gib,
look what we have wrought here!!!
and not just philosophically, right? 
And just what has been wrought here… the truth? …but you’ll continue to [be caught in a] lie, because you know nothing else but.
Your quite the cray, aren’t you…?
I never play with broken things, lest I break them, even more.
MagsJ, you never even colored with broken crayons? Sad.
There is a subtle difference between one’s being-in-the-world and one’s being or one’s self. But first, I want to note that I got this definition from a philosophy series in which the professor defined it this way when covering Heidegger. So I can’t vouch that this is Heidegger’s own definition. But the difference between one’s being-in-the-world and one’s being or one’s self is that one’s being-in-the-world connotes a state whereas one’s being or one’s self connotes a thing. This is important because it prompts us to ask: what is our state as beings in the world, and this is especially important for Heidegger because he wants to introduce his concept of “thrown-ness”–that is, we are “thrown” into the world–i.e. we are here by no choice of our own making, and we are each thrown into different circumstances at different times in history with different predispositions–none of which are our own choices. The concept of being-in-the-world hints at this in a way that the simple concepts of “being” or one’s “self” do not.
Knowing Biggy, he would say one’s reasoning skills are either taught or a by-product of our genetics–both of which are conditions of dasein–so unless you’re saying the act of reasoning logically or illogically has a kind of random or acausal component to it (i.e. the direction one goes in their reasoning is randomly/acausally taken), then it must be caused, and that cause can only be one’s environment (one’s culture, one’s upbringing, one’s experiences) or one’s genetics, or both, which Biggy will jump at the chance to label “dasein”. But having said that, I must ask you: are you saying one’s reasoning (whether it is logical or illogical) is random/spontaneous? ← I think that’s the only thing that gets you out of Biggy’s quandary, though I don’t think it gets you any closer to what Biggy is seeking.
If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, we all think we’re more rational than those we disagree with. I’m afraid the above will more often only result in confirmation bias–we’ll decide how rational the person’s reasoning is based on our own flawed reasoning. We’d have just as many people judging the one person as the more rational one as we’d have people judging the other person as the more rational one.
I am not. The problem is that I took it that the word “dasein” means no more than the sum of one’s experiences. Now I am starting to think that it also refers to one’s genetics and possibly to anything that is not a product of our choices but that had an influence on us.
If you believe X, it makes no sense to think that someone who believes not-X is right. It’s a logical contradiction, so it’s no wonder if you feel “fractured and fragmented”. Do you agree?
But since you are always possibly wrong, regardless of how justified you are in believing what you believe, there is a need to listen to what the other side has to say.
Call it what you will, I think it’s ‘self-assuredness’ in being capable of forming/giving an educated opinion on many matters.
One does not have to have experienced the phenomena, to give rise to formulating an opinion and/or making a decision, on them.
What… as opposed to the wrong thing to do?
Enslaving others is/isn’t wrong?
Forced abortions are/aren’t wrong?
Prejudices are/aren’t wrong?
Wars are/aren’t wrong? etc. etc. etc.
…and that photo is supposed to be real? Get real.
The disingenuous/catfishing posts here (and now over there at PN) couldn’t be more transparent. Do people actually fall for that sh*t?
A lot of people have really bad eyesight and can’t make out others’ facial features fully, and yet they still get by.
You sound very immature, for someone your [alleged] age. You might wanna get out more.
__
…a reply to my [clearly] excellent reply, if you please.
You always do that ^^^ and not reply, when you’ve been caught out and/or made a fool of… you really aren’t that smart, are you.
Gib hasn’t acknowledged your mention and Magnus A is acting ignorantly-blissful… alarm bells, much.
Gib…the pinhead?!! 
A warning let’s call it, okay? 
Tell that to the truckers. See if they will grasp the distinction. Then explain to them further why it doesn’t matter whether they do or not.
Allowing me once again to segue to the part where I remind everyone of the gap between what we believe “in our head” and what we are actually able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Well, more in the manner of objectivism. In other words, those who believe they are in sync with the Real Me in sync further with the only rational manner in which to grasp the free will debate: as they do.
