Iamb, I know its hard, but try to please stop trolling and add some substance.
Such as explaining why you are so fanatic in your belief R is not a philosopher.
Stick to the topic.
I have explicitly given the premise of mr Rs philosophy as I see it in rhe first posts. You havent even addressed it.
Shed your objectivistic light on it or take to another thread.
Okay, this is where we left it above…
Suppose we lived in a world where all of us could embody this enjoyment and there was never any chance that it would come into conflict with the enjoyment of others.
In la la land, for example.
Come on, is “serious philosophy” more intent on examining the particular enjoyment that particular people are able to feel or in perusing the consequences of living in a world where what brings one person pleasure brings another person pain?
What path seems more intellectually challenging to you?
And how do you react to others when that which brings you enjoyment is attacked by them? When they insist that you ought to enjoy what they do instead? How are you not entangled in my dilemma?
Please note a particular context [conflict] in which all of this played out in your head.
Seriously: Is it even possible to be more abstract than this? Can observations of this sort be further removed from actual existential contexts in which “good” and “enjoyable” come to, say, blows?
That’s not my point. I would never argue that Hitler’s narrative/agenda wasn’t relevant to, say, among others, Jews. I’m considerably more curious instead about exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to establish that his narrative/agenda is either necessarily moral or immoral. My argument is that, in a world without God, this does not seem possible to establish. But: that [psychologically] most mere mortals are not able to abide that. So they invent Gods and deontological political/philosophical contraptions in order to be thought of as “one of us”. The good people.
Note to others:
How on earth can this be thought of as a substantive/substantial response to the point I raised? What wisdom is he imparting here that I am just not able to fathom?
Instead [in my view] we get “analysis” like this:
Is this true? Is this false? Well, pertaining to what? And what happens when we look out at the world around us and conclude that any number of things are not “fertile and beautiful”?
Really, there are actually times when I am thinking here that maybe you are just pulling my leg. This whole VO spiel is just an exercise in irony. The more you embrace the more you mock it.
But that’s just me. I’m trying to understand how an intelligent man can talk himself into thinking like this. In other words, as, no doubt, you think of me.
Okay, you question folks and they give you reasons why as individuals they loved and trusted him.
My point would then be this:
1] the reasons they give are rooted existentially in the lives that they lived more so than in the capacity of philosophers to establish the most reasonable point of view
2] the reasons that others did not love and trust him are in turn rooted here — and then revolve around conflicting goods regarding arguments pertaining to why one ought or ought not to love and trust him
3] that, aside from whatever particular reasons particular people give, what counts “out in the world” is the extent to which one side or the other is able to enforce their own personal narrative/agenda
But my point is that one “moves beyond good and evil” only in taking a particular political leap to a particular subjective opinion. And that all of us get “stuck” on “shoulds” and “morals” because existentially we come to conflicting assessments regarding that which is seen to be “enjoyable” or “good”.
Right? Isn’t that what human interaction has always basically revolved around?
In other words, if we do live in a world where, “morality isnt logical nor is logic moral” how are we to resolve conflicts other than through political agendas that revolve around 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] democracy and the rule of law.
Rooted always in political economy.
All of that is fine and dandy until actual flesh and blood men and women walk out the front door and then, in acting that out socially, politically and economically with others, conflicts occur.
Then they may well be forced to probe the extent to which they have come to know/overcome/master their “self” is predicated largely on the contours of the particular historical and cultural and experiential context in which “I” took root and evolved.
That, in other words, “I” here is largely an existential fabrication/contraption subject ever to the vicissitudes of contingency, chance and change.
Well, if only from the cradle to the grave.
The point is that Fixed has been mind raped (by KTS folk) and is now seeking comfort in Mr. R (whom he sees as a powerful man who is opposed to KTS.)
Mr. R, on the other hand, is simply a zombie who does not even know he’s on a philosophy forum.
Note to others:
Is this reasonable?
Now, I may not have addressed it to Fixed Cross’s satisfaction, true, but one never does until they agree with Fixed Cross’s premise.
That in my view is what makes him an objectivist.
Me? Well, not only would I not expect others to share my own perspective here, I am always rather amazed when I come upon someone who seems even to understand it.
