgroup of living beings that shares certain value judgments (e.g., the judgment that logic's self-identical "A" is invaluable--of which we don't know by how many other living beings it's shared).

To "problematize" "value" means to "problematize" "fact". It means not taking any values for granted. "God is dead" means there is no transcendent Giver of value. The "problem" with this is that it's an enormity to posit value. But however problematic it may be, "value" must be "problematized" because of a need for a demand for value-positing. Formerly, those to whom values were facts took the positers of those "facts" for granted, nay as dispensable. At best they were seen only as media, as mouthpieces of God. But in order that these positers not be dispensable to themselves, they will now assert their own value. They will assert themselves as those few who embrace the fact that there are no given values--no facts...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:20 pm

Sauwelios wrote: Reading back a bit, I think this is crucial to what I've been getting at:

iambiguous wrote:[M]y point has always been to make the distinction between that which seems (to me) embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, i.e. value judgments, and that which seems true for all of us, i.e the laws of nature, the actual empirical world that we live in.


Surely "all of us" here means "all accountable (responsible, 'sane') human beings" or something like that. Surely it's not necessarily true for a young child, or a mentally challenged person, or a wallaby.


I can agree with that.

Let's just say that it seems reasonable to me pertaining to [in particular] those folks who come into communities like this one in order to discuss/debate the meaning of social, political and economic interactions among flesh and blood human beings out in a particular world rooted historically, culturally, experientially.

Sauwelios wrote: Just as those for whom "the laws of nature" seem true is a certain group of living beings, then, so there are apparently subgroups within that subgroup: some to whom it seems true that abortion is always wrong, others to whom it seems true that forcing a woman to bear a child is always wrong, etc.


Yes, I think this is reasonable.

Sauwelios wrote: "Homo sapiens" is simply a subgroup of living beings that shares certain value judgments (e.g., the judgment that logic's self-identical "A" is invaluable--of which we don't know by how many other living beings it's shared).


Here though I'm not sure what you mean. Homo-sapiens are [as far as we know] the culmination of that which [so far] is the evolution of life on planet Earth. We are the creatures [the only creatures] able to make observations like this. At least on this planet. Observations which others are then able to either agree or disagree with. Also, observations that revolve either around the world of either/or or around the world of is/ought. Above, I try to make a distinction between those things that we claim to know are true "in our head" and those things which we are in turn able to demonstrate [empirically, materially, phenomenally, mathematically, scientifically, logically etc.] as true for all reasonable human beings.

Sauwelios wrote: To "problematize" "value" means to "problematize" "fact". It means not taking any values for granted. "God is dead" means there is no transcendent Giver of value. The "problem" with this is that it's an enormity to posit value. But however problematic it may be, "value" must be "problematized" because of a need for a demand for value-positing. Formerly, those to whom values were facts took the positers of those "facts" for granted, nay as dispensable. At best they were seen only as media, as mouthpieces of God. But in order that these positers not be dispensable to themselves, they will now assert their own value. They will assert themselves as those few who embrace the fact that there are no given values--no facts...


Again: From my perspective you are only making an argument here. You offer what I construe to be a "didactic analysis" in which one agrees or disagrees with your points based almost entirely on the extent to which they share with you the definition and the meaning that you give to the words used in the argument.

And that is precisely why I aim to shift the discussion instead from that to this:

You leave the clinic and out in the parking lot are protesters insisting that Mary's abortion is immoral. They are asked to demonstrate this. And, having been informed that Mary had been 2 months pregnant, they show you this:
https://youtu.be/rl3NMXObqNs

So, have they in fact shown you that Mary's abortion is immoral because in fact Mary killed a human baby and that in fact all unborn babies have a "natural right" to life?

That is the distinction I keep coming back to. I'm still not at all certain what distinction you are making.


And...

Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting "judgments" that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.

If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?

What are we able to establish as "judgments" here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?


How would you analysis here be pertinent there?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Pezerocles » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:39 pm

What I think is immoral is Mary not having cultivated herself enough to be a child bearing mother. But that is a hard fucking way to judge people, and I am not particularly a moralist. Life is hard, and I respect women who are put up against choices like that and take ownership, one way or the other. Hard fates, but then again, it is the beginning of life.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:05 pm

Sorry, I missed this one.

