the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

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 :wink:

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? :laughing:

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

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

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

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

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.

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:

[b]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.[/b]

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?

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 :

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.

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.

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:

OMG, I was relevant.

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 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.