like in a minute hes gonna read the post above this one and get all excited and hyped up and start typing real fast and thinking to himself how once he just has to keep saying shit smears and chickenshit and eventually i will have to argue with him and face the truth that his dasien thing is the ultimate philosophy of everythingggggggg
like i am literally laughing over here thinking about how hes getting all hyped up now and just so pissed off and he’s old af and just slamming his fingers into the keys typing cHiCkENsHIt!@!!@@#@#@#!
Yeah, my reaction too.
But there’s the part captured in that clip above that really resonated with me. It ties in somehow with the reaction I have to those who seem deeply intertwined with 1] pop culture 2] mindless consumption and 3] the worship of fame and celebrity.
After all, if these “citizens” didn’t exist by the millions, I truly suspect that ILP would not be bursting at the seams with Kids, yak yak yak social media types and the fulminating fanatics who live a world that is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Only I can’t exclude myself from my own point of view here. I recognize my own “personal opinion” is no less rooted in dasein. Mine just being considerably more fractured and fragmented than others.
i think u should watch the turd video again and think about it for a while and write a lengthy post about it
Yeah, yeah, now I remember! She brought all of this up on another thread!!
Only my reaction to it then is pretty much the same as my reaction to it now: huh?!
Note to others:
This thing about “psyche”. How would you imagine that she imagines it is relevant to the distinction that I make with Mr. Reasonable in the OP on this thread? The distinction between knowledge communicated objectively by I in the either/or world and moral and political value judgments communicated subjectively/subjunctively by “I” in the is/ought world?
Psyche.
Let’s start with a dictionary definition:
a: SOUL, PERSONALITY
the nation’s consumer psyche
b: the totality of elements forming the mind (see MIND entry 1 sense 2)
specifically, in Freudian psychoanalytic theory : the id, ego, and superego including both conscious and unconscious components
Okay, let’s imagine a set of circumstances in which she criticizes and rejects Marxism from her frame of mind while another applauds and embraces it from his own conflicting frame of mind.
How would her understanding of “psyche” here be relevant to the objective/subjective distinction that I make above?
Should I / I should? I’m hardly over there, so why digress?
Minds and conversations evolve over the years, seeking different inputs to generate different outputs… so why can’t yours’, when it comes to interacting with others?
You read and post on a lot of diverse philosophical topics, and yet you want to drag everything back to the beginning of philosophy, for others. You rebuke responses with your own intangible ones, and never seek to reach any resolutions of truth or disagreement, but work on a cycle of rebuke and repeal.
Does a conceptualised thought have to be experienced, for it to ring true? as your real-world example requests, cannot always be fulfilled, due to that. Not every thought is actualised, and not every actualisation is necessarily just… for thinking types.
Well she’s asking you to research ‘psyche’ and ‘identity’ and then write a summary of what you found and your conclusions/thoughts about it. Not terribly difficult but it will take a bit of time.
What do you do?
You find and paste a dictionary definition and you post the usual questions.
Obviously, what she is asking is important to her. But it’s not important to you so you can’t be bothered.
If you did what she asked, then maybe she would talk to you again. A simple “I’ll do this for you if you do this for me” interaction.
Weird loop? No, I make the points that I do in the OP in regard to that which I construe to be an important distinction between what we can know objectively about water and what we can know objectively when those who embrace capitalism encounter those who embrace socialism. The knowledge we have accumulated regarding water would seem to be applicable to those on both sides. So where is the objective knowledge able to resolve the capitalism/socialism conflagration? How are your own personal opinions [like mine, like phoneutria’s, like phyllo’s] not rooted more subjectively in the manner in I explore human interactions at the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments and political economy in my signature threads?
No, I call people names here when, from my own subjective frame of mind, they configure into Stooges. Stooges being those here who, in my own estimation, seem more intent on calling me names or attacking me personally or making me the issue in an exchange. It’s not an exact science however. It’s more my own subjunctive reaction to exchanges. And no less rooted in dasein.
That’s why with some posts [like in the OP] you are Mr. Reasonable to me, while, in other posts, you are more in the way of Shit Smears.
Ironically enough that’s more your doing than mine.
Nope, didn’t happen, did it?
Now, you can earn my respect back and become Mr. Reasonable. We can discuss the points I raised about your points in the OP. Intelligently, civilly.
Your choice…given human autonomy of course.
Okay, let’s bring this down to earth.
