Top Ten List

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:53 am

Faust wrote:
There does not appear to be a way for philosophers to propose an optimal point of view.


Philosophers can help us to understand what the words "right" and "wrong" mean, before we decide which particular acts are right or wrong. That's why they so often fall prey to metaphysical lust. So, a morally good act is right because it's consistent with previously accepted principles. Like Rawls' fairness or Aristotles virtue.


Okay, apply Rawls's "general description" of "fairness" and Aristotle's "general description" of "virtue" to a set of conflicting goods such that they take into account the manner in "I" reacts to particular behaviors based in large part on how individual lives predispose us to liberal, moderate or conservative prejudices.

What is "fair" in the abortion wars? What does it mean to act "virtuously" with respect to gun control laws?

Faust wrote: In the end, moral philosophers help describe the Social Contract, whether that's what they're trying for or not. Social contracts occur not when everyone agrees, but because not everyone agrees. If you have no concept of the operative (at a certain time and place) social contract, you will be lost indeed. The social contract is the motherfucking context.


Instead, from my frame of mind, it is back up into the didactic clouds.

Faust wrote: So you were prochoice and now you're.... am I to believe that you have done no thinking, throughout all these influential experiences? What is your case against legal abortion?


My point is that your thinking can revolve around one set of circumstances and then those circumstances radically change and that thinking doesn't work anymore.

And the argument against legal abortion depends on the assumptions that you start out with.

You might be a Catholic, convinced that abortion is a sin. And surely sins against God should never be made legal.

You might be an atheist who believes human life begins at conception and, therefore, that abortion is murder.

Or you might be a conservative making arguments that flow from assumptions like these: https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-p ... -audiences

My point then is that the folks on the other side have their own sets of assumptions that they deem to be perfectly reasonable.

Neither side is then really ever able to make the other side's points go away. Not completely.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:02 am

Jakob wrote:
Faust wrote: It's the "I" that's getting you away from crying beasts and back to your hut in the shadow of the Temple of Dasein.

Nice.


Nice perhaps because like you often do, he makes a point like this that sounds as though it might be relevant or meaningful or important or clever, but: what "on earth" does it mean? Crying beasts"? A "Temple of Dasein"?

Dasein is understood by me to be but one more existential contraption. It is something that [here and now] I think reflects a reasonable manner in which to construe the "self" in the is/ought world.

But that's all.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:47 pm

iam - any description of fairness will be a general one in the sense that fairness itself is a general term. Rawls takes great pains to include political thinking in his theory. His books can generally be had cheap at used bookstores that have a philosophy section. I can't summarize this in a post.

Instead, from my frame of mind, it is back up into the didactic clouds.


I can't help it if you just don't get it.

I'm not sure why you feel that, absent some sort of universal truth, "one" does not know how to live. You may not know how to live, but that's not a philosophical problem. To say that our thinking revolves around a set of "circumstances" says nothing. Of course it does.

Humans, like other species, are capable of learning. Learning requires generalization. To say that generalizations are no use as a guide to living is to say that learning is of no use. This is a ridiculous statement.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Faust wrote: iam - any description of fairness will be a general one in the sense that fairness itself is a general term. Rawls takes great pains to include political thinking in his theory. His books can generally be had cheap at used bookstores that have a philosophy section. I can't summarize this in a post.


If you google "john rawls, fairness, abortion" you get this:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=eV2iXI ... QqZCGTYOmo

And this from the first result:

In a footnote to the first edition of Political Liberalism, John Rawls introduced an example of how public reason could deal with controversial issues. He intended this example to show that his system of political liberalism could deal with such problems by considering only political values, without the introduction of comprehensive moral doctrines. Unfortunately, Rawls chose “the troubled question of abortion” as the issue that would illustrate this. In the case of abortion, Rawls argued, “the equality of women as equal citizens” overrides both “the ordered reproduction of political society over time” and also “the due respect for human life.” It seems fair to say that this was not the best choice of example and also that Rawls did not argue for his example particularly well: a whole subset of the Rawlsian literature concerns this question alone. David M. Shaw

It's basically just one more leap to a particular political prejudice. And then the extent one can attribute his own value judgment here to the life that he acxtually lived predisposing him [finally] to this frame of mind.

As opposed to what philosophy is able to tell him about fairness here?

Faust wrote: I'm not sure why you feel that, absent some sort of universal truth, "one" does not know how to live. You may not know how to live, but that's not a philosophical problem. To say that our thinking revolves around a set of "circumstances" says nothing. Of course it does.


