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 Moreno » Tue May 12, 2015 5:19 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.
You did not here respond to any point I made or inconsistancies I pointed out. You simply gave a global emotional reaction with some scattered assertions that do not respond to points I made.
Which is fine. I wasn't posting to you.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 12, 2015 5:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
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-[ ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


Hmm. Let me think: Does that make it go away?

Uh, nope? :lol:

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 12, 2015 5:25 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, I know, I keep you young.


No, I mean really young. :banana-linedance:

And I haven't resorted to the dancing banana since von rivers was here. I think. :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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Tue May 12, 2015 5:34 pm

Moreno wrote:You did not here respond to any point I made or inconsistancies I pointed out. You simply gave a global emotional reaction with some scattered assertions that do not respond to points I made.
Which is fine. I wasn't posting to you.


You were writing down everything I couldn't be bothered to type :)
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 Moreno » Tue May 12, 2015 5:36 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
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-[ ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


Hmm. Let me think: Does that make it go away?

Uh, nope? :lol:

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?
What is 'that which makes an argument go away' a criterion for?
The use of power has made some arguments go away or marginalized them off to a little white noise in the distance.
A very effective plague would make all arguments go away.
I think it is possible that technology will make arguments go away. When people are so distracted and or merged with machines and or controlled, a state may be reaching in which arguments no longer take place. We can see places and times where this has happened to some degree, but technology was insufficient to fully eliminate arguments. I suppose I consider us being seduced and manipulated into such a state without arguments - rather than overtly coerced - as more likely, and not unlikely at all.
ARguments could be eliminated via a global idiocy - via evolution of some kind - where we no longer have the language skills to muster arguments.

But in general I think it is an odd criterion as part of arguments, unless someone is arguing that their argument will eliminate argument. Not merely that it should eliminate argument, but people are too stupid, but that despite the diversity of human minds and their capabilities their argument WILL eliminate arguments. Their beliefs are viral to a degree parallel to the universal plague I mentioned above.

I do realize that this post of yours was in humor, but the one it quotes of yours was not so, and it has always struck me as odd that this criterion of ending debates and disagreement is a criterion. I don't understand the context. But perhaps more people are claiming the complete universal effectiveness of their beliefs/arguements.

Now my position having been utterly will eliminate all future debate. All minds will agree with me until we are one.

Do you experience this?

Or is there some other reason this comes up.

I understand one might have hope, that certain key arguments would dissappear and we would all get along or function in agreement. I can understand that utopian urge, which is so utopian it rivals the most outlandish of religious urges.

But that's a little different from (at least seemingly) presenting it as a criterion that when failed to be met functions as a critique of other people's positions.

Or perhaps I am missing something obvious or otherwise.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Tue May 12, 2015 5:39 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Moreno wrote:You did not here respond to any point I made or inconsistancies I pointed out. You simply gave a global emotional reaction with some scattered assertions that do not respond to points I made.
Which is fine. I wasn't posting to you.


You were writing down everything I couldn't be bothered to type :)
And there was more oddness in there too. I went for the most glaring.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 12, 2015 6:00 pm

Moreno wrote:What is 'that which makes an argument go away' a criterion for?
The use of power has made some arguments go away or marginalized them off to a little white noise in the distance.
A very effective plague would make all arguments go away.
I think it is possible that technology will make arguments go away. When people are so distracted and or merged with machines and or controlled, a state may be reaching in which arguments no longer take place. We can see places and times where this has happened to some degree, but technology was insufficient to fully eliminate arguments. I suppose I consider us being seduced and manipulated into such a state without arguments - rather than overtly coerced - as more likely, and not unlikely at all.
ARguments could be eliminated via a global idiocy - via evolution of some kind - where we no longer have the language skills to muster arguments.

But in general I think it is an odd criterion as part of arguments, unless someone is arguing that their argument will eliminate argument. Not merely that it should eliminate argument, but people are too stupid, but that despite the diversity of human minds and their capabilities their argument WILL eliminate arguments. Their beliefs are viral to a degree parallel to the universal plague I mentioned above.

I do realize that this post of yours was in humor, but the one it quotes of yours was not so, and it has always struck me as odd that this criterion of ending debates and disagreement is a criterion. I don't understand the context. But perhaps more people are claiming the complete universal effectiveness of their beliefs/arguements.

