A challenge to Æon

iambiguous · December 6, 2022, 4:51pm

Well, for me it all started with Blurry. Though, sure, I’ll flirt with you come the double wedding.

iambiguous · December 6, 2022, 4:51pm

Yo, Æon!

Bump.

MagsJ · December 6, 2022, 8:16pm

_
I currently have no-more to contribute to this thread for now, so…

…until further notice.

Iam and Blurry did a thing, yeah? …or nah…

iambiguous · December 7, 2022, 3:44pm

Well, all I can do is to bring Æon here:

I believe Nietzsche may have tapped-into a natural phenomenon with the Eternal Recurrence.

Consider lifeforms, creatures, organisms that merely reproduce and subsist. They are like drones. Their anatomy is “solved”. They neither evolve nor devolve, they simply reproduce, rotate, and that’s it. They fall further down the bottom of organic hierarchies, as they are surpassed by organisms which do evolve, which can change, which do choose, which have autonomy. This is the critical difference.

Humanity has this Choice within it. Most humans can “lose out”, and hang their existence in Purgatory. Their souls will rot there, forever. Look at the hedonistic cycles which have now entrapped most Westerners, fat, obese, slobs, disgusting. These types will not “evolve”. They are trapped in a cycle, that they will never break. They will die and go extinct first.

This is the trap of Eternal Recurrence.

It is broken by Choice, Awareness, Resistance.

Okay, given that we are not among the drone, “solved” lifeforms, let’s note a particular context revolving around conflicting value judgments. Let’s explore the manner in which mere mortals in a No God world construe Choice, Awareness and Resistance.

If eternal recurrence was in fact an actual thing, what would constitute an exemplary life given that particular set of circumstances?

iambiguous · December 7, 2022, 3:48pm

Nah. Though, sure, as with Maia, if my circumstances had been different, I would have at least attempted to go down that road with her.

What, like philosophers are not in turn “human, all too human”?

Lorikeet · December 7, 2022, 4:06pm

All she does is gossip…

iambiguous · December 7, 2022, 4:16pm

Note to Æon:

Let’s show him some real philosophy!!!

Lorikeet · December 7, 2022, 4:18pm

Start with defining Dasein…

Or is it all subjective, cunt?

iambiguous · December 7, 2022, 4:23pm

Note to Æon:

How about this…

We start with your definition of it. Then we bring your definition down out of the Satyrean clouds and intertwine it into the context that we settle on.

No, of course, seriously.

Lorikeet · December 7, 2022, 4:24pm

Dasein…
:-&

Lorikeet · December 7, 2022, 4:25pm

No moron…you, you give us your definition.
you give us a context…

All you do is reject, deny, mock, negate…
Show us what a context is.

Show us what Dasein means to you…you know “how you understand it”.
You may be wrong, right?

iambiguous · December 7, 2022, 4:28pm

Spitting and sputtering!

And he still has three more weeks of being made a fool of!!

And that’s just by me!!!

Lorikeet · December 7, 2022, 4:46pm

Cunt…is “serious philosophy” possible only if we enter your subjective mind and adopt your definition of dasein, which you refuse to give us?

Otherwise, cunt, i’ll have my definition, you yours, another his…and only ILP crap will continue.
So, let’s enter your subjective private reality, by offering us your definition of Dasein and your context.
Let’s share your insanity so we can make progress.

HumAnIze · December 8, 2022, 1:28am

Perikeet is trying to impress her daddy.

Let her have a win now and then. She can bend ass over and feel herself enlightened by the …oh wait is this a family friendly forum?

Lorikeet · December 8, 2022, 9:47am

Now this is ILP.

MagsJ · December 8, 2022, 12:03pm

Your circumstances?

We can all fall into circumstance, that restricts our decisions… for varying periods of time.

…in that, philosophers need to get-laid, too.

iambiguous · December 11, 2022, 9:11pm

Yo, Æon!

bump

HumAnIze · December 17, 2022, 8:07am

Looks like I hit pretty close to home, huh?

iambiguous · December 19, 2022, 8:35pm

Yo, Æon!

bump

MagsJ · December 20, 2022, 6:45am

iambiguous:

Magnus Anderson:

Ichthus:

He already answered your question. So did I. You seem to be stalling. Is it because you’re uncomfortable self-disclosing? I often overshare & Biggy is tired of me, but if anyone wants my take, I can demonstrate the X he is looking for.

I missed your post.

