Mr Reasonable and iambiguous don't contend

iambiguous · January 15, 2021, 7:42pm

From the poop thread:

Sure, if the context revolves around whether water is wet or whether steel is an alloy of iron or whether tornados produce powerful winds, then some people are right in noting this and other people are wrong if they insist that this is not true.

Let’s call this the either/or world.

But suppose we shift gears. Suppose the discussion revolves instead around the role of government or gender or race or sexual preference.

Or the moral values and political prejudices of liberals and conservatives in reacting to the attack on the Capitol.

Let’s call this the is/ought world.

Which side is right and which side is wrong here? And how is this demonstrated to the same degree that it is demonstrated that water is wet, steel is an alloy of iron and tornadoes produce powerful winds? And how are the arguments that I make not relevant to probing what might be called the least irrational point of view?

In fact, all this reminds me of my attempt to draw you into probing this distinction:

If you start with the assumption that capitalism is the right political economy and you set yourself a goal of becoming financially secure as a capitalist, then you either accomplish this by choosing the right behaviors or you don’t by choosing the wrong behaviors.

But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring “I” from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into “one of us” vs. “one of them”?

With Mr Reasonable, I am confronted with a frame of mind that interest me because, as with karpel tunnel, he does not seem to embrace either God or the sort of hardcore moral and political objectivism embedded in the minds of the “fulminating fanatics” here. And, by and large, he shares many of my own liberal/left wing political prejudices.

Yet we clearly have a “failure to communicate”. I’m just curious as to the extent to which, if he is not in possession of karpel tunnel’s “visceral, intuitive deep-down-inside-me” Self, on what basis is he not himself as fractured and fragmented as I am?

But all of my attempts to discuss this in regard to an issue like the capitalism vs. socialism conflagration have only prompted one or another rendition of the “fuck off” retort.

Again: Why?

What is it about my arguments that perturb him so? And why can’t we explore this in a civil and intelligent manner?

phoneutria · January 15, 2021, 7:48pm

petition for all replies to this thread to be “fuck off”

iambiguous · January 15, 2021, 8:15pm

Of course, I’ve made any number of attempts to explore the existential parameters of her own moral and political prejudices. Even created a thread to “entice” her: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=196097

To, uh, no avail.

Now, it’s only a matter of her persuading Mr. Reasonable that the most effective way in which to keep my disturbing ideas out of his head altogether is to “foe” me.

Like she did.

But, from my own frame of mind, that is just being chickenshit.

After all, if my mind is really as “broken” as she claims it is, how hard could it be to demonstrate that? Given a discussion revolving around a political conflagration we are all familiar with. We can compare and contrast our own moral and political philosophies.

I have even come up with an intellectual scaffold in which to pursue it:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a “real me” in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively “the right thing to do”, and “I” 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 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I’m less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

Or, sure, one of her own.

phoneutria · January 15, 2021, 8:47pm

there’s no enticing, shitface
i gave you specific requirements
until you meet them
you’ll continue to be ignored
until then
fuck off

iambiguous · January 15, 2021, 9:23pm

Oh, yeah, I forgot: her legendary “specific requirements”*.

On the other hand, how exactly does she go about ignoring me while noting my point about enticing her above? Is Satyr her go-between here? Or, perhaps, one of her many suitors? You know, being “young and beautiful”.

And the sheer gall of ordering someone to “fuck off” on their own thread!!

Phoneutria? It starts with a C

*Does anyone here actually remember what they are?

Mr_Reasonable · January 16, 2021, 3:32am

seconded

iambiguous · January 16, 2021, 7:14pm

All I can note here is that, for whatever reason, both of them refuse to engage in a civil and intelligent exchange regarding the distinction I make between objective truth in the “water is wet” either/or world and the subjective perspectives rooted in the political prejudices of liberals and conservatives here rooted, in my view, in dasein. Prejudices exchanged [often fiercely] in the is/ought world.

Now, I have my own suspicions regarding the motivations for their refusal. As with so many others here who, in whatever manner, are convinced that they basically know “who they are” and that who they are is able to make the proper distinction between right and wrong, good and bad behavior, they are wary of putting all of that in jeopardy given the arguments I make.

In my view, it’s only a matter of admitting it to themselves.

While, at the same time, an exchange would allow them to note specific instances of the accusations they level at me, there is a part of them that, given their intelligence, “senses” that I might be on to something that would put their own precious Self at risk.

All I would like of them is to note how, given a particular set of circumstances, their own sense of identity is not entangled in 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.

Mr_Reasonable · January 17, 2021, 2:57am

lol “intelligent exchange”

fuck off

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 4:24am

Yeah the “fight club” bullshit that a psychotic Tyler was aiming for was largely a ridiculous la la land.

You know, if I do say so myself.