No, in my view, the crux of the matter still being this:
Given , for example, Rummy’s Rule:
Here, of course, that same distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world. In a determined world as I understand it they are interchangeable. Whereas in a free will world our value judgments may be our own but they are no less the embodiment of dasein.
What I come back to here is “the gap” and Rummy’s Rule. So, all I can do is to ask those who don’t come back to them to explain how, exactly, they would go about resolving them. Other than by way of insisting that others either share their own assessments or they are wrong…the objectivists.
Yep, so far. But given how different our lives – our experiences, our relationships and our access to information and knowledge – have been, why should that surprise us?
All we can do in regard to things like the trucker protest is attempt to communicate our reaction to it.
How utterly preposterous!! There are any number of facts and factors relating to the covid pandemic and any particular government’s response to it that can be communicated reasonably. No, it’s invariably the part where individuals come into conflict over how a particular government ought to react to a particular health crisis that the protests revolve around. Right? Again, the parts where some embrace capitalism instead of socialism, I instead of we, idealism instead of pragmatism, ideology instead of democracy, God instead of mere mortals, genes instead of memes.
The parts we both root existentially in dasein until it comes to the intuitive self. Yours being a Self and mine being a “self”.
Oh, right. The ordinary conversations here between the liberal objectivists and the conservative objectivists? Between the Real Me/Instrinsic Self folks quoting their intuitions and the “fractured and fragmented” “self” folks who root their intuitions no less in dasein?
Again, at the next protest, get in between both sides and explain how “ordinary conversations” ought to unfold between them.
That’s my point!
Here you are agreeing with me that had your life been different you might be here attacking the truckers. So, how else can you rally to them intuitively unless there is a “deep down inside you” part able to transcend dasein? For Maia it’s a spiritual Self derived from Nature. Well, from what exatly do you derive your Self here…a Self that is not fractured and fragmented.
How in regard to the trucker protest is this…
…not applicable to you?
Again, like it or not, I’m imagining you at the next anti-government trucker protest. You explain to them that had your life or their lives been different you and them might be here arguing just the opposite…that the protest is wrong.
And, after they look at you somewhat bewildered say “huh?”, you explain that “somehow” both you and they must have acquired this Intuitive Self that steered them in the right direction. Maybe from God? Maybe from genes? Or, as with Maia and Satyr, each in their own way, from Nature?
And that means what exactly?
Okay, but how can that not then come back around to how you largely exclude your intuitions from dasein? That part of you such that even had your experiences in life led you to renouncing the truckers morally and politically you’d still, what, “just know” that you’re with them? I’m sorry, but based on my own experiences, that makes no sense to me. Where do these intuitions come from if not existentially? From biological imperatives? From something analogous to Maia’s interaction with Nature?
All I know is that when I was a Christian or a Marxist or an Existentialist, my thinking and my emotions and my intuition came into sync. Only when my thinking shifted to another objectivist font did my gut feelings sometimes lag behind.
Thus…
The either/or facts are true for all of us. My point is that you’ll argue that intuitively/emotionally you embrace the truckers as the good guys, while intutitively/emotionally others will reject the truckers as the bad guys.
Why though? It can’t be that emotions and intuition somehow trump thinking when it comes to pinning down how one ought to react to the protest. Not if those on both sides fall back on them to bolster their own political commitment. And to the extent that they are rooted in biological imperatives, then that would seem to suggest they are “beyond our control”.
This strikes me as rather abstruse, obscure. All I can do once again is imagine you telling the truckers that you do not believe their protest is reasonable or moral but that deep down inside yourself you still support them.
Note to others:
What in your view do I keep missing here?
Yes, and the emotions and intuitions of those on both ends of the political spectrum here can seem real. Though for most that is in alignment with their thinking as well. But then you have new experiences, meet new people, acquire new information and knowledge and ideas. Your thinking changes. Over time this new frame of mind impacts your feeling as well. And given enough time with these new thoughts and feelings your intuitive reactions change as well. At least that’s how it worked for me.
