You’re the one talking about reality. Therefore, you are talking about what is.
It seems that you can’t keep ‘is’ and ‘ought’ consistently separated.
Frankly, it’s hard to figure out what you and Iambig are arguing about since you both seem to think that morality is purely subjective. You agree more than you disagree.
Oh, I remember now, Iambig doesn’t what you forcing your choices on him. Who can blame him?
I never denied that I talk about what is. When did I confuse the is and oughts?
What exactly is it you don’t understand? I explained it in the most basic way I can.
What is, descriptions (Mary had an abortion), are objective. They can be right and wrong.
What ought to be, prescriptions, morals (Mary ought to have an abortion/Mary ought not to have an abortion) , are subjective, yes. The category of right/wrong doesn’t apply there.
No wait, that was the most basic way I can explain it.
You posted a tabbed list of what ‘is’ which you called insane. If you are not saying that those things ‘ought’ not to be as they are, then I don’t know what the fuck you are saying.
If your ‘oughts’ are just your opinions which you want to force on everyone, then fine. Everyone can make up his own mind. Stop calling people who disagree retards, please.
If your ‘oughts’ reflect reality which you want to force on everyone, then you are confused.
Moving on from ‘oughts’ to your descriptions of reality … You seem to think that you have an infallible knowledge and understanding of reality.
That kind of extreme arrogance is common on this forum and at KTS.
That’s one of Iambig’s beefs, isn’t it?
Let’s bring this down to earth.
It’s not a question of whether the KT ilk here ought to be banned for embedding their points of view in ad-homs, inflammatory language, huffing and puffing, personal attacks etc., but whether the rules against such declamatory displays here prevent them from spreading their own “right makes might” dogma regarding the one and only rational manner in which to exchange “serious philosophy”.
Since how they construe an exchange of serious philosophy is embedded in Satyr’s own rendition of this…
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
…it is only a question of differentiating “one of us” [those who grasp this] from “one of them” [those who don’t].
The “retards”.
It’s not that others “ought” to think like they do. On the other hand, if they don’t think like they do, they are not in sync with the most [or the only] rational manner in which to understand our “natural behaviors” out in the world around us.
The part they refuse to consider however is [in my own point of view] the extent to which their own political narrative here is but one more psychological rendition of this:
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective 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; 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 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 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 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 it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
phyllo, my “oughts” are merely my preferences which yes, are subjective. This doesn’t mean there is no such thing as a “retard” because whether somebody is or is not a retard is a matter of fact. Whether one “ought” to be a retard or not, is not a matter of fact. The natural objective consequences of being a retard, as I spoke about them in my Foundation for Objectivism thread, are undeniable, but you can even say you like them. It won’t save you from the consequences but technically, as frustrating as it may be to admit, there is no objective way to prove any claim of “ought”.
I don’t see why I wouldn’t want to impose my “oughts” on others and reality, though. It’s not like there is an objective “ought not” claim telling me I oughtn’t do it.
Holy shit, oughtn’t is actually a valid grammar form according to auto-correct.
Nope, not infallible. I had been proven wrong in the past.
I don’t claim my knowledge and understanding is infallible, I simply refuse to pretend somebody else’s knowledge and understanding are equally as valid or even more valid than mine, when according to my observations they’re garbage.
iambiguous can be extremely arrogant when it comes to some claims of “is” about reality, like “Mary had an abortion”, and then on the other hand he can completely deny some other true “is” claims simply because they go counter to the leftist worldview he’s been indoctrinated with, like truths about race and sex or evolution when it comes to humans.
Can you give quotes to what you’re talking about? You’re not making any sense.
Mary either does or does not have an abortion. There is nothing arrogant about pointing out that she did in fact have one if one is able to in fact demonstrate this.
But what if someone argues that Mary’s abortion is in fact immoral because it is not in sync with that which Satyr insists is the only rational manner in which to construe a “natural behavior” here.
And, because he says so, a leftist narrative/agenda here is arrogant. Whereas Satyr’s own narrative/agenda [being wholly in sync with nature] is merely a declarative statement of the wholly genetic facts.
How does AutSider demonstrate this?
He assembles an assortment of assumptions which he insists that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace. Why? Because these are the assumptions that Satyr has accumulated. Why? Because Satyr is in sync with the ideal. Why? Because only he knows the one true objective nature of the world around us.
Well, at least when the discussion shifts to a “general description” of human interaction.
In other words, Satyr’s own assumptions are not just a collection of political prejudices at all.
Go ahead, ask him.
It’s the same old objectivist bullshit. Others are indoctrinated if they don’t think like “one of us”.
And never in a million years is it possible that all of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of completely conflicting and contradictory objectivist claques out there aren’t instead merely ensnare psychologically in this:
[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective 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; 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 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 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 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 it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/i][/b]
Oh yeah, I forgot, this is the non-philosophical chat forum. 