the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 3:12 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:How far can a thing resembling a brain go in order to deny rank is something we can infer from the post above.

Dude what the fuck are you talking about.

Putting pressure on what, you mean on my patience. Do you really think I will bother responding to phoneutria's low level of intelligence and high level of pretense?

Mary is retarded because her goal is a short-term one, not a long-term one.

She cares not about the family, she cares only about her feelings.

She is inferior because she is prone to self-deception.

Now ask yourself what's the point of your stupid post.


Kid chill out. There is no Mary. She is a hypothetical woman who has in this thread both aborted and not aborted a child.
Can't you tell you are reacting emotionally, yourself?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 3:14 pm

You do not understand what's meant by emotional, you married middle-aged "coquette".

I chose to be emotional, you retard, I wasn't forced into being emotional, you curly haired vagina.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 3:17 pm

But Mary has no choice, you imbecile, she is forced into denial, and this is what is inferior about her.

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BEING A WHORE FOR A MOMENT AND TURN ON YOUR BRAIN JUST FOR A SECOND.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 3:22 pm

How stupid modern people are they think that every emotion is necessarily exaggerated emotion . . .

They see no difference between genuine emotion and exaggerated emotion.

Whenever there is some intensity involved, it is automatically assumed to be exaggerated.

I get this shit all the time.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 11, 2015 3:48 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote: iambiguous,

That will always be a judgment call, I suppose. It was an episode from the past [real, not hypothetical] that had a truly profound impact on my thinking about these things. There is just no way I was not going to incorporate it [as I did] into discussions of this sort because the experience was so clearly relevant.


...and not an easy judgment call at that since we have no idea of the consequences or how someone/thing will be affected.
Profound impact in which way? Just in your thinking or also in your way of future responding to an event since we can have no idea of an outcome for the most part.


Profound in that it exposed to me how the gap [enormous at times] between the words we use to sustain our value judgments [and the way in which they seem clear to us "in our heads"] is not able to be translated as seamlessly out in the world. Prior to this experience I was more or less able to ground my value judgments in one or another religious or political "truth". Afterwards, that became increasingly more problematic. Now I am all but hopelessly entangled in the way in which I construe a moral dilemma in dasein.

Again, 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.

And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.

But, again, that is only how it seems to me.

And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.

But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here.

Thus a philosopher [an ethicist] needs to ask herself this: Given all of that is there still a way logically, epistemologically, ontologically, etc. to determine what the moral obligation of all rational men and women is?


Arcturus Descending wrote: I'm not sure how to answer that except for what I wrote above.

The only thing that comes to me is what Jung said - that truth needs the concert of many voices but even there we can get into trouble since there it would depend on who those many voices belong to.

I still think that it is not so much a moral issue as it is one which does the greatest good (that may sound like a moral issue but I don't mean it to) after all is considered, including the consequences. Every human being has the right to life as long as it can be a life worth living as seen logically, rationally and with heart. That just goes up against human beings who also feel that they have the right to their own kind of life - but they're already alive and living it. I don't think there will ever be an end to it.


This sort of argument always seems reasonable to me -- on paper. But when you take it down into the nitty gritty complexities of human interactions awash in conflicting goods awash in contingency chance and change, sides must be chosen and rationalizations advanced. It's just that my own leaps [here and now] are considerably more wobbly than others.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30686
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 3:53 pm

Again, 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.


Forever that.

Try changing the color at least.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 11, 2015 5:31 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
All I am trying to do here is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, you can pick the topic.


Sure, let's talk about abortion. Let's talk about John and Mary.

Mary accidentally got pregnant.

To abort or not to abort?

John says "yes", cause they are not ready for a family.
Mary says "no", cause she says it's a murder.

Who's right, who's wrong, I say John, because he's rational whereas Mary is emotional.

So now what, dude.


Ask a didactic objectivist to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth and this is what you get! =D>


Seriously though, how is this not the embodiment of your own personal experiences pertaining to abortion? And how do the personal experiences of others inclining them to disagree with you make them necessarily wrong?

Because you say so, right?

You are merely making your own existential leap to a particular political agenda. You have offered no argument that makes the conflicting goods go away.

In other words:

If abortion is deemed objectively moral [and made legal] then many unborn babies will die.
If abortion is deemed objectively immoral [and made illegal] then many pregnant women will be forced to give birth.