Now my position having been utterly will eliminate all future debate. All minds will agree with me until we are one.

Do you experience this?

Or is there some other reason this comes up.

I understand one might have hope, that certain key arguments would dissappear and we would all get along or function in agreement. I can understand that utopian urge, which is so utopian it rivals the most outlandish of religious urges.

But that's a little different from (at least seemingly) presenting it as a criterion that when failed to be met functions as a critique of other people's positions.

Or perhaps I am missing something obvious or otherwise.


I've seen the username moreno over at KTS of late. Is that you? If so, it might explain a post like this. Satyr and gang over there pump out this didactic bullshit day in and day out.

Really, what's your point? Are you suggesting that "technically" the manner in which I framed conflicting goods pertaining to the morality of abortion is not the manner in which a "serious philosopher" would frame it? Is my "epistemology" out of whack?

The abortion debate is really not all that hard to grasp existentially. Women become pregnant. But some women don't want to be pregnant. And in some political jurisdictions they have the option [in particular contexts] to choose an abortion.

All of this is true objectively, right? It's not just a matter of someone's personal opinion, is it?

Now, if they do choose an abortion, how are philosophers able to determine if the choice that they made is moral or immoral? Can they determine this using the tools of philosophy?

Again:

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.


Isn't this how it works "in reality" out in the world that we live in? Isn't this "something obvious"?

Now, Phyllo can either react to this conflict with an intelligent argument that makes it go away or he can't. Same with you.

Oh, and as with Phyllo, I'd like to ask you how you are able to factor in your religious beliefs here. You're a pantheist, right?
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Tue May 12, 2015 7:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
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-[ ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


Hmm. Let me think: Does that make it go away?

Uh, nope? :lol:

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?
What does "making it go away" actually mean here? :-k

If someone is shot and killed, there is no argument which can resurrect the corpse. You can't be expecting that. Or can you?

So the objective argument must be some words which alters the meaning of your words, such that your statements are no longer applicable.
Therefore :
"many unborn babies will die"

We can say that the unborn is not alive and therefore cannot die.
We can say that the unborn cannot live outside the womb and therefore has not rights and not right to life.
We can say that the unborn feels nothing and therefore loses nothing by being aborted.
"many pregnant women will be forced to give birth.

We need only remove the word 'forced' in this case. I admit that is difficult since women will be inconvenienced by carrying a fetus to full term. And thus they will feel 'forced' to do somethings which they don't want to do. That's a subjective feeling, isn't it?
We can say that there are ample means available to prevent pregnancy.

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?
And if God is around and shows Himself and says : "Woman, thou shalt give birth".

Every woman will be happy about that? No woman will feel forced?

or
God says : "I will take any aborted fetus to heaven".

Everyone will be happy about that? No one feels that "the fetus should have been born and lived a full life and then gone to heaven"?

If God comes down and lays down the objective law, some people are going to say that God is a fascist asshole. :confusion-shrug:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10726
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 13, 2015 2:01 am

phoneutria wrote:Take it down a notch, kiddo. You're running the risk of becoming irrelevant ;)


OMG, I was relevant.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 13, 2015 2:03 am

Moreno wrote:You did not here respond to any point I made or inconsistancies I pointed out. You simply gave a global emotional reaction with some scattered assertions that do not respond to points I made.
Which is fine. I wasn't posting to you.


You are the center of the universe, and the smartest center of the universe of all the centers of all the universes that have ever existed and that will ever exist in the universe and outside of the universe, and so I am morally obliged to respond to you, to treat you kindly and with respect, I know that, but I am a bad person and I did not do what I was objectively supposed to do, so please sorry, it won't happen again, if it means anything to you, I am suffering from bad conscience as I am writing this and I am considering a suicide.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 13, 2015 2:11 am

iambiguous wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, I know, I keep you young.


No, I mean really young. :banana-linedance:

And I haven't resorted to the dancing banana since von rivers was here. I think. :wink:


I know, I love really young men, both mentally and physically, they make my banana do the saturday night fever dance, and yes, you haven't resorted to dancing banana since von rivers was here, he was the last one to give to ya.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 13, 2015 2:35 am

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.


