Okay, define “rational people” and note, pertaining to a moral conflagration like abortion, how one would make a distinction between a rational and an irrational argument.
And I have in fact decided that those who argue that “a woman with an unwanted pregnancy should go to the dentist to have an abortion” are not rational people.
You would agree, right?
I can only note [time and again] the distinction that I make between things we claim to know or to believe are true on this thread that seem able to be confirmed as that which all reasonable men and women are obligated believe or claim to know as true, and those arguments which seem [to me] to be just subjective/subjunctive opinions or political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein and conflicting goods.
But that is precisely my point!!
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.
That’s precisely [u][b]why[/u][/b] I ask objectivists of your ilk to note how it is [u][b]not[/u][/b] applicable to them when their own value judgments come into conflict with others.
Go ahead, give it a go.
Otherwise we will just have to agree to disagree regarding what it means to bring the OP “down to earth”.
Come on, until someone is actually able to grasp the totality of “human reality” and “human existence” itself, we are all just speculating about these things. In the interim, my aim is to yank your own scholastic, analytical claims regarding subjectivity down off the sky-hooks here in the philosophy forum and note how they seem to have very little relevance to conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from dasein that are discussed in the society and government forum.
But, sure, I am more than willing to allow others to decide for themselves which of us is more inclined to connect the dots in that regard on this thread.
I’m not asking them to “decide morality”, I’m asking them to note how my dilemma above is not applicable to them. And I am asking them to react to the distinction that I make between those things we do seem able to demonstrate are in fact true objectively for all of us [Donald Trump swept the Republican primaries last night] and those things which seem [to me] more reflective of subjective opinions/political prejudices instead [Donald Trump’s polices embody rationality and virtue].
How, given the argument you made in the OP, would you react to this distinction? Where are the “fallacies of subjectivity” in that discussion?
But my point is precisely the opposite: that our disputes on this thread cannot be settled. Or, rather, that I have not come upon an argument so far that would appear to settle it. In other words, an argument such that all reasonable men and women are obligated to either embrace your rationale here or my own for either continuing or not continuing our one-to-one exchange from 4/1 above.
In other words, you are pronouncing my “defeat” here merely by asserting that your own argument is the most rational.
Rooted [no doubt] in another rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal argument
3] I have access to the ideal argument because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
[let’s call this one Groot #3]
But that is what I’m here for: to find an argument that might convince me that conflicts like this are within the reach of those who claim to have mastered the tools of philosophy.
I have merely noted that there does not appear to be a rule for posting here that would make what I did in violation of the rules. Objectively as it were. Instead, it revolves subjectively around our individual arguments regarding whether this is something that a poster ought or ought not to do.
You gave your reasons for eschewing this practice and I gave my reasons for utilizing it. So, what is the objective argument that resolves it once and for all.
Aside from you merely asserting that your argument is the better one.
What…necessarily so?
I see “no escape” in the sense that if men and women choose to interact socially, politically and economically, they must establish rules of behavior in order to sustain the least dysfunctional community. Why? Because wants and needs ever and always will come into conflict. But how, in noting that, am I then withdrawing from my stance that these rules of behaviors will come to embody dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
Can you name but a single instance from your own life where these crucial components of my own moral philosophy were not relevant?
Can you intertwine the argument that you make in the OP in but a single context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with another’s?
But then this:
Really? Then how are you not in turn entangled in my dilemma above?
I believe that it certainly seems more reasonable, for example, to impose the death penalty on those who commit cold blooded first degree murder rather than on those who jaywalk or litter.
But how is this established, say, ontologically? Let alone establishing beyond all doubt that capital punishment itself either is or is not something that all rational men and women are obligated to espouse.
We have “some morality” because, once again, there is no getting around the fact that rules of behavior must to established within any human community. It then just becomes a question of whether these rules revolve more around might makes right, right makes might or democracy.
Within the context of political economy of course.
Okay, using the tools of philosophy, demonstrate which of us is being more rational pertaining to his objection about me responding to exchanges that are not embedded in our one to one discussion.
On the contrary, my frame of mind here revolves around an assumption: That he is right from his side and that I am right from mine. And I am certainly not claiming that my own assumptions here are more reasonable.
Instead, his points are good ones “in his head”, my points are good ones “in my head”. So, where is the argument that finally resolves it once and for all?
Your own perhaps?