What is the objective philosophical argument that makes this go away?

How, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to know for certain which point of view the rational, virtuous and noble uberman is obligated to embrace? You know, so as not to be seen as one of the sheep.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30686
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 11, 2015 5:48 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Again, 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.


Forever that.

Try changing the color at least.


Yeah, that's an idea:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which one is most appealing to you. Or choose your own color.

Now, let's move on to this part:

And I have found that, as a rule, many objectivists are particularly unnerved by this frame of mind. Why? Because they are able to glimpse the manner in which it might also be applicable to them.

But, again, that is only how it seems to me.

And many, like you perhaps, construe this dilemma not as an immoral frame of mind but as an amoral threat to a world that they see as one in which we must be able to clearly distinguish right from wrong behavior.

But, absent God, how is this possible? Even folks like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a transcending font here.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30686
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 6:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:But is there a way [philosophically] to determine if women ought to cover their hair? No, not in my view. Instead, any particular individual will think what he or she does as it pertains to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Unless, of course, someone can persuade me that this is not the case at all.



No, I don't think so.
But where I disagree with you, is where you state that because there is no ONE RIGHT OPTION, all options are equally good.
I ought not to tolerate actions that I find wrong. Allowing for all morals is the same as having no morals at all.


iambiguous wrote:

phoneutria wrote:There isn't with language, a right and a wrong. There are many rights, and many wrongs.
Why can we not live in a world where both sides prevail?


How can we live in a world where the unborn are always brought to term and a world in which women are not forced to give birth?


There can't be a decision that is [img]always[/img] right, because circumstances aren't [img]always[/img] the same.

What is more moral to you, the death of a child, or a child being abused and neglected?
Some things are worse than death.
To me, the standard for moral isn't "that which promotes life". It is "that which promotes a thriving life".

There would appear to be three options:

1] a world where might makes right prevails
2] a world where moderation, negotiation and compromise prevail
3] a world where philosopher-kings are able to ascertain the one true objective moral obligation applicable to all rational men and women.


A world which allows for a man, the philospher-king of his own home, to determine the moral obligation of his household, and raise his children to uphold them and preserve them through #2, and when that fails, #1.

As was once suggested, "in the absense of God all things are permitted". And they are permitted because virtually any human behavior imaginable can be rationalized. You simply have to be willing to accept the consequences of living in a world where others may not share your own point of view. They may punish you instead for doing what they construe to be immoral.


Even the christian bible says that all things are permitted, but not all are expedient... something like that.

There is no need to be willing to accept anything. Acceptance or not does not change the fact that we live in it. Accepting that fact is an exercise in understanding human nature. That's about it.

As for an "end-game", that too will be rooted in dasein. My own is now more or less embedded in distractions. I am living as comfortably and rewardingly as possible waiting for the inevitable abyss. Some call it "waiting for godot". That works for me. But what can this possibly mean to others who have no possible clue regarding the life that I've lived...or who live their own life in a set of circumstances far, far removed from mine?


And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own "dasein dilemma".
[/quote]

How can I delicately put it... nobody cares.
The only reason anybody would want to try to understand what something means to you, is so that they can replace that understanding with one of their own.
We're memetic viruses :)

phoneutria wrote:Don't you know who you are?


That you would even ask this question speaks volumes regarding the gap between my understanding of human identity and yours.

Of course I know who I am with respect to all the material, phonomenal, demographic etc., factors that everyone uses to situate themselves out in a particular world.

But I recognize the manner in which I come to have particular moral and political values as being largely existential constructions, deconstructions and reconstructions. I don't believe there is a "real me". I don't believe that a "real me" has access to a deontological moral or political agenda. And, again, that is what the OP above focuses in on: the psychology of moral and political objectivism.


What you said here is the same as to say that because you can throw paint at a canvas a million different ways, there is no real painting!
The sum of all of the colors, and all of the solvents, and all of the hand gestures that landed the paint on the canvas, and all the motivations behind it, and all of the themes within it, those things all together are the real painting. And it doesn't end there. Solvent cures, paint cracks, dust sets over...

Lyssa aside, sure, you can flip a coin or you can try to invent/discover a philosophical argument that enables you to know for certain what your moral obligation is.

Now, in almost all cases most of us will save the drowning child. But is that the same thing as saying that we are morally obligated to save the child? I don't think so. But I also don't think that I can know so. Not objectively.

