My point basically revolves around a context in which those unable to believe that philosophers are able to construct an argument that allows rational human beings to choose behaviors in sync with either vice or virtue, bump into those who insist that they have already accomplished this. In other words, citing one or another God, ideology, intellectual contraption or assessment of “natural” behavior.
How could I not construe my own argument here as problematic given that I readily acknowledge it is but one more existential contraption being posted on this thread?
I must be missing your point.
Iambiguous thinks he, currently, has no way to know if either of these prioritizations is damaging or good, etc.
No, he speculates that the priorities subscribed to by the guy who makes your life a miserable fucking hell are deemed good precisely because they result in making your life a miserable fucking hell.
You said no, but then said something that seems irrelevent. It also seems like an appeal to what you think are obvious bad consequences. But you have no idea if they are.
Again, my point is that the idea we think we have “in our head” about good or bad consequences is an existential contraption. But how on earth do mere mortals [in a No God world] demonstrate this?
I’m down in my hole, you take your “pragmatic” leap and the objectivists insist that any actual consequences are either inherently good or bad.
Yet his dialogue with Serendippier looks just like any conflicting goods dialogue.
You think you know something and I think that’s bad but can’t prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I’ll keep conflicting with your position.for some reason.
Or bringing this down to earth:
Bringing this down to earth? what are you talking about. I responded to a specific interaction between two humans, you and Serendipper. You judged his prioritization of fun as bad, though not in those words, and ‘demonstrated’ this by pointing out that somebody’s idea of fun could be sadistic.
My post was as down to earth as possible, a direct reference to a concrete interaction between two people where you judged the other, not seeming to realize the beam in your own eye, nor that you were appealing to moral judgments about the bad possiblities of having fun, which a nihilist cannot do and not be a hypocrite.
As I see it, this is just one more “general description” assessment.
From my frame of mind, reactions to abortion and to fun are the same thing — value judgments derived from daseins interacting in a world of conflicting goods. What in particular does someone think is fun? And fun in what context? And what happens when his or her idea of having fun precipitates consequences that others don’t see as fun at all?
Two strangers come together in a particular context. They may or may not share the same priorities with regard to abortion or to fun or to any other human behaviors that generate conflicts.
My own generic argument is applicable to all such interactuons. And the focus I zoom in on with the objectivists is the extent to which they have even considered the three components of my own existentual contraption.
How do they justify what they choose to do given the extent to which they are convinced that, using the tools of philosophy, ethicists can arrive at a conclusion in or around the vicinity of a moral obligation?
Of course this is your rendition of me here:
You are a living person in interaction with other people, saying specific things, making specific arguments. Your acts and statements and judgements can be looked at in relation to your nihilism, for example, and be found wanting. You react to these criticisms, often, as if they are failures to demonstrate objective morals. That is confused. You can have been hypocritical, made poor arguments, judged in ways that are not consistent with your nihilism, not responded to points made etc.
And all I can do here is to note yet again how abstract this assessment is.
Invite us inside your head the next time you encounter someone who challenges one of your own value judgments. Or pick something from the news. Either way note for us how you engage challenges as a “pragmatist”. Just how fractured and fragmented are you then? Just how comforted and consoled are you with the leap that you finally make? And how is this all less embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Despite all your talk about your potential to be wrong, how your judgments are affected by dasein, how you may have existential contraptions not once have I seen you admit that an argument you made was hypocritical or fallacious.
Note to others:
What am I missing here? To admit that my argument is hypocritical would seem to suggest there is an argument that can be made by me about conflicting goods. An argument which I then refuse to honor.
To admit that my argument is fallacious would seem to suggest that I am aware of an optimal rational truth here — yet continue to argue for something that is clearly out of sync with it.
Or is he suggesting something else instead?
In any event, let’s intertwine the discussion here in an actual existential context.
So you are willing to admit that you might be wrong about anything, but you never manage to notice that you yourself can see you made a logical error or a hypocritical statement or responded not to the point being made.
Cite some actual instances of this relating to things that I post here at ILP. I am honestly unsure about the point that you are making.