obsrvr524 and iambiguous contend

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
41

Now that’s more like it.

Sure, if you bring God into it, you’re talking both omniscience and omnipotence. If someone argues that it is more logical to presume that God wanted citizens to be entirely free to purchase any and all weapons then, really, what’s left to say?

But take God out of the picture and what exactly is the most logical manner in which, say, philosophers or ethicists or political scientists or the courts ought to construe the meaning of these words:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are my arguments above more logical than obsrvr’s? How about you? Assess those words given your own understanding of logical thinking.

I do not consider myself representative of the body of Christ? Do you? And, if so, in regard to gun ownership and logic, what on earth does that even mean?

Again, this is intellectual gibberish to me.

Same here:

It’s like a “stream of consciousness” “philosophy” in which the words in the sentences seem to make sense to you but they are only vaguely or barely intelligible to me.

Bottom line [mine]: I can only imagine blank stares on the faces of those debating the pros and cons of the issue after hearing this from you.

“Huh?”, in other words.

But, okay, at least you made an attempt at it. I do appreciate that.

42

Stay tuned…on steroids.

nytimes.com/2021/01/04/us/p … e=Homepage

[b]WASHINGTON — President Trump’s relentless effort to overturn the result of the election that he lost has become the most serious stress test of American democracy in generations, led not by outside revolutionaries intent on bringing down the system but by the very leader charged with defending it.

In the 220 years since a defeated John Adams turned over the White House to his rival, firmly establishing the peaceful transfer of power as a bedrock principle, no sitting president who lost an election has tried to hang onto power by rejecting the Electoral College and subverting the will of the voters — until now. It is a scenario at once utterly unthinkable and yet feared since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s tenure.

The president has gone well beyond simply venting his grievances or creating a face-saving narrative to explain away a loss, as advisers privately suggested he was doing in the days after the Nov. 3 vote, but instead has pressed the boundaries of tradition, propriety and the law to find any way he can to cling to office beyond his term that expires in two weeks. That he is almost certain to fail does not mitigate the damage he is doing to democracy by undermining public faith in the electoral system.[/b]

What to make of liberal reactions like this. On the one hand, we are always assured that all of this bluster on Trumps part is just that, a tempest in a teapot.

On the other hand, there seems to be a real concern brewing that anything is possible between now and January 20th.

Or, sure, just your typical inside the beltway crisis being built up to create new subscriptions.

43

wrong thread.

44

wrong thread

45

Reminder:

You can stop reading right now if you refuse to accept that, in fact, the truth about everything must be perfectly aligned with his own authoritarian dogmas.

Sure, others might come in here and dispute his distinctions. Or they might critique capitalism from any number of conflicting political perspectives.

And, perhaps, he’d even welcome that.

But make no mistake: There is the one and the only rational distinction to make between them. And this must be true because in preaching to the choir here he confirms it.

Just another rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], some are taught or come into contact with [through their upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that embraces capitalism. Ayn Rand, as likely as not.

2] Over time, they become convinced that this perspective on capitalism expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about capitalism; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of capitalism with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about capitalism with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own regarding capitalism as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending capitalism has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

For others, it might be Communism instead.

That leads to debates like this: economicshelp.org/blog/5002 … apitalism/

Debates where both sides can make reasonable arguments based on sets of assumptions regarding the “human condition” itself.

But for the objectivists among us, acknowledging this is taboo. After all, the whole point of being an authoritarian defender of one or the other is to have this Whole Truth in which to anchor the Real Me.

And ILP is bursting at the seams with them, isn’t it?

46

What particular “real truth” in regard to what particular set of circumstances when, say, liberals and conservatives [and parents] come to conflicting conclusions regarding what the truth is?

You know, given the historical evolution of vast and varied cultures precipitating even more vast and varied human communities squabbling over which behaviors to reward and which to punish.

Incredibly enough, however, he doesn’t think it is important to go there. Merely encompassing the truth in yet another “intellectual contraption” suffices.

I have even invented a new groot – right Wendy? – in which to explore his own so-called Truths:

Maybe this time…

47

On the other hand, Sil isn’t challenging you to note these “wild strawmen assertions” in an exchange that revolves around comparing and contrasting our moral and political philosophies in regard to a set of circumstances of your own choosing.