Dude, you have utterly destroyed every single one of KTS members, I admit it. And yes, I am emotional and hysterical precisely because I am totally incapable of dealing with what you're saying . . . it's way over of my head. And I simply have to respond to you with meaningless drivel because I am utterly weak . . .

And Apaosha is now going to shut down his forum and build a monument in your honor . . .

And this thread won't be closed or moved to rant because it contains historically relevant information . . .
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed May 13, 2015 3:58 am

I've already explained this here and elsewhere, but I will try to explain it once again because trying to explain important things in as many different ways as possible is always fun.

We're going to talk about cowardice.

Cowardice is the incapacity to accept what one is, what one truly wants, it is the incapacity to follow one's instincts, to accept the consequences of one's past decisions, including the decisions made by one's ancestors.

Cowardice is the desire to reinvent oneself.

Instead of the real, the past, the instinctive preceding the ideal, the future, the reasonable, we now have the ideal, the future, the reasonable preceding the real, the past, the instinctive.

One desires to learn without making mistakes, to develop without making sacrifices.

Pretension: reason preceding instincts.

Hyper-rational folks such as iambiguous, phoneutria and Trixie do nothing other than this, the only difference lies in the way they do it.

Reason is no longer considered a process, no longer considered something that follows and works with instincts. Rather, reason is something one has to do before one acts.

No instinct is allowed expression because instincts reveal one's reality, one's inferiority.

When instincts become too overwhelming, too painful, too constipated, the brain either endures them through detachment or it fragments itself by attaching to a group of instincts it considers "good" in order to deny the remaining group of instincts it considers "evil". The first endures chaos/pain, the second denies it through premature order/pleasure.

Bothered by its conflicting desires, the individual seeks a way to limit/deny some of its desires such that inner peace can be established.

This is repression, or desire not to desire. This is different from suppression in that suppression is a conflict between desires, not a desire not to desire. Repressing means creating peace, whereas suppressing means creating conflict.

Desires are limited/denied by something I call "artificial order". Other names for it are "morality", "thou shalt" and "memetic identity". I prefer the former because it is more abstract (i.e. more general.) It is a set of "rights" that define what is allowed and what is not allowed. The opposite of artificial order is natural order which arises from one's instincts.

Artificial order is always forceful because it is counter-instinctive, it denies instincts. But artificial order can be enforced by the other or self-enforced.

The easiest way to impose artificial order is physically, through simple reward and punishment system. In this way, the individual is distracted from his inner conflict, and for this reason, and no other reason, he is made content.

Women like to be treated like shit because it distracts them from their inner chaos. Though the experience is painful, they find it agreeable because it gives them the hope that their problem lies somewhere else. It allows them to get rid of responsibility by falsifying the reality of their need.

If a physical variant is not working, one can try a mental variant. One is no longer punished by the other, but by oneself. One simply has to learn what is good and what is bad and administrate punishment and reward accordingly. Christianity is a classic example.

Such an artificial order can be adopted from without or invented on our own. The more creative one is, the more appealing the second option is.

Drugs come in many forms, and one of these forms is the form which appears not to be a drug . . . this is the kind of drug iambiguous is addicted to.

It appears as if he has finally acquired the necessary courage to follow through his instincts. He rejects all authority on the so-called moral decisions and claims that such decisions are rooted in "dasein". He can now do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whichever way he wants, noone can stop him . . .

But is this so?

Has he freed himself from self-denial or did he simply move his "point of denial" from one place to another?

You see, social interaction provokes certain reactions in people. We don't exactly know why, the reasons are too complex to be understood in entirety, and they vary from individual to individual, but it does and it makes people uncomfortable.

We are interested to know what other people think, we are interested to know what is and who is superior and inferior, but past a certain point, such genetically acquired interests become a burden and one is motivated to simply deny them . . .

One no longer desires to know what is superior and inferior . . . what other people think . . . these desires, very natural desires, become buried so that they no longer disturb us.

And then these retards proceed to call themselves independent and in tune with their instincts . . .
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Wed May 13, 2015 9:41 am

iambiguous wrote:I've seen the username moreno over at KTS of late. Is that you?
Yes, I am also Kovacs.
If so, it might explain a post like this. Satyr and gang over there pump out this didactic bullshit day in and day out.
Sure.