But that which he mocked in regard to the sterile, mass-consumption mentality of so many that I construe to be of the boiler room/Wall Street/corporate America type just, well, clicked with me: youtu.be/ArS16ZyOxLQ

And I figure Mr. Reasonable – the man every woman wants, the man every other man wants to be – is in the general vicinity of that.

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 4:29am

But he repeats himself.

You know, like me.

Only, for me, an intelligent exchange would revolve more around threads like these:

Whereas he is more content to just yak yak yak on the poop thread.

Mr_Reasonable · January 17, 2021, 4:48am

who hurt u

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 5:22am

By year or alphabetically?

Mr_Reasonable · January 17, 2021, 5:42am

have some self respect bruh

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 7:35pm

Oh, now I get it. Turn the thread into one of your typical yak, yak, yak “exchanges”.

One “clever” line at a time.

Pedro think.

Note to others:

If you share Smears point of view from the OP…

…how would you defend him given the arguments that I propose above?

He won’t pursue this himself, but don’t let that stop you.

“Water is wet” vs. “‘I’ in the is/ought world”? What’s the difference?

phyllo · January 17, 2021, 8:06pm

You don’t actually propose any arguments.

You propose a situation and then you ask a bunch of questions. That’s not an argument.

Situation :

Questions:

Situation:

Questions:

But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?

As if the questions are arguments in themselves.

And if anyone takes the bait and answers the questions, you have your standard responses … more questions, “No”, “General”, “Abstract”, “In the Clouds”, “In your head”, “Existential contraption”.

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 8:36pm

phyllo:

…how would you defend him given the arguments that I propose above?

You don’t actually propose any arguments.

You propose a situation and then you ask a bunch of questions. That’s not an argument.

Situation :

Suppose the discussion revolves instead around the role of government or gender or race or sexual preference.

Or the moral values and political prejudices of liberals and conservatives in reacting to the attack on the Capitol.

Let’s call this the is/ought world.

Questions:

Which side is right and which side is wrong here? And how is this demonstrated to the same degree that it is demonstrated that water is wet, steel is an alloy of iron and tornadoes produce powerful winds? And how are the arguments that I make not relevant to probing what might be called the least irrational point of view?

Situation:

If you start with the assumption that capitalism is the right political economy and you set yourself a goal of becoming financially secure as a capitalist, then you either accomplish this by choosing the right behaviors or you don’t by choosing the wrong behaviors.

Questions:
But if someone comes along and insists that buying and selling stocks is a component of the necessarily evil capitalist political economy, what then?

How is it determined that either capitalism or socialism is more clearly in sync with living an authentic life? And how are the objectivists on either side here not basically reconfiguring "I" from an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods into an insufferably self-righteous authoritarian hell bent on turning the world into "one of us" vs. "one of them"?
As if the questions are arguments in themselves.

And if anyone takes the bait and answers the questions, you have your standard responses … more questions, “No”, “General”, “Abstract”, “In the Clouds”, “In your head”, “Existential contraption”.

Okay, given the distinction between establishing that water is wet or that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen or all that is noted here – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water – about water, how would you make a distinction between human knowledge pertaining to water and human knowledge pertaining to, say, the attack on the Capitol Building? Given that in regard to water the knowledge that we have is applicable to both liberals and conservatives, whereas the knowledge accumulated by many liberals and conservatives in regard to the political agenda of those who stormed the Capitol results in, let’s call it, conflicting goods.

Now, in my signature threads, I make what I construe to be arguments that differentiate I in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world.

Sure, you can make this all about me and the extent to which “technically” I am going about making this distinction in a manner that “serious philosophers” might object to. But what I am after is the argument of those “serious philosophers” in regard to the distinction that I make above.

So, if Smears defers in going there, how about you?

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle?

phyllo · January 17, 2021, 9:07pm

You might want to change your approach because you seem to have reached the point where practically nobody wants to talk to you any more.

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 9:38pm

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle! Did I call it or not?!

As for how more and more less and less folks here want to discuss things with me, so true.

Again, I’ve narrowed it down to this:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.

So, the objectivists and the fulminating fanatics steer clear of me because their precious Selves are on the line. And any number of “serious philosophers” have abandoned me because I insist that they take their “technical” expertise down out of the intellectual contraption clouds. At least in regard to “I” in the is/ought world.

phoneutria · January 17, 2021, 10:15pm

fuck off

iambiguous · January 17, 2021, 11:49pm

Both phoney and shit smears share the conviction that I should “fuck off”.

But one seems to embrace generally liberal political prejudices and the other generally conservative political prejudices.

So, ironically enough, if they were to engage in a discussion revolving around issues that precipitate the endless “fulminating fanatic” conflicts between liberals and conservatives here, how long would it be before they were telling each other to “fuck off”.

And who do you suppose would be first?

Phoney. No doubt about it in my mind.