Thus is nothing short of preposterous. You know, in my opinion.
Eating or not eating steak sandwiches is relevant here only to the extent that it becomes a moral issue. In other words, Joe’s eating a steak sandwich and Bob insists that eating the flesh of slaughtered cows is immoral.
So, it’s not a question of whether Joe came “existentially” to enjoy eating steak sandwiches “as dasein” [he obviously did], but whether, as a moral issue, dasein is more or less relevant pertaining to others reaction to this behavior as a value judgment.
For example, as a moral issue, how do you react to slaughtering and consuming the flesh of animals such that the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy here become moot?
In other words, we don’t need the tools of philosophy to establish whether someone either does or does not eat steak sandwiches [they do or they don’t] but how will they be useful [or limited] in establishing whether one ought to eat them as an ethical issue?
I summed it up for you. Subjectivity towards morality is the same as subjectivity towards a steak sandwich. Both are entirely based on a person’s feelings. Both are arrived at by way of unique personal experiences. Neither can be argued with because nobody can deny that someone likes a particular morality or that someone likes a steak sandwich. The evaluation of morality and the steak sandwich are both entirely in that particular person’s head.
Liking or not liking a steak sandwich is a value judgement.
I didn’t say “establish whether they eat it or not” … I said they either like it or not. The distinction that you constantly make, applies entirely to steak sandwiches.
Morality, as you you describe it, is nothing but personal taste.
It’s not that, using the tools of philosophy, the more reasonable argument cannot be discerned, only that you have no personal interest in doing so.
Precisely because I do not have access to an argument that does demonstrate which of our assumptions reflects the most [or the only] rational point of view. You know, the point I keep trying to make.
Again, if you are actually able to convince yourself that manner in which you link the two effectively rebuts the manner in which I distinguish the two then, of course, you win.
Of course I win too if I don’t agree. But then that’s the beauty of only having to believe that something is true “in your head”.
No, the distinction I always focus on is when we try to establish whether one ought to like or not to like something, ought to do or not to do something.
It is one thing to note that someone values steak sandwiches, another thing to note that all rational people ought to value steak sandwiches.
And that’s before we get to the part about whether rational people ought or ought not to consume animal flesh.
It’s a personal opinion embedded in a political prejudice rooted in dasein and wrapped around one or another rendition of the “good” that one either is or is not able to pursue out in a particular world where there are laws that either prescribe or proscribe particular behaviors.
Now, what are your own values pertaining to the consumption of steak sandwiches and how are they not pertinent to the components of my own argument here?
No, he does not actually decide right or wrong, but rather states his opinion/liking about the issue. That is slightly different from deciding.
Look at some of his quotes carefully -
Phyllo, Iamb is an intelligent person, but rather shrewd than wise as he misuses his intelligence . He is more like a shyster than such a person who is discussing/exchanging opinions. His sole purpose is tell others how intellectually naive they all are in his comparison, thus unlike most of posters here, he runs onwards ontology of his arguments before he putting those forth, and then choose his words/statements very carefully so others would not able to use those against him even in the future.
Thus, keeping all that in the mind, he never openly accepts that he is deciding anything, because he is well aware of the fact that would mitigate his argument and others will use that against him, but at the same time, using his circular reasoning very carefully, he also subtly/indirectly decides/tells others that he is right and others are wrong.
That is all he what has been doing all along.
He does not merely state his opinions. Had that was only the case, there would have not been no issue at all.
He switches to objectivity though indirectly and very subtly too between his arguments, when he thinks it is necessary to win an argument, but takes back the shield of subjectivity immediately when he sees that he is losing control of the discussion. Over the years, he has mastered this art how to do this switching without getting caught. That is why you see those endless repetition of the same lines. He uses those Grooting lines as his shield, and uses those when he has nothing else to say. That is his escape route.
No, I take an existential leap to a particular political prejudice. It’s all encompassed here [with regard to abortion] in Groot #2:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
In other words, I choose/decide while entangled in Groot #1:
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.
Now, when will we ever be apprised of how a value judgment of your own came to evolve over the years out in the world rather than up in the clouds? And how, when it comes into conflict with others, are you not entangled in my own particular dilemma?
Note to others:
I wait patiently for him to connect the dots between his own political prejudices expressed in the government/society forum and the manner in which he encompasses the “fallacy of subjectivity” here in the philosophy forum.
