This all came up given the trajectory of the thread. Not because I went looking for you.
Yeah, that might make sense in a wholly determined universe. But to the extent that human beings have a measure of free will is the extent to which what they think constitutes the Real Me here and now in regard to their value judgments, is really just the tail end of a life bursting at the seams with all of those thousands of variables they don’t have a complete understanding or control over.
The part you simply shrug off as, what, not worth thinking about?
Having an idea about it 'in your head" and actually believing that you are in sync with it in regard to the behaviors you choose derived from value judgments that are largely just moral and political prejudices rooted in dasein, is embedded in a gap that the objectivists just shrug off in turn.
Nothing gets in the way of their being absolutely certain that if it were not for the liberal scumbags and the conservative scumbags, the world would practically be paradise.
Look, if you are foolish enough to actually believe this, I’d be more a fool in attempting to change your mind.
I can’t explain it better than simply pointing to those who insist that they do know what it is because in regard to their own moral and political value judgments, they are convinced they choose the right behaviors because they do know who they are and the person that they are knows the difference between right and wrong. Period.
How hard is this to understand given that there are any number of people right here who act that out in post after post after post.
Look, when I note the underlying assumptions I make about the human condition as being derived from this…
…others will either accept that this is how I think and feel about it and accept in turn that it doesn’t give me much of a foundation to grapple with and grasp even the either/or world with any degree of certainty, or they are convinced that on the contrary I am just as adamant about all this as the objectivist here are in regard to their Real Me self in the is/ought world.
Yes, I understand this. It’s not how I would word it, but even if one encountered a deity and this deity had what seemed (it’s gonna be seemed, see below) omnipotence, and this deity said, pedophilia is good, engage in it or go to hell
several epistemological issues remain.
you hear God and are convinced it is God AND you feel revulsion for pedophilia. Why listen to one seeming reason to do something over the other. Both are subjective. you may think you have encountered a deity, but be wrong. You may think you have encountered the perfect argument and think all these rational people are being convinced and be deluded. Even this is side of the is ought divide has an asterisk. It is you who are convinced and you are fallible. And honestly I am leery of anyone who would immediately do the bidding of a deity when it goes against their deepest revulsions. Hence my reference to the Nazi (agents of Stalin, Khmer Rouge, etc.) earlier.
Perhaps Abraham was wrong to follow the order from God. Let’s say that story is correct in terms of the dialogue between God and Abraham and what Abraham and God did. STILLLLLL!!! Abraham might have failed the test. Perhaps God does not want someone who simply follows orders, even against their feelings of love. Perhaps God retreaated into the clouds, so disappointed in this creature he has respected and whose heart he had given him. You cannot escape the responsibility of ‘following God’s orders’, you are still responsible.
By what criteria does one distinguish between God, a minor diety, a demiurge, the devil. You are going to have to trust your intuition. And presumably your intuition is already saying you don’t want to have sex with kids. So, to listen to God or some other powerful entity claiming to be God means you trust your intuition to identify this being while at the same time denying your intuition against pedophilia. And God would presumably know this.
I understand this was Ecmandu’s hell, but your response seemed more widely relevant.
The moment someone argues against this, they are, I think, contradicting themselves. How could they know that their argument makes sense? for example.
Unless there is, in fact, a guarantee, but then it’s somehow built into the system, behind the scenes - and it’s not something I can whip out on a piece of paper or taje someone/something to court over and demonstrate it’s in the law.
I was thinking Phyllo that one of the things that I think has led to a gap in communication is
implicit claims.
Some people do not take responsibility for their implicit claims. One would be the one I mentioned above.
Posts have all sorts of implicit claims to knowledge. Especially online, but in general many people, and trolls in particular, do not take responsibility for these.
I’m an atheist. I know the spirit world exists as well. I didn’t want to know that, but now I do. Spirits are the equivalent of ‘god’, they can do all sorts of shit… maybe your great grandmother sets you up on a date.