But then given the vast and varied individual trajectories that we traverse from the cradle to the grave, this would make a lot of sense, right?
In fact, my aim is always to explore the extent to which philosophers are able to acknowledge this and then propound on those things that seem to transcend dasein. Things that are true for all of us: math, science, the empirical world, the logical rules of language.
Please all remain on-topic and refrain from ad-homming etc. or I may have to lock this thread until OH can deal with it.
We have already established that the person who talks the most about standards – Fixed – has no standards.
He discriminates based on simple “if you flatter me you are good, if you don’t you are bad”.
He talks about others having no taste yet he enjoys the taste of Mr. R’s ass.
Iambig wrote
Is there a place safe from debate? Run to science you are met with theories upon theories stacked like a house of cards. So just observe the world, our home, with empirical eyes, those that do deceive us as all the five senses do and you will find the metaphysical presence has remained since man began. Can we imagine the impossible and make it a reality? Crap, my train of thought has left the building. To be continued…
MagsJ - Please dont give Magnus the pleasure of you locking this thread - he is always only in my threads to compromise them. It would be irrational to lock this thread rather than ban him.
If you check back his messages to me in public, you will see at least hundred of them, they are all sexually charged ad hominems. You need to wear a raincoat even to be in this guys vicinity.
Others:
Look how impolite this dude is.
Or fearful.
He cant look me in the eyes, address me directly.
No, it is rather important that you address it.
You have never addressed a premise of mine. You dont know what to address means.
And yet you avoid logic like the plague - you have never addressed a logical premise.
FACT.
Objective facts:
Iambiguous always avoids his challenges
Reasonable rarely avoids his challenges.
Fine, fine…
Now let’s get back to our exchange above…
Note to Mr Reasonable:
Please feel free to contribute.
Suppose we lived in a world where all of us could embody this enjoyment and there was never any chance that it would come into conflict with the enjoyment of others.
In la la land, for example.
Come on, is “serious philosophy” more intent on examining the particular enjoyment that particular people are able to feel or in perusing the consequences of living in a world where what brings one person pleasure brings another person pain?
What path seems more intellectually challenging to you?
And how do you react to others when that which brings you enjoyment is attacked by them? When they insist that you ought to enjoy what they do instead? How are you not entangled in my dilemma?
Please note a particular context [conflict] in which all of this played out in your head.
Seriously: Is it even possible to be more abstract than this? Can observations of this sort be further removed from actual existential contexts in which “good” and “enjoyable” come to, say, blows?
That’s not my point. I would never argue that Hitler’s narrative/agenda wasn’t relevant to, say, among others, Jews. I’m considerably more curious instead about exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to establish that his narrative/agenda is either necessarily moral or immoral. My argument is that, in a world without God, this does not seem possible to establish. But: that [psychologically] most mere mortals are not able to abide that. So they invent Gods and deontological political/philosophical contraptions in order to be thought of as “one of us”. The good people.
Note to others:
How on earth can this be thought of as a substantive/substantial response to the point I raised? What wisdom is he imparting here that I am just not able to fathom?
Instead [in my view] we get “analysis” like this:
Is this true? Is this false? Well, pertaining to what? And what happens when we look out at the world around us and conclude that any number of things are not “fertile and beautiful”?
Really, there are actually times when I am thinking here that maybe you are just pulling my leg. This whole VO spiel is just an exercise in irony. The more you embrace the more you mock it.
But that’s just me. I’m trying to understand how an intelligent man can talk himself into thinking like this. In other words, as, no doubt, you think of me.
Okay, you question folks and they give you reasons why as individuals they loved and trusted him.
My point would then be this:
1] the reasons they give are rooted existentially in the lives that they lived more so than in the capacity of philosophers to establish the most reasonable point of view
2] the reasons that others did not love and trust him are in turn rooted here — and then revolve around conflicting goods regarding arguments pertaining to why one ought or ought not to love and trust him
3] that, aside from whatever particular reasons particular people give, what counts “out in the world” is the extent to which one side or the other is able to enforce their own personal narrative/agenda
But my point is that one “moves beyond good and evil” only in taking a particular political leap to a particular subjective opinion. And that all of us get “stuck” on “shoulds” and “morals” because existentially we come to conflicting assessments regarding that which is seen to be “enjoyable” or “good”.
