See, there he goes again. He has no capacity [as far as I know] to connect the dots – empirically, experientially, experimentally – between the creation of matter itself and the human brain. He just believes what he does “here and now” in his head. After all, it’s what he believes that makes it true.
Yes, we often define words. And, of course, we define them “as we do”. But noting this is not the same as demonstrating that we define them autonomously. Again, unless he is prepared to describe how free will does unfold neuron by neuron, dendrite by denrite, cell body by cell body, axon by axon.
Satyr:
No dear…not “as we do”…we use definitions to refer to what is independent from our subjective perceptions.
Down to earth, woman…you know.
Start with actions, not words in books.
The perceived limits how we can define concepts, Mary…and that’s what you dislike.You want them to remain “up in the sky” dear…because then you can define them in whatever way suits your Marxist agenda.
It’s your way, or the highway
Note to others:
Satyr likes to think of himself as a “serious philosopher”. Yet over and again he’ll post what I construe to be the equivalent of intellectual drivel above.
Yes, I know: If I do say so myself.
Same thing. The assumption is always that if you don’t share his own value judgments [about every single thing under the Sun, to cite just one example] then that confirms all the more his assessment of you.
No, I have not settled for fatalism. I am no less drawn and quartered regarding determinism. But what I note here about myself is moot. Same for others. If what we post doesn’t coincide with his own moral, political and philosophical prejudices…?
Forget about it!
Satyr:
The opposite in fact…lying woman.
Compete…give me a value judgement relative to YOUR objective…
My objective is truth.
What’s yours?
Mine is to note what I construe to be an important distinction between truth in the either/or world and truth in the is/ought world. Given aNo God universe. And, no, not up in the philosophical clouds either.
Satyr:
ALL VALUE JUDGEMENTS refer to an OBJECTIVE, dear.
Even your abortion evaluations.
Okay, let’s explore his own philosophical/moral/political assumptions about abortion. Mine are encompassed in the OPs here:
How are his own assumptions different?
Satyr:
Different objective create different value judgements…and none of them are equal.
What’s the determining factor, which no subjective judgement can evade?
Nature.
For you the objective is inclusivity, equity, peace on earth…for the conservative it is the welfare of society, dominance etc.
Different objectives create these disagreements, woman.
Nature. Yet he challenges anyone who is foolish enough to suggest his own assessment of nature is not correct. And going all the way back to the Big bang, no doubt. And my objective is to explore the possibility that “inclusivity, equity [and] peace on earth” are within reach of either the philosophical community or the scientific community. Here and now however I remain fractured and fragmented, drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently.
“He wishes to see a world where races separate into communities of their own kind. How would he go about accomplishing this in terms of specific policies? Let him come down out of the philosophical clouds here and provide us with his own assessment of the best of all possible worlds…racially, ethnically, sexually and in regard to things like gender roles and Jews.
Or the part where he reacts to what many construe to be Trump’s racist policies. What’s he doing right and what more needs to be done?
Satyr:
I don’t give a shit about your America and Trump, woman.
I gave you an answer and you didn’t like it…
Tell me what answer you want…
Concentration camps and gas chambers?
Is that the “right” answer, dear…so I do not “wiggle wiggle”?
How about torture chambers and furnaces…that’ll solve the problem.
Satisfied, Mary?
Is that the answer you wanted me to give?
Given the wide gap between how he and I construe “right answers” here regarding race, and how race relations have unfolded over the centuries, I am curious as to how far he would take his “separating the races” mentality. As of now, for example, can he assure people of color [black, brown and red in particular] that he would not pursue “concentration camps and gas chambers” as, historically, those racists like Hitler championed?
And would his own separation policies be voluntary? And what might be at stake for those who did challenge these polices?
Note to others:
Given that I don’t read many of his posts here [and there], please link me to anything he has posted which does connect the dots between being a racist and specific policies he would enact once in power.
Satyr:
I told you what I would do if I were lord god of the cosmos, mutiple times…here it is again, pathetic female…
Real diversity, not your fake American kind…
Autonomy.
Let every ethnicity live in accordance with their values, in their own land.
If they criminalize abortions, then that’s their provocative…not your way, your postmodern liberal American way.
Of course, any number of black folks in America are here only because any number of white folks took them away from their own land. Made them slaves in our land. Then the part where the white race practiced “manifest destiny” here and all but wiped out American indians. The red race.
And [as always] back to the part whereby, even if the white race did separate themselves and formed their own community in a Satyr nation, they would still be expected to cohere entirely to his own racial dogma. Not to mention everything pertaining to gender roles and Jews and human sexuality.
Satyr:
The only kind of diversity you dumb Americans udnerstand is fashion, menu options, brands, music genres…that’s not diversity, dear.
You want every city in the world to have a McDonald’s and a Walmart…I don’t.
I want TRUE diversity.
I want Tokyo to be something completely different from LA…and Karachi to be nothing like Detroit.