Whether asking or answering the question "how ought one to live?" is or is not a philosophical problem, will depend on which philosopher you ask.

And for the moral objectivists and the political idealists among us, acknowledging that "circumstances" plays an important part here is not nearly as important as insisting that if you are "one of us" you will have come to understand those circumstances such that the "real me" is then able to be in sync with "the right thing to do".

Or so it seems to me.

Few want to believe that because they lived their lives in a particular way, they have come to view a set of circumstances in one way rather than another. And that had they lived a very different life they might have come to see them very differently in turn. Or that in having lived very different lives, others have come to understand and react to the circumstances in ways that are just as reasonable to them as your own assessment is to you.

That makes "I" far too ambiguous, wobbly. The self ever and always embedded in contingency, chance and change. Ever and always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

Faust wrote: Humans, like other species, are capable of learning. Learning requires generalization. To say that generalizations are no use as a guide to living is to say that learning is of no use. This is a ridiculous statement.


Sooner or later those generalizations are going to be introduced to a particular context in which any number of conflicting moral and political narratives collide.

Then there's how I think about that "for all practical purposes" and how others do in turn.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:25 pm

It's basically just one more leap to a particular political prejudice. And then the extent one can attribute his own value judgment here to the life that he acxtually lived predisposing him [finally] to this frame of mind.

As opposed to what philosophy is able to tell him about fairness here?


I'm not sure what you think the excerpt means. It's just the intro to a paper. The author hasn't made his case yet. I mean no offense, but here you don't seem to know what you're tlking about. Rawls is really not a bad read.

But it's not a leap. Rawls is painstaking to a fault. But you not only didn't read a word of his, you didn't even read the paper about Rawls.

Rawls general theory would certainly not preclude legal abortion, however. He would allow only persons (and adult ones at that) to be party to his social contract. That paper will probably argue that we in some way accept fetuses as persons. Which of course, many people do. Not so many in Cambridge, where Rawls worked.

Philosophy, yes, but mostly political history tells us a lot about fairness. Rawls was Kantian in a very important way, but no one is perfect.

Whether asking or answering the question "how ought one to live?" is or is not a philosophical problem, will depend on which philosopher you ask.


I meant that you not knowing how to live is not a philosophical problem. And by the way, you can't get more general than asking how one ought to live.

The trouble with Existentialists is that they want cred for wandering around the mean streets of a world without God. Keepin' it real an' keepin' it together. Geralizations (knowledge) is introduced at every turn, one would hope. In a democracy, the ones who know how it works are the ones who win. An increasingly liberal society is all but inevitable when democracy is fueled by education and affluence. And generalizations. American society is young, though, so it has a ways to go.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:06 pm

Faust wrote:
It's basically just one more leap to a particular political prejudice. And then the extent one can attribute his own value judgment here to the life that he acxtually lived predisposing him [finally] to this frame of mind.

As opposed to what philosophy is able to tell him about fairness here?


I'm not sure what you think the excerpt means. It's just the intro to a paper. The author hasn't made his case yet. I mean no offense, but here you don't seem to know what you're tlking about. Rawls is really not a bad read.


Well, we can use it as a start in exploring the "for all practical purposes" implications of Rawls's reflections on "fairness" given an issue like abortion.

How would someone partial to Rawls's thinking react to the manner in which I deem fairness to be embedded in a particular political prejudice derived from "I" as an existential contraption out in a particular world historically, culturally and with respect to one's actual personal experiences?

Faust wrote: But it's not a leap. Rawls is painstaking to a fault. But you not only didn't read a word of his, you didn't even read the paper about Rawls.


How painstaking can one be in dealing with conflicting goods like this? How painstaking can you be in intertwining his idea of "fairness" in the abortion wars?

Sooner or later one must take/make that existential leap to the natural right of babies to be born, or the political right of women to abort them. Or, in a nation that embraces one or another legislative rendition of "moderation, negotiation and compromise", cobble together laws that basically reflect the idea that "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine".

Unless they are able to think themselves into believing that the reasonable [and virtuous] man or woman is in fact obligated to argue that it is either one way or the other.

Instead [in my view] we are given another "general description" of fairness here:

Faust wrote: Rawls general theory would certainly not preclude legal abortion, however. He would allow only persons (and adult ones at that) to be party to his social contract. That paper will probably argue that we in some way accept fetuses as persons. Which of course, many people do. Not so many in Cambridge, where Rawls worked.

