And you just continue “wriggling out”.
You still haven’t defined your “intellectual contraption” idea.
Why are you not “responding to the point I raised”?
I challenge someone – anyone – to explain why he should not be utterly embarrassed to allow himself to be reduced down to this.
Still “flagrantly wriggling out”.
I don’t think “others” are going to help you.
You know, giving him the benefit of the doubt. 
You’re still “fragrantly wriggling out”?
Someone please take this to the poop thread. =D>
That’s how I got onto this thread of yours.
And you’re still “flagrantly wriggling”.
Remember this “exchange” when you read his “fulminating fanatic” rants on the Society, Government, and Economics board.
And as much as James S. Saint would go to mind-boggling lengths to avoid bringing his own value judgments down to earth with me, I will say this for him: he never once tumbled down into the embarrassing depths that I have driven obsrvr524 to here.
The only hope he has is that Saint did share my own understanding of determinism and thus he was never able not to embarrass himself here as he has.
And you’re still “flagrantly wriggling out” of addressing my point.
K: actually, he has explained, a dozen times or so, what an “intellectual contraption”
and does so again, about a dozen posts or so above this one( on this page, page 3)
and I am sorry you are not ‘‘woke’’ enough to see it…
Kropotkin
i like it that “chickenshit” is italic, bold…aaaand blue. the triple whammy. a really nice touch.
Zookers - the ILP Commie club showed up - but I think not to defend iambiguous rather to take any opportunity to attack anyone - anyone - who dares to defend truth and/or Mr Trump.
If iambiguous thought he had defined the term - wouldn’t he have simply stated that rather than go through all of this diversion? And it seems, like iambiguous, you also don’t know what a definition is - so like so many other evidences - cannot identify one.
The one you pointed to implies that an “intellectual contraption” is a discussion about God and Heaven. Since I haven’t been discussing God and Heaven - I guess it doesn’t apply to me.
Okay, so how are we to understand this given Saint’s contention here:
“Determinism proposes that there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else. This is necessarily true because existence is the ability to have affect upon something else which means that all things must also be affected by something else. The end result is determinism.”
Just how far does Saint take “there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else”? No exceptions? Does it include his assessment of A God/The God? Does it include the reactions of those who disagree with him here? Does it include me typing these words and you reading them?
In other words, is there anything that we do, given his own assessment of determinism above, that those who embrace free will would, in fact, claim as their own contention?
I think it does.
I don’t know what you mean by “their own contention”.
Okay, let’s then take this assessment to that part of philosophy most intriguing to me: “how ought one to live”?
For example, you come in here all the time and get into what are often heated – even scathing – debates about many different subjects. Exchanges in which those like you have one moral and political agenda while those like Peter Kropotkin have quite another.
Are those debates also included in Saint’s assessment above? And how is his/your assessment of determinism here different from mine?
Mine being that for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully determine, mindless matter going back to the Big Band [some say] somehow managed through the evolution of biological life on earth to configure into mindful matter able to actually grapple with what that means.
But, for reasons I am certainly unable to fully explain, these at times fierce – even scathing – exchanges are only as they ever could have been. You night “argue” that Kropotkin is full of shit but given that there was never any possibility of you freely opting not to argue it, it basically comes down to the fact that being full of shit in and of itself from the perspective of the hard determinists is very different from being full of shit from the perspective of those who embrace free will. In other words, for the Libertarians the Commies really are full of shit because that can be freely determined rationally.
I mean that, given my understanding of what seems to be their understanding of human autonomy, volition, will, freedom etc., they would contend that Saint is challenging those who disagree with him in the manner in which they would as well. As though Saint is not stepping back and accepting that his arguments, like the arguments of those who disagree with him, are in fact merely at one with the only possible reality.
I don’t understand why any of that is in question. Determinism certainly proposes all of that.
And I don’t understand why you are saying that James “is not stepping back and accepting” that the effect of determinism is causing them to argue with him. Of course it is causing that. Why does it seem to you that James wasn’t accepting that? - Or me either?
What does believing in determinism have to do with disagreements? Are you thinking that if a person believes in determinism they will never argue with anyone?
I think the reason he refuses to do so is because he perceives no benefit in having a conversation with you. That’s the idea behind his dog metaphor, isn’t it? When faced with such a person, you can always ask “Is there anything I can do to make it more interesting for you?” if figuring it out on your own is too time-consuming. But instead, what I see you doing is taking the opportunity to shame your interlocutor. Some examples:
“Don’t you feel embarassed for doing what you’re doing? You should be!”
“Look what I reduced you to!”
“You’re just a kid, right?”
“You’re a fulminating fanatic.”
“You are being evasive and that’s because you’re losing faith in your religion! I understand you, I went through the same experience back in Vietnam.”
“This is quite reflective of your psychology. I call it the psychology of objectivism. I posted a 5,000,000 words long essay some 50 years ago on this very forum. Let me quote it for you.”
“What a dogmatic, doctrinaire, authoritarian mind!”
“You’re so stuck up in the clouds that you have no desire whatsoever to return to the earth!”
I am of the very strong opinion that if you want to have a fruitful conversation with anyone on any topic you must be strictly focused on the task of resolving the differences that exist between the two of you that and that pertain to that topic, which means you (or someone else) must make sure no distractions are permitted. “Focus on the argument, don’t focus on the person!” is a good rough guide. Personally, I don’t see you doing that. The very fact you’re psychoanalyzing other people is a testimony to that fact. How about you constantly asking people to prove to you they realized they were wrong at some point in the past and that they had to change their opinion? Instead of focusing on arguments, you focus on people being (supposedly) unwilling to change their mind (so-called “dogmatic objectivists”.)
And what about your habit of talking to your interloctur by turning away from them and towards some imaginary person supposedly reading your posts? E.g. “Note to others: Notice how he completely avoids responding to the example that I gave him?” That alone sends the message “I no longer want to talk to you.” Why should anyone continue having a conversation with you after such a message?
What I am trying to say is that I wholeheartedly believe that the reason you are disliked to the extent that you are (pretty much noone likes you) is mostly your own fault.
Fair enough. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about it.
From my frame of mind, Obsrvr524 is what I call a “fulminating fanatic” on the Society, Government, and Economics board. He often heaps scorn on those who do not share his own objectivist moral and political dogmas.
Now, sure, I can be a hardcore polemicist myself. I enjoy wielding words as swords with those who recognize the nature of polemics itself.
Yes, this is me in polemical mode. But in almost every instance [as with Sculptor on the determinism thread] I go there only because others have attacked me personally first.
But that’s okay. I can go either way: straight or crooked.
Anytime anyone here wants to put all that aside and engage in an intelligent and civil exchange with me, they can just say the word. Then we’ll see who pulls the plug on it first.
As for you, I rarely engage in discussions. Why? Because in regard to that which interest me the most philosophically – how ought one to live?, conflicting goods, moral and political value judgments, the nature of identity in the is/ought world – you almost never bring your own arguments down out of the clouds.
Indeed, why don’t we go there now.
Choose a context pertaining to your own moral philosophy, and we can explore the components of our respective narratives.
I can assure that it will not be me that first gets…nasty?
Magnus, please, oh pretty please, take Biggie up on his offer. I have my popcorn standing by.
Please yourself.
I’ve lost track of how many times I have suggested that you and magsj go down that path with me. Here for example:
So, how about it? An intelligent and civil exchange. And not as you noted above: