Whenever you get a communist to reveal where he sees the faultline, it is never in the subject being discussed. It is always some point unrelated to what is being discussed: “do you believe in God?”“Do you believe in sharing?”“Do you care about the environement?” etc.
For a communist, the point of contention is never some point about the subject at hand, but which cause to subordinate your thinking to. If you know which cause you are subordinated to, then you can find your opinion. The details of a subject or situation are inconsequential.
Because a position that does consider the actual subject or situation would be clearly superior, a communist must pretend, at least to himself, that no man does this. That the only question any man can ever ask is what cause they will subordinate their thinking to.
I’ll post my reaction to gib’s reaction to part one today. He didn’t even read part two. He’s moving on to others. Like to, say, you and your own abominable pinhead ilk: the New ILP in a nutshell.
Personally, deep down inside, I think he wants to go back to being a pinhead again himself. Good luck in bringing him back into the fold.
One possible translation: “You don’t think about these things as I do.”
That’s not the point [mine]: that what you feel and want are no less derived existentially from dasein.
Again, with most objectivists here [and especially the pinheads] I suspect that how they think about the trucker protest is in the general vicinity of how they feel about it. Both of which are, in turn, in the general vicinity of what they wanted the outcome of the protest to be.
Go ahead, ask them.
Note something I have posted here that would indicate that. We are hard-wired to think and to feel and to want things. But in regard to things like the covid pandemic and government healthcare policies this often precipitates [at times] fierce conflicts.
So, is there a way to determine the optimal manner in which to think and to feel and to want things when confronting these conflagrations? Is there a way to demonstrate that our thoughts here are different from our emotions and our wants?
Note to others:
Anyone here also experience a big gap between what you think about your moral and political convictions and what you feel? Such that you find yourself thinking one thing but feeling and wanting other things altogether?
Try this:
1] you come here and note a post from me
2] you think to yourself, “there’s that tedious soul-crushing* moral nihilist again!”
3] you refuse to read the post and instead move on to others.
Let me know that works for you.
soul-crushing is just how Maia put it. She might not make this distinction between thinking and feeling as you do, but she clings to this “intrinsic” part of herself that can never be “fractured and fragmented”. Just as you do. She pulled away from me so as to make sure that I did not [eventually] crush her “spiritual” soul.
You know, if “I” do say so myself.
Quite the contrary, my point is that biologically/genetically [in a free will world] we come into this world hard-wired just like all the other animals. But, unlike them, childhood indoctrination/memes/history/culture/personal experiences etc., create an entirely more complex sense of reality. That’s why different people answer those questions differently. Now, you seem to grasp that in terms of how we think through our answers. Only you, being an “anomaly”, are content to accept that your feelings and your wants are all that need matter in order to keep your precious objectivist Self intact in supporting the truckers. I root that in the “psychology of objectivism”. You don’t.
This is precisely the sort of thing I’d expect from the pinheads…who have now taken over the thread. Though you do note below that you will, what, now be abandoning the thread and joining them?
I once had to admit to myself that I was wrong about Christianity, then wrong about Unitarianism then wrong about Marxism then wrong about Leninism then wrong about Trotskyism then wrong about Democratic Socialism then wrong about the Social Democrats then wrong about objectivism altogether.
Enough walking for you?
Huh? Where am I doing that? Believing that their own value judgments are rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein? I’d only be a hypocrite here if I insisted that they must believe that too.
The answer is applicable to everyone, in my opinion. Only I have no capacity to demonstrate that beyond my own subjective/existential assumptions. Same with “fulminating fanatic objectivist pinheads”. What on earth does that mean other than what it has come to mean to me subjectively/existentially in my head? It’s not like I turn to the philosophers or the scientists and ask them for the definitive argument establishing it as either objectively true or false.
Right, like what he doesn’t care about is not, in turn, rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein.
Because that is what predisposed me toward being “fractured and fragmented” in the world of conflicting value judgments. I don’t have your mystical “emotions” and “wants” to obviate that. I don’t have the pinheads arrogant, authoritarian “my way or the highway” mentality.
And that means what exactly?
Note to others:
Give it a shot: what does his point have to do with mine regarding the distinction between Jim eating four eggs and Jim defending it as both rationally and morally sound.
Once again, reduced down to flippancy.
Note to others:
Trust me on this: the moral and political conflagration revolving around eating eggs does not pertain to the number of eggs people eat, but on whether eating eggs itself is right or wrong behavior.
Now, gib, supposedly, will agree with me that if he does eats eggs, a life lived very differently from the one he did might have resulted in his thinking that eating eggs was wrong. Maybe the woman who didn’t show up above might have persuaded him not to.
Be that as it may, however, he might still feel that eating eggs is okay and still want to.
You ask him to explain that better.
That’s precisely my point!! And lo and behold! Both sides insist that only their set of facts really count.
What difference does that make? What you think about the facts still pales next to how you feel about them. Right?