Really, what's your point? Are you suggesting that "technically" the manner in which I framed conflicting goods pertaining to the morality of abortion is not the manner in which a "serious philosopher" would frame it? Is my "epistemology" out of whack?
Perhaps my post has these as implication, but if so you are steps ahead of me, since I would not have said either of those things. I thought I made it pretty clear.

I was focused on this question, which I think I have seen you ask before and also frame more as a premise in other contexts. Does this eliminate the argument? Does this argument or position you have make everyone agree?

I think that is a strange implicit critique. People agreeing, in my experience, is not controlled by the validity, soundness, truth values, rhetorical ability, truth value (as far as I judge this). In fact an argument that eliminated argument might be incorrect - an idea I tried to get across by raising issues of power in my previous post.

Now, Phyllo can either react to this conflict with an intelligent argument that makes it go away or he can't. Same with you.
Makes it go away. I think that is a very odd formulation. I have no idea if this is the case, but it sounds like your political hopes are being brought into a philosophical discussion. There is some kind of conflation: political or interpersonal effectiveness is being conflated with truth value.

If I say this, you will then, it seems, ask how do you know what you are saying is correct. Fine. That can lead to a good discussion. But asking for arguments that will make debates go away seems confused to me.

Let me know if you can see the two different discussions: in one objectivist A argues why X is moral. In the other discussion objectivist A argues that his or her position will eliminate argument.

To me these are completely different categories of discussion, the latter with some kind of incredilble utopian hopes and criteria for arguments.

The guys over at KTS know full well that their arguments are not going eliminate all disagreement. In fact they seem more dead certain than most people on the issue and I agree with them. I would see this idea that one's argument will eliminate all other positions is more a liberal position, a faith in the potency of rationality and argument.

I am pretty sure this is not simply poor phrasing on your part, since you challenge other people's arguments by presenting other people's arguments that have not been made to go away.

Rather than simply contesting their argument with YOURS.

So it seems like a real criterion for you: what you just said does not eliminate debate (so therefore it is not objective, sound, true, useful seems implicit also). STrange.

I think you are adding a problem. There is the problem of coming to an objective or right answer. Then there is the goal of having this answer be compelling to eveyone. Hence you participate in discussions and frame them at an abstracted, distant from yourself level. Your feet are not on the ground.

This is important stuff - the issue of people not being convinced. I am not saying that is not important, but it is a different discussion.

As long as you do not come at life from your own position and have this criterion of 'convince everyone or your position is not useful' you are outside yourself and ntohing can be resolved. For you anyway.

It comes off like you think the only possible use of a discussion is universal (secular) salvation.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed May 13, 2015 3:43 pm

iambiguous,


....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.


I suppose that that might be called enlightenment and/or moving away from our subjective truth to a more objective truth though still subjective.

Why do you think that is? I think that it may be because within our own minds we have everything figured out but when in relation to the outside world, which includes the environment and the minds of others, they fail because we see only with a limited perspective, our own, and the same goes for others.

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.


Hopelessly entangled? But do you actually feel hopeless about it?
I still see no problem here. A person's viewpoint changes if he's a thinking person. I may be misunderstanding your words or maybe not, but I think that every situation is different and has to be judged accordingingly. Things are not set in stone I have found.

That just serves to teach us in the moment that we cannot hug our personal perspectives too closely to us. I'm not saying that we ought to let go of our own personal code of ethics or sense of morality, but I think that they evolve as we do. Anyway, it is part of life to be hopelessly entangled in things. We untangle that Gordian Knot and it tangles itself up again and again. We need to laugh at it so it doesn't have so much power over us. HAHAHAHAHAHA.



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.