Philosophy, yes, but mostly political history tells us a lot about fairness. Rawls was Kantian in a very important way, but no one is perfect.


Nothing is actually pinned down with points that don't make the conflicting goods go away. Just as nothing was actually pinned down by Kant. But Kant was able to concoct a "transcending" font [which most call God] such that whatever you choose to do on this side of the grave there is a frame of mind actually able to determine if it was in sync categorically and imperatively with "the right thing to do". The rational thing to do.

Whether asking or answering the question "how ought one to live?" is or is not a philosophical problem, will depend on which philosopher you ask.


Faust wrote: I meant that you not knowing how to live is not a philosophical problem. And by the way, you can't get more general than asking how one ought to live.


So basically you are arguing that you are qualified to tell me that my pondering how "I" ought to live is not a philosophical problem.

While others like Aristotle and Kant are eminently qualified to proffer us "general descriptions" of "fairness" and "virtue".

And the whole point of my asking a general question like this is to precipitate discussions that are brought down to earth. How ought one to live in this particular world interacting with others in this particular context.

Faust wrote: The trouble with Existentialists is that they want cred for wandering around the mean streets of a world without God. Keepin' it real an' keepin' it together. Geralizations (knowledge) is introduced at every turn, one would hope. In a democracy, the ones who know how it works are the ones who win. An increasingly liberal society is all but inevitable when democracy is fueled by education and affluence. And generalizations. American society is young, though, so it has a ways to go.


Another "general description" of existentialists, democracy and "an increasingly liberal society".

But: Pertaining to what particular human interactions in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting goods?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:30 pm

I meant that you not knowing how to live is not a philosophical problem.

Bottom line. Thank you Faust.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:49 pm

Jakob wrote:
I meant that you not knowing how to live is not a philosophical problem.

Bottom line. Thank you Faust.


On the other hand, suppose my not knowing how to live prompts me to choose behaviors based solely on what I perceive to be in my own best interest. And, in doing so, I make life a living hell for you and many other members of a particular community.

When then do my behaviors actually become a philosophical problem?

Or does a philosophical problem revolve only around an analysis of the language used to describe human behavior?

Or consider this: http://braungardt.trialectics.com/philo ... -problems/

Number 6: What are values?

Does a philosophical problem revolve around academic philosophers devising the most rational "general description" of them? Or is any particular individual then allowed to take these scholastic descriptions out into the world and ponder the extent to which they are applicable to his or her own values? Or the values of others?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby promethean75 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:30 am

On the other hand, suppose my not knowing how to live prompts me to choose behaviors based solely on what I perceive to be in my own best interest. And, in doing so, I make life a living hell for you and many other members of a particular community.


Well played, biggs.

*fistbump*
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:13 am

"When then do my behaviors actually become a philosophical problem?"

I think you mean,

"When then do my behaviors actually become a moral problem?"

This, I believe, is what truly underlies iambiguous. The key to his defeat. Because all that other shit he says, it's unassailable because it's true. It's proper good philosophy. But he sneaks morality in there and y'all don't even notice.

I see you. I see you Wally. I see you Carmen fucking San Diego.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:50 am

promethean75 wrote:
On the other hand, suppose my not knowing how to live prompts me to choose behaviors based solely on what I perceive to be in my own best interest. And, in doing so, I make life a living hell for you and many other members of a particular community.


Well played, biggs.

*fistbump*
Which would be a practical problem for certain people, not a philosophical problem. It's also an argument based on morality: what if he starts doing immoral things because he doesn't know the way to objectively determine the good. Implicitly understood: Iambiguous right now is avoiding doing immoral things, unlike others. IOW he unlike Faust is trying to do good, help the world, rather than just play language games. Which is an odd, hence primarily implicit, claim for an existentialist. Odder still, he does, in fact, precisely what he seems to be almost threatening to do...he interacts here - in what I think is his only community - in the manner of someone choosing behaviors based on what he perceives to be his own best interests. How otherwise can he get out of his hole, he repeatedly asks rhetorically. His impetous is to get out of the hole. And yet, at the same time, he takes the higher moral ground. There were so many ironies in his previous post it boggles the mind.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Jakob » Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:38 pm

promethean75 wrote:
On the other hand, suppose my not knowing how to live prompts me to choose behaviors based solely on what I perceive to be in my own best interest. And, in doing so, I make life a living hell for you and many other members of a particular community.