Right?

The 2nd Amendment and capitalism [above] are just two possible issues.

The point is this: why do you keep avoiding an actual substantive exchange with me?

Let’s be blunt: Do you possess either the intellectual honesty or the intellectual integrity to confront that yourself?

48

Allow me to translate this for those not familiar with the objectivist mind:

“Truth and lies here are what I say they are. So, if social media choose to censor those who don’t agree with everything that I think is true about, say, Trump, Biden, the Communists and China, that’s not censoring. That’s more in the way of common sense.”

49

Oh yeah, I forget. Unless you are a bona fide member of the Coalition of Truth [you and Wendy, right? ] nothing you say has any relevance to the Truth at all.

And how do you know this? Well, as with James, you merely believe it. What encompasses the optimal or the only rational “trustable information” in regard to it. What encompasses “progress” in addressing it? Obviously: whatever you assert it to be.

But, okay, in regard to MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, what is the Truth in regard to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with here. An issue that is debated over and again between liberals and conservatives at ILP.

Now, James was always chickenshit when it came to bringing his own moral and political value judgments down to earth. The things he would do in order to keep the exchange up in the clouds when he reconfigured his own TOE from the world of science and math to world of moral and political conflicts.

And so far [with me] you are no less a chickenshit here yourself. I’ve even provided you with an intellectual scaffold in which to explore your own values:

Or, sure, a scaffold of your own.

Just name the issue – re MSNBC/CNN/Fox – put it in a set of circumstances and let’s finally get this thing started.

50

Sure, why not. If this is what you are actually able to think yourself into believing “explains” it, then, for you, it does. And of course this includes, down through the years, all of the millions of miscarried babies in the womb. And the still born. Just figure that God – the Real God for instance – has it all worked out in His head.

Let that comfort and console you.

Next up: God and the scumbag liberals.

As for “adults” here, consider…

51

Or -

Perhaps it is just yet another “intellectual contraption” you are willing to criticize even without the slightest capability of comprehending what you are ranting about. Attention hounds do that - a lot.

52

Huh?!!!

In the first scenario, the very souls of these folks are on the line. And for all of eternity.

In the second scenario, only the health of particular mere mortals is on the line. And only then until they die.

You do grasp that distinction, don’t you?

And then the part you ignored:

An “intellectual contraption” would be one in which a discussion of God and Heaven is encompassed entirely in a world of words…without any reference at all to babies and miscarriages and adults and missionaries and native people.

The kind that James would prefer in regard to the Real God.

Unless, of course, you can link me to posts of his in which he responded substantively to philosophy girl’s points or mine.

53

Again attention seeking dogs might bark about an absence of color. But despite his desperation for love and petting, I’m not going to argue with him about it.

54

Again, as undignified [even childish] as it might be, I can’t help but take delight in reducing minds like his down to claptrap like this.

As with James, he comes in here with this no doubt “years in the making” intellectual contraption. His very own overarching, authoritarian TOE. But: the only time he brings it down to earth is to pontificate about all those liberal scumbags who refuse to recognize that only those in “The Coalition of Truth” [him and Wendy] get to say what the Truth is.

Just another run-of-the-mill chickenshit objectivist from my point of view.

Unless of course I’m wrong. Only he won’t go there in order to make the attempt to demonstrate it.

[b]Note to others:

If you ever do come across a post of his that attempts to bring those turgid intellectual contraptions of his down out of the ideological clouds, please bring it to my attention on this thread.[/b]

55

Yet again: given “the gap” I discussed above, I have no illusion that, even in accepting the capacity to speculate on these things freely “of my own volition”, I am actually the closest here to getting it right.

But what exactly is Saint noting above? Is he arguing that his very conclusion itself is but another necessary component of the only possible reality? And that, in turn, our reactions to his conclusion are but more of the same. Merely the psychological illusion of free will somehow built into the human brain given the still inexplicable leap from mindless matter to the biological evolution of matter into life itself on Earth?

And how about his signature assessment here:

“Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1 You have been observed.”

All in turn but an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter?

Or his moral and political value judgments over on the Society, Government, and Economics board. His “fulminating fanatic” attacks against the liberals and the Communist. All just entirely nature doing its thing?

