You really are as dense as posts like this confirm, arenāt you?
Focusing on one of us [the good guys] vs. one of them [the bad guys] is what the objectivists are obsessed with.
Iām simply focusing in on the 2nd Amendment above, in order to determine if that reflects your own thinking.
My point is that those on both sides can make reasonable arguments to support their own assumptions. And thus āthe best of all possible worldsā in regard to gun ownership would seem to revolve around āmoderation, negotiation and compromise.ā Which is how it works here in America. No one gets everything that they want. This rather than āmight makes rightā or āright ought to make mightā
But: Given the nature of crony capitalism in America, moral and political issues often revolve more around dollars and cents. The gun industry has a stake on promoting the 2nd Amendment because there are really, really Big Bucks involved in it for them. Fuck the morality of it, āshow me the money!ā
āNo teleological endsā¦only consequences to every judgment and choiceā
the first part yes; no present state of the universe was āintendedā by a former state, and the sequence of the states is toward no end. so there is no āpurposeā in any of the universeās activity in the sense that it is working to establish some desired state.
the second part Iād agree with I think. in the simplest terms (and following hume), a āconsequenceā is some event, the occurence of which we attribute to the happening of some other event prior to it. we infer a causal connection. when c follows b consistently, we assume that whenever c, there was b causing it. we call c a āconsequenceā of b. and while causality certainly does exist, we can never have adequate knowledge of all causes involved in producing c. only because b always appears before c, do we attribute a causal connection.
āNo absolutes, remember. No wholes, no perfectinosā¦no ones, except inside the human brainā
the issue is not philosophical if you realize that these concepts only become problems if they are thought of as representational uses of language, see. whether or not we ātrulyā represent the world with those concepts is irrelevent. we could be wrong about what āwholesā and āperfectionsā and āonesā are theoretically and philosophically, and argue about the various ways we use the concepts and the meanings those uses produceā¦ and weād be no less sure what those words meant in ordinary discourse. I want the whole thing. that triple back flip was perfect. yes Iād like one, please.
only on a philosophy board would this have to be explained. yaāll sposta know this shit. oh the irony.
Absolute = immutable, indivisible, whole, i.e., singularity, oneness.
it does exist as an idea, a concept, in the b rainā¦but not outside the brain, like satyrs, or cold-fire, or leprechaunsā¦or oneā¦or nilā¦
As idea.
Because the mind is not restricted by reality like the body is. In the mind all kinds of absurdities exist.
Like universe, imagined as a singularity.
Know how multiplicities become a singularity of universal proportions?
When you say āI want the whole thingā Brian you are segmenting space-time or you are separating a part of existence from the restā¦usually a part as a unity with a purpose, a telos in mind, like satisfying your hunger.
I see a āwhole boulderā on a āwhole mountainā on a āwhole planetā in a āwhole galaxyāā¦ because Iāve spatially and temporally separated it from the dynamic process it participates inā¦
A ābottle is fullā only in my limited sensual perspective and only within a specific space/time, bounded by, for example, the glass the bottle is made of. But neither the bottle nor the substance in it is staticā¦
The whole is in the mind, as concept. Like the #1 - an idea/idealā¦a thought.
One pebble, on one mound of gravel, on one street, in one town, in one continent, on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy ā¦etc.
So when you want to buy one ton of gravel youāve segmented reality with vague boundariesā¦usually using some static standard of human inventionā¦or its mass, or its perceived similaritiesā¦
When you say āone manā and a hour later you see the same man and you say āthe same one manā you are not referring to the same one, as it was an hour agoā¦but to a continuance that has changed in imperceptible ways, yet from your limited sensual acuity you see no difference that would warrant a change in your identification, recognizing in the grand similarities - his appearance - the continuity, the dynamic process which is a manā¦
The word, representing the noumenon, the idea, is staticā¦yet tis reference, the phenomenon, is not staticā¦and never complete, or final, or wholeā¦always in the process, always losing energies, cells, etc., and trying to replace themā¦
The symbol, the word, refers to the concept in the brainā¦which is a interpretation of a presence in an interactive dynamic cosmos, with no end and no beginning and so no completionā¦no telos.
