Then drop it. The drama of your losing objectivism and all the implicit judgments of objectivists, intended or not, are not then relevent. Focus just on the epistemological issue. You can’t fling around judgments of other people’s internal processes when compared with you own and not expect people to interpret you the way they do.
[/quote]
What an odd way to put it. Yes, you have an epistemological issue. You wonder how others and if others can know what is good and demonstrate this. Your core issue, as presented by you, is an epistemological one.
Exactly the way you sometimes do. You ask people how they know that their idea of the good is the right one. You ask them to demonstrate this to others and to you. That is a set of epistemological issues. It can be specific: give an example, such as the abortion one. It could be general. I have seen you post in both ways and as parts of many posts. My point was that you add in stuff that will distract from what you claim is the project you have here.
Sure, they do. But you need not discuss those emotions or states of mind. You can focus on the issue of how they know they are right and how they can demonstrate this to others. It can all be very specific, but there is no need to discuss what you think their state of mind is.
If you also want to speculate on that, you could do it elsewhere. It is certainly a valid and interesting topic. But here it comes off as smug and condescending. And it is basically ad hom. You believe that because it brings you comfort. That is an ad hom.
Could be in some or many cases. Fine. But it is not relevent and not a help in finding out ways to resolve conflicting goods. Repeating it is a good way to put people on the defensive, since it is an ad hom attack in this context.
It is not relevant to finding out if there is an answer to conflicting goods. And you don’t like it when people do it to you and you go off topic when they do.
Whether it - the internal emotional states of objectivists or non-objectivists - is a concern to others does not matter. Even if it is, and it often is, it is not relevent to the project you have claimed you are about here.
See: right there you acted as if to discuss resolving issues of conflicting goods you must talk about the emotional states of other people and compare them with you states. That we need to know about your hole and what you have felt at other times in your life.
But no, that does not help resolve the issue of conflicting goods. It is ad hom, a way to seem, at the very least, condescending, to make it about you and them, rather than the issue of conflicting goods and how to know what is good and how one should live and how one determines that. IOW it creates distractions from what you have repeatedly claimed is you goal for these topics.
You know what, fuck you. You are an epistemologist as much as anyone here. You have an epistemological quandry. You like to mention it as a hole. But this hole revolves around you no longer feeling certain or even thinking it is possible to know the good and demonstrate it. That’s epistemology. Here you are again labeling other people.
Fuck you, you asshole. That is not what I am saying. Only the most pigheaded uncharitable read of my posts would come up with that shit.
Where, in my fucking posts, did I myself go up in the technical clouds or ask for serious philosophy you fucked up little turd. I mentioned Socrates,that’s the closest I can think of. What did he do, he kept asking questions,and not in technical language, in everyday language. Fuck, you’ve had more academic philosophy than I have, according to what you wrote elsewhere. I took a couple of courses at a weird progressive college with minimal reading.
I said drop the personal stuff, the comparing yourself to others, the condescending shit, the mind reading. Pardon my use of all that technical jargon.
You judgmental little moralizing dick.
It was a practical suggestion related directly to what you say your goals are and what I see as interfering with that goal.
At no point do you even respond to what I said.
No I have to talk about their internal emotional states because…
And now this expecting you to perhaps actually respond to my suggestion will somehow be seen as academic.
What were my suggestions: hm. Ask people how they know this. Ask people how they can demosntrate this for others.
It’s me demanding a paper in symbolic logic.
You just keep spitting in faces.
My ‘technical’ skill was not philosophical, it was interpersonal. I saw you react to someone else commenting on your emotional states, the affront. I point this out and then suggest that your project is ill-served by having emotional states and ad hom and reading others and comparing yourself to others present in a discussion.
At no fucking point did I say you needed to move in any academic direction. I suggested you drop the personal stuff, keep the other.
YOu fucking cunt.
She would ask people on both sides how they know they are right. Just like you do. The problem is you want the psychoanalyze, you want to parade your hole, you want to compare your personalities…
What an utterly irrelevent question or challenge this was. It was as if I said an academic epistemologist would solve the problem. Lunacy. I have made it clear I don’t think there is objective good. I gave a fairly simple practical suggestion about what is making your threads more muddy and off topic. That’s it.
Thank you for citing an example yourself. They abound.
Right, your behavior is not the point, even though we interact with you. Their behavior is more to the point. Everyone’s behavior matters, yours theirs mine. But the goal, as you have presented it, is to see if anyone can solve conflicting goods AND THAT FUCKING DISCUSSION IS NOT AIDED BY your discussions of your hole, their feelings, your feelings, how theri feelings contrast with your feelings and all the judgments around who is braver or facing the hole etc. That’s noise int he way of signal.
You just farted. I mean, walked in and stuck your ass in my face and farted.
And thank you for giving an example of a regular making the issue a contrasting personal one, where you come off as better and why and what their internal motivations are.
[/quote]
I don’t give a fuck about finding objective goods or defending any. I am not threatened by their non-existence like many objectists are and like you are. What pissed me off here more than every before was how poorly you read me, how you misrepresented me, how you played the faux regular guy by calling out ‘the epistemologists’, how you deny something so obvious and then give a few examples of precisely what I am saying, how you spat on a practical suggestion
THAT HAD NOTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD TO DO WITH BEING A ‘SERIOUS PHILOSOPHER’ OR WRITING SOME TECHINICAL PHILOSOPHY.
NARCISSIST FUCK.
Seriously you shitbag. You seemed to concede earlier that you might have missed something in our last exchange, but here you are just projecting the same tired shit on me and my post and completely misrepresenting it.