Then, like me, are you willing to accept the “for all practical purposes” consequences of this? That neither one of us are really right or wrong here in a world where perceptions of right and wrong themselves are no less entirely in sync with the immutable laws of matter.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that human autonomy is also a possibilty. And that, in fact, one of us may well be closer to a more reasonable frame of mind. It’s just that here I note that gap between which of us is closer and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to determine just how much closer to the whole truth one of us is.
Many here seem to just shrug that part off. Not me. From my perspective that gap [and all of the “unknown unknowns” that fill it] is the most important point of all.
We still have no way in which to determine definitively if determinism is our…fate? Or none that I’m aware of.
Still…
Whether your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine would then seem to be moot. Both frames of minds are wholly [necessarily] in sync with the immutable laws of matter.
Are you trying to say it is unreasonable of me to think you are not responding to me as other people do? If so, then this message should go to you also. I really don’t know what you are on about. Are you angry that a determinist gets irritated with you? Because you can’t help but be who you are? Is that what you are saying? You might want to mull over the irony in that.
Huh? What I’m saying is that in a wholly ordered universe ever and always in sync with the laws of matter, whatever either one of us think, feel, say or do, is entirely determined such that we only “choose” to be “reasonable” or “unreasonable”. Or to “feel” angry. As for irony, how is that not just another domino derived from the human brain derived for the laws of matter?
Me, I black box determinism/free will.
Yes, and in a determined universe, you were never going to not black box it. You were never able to not black box it.
Those autonomous aliens note you pointing it out to us but then note that, in reality, you only “chose” to.
As with peacegirl, you say you understand determinism a lot like I do, but from my frame of mind you don’t understand the existential implications of it as I do at all.
In other words…
In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.
You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.
I am simply drawing a parallel between you liking or disliking flavor X ice cream and the points that you raise about me here. As I understand determinism, you are no less compelled to react as you must in either context.
You attributed a complicated abstract reasoning process to a preference of mine. I said that was silly and that it was more like preferring an ice cream flavor. My point is only stronger in the context of determinism. IOW exactly! they are alike. So you don’t have to make up some complicated hysterically convoluted contraption for my preference. I didn’t concoct an understanding of pragmatism to choose vanilla as my childhood favorite flavor. You see contraptions and complicated, very abstract mental thinky verbal ones when someone is different from you. Not everyone decides everything via working it out logically and in words in their minds. I did not sit down and decide my understanding of pragmatism and then apply this to the issue of free will and determinism. I find that it does not interest me much and no one has every said anything that pulls me away from my gut reaction. Maybe they will, but so far it is just like someone telling me I should be more interested in butterscotch.
Again, in a determined universe [as I understand it now] this exchange is all just one more facet of nature’s “script” for us. Thus, things are only as “complicated” as nature itself is.
Then this part…
Yet you seem to be criticizing me here as though I were in fact free to rethink all this through more clearly. To think like you do.
This is precisely the kind of thing that Ecmandu is pointing out as a victim stance. Of course pointing out what I think it is the case, might change your mind. and yes, I think it is the case. You seem to be saying here 1) you can never change your mind because of determinism - which runs counter to all your ramblings about dasein and not knowing what you will believe in the future 2) that you are victimized if someone else asserts what they think is the case. 3) that no determinist can assert what they think is the case or they are victimizing 4) that I am a determinist.
What on earth does it mean for one to be the “victim” or the “victimizer” in a world where one is only what one is compelled to be by dint of material, phenomenological forces beyond ones control?
Either that or, sure, I am completely missing your point in a world in which I am in fact free to rethink the exchange and come closer to your point of view. Or you come closer to mine. A world, in other words, where being more or less reasonable really does matter. Why? Because we really do have the freedom to make it matter.
As though I do in fact have the autonomy necessary to change my mind. Which I may well have.
You don’t need free will to change your mind. You do understand that right? You can learn, even in a determined universe.
Of course I understand it. We “choose” things. But if I change my mind only because I was never able to not change my mind [about anything] then, in turn, I “learn” only what I was never able to not learn.
You do understand that, right?
Here you seem [to me] to be in sync with peacegirl. This thing about “choosing” in a way that dominoes do not…even though the laws of matter embedded necessarily in nature are ultimately behind both the dominoes and the human brain.
We live in a world where value judgments come into conflict. And I believe my own opinions about these issues [like yours] are derived existentially from the life that one lives. Call these beliefs concoctions, call them something else. Call the manner in which we react to them pragmatic, call it something else.
And even though I don’t know the extent to which human autonomy is a factor in all of this, what could possibly be more important to know?
Oh, you are victimizing me. I should prioritize it like you do? The universe may be dtermined but if it is, I can’t help but not priortize it like I do. Poor me.