Just process.
okay, in that way, the word āabsoluteā has a particular kind of meaning that yields apparent paradoxes or contradictions. the nature of substances, materials, things, as divisible objects, in a universe that canāt not exist. things āchangeā as a result of their compositional properties āchangingā, and so on, so we say the forms of things are not absolute, and this makes sense. so far so good.
But what if I said āthe universe absolutely existsā. This fact certainly canāt change, unlike the physical things in the universe that have properties.
This kind of statement makes sense, but its use of the concept āabsoluteā is different. It doesnāt refer to the nature of a thing, but rather to a logical necessity.
So I dont disagree with your definition, per se, but only the implications elsewhere that you think this definition creates.
In this case you are referring to a degree of certainty, and not to a immutable, indivisible, complete wholeā¦
You linguistically express your extreme conviction, your certainty, with the term āabsolutelyāā¦which confuses the subject because then you may mistake this use for an immutable, indivisible wholeā¦
Existence = dynamic interactivity. What is said to āexistā is interactive and dynamicā¦not staticā¦so by universe you mean a dynamic amalgamation of interactive processes which you conceptualized as a one-wholeā¦how?
You project your thoughts, your consciousness, into an imagined āoutsideā existence to then conceptualize it as a one whole thing, and then you believe in your own projection āmetaphorā literally, creating paradoxes such as a multiplicity of incompleteness conceptualized as a singular complete oneness.
One absurdity necessitates its oppositeā¦so from this absurdity of absolute oneness you get absolute nillā¦nihilism. Either/O binary thinking, i.e., if the world is not perfect, absolute, then it must not be at all. If not ONE then NILā¦If morality is not universal then there is no morality, - amorality. If not God then Satan the tricksterā¦
There is no āthingā universeā¦universe is misleadingā¦no uni-
Cosmosā¦
Cosmos is not a āthingā, but a multiplicity of dynamic processes the mind conceptualizes as āthingsāā¦including the concept of cosmos.
The brain needs to reduce the present into a manageable formā¦so it abstract it into singularitiesā¦
This universe - lets use your absolutist term - is not the end eitherā¦it is also part of a processā¦perhaps multiversesā¦which must also be conceptualized as a singular whole, and then given a symbol/word to represent itā¦
āThe symbol, the word, refers to the concept in the brainā¦which is a interpretation of a presence in an interactive dynamic cosmos, with no end and no beginning and so no completionā¦no telos.
Just process.ā
good good, but now here it comesā¦ the same problem kant struggled with. these categories of reason which structure our comprehension of the world (form, space, time, causality) canāt be the ground of existence. That is to say the world which becomes structured by our āmindā, has to exist in a certain way independently of that structuring. now, instead of the world āfittingā into the categories of reason, it is the categories of reason that fit into the world. Therefore, you could say that the ways we comprehend and interpret the world are grounded in the logical structure of world already, not vice versa.
But yeah sure. āProcessā, if you wanna call it. But the concept of āprocessā is grounded in the already necessarily existing relation of things it describes. Kinda like saying āthe only thing that isnāt a process is the process itselfā. Things undergoing processes are dynamic, but the sum total of all thatās exists has nothing to relate to, itself, and therefore canāt be dynamic. It exists simply in an unchangeable state for eternity.
I canāt believe you got me back in this philosophy shit, man. Iāll read my own post a week later and be like wtf wuz I talking about. If you dont do this yourself, something is terribly wrong with you.
Yes, but only of what is ordered, because we are the product of order, and we depend on order and we propagate and want to maintain and create order.
The cosmos is also disordering, chaoticā¦energies that have no pattern to be perceived and integrated into abstractions.