That’s the real shit.
Me being sent to hell was a misunderstanding. It was meaningless. But it happened.
I now have 2 skills, I can be the king of hell and I can get along with pretty much anybody.
Not really worth it… but that was my life. Pretty pointless if you ask me.
Karpel, the problem with the strain of the flow of philosophy, particularly, is that most or all of it is implicitelly sourced.
For instance parapsychism has this problem, of not being pervy to it’s explicit sources. It is either believed, or rejected, even by the one having such experiences, and then others may have their own unfounded opinions. of such claims , thrteof; usually straining off the claim as must another coincidental occurrence.
James comes to mind here, William James, not the homeboy.( hope that expression is not abraisive within that particular context.
What ‘i’ mean here, is, particularily, in philosophy, even the long held idea of a ‘synthetic a-priori’ carries the burden of proof, that shifts a demand for expression toward the psychology of any claim associated with it, and that is a heavy burden to carry within 'It’s self.
John’s logical proof of God uses implicit logical proof as well as St
Anselm, even I have this burden with Sartre’s ‘self thought man’
God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God said, “No”
Abe said, “What?”
God said, “You can do what you want, Abe, but the next time you see me comin’, you better run”
Abe said, “Where d’you want this killin’ done?”
God said, “Out on Highway 61”
Only imagine God wants Abe to copulate with his son instead.
And, sure, yammer on and on about “epistemological” questions and quandaries.
Or make the assumption instead that this God does in fact exist and can in fact send you to Hell for all of eternity for not obeying Him.
Also, how would his “visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me” Self not in turn be an existential contraption rooted in dasein?
I challenge both of them to take this particular “intellectual contraption” exchange down out of the clouds and focus in on a particular set of circumstances.
They can provide us with an exchange that is the opposite of what trolls pursue. And they can examine each others moral and political values in the context of their beliefs about God and religion.
As that relates to their own sense of reality with regard to acquiring and sustaining an identity in a world of conflicting goods from the cradle to the grave.
_ I had a hard on for him? We have disengaged with him because he is too profound?
Re: On Moderation
Unread postby Ecmandu » Tue 24 Nov, 2020 22:39
I’ve thought about this a lot since it occurred.
Mag, had a hard-on for me that was unbecoming to Carleas’ insistence that if an actual argument is presented, it’s not trolling.
I’m glad Carleas made that decision in retrospect. I trigger almost everyone on ILP to the point where people don’t even reply to me anymore. I say profound shit in almost every post I make, and who was there for me? Carleas.
Here’s the deal. Even though I make it abundantly clear that people who have sex are evil fucks. (Sex hurts people’s feelings)
Carleas who just had a child, saw fit, through freedom of speech, to keep me on.
I have a lot of respect for how Carleas perceived mag crossing his personal vision boundary.
_
What triggered this revival of said thread, I wonder?
:-" a conversation with another, it seems.
Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don’t contend
Postby MagsJ » Tue 24 Nov, 2020 21:23
Zeroeth Nature wrote:
Well, that’s somewhat of a relief. And it must have been what kept me from noticing your demotion (I mean, you didn’t even get to wear the purple?)…
You can read all about that here, well, you know… if you really wanna. It’s full of the starring cast members of ILP, most talking from a place of ignorance and ill-information.
_
Off the deep end? What kind of cheap-shot bullshit is that, that is meant to pass as philosophy.
…that only the emotional use, due to their projected sense of self. Tres ennui pour moi!
I brought the thread back? I didn’t post in it, so no.
Why do such types interrupt, when the grown-ups are talking.
i think its hilarious that ecmandu posts all this weird incel shit and hates people who have sex and proclaims himself to be so deep and to be saying such insightful shit and then he turns around and demonstrates that he doesnt understand the most basic shit about sex like bruh women dont get hard ons you have to have a penis to get a hard on also your post violates my consent
I had a 