You do understand that you cannot possibly imagine it is correct to not prioritize finding the answer to dterminism vs. free will. YOu don’t justify this, but you express it. Which is fine, it’s just you don’t seem to notice.
Here I am basically stumped. What on earth does your point here even have to do with mine above?
A little help from others, perhaps?
Look, your points about dasein and conflicting goods are fine. Sometimes when you engage with specfic objectivists, it’s pleasant to watch. But your whole pattern of relating…I know you don’t understand why ecmandu would say something like that. You don’t come off as someone much interested in psychology or the specific kinds of introspection associated with that. Fine. But consider that certain things might be obvious to other people but not to you. There’s a boatload of cognitive science research that says this is possible and in general applicable to everyone, though some more than others.
In my view, this sort of “general description” critique can only be fleshed out by [over and again] reconfiguring the “intellectual” points being made into an exchange about particular conflicting behaviors in a particular context.
And [of course] in making the assumption that we do possess some level of autonomy. Otherwise I am “stuck” with the assumptions I make about a determined universe: that nothing in this exchange could ever have been other then what nature intended.
Then the mystery shifting to whether nature itself has any intent. The part about teleology and purpose and meaning in our lives. The part that [for many] includes religion and God and the human soul.
I am sayng that perhaps the way you feel victimized and position yourself as the brave person facing the extential void, mistreated by others who are triggered by the issues I raise and cannot face them…
This is your own “existential contraption” in my view. You make me the issue and note all of these things about me that I simply do not recognize in myself.
Either bring these “issues” down to earth and embed them in a particular context or they are just more psychologisms to me.
Note: this is not an agrume to convince you. That would look very different. This is me saying: consider that you have a giant blind spot regarding what you are doing here. Cause sure looks like it.
Right. Like, from my point of view, I can’t suggest the same sort of thing about you.
Or [as with so many others I have encountered over the years] is the biggest blind spot of all here that I don’t see things as they do?
It’s all about me failing to view myself as cogently as you and others do:
There is shit you just don’t want to look at and it shines in most of your posts. Or so it seems. There is something that does not fit, in some big way. Whetehr you are aware of it or not and exactly what it is, I don’t known. I suspect Ecmandu is right, but I am nto sure. I suspect that rage drives you much more than concern about finding the answers, though I suspect you don’t know this. This is all what is fascinating.
And every single post in response to me contains stuff that just adds to this. The avoidance, the repetition, the not fitting together, the positioning of yourself as the only of (of few at most) who can just be in the hole wihtout making up contraptions to comfort yourself, etc.
It happens over and over. And no matter who points it out, you go ad hom and say it is them not being able to face the hole. You say you aren’t sure, but you go there, sooner or later.
The fascinating thing is, as I think it: does Iamb truly no notice at least in his periperhal vision, that something else might be going on when he posts and relates to others here than what he puts forward? So the temptation returns: hold a mirror up. Nope, not that time. Hold up a different mirror, focused on something else. Nope. I mean, perhaps I should not be surprised. I have been quite oblivious to things that were obvious to others about me. We are good at defending ourselves. But there it is.
What on earth does this mean? We would have to follow each other around from day to day to day and note our reactions to any number of things. Explaining to each other why we think we chose this instead of that.
Well, that’s not likely to happens. So, in my view, we can only brings things like “consent violation” “pragmatism” and “dasein” down to earth by imagining particular contexts in which we might make particular choices.
Let’s all agree on one and do it. See what unfolds when the words are forced to make contact with the world that we live in.
Where on earth you got the idea I was saying my various possible reactions were free of dasein’s effects or free of determinism, I have no idea.
I have never said that
Then why incredulously lecture me yet again about dasein or the implications of determinism. If it was relevent it had to be a ‘seeing a need to remind me of these things’, if it wasn’t relevent, why bring it up.
You call it a lecture, I call it trying to understand the manner in which we seem to share certain opinions about “I” at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political power, and understanding the manner in which we don’t.
Such that [from my frame of mind] our choice to be pragmatists results in different perspectives on the existential implications of this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
How do you reflect on your own particular “I” here so as to appear [to me] to be considerably less fractured and fragmented. And thus able to sustain a more comforting and consoling frame of mind when dealing with your “self” confronting conflicting goods in your interactions with others.
On the other hand, often our frame of mind about the lives we live is embedded more in the actual set of circumstances that we confront day in and day out. If things in that regard [love life, sex, job fulfillment, family and friends, fulfilling distractions etc.] are going well for you, it is easy enough to bend your “philosophical” perspective to be more in sync with that. Or you may have “the glass half full” outlook on life and then circumstantially the glass tumbles to the floor and shatters. You are suddenly overwhelmed existentially with problems and ordeals. Then your philosophical bent shifts more in the direction of being in sync with that instead.