Ethnic, cultural diversity…each living in accordance to their own values, not your pseudo-Democratic, American liberal values…
Back to this then:
Over and again, he will post things like this. You tell me what it has to do with my point above. The suggestion that, as with Ayn Rand, he champions the individual over the collective, but all of the individuals in his clique/claque are required to think exactly like he does at KT…or else they are banned from the discussions themselves.
Satyr:
Idiotic woman…I am not an individualist.
I know it’s hard for you to understand…after years of reading my posts, you still know nothing about my views.You want me to be a defender of Capitalism, and American individualism, like Rand, because that’s the only thing you udnerstand…or a Nazi, with a ‘final solution’…you udnerstand nothing else.
What I still don’t understand is how his own racialist/racist mentality would actually unfold existentially if he did walk his talk politically.
Given a particular moral conflagration, how would he “for all practical purposes” make a distinction between the individual and the collective? between I and we and all that are deemed to be Other? between “one of us”, and “one of them”?
Satyr:
Then she returns to her spiel, as if I’ve posted nothing.
“I was born a daughter of a middle class family…blah blah blah”…the same mantra for years..
Right, like he hasn’t spewed his own philosophical, moral and political prejudices for years. Here, of course, though especially there.
Again, given his reaction to the arguments I raised in the OP above regarding abortion, how are his value judgments derived differently? Instead, in my view, the main difference between us is that I acknowledge just how profoundly problematic my own conclusions are here, while he is ever and always huffing and puffing whenever encountering challenges to his beliefs.
Just out of curiosity, will he acknowledge that in regard to his own moral and political convictions, he has been wrong in the past? Will he go there? Because once you admit that you were wrong about an important frame of mind in the past, you are acknowledging that you may be wrong about other important things here and now as well.
I merely note how I came to understand this more clearly [existentially] in regard to my own evolving value judgments.
Satyr:
That’s why she doesn’t want her will to be free…because her own is trapped in a loop…a hole…and she is terrified of getting out.
Her understanding of Dasein is “thrown into the world”, ‘world’ meaning ‘society.’
World = society…and man is a Tabula Rasa.
Man is whatever culture made him…
This is how dumb this woman is.
This is so far removed from how I would describe myself, I won’t waste my time “correcting” him. That would be like “correcting” Immanuel Can over at the PN forum. Meet Mr. Wiggle there in regard to the Christian God. And meet Mr. Wiggle here in regard to dasein.
Okay, okay: if I do say so myself.
Let him choose a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to him. We can then exchange moral philosophies. That way as I go about posting there, he can note more specially all the things he accuses me of.
Satyr:
I already have woman.
Let’s stay with abortion.What is your objective when you want to give women the ability to abort the fetus when they made a mistake or changed their mind?
What will be the impact on society?
How will it affect demographics and a society’s ability to maintain itself and to compete with other societies?
What kind of psychology will it cultivate among women, and men, knowing that they can take a pill or visit a clinic to abort the fetus any time they want?
More to the point [mine] are those dogmatists all up and down the moral spectrum who will insist their own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices are anything but that. Whether in regard to God or Ideology or Deontology or Biological Imperatives, only their own conclusions are likely to be confirmed once we have finally pinned down how “the human condition” fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. In other words, I suspect, long after he and I are dead and gone.
[b]It’s the fact that neither philosophers nor scientists have come together to provide us with a definitive assessment of race that speaks volumes.
Satyr:
I would be worried if they did, Mary.
No, in my view, he would only be worried – not to mention entirely outraged – if the consensus rejected his own “my way or the highway” dogma here and chose another One True Path instead. Whereas if they rejected mine it wouldn’t surprise me at all. I often reject it myself from time to time. And even the parts I’m most linked to here.
Actually, in my opinion, none of us here are able to explain why [ultimately] anything exists at all, let alone how, over billions of years, it evolved into us.
Satyr:
Wrong!
Woman…that life exists is obvious.
We don’t need to know how it started to know it exists.
Right, what could an understanding of existence itself possibly have to do with us today? Nothing? A little? A lot? Everything?
Satyr:
That morality exists, is obvious, if we start with the moral act, not words in books, or chiseled on stone tablets.
We witness moral acts: acts of compassion, of love, of altruism, in many species…not only our own.
And even though any number of these folks…
…will insist that only their own assessment of how moral convictions are intertwined in genes and memes count. This, however, is what makes them morons. And [trust me] makes him a flat-out moron to some of them as well.
Satyr:
That we ‘will’ (choose, act intentionally) is obvious. We experience it daily.
That you CHOOSE to define these concepts abstractly,… rather, that you choose a definition, because you are too dumb to define anything on your own, that keep these concepts up on the “skyhooks,” is your Choice, based on YOUR Marxist objectives.
Simply ridiculous. And I suspect a growing part of him recognizes just how ridiculous others might construe it to be. But he’s been stuck now for years defending his own rendition of the “psychology of objectivism” above. Thus, it’s not what he believes so much as the fierce conviction that what he believes is not just the best of all possible worlds, but the only truly rational account there can ever be of it.