The role of government in the lives of citizens.
There is the classic conservative/capitalist frame of mind: the smaller the better. Then the reality: crony capitalism.
There is the classic liberal/socialist frame of mind: the bigger the better. Then the projected reality: it all withers away under Communism.
Now minds do change over time about this distinction. Marx rooted this “scientifically” in his assessment of the organic, historical evolution of the “means of production”. Big governments are not even possible without the surplus labor around to occupy all the positions.
Now, in regard to our own individual reactions to government here at ILP, I suggest that is likely to be rooted in the arguments I make in my signature threads. We are all “thrown” – thrown “adventitiously” – at birth into a particular world. Utterly beyond our control. We are all indoctrinated for years to think this or that about socialism and capitalism. We all have different [sometimes very different] personal experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas that shape and mold us into those who favor one political economy over the other.
There does not appear to be either a philosophical or a scientific argument that can take this diversity into account and establish the most rational or the only rational manner in which to think about it.
Right?
The “beginning of philosophy”? Again, given what particular context? Over and again, I note that my main interest in philosophy [and science and religion] revolves around this: how ought one to live?
And, given that, subjectively, existentially, I am an atheist – “here and now” – in a No God world.
Again: you note these accusations about me. Okay, choose an issue and a context that revolves around a discussion that explores our respective views on identity, value judgments and political power. How existentially they become intertwined out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What can we agree is true objectively for both of us and what seems more rooted subjectively in my philosophical assumptions regarding “I” in the is/ought world. And in your philosophical assumptions regarding your own self.
Yes, but the “battles” that unfold between the liberals and the conservative here often do become actual behaviors chosen by flesh and blood men and women “out in the world”. Resulting in “the staggering consequences embedded in conflicting goods down through the ages.”
And I’m asking her to take her own “research” into them and to note how they are applicable given the distinction I make between one’s psyche and one’s sense of identity in the either/or world, and the manner in which I construe “I” in the is/ought world.
Given a particular set of circumstances in which liberals and conservatives have conflicting moral and political agendas.
Wouldn’t this make her point far, far more effable?
But, what do you do:
You turn back to me. I’m the problem here because I don’t think about it like she does.
How about this:
You and phoneutria begin a discussion regarding the distinction I make above about knowledge in the OP. Then in regard to both psyche and identity you “illustrate the text” and show us all what she is getting at here.
You are the problem.
You insult people and then want to have “civil exchange” with them.
You ask people to do things for you and you do nothing for them.
You take no responsibility for your behaviors.
“fuck off” is the logical response.
Okay, I’ve managed to piss you off again. Phyllo is gone and Larry is back. You’re in Stooge mode. In caustic “retort” mode.
There’s still this though:
I’m not pissed off at all.
I’m telling how you come across on this forum.
Sure, it’s my subjective opinion. But a lot of the other posters are saying the same or similar things about you.
If you listened to what people said about you, then you could change and you might have better interactions.
But it’s your decision as to what you want to do.
My mistake then. Though you sure “inflected” that way to my own trained perception.
No, you’re telling me how you think others think I come across. But all I can do is react to them from my own frame of mind.
Okay, but my “pitch” is that a lot of posters here are uncomfortable with the manner in which I suggest that, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, it’s reasonable that their own “I” should be fractured and fragmented too. After all, I still recall how disturbed I was when I began to successfully deconstruct my “self” in regard to my own objectivist moral and political values.
All I can do is to ask others to explain to the best of their ability why they do not construe their own moral and political value judgments as “I” do. And then as the exchange unfolds they can note specific instances of all the things they accuse me of.
But I can only listen to what they say from inside my head, not theirs. And, given that, I don’t find it at all unusual that communication often breaks down. Given that, in regard to the question, “how ought one to live?” communication breakdowns here are as much the rule as the exception. And not just between liberals and conservatives.
Well, it’s my decision given the extent to which I can understand my own motivations and intentions given the extent to which I understand myself as, among other things, the embodiment of this:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles
earn ur respect lol ur respect is worth literally nothing
He must spend hours conjuring up these posts. The sheer ingenuity of a mind this clever!
And who among us would dare to disrespect that, right?
Well, some of the fulminating fanatic Kids, perhaps.
Though of course with them, we do battle together!
If, with him, only one line at a time. 
stop being so needy
im legit starting to feel like im picking on a retarded person this is just weird