It always depends on the particular context and how any particular individual views it. One obvious example is a situation in which saving the drowning child puts your own life at risk.


I think that it is the same as to say that one saves the child when one feels morally obligated to do so, given the circumstances.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 6:50 pm

You do not understand what's meant by emotional, you married middle-aged "coquette".

I chose to be emotional, you retard, I wasn't forced into being emotional, you curly haired vagina.


But Mary has no choice, you imbecile, she is forced into denial, and this is what is inferior about her.

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BEING A WHORE FOR A MOMENT AND TURN ON YOUR BRAIN JUST FOR A SECOND


How stupid modern people are they think that every emotion is necessarily exaggerated emotion . . .

They see no difference between genuine emotion and exaggerated emotion.

Whenever there is some intensity involved, it is automatically assumed to be exaggerated.

I get this shit all the time.


El oh el...

The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 7:06 pm

phyllo wrote:
I also would probably never stab someone on my front porch, im case you're wondering :)
I'm quite certain that you would stab someone on your porch. And depending on the context, it would be judged moral or immoral - objectively. If the mailman was trying to strangle you, then it would be moral to stab him. If the mailman was late with the mail, then it would be immoral to stab him.
Is that just my subjective opinion?


Are you quite certain? Can you think of a scenario in which a person's sense of right/wrong might overrides his/her sense of self-preservation?

There is no objective morality. Not even one that you can anchor on organic causes.... I want to believe that every mother loves her children, but alas.
You guys are really stuck on that word 'EVERY'.


Doesn't gravity pull objects to the ground EVERY time?
Doesn't the sun rise in the east EVERY time?

Our physical bodies are, after all made of all the same stuff. I can't call that objectivity, though, as darling anfang pointed out once. That's an inter-subjectivity. This is what we work with in order to make laws.
What is the basis of inter-subjectivity if everyone is so unique and different? What would a group of people want to share these laws? Why are laws against murder, theft, incest, so common?
One can only convince oneself is what I said.
The whole point of the socratic method is to cause one to be convinced by one's own reasoning.
That's why you are answering Socrates' questions. But why is Socrates talking to you in the first place? What's his motivation if not to convince you of some truth?


I didn't contest the notion that we want to convince people. I contested whether we can or not.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 7:11 pm

phoneutria wrote:El oh el...

The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.


You are not the center of the universe, estupida, you are not WOMEN, you are A WOMAN, and a stupid one at that.

PAY SOME CLOSER FUCKING ATTENTION TO MY WORDS, YOU . . . YOU . . . whatever.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 7:17 pm

Ask a didactic objectivist to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth and this is what you get! =D>


This is what YOU get, your mom, however, will get something else, something MORE down to earth.

Seriously though, how is this not the embodiment of your own personal experiences pertaining to abortion? And how do the personal experiences of others inclining them to disagree with you make them necessarily wrong?


Seriously, you imbecile, how is this not you just wasting my time here by asking me to start a discussion only so that you can put an end to it with your pathetic annoying never-ending drivel.

Either just swallow the sperm or shut the fuck up.

Because you say so, right?


Whine whine whine . . . let's just continue whining . . . because I say so . . . because Magnus says so . . . because your daddy does not say so . . . because your neighbour does not think so . . .

You are merely making your own existential leap to a particular political agenda. You have offered no argument that makes the conflicting goods go away.


I am merely wasting my time here by ejaculating inside an anus of a braindead failure of an abortion of a monkey of a . . .

In other words:


In other words, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as "dasein", "conflicting" and "moral" and "goods".

How, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to know for certain which point of view the rational, virtuous and noble uberman is obligated to embrace? You know, so as not to be seen as one of the sheep.


If you keep your head deeply stuck into the anus of Ayn Rand you will never be able to see, let alone understand, anything.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Ask a didactic objectivist to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth and this is what you get! =D>


This is what YOU get, your mom, however, will get something else, something MORE down to earth.

Seriously though, how is this not the embodiment of your own personal experiences pertaining to abortion? And how do the personal experiences of others inclining them to disagree with you make them necessarily wrong?


Seriously, you imbecile, how is this not you just wasting my time here by asking me to start a discussion only so that you can put an end to it with your pathetic annoying never-ending drivel.

Either just swallow the sperm or shut the fuck up.

Because you say so, right?