Do you really believe that all he’s looking for is for people to share with him how their moral beliefs changed over the course of their lives? You really think he just wants raw information about how someone developed their beliefs with time? Or do you think he’s actually looking for something else?

Gib “connected the dots” once and Biggy didn’t like it. The reason he didn’t like it is because Gib failed to demonstrate that his moral beliefs “transcend dasein”. What Biggy is actually looking for is for others to demonstrate that their moral beliefs are not “prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein”.

As he himself said in this thread:

"[url=https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198204&start=100#p2888331:

Biggy[/url]"]No, I’m suggesting that in regard to abortion, those who argue it is either philosophically moral or philosophically immoral provide the same substantive, material evidence that medical scientists can provide in arguing that human sexuality can lead to pregnancy and that abortion is one option a woman might choose in reacting to it.

He’s looking for “the same substantive, material evidence that medical scientists can provide in arguing that human sexuality can lead to pregnancy”. That’s what he’s looking for. But the problem is that he’s not willing to tell us what that entails i.e. by what means he gets to decide whether or not any given presentation is the same substantive evidence that scientists can provide when talking about cause-and-effect. He’s avoiding answering that question like a plague, refusing to entertain the possibility that he’s making a bad decision. He’s pretty dogmatic, stubborn and self-assured when it comes to certain things, he merely doesn’t see it because he’s blinded by his empty “I might be wrong” declarations and his preoccupation with other people (those he don’t like e.g. those who are too confident for his taste.)

Resolved: Magnus is simply incapable – genetically? – of coming down out of the intellectual clouds.

On the other hand, he may well never top The Master:

satyr:

Philosophy’s object of study is the world.

Two general types of pseudo-philosophers:

1- The anti-philosophy idealists.
He may call himself a “philoospher” but his interest is not the world but a solution to it.
A correction.
A solution to the world.
He may even be a nihilist who promotes the antithesis to the world, as his objective.
He’s not interested in the world, but in pleasure, or comfort, or some other objective, associated to the world indirectly as a solution to the world’s indifferent challenges.

2- The academician.
His focus is not the world - all around us - but another’s perspective of the world around us.
He calls himself a “philosopher” but he’s a fan-boy, a fanatic, a follower - fancying himself as a mediator between his chosen mentor - idol - and others.
His interest in the world is through his idol’s perspective on the world.
The priestly kind - followers who wish to be followed.

Both are concerned with their social status, above wisdom, viz., how they appear; how they are perceived and appreciated - as such they are the first to refer to themselves as “philosophers,” and experience an internal joy when they are identified using this label by others, usually those who have no clue what philosophy is.
For them, philosophy is not a lifelong struggle - as with know thyself - but a way of distinguishing themselves from among the rabble - usually with extended knowledge, and an ability to refer and defer to famous icons, or that offer some kind of easy or hard method of coping: easy if they seek quantity of followers/converts; hard if they seek quality followers/converts.
The solutions are always esoteric, so as to not permit detachment from a mentoring authority; just as the solutions to the “problem” of existing always must go through a collective.

Is it even possible to be more intellectually obtuse in encompassing philosophy as a component of human relationships?

What on earth does any of this have to do with our day to day social, political and economic interactions out in a particular world understood in a particular way in regard to a context where we are likely to encounter conflicting goods?

Yo, Magnus!

Give it a shot. How would you intertwine Satyr’s point there in regard to my points here:

More to the point [mine], I’m far more interested in how, in regard to abortion, you intertwine your question with your answer pertaining to the existential trajectory of your own life pertaining to abortion as a moral issue. What you ever and always evade, in my opinion, is taking your technical questions down out of the technical X-change clouds. How else am I going to determine if your answers are no less technical themselves?

…and this…

More to the point [mine], let’s imagine the medical scientists and the philosophers/ethicists exchanging their respective “processes”. Let’s try to figure out how the medical scientists always seem able to concur regarding human sexuality and pregnancy and abortion as biological components of the either/or world, while the philosophers/ethicists squabble endlessly over the morality of human sexuality…and what happens when a woman becomes pregnant and abortion is one of the options.

Also, why don’t you post there anymore? What’s the scoop given that “philosophically” you are virtually two birds of a feather.

Note to MagsJ:

Go ahead, give it a shot yourself.

What on earth does any of this have to do with our day to day social, political and economic interactions out in a particular world understood in a particular way in regard to a context where we are likely to encounter conflicting goods?

Individuality… look it up.