Furthermore, existence is antagonistic to life, because it is dynamic and life needs stability, static states, completeness, wholeness, absolutes. Life experiences existence as need/suffering, as struggle.
Our reasoning is the product of cosmic orderingā¦which is never finalized, so our reasoning can never reach a finality, it can only continuously re-evalaute and readjust successfully interact.
The cosmos is not interested in life, nor does it inevitably create life.
We may find the source of life in chaotic factorsā¦
this is like saying we are āmade in the image of godā.
Iāve told yo, you are an Abrahamicā¦though you have convinced yourself that youāve gone beyond such superstitions. Your uni-verse is how youāve replaced the one-god.
The cosmos is not entirely orderedā¦it is also chaoticā¦but man can only perceive and conceptualize order, believing this is the whole.
Furthermoreā¦like I saidā¦the mind simplifies/generalizes existence to a manageable level, so order we are a product of is forever incomprehensible to us, because it is fluctuating, constantly changing.
Cosmic order is not static. It is dynamic, and what made us possible in the past may deny us life in the future.
Natural Laws may become obsolete as chaos increasesā¦because laws are human representations of human awareness of patterns in the perceived patterns we interpret as matter/energy.
Expansion of space/time implies dimensional fragmentation - dimensions are increasing, and our evolution is too slow and a product of a past, simpler, period in the cosmic cycle.
This is why the ancients conceptualized natural order as gods, or titanic forces.
Not as complete, perfect beings but as fallible forces on the side of human beings, sometimes, and at other times against the interests of human beings.
Kazantzakis conceptualized god as a being struggling alongside man, not as an omnipotent, omniscient, complete whole final Being - i.e., singularity.
The forces, the patterns, the energies that made life possible are not immutable, indivisible, eternalā¦either.
The four known forces, e.g., Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and Gravity are also fragmenting ā¦and were once two, ergo Yin/Yang duality.
Space/Time, i.e., dimensional fragmentation, multiplication, implies that the present 4 forces will become 8 - in trillions of years from nowā¦and then 16ā¦and thenā¦32ā¦
Ohp there he goes. The abrahamonihilistilesbo stuff. No the word āuniverseā is like any other word, a simplification. But the statements Iāve made about the nature of the phenomena simplified with the word āuniverseā, are true despite the degree of simplicity or complexity it exhibits, see. These are logically necessary troofs, not psychological phenomena in the way you seem to believe. the relationship between this logic and religious thinking is multifarious, and the reasoning isnt derived from a belief in āgodā, but vice versa. āgodā becomes this logic personified and anthropomorphized, the ānatural law makerā, and then he runs into Russellās natural law argument and becomes spinozaās god once againā¦ having run the entire gamut of criticism.
The essential problem is as sil described itā¦ which was really quite sharp. The mundane features of the reality we are able to experience with our particular sensory apparatuses, delegates any possible conceivable āthingā to having to possess mundane features itselfā¦ or else weād be unable to conceive of it.
It is only because the mundane is so incredibly complex, that we want to attribute some transcendent thing to account for its existence. But the thing is necessary, it necessarily exists, in all its eternal mundanity. There is nothing extra-mundane outside of it or around it. A giant, pulsating amorphous blob of mundane stuff. Iāont even know why it exists and I donāt ax those questions anymore.
What is resentiment, to use your mentorās metaphorsā¦it is to be a product of what is also the source of your demise.
The cosmic circumstances that made us possible, in a particular cosmological period, do not persist and continue indefinitely.
That which the mind was made to conceptualize, so as to survive, slowly becomes incomprehensible.
We evolve the abilities we require to survive, no more than that. Nature is frugal. but environmental circumstances changeā¦and that which sufficed no longer does.
Cosmological cycles are incomprehensible to human lifespans.
This universe where life emerges could be followed by myriads of others where no life emerges.
Life is not its intent, nor is the preservation of life its motiveā¦it has neither.
But you are Abrahamicā¦to the core.
Youāve only replaced the terminology.