As I noted:
All we can do here then is, it seems, to accept that, in regard to our thinking and feeling and intuitions, our own personal trajectories were very different.
My point though is that you fall back on your own existential understanding of intuition as well…as way in which to ground your Self in a sense of certainty that revolves around a comforting and consoling sense of being able to “just know” that their protest reflects the side you ought to be on. You, what, feel it down to the bone?
Really, think this through. In a No God world, there is no reality out there caring or not caring about what we know. There is only what we as flesh and blood human beings interacting with others out in particular worlds understood in particular ways care about. Our thoughts and emotions and “gut feelings”. What still eludes me though is how you come to acquire them? With Maia it’s “spiritually” through Nature. And you?
Again, you can’t even explain this to yourself, can you? It’s just “somehow” there for you and you “care” about the trucker protest. You care that they win.
She is voluptuous to me in the pictures.
voluptuous: curvaceous and sexually attractive (typically used of a woman)
Again, existentially, rooted in dasein, I came to be attracted sexually to women who were not skin and bones. The so-called “model look”. Maia strikes me as voluptuous in her avatar.
But: Just out of curiosity, why are you so interested in how voluptuous she is?
Please. Maia’s commitment to celibacy revolves around her commitment to the Goddess…to Nature. To her own spiritual, intuitive Self. Just as your commitment to the truckers revolves around your own rendition of that. The part I can somewhat grasp in regard to Maia but not at all in regard to you.
I don’t doubt that biologically we are hard wired to respond to faces and to bodies such that particular features and configurations arouse us sexually more than others. But with each of us as individuals, even in regard to looks, that can vary considerably. The point is how we do come to acquire our own sexual proclivities here. Existentially more or less than essentially? Are there faces and bodies all rational men and women are obligated to prefer more than others?
Or: I don’t care if the truckers are right to protest, I just know that deep down inside me, I care that they win.?
And what’s this “half” bit? Are you suggesting that women don’t care if men are handsome? if they have a great body? If they arouse them sexually?
Nope. My point is that sexual fetishes are rooted existentially in dasein. Just as our thoughts and feelings and intuitions are.
Above, after I noted that “I’d certainly consider pursuing a relationship with Maia that went beyond a ‘world of words’”…emotionally, sexually and otherwise…you said “I wouldn’t.” You said that you agreed that she was very attractive but “in a 14 yr old girl kinda way”.
So, apparently, Maia is not “your type”? Okay, but we all react to each other sexually as individuals. So, where do those individual reactions come from? I’ve got my subjective prejudices here, you’ve got yours.
And if it’s one thing we know for sure it’s that lots and lots of men are attracted to women – to girls – half their age. Or consider the TV series American Gigolo. It seems lots and lots of women prefer men half their age as well.
No, as I posted above, “I have a great deal of respect for her intelligence, her capacity to articulate it, her wit, her curiosity, her commitment to living a life that revolved around inflicting as little pain on others as possible”. That she is also very attractive and “voluptuous” in my estimation, is simply how I react to her here “beyond a world of words”.
But then, of course, “the circumstances”: wanting her and having her are two very different things.
It is what it is. I react to her as I do. What isn’t healthy are those like Urwrong. He harassed her here to the point that she contacted management. That will never happen with me.
My own reaction to Maia is more in the vicinity of this:
Huh?!
When have I ever insisted to Maia that her “spiritual Self” was not her own business? I’m just grappling to understand it. How she roots it in dasein…but doesn’t.
My “win/win” thing. Either she is able to convince me that I too can acquire a spiritual Self and come up out of the existential “hole” I’m in, or, instead, I convince her to come down into the hole with me.
My philosophy, pertaining to “I” in the is/ought, pertaining to conflicting value judgments, is anchored in dasein. Shitting doesn’t often come up when discussing it.