Well played, biggs.

*fistbump*

Yes, his surrender was inevitable.
:D
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:24 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
"When then do my behaviors actually become a philosophical problem?"

I think you mean,

"When then do my behaviors actually become a moral problem?"


We all choose particular behaviors. These behaviors involve biological interactions, chemical interasctions, neurological interactions. And then others -- anthropologists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists etc. -- weigh in on them.

So, how is it then determined when and where philosophers should weigh in on them in turn?

Now, in the field of philosophy, there are "branches". The main ones being...

"Metaphysics, which deals with the fundamental questions of reality.
Epistemology, which deals with our concept of knowledge, how we learn and what we can know.
Logic, which studies the rules of valid reasoning and argumentation
Ethics, or moral philosophy, which is concerned with human values and how individuals should act.
Aesthetics or esthetics, which deals with the notion of beauty and the philosophy of art."

My "thing" here at ILP is to explore the manner in which those who are technically proficient in one or in some or in all of these branches, are able to approach the question "how ought one to live?" by taking their technical knowledge out into the world that we live in and situating their intellectual conclusions in a context in which folks actually have conflicting assessments regarding how one ought to live. In order to be thought of as a rational human being.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:This, I believe, is what truly underlies iambiguous. The key to his defeat. Because all that other shit he says, it's unassailable because it's true. It's proper good philosophy. But he sneaks morality in there and y'all don't even notice.


How on earth does one "sneak" morality into a discussion that explores the philosophical parameters of human interaction? Given that ethics is one of the main branches of philosophy?
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:00 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
promethean75 wrote:
On the other hand, suppose my not knowing how to live prompts me to choose behaviors based solely on what I perceive to be in my own best interest. And, in doing so, I make life a living hell for you and many other members of a particular community.


Well played, biggs.

*fistbump*
Which would be a practical problem for certain people, not a philosophical problem.


Right. Like in discussing President Trump's immigration policy there are clearly distinct lines to be drawn between political theory and political practice.

Culminating in actual [and hopelessly conflicting] moral narratives embodied by folks up and down the political spectrum.

How then is it determined when serious philosophers have a role to play in, say, discussing immigration policy re the upcoming presidential election in the US?

Imagine, for example, a professional philosopher coming upon this site: https://immigration.procon.org/

Where would she draw the line between, "relevant to philosophy, irrelevant to philosophy?"

Karpel Tunnel wrote: It's also an argument based on morality: what if he starts doing immoral things because he doesn't know the way to objectively determine the good.


Immoral things? And, with respect to immigration policy, what might they be? How is it determined [using the tools of philosophy] what the "good" is here?

How does the pragmatist determine that other than by taking a particular subjective leap to a particular set of political prejudices that are rooted in the life that he has lived?

And what does he do when he recognizes that the arguments of those opposed to his own "here and now" point of view don't go away as a result of the arguments that he makes?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Implicitly understood: Iambiguous right now is avoiding doing immoral things, unlike others. IOW he unlike Faust is trying to do good, help the world, rather than just play language games.


This is simply preposterous. My whole argument rests on the assumption that in a No God world, I am unable to determine what it means to choose good or bad behaviors...in any particular context understood by any one particular point of view. The part where I have thought myself into being drawn and quartered...into a hole [in the is/ought world] I am not able to extricate myself from.

Only I acknolwedge in turn that my own thinking here is no less problematic. There may well be a way in which to determine this.

And then of course "resolving" these conflicting narratives by making me issue:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Which is an odd, hence primarily implicit, claim for an existentialist. Odder still, he does, in fact, precisely what he seems to be almost threatening to do...he interacts here - in what I think is his only community - in the manner of someone choosing behaviors based on what he perceives to be his own best interests. How otherwise can he get out of his hole, he repeatedly asks rhetorically. His impetous is to get out of the hole. And yet, at the same time, he takes the higher moral ground. There were so many ironies in his previous post it boggles the mind.


Again, choose a context, a set of behaviors.

I'll note the manner in which I approach them given my far more problematic understanding of pragmatism, and you can note how your own pragmatism of choice has allowed for a considerably less turbulent reaction to conflicting goods.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:25 am

iam, what you don't seem to be getting is that you have posted tens, hundreds of thousands of words, mostly about yourself and no one else. And anything more general than that, you consider "on the skyhooks." You are the only person on the planet that knows what an existential contraption really is. Where have you ever really defined this?