56

Come on, stop wiggling out of actually responding to the point I raise. As did James Saint every time I attempted to bring his own intellectual contraptions out into the world of conflicting goods.

In a discussion and debate revolving around the abortion wars, how is it decided which definition of words like freedom and justice are technically correct between two philosophers, political scientists, ethicists etc., who embrace conflicting moral narratives and political agendas?

In other words, given the manner in which medical doctors performing the abortions can all agree on the definitions of the words used in performing the procedure themselves.

Or choose your own set of circumstances.

You’re the one here who claims that “[t]o define = to unambiguously explain using different words.” And the thread itself revolves around philosophy, mathematics and integrating the irrational. Okay, accomplishing this in regard to what set of circumstances when the focus of those circumstances is the morality of abortion. Or another issue of your own choosing.

Note to others:

This is what I posted in peacegirl’s determinism thread…over a week ago:

Again, I may well be misconstruing Saint’s position here. If so, let obsrvr make it clearer.

57

Define “intellectual contraptions”.

How it is decided isn’t relevant as long as it IS decided Before discussions begin - else the parties don’t know what they are even saying to each other (much like when discussing anything with you).

Definitions of words have nothing to do with the procedure. They are about the discussions or arguments concerning the discussions of whether to do which procedure.

58

Note to others:

See what [in the real deal free will world] I reduce him down to. Same with Saint. Over and again instead of addressing my point in regard to an actual existential context, he takes it straight back up into the stratosphere of “definitions” and “technical meaning”.

Yes, we might eventually get around to distinguishing the definition of freedom in regard to the law as opposed to conflicting goods, but first…another definition please. And we might eventually pin down the definition of justice from the perspective of the woman enduring an unwanted pregnancy and the unborn baby/clump of cells about to be shredded…but first we need to define the meaning of this very intellectual contraption itself!

Anything to keep the discussion going solely within the confines of Saint’s TOE.

Thus…

You tell me what this has to do with the point I make. Again, imagine him outside an abortion clinic noting this to those on both sides of the issue.

Pick one:
:angry-screaming:
:confusion-seeingstars:
:scared-shocked:

Or, sure, if you think you understand what he means given the distinction I make above, please advise me as what that is.

Oh, and he completely ignores this part again:

Yet again: given “the gap” I discussed above, I have no illusion that, even in accepting the capacity to speculate on these things freely “of my own volition”, I am actually the closest here to getting it right.

But what exactly is Saint noting above? Is he arguing that his very conclusion itself is but another necessary component of the only possible reality? And that, in turn, our reactions to his conclusion are but more of the same. Merely the psychological illusion of free will somehow built into the human brain given the still inexplicable leap from mindless matter to the biological evolution of matter into life itself on Earth?

And how about his signature assessment here:

“Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1 You have been observed.”

All in turn but an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter?

Or his moral and political value judgments over on the Society, Government, and Economics board. His “fulminating fanatic” attacks against the liberals and the Communist. All just entirely nature doing its thing?

59

Didn’t you just post that yourself? - “Define ‘define’” you said.
So I did.

But then I ask you to define your all too commonly used term “intellectual contraption”
And what did You do?

What you did is exactly what you always accuse others of doing -

I see that you are into that “always accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing yourself” tactic. :laughing:

60

Come on, as anyone here familiar with my “exchanges” with Fixed Jacob knows, I was only being ironic…taunting him as it were.

Again, if it doesn’t embarrass you to flagrantly wiggle out of acutally responding substantively to the points I raise, it certainly doesn’t embarrass me to suggest that it ought to.

And, what the hell, one more try:

Yet again: given “the gap” I discussed above, I have no illusion that, even in accepting the capacity to speculate on these things freely “of my own volition”, I am actually the closest here to getting it right.

But what exactly is Saint noting above? Is he arguing that his very conclusion itself is but another necessary component of the only possible reality? And that, in turn, our reactions to his conclusion are but more of the same. Merely the psychological illusion of free will somehow built into the human brain given the still inexplicable leap from mindless matter to the biological evolution of matter into life itself on Earth?

And how about his signature assessment here:

“Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1 You have been observed.”

All in turn but an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter?

Or his moral and political value judgments over on the Society, Government, and Economics board. His “fulminating fanatic” attacks against the liberals and the Communist. All just entirely nature doing its thing?