Except when…
Unbelievable. You bring taking a shit into the discussion. I note that, while we all take shits, it doesn’t arouse conflicting thoughts and emotions and intuitions except in the sort of contexts that involve interacting with others. Then how we feel about when and where we ought to be allowed to shit, it becomes like the trucker protest.
Please. What do human conflicts revolve around in regard to employment if not problematic contexts in which doing our jobs either pleases others or pisses them off?
Truckers drive trucks. Health officials in the government pass and enact laws pertaining to the covid pandemic. Nothing problematic here, right? It’s just that some like you are “somehow” able emotionally, intuitively to support the truckers over the government while others are “somehow” able emotionally, intuitively to support the government over the truckers. Support that I root in dasein. And I am fractured and fragmented because I recognize that both sides have reasonable arguments to make that the other side can’t just make go away.
No, my point is to ask “what does being ‘a father, an artist, a software developer, a recovering alcoholic/drug addict’ have to do with you supporting the truckers?” I’m interested in those personal experiences, relationships, access to information and knowledge etc., that were pertinent to your political convictions here. That’s when you agree with me that had they been different you’d be here in opposition to the truckers politically.
Only you still do support them because all that thinking stuff is “somehow” trumped emotionally and intuitively by the Real Gib. It’s like in a discussion with Peter you’d agree with his own liberal assessment of the situation but then note that intuitively you still support them?
Something like that?
Again, most people aren’t fractured and fragmented regarding the fact of the covid pandemic, the fact of the government response to it, the fact of the trucker protest. It’s just that the objectivists among us will often focus in on sets of facts that reinforce their own political prejudices. But the really problematic clashes always revolve around conflicting goods that revolve around different assessments of the facts.
Okay, you’re right. I misunderstood you here. All we are agreeing on is that depending on the life one lives, one might [morally/politically] have come to an opposite conviction.
But, from my frame of mind, your thinking here is even more inexplicable. You seem convinced that what you think about the truckers isn’t even important – relevant? – at all. It could be pro or con. All that really matters is that [to me] mysterious, deep down inside emotional and intuitive gib that “somehow” “just cares” the way he does.
Thus…
I’d love to hear you explain that to the truckers who think they’re right and feel they’re eight. Or, for that matter, explaining it to the pinheads here.
One thing for sure though: as with Maia, there is no fucking way that anyone will ever really grasp what you mean here because they were not, are not and never will be you.
That’s the beauty of anchoring a moral philosophy to this frame of mind. You “just know” somehow what you care about…and who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. That deep down inside Real Me gib that thinks and feels and intuits in just right combination to care about what he does.
Though, of course, those on the other side who care just the opposite of what you do about the truckers are reacting in the same way.
Like with Maia. Her spiritual self informs her to refrain from sex. All sex? Even thinking about it or masturbating? Meanwhile the spiritual selves of others in the Pagan community [re The Wicker Man] inform them that sex could not possibly be more in sync with Nature. Sex is everywhere with them.
Same here. My point exactly. Nothing problematic about E = MC2 mathematically until we take it all the way out to the the very end of the metaphysical limb:
- why is there something instead of nothing?
- why this something and not something else?
- if existence started out as nothing, how did it become something instead?
- Is there a God in the mix?
- is Maia desirable?
And, no doubt, Vladimir Putin accepts his own emotions/intuitions regarding the recreation of the U.S.S.R… As Hitler did in regard to the Jews.
So be it.
Thus:
Who is asking you to change your reaction? I’m just trying to figure how you have managed to figure out that your reaction actually makes sense. It doesn’t to me. But, then, there’s just no getting around the fact that I’m not you. And that seems [to me] to be the basis of what the “deep down inside Real Gib” cares about. That and the manner in which this all unfolds in your head when confronted with things like the trucker protest.
And the more you speak of my “ineptitudes” here the more you appear to me to be just another pinhead.
Again, for those on all sides of all moral conflagrations: So be it?
And to argue that you don’t care if the experiences you had, the people you met, the things you read or heard or saw might have had a profound impact on what you feel, on what you intuit…?