Sauwelios wrote:You make a distinction between factual judgments and value judgments. I ask you: is that distinction itself a factual distinction? Is the distinction you make "between a rational assessment of the conflicting goods and the subjunctive reaction embedded in your emotional response" itself rational? You said: "From my perspective, one is a moral objectivist if they argue that one either ought or ought not to behave in a particular manner because it can be determined that particular behaviors either are or are not rational." Well, isn't distinguishing between factual judgments and value judgments, between rationality and "subjunctivity", as you do, itself behaving in a particular manner? And aren't you saying that that particular behaviour is rational? If so, can you demonstrate that?


Sorry, but I am still at a loss as to how all of this didactic "analysis" is applicable to the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.

Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting "judgments" that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.

If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?

What are we able to establish as "judgments" here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?


Sauwelios wrote:Not so fast. You immediately fly from the meta-problem I confront you with, "down to earth", like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. (I know ostriches don't actually do that; but you do.)


But my whole intent here is to fathom how the manner in which you see this as a "meta-problem" is relevant to the manner in which I am entangled in my dilemma above relating to moral and political value judgments in conflict. And how that might be intertwined into The Grand Scheme.

Sauwelios wrote:You speak of "the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral." I ask: on what basis do you make that distinction?


On the fact that a pregnant woman will either choose to abort her baby or to give birth to it. And on the fact that some people will want to comfort and support her while other people will want her to be charged with murder, tried and if convicted punished accordingly.

How then are these reactions not rooted more or less in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Sauwelios wrote:You speak of "[v]arious combinations of reason and emotion." I ask: is this distinction between reason and emotion itself a rational or an emotional distinction?


Well, all we can do here is to make these distinctions pertaining to particular contexts. What do we establish is rational [true for all of us] and what do we argue instead is only an emotional reaction not able to be established as objectively true for all of us.

Many different folks might react in many different ways emotionally to the fact that Mary had an abortion. But what doesn't change is the fact of the abortion itself. But when folks start screaming and shouting, "abortion is evil!", "abortion is just!", "abortion is a sin against God!", "abortion on demand!"...what here can be established as true for all of us?

Sauwelios wrote:You ask: "what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?" I pose the counterquestion: how does one establish a fact if one is not God?


That's my point: How does one establish that what they claim to know or claim as true "in their head" is in fact in sync with the objective world.

Sure, we can always go back to Hume's radical skepticism: that correlation is not necessarily the equivalent of cause and effect. Or, yeah, we can go back to Descartes: his speculations about malicious demons and/or our existence being but part and parcel of a dream some cosmic entity is having.

“How can you be certain that your whole life is not a dream?”
Rene Descartes

Indeed:

What can mere mortals establish beyond all doubt given that...

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

....is applicable to all of us?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:29 pm

Pezerocles wrote:What I think is immoral is Mary not having cultivated herself enough to be a child bearing mother. But that is a hard fucking way to judge people, and I am not particularly a moralist. Life is hard, and I respect women who are put up against choices like that and take ownership, one way or the other. Hard fates, but then again, it is the beginning of life.


It is a fact that you have posted this on ILP.
It is a fact that I have read it.
Unless of course someone is able to demonstrate that these are not existing facts at all.

But how would either one of us demonstrate that what you argue here is in fact that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to either share or to reject?

Should we respect women who choose abortion more or less than we respect those who want to take that choice away?

And, again, the choice itself...is it embodied existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, or are philosophers able to construct the optimal assessment for deciding it morally?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:59 am

Back to scheming now men.
Where is Ptolemy?
Anyway.
Join me.
Where is that Karpathian wine, Orbie? Yes, thanks.
Oh fine, you left some,
Raise glasses!


Hail The Anger of Zeus and the Plague Sending Apollon; because this is the good, as the ancients understood it, as they let it erode them, into this doric order, which takes on more splendor as forces smash and grind their souls into it.

