the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

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.

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

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.

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 . . .

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, you imbecile, you are an robot recycling word leftovers of dead philosophers such as “dasein”, “conflicting” and “moral” and “goods”.

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.

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

Just joshing, my friend. You keep me young.

Yes, I know, I keep you young.

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.

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…

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

all over your head.

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

Rhetorical question.

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?

Don’t make me wait too long, Lev.

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.

Take it down a notch, kiddo. You’re running the risk of becoming irrelevant

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!!

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.

Imagine children being raised by the likes of Satyr and Lyssa! Or Magnus!! What’s the expression…“I weep for their future.”

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.

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.

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

Uh, nope?

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

No, I mean really young.

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

You were writing down everything I couldn’t be bothered to type

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.

And there was more oddness in there too. I went for the most glaring.