That’s particularly inexplicable to me.
Explaining why in regard to all of the “conflicting goods” that have rent our species down through the centuries [in a free will world] a “failure to communicate” keeps generating those big bold newspaper headlines. People living very different lives and coming to very different conclusions regarding what all rational and virtuous people ought to think and feel and say and do.
No, I say it to all those who are not themselves fractured and fragmented in regard to their value judgments. How do they not think as I do given the in the arguments I make OPs of my signature threads.
You in particular because unlike the fulminating fanatic objectivists and the pinheads, you actually come within the vicinity of my own understanding of dasein.
Okay, there it is. The emotional and intuitive gib is “somehow” apart from dasein…is not the existential embodiment of dasein. And, sure, however you are able to convince yourself of this it does comfort and console you. There’s nothing I have said so far that changes that. So, good for you. And for all those on the liberal end of the political spectrum who, ironically enough, think exactly the same way about their emotions and intuitions.
Then this “general description intellectual contraption”:
Note to others:
Given your own value judgments pertaining to a particular context, how do you see this as applicable to your own life when you come upon others who challenge your value judgments.
Yes. Only here I include our emotions and intuitions along with our thinking. As manifestations of dasein
No, I’m curious as to how, given my own arguments, those who claim not to be confused or ambiguous or uncertain or ambivalent regarding conflicting goods manage to accomplish that when “I” am not.
Yeah, their political prejudices revolved around this set of assumptions. Just as those in the government, given 4 million cases and nearly 46,000 deaths, had their own set of assumptions.
Meanwhile down in the U.S., the truckers were in a nation that had 99,346,000 cases and 1,095,000 deaths. Then all the confusion swirling around the mutations and how potentially dangerous they might be.
You’re the one who keeps making this distinction between what you think about the protest and what you feel and intuit about it.
I’m just making the obvious distinction between you and I discussing the protest here and you and I bringing our assessments to the actual truckers protesting. I spent many years as a political activist myself and I learned first-hand, grimly, to make that distinction over and again. Only back then I was an objectivist myself. I didn’t put much stock in dasein [let alone moral nihilism] until much further down the road. And, when I did, it became a crucial reason why I stopped being a political activist. Those on “my side” didn’t want to hear that their moral and political convictions were “existential contraptions” anymore than those on “the other side”.
Well, matters in the sense that you are really convinced [intellectually, emotionally and intuitively] that you are one ot the good guys. And how many people believe that while at the same time believing that it doesn’t really matter how they think morally and politically about what they are doing?
Note to others:
How about you?
First of all, my thinking about dasein is not excluded from my own point of view that I acquired this thinking existentially given the life I lived. And, thus, that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, I might change my mind about it.
All “I” know is that “here and now” in regard to the trucker protest or abortion or gun control this…
…seems reasonable to me. And for all the reasons I have noted here above, in my signature threads and elsewhere.
Back again to how this all unfolds in your head in a way that it does not unfold in mine. You are able to take all of the enormously complex components of your life – genes/memes, id/ego/super ego, thinking/feeling/intuiting/, conscious/subconscious/unconscious states, cognition/sense perceptions etc., and “somehow” bring them all together in caring about and supporting the truckers.
I see this basically as a psychological defense mechanism that allows you to sustain a more or less Whole gib, from which you derive whatever comfort and consolation it brings you.
Whatever works.
I just have no substantive understanding myself of what that means given my own understanding of dasein in a No God world.
A bit more on this. A logical contradiction is a presence of two opposite beliefs. We say someone contradicts themselves if they simultaneously believe X and not-X. I’m sure we agree so far.
Let’s say you believe X. Let’s also say that, at the same time, you believe that someone who believes the opposite of that, not-X, is right. That means that you also believe not-X. If you think that they are right on some issue, it means that you think that their belief on that issue is true. If they believe not-X, and you think they are right in believing not-X, it means you believe not-X. This means that you believe both X and not-X at the same time. That’s a logical contradiction.
