Is Iambiguous...

[Mr_J]

@iambiguous

[“Joker hasn’t (doesn’t) change!” “He doesn’t believe in anything!”]

Not really sure where this is coming from. It is certainly not something that I would ever say. So, I’ll assume you are noting it as that which others have claimed about you.

@Zero_Sum

I actually have the last five years to a great extent concerning my own philosophical thinking or perception of existence.

Specific instances, the longest time I was an anarchist but now I’m a totalitarian fascist of the ethnic or racial nationalist variety. [Pro working class and common people also.] In many ways I admire governmental monarchy or autocracy as well.

I was a nihilist for the longest time too, now I would describe myself as an objectivist but of a lesser arrogant variety in that I posit there are some things beyond human understanding that we’ll never truly really know. I’m fine with that and I don’t see the big deal regarding it.

I was an atheist for the longest time, now I would describe myself as a polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism.

I’m trying to be moral or ethical these days, but I must admit my morality and ethics are probably different than most in an unconventional sense. I definitely don’t view tolerance, forgiveness, or pacifism as virtues.

Okay, no “Zero_Brains” here. I’ll assume that you are attempting to encompass your Self in a manner in which most would expect when going into a philosophy forum: seriously, introspectively.

Thus:

Think through what you are saying…

Like me, you have been through a number of identity changes.

Now, when this happens there are two ways to approach it:

1] there is a “real me” and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.

2] there is no “real me” and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. Instead “I” here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices…in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529 .

Or, sure, any possible alternative assessment.

Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.

Right?

Now, this is how “I” think about these things.

So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.

And, most important of all, I’m less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.

You say that “here and now” you are a “polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism.”

Okay, let’s zero in on a particular context, a particular set of “conflicting goods” in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.

As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And as it relates to your interests.

You can start a new thread on the board you feel it is most appropriate regarding. Or keep it all here.

But: Let’s start here before moving on to all of the things that have not changed for you.

Like anything else in this world Biggie we are the sum of our own life experiences and it is through those life experiences that we develop our set of beliefs, values, or perceptions. Was I wrong on many issues that caused me to change my beliefs? Yes, but it was I that came to the conclusion that I was wrong and nobody else. Self introspection works wonders.

Nobody is 100% right on everything all the time, but you then take that as meaning there is no right or wrong altogether.

[And yet posit ironically that the neo-liberal position on everything is right all the time. ]

You’re too hooked on what is right or wrong, I no longer have this problem anymore because by doing so you really miss out on the substances of life everywhere else and in between. It’s like stumbling in the dark with a small flashlight, a complete waste of time and unproductive if you were to ask me.

[iambiguous]

@Zero_Sum

Like anything else in this world Biggie we are the sum of our own life experiences and it is through those life experiences that we develop our set of beliefs, values, or perceptions. Was I wrong on many issues that caused me to change my beliefs? Yes, but it was I that came to the conclusion that I was wrong and nobody else. Self introspection works wonders.

Nobody is 100% right on everything all the time, but you then take that as meaning there is no right or wrong altogether.

[And yet posit ironically that the neo-liberal position on everything is right all the time. ]

That’s it? All the points I raised above and all the possible avenues in which to explore them…and this is all you’re got to say?

After all, anyone can say that about their life.

Anyone can claim to “introspectively” have become all of those things you and I once were and believe we are now.

But there’s still this part:

1] there is a “real me” and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. You thought it was one thing, then another, then another.

2] there is no “real me” and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. Instead “I” here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices…in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529 .

And this part:

Also, once you change your moral and political frame of mind, you are acknowledging that you were once wrong about the is/ought world around you. And, once you acknowledge this, you are acknowledging that, sure, you might be wrong again. You are acknowledging that, yeah, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, you might be prompted to change your mind again. And again.

And this part:

So, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular set of circumstances in which we can examine our respective moral and political philosophies. Given all of the points we raise above.

And, most important of all, I’m less interested in what you or I believed/believe regarding all of the things you and I were/are, and more interested in how exactly you and I would go about demonstrating to others that all rational men and women are obligated to think and feel the same.

And especially this part:

You say that “here and now” you are a “polytheistic pagan Gnostic with an affinity for mysticism, the esoteric, and the general occult. I lean kinda towards pantheism.”

Okay, let’s zero in on a particular context, a particular set of “conflicting goods” in which as this you now choose one set of behaviors that you would not have chosen as one of the many things you once were previously.