In other words, without basically coming to embody Groot #3:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
Iamb, seriously, you actually need not to cut and paste those same lines again and again, at least with me and in this thread. Grooting symbols will get the job done.
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.
Groot #2
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Groot #3
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
I define [construe] a rational person as someone who is able to demonstrate that what she believes is true “in her head” is in fact true objectively for all of us. Thus if she says that Mary had an abortion and Mary did in fact have an abortion she is being rational. In this instance, I would deem her to be a rational person.
But: Suppose she says that Mary’s abortion is immoral. Is she being rational now? In this instance is she a rational person?
You tell me.
To wit: Whatever that means!
No, I will not keep it to myself. It reflects a fundamental conundrum in my life whenever I am faced with having to choose one rather than another value.
Note to others:
Why does zinnat refuse to note how he is not himself entangled in this dilemma when his own value judgments come into conflict with others? Why does he refuse in turn to note how the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy is not applicable to him – pertaining either to his own interactions with others or in regard to an issue [familiar to all of us] in which there clearly are folks on opposite ends of the moral/political spectrum.
Over and again I note that am not arguing that this cannot be addressed objectively, only that I am not able to assess it objectively myself.
Now, let’s get back to the distinction I make between Trump winning the primaries and Trump’s policies embodying rationality and virtue.
React to that distinction given the argument that you make in the OP.
But you refuse to. Why? Because I will not toe your line regarding the most reasonable manner in which to post on this thread!! That way [of course] you can ever avoid a more substantive exchange.
My argument is that I do not believe “in my head” that it can be resolved. Why? Because we both make points that can be seen as reasonable given the assumptions that they are based on. But that is not the same as asserting that it cannot be resolved. All I can do is wait for an argument that is able to demonstrate it [for me] in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that in fact our dispute here does exist.
I understand that. If you lived alone on an island somewhere there would be no need for morality.
Well, unless you count God.
Sans God, the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein would be largely moot. Why? Because there would be no conflicting goods. No political economy. It wouldn’t be necessary to delve into why you believe [or behave] as you do because there is no one else around to question or to challenge it.
I’ll try capital letters and color:
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT “NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY EVER”. I WOULD ARGUE INSTEAD THAT MATHEMATICS, THE LAWS OF NATURE, THE EMPIRICAL WORLD AROUND US, THE LOGICAL RULES OF LANGUAGE ETC., CAN BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY. I DO NOT EVEN ARGUE THAT IDENTITY AND MORALITY CANNOT BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY. I ARGUE ONLY THAT GIVEN THE MANNER IN WHICH I CONSTRUE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DASEIN AND CONFLICTING GOODS I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOES IN FACT EXIST.
And then I ask folks like you to note how, when your own value judgments come into conflict with others, you are able to embody what you deem to be objective morality. The rational, ideal, virtuous behaviors objectivists can never get enough of.
In other words, the part that you avoid altogether. And the manner in which you refuse to connect the dots between values defended in the government and society forum and the manner in which you construe the “fallacy of subjectivity” in the OP in the philosophy forum.
I’m saying that in any given community, it is necessary to judge behaviors in order to mete out rewards and punishments. And that a concensus will be drawn that is graded from most to least favorable and unfavorable behaviors. But that it does not appear possible [philosophically] to demonstrate which particular hierarchy reflects the optimal [most rational] gradation.
As for me demonstrating that jaywalking is not deserving of the death penalty I can just as easily ask you to demonstrate that it is not.
The point is that if for any particular personal reason an individual believes “in his head” that it deserves to be, how does the philosopher demonstrate that this point of view is necessarily irrational?
Let alone how those on either side of the issue pertaining to cold blooded murder are able to demonstrate that capital punishment is either moral or immoral, reasonable or unreasonable.
I pursue this over and again because [of course] I may well be wrong regarding the manner in which I connect the dots [here and now] myself.
And I know this because I have changed my mind so many times in the past regarding these relationships. It’s just that, before, in embracing one or another rendition of the objectivist mind, I was always expecting not to. Now I understand more clearly how, given new experiences, new relationships, new sources of information and knowledge etc., I could change my mind again.
A vast majority of things in your head is not demonstrable.
I wrote something on a piece of paper to today … there is no way that I can demonstrate it happened today … to anyone. If I destroy the paper, then even the marks which might be traced back to me, will be gone.