Like your Marxism, which is entirely self-serving, assumes that exploitation is ābadāā¦when life itself is dependent on various degrees of exploitation.
A cow spends hours processing energies from plants - solar energies - and then a wolf appropriates and exploits all those hours of work in condensed formsā¦
This is the funny thing about all you self-descibed Nietzscheans: you never went beyond good and evil. You changed the wording.
See, thereās a new movement out thereā¦usually found among the by-products of miscegenation.
An attempt to harmonize Nietzsche with a new and improved Abrahamic version.
A new Christianity, though it will not be called that.
A new Abrahamic version that will be more resistant to his kind of critique.
Memetic adaptation. A renamed, repackaged and recycled update - sold to the same kinds of psyches.
This is the part where you unload all your strange ideas and conclusions so fast Iām unable to keep up. Hereās one though.
āLike your Marxism, which is entirely self-serving, assumes that exploitation is ābadāā¦when life itself is dependent on various degrees of exploitation.ā
All human behavior is self serving.
Exploitation is neither āgoodā or ābadā in itself, and is only thought of as such by those whom it does not serve (see 1.)
2.a those whom do not benefit from this instance of exploitation might aspire to eliminate its possibility by restructuring society.
Excellentā¦and every self-serving idea has unforeseeable self-destructive collateral effects.
For every gain thereās a loss.
For example, your imagined Marxist Utopia will reduce all to mediocrity. If not, then it is impossible and will never come about, but will remain in your mind in an absolutely perfect state.
Excellent, so your expressions of passionate hatred for those who exploit you, indicates a hatred for the wolf and your identification with the cow. Victim, herd psychology.
Like your denial of free-will, to any degreeā¦a desire to remain āinnocentā of the negative consequences of your life choices.
Trueā¦and they must conceal their self-serving motives to those they wish to exploit to their own benefitā¦because no ārestructuringā will be final, complete, absolutely perfect, and those who fight alongside you become the futureās exploited by you.
Marxism in many countries morphed into opportunismā¦
Egoism concealed in altruism. Very Abrahamic.
Populism.
My own grandfather was executed by the right because he was a āBolshevikā - stoned to death.
Iād like to believe that he was fighting for his own self-interest and was not governed by naĆÆve idealism.
My father was persecuted because he was the son of a Bolshevik, denied a passport to leave, until he pulled some strings and a individualās kindness helped him.
I, myself, was sent to a military unit of āundesirablesā, e.g., Communists, criminals etc., on the frontierā¦
The owner of the resources gains citizenry.
I have a caveatā¦to prevent pooling power, introducing a leftist cap.
In my ideal version of Timocracy there would be a cap on wealth, and what exceeds it would be redistributed into society through the State.
This would force a producer to have children because then he could split his wealth so as to remain below the cap - making monopolies impossible.
But, yes, the same rules of capitalism would apply.
the owner producing goods would gain citizenry and he could employ workers who may not have citizenship.
Creating a tiered system. Cast system.
Those without citizenship would not be denied any services other than the vote, and holding political power.
A ācapitalistā can only be a producer of tangible goods. Not one who sells ideas, spirituality, art or services etc.
Those are not tangible goods.
I would deny the kind of Capitalist that exist todayā¦like a Bezos.
In original timocracy it was the farmers who produced tangible goods and who became hoplitesā¦citizen warriors, but we can update this and include other tangible goods.
The capitalist is a producer of tangible goods, not his workers. They are his means of production.
I see, so owners of/shareholders in businesses that produce tangible goods would become citizens/maintain citizenship, the rest would be excluded, interesting.
Why do you think there should be a cap on wealth, wouldnāt that excessively restrain the productive?
Wouldnāt a flat income and/or sales tax be better or enough?
What goods and services do you think should be public?
Because Bezos owns a company that facilitates trade, it doesnāt produce anything.
But what if Bezos owned a company that produces tangible goods on the side, in addition to amazon?
Or shares in that company?
Would he still be excluded from citizenry?