As this relates to my own interest in philosophy: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And as it relates to your interests.

Or, sure, we can both just go back into Stooge mode.

[Mr_J]

No, you over complicate simple basic human manners or dispositions that need not be very complicated at all. That’s why so called nihilists are by and large very much ignored by a large majority of the population because people are too busy living to actually even care. You’re a knit picker always making a mountain out of a mole hill and people watching you ask why you even bother to begin with. But, it is your time to waste after all and knowing you you’ll continue to do so anyways.

[Urwrongx1000]

Whatever he is, he didn’t last long when I spelled out Objectivism to him in plain terms that even he could try to engage in philosophically.

Therefore he is a GROOTinist.

[Mr_J]

@Urwrongx1000

Whatever he is, he didn’t last long when I spelled out Objectivism to him in plain terms that even he could try to engage in philosophically.

Therefore he is a GROOTinist.

He’s a neo-liberal pretend nihilist, we really need to start using this label for now on addressing him.

Also, for Peter we’ll start calling him a Marxist in disguise of an American democrat. I think these are important labels for the forum board now. Feel free to share them with everybody.

[Peter_Kropotkin]

Urwrongx1000: Whatever he is, he didn’t last long when I spelled out Objectivism to him in plain terms that even he could try to engage in philosophically.

Therefore he is a GROOTinist.
[/quote]
Z: He’s a neo-liberal pretend nihilist, we really need to start using this label for now on addressing him.
Also, for Peter we’ll start calling him a Marxist in disguise of an American democrat. I think these are important labels for the forum board now. Feel free to share them with everybody.

K: two things, first, calling me a marxist would be wrong, I’m not, but on the bright
side, you would at least be consistent…ly wrong

but the more interesting thing is this need for labels… the need
for labels is the need to absolve one of thinking… for example,
by calling someone a Marxist, it means you don’t have to think about
their position, just call them a Marxist and you have ended thinking
about who they are and what idea’s they have… it is an easy tactic
to dismiss someone, oh, he is a Marxist, or democrat or Liberal…

your actual engagement is with the label instead of that person’s
actual thought…by calling me a Marxist, and I’m not, but then
you can A. dismiss any thought as to my real position and it is
B. a very easy way to avoid thinking about someone…
I don’t have to think about you because you have been labeled,
a Marxist or liberal or whatever… we can end any real discussion about
idea’s or positions or facts, because you have been labeled…

I don’t need to think about you… you have been labeled…

the need to label someone says far more about you then it does about me
and it doesn’t say anything good about you…

Kropotkin

[Ecmandu]

Yeah, Peter, you’re just wrong.

This new non-binary craze about sexually being labeless is absurd.

There only 3 sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite)

From those 3 sexes, there are only 12 genders.

One possible gender is falling in love with and having sex with a fucking paper bag!!! Trust me, they’ve ALL been found!!

This shit is all binary whether you like it or not.

You may not be a Marxist. Make that argument. Under no circumstances though, don’t try to tell humans that you have no label.

You may have invented something new called ‘peterism’. Make your argument.

[iambiguous]

@Zero_Brains

No, you over complicate simple basic human manners or dispositions that need not be very complicated at all. That’s why so called nihilists are by and large very much ignored by a large majority of the population because people are too busy living to actually even care. You’re a knit picker always making a mountain out of a mole hill and people watching you ask why you even bother to begin with. But, it is your time to waste after all and knowing you you’ll continue to do so anyways.

Note to others:

Did you really expect anything different?

I give him a chance to examine and to explore his own sense of self in far greater depth than this pinhead Zero_Brains caricature he plays here will ever go. And, apparently, will ever allow himself to go. And he backs down.

Why? Well, he, as with so many other of the fulminating fanatics here, has too much invested in being this “mile wide and an inch deep” cartoon character…mostly out on the extreme right end of the political spectrum.

Just from the perspective of intelligent discussion and debate, they make a mockery of why this philosophy community was created in the first place.

But, hey, that’s just their “thing”, right?

[iambiguous]

@Urwrongx1000

Whatever he is, he didn’t last long when I spelled out Objectivism to him in plain terms that even he could try to engage in philosophically.

Therefore he is a GROOTinist.

I invite members to go here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=196492

You tell me how long I lasted against him in regard to objectivism.

Again, with minds this shallow, it’s all just entertainment for me.

Again, if I do so so myself.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

edir - Wrong thread. - edit

Kropotkin when is Costco gonna offer a new line of boots?