Being “fractured and fragmented” means no more than “I am drawn into multiple directions”. That’s the same as “I hold multiple pairs of opposing beliefs”. That, in turn, is the same as “I am full of logical contradictions”. It’s a degenerate psychological state that requires treatment. It means that your brain isn’t functioning correctly. There is no point in your brain holding multiple opposite beliefs at the same time. It serves no purpose. It’s not helpful in any imaginable way. It is okay for you to change your beliefs over time – to go from one belief to another, even to return to what you used to believe in the past but stopped believing at some point – but it’s not okay to hold multiple opposite beliefs at the same time. It’s a degenerate condition. (It’s also not okay to change your beliefs for no good reason. It’s a sign that someone or something is messing with your brain.)
A bit more on this as well.
Ecmandu is known for claiming that “All sex is psychopathy”. I’ll use that controversial little belief to demonstrate my point.
If you know nothing on that matter, then you are equally justified to hold that belief (“All sex is psychopathy”) and its opposite (“Not all sex is psychopathy”.) That would be both a neutral position and an “I don’t really know” position. In that instance, you are justified to believe that John is right (who agrees with Ecmandu) just as much you are justified to believe that Mary is right (who disagrees with Ec.)
Once you start looking for an answer to that question, you may or may not end up in a situation in which everything you known inclines you to a certain degree towards one of the two positions. You may, for example, feel more justified believing that John is right than believing that Mary is right. At that point, you are no longer free to say that you find John’s arguments just as convincing as Mary’s. You are, at this point, more inclined to believe that John is right than you are inclined to believe that Mary is right.
But here’s the thing. Given any two opposite beliefs, you will always have a certain amount of justification to believe one and a certain amount to believe another. The amounts can be equal but they can never be zero. Regardless of how justified you are in believing certain belief B, there’s always a tiny bit of justification to believe the opposite of it, not-B. This is because there is no such thing as “full justification”. Everything you ever believe is possibly wrong at all times. And though that does not make it rational for you to adopt beliefs for which you have less justification, it does mean you have a reason to believe that you might be wrong and that you should examine, i.e. check the veracity of, your beliefs from time to time. That’s why dialectics, among many other things, is nonetheless useful.
If all you have are observations of 10 swans, 6 of which are white and 4 of which are black, then you are more justified in believing that 60% of all swans in the world are white than any other competing possibility. You are still a bit justified in believing that all swans are black, despite your observations of white swans, since your observations are possibly not representative of reality (i.e. they may be illusions.) But it’s neither logical nor rational for you to adopt that belief given that you have more justification to believe other competing beliefs. And it’s most definitely neither logical nor rational to adopt it together with other competing beliefs. Either way, what matters is that the possibility that you’re wrong is there, and that’s what makes it beneficial, and at times necessary, to further investigate. You don’t have to abandon your belief and go back to the state of neutrality. I don’t really see the point in doing that.
_
ROFL!
Now that I’m being ignored [in not being responded to] I wonder if my name will not be mentioned further, in this thread. 
Let the observations… begin!
If you want to be mentioned, you’ll have to put a picture of a voluptuous female body as your avatar.
When I Google search “voluptuous”, I get results such as this.
…then I am not voluptuous… sor’ry!
I was hoping that I wouldn’t be mentioned again, by Iam… seeing that my fantastic reply didn’t warrant a response. The person chooses whether to reply or not… depending on how hurt their feelings were made to be, or that they felt that they were being mocked.
Seeing that I’m not very voluptuous, I’ll have to pass… though I’m sure I’ve got some curves some where on my person, as… like I had said to a guy in a nightly YT debate show “I’m more, much much more, than the sum of my t&a.”
Btw… is this the new context, for this thread?
Let me try to explain what I think he means here…
"Yes, biggie, has created three threads to encompass his own understanding of dasein…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
…but the points he notes there are so at odds with how I understand my own moral and political convictions regarding the trucker protest and abortion and guns and Nazis and every other rendition of conflicting goods, they simply don’t count.