Right? Isn’t that what human interaction has always basically revolved around?
In other words, if we do live in a world where, “morality isnt logical nor is logic moral” how are we to resolve conflicts other than through political agendas that revolve around 1] might makes right 2] right makes might or 3] democracy and the rule of law.
Rooted always in political economy.
All of that is fine and dandy until actual flesh and blood men and women walk out the front door and then, in acting that out socially, politically and economically with others, conflicts occur.
Then they may well be forced to probe the extent to which they have come to know/overcome/master their “self” is predicated largely on the contours of the particular historical and cultural and experiential context in which “I” took root and evolved.
That, in other words, “I” here is largely an existential fabrication/contraption subject ever to the vicissitudes of contingency, chance and change.
Well, if only from the cradle to the grave.
I am surprised by the fact that you did not get banned after spamming this forum with your “cancer” and “unternazi” non-sense.
But then, your posts and threads are generally lacking in philosophical content. There is little difference in how you think when you’re in your temper tantrum mode and when you’re supposedly sober.
If your sober posts do not get you banned, why should you get banned for your temper tantrums?
There is no philosophy in you.
Your brain is made out of flowers.
You are a dreamer who does not want to be rudely awaken.
How stupid do you have to be to make a claim that a zombie such as Mr. R who is posting on a philosophy forum merely because he’s too lazy to close the tab he has opened 10 years ago is actually a philosopher merely because he has a goal he is striving to accomplish?
How shallow do you have to be to think that this is something noteworthy?
How do you dare to speak of standards, valuation, selection and discrimination when your very idea of what it means to be a philosopher is so broad to even include animals and zombies?
How can anyone take you seriously when you do not even have the decency to admit that you made a fool out of yourself by stretching the definition of the concept of philosopher to include animals and zombies?
Get out of here, you prick. This is not a place for you.
Magnus, when you grow up and get out into the world on your own, you’ll understand.
Unless we’re knowd wrong, then you’re right.
Well, at least Magnus is not looking at life and the world through rose-colored glasses.
In light of what is going on in this world, I personally think (and also objectively so) that NOT to experience frustration would be akin to walking around with blinders on and denying reality.
Also, I highly doubt that Magnus Anderson is gay. I would say for sure that he wasn’t but then that wouldn’t be coming from the scientific method. lol
Why do we use any (unproven) insult necessary to put someone down and to gain an advantage? At the very least, let’s be intelligent enough to speak to what we can, in actuality, observe and know, and not just what makes us feel better.
…any further personal-attacks by anyone (either here, or in another thread) will warrant a warning.
Males huh, Arc? 
Arc, the reason people say M is gay is that he has structurally and for years been writing about virtually nothing besides how other people in whose threads he comes are gay. 90 percent of his posts that I come across on path are of this nature. Maybe he does other stuff elsewhere, but wherever I am around he gets kinky and sexual to men. That is not an insult, I have gay friends and also bi friends.
I agree with your interpretation of frustration and the present,
It is just quite silly to constantly violate those people that are working hard at solutions. There is absolutely an erotic affectivity to that, which does not mean that he is homosexual as such. Just that a lot of sexual feelings are finding paths into his addresses to men.
Arc -
It is one thing to be frustrated, but quite another to do something constructive with that - which is the only way it can be justified in the way you mention. Just suffering isn’t justified; It just is and it wants to be overcome. You can not attribute justification to something that wants to perish. Suffering wants to end. Peoples frustration wants to end - and mr Reasonable has found ways of ending frustration,very clearly. He has methods I would not use and his political views are alien to mine, but he is consistent with what he wants, does, gets, and communicates. Plus, all of whose things are non violent, and wherever he attacks someone it is as a response to being attacked. I consider the man spiritually advanced. He does not open attacks to people and yet he is a form of power, and the power of sex, pleasure and good life - those are good things.
He is not obligated to suffer of a world that other people have fucked up, but that he has had the sense to build himself a good place inside of. In fact we should hail him as a great example.
Even James S Saint agrees that Reasonable is an “asset” as he said long ago.