But that’s my point. Given how I think about my own value judgments, any new experience, relationship or access to new information and knowledge, might result in my changing my mind. As I noted above. It’s the objectivists among us [especially the pinheads] that almost never do. Hell, you may be lucky enough to take your own objectivists emotions and wants to the grave with you.
Well, if you steer clear of me, anyway.
Again, we think about morality intertwined existentially in dasein differently. That you want to see the truckers win because you feel it…yes, that can in fact be true, sure. As though [for most] that can somehow be separate and distinct from what you think about their protest politically. As you note, though, you are the “anomaly” here. Most of us [and especially the objectivists//pinheads] feel and want the truckers to win because they think that they ought to.
Note to the objectivists and pinheads:
How many of you felt and wanted the truckers to win but thought that they shouldn’t? How many of you will admit that had your life been very different you might instead be here arguing against the truckers?
Invented, discovered, stumbled upon historically and culturally, built into us genetically…call it what you will. When it comes down to conflicting goods, it still comes down [in any particular community] to one or another combination of make makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. Well, taking into account political economy of course.
As for that “general description intellectual contraption” philosophy you speak of here, well, we’ll need a context of course.
And, for me, taking dasein into account in a way quite different from how you do.
Okay, if you change your mind, move on to part two above and then to this post, note some instances of that in regard to your reaction to the trucker protest.
Well, that’s an either/or world context. On the other hand, suppose you told her to beat it because you think tall girls are always irrational. You know that had your life been different you might have thought that it was short girls who were irrational. But you just feel what you do. And that’s what makes things true for you.
Imagine her reaction to that? The same or different than mine?
Just not enough to remind yourself that one day it might be your own as well. Unless, of course, you walk away from my arguments altogether.
No, I suspect most of the pinheads would be completely uninterested in that “philosophical” stuff. You either think and feel they ought to win and want them to or you are “one of them”…the libtard/commie scumbags.
Again, go ahead, ask them.
That’s my point! The objectivist pinheads would be totally averse to taking their protest there. They are all pretty much entirely in sync with their thoughts and feelings and wants. Fuck all that dasein shit.
Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting: you’re an anomaly.
Register to who…me or them?
Again, all I can do here is try to imagine their reaction to that!!!
Or if I was an anomaly myself.
Okay, sure, see if that wins them over.
Sigh…
It’s not how I interpret all of this here in a philosophy forum, but how those at the next protest you attend interpret this truly anomalous distinction of yours. Get back to us on that. The real-world reactions to actual events.
Okay, but I suspect they would not reply with, “I thought I was justified in doing what I did, but, actually, I felt that I shouldn’t do it.”
So, one comes to want what one feels one shouldn’t do?
See, there you go. Your “self” “here and now” [in the is/ought world] consists of this profoundly complex and problematic admixture of genes and memes. And depending on the life you lived you could have thought many different conflicting things about the trucker protest. But your feelings, seemingly having a mind all their own, are not rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein like your thoughts? You just feel they are right. You just want them to win.
Well, that’s when I cue Maia’s and MagsJ’s “intrinsic self”.
What, in the is/ought world, our thoughts and our emotions and our wants in regard to what we construe the facts to be really don’t have much to do with each other when you are an “anomaly”?
Okay, but I’m not one of them. My own thoughts and feelings and wants, while ever shifting and changing over time, more or less came into sync about things like government protests or abortion or gun control. Back when I was an objectivist myself.
Instead, where I went off the beaten path, is in regard to the role played by dasein as encompassed in my signature threads.
There are the thoughts and feelings and wants of a moral objectivist and the thoughts and feelings and wants of a “fractured and fragmented” moral nihilist.
Trust me: it means even less to the objectivists and pinheads among us. Why? Because with them they are not even willing to subject their fulminating fanatic convictions to the arguments I make regarding dasein.
Whereas with you, you admit [up to a point] that your moral and political convictions are rooted existentially in dasein…but that means nothing to you! How ludicrous is that!!
You know, if “I” do say so myself.
Okay, explain that to the pinheads here.
But then…
Note to others:
Explain this to me, please.
He seemed to be arguing above that he might have been raised as a leftist to think the protest was wrong…but still feel they ought to win.
But now, what, he concurs that he could have been raised to think and to feel they were wrong…but still want them to win?
Please. What was the trucker protest about? For the objectivists and the pinheads among us it revolved around how they thought and felt that big government libtard healthcare polices were wrong, unjust, irrational. Maybe they would include immoral as well. Or, for some, maybe it was all about the bucks.
But for the non-anomalists among us, supporting or not supporting the behaviors of others, will often have an ethical component that is embedded in their thoughts and feelings.
Right, they’re exactly the same thing!!!
Huh?
As for this…
…I didn’t read it in turn. I happened to glance down to your concluding point [as I often do with longs posts] and noticed the part about bidding me adieu and not even bothering to read the second part.
We’ll need a context of course. And I don’t do definitions, remember? I take them out into the world of actual conflicting goods.
