Top Ten List

Again:

[i]With Nietzsche I was thinking more in the way in which many construe the meaning of the “uberman” exercising his “will to power”.

In other words, in a world “beyond good and evil”, “distributive justice” would reside more in the noble and sophisticated strong prescribing their own “rules of behavior” so as to be considerably apart from [and far, far above] that of the sheep.[/i]

I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the “will to power”.

And, then, with respect to a particular set of conflicting goods revolving around a particular context.

For example, how might someone who shares what he believes Nietzsche meant by the will to power situate it in the moral and political conflict that revolves around abortion?

Or around any other particularly well known set of conflicting goods?

Give it a go yourself.

Or are you just going to keep wiggling out of that part?

“I would construe Nietzsche to be an objectivist only to the extent to which he had insisted that all rational men and women were obligated to share his own perspective regarding the ‘will to power.’”

When? When did this happen?

It is thee who wiggles, sir. Let’s not call eachother names and kindly answer the question.

I never said that it happened. I noted that had it happened, I would have construed him as reflecting the manner in which I construe the meaning of an objectivist.

And, sure, I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves who is doing the wiggling here in regard to situating their own moral narrative out in the world that we live in.

And, by all means, you can choose the context, the behaviors and the conflicting goods.

Or continue to wiggle out of it.

This is exactly what I was pointing out in my previous post, how he avoided your questions, refused to justify, and acted like you had to onus to disprove his assertions about Nietschze. And then he insults you for not doing what he expects of others but not of himself.

This happens all the time with him, but sometimes it is more clear than other times, like this interaction with you.

Yet again:

[i]The aim of my discussion with Faust here is to bring the exchange around to this:

How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

Why don’t you go there instead of huffing and puffing about me.

You know, until Faust comes back.

On the the other hand, you seem to be reconfguring into just one more Kid here with each passing day. At least in your increasingly more revealing posts to or about me.

Hahahaahah
Im gonna sneeze laughing.

Good, so you admit that including Nietzsche in the list of objectivists wasn’t really based on anything real, you know, down here on Earth?

I’m just sayin’. Cause like I said, I had to protest. Glad you are honest and humble enough to accept this mistake.

No thank you, I have no interest.

No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist. Now that I’ve pointerd out that your claim was erroneous, you can’t admit that so I’ve still got to be the one who fucked up here:

And incredibly enough this sort of thing doesn’t embarass you because you can’t even bring yourself to own up to the fact that the mistake was your own.

Then this part:

Note to others:

Ask yourself why the folks here who react to me as Pedro does never seem to have any interest in this part:

[i]How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]

Only, instead of Rawls’s methods/conclusions, I’m after their own.

Note to Faust:

In particular, I am after yours. Someone whose intelligence I actually have considerable respect for. Why? Because it exposes the fundamental weakness of my own position. And that is a lack of sophistication in grappling with the tools of philosophy as they might be useful in allowing me to yank myself up out of this fucking hole I have thought myself into.

In that regard, I truly do miss folks like Moreno and von rivers and only_humean. And I wish that ILP might somehow rid itself of both the Kids and the folks here who seem to use ILP as just another adjunct of the internet’s “social media”.

A philosophy board in which the participants really do dig philosophy. If only as an “existential contraption”.

Iambiguous, stop trolling the kids and debate this adult

Okay, I’ll play along.

How do you react to this…

How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

…in the context of abortion or any other conflicting good that is of interest to you?

Only, again, forget Rawls’s methods and conclusions. How about your own?

If the female doesn’t have consent, why should the fetus?

The female being an adult relative to the fetus, has executive powers, such as: we live in a shitty world and you being wholly ignorant of this, I’m making the executive parental position to release you from it.
Parents violate the consent of their children constantly, to either raise it as a better child or not.

Every abortion is a non consensual pregnancy.

There are no consensual pregnancy abortions, except when the father kills the fetus by punching the women’s stomach, but only to the father.

You see, the problem you have with me is that consent is more down to earth than any argument you’ve ever posted.

All a being has to do is reflect, “is this violating my consent?”

So when I tell you that consent is true for all beings, that every being can determine when it’s being violated. You blow a fuse.

I stated outright to you, that if conflicting goods have no resolution, then we can objectively state that existence is evil.

But you can’t take a stance because you’re a troll.