Besides, biggie refuses to stay up in the intellectual clouds like the serious philosophers here do. Also, he refuses to define and to deduce his own value judgments into existence. Technically as it were. As I do."
Note to others:
Read in particular the OP of this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
It’s not just the experiences we have but how they become intertwined in our philosophical education. Immanuel Kant, say, and not William Barrett…Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Aquinas and not Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Camus and Rorty.
Sure, if one here wants [needs] to believe that the arguments I make in my signature threads are hardly a revelation, so be it. But “fractured and fragmented” is not a confused state of mind so much as a mind able to grasp that those on both sides of the trucker protest [re this thread] are able to make reasonable arguments. Arguments, in other words, that the other side’s points don’t simply make go away. Again, it always comes down to the arguments that go deeper…capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs we, genes vs. memes, nature vs. nurture, idealism vs. pragmatism, God vs No God.
See where he wants [needs] to take this? Up into the stratosphere of logic. Influences being proper when they are in sync with his own political prejudices…rationally of course.
Trust me:
Come here with what you construe to be your own correctly reasoned assessment of the trucker protest. Then wait for Magnus either to confirm it or to insist that you are mistaken because it is not in sync with his own truly correct assessment.
That is, if he even allows the discussion to come down out of the technical clouds at all.
Nah. He merely thinks you are relatively poor at communicating your position to other people partly because you use unnecessarily complicated language (something you wouldn’t expect from a person claiming to be non-technical, non-academic and down-to-earth.) That’s a far cry from “I don’t like his ideas and I want him to say up in the clouds”. But your response is not at all surprising considering that you have a history of trying to shoehorn everyone who says or does anything you don’t like into your own little category known as “objectivist”.
You presume that everything you say is clear as day and requires no further work. When someone else suggests otherwise, you casually dismiss it. “No way!” you say and you just continue with your routine. You also make sure to add “They are just an objectivist complaining that I am not agreeing with them”. Of course, everyone is an objectivist. Whoever says anything remotely negative about you is an objectivist. They have to be.
At best, it’s just a phrase for what is otherwise known as “I can’t tell who’s right and who’s wrong.”. It’s similar to ignorance. But who would call the state of ignorance the state of being “fractured and fragmented”? Noone, I suppose. I don’t know how many people live in Nigera. Does that mean I am “fractured and fragmented”? How exactly? That, coupled with everything else you say, is why I think it’s more along the lines of “I hold mutually-exclusive beliefs at the same time i.e. I believe that both John and Mary are right.” That is a state of confusion. You say that they are both able to make reasonable arguments. How can that be? How can two opposing arguments be both reasonable – even merely perceived as reasonable – at the same time? How is that not a logical contradiction? If the topic of discussion is “Should Mary abort her baby?”, how can “Yes” and “No” be both true? It’s either one or the other. But I get it. It’s the classic case of confusing reality with human perception. One person believing the answer is “Yes” and another person believing the answer is “No” is indeed not a logical contradiction, that’s for sure, but these have nothing to do with the issue at hand, since we’re not talking about who believes what, but rather, what’s the best thing for Mary to do (i.e. what kind of decision would lead to the most desirable consequences from Mary’s point of view.)
You have no clue what I am talking about, so you dismiss it as purely theoritical, nothing to do with practice, non-sense. You shouldn’t be doing that. It’s self-defeating. It will get you nowhere.
I am having a discussion with Gib. I know you don’t like it but I don’t care. You can nag all you want.
Again, few things are more deeply embedded in human nature than sex. It has to be. Otherwise, what would motivate the species to reproduce itself?
Only, as noted time and again to those like Satyr, with the human species, reproduction is nowhere near the only motivation for pursuing it. In fact, for many, reproduction is not even a factor at all. There is, after all, the tremendous pleasure that sex brings us. And not just the orgasms. There is also the relationship between sexual bonding and emotional bonding in romantic relationships.