And explain why a rational person must also have the ability to make these sorts of demonstrations. Why can’t a person be rational and also be completely incompetent at making such demonstrations?
Note to others - Please note down these Groots of Iamb for the future.
That is the greatest definition of the rational people that i have seen ever. You certainly deserve an applause for that.
In simple terms, you are saying that all those who can see, hear, touch smell are rational people.
My bitch also knows that my neighbor’s bitch has delivered puppies. Is my bitch is also rational?
Should i ask her to join ILP also?
Let us agree and find rational people before that.
Do such a great scholastic subjectivist like you not know what it means?
Iamb, you are contradicting yourself here.
Have you forgotten your dasein (Grooting) philosophy now? As per your claim, if, like you, everyone else is also a product of their daseins only, how on the earth you are expecting them to understand your dasein? Are not they compelled to think according to their daseins only?
Then, why this yours repeated note to others?
Note to others -
[u]Why on the earth and under the sun, a subjectivist like Iamb is refusing to stick to his own premise that everyone is product to his own dasein in my case?
Why he is assuming that i must have been faced the same daseins as his ones, thus i must have the same dilemmas as he is facing?
Why he is not unable to understand that my daseins may have enabled me deduce things objectively?
And, how he can claim for sure that he is right and i am wrong?[/u]
Iamb, having disagreement with someone does not entail that i must have been in dilemmas. Do you not understand the difference between the two? Secondly, how a subjectivist like you can ever reach to that conclusion that i am in any sort of dilemma? Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist? What if only you are in the dilemma and i am able to see things clearly, at least more than you, if not up to the end? Are you aware of my daseins?
Then, is it not your problem only? And, if so, when anybody else ever tries to help you in solving your problem, you simply dismiss them by claiming that all is in merely in their heads? Maybe you are now beyond repair, like a last stage cancer?
For all that, you have to agree with my terms, which seem to be justified according to my head.
Not, at all. It is you who are refusing, not me.
Precisely. That is what i am telling you all along. If you want something from me, you also have to give something to me in the exchange. Otherwise, you can go to your way and i will go towards mine, end of the story.
If you are not ready to toe my line, why are you expecting me to toe to yours one? I am as spoiled, stubborn and intellectual cheat ( though, only in this thread) as you. Let me see how are you going to handle a person like yourself on the ground.
Not at all. It is you who are avoiding the actual discussion.
Actually, you know that your ideology is so lame that it cannot stand on its own, and that is precisely why you are not willing to agree to my condition of not bringing others between us. You know that you need borrowed crutches all the time.
Note to others - Can Iamb has any other reason for not agreeing with such a petty condition of mine?
No one can ever make you believe either if you just keep repeating your Grooting philosophy all the time instead of listening to others.
If it can be resolved is such a way which can be acceptable to both parties, why are you not doing it right now?
That is precisely i want to hear from you.
As you are ready to wait till the demonstrable rational settlement , i am also waiting exactly for this. Let us first wait for the rational and mutual settlement for how one ought to post at ILP, only then we would be able to set the guidelines for the settlement of how one ought to live. What is wrong in it?
But, it is you who is jumping the gun besides accusing me of avoiding meaningful discussion. What i am doing here, is sorting out the mutually acceptable methodologies to have a meaningful discussion. I do not want you to keep repeating your famous Grooting phrases like in the head only, rooted in dasein etc.
Let us first find out (if both sides intentionally play a stubborn and cheat subjectivist instead of one only ) by arguing over how one ought to post at ILP, whether any argument can be settled ever or not. If that becomes possible, we will move on to how one ought to live for sure.
But, if we can cannot settle such a childish dispute, how on the earth you are expecting to settle bigger and more complex issues? And, what purpose that discussion would serve except wasting our time and memory at ILP servers?
Note to others - Please decide whether i am right in my approach or wrong!
Having said that, i am still ready to give that how one ought to live discussion a shot, but only when you agree with my terms, not otherwise. The ball is now in your court.
Exactly.
Iamb, i am not counting on God. Unlike you, i do not need borrowed crutches for help. I can enough strength to stand straight on my own legs. On the other hand, You have nothing in your arsenal except challenging the premise of the God, but i assure you that you will never get the chance to use your only weapon while fighting me.