Thank Demeter, for everything I suppose. Now, those herbs -
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:24 am

iambi, it's clear that you consider the fact-value distinction a factual rather than a value distinction and the distinction between reason and emotion a rational rather than an emotional distinction. But why then circumvene that clarity the way you do? Why use the vaguer term "reasonable" rather than the clearer term "rational", or even circumvene such terms altogether? I think it's because what you really appeal to is not rationality but common sense--the prephilosophic equivalent of rationality. But common sense is much less clear-cut than rationality, where something either is or is not rational. Common sense has grey areas. So whereas, for example, common sense will quite easily agree on whether an abortion has taken place--if it looks like a pig and snorts like a pig, it's probably a pig--, much the same goes for whether the abortion was wrong the closer it was to either of the two extremes: aborting a newborn baby (or a foetus one day before its due date--or two days, etc.) and aborting an infertilized egg cell (or an egg cell that has just been fertilized--e.g., with a morning after pill--, etc.). The closer one gets to the former extreme, the fewer pro-choicers will have a problem with forcing the pregnant woman to give birth, and the closer one gets to the latter extreme, the fewer pro-lifers will have a problem with the abortion (they will have to appeal to inane notions, like that God infuses the egg cell with His spiritual seed at the same time the male infuses it with his sperm).

By the way, Fixed Cross requested that I inform you of the following. The last post in which you linked to that echo of a two-months-old foetus contained enough info for him to determine that, according to his ontology, which concretely expresses itself in values, aborting at this stage would be an ethically negative, "ugly" act. The concrete info you gave him has convinced him that this is an objective matter: it's wrong to abort a two-months-old human growth. There can be a reason to do so, but this will definitely be a murderous reason. He's not saying there's a definite point of no return, but he is saying that, at this point, the boundary has certainly been crossed.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:33 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Back to scheming now men.
Where is Ptolemy?
Anyway.
Join me.
Where is that Karpathian wine, Orbie? Yes, thanks.
Oh fine, you left some,
Raise glasses!


Hail The Anger of Zeus and the Plague Sending Apollon; because this is the good, as the ancients understood it, as they let it erode them, into this doric order, which takes on more splendor as forces smash and grind their souls into it.

Thank Demeter, for everything I suppose. Now, those herbs -


....but seriously this from the man who just went off the deep end.

Here at least.

Now I'm off to the movies. Norway this time. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25992
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:08 pm

Sorry to give Iamb an escape route Sauwelios... I always underestimate his sheer weightlessness. Good work tying him down to his premises though, he seemed vaguely human for a moment there, realizing he is actually among humans and not alone in the depth of memory.

Iambig - Ive always pressed you for details, now youve given them, and Ive already answered you two years ago; after the pineal gland is activated and the hormonal life is activated, it is per value ontology a violation of the universal principle to abort. I gave a term of about 6 to 8 weeks.

Back then, you avoided the matter. Now, you present it as if it is your own. If it is, welcome to the club. And condolences on your philosophy... though it was long past its time.

In the world you belonged to, to love is to 'go over the deep end' - in my world, love is simply deep.

Go enjoy that reality of the movie, so much deeper and truer than that old world of yours.... as so many still do with you.
I bear no grudge... but its time for the 'neutral' to be neutralized.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby URUZ » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:13 am

Fixed, reversing the last quote in your sig., "The strong do what they must, the weak accept what they can accept."

Necessity is on the side of strength, not weakness. That is how I see it anyway.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:44 am

The strong suffer what they must just so the weak can do.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby URUZ » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:46 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:The strong suffer what they must just so the weak can do.


Sometimes yes, but not all of the time. Perhaps not even most of the time.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:50 am

What do those two sentences mean exactly? The cape and mask are worn when convenient?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7014
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Grand Scheme

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:52 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:The strong suffer what they must just so the weak can do.

The proper meritocratic ideal.

Government of muses.

Wyld Ive always felt it works best in the original order, as the strong must do what only they can do; and for this they require freedom, or in Nietzsches terms, privilege.
The privilege to actually serve. Not just be fruit, but also tree.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7575
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]