But what are you suggesting here? That, after your commitment to the Goddess to abstain from sex is over, you would consider a sexual relationship with someone turned on by blindness…as long as they are not “obvious and pathetic”?
And what is particularly puzzling to me here is that, over at the Philosophy Now forum, you seemed to suggest that you were a virgin. If so, what does it mean then to make such a commitment to the Goddess?
In any event, few things are more mysterious and mind-boggling than all of the extraordinarily diverse ways in which men and women interact sexually. Much of which, in my view, is no less rooted existentially, subjectively, subjunctively in dasein. It’s almost futile to try to discuss sex “rationally” or “morally”. If only because so much of it is particularly obscured by the complex interaction of genes and memes.
Satyr will speak of “natural sex”. Meaning of course sex [and nature] as understood by him.
Just tune into the HBO series, The Vow. Keith Raniere, NXIVM and the DOS women. Women freely allowing themselves to be branded with his initials! Sex slaves some called them.
Well, once you count the “collateral”.
That is, assuming we live in a free will world. If not, that changes everything.
Unless they are perceived by you as not “obvious and pathetic”?
Blindness from birth is natural if that is in fact how one is born…and unnatural in that “researchers estimate that about 1 in every 5,200 babies is born with anophthalmia/microphthalmia in the United States”.
I’m not sure why you were born blind – something to do with an infection? – though it is still relatively rare to be without sight from the cradle to the grave. But it’s certainly not something that I would construe to be a shameful condition.
On the other hand, with sex, that which some consider to be shameful behavior others revel in. And who is to say what in fact is shameful behavior sexually? There are so many different and enormously divergent historical, cultural and personal contexts to be taken into account.
From my frame of mind, it’s not what I call it, but how you explain it. Your “self-assuredness” is to me, in the is/ought world, just another manifestation of dasein. Only here, both gib and Maia acknowledge that they themselves are at least somewhat in sync with my own understanding of it. That, had their lives been different, they might be here voicing opposite convictions regarding the trucker protest.
And, I suspect, both sides in the trucker protest will embrace very different assumptions regarding what it means to be “educated” about it.
How about you? Is your “self-assuredness” here predicated largely on your own “intrinsic self”? And, if so, how is that not a particularly effective moral philosophy? After all, no one can really challenge it because, well, they are not you.
And how is this “deep down inside you” Self the same or different from gib’s intuitive Self and Maia’s spiritual Self. In regard to such things as the trucker protest and abortion.
Agreed. After all, I was not even fully aware of the trucker protest until gib brought it to my attention on this thread. But, as I noted above, how we react to it will revolve existentially around how “ambivalently”, “intuitively”, “spiritually” and how you reacted to it, one is inclined to be.
Then going deeper to our own subjective reactions to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law.
Then the arguments I make.
Well, I’m fractured and fragmented regarding all of them. Why? Because in a No God world [a subjective assumption that “I” make], what font/moral foundation is there for me to turn to in order to pin these things down definitively, beyond all doubt? Science? Philosophy? Metaphysics?
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, only that “here and now” it doesn’t exist for me.
Huh? What on earth are you suggesting here? Maia told us that the shot had nothing to do with anything sexual. Her brother took it and she was just trying to be playful as I recall. But all I can do is to react to it as “I” did. And to note that there does not appear to be a way in which to establish how one ought to react to it. Sexually or otherwise. Same with the photos that you post of yourself. Sexually and otherwise, different strokes for different folks, right?
I have no idea where you are going with this. Catfishing? Transparent shit that people “fall” for? Well, sure, maybe on “social media” or “chat room” or “dating” sites that sort of thing is prevalent. But how is whatever you do mean by it applicable here?
After all, philosophers can discuss sexuality [including their own sexuality] without getting as someone here once put it, “creepy”.
Or being “immature”.
That and make a connection between it and the trucker protest.
Right, gib? 
Come on, almost everyone knows that sometimes voluptuous is used as a politically correct way of noting that someone is…fat?