Whine whine whine . . . let's just continue whining . . . because I say so . . . because Magnus says so . . . because your daddy does not say so . . . because your neighbour does not think so . . .

You are merely making your own existential leap to a particular political agenda. You have offered no argument that makes the conflicting goods go away.


I am merely wasting my time here by ejaculating inside an anus of a braindead failure of an abortion of a monkey of a . . .

In other words:


In other words, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as "dasein", "conflicting" and "moral" and "goods".

How, using the tools of philosophy, are we able to know for certain which point of view the rational, virtuous and noble uberman is obligated to embrace? You know, so as not to be seen as one of the sheep.


If you keep your head deeply stuck into the anus of Ayn Rand you will never be able to see, let alone understand, anything.


Bottom line:

Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be objectivists. :lol:

Oh, and just out of curiosity, Magnus, how do you get the computer in the crib?

Just joshing, my friend. You keep me young.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30686
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 8:08 pm

Yes, I know, I keep you young.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Mon May 11, 2015 9:59 pm

If abortion is deemed objectively moral [and made legal] then many unborn babies will die.
If abortion is deemed objectively immoral [and made illegal] then many pregnant women will be forced to give birth.

What is the objective philosophical argument that makes this go away?
:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: 8-[ ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11149
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue May 12, 2015 3:12 am

phoneutria wrote:
You do not understand what's meant by emotional, you married middle-aged "coquette".

I chose to be emotional, you retard, I wasn't forced into being emotional, you curly haired vagina.


But Mary has no choice, you imbecile, she is forced into denial, and this is what is inferior about her.

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BEING A WHORE FOR A MOMENT AND TURN ON YOUR BRAIN JUST FOR A SECOND


How stupid modern people are they think that every emotion is necessarily exaggerated emotion . . .

They see no difference between genuine emotion and exaggerated emotion.

Whenever there is some intensity involved, it is automatically assumed to be exaggerated.

I get this shit all the time.


El oh el...

The irony seems to escape you that you cannot even conceive of a hypothetical female making a rational, calculated decision, because you, yourself, are so emotionally vested in your spite for women.


A female can only do so if she's in "man-mode". If a female has high levels of testosterone she is in the "man-mode." Therefore when someone acts egomaniacal, over-dramatic, and generally ignorant to rationality and or communication I don the phrase "acting like a female-woman." Also known to apply to homosexuals, ass-clowns, bible thumpers, 12 year old xbox kids and transsexuals and the like.
Last edited by GreatandWiseTrixie on Tue May 12, 2015 3:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue May 12, 2015 3:16 am

Magnus is giving us a good show of the female woman, whether that is his usual personality or a farce it matters not, applause applause applause applause. I live for the applause, applause, applause...
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue May 12, 2015 10:32 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:How stupid modern people are they think that every emotion is necessarily exaggerated emotion . . .

They see no difference between genuine emotion and exaggerated emotion.

Whenever there is some intensity involved, it is automatically assumed to be exaggerated.

I get this shit all the time.



You get that shit because you are so full of it, it comes out of your mouth

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue May 12, 2015 12:21 pm

all over your head.

I wonder, Lev, do you have a single post which is not a knee-jerk reaction?

Rhetorical question.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue May 12, 2015 12:40 pm

Let me try to define the word "rhetorical" since it is too abstract.

Rhetorical comes from French retardere which means "make slow or slower" meaning it is a question you should try to answer slowly on your own, you are not morally obliged to respond to the dasein that posed it.

So what do you think, Lev, are you not just another self-loathing communist imbecile despising the universe because your moronic ancestors were too stupid to take care of you?
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue May 12, 2015 12:51 pm

Don't make me wait too long, Lev.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue May 12, 2015 1:04 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:A female can only do so if she's in "man-mode". If a female has high levels of testosterone she is in the "man-mode." Therefore when someone acts egomaniacal, over-dramatic, and generally ignorant to rationality and or communication I don the phrase "acting like a female-woman." Also known to apply to homosexuals, ass-clowns, bible thumpers, 12 year old xbox kids and transsexuals and the like.


This is because you are an-hedonic, love, so emotionality is non-sensical to you. Which is why you are posing pleasure as an end goal and I am not.

I need no pleasure because unlike you, I am not denying my emotions.