I see nothing wrong with the above though. We are human beings with minds, our own unique way of experiencing life and our own personal history. It would be rather abnormal to me and not facing reality not to think in that way. Within what else could our values be rooted in for the moment? But as I said above, as we evolve and change, so does the way we see things. I don't necessarily think that we can have no values based in objectivity simply because they may change. It's almost like the difference to me between a faith that is based in reason and one that is based in the irrational. It just depends on a more honest way of looking at things; in other words - this can be because of what I am taking the time to see clearly, after examining it - or - this is impossible and only due to my need to see things this way. One who thinks irrationally would not question their self.
I think it is utterly impossible to ever be so totally objective because we can 't see everything and the consequences of everything and if we take the time to see something another way, we will be able to see it from another direction. But that doesn't make it thoroughly inobjective or thoroughly subjective. I don't know if that made any sense to you at all.

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 can be a good thing, don't you think - the "I" fracturing? We all need to have our "i' fractured a bit. But I don't think they actually fracture we just come to realize that it's all about flowing in the moment lol and that our "i" are not written in stone. They're quite malleable - hopefully.


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.


We just need to remember that we are all fallible creatures. We cannot see the totality of reality or the universe or have all knowledge so how can we know that we are coming from a place of "objectivity" it can only be a place which moves closer to objectivity perhaps. Even our so-called personal observations may be based on tunnel vision and need albeit the more we care about finding "true" reality we will come closer to it.



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.
[quote]

Transcending in such a way as Nietzsche meant - beyond good and evil. I think within a harmony of right reason and heart. Not necessary to bring a god into it.
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15212
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Wed May 13, 2015 3:52 pm

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.
And as always, if this is what you believe, then any time you imply or state that objectivists are bad or the problem or worse than those who are not objectivists, you are being a hypocrite, since these evaluations of yours would be based on moral leaps your epistemology would see as groping in total darkness.

And small essays with the structure
objectivists are bad/the problem (the bulk of the text)
disclaimer

would still imply strongly that the LIKELY conclusion one should draw is they are bad.

Positing likelihoods is also hypocrisy given your epistemology.

And note: this is not an argument that this or that objectitivist is right or even can be. I am focused on your situation, given your belief. You have, according to you beliefs, no ground at all to make value judgments of what objectivism causes.

They might be all utterly wrong and even bad, but you still have an epistemological block to implying and claiming what they do is bad or that they are a problem.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby MagsJ » Wed May 13, 2015 4:15 pm

Magnus Anderson will be able to reply to any posts addressed to him in 24hrs, due to a one day ban.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17358
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 13, 2015 6:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
What does "making it go away" actually mean here? :-k


It means that if you choose to interact with others in a particular human community, there must be rules of behavior [local, state, federal] pertaining to conflicts like abortion. As such, some will insist it is moral while others will insist it is not.

And I root this in dasein. What do you root it in? Philosophy? God?

Then what?

In other words, out in the real world the words that we exchange in places like this must somehow be translated into legal and political contraptions. Right?

So, how then do we go about making a determination as to what that legal and political agenda ought to be? Can we go to the philosophers/ethicists to pin this down? Can we know what to do such that it can be said to be a moral obligation to behave in such and such a way?

phyllo wrote: If someone is shot and killed, there is no argument which can resurrect the corpse. You can't be expecting that. Or can you?


What does this have to do with the point I just made? We simply do not know what our fate will be when we die. But if someone tells me that they do in fact know this, I am going to ask them what it is. And then once they tell me, I am going ask them to demonstrate why I should believe it too. I simply make the distinction here between someone demonstrating to me that Mary had an abortion -- she either did or she did not -- and demonstrating to me that the abortion either is or is not moral.

And this means either God or some philosophical argument that establishes an objective moral font when mere mortals disagree. You seem to to be inclined to go in both directions. But I'll be damned if I can get you to explain how the two are linked. Even just in your head. Indeed, in this respect, you are basically as unintelligible as James. At least to me.

phyllo wrote: So the objective argument must be some words which alters the meaning of your words, such that your statements are no longer applicable.


Okay, what is that argument? What are those words? Basically all you do is insist that abortions are moral if they occur before a certain week in the pregnancy because the science you link us to says so. End of discussion.

"many unborn babies will die"


phyllo wrote: We can say that the unborn is not alive and therefore cannot die.
We can say that the unborn cannot live outside the womb and therefore has not rights and not right to life.
We can say that the unborn feels nothing and therefore loses nothing by being aborted.