To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know “in their head” about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back to…to what? to where? to when? to how? to why?
Satyr:
And that’s what philosophy is about.
Determining which theory is more probable and which is not.It’s called the scientific method…empiricism, woman.
Never heard of it?
It deals in theories, not certainties.
This does not mean every theory is equally probable…
Where even to begin [again]…!
Notice how his focus is on determining which theory regarding things like race is more correct. Whereas my focus is more on the extent to which conflicting theories about it are brought down to Earth, confronting actual ongoing social, political and economic interactions that revolve around race.
As for the scientific method dealing in theories rather than certainties, sure, the further out on the limb that we go [ i.e. the world of the staggering large and the staggering small], the more uncertainty is sustained. On the other hand, look around you at all of the astounding engineering feats and all of the extraordinary technologies science has brought into existence.
Where is the philosophical equivalent of this in regard to value judgments in conflict?
Again…
To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know “in their head” about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back to…to what? to where? to when? to how? to why?
Well, it’s just…just…just there.
Come on, why on Earth do you suppose that millions and millions of men and women around the globe still fall back on God and religion to explain us? Got a soul? Okay, then thank the Lord.
Heidegger…wasn’t he a Nazi?
As for it being crap, I don’t deny that it certainly might be completely wrong. It’s just my “best guess” given all the variables in my life that predisposed me existentially to believe some things and not others. Same with him and everyone else here. Unless, of course, I’m wrong.[/quote]
Satyr:
|20x20
There’s the Nazi thing, as predicted.
Yes…and so he’s wrong, right?Now you can take his cocnept, Dasein, and define it in whatever way you like…because he’s a Nazi…and…the Holocaust.
|20x20Come on, what I’ve asked of him in regard to race is to note the parts that, in his view, Hitler and the Nazis got right, and the parts they got wrong. And many I suspect would be considerably less inclined to call him a Nazi if he assured them that he has nothing in mind in regard to “final solutions”.
Yes, I have managed to think myself into believing what I do “here and now” regarding “I” in the is/ought world. No God and it just makes sense that morally and politically we exchange ever conflicting existential assessments rooted historically and culturally and [in terms of our own unique personal experiences] experientially in dasein.
Satyr:
More of her gibberish…
After years of this crap, it’s becoming tiresome to wade through it.People stopped talking to her…as did I.
But now…I want to trigger her…and receive the predictable results.
As always, I am more than willing to encourage others here to make up their own minds regarding this exchange. Taking into account, of course, the “politics” involved.
But to argue that I “like” how my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy seems reasonable in a No God universe and that death equals oblivion…? That speaks far, far more about him than it does me.
Satyr:
You don’t even know what my positions are.
You are debating these mysterious Nazi Objectivists…and if the other doesn’t play along, he’s wiggling…
This woman thinks I’m an individualist, as her American mind understands it…this is how pathetic she is.
Hell, I’m the first to admit that my assumptions here in regard to conflicting value judgments are no more than what I construe to be my own philosophical, political and moral prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.
All that’s then left [in my view] is this part:
Well, if he is willing to compare and contrast moral philosophies with me in regard to particular sets of circumstances, we can explore the existential dynamic between words and worlds. Between “this is what I believe is true” and "this is what I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as true.
Satyr:
[b] Your brainwashing is the issue, Mary.
On the other hand, how many men and women does he know who, as children, were not brainwashed? He was brainwashed himself as a child, of course. Also, like all the rest of us, he is a product of a particular historical and cultural context whereby he accumulated any number of uniquely personal experiences that the rest of us may well have had no experience regarding whatsoever.
Satyr:
Mary…just admit it…you are a communist.
Say it, openly and proudly.
Okay, back to it all being a “condition” then? Fine, that works for me.
Satyr:
So, you are a Communist who wants to change the world, right?
All those years projecting this upon others was a lie.
For whatever reason, he seems compelled to post preposterous things like this. What, is he being provocative for its own sake?
And in regard to this…
And there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically and thus up to a point out of sync. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and deconstruction and semiotics and abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became a moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented “I” in the is/ought world.
…I note how my own value judgments have shifted over the years. I didn’t think of them as “lies” however. Instead they reflected a genuine commitment to them “at the time”. Lies were what all those who refused to think exactly as I did “at the time” were spouting. And even now with my focus on the existential implications of moral nihilism, I note how I am unable to demonstrate this empirically, experientially or experimentally. In fact, my main aim is to explore this with the moral objectivists. I’m hoping to bump into someone able to provide me with arguments that enable me to yank myself up out of the hole I’m in in regard to meaning and morality.
Satyr:
You are the one who wants to change the world.
No, I’m the one who “here and now” is intent on examining not what others believe about the world – about conflicting goods, about race – but the extent to which they are able to demonstrate why their own assessments reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to accept in turn.
And then the extent to which they recognize the role that dasein plays here.