An advantage of a Rawlsian approach is that he takes out the metaphysics, the epistemology and really only focuses on matters of interest to political scientists, economists, government types. Deep staters. Stuff like that. He does not include your fractured "I" because that's not a concern of any of those people. That's for a psychologist to examine.

Except for that shattered ego, Rawls is right up your alley. He's also a brilliant writer. I am a fan of his method, if not all of his conclusions.

You quote authors who have a readership in the dozens (if they have large families) so I know you must read a lot. Try Rawls, instead of asking me oblique questions that reading Rawls could answer for you. Or David Gauthier. Or even some David Hume, who actually had more influence on Rawls than Kant did.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:16 am

"So, how is it then determined when and where philosophers should weigh in on them in turn?"

That's actually a very good question. I vote for that that's where you should start.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:18 am

"My "thing" here at ILP is to explore the manner in which those who are technically proficient in one or in some or in all of these branches, are able to approach the question "how ought one to live?" by taking their technical knowledge out into the world that we live in and situating their intellectual conclusions in a context in which folks actually have conflicting assessments regarding how one ought to live. In order to be thought of as a rational human being. "

As you know, I do realize this is so, which is why I'm your greatest fan.

Rock on iambiguous.

Forgive me if I find you too smart not to take a crack at it myself now and then. You are doing God's work.

God bless.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Jakob » Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:30 pm

Necromancy. :D
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:43 pm

Faust wrote: iam, what you don't seem to be getting is that you have posted tens, hundreds of thousands of words, mostly about yourself and no one else. And anything more general than that, you consider "on the skyhooks." You are the only person on the planet that knows what an existential contraption really is. Where have you ever really defined this?


Ah, taking KT's approach: making me the issue. Unfortunately, I recognize myself even less here than in his own psych jabs.

Since we presume that we exist, not much about us isn't embedded in all of the contraptions that nature has included in the evolution of life on earth. And then the ever evolving, shifting, changing memetic contraptions derived from history and culture and our own personal experiences.

But: What here are we able to establish as in fact true for all of us? Those existential variables that appear to cling tenaciously to the either/or world century after century after century?

And then, on the other hand, what do we seem able to establish only as in fact something that we believe is true in our head? Something that others do not believe is true at all.

What role does philosophy play here? For some that is considerably more limited than for others. So all we can do here is to exchange narratives embedded in particular contexts.

Faust wrote: An advantage of a Rawlsian approach is that he takes out the metaphysics, the epistemology and really only focuses on matters of interest to political scientists, economists, government types. Deep staters. Stuff like that. He does not include your fractured "I" because that's not a concern of any of those people. That's for a psychologist to examine.


Yet another general description of Rawls's general description of human interactions. And to the extent that you see my fractured "I" as basically irrelevant to the concerns of philosophy is the extent to which we construe its purview in very different ways.

Until and unless those who champion Rawls's take on "fairness" bring that out into the world of conflicting goods embraced by individuals who have come to very, very different conclusions about "fair behavior", all the definitions in the world won't make those newspaper headlines go away.

One way or another, ones "methods" and ones "conclusions" [as philosophers, scientists, politicians, sociologists, psychologists etc.] have to get around to the nitty gritty that revolves around either prescribing or proscribing particular sets of behaviors.

Faust wrote: You quote authors who have a readership in the dozens (if they have large families) so I know you must read a lot.


Ah, the clever retort. I do get that a lot here. :wink:

Faust wrote: Try Rawls, instead of asking me oblique questions that reading Rawls could answer for you. Or David Gauthier. Or even some David Hume, who actually had more influence on Rawls than Kant did.


I'll tell you what. You bring Rawls's methods regarding fairness down to earth by situating his philosophically relevant points in a particular context in which what some construe to be fair behaviors others construe to be anything but.

If I'm impressed I'll check him out.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:53 am

Until and unless those who champion Rawls's take on "fairness" bring that out into the world of conflicting goods embraced by individuals who have come to very, very different conclusions about "fair behavior", all the definitions in the world won't make those newspaper headlines go away.


Moral thinking is useless, and probably impossible, without a world of conflicting goods. This is exactly the condition that moral theory addresses. If anyone does this, it's Rawls. You clearly don't want to learn anything.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:28 pm

When you ask, "What role does [moral] philosophy play here?" you are asking what is among themost general questions you can possibly ask about morality. It's a meta-ethical question. You cannot get more general, more abstract than that. To expect the answer to be the solution to the problem of Joey and Suzy arguing about the rightness of abortion is unrealistic to say it kindly.