Iamb, it is not me but you who is counting on the God, as you do nothing but always wait and expect your opponents to rely even mildly on the God, so you can challenge them to show your so called on the ground proof of the God. That is all you have done in your most of those 11000 posts at ILP. But, that tactics would not work in my case. I would never let that happen.
We do not need the God in settling how one ought to post at ILP. Do we? Let me see how you settles it!
BUT, BEING A SUBJECTIVIST,I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU, UNLESS YOU SHOW ME ON THE GROUND THAT YOU CAN SETTLE HOW ONE OUGHT TO POST AT ILP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
FINE, BUT NOT PERTINENT HERE, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DISCUS ONLY IN THE HEADS ONLY ISSUES. THE EMPIRICAL WORLD IS NOT GOING TO HELP US IN THAT. WE HAVE TO SOME OTHER WAY.
AGAIN, IF THAT IS TRUE, TELL ME HOW YOU PROPOSE TO KNOW/DECIDE OBJECTIVELY HOW ONE OUGHT TO POST AT ILP! AND, WE WILL USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY IN OBJECTIVELY FINDING OUT HOW ONE OUGHT TO LIVE.
NOTE TO OTHERS - PLEASE DECIDE IF I AM MAKING ANY UNJUSTIFIED DEMAND!
IAMB, I AM ASKING YOU TO SET THE RULES, SO YOU WOULD NOT ABLE TO VIOLATING THOSE.
NOW, YOU SAID THIS, BUT, IN THE SAME PARA, YOU HAVE THIS (BELOW MENTIONED) TOO -
PRIMA FACIE, BOTH LOOK OXYMORON. PLEASE ELABORATE IT FURTHER WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE SAYING.
IAMB, I AM NOT A SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHER LIKE YOU. SO PLEASE PUT YOUR HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE ASIDE, AND TELL ME IN SUCH A SIMPLE AND EASILY COMPREHENSIBLE LANGUAGE THAT A LAYMAN LIKE ME CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ACTUALLY.
DO YOU BELIEVE WHETHER OBJECTIVE MORALITY CAN BE DEDUCED OR NOT?
PLEASE ANSWER IN SIMPLE YES OR NO. THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.
But, where in this thread i ever claimed that my argument is absolutely objective? Instead of that, just like you, i am merely arguing that it is rooted in my own dasiens? Do you have problem with that too?
What happened in other sections is not pertinent here.
Thus, let us focus here only on how one ought to post at ILP, because that would set our base line for all further discussion. We have to solve that puzzle before anything else.
Now, if you do not mind, it is my turn to use darker and colored font.
[b][u]Iamb, you said that it is NECESSARY for some inevitable reasons to grade even those things which cannot be demonstrable empirically, right!
But, because of playing a cheat subjectivist here, i disagree even with that. I argue that that opinion of yours is merely rooted in your own dasien, and does not actually serve any purpose whatsoever on the ground to the society. Please explain me how this consensus driven behavior/morality serves any purpose.[/b]
[b]But, when any one argues the same in the case of morality or even god, you ask them to demonstrate everything on the ground, otherwise you declare those people philosophically naive and stupids. Why?
Going by your own argument, are you not also the same as they are? [/b]
[b]Great arguement by even greater subjectivist!
Iamb, have you forgotten that i am also a subjectivist here! I do not see any reason or need to treat a murderer or a jaywalker treating differently. Thus, treat then equally and fairly, means either hang of spare both, unless you provide me some demonstrable reasons.
Which Objective God of yours told you that only a murderer should be hanged and a jaywalker should not?
Secondly, have you realized that you have asked to prove the negative here!
How it is different from asking to prove that a unicorn does not exist?
And, how it is different from asking to prove that the God does not exist?
Can you prove that the God does not exist?[/b]
[b]Same thing here.
How does a philosopher demonstrate that not constructing an objective/consensus morality is not only irrational but also necessary to some other one’s head, even if that consensual morality may not be absolutely perfect/objective, and this argument of in one’s head only or dasein should not stretched beyond the necessary limit?[/b]
Note to others - Please note that Iamb is now using a typical objectivist’s augments like prove that the God does not exist.
Of course, you are wrong. But, that is not the problem. The actual problem is that you neither want to listen anyone honestly nor admit you are wrong, when it is required the most. You merely pretend to be honest sometimes when you see that it is not going to hurt your argument, just as you did above.