The trucker protest, abortion, gun control. Who are the “reasonable people” there? Let’s start with your definition, okay?
Come on, gib, how pathetic is someone who calls anyone who doesn’t think exactly as he does about, to cite just one example, everything under the sun, a communist?
On the other hand, they are all just pinheads to me.
How about this: you skedaddle over to The Corner and explain to him why your own grasp of dasein disqualifies you from being a pinhead.
Unless, of course, he can bring you back into the fold.
+++There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.+++
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
Soul crushing tedium notwithstanding, if segments of my private correspondence must be bandied about in public, then I feel compelled to add some context. In addition to the above referenced quotation regarding my opinion of what being a philosopher entails, which I do indeed stand by, as I have never claimed that revered title for myself, I also, in my very next missive to Mr Biguous, clarified my position in the following manner:
+++I wasn’t referring to you, with the soul crushing comment, just the whole thing, really. When I joined, all those years ago, I was hoping for discussions about how our senses work, how they perceive the world, and so on. I didn’t really get much of that. I felt that I might have a unique perspective to offer, but hardly anyone seemed interested. In fact, you were pretty much the only person who ever asked me about those things.+++
_ iambiguous wrote: My understanding of dasein in my signature threads has left me “fractured and fragmented”. With MagsJ and Maia, they can simply ignore the points I raise there and stick with, “I just know what I do about abortion and the covid pandemic and the role of government.” It’s their “intrinsic self” that becomes their own objectivist font of choice.
…a case of connecting the dots in One’s mind, to arrive at an end-point… each person’s dots being unique to They, hence differences of opinion and so forth.
And the fold we really all of us should be expected to belong to, while flaspoints of sensibility travail through our senses, exhibit the symptomatic prevalance of long held objective - subjective qualifications.
These are mere reflections on smoke and mirrored reminders of how we forget that this type of concentrated discussion has never actually been resolved, at least by those who claim to be pinheads, since the 17 th centuries
effort to disclaim objective criteria to judge others by.
Such on close examination is shades away from hypocracy of an obvious kind, and the only way such is avoided is through references to some internally associated construction of membership alluded to.
It’s a human oh so human effort .
Yes, language does retain formidable and iron clad associations to past gone relevance, forgetting that ideas remain in tact, while concurrently language is being deconstructed into veritable prismatic content.
He means crazy motherfucker communists, of course.
But more to the point [mine] gib and I are exploring [substantively] the existential parameters of dasein pertaining to thinking and feeling and wanting; as they pertain as well to a particular context…the Canadian trucker protest.
It’s a discussion worthy of a philosophy forum in my view. It’s the sort of discussion that used to be the rule here before the Kids and the fulminating fanatics and the pinheads and the social media sort took over.
Here’s Pedro reconfiguring this substantive exchange into a combination of a typical Satyrean “one of us” [the arrogant, authoritarian, self-righteous few] vs. “one of them” [the libtard, commie, scumbag many] and The Corner.
It’s the reason so many have left ILP for greener pastures.
Okay, but it’s one thing to be talked about on Page Six and another thing altogether in a philosophy forum. In the tabloids, the focus is always on the personal, while in a philosophy forum it is on the ideas that we express regarding how we have come to understand ourselves out in the world. Then the part where how we do come to understand ourselves can come into conflict with how others understand themselves.
On the other hand, there are any number of souls that have been crushed down through the ages. And the experience being tedious is not likely how they would describe it. I recall for example my own soul being crushed when I was no longer able to embrace the comfort and the consolation that Christianity provided me.
I didn’t think disclosing that would be something that you would object to. But, if it did upset you, then I apologize.
How on earth does that quote above entail what being a philosopher is or does?
Okay, but I became aware of your presence at ILP on the thread revolving not around that but around Paganism. Then our own exchange commenced in regard to a thread revolving around dreams.
And all I can do here is to react to someone based on what I come to believe that they are conveying. And, as we all know, this may or may not coincide with what we think we ourselves are conveying. That’s the whole point of broaching dasein for me.
Also, as I noted to gib further up the exchange, while I do believe my philosophy is a threat to your own rendition of an “intrinsic self”, and that I do believe in turn that is why you backed away from me, I respect your intelligence and would never suggest that your own frame of mind here, with respect to what may or may not be true, is less applicable than mine…in a philosophy forum.
+++Also, as I noted to gib further up the exchange, while I do believe my philosophy is a threat to your own rendition of an “intrinsic self”, and that I do believe in turn that is why you backed away from me, I respect your intelligence and would never suggest that your own frame of mind here, with respect to what may or may not be true, is less applicable than mine…in a philosophy forum.+++
Perhaps it’s my fault for not expressing myself properly, but I want to assure you that nothing you have said has posed any sort of threat to my own way of thinking, and this has nothing at all to do with why I stopped posting here. The fact that you continue to apparently believe this effectively means that any further dialogue is pointless, because I’m just not getting across to you my actual thoughts and feelings.
I sincerely hope you find what you’re looking for.