Consent is that have all/be all of morality.

You hate that because it gives each individual self empowerment … your entire philosophy is about denying people self empowerment while you do whatever the fuck you want.

Iambiguous, I’m going to dig into you, because you fully deserve it.

First thing about your psychology is that you’re trying to dominate people by convincing them that they’re evil if they think that they exist. Now, of course, you KNOW that you exist. But you hate the self empowerment of anyone except you. You’re a narcissist and a psychopath.

Next: you absolutely loathe the concept of consent, not only because it empowers people, but also because it does so objectively, which is a higher level of self empowerment that you loathe.

Here’s iambiguous: “what, you don’t consent to that! That means not only that you think you exist, but that you have a standard, I hate you!!!”

Iambiguous, you are a psychopath, not even remotely a deep thinker or truth seeker

I was making the claim that you were making the claim that Nietzsche is used by objectivists. If you will recall. I asked who. You said no one.

No? Did I miss something?

2yrguu.jpg

Yeah well, I don’t know why iambiguous isn’t banned yet.

All he does in every post is ad hom anyone who thinks that they exist.

And if they make an argument (such as my argument on abortion (which isn’t a proof)) or they make a proof (such as my consent argument), he just accuses them of being morons for thinking that they exist.

This man has no polite or rational discourse in him.

That’s bannable is my take on it.

I’ll just add to this. Clearly iambiguous hates that everyone else on these boards believe that they exist, except him, who, even though not existing, is somehow superior to us all.

If iambiguous is banned, by his own words, his moral integrity, he can’t be offended by it, because he doesn’t exist!

This is my call to ban him.

Sorry about the chain posts…

So here’s why iambiguous should be banned.

Iambiguous doesn’t believe that there are any posts under his username, and he calls everyone stupid prices of shit who believe otherwise.

That’s his entire schtick. The whole thing. That’s all that iambiguous has contributed to this board with thousands of posts, and he’ll never stop. Ever.

Ban this guy please.

Just for the Mundane Ironist thread, iambiguous must never be banned and must in fact be protected at all costs.

Fortunately, our shiek does not find him offensive.

And I don’t feel bad about derailing this thread because I think it had already long been derailed. But it is such a good post that no derailing can diminish it. Philosophy is just philosophy man, you can’t bring it down, like a rock.

Iambiguous is not doing philosophy:

This is not philosophy:

“My posts don’t exist, so anyone who replies to them is shallow compared to me.”

When you hold all iambiguous posts in your head at once; they solve as that sentence above.

He does this in every thread.

He knows my consent proof forces his hand, that’s why he never debates me on it.

And that’s ignoring that iambiguous in every thread, states that his posts don’t exist.

It’s not even interesting in a liar paradox sort of way …

I’m starting to think that he’s a sock puppet for a moderator. Who can honestly get by with this?

The rest of us agree that our posts exist, we don’t call people shallow twits for responding to them as if they do exist!

Nono, Faust. I meant the OP. The list. Dat’s philsphy.

And iambiguous, well, he’s a smart and creative and fun loving motherfucker. He is constantly outputting. He acts as a very special mirror, the mistake is to take him as a conversation of some sort. Or the success. Most people want to just win, but they never really want to fully commit into the iambiguous. Actually take him at his owwrd and beat him at his game. If you do this, well I don’t want to ruin the experience, but the result iss philosophical as shit. Just, don’t try to be clever. I got what I wanted, I just intervened in this one case because #1 he’s a smart motherfucker, and smart motherfuckers are fun to address and but then I like his agenda on the whole so I stepped out but then #2 he slandered Nietzsche. I had to clear it up. And I did that.

But no dude. Like seriously. Go through some pages of Mundane Ironist. Blow your mind. Maybe his quips are small and annoying, but just imagine all the time and effort and sense of taste and will and just regular consistent dedication it takes to get that list together.

Anyway. “How do we bring this down to Earth.” Only once you crash against the Iam enough times do you understand just how good of a fucking question that is. It’s a very good fucking question. It’s even better than he himself can do it honor for, and he himself knows it, so he employs athlete tactics. Does his best to honor it. So theree is SOME level of dishonesty. But the question is good enough that it easily sustains it. It’s like a budist thing: iambiguous is not the problem. But, you know. who has the time for that, I guess. But he’s a fucking treasure, iambiguous lives matter.