Yeah, we can say or believe anything. But others will say and believe the opposite. Then it comes down to either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise. Or some consensus in a particular community whereby the majority come to agree that one philosophical/scientific argument is the optimal, most rational one.

As though that makes the argurments of those who don't agree just go away.

So, how about God. Your God. Does He?


phyllo wrote: And if God is around and shows Himself and says : "Woman, thou shalt give birth".

Every woman will be happy about that? No woman will feel forced?

or
God says : "I will take any aborted fetus to heaven".

Everyone will be happy about that? No one feels that "the fetus should have been born and lived a full life and then gone to heaven"?

If God comes down and lays down the objective law, some people are going to say that God is a fascist asshole. :confusion-shrug:


Back again to "What God?" The one that you say that you believe in?

Come on, if God makes a distinction between right and wrong behavior He must be right. Why? Because God [most of them] is said to be omniscient. And once you know everything that pretty much gives you an advantage over folks like us that don't. And with God there is never any question of not being judged, right?

And since God is omnipotent, there is never any question of not being punished, is there? So, sure, you can think God is a fascist asshole if you wish. All the way to Hell as it were.

On the other hand, if God is omniscient how in the world can any of us have free will anyway? We think He is a fascist asshole but He knew all along that we were going to think it.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Thu May 14, 2015 1:08 am

What the hell is goig on.
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 » Thu May 14, 2015 1:21 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:One desires to learn without making mistakes, to develop without making sacrifices.

Pretension: reason preceding instincts.

Hyper-rational folks such as iambiguous, phoneutria and Trixie do nothing other than this, the only difference lies in the way they do it.
.


What are you even babbling about? A human is only the sum of it's parts. A god is only the sum of it's parts. You seem to be babbling about past-lives things that no man is capable of remembering.

Humans don't learn from the mistakes, humans rarely can predict the future. I see a trend of stupid people reproducing, I see a way to fix this by fixing the human DNA. It's really that simple. Its really as simple as, I don't like the current brand of homo sapiens, and I don't want them overrunning the planet. I don't see how any amount of psychobabble and personal evaluation is all that relevant. It all boils down to, do you like the society and culture of the world? Do you have faith in these idiots? Then you probably have faith in them. I however would not wish for such a culture to expand any further than it already has. I mean, it's as simple as saying, do you like them putting toxins in your food and water? Y or N? If N, change their DNA. If y, do nothing and enjoy your silly life. No jungian psychoanalysis required.

You make up some imaginary line between instinct and rationality and me I'm not in the mood for psychobabble nonsense. It is as simple as Y or N. Do you have faith in the current population of DNA Y or N?
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 iambiguous » Thu May 14, 2015 5:19 pm

Moreno wrote:
Really, what's your point? Are you suggesting that "technically" the manner in which I framed conflicting goods pertaining to the morality of abortion is not the manner in which a "serious philosopher" would frame it? Is my "epistemology" out of whack?


Perhaps my post has these as implication, but if so you are steps ahead of me, since I would not have said either of those things. I thought I made it pretty clear.


Clear to me [re the OP] is the extent to which the objectivists are able to translate their didactic intellectual contraptions into an argument that integrates their words and the world that we live in. At least as it relates to conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments.

Moreno wrote:I think that is a strange implicit critique. People agreeing, in my experience, is not controlled by the validity, soundness, truth values, rhetorical ability, truth value (as far as I judge this). In fact an argument that eliminated argument might be incorrect - an idea I tried to get across by raising issues of power in my previous post.


Again: What in the world does this have to do with the point I just made?

There are things that we can all agree on with respect to conflciting value judgments because they revolve around actual empirical facts, or logical truths, or demonstratable propositions.

It's when we shift gears from either/or to is/ought that the arguments become more problematic.

Now, Phyllo can either react to this conflict with an intelligent argument that makes it go away or he can't. Same with you.


Moreno wrote:Makes it go away. I think that is a very odd formulation. I have no idea if this is the case, but it sounds like your political hopes are being brought into a philosophical discussion. There is some kind of conflation: political or interpersonal effectiveness is being conflated with truth value.


Bring it down to earth and [in my view] it becomes considerably less confusing.

