What all men ought to do

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:41 pm

This is a stab at iambiguous, the only vaguely interesting thinker here.

First of all, fuck you. As that is what good morning is for you. So, hello.

Ok so check this shit out.


The ultimate ontological dasein moral everyday conundrum that fits with the inmutable laws of matter answer law is fate.

Fate is inmutable laws of matter. And it also is the everyday choices and banning books and abortions of people and other people's reaction to it.

So yee aks, what is the rule all the time that RATIONAL men and presumably we think women ought to apply every time?

To accept fate. Everything was going to happen. What you do about it or in general about anything or about whatever was going to happen. This all falls within fate. And if you fully wholy accept that it is so, you can and ought to do whatever you feel is going to be most impactful and comprehensive of all that you know.

So, if you pose me a hipothetical about Joe's girlfriend who banned a book is getting an abortion, you ask, what do I think about it and what can I do? Whatever it is is irreversible and was always to be. All men ought to act according to fate because all men do act according to fate anyway, so it is rational to act in that frame.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:49 pm

How's this for fate:

You were never not going to post this thread as you did because you could never not have done so.
I was never not going to respond to this thread as I did because I could never not have done so.

Now all we have to do is to connect these dots to whatever or whoever brought into existence the existence of Existence itself.

And then demonstrate to others why and how all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

Autonomously, for example.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25966
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:48 pm

"
Now all we have to do is to connect these dots to whatever or whoever brought into existence the existence of Existence itself."

This sounds like ivory tower bullshit, academics in their robes. Where does it lave Mary and Joe, dealing with banned books and abortions?

Anyway, that they are rational already means they do think the same, which is: make the most efficient use of what you have before you.

So here we are, I wrote, you answered, I replied, and a rational man that reads it will be obligated to weigh it fairly and act upon fate as fate.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:14 am

Or something like that, as it were.

If rational men are rational, and if they weren't they wouldn't be rational men, then it's not a matter of explaining but of showing the stakes.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:19 am

To put it in a neat formula for you:

Being rational towards fate is ultimate responsibility and also ultimate freedom. If you think about it.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:35 am

So. Real world shit. Interwhatever conflicting goods down here.

Why don't you read some Leibniz and leave that poor nazi fuck alone?
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:50 am

Anyway, just dropping by. I get bored sometimes. But I gotta go now. They be torturing false confessions out of senators in my hometown.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:48 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Now all we have to do is to connect these dots to whatever or whoever brought into existence the existence of Existence itself.


This sounds like ivory tower bullshit, academics in their robes. Where does it lave Mary and Joe, dealing with banned books and abortions?


On the contrary, for all practical purposes, it sounds like common sense to me. Mary and Joe and abortions and banned books exist only because something exists rather than nothing at all. And this particular existence exists as it does for a reason. Or for no reason at all. And we [the human species] either have minds able to access this one way or the other or we don't.

Though, sure, we can go about the task of living our lives from day to day and not give these really, really hard "Big Questions" a second thought.

On the other hand, how many philosophers [serious or otherwise] do you know that actually will?

Most folks here are drawn to questions that...mind-boggling? Still, are we "fated" to? Is this whole exchange that we are having just one more set of dominoes toppling over onto each other going all the way back to the very beginning of space and time itself? A space and time that may well not have had a very beginning at all?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Anyway, that they are rational already means they do think the same, which is: make the most efficient use of what you have before you.

So here we are, I wrote, you answered, I replied, and a rational man that reads it will be obligated to weigh it fairly and act upon fate as fate.


Note to others:

So, what do you think, does that settle it? :wink: :-k :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25966
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:42 pm

"
On the contrary, for all practical purposes, it sounds like common sense to me. Mary and Joe and abortions and banned books exist only because something exists rather than nothing at all. And this particular existence exists as it does for a reason. Or for no reason at all. And we [the human species] either have minds able to access this one way or the other or we don't."

But let's bring this, as it were, down here from all that abstract speculation up there. We common folk don't have the privilege to sit down and study these matters in such an abstract academic way. My interest is in proving that accepting fate allows Joe to act on Mary's abortion, let's forget the book for now, if he is rational.

Really hard "Big Questions" sounds ivory towerish in the context of conflicting goods down here.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:41 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:This is a stab at iambiguous, the only vaguely interesting thinker here


This is a stab at Pedro I rengel... that means that you are not vaguely interesting yourself, to which I agree. So why bother posting this if you defined yourself as uninteresting and you hate uninteresting people posting ?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7042
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:05 pm

Well iambiguous is not as discriminating as I.

I don't hate you! I just don't find you interesting.
Nothing for its own sake.
Pedro I Rengel
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: What all men ought to do

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:39 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
On the contrary, for all practical purposes, it sounds like common sense to me. Mary and Joe and abortions and banned books exist only because something exists rather than nothing at all. And this particular existence exists as it does for a reason. Or for no reason at all. And we [the human species] either have minds able to access this one way or the other or we don't.


But let's bring this, as it were, down here from all that abstract speculation up there.


It's abstract only because here at ILP all we have are words -- "abortion", "book", "ban", -- to exchange. But these things and these actions do in fact exist "out in the world that we live in".

On the other hand, why and how do they exist given the fact that to the best of my knowledge no mere mortal has access to a comprehensive understanding of why and how anything exist at all.

And surely how the one is related to the other is relevant to philosophers.

Though, indeed, for all practical purposes, we can live out our lives from the cradle to the grave and not really give that a second thought.

But lots of philosophers that I have known think about things like this a hell of a lot more than twice.

Pedro I Rengel wrote: We common folk don't have the privilege to sit down and study these matters in such an abstract academic way. My interest is in proving that accepting fate allows Joe to act on Mary's abortion, let's forget the book for now, if he is rational.


Again, I'm missing something here.

It would seem [to me] that in a wholly determined universe both the common and the uncommon people are privileged only to participate in the immutable unfolding of material interactions going back to whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself.

In other words, instead of not existing they exist. But they exist as but more matter wholly in sync with the steadfast laws of matter.

All we can prove is that which we were only ever going to prove. To speak of rationality here would be like insisting that volcanoes behave rationally when they erupt. Only volcanoes don't have minds. They don't think through what they have to do step-by-step in order to erupt.

So the question here would seem to be this: how are the minds of men and women [as matter] different?

They do think through what they are going to do. Well, more or less. But to what extent is this done "freely"? And to what extent can a distinction be made between choice here in the either/or world and in the is/ought world?

My own "thing" here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25966
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users