That they simply disagree is not a question for moral theory. Moral theory applies when we know why they disagree. That they have had different life experiences is not enough. That is a given. We need information that is not self-evident. Specific information. Your examples are vapid (because they are so general that they convey no information that we don't already have).

Why do Joey and Suzy disagree? Again, moral theory assumes that there is disagreement. All moral theory does that. We need to get your example off of the skyhooks.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:48 pm

Faust wrote:
Until and unless those who champion Rawls's take on "fairness" bring that out into the world of conflicting goods embraced by individuals who have come to very, very different conclusions about "fair behavior", all the definitions in the world won't make those newspaper headlines go away.


Moral thinking is useless, and probably impossible, without a world of conflicting goods.


You assert this as though asserting it itself demonstrates that it is true.

And what I would be interested in in regards to Rawls's "methods" is the extent to which they might be effective in yanking me up out of this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Consequently, those who champion his methods are either willing to explore them in regards to a particular set of conflicting goods in a particular context, or they aren't.

Faust wrote: This is exactly the condition that moral theory addresses. If anyone does this, it's Rawls. You clearly don't want to learn anything.


Perhaps. But you clearly don't want to teach me how "for all practical purposes" Rawls's "moral theory" has both a use value and an exchange value out in the world of actual human interactions that in fact do revolve around conflicting goods.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:08 pm

Faust wrote: When you ask, "What role does [moral] philosophy play here?" you are asking what is among themost general questions you can possibly ask about morality. It's a meta-ethical question. You cannot get more general, more abstract than that. To expect the answer to be the solution to the problem of Joey and Suzy arguing about the rightness of abortion is unrealistic to say it kindly.


Right, like out in the real world here in America, the United States Supreme Court may not soon be sending women to the back alleys again for abortions. And if that comes to pass, folks like Rawls and his "moral theory" are either relevant here or they're not.

Imagine for example a philosophy professor who champions Rawls "methods" becoming pregnant. Say she was raped. How does she actually apply the arguments that Rawls makes when she is on trial for the premeditated murder of her unborn baby?

Again, either these "intellectual constructs" make contact with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" out in the real world or they are passed back and forth didactically in places like this.

Faust wrote: That they simply disagree is not a question for moral theory. Moral theory applies when we know why they disagree. That they have had different life experiences is not enough. That is a given. We need information that is not self-evident. Specific information. Your examples are vapid (because they are so general that they convey no information that we don't already have).


Why they disagree? Well the state in our post-Roe America argues that abortion is murder. The unborn fetus is human life and abortion shreds it. The Lawyer for the philosophy professor who aborted her fetus argues that the fetus is not yet an actual human being; and that women have the political right to abortion. Otherwise gender equality is long gone in a world where men cannot become pregnant.

Cue John Rawls here.

Let's use this example as the one taken off the skyhooks.
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
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:41 pm

You assert this as though asserting it itself demonstrates that it is true.


It is self-evident. If everyone played by the same set of rules, there would be no purpose to moral prescriptions. How can this be controversial? If there is no deviation from the rules, the rules are superfluous. This is just common sense.

And what I would be interested in in regards to Rawls's "methods" is the extent to which they might be effective in yanking me up out of this...


So read him. That's also common sense.

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.


Rawls does not propose objective values.

Perhaps. But you clearly don't want to teach me how "for all practical purposes" Rawls's "moral theory" has both a use value and an exchange value out in the world of actual human interactions that in fact do revolve around conflicting goods.


I'll address this in the context of your next response.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Top Ten List

Postby Faust » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:46 pm

Right, like out in the real world here in America, the United States Supreme Court may not soon be sending women to the back alleys again for abortions. And if that comes to pass, folks like Rawls and his "moral theory" are either relevant here or they're not.

Imagine for example a philosophy professor who champions Rawls "methods" becoming pregnant. Say she was raped. How does she actually apply the arguments that Rawls makes when she is on trial for the premeditated murder of her unborn baby?

Again, either these "intellectual constructs" make contact with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" out in the real world or they are passed back and forth didactically in places like this.


You can find out for yourself if they are relevant.

Why they disagree? Well the state in our post-Roe America argues that abortion is murder.


Firstly, that's factually incorrect. Secondly, You are not giving her reasons - you are giving general, societal reasons. Get this off the skyhooks. I asked for his reasons and her reasons for their respective positions.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16846
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]