Some argue that abortion is immoral. The reason? We should not kill the unborn.
Some argue that abortion is moral. The reason? Women should not be forced to give birth.
But we can't live in a world where both points of view prevail.
So, Mr. Philosopher, what is to be done?


How does one side here make the point that the other side raises go away?

The same with all other moral conflagrations. Each side has points that are still out there even though legally/politically the other side prevails.

The debate around abortion will go on and on precisely because each side insists that their set of premises must prevail. And they must prevail they further insist because they encompass/embody the most reasonable and just and ethical set of assumptions. Go ahead, ask them

Now, my dilemma revolves around the assumption that this is true. In other words, that I derived my own point of view about abortion based on a particular accumulation of existential variables in my own particular life in my own particular world that predisposed me to go in one direction rather than another. And, in turn, based on the assumption that whatever side any particular individual lands on does not render the premises of the other side moot. Not necessarily. Not as a result of an argument that resolves the conflict objectively.

Sure, maybe somewhere in my argument, I have made one of those dreaded "category mistakes" that epistemologists [serious philosophers] love to thump you with. But what on earth does any of that have to do with my point about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy as they pertain to the morality of abortion?

Poor phrasing?!!

Moreno wrote:The guys over at KTS know full well that their arguments are not going eliminate all disagreement. In fact they seem more dead certain than most people on the issue and I agree with them. I would see this idea that one's argument will eliminate all other positions is more a liberal position, a faith in the potency of rationality and argument.


Yes, but you forgot to mention that if you don't come to share their own didactic/scholastic point of view about all of this you are [axiomatically?] one of the sheep, a retard, an imbecile, a cunt. Or, in my case, a tyrannical turkey and/or a moronic chimpanzee.

Moreno wrote:I think you are adding a problem. There is the problem of coming to an objective or right answer. Then there is the goal of having this answer be compelling to eveyone. Hence you participate in discussions and frame them at an abstracted, distant from yourself level. Your feet are not on the ground.


Here is my problem:

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, is this a problem for you too? If not, let's choose a moral/political issue of note and we can exchange points of view regarding how, in fact, we incorporate the arguments that we make here such that others can more clearly see how they impact on our actual behaviors around others. After all, it is through our behaivors that consequences unfold. Right?

Moreno wrote:It comes off like you think the only possible use of a discussion is universal (secular) salvation.


Discussions are useful [in a world sans God] because mere mortals have no choice but to pursue them. At least if they choose in to interact socially, politically and economically around others.

My point revolves instead around the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, we can bring the discussions to an end by demonstrating why all men and women who wish to be thought of as rational and moral and just, must subscribe to one particular argument as reflective of the whole objective truth.

Now, these arguments may well in fact exist. But, sans God, with respect to an issue like abortion, let's hear one.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 14, 2015 7:12 pm

What are you even babbling about?


Listen transsexual, you are boring, and the reason you are boring is because you are anhedonic, and the reason you are anhedonic is because you are hyper-rational, and the reason you are hyper-rational is because you have no courage for your instincts.

Your brain is not strong enough to sense its need so it is forced to falsify it.

Destroying the universe without any desire to build is STUPID, it is COUNTER-INSTINCTIVE, it is ANTI-LIFE. Our ancestors lived in order to BUILD, they wanted to build ENTIRE EMPIRES, and you are coming here to tell me that we should simply destroy EVERYTHING? Don't you see the self-denial in all of this business? Don't you see how you betray your ancestors when you say non-sense like that? You are a traitor, transsexual, you are a traitor and nothing besides . . . A man, or a male woman, who betrays his ancestors is a man, or a male woman, who betrays everyone else . . .

Hating the retards is one thing (what I am doing as I am writing this), denying yourself is another . . .

Why am I responding to you after all?

Because you are a stupid hyper-rational transsexual tomboy who thinks that denying hysteria is superior to being hysterical . . .

Because you are enslaving yourself through your hyper-rationality . . .

Consequently, because you are valuing everything in terms of this hyper-rationality . . .

You consider yourself different from other retards, but this difference is merely superficial. Fundamentally, you are the same, since all of you are denying yourselves, the only difference being the kind of drug you're using.

The female women you hate deal with reality by exaggerating their emotions, by being hysterical, and the male women such as yourself deal with reality by exaggerating their reason, by being hyper-rational.

