Your point is confusing universal with objective. A practical issue with an epistemological one. They may be relations between the practical/universal issue and the epistemological/objective one, but you are confusing them. To react to my point that this means you are not being a serious philosopher turns it into an ad hom issue. Was Moreno insulting or condescending to Iamb or using a fallacy? One could translate any criticism of confused thinking as this, or take it in the spirit it is meant: I think your thinking here is confused. I might be right, I might be wrong, but I am doing exactly what you do when you see other people, objectivists, responsing to you with confused thinking.
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.
But we do not all agree even in those cases. I stated this clearly and it is the case. This is not only in philosophical discussions.
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?
Iamb, I don’t know how I could possibly be more clear in the two posts I wrote about this. Yes, you are making a category error. You’ve heard of solipsism, idealism, Zeno and Parmenidies thought motion was not real, some physicists think there is no universe but rather a hologram on the outside of an empty sphere, Feyarabend and others are very critical of scientific empiricism, some people think they are Jesus or inanimate objects and so on. GEtting arguments to go away is a practical interpersonal perhaps rhetoric/power focused issue. And a radically utopian one, though it is the category issue I am focused on.
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?
Love to thump you with. Unlike most serious philosophers or even serious amateurs - which is generally about the most serious category we have here - is that I focus on what people are doing. This should be clear in our exchanges. How does the what of Iamb is doing relate to his position? Does what he is doing make sense and does it fit with the proposed goals. You have stated that you want to know, objectively, if that were possible (and you doubt it is), how to act morally in the world.
Asking for arguments that eliminate other arguments is not going to arrive at that goal because it is a different issue.
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.
I didn’t forget to mention it, what you are saying here is not relevent to my point.
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.
[/quote]
Discussions like this, especially in the way they are prioritized by most modern educated people are not a good way to arrive at new positions. One can see this in the repetition of statements over what I would guess is approaching a decade of online stating. I have made suggestions for how one might approach learning in other ways.
You are a postmodernist - as far as epistemology. You are using a modernist, logocentric approach in the use of language and learning. You state that this way of learning is inevitable. This idea that the process you are engaging in is a useful one or the only potential useful one is a product of your dasein. I have tried to give you an experience, via my posts, of another way of looking at learning and interacting - likely too much on my side in a modernist format - and you keep presenting your process as, essentially, the closest to objective we have. I disagree. You are not will to focus your postmodern nihilism at the processes you use to learn. You take this as given, just as much as other people take their modes of learning and interacting as given. There is no scientific consensus to support your position on the best way to learn/interact with others, and in fact most cognitive science related to learning speaks against the way you approach learning. That we must have new experiences to change our minds and this must prioritize new experiences beyond new words and new orders of words. (not that there has been much change in the order of words you use and given that most of the minds you will encounter (and the format of an online forum) will be modernist, logocentric, beliefs are changed via rational argument types you are not even getting new logocentric experiences.
Get the irony. I keep trying to get you to look at the possible assumptions coming from your dasein as it relates to the way you approach things here and you come back as if it is the only way to do things.
I understand that your health makes it more of a challenge to try anything else. But it does not preclude it. And some of it can be done online even in discussions.
I understand that you cannot imagine how some other process might resolve an issue, including moral ones, but isn’t that the case with any culturally embedded belief, that it seems inevitable and all others a waste of time or worse. I am focused on process. You want me to give you an answer and then prove it regarding specific content (and choose a worst case example, abortionists, as if a worst case example disproves the objectivists). If I do that it would affirm your choice around process and all the assumptions there.
When I do this you turn my post into an ad hom insult, that I am merely making some technical philosophical point rather than taking your own goals seriously. I take you seriously also because I have in me both modernism and postmodernism and even your particular form of postmodernism. So running up against it outside me helps me understand my own issues. And in fact I could see ways I may have been getting stuck by a reliance on modernist ideas of learning/interacting, the contradictions in myself when I allow postmodern insights to eliminate some things, but not my dependence on modernist approaches (a contradiction in you also). So this last interaction has even helped me, though it did not reach you in the slightest, since you took what is different from me from other posters here as merely condescension and not a useful point at all and you will clearly not evaluate the process of your thinking and acting and continue stay, it seems to me, in a deadlock focused on content as if this was the only way to reach your purported goals. I may be wrong in this assessment, but it would have been better, it seems to me, if you could have responded to what I wrote, instead of classifying it as insult and not responding to it. Showing me you understood, but disagreed because of X. A process that fits your modernist approach. Instead you actually fell back on the Traditionalist response to modernists. You reacted to the enemy by pejoratively calling me intellectual - the serious philosopher attack. Which is also ironic. The postmodernist overvaluing modernist rational approaches defending this muddle by attacking someone who points out the dasein in all this by implying they are a (godless) intellectual. Just like a conservative fundamentalist, supposedly the opposite of you, would do. You do not recognize your own objectivism, nor the contradictions in your approach and your postmodernism. Read some of the postmodernists and see what their texts are like. They are not like yours. They challenge modernist approaches to learning.
So I’ll take a break. But I do want to emphasize that this has been useful for me and while you likely don’t give a shit, however much I can find this process irritating at times, I like you and respect you and my frustration comes, likely because in the complicated mish mash of epistemologies and positions inside me (no one else seems to admit this since they are all monads) I have these patterns myself. I saw how some of the people over at KTS reacted to you. And they have no idea what you have lived and how stupid some of their assumptions about you are, I might add, the pussies, little armchair ubermenshen.
And I suppose I gotta say, I do not consider myself serious philosopher. I have not read too many of the core texts and lack the expertise on all sorts of process levels. My strengths, whatever I might have, come from other areas of expertise that I bring into amateur philosophical discussion. I do make an occasional technical point when it seems important to me and I have learned some over the years in these discussions. The universal/objective confusion is one such. Amazingly, though, I have found that many of these technical points actually are important. The incredible long term focus on thinking has actually accomplished some insights into problematic thinking.
I won’t claim it is always in this spirit but it is a part of my motivation: you seem to be hitting your head against a wall and react to suggestions there might be a problem in your approach by saying there is no other possible way to reach your goal, even if you consider reaching your goal unlikely, so I feel the urge to say that this process and your sense of its inevitability is a dasein contruction and you don’t need to bang your head against a wall. And mulling on this has helped me bang my head on the same wall in the same way less.