Changing the mind does not negate one’s objectivity, as far as intent to achieve the objectivity is there. But, as soon as one start believing that even grading is not possible/necessary even on non-demonstrable issues, he becomes a subjectivist/nihilist like you.
Unlike some other objectivists, I never claim that I have attained complete objectivity in any vertical. My stand is merely that I will always keep looking for objectivity, or at least better option, if complete objectivity would not be possible for any reasons.
I am ready to be questioned/criticized regarding my objective claims, and willing to amend/change those also, if necessary. Those are not marks on the stone for me.
But, what I do not support is pending all grading/judgements by arguing that, as everything is subjective thus it is totally useless even to attempt for objectivity.
That ideology kills the very intent of improvent forever, thus dangerous. Trial and error is many times better option because it keeps the intent and thus the possibility of improvent alive.
Yes, but the vast majority of things that you claim to know or to believe are true in your head do not need to be demonstrated to others. Why? Because 1] they are either of no interest to them or 2] they do not impact on them.
What I focus on instead are those things that you believe or claim to know “in your head” and than act on such that consequences ripple out effecting others. Either [from their perspective] for the better or for the worse.
A conflict occurs. Then what can be demonstrated to in fact be true?
Sure, there may be a way in which to demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was in fact either a rational or an irrational choice, a moral or an immoral behavior. I have never denied that. Instead, I go looking for the argument that might convince me that philosophically such a conflict can be resolved deontologically. What would that argument sound like?
Whereas, pertaining to the fact of the abortion itself, what one believes in one’s head about it either is or is not in sync with the fact of it. And, pertaining to abortion as a medical procedure, the doctor either is or is not in fact successful in performing it.
How you define the word rational doesn’t make the fact of being rational any more or less so if you are able to demonstrate that what you do believe or claim to know is true in your head is in fact in sync with the world objectively. In other words, true for all of us.
The only caveat here is that until we are able to grasp Reality qua Reality or Existence qua Existence, we would seem to have no way in which to demonstrate [ontologically] anything at all.
James considers defining words in exactly the same manner in which he does to be all that is necessary to, for example, bring the Real God into existence.
Or, down here, to differentiate Right from Wrong behavior.
I was pointing out that the ability to demonstrate something has nothing to do with rationality.
Your definition of ‘rational’ person’ makes no sense.
That’s just obviously false. You can’t demonstrate anything that “you do believe or claim to know is true in your head” without using words. The definitions of the words is a critical aspect of the demonstration.
Using your crazy definition of ‘rational’, you might get a demonstration of something but it won’t be what everyone considers ‘rational’.
But your example has little or nothing to do with the distinction I keep making.
The fact of the puppies existence is true for all of us. We can see, hear, touch and smell them.
Unless of course one is blind or deaf or lacking in the [biological] capacity to either touch or smell.
But suppose someone also likes to taste them? Suppose the puppies were bred only to be consumed at a meal? In, for example, South Korea.
Would your bitches then be able to join ILP in order to discuss that? And how would those of our own species debate this here such it could be determined that eating dog meat was reasonable or ethical?
What on earth does this mean?!
There are things that we can all understand objectively: Mary had in fact aborted her fetus. The fetus is dead. It is dead for everyone. Now, if someone believes it is not dead but is now with God in Heaven, that’s the part where my own understanding of dasein kicks in. Existentially he has come to believe in God. And part of this includes believing [in his head] that aborted babies go to Heaven.
But: How does he in fact demonstrate this?
How does he in fact demonstrate that Mary’s abortion was immoral?
Again: You tell me.
This has almost nothing to do with the distinction I am making. I am merely noting that we are able to point to personal experiences in our lives that lead us to believe that certain behaviors are reasonable/moral or unreasonable/immoral. Each and every individual will have his or her own set of behaviors, experiences and moral narratives.
My distinction instead revolves around the difference between 1]those who have in fact come to grasp the implications of that but have concluded in turn that, in using the tools of philosophy, we can discern our actual obligations as rational/moral individuals and 2] those like me who are entangled in my dilemma above.
They can provide me with examples from their own lives such that when their values come into conflict with others, they are able to demonstrate that their own behaviors reflect the most rational/reasonable frame of mind. They either will or they won’t. They either can or they can’t.
Instead, like you, they generally dodge this part altogether:
Note to others:
Does he or does he not keep wiggling out in confronting his own inability to respond to this distinction?
Perhaps some of you might be willing to address it. At least provide him with examples of how it might be tackled.