No instincts, no emotions, no feelings, no passion, pure anhedonic emptiness against exaggerated instincts, excessive emotions, overwhelming feelings, self-numbing passions, pure hedonistic excess.

So you come here

AND

deal with me

IN

a way

WHICH

places

PEACE

above

REALITY.

You are valuing me not in terms of my truthfulness, but in terms of how emotional I am.

Calm and peace at the top, truth . . . down there.

You hate emotions, do you know why you hate them? Do you want me to tell you why? Did I not already tell you why?

. . . because you are incapable of enduring them.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 14, 2015 7:28 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
What are you even babbling about?


Listen transsexual, you are boring, and the reason you are boring is because you are anhedonic, and the reason you are anhedonic is because you are hyper-rational, and the reason you are hyper-rational is because you have no courage for your instincts.

Your brain is not strong enough to sense its need so it is forced to falsify it.

Destroying the universe without any desire to build is STUPID, it is COUNTER-INSTINCTIVE, it is ANTI-LIFE. Our ancestors lived in order to BUILD, they wanted to build ENTIRE EMPIRES, and you are coming here to tell me that we should simply destroy EVERYTHING? Don't you see the self-denial in all of this business? Don't you see how you betray your ancestors when you say non-sense like that? You are a traitor, transsexual, you are a traitor and nothing besides . . . A man, or a male woman, who betrays his ancestors is a man, or a male woman, who betrays everyone else . . .

Hating the retards is one thing (what I am doing as I am writing this), denying yourself is another . . .

Why am I responding to you after all?

Because you are a stupid hyper-rational transsexual tomboy who thinks that denying hysteria is superior to being hysterical . . .

Because you are enslaving yourself through your hyper-rationality . . .

Consequently, because you are valuing everything in terms of this hyper-rationality . . .

You consider yourself different from other retards, but this difference is merely superficial. Fundamentally, you are the same, since all of you are denying yourselves, the only difference being the kind of drug you're using.

The female women you hate deal with reality by exaggerating their emotions, by being hysterical, and the male women such as yourself deal with reality by exaggerating their reason, by being hyper-rational.

No instincts, no emotions, no feelings, no passion, pure anhedonic emptiness against exaggerated instincts, excessive emotions, overwhelming feelings, self-numbing passions, pure hedonistic excess.

So you come here

AND

deal with me

IN

a way

WHICH

places

PEACE

above

REALITY.

You are valuing me not in terms of my truthfulness, but in terms of how emotional I am.

Calm and peace at the top, truth . . . down there.

You hate emotions, do you know why you hate them? Do you want me to tell you why? Did I not already tell you why?

. . . because you are incapable of enduring them.


Alas, if only Satyr were allowed back in here to confirm this.

Have I mention that you keep me young? :D
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 14, 2015 7:38 pm

iambiguous wrote:Have I mention that you keep me young? :D


Yes, you also mentioned that you love bananas. Quite chimp-like.
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 psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu May 14, 2015 7:47 pm

The brain is either at the top of the hierarchy of organs or it is at the bottom.

The brain either leads, guides, commands or it obeys, rationalizes, justifies.

In order to remain at the top of the hierarchy, the brain must be indifferent towards everything that is below it.

This means that the brain must be able to let the body "have its opinion", even if this means to let it rot, to let it die, to let it suffer . . .

The brain must detach from the body, distance from it, in order to get an overview of the situation and use creativity to plan and make new approaches.

Failure to do this leads to the brain subordinating itself to a part of the body, leading to some sort of fatalism.

It attaches to something, clings onto something, in order to avoid pain.

There is no such thing as excessive detachment, there is only partial (i.e. not total) detachment, which is detachment by attachment.

It is over-attachment that is the problem.

And yet, the hyper-rational folks are said to be detaching their brains from their bodies . . . that they are too much in the head, that they are too indifferent, too detached . . .

This is correct, but this is no detachment, but attachment.

In all attachment, one always detaches from something else.

In the case of hyper-rational folks, they detach from their bodies and attach to their brains (more precisely, to specific parts of their brains.)

What begins as proper, total detachment can quickly grow into over-attachment . . .
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

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users