Now go back to your let-s-destroy-the-universe crap.
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: 3716
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Tue May 12, 2015 3:55 pm

Take it down a notch, kiddo. You're running the risk of becoming irrelevant ;)
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 12, 2015 5:13 pm

phoneutria wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But is there a way [philosophically] to determine if women ought to cover their hair? No, not in my view. Instead, any particular individual will think what he or she does as it pertains to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Unless, of course, someone can persuade me that this is not the case at all.



No, I don't think so.
But where I disagree with you, is where you state that because there is no ONE RIGHT OPTION, all options are equally good.
I ought not to tolerate actions that I find wrong. Allowing for all morals is the same as having no morals at all.


I'm not arguing that. Or, rather, I'm not arguing that so much as suggesting that each of us as individuals will determine [in our heads] which option is seen as better or worse; which option is seen as rational or irrational; which option is seen as moral or immoral.

And then beyond a particular concensus in a particular community, where can the philosophers/ethicists go?

Morality of course never goes away. Why? Because human wants and needs never go away. Morality is derived from the fact that embedded in the "human condition" is something rather obvious: that wants and needs ever come into conflict. Morality then is just a particular set of rules for a particular set of behaviors out in a particular world at a particular historical juncture. The rest is dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That and opting for either "might makes right" or "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

And, for folks like me, the dilemma embedded in dasein. Though I didn't really "opt" for it. In fact, I wish I could figure out a way to "opt out" of it!!

phoneutria wrote:There isn't with language, a right and a wrong. There are many rights, and many wrongs.
Why can we not live in a world where both sides prevail?


iambiguous wrote:How can we live in a world where the unborn are always brought to term and a world in which women are not forced to give birth?


phoneutria wrote: There can't be a decision that is [img]always[/img] right, because circumstances aren't [img]always[/img] the same.

What is more moral to you, the death of a child, or a child being abused and neglected?
Some things are worse than death.
To me, the standard for moral isn't "that which promotes life". It is "that which promotes a thriving life".


But that's my point. What is seen as more moral "to me" may not be seen as more moral "to you". Or "to them". My argument then revolves how I perceive [and you perceive and they perceive] these conflicting value judgments from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

After all, that which the ubermen construe as promoting a "thriving life" will not often be seen by the "sheep" as doing the same. The only difference then between law of the jungle thuggery and the KTS crowd is that Satyr, Lyssa, Magnus et al always feel compelled to dress up the part about "might makes right" by concocting these fantastical intellectual contraptions [an actual "philosophy"] in order to separate them from the...retards? If only in their heads.

There would appear to be three options:

1] a world where might makes right prevails
2] a world where moderation, negotiation and compromise prevail
3] a world where philosopher-kings are able to ascertain the one true objective moral obligation applicable to all rational men and women.


phoneutria wrote: A world which allows for a man, the philospher-king of his own home, to determine the moral obligation of his household, and raise his children to uphold them and preserve them through #2, and when that fails, #1.


Imagine children being raised by the likes of Satyr and Lyssa! Or Magnus!! What's the expression...."I weep for their future."

As for an "end-game", that too will be rooted in dasein. My own is now more or less embedded in distractions. I am living as comfortably and rewardingly as possible waiting for the inevitable abyss. Some call it "waiting for godot". That works for me. But what can this possibly mean to others who have no possible clue regarding the life that I've lived...or who live their own life in a set of circumstances far, far removed from mine?

And yet I still spend a lot of time in places like this looking for arguments that might allow me to extricate myself from my own "dasein dilemma".


phoneutria wrote: How can I delicately put it... nobody cares.
The only reason anybody would want to try to understand what something means to you, is so that they can replace that understanding with one of their own.
We're memetic viruses :)


Again, I believe that many objectivists react as they do to my "dasein dilemma" [some all but frantically] because they begin to sense that they are not really able to make it go away. "Oh, shit", they're thinking, "what if that is also apllicable to me?"

And, of course, if it is, then their carefully crafted world of words might come crashing down all around them.

I mean, look at the manner in which Satyr, Lyssa, Magnus and their ilk react to it...here and there!! Maybe not hysterically, but not all that far removed either.

Trust me: To think as I do here can be truly, truly demoralizing. "I" becomes merely [or largely] an existential contrapment/construction/fabrication swirling about value judgments that are not necessarily any more rational or moral than any others.

And that's before you fall over into the abyss and are gone forever and ever.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30686
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users