Suppose Trump does go on to win the presidency. He does in fact become the president of the United States. Trust me: If someone points this out at the time, I will believe him. My “grooting” points are completely irrelevant to that which can in fact be demonstrated as true objectively. But what if this same person points out that this is also what ought to have happened in turn. Am I obligated as a rational human being to concur? How would anyone be able to tear down the barrier here between what in fact does happen and all of the conflicting and contradictory reactions that we will have to the fact of it?
Now, will you wiggle out of responding to this too?
How am I not doing so? Sure, I invite others to offer arguments able to demonstrate that either my rationale or yours reflects the more reasonable assessment of the situation.
In other words, such that this argument reflects the objective truth rather then [subjectively] a personal opinion or a political prejudice.
The ball is always in/on the court. What we squabble about instead is who is able to put it through the hoop.
Note to others:
What on earth does his point have to do with mine? Seriously. I am noting the obvious: that, alone and isolated from all others, dasein, as encompassed in the manner in which I construe it here, is not relevant.
And zinnat either does or does not believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.
And, if he does, then this God must be factored into any behavior that he chooses. After all, pertaining to most Gods, immortality and salvation itself is at stake.
What else: back to my distinction:
I am of the belief that ILP does in fact exist. Objectively. That this thread does in fact exist. Objectively. That we are in conflict regarding the manner in which I posted above on this thread pertaining to an exchange you had with [as I recall] Moreno. Objectively.
But: In my own subjective opinion, it is reasonable for me to comment on an exchange between others on this thread. And not to just confine myself to our to-to-one exchange. And I explained why above.
And I am not interested in setting up my own set of rules here. Basically, I am willing to take my chances with no rules at all. But that frame of mind is no less embedded in dasein.
Just deduced [defined] into existence? Nope.
Okay, note an example of a value judgment of yours that came into conflict with another’s. If you do not construe your value here to be “absolutely objective”, how then did you make the distinction “out in the world” between you being right from your side and him or her being right from theirs?
Another words, provide us with your own rendition of Groot #2.
So you assert. But: that is basically the extent to which you demonstrate it. In my opinion, of course.
I gave my reasons for posting as I do above, you gave yours. Now what? How would the puzzle be solved such that all reasonable/rational men and women would either embrace your point of view or mine?
Or come up with an optimal argument all their own.
Yes, if we choose to interact with others, there will inevitably come a clash between disparate wants and needs. Both in terms of means and ends.
The purpose revolves around the necessity to establish rules of behavior. Dasein is only relevant here to the extent that we do get into conflicts regarding what those rules ought to be. After all, who can reasonably argue that we don’t need them? What I am looking for then is an argument able to transcend an intersubjective [political] consensus. In other words, able to articulate the whole objective truth.
Obviously: Down on the ground the carefully calibrated definitions and deductions collide head on with contingency chance and change. With dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Each side claims to have demonstrated that their own values reflect the optimal frame of mind. But only because they start out with a conflicting set of premises.
Both sides are able to make arguments that the other side may or may not be able to [in part] deflect. But neither side’s arguments can ever be entirely refuted. Not all of them. Instead, there are conflicting goods [conflicting assumptions] that tend to be rooted in the lives that men and women have actually lived. And then within any particular community laws will be enacted reflecting the power [at any given time] of the different sides to enforce their own political agenda.
Then we are both in the same boat. We agree that sans God there does not appear to be a truly demonstrable manner in which to make distinctions like this such that it can be demonstrated in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to behave as all rational men and women are obligated too.
And, again, that’s before we get to the arguments that revolve around folks who are imprisoned for murdering others. In other words, contexts in which the consensus is not more or less overwhelming.
I don’t believe in God. Do you?
I am simply noting the difference between being able to demonstrate that Joe did in fact jaywalk [there is an actual video of him jaywalking that can be in turn demonstrated to be genuine], and whether jaywalking ought to be a capital offense. In the first instance it makes no difference what the “consensus of opinion” is. He did in fact jaywalk. In the second the consensus may be overwhelming that he not be executed for jaywalking but that [in my view] is not the same thing as demonstrating philosophically that it is necessarily irrational or illogical or immoral to execute him for jaywalking. Here you need God or some secular equivalent.
Unless of course I’m wrong. And, regarding discussions like this, I am always willing to acknowledge that I may well be.
