you are an old nutjob bro take your meds what does SHITTHYSELF or satyr have to do with anything right now???I take shits bigger than that whole forum, focus on yourself and your own shithouse.
Pick one:
1] [size=50]this is really clever[/size]
2] [size=50]this is really insightful[/size]
3] [size=50]this is really both[/size]
4] NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Extra credit:
What does any of this have to do with morality?
Seems rather childish to me. In fact, can you even imagine SATIRE allowing it at his own truly august venue KT?
On the other hand, there, in regard to morality and everything else, both polishyouth [I suspect] and I are met with this:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
So, whatever we think of each other here [not much], at least we’re not chickenshits.
you are the same kind of chicken shit as the dickheads over there are because…you dont take people you disagree with seriously and you dont seriously allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong…and hence you simply dismiss these people and never even bother to take up a serious argument with them…just like the kook SATIRE and his puff side kick KVASIR.
anybody can pose as a genius if he simply runs away from real exchange and avoids having to show his true quality of mind and knowledge, any autistic dumbass can write pages of bizarre and seemingly deep and eloquent idiocies that sound and seem very intelligent and perceptive but it is when somebody comes and pushes a knife into your bullshit that is a deciding factor which either shows your real quality or reveals you as a pretentious and moronic charlatan with a giant chip on your shoulder or, alternatively, an insane kook spouting nonsense about philosophers you did not even bother to familiarise yourself in the most basic way and instead talking about them as some kind of mystery(the case with you)…somebody like the Bolshevik traitor from Canada simply runs away from every single intelligent person he comes across, bullies the fuck out of morons he comes across and then never stops bragging about them, to remind his homosexual buddies about his victories over them…
Look, I’ve given you ample opportunity to be clever, insightful or both. So far, nothing even close.
And lines need be drawn.
Nail it on the next post or I’ll be force to move on.
Nature to iambiguous:
You got that right.
very simple and something you have ran from few times already: define, in your own words and without using being and dasein as words, what is dasein, in 5-20 sentences. my internet enemies tried to frame me as insane and angry lunatic, but this is a bullshit tactic that has no grounding in reality because there is no evidence on the internet of me being hostile to anybody who was not being a cunt to me…not one…the goonies want to pick fights with me and then cry that i do something about and, like typical Yank weaklings, turn the cat by its tail and play the victim and pathologize their opponent instead of simply doing their best to defeat him…
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
There you go. What you ought to do when there are little or no consequences for others and what you ought to do when the consequences for others is considerably more significant. In the first context morality would seem moot. Playing tennis poorly or playing tennis well isn’t likely to be seen as, say, a matter of life or death.
But in acting like a beast it can be. In the is/ought world there are any number of situations in which beastly behavior will be turned into a moral issue.
Now, as a moral nihilist, do I recognize this distinction? Sure. But I have thought myself into believing that in a No God world there is no necessary distinction. Some choose to be beasts [rooted in dasein] and there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to encompass the distinction necessarily. It just then depends on whether any particular moral nihilist comes existentially to embody the behaviors of, say, a sociopath.
Yes, and this “standard of goodness” changes over time historically, across the globe culturally, and, depending on the life any particular one of us as individual lives, can vary considerably for each of us.
That’s why to me it would be interesting to note Wittgenstein’s reactions to my own arguments regarding identity, value judgments and political economy. How wanting would he find them? Could he grasp and then empathize with the idea of being “fractured and fragmented” if the “good” is wanting enough.
Thus: Any Wittgensteinians here who what take it there?
There being here:
Basically my point. The moral objectivist playing Kant. Only twisting it around such that everything that he or she feels is categorically and imperatively moral others are obligated to feel the same. In other words, instead of God being the font here the moral objectivist him or herself becomes the God.
reading this shit makes me think you are not much dumber than SATIRE, maybe when you were his age, you were actually sharper??? you denying morality is your own morality moron…morality is simply ones regulation of ones actions when they affect others and his/her belief in regards as what he should and should not do in this context. where do you get a god from? Christian morality is as valid as with or without God, if people accept it and Kants philosophical elaborations of what morality(or rather ethics or moral law) is and isn’t aren’t any less valid if you assume God exists or not…
Let’s settle this:
Pick one…
1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!
Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.
Or, how about a moral/religious issue.
It’s Judgment Day.
You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.
A new thread perhaps?
i am not gonna lower myself to a level of getting into petty fights with you you old fart, who the fuck do you think you are to limit the narrative as you like???the same old fart megalomania as the cunt SATIRE…you know the direction in which truth lies, others dont…
Let’s settle this:
Pick one…
1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!
Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.
Or, how about a moral/religious issue.
It’s Judgment Day.
You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.
Then it’s turtles all the way down.
lol you are deranged
Let’s settle this:
Pick one…
1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!
Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.
Or, how about a moral/religious issue.
It’s Judgment Day.
You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.
Then [for all I know] it’s pinheads all the way down!!!
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
In other words, the “psychology of objectivism”. Ethical judgments must be absolute. Any suggestions that there might be variables “out there” that introduce even the slightest hint of ambiguity or uncertainty and the whole “world of words” intellectual contraption can come tumbling, crumbling down.
Goodness for it’s own sake. Not what is good for you or me or us or them. That’s morality for those mere mortals inside the cave. Instead, it must be a morality attached to God or defined into existence, say, Platonically.
The sort of morality you can think up by way of defining it into existence.
Again, that’s why the “absolute” here must be – can only be – an intellectual contraption. That’s the beauty of it. You think it up “in your head” and that need be as far as it goes.
So, when confronted with an actual existential context – oh, I don’t know, Mary agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy? – it’s not the theory that is brought down out of the intellectual clouds to Mary but Mary’s agony itself yanked up into the didactic stratosphere of “theory”. Indeed, Mary and her actual situation need not even be brought up at all.
We can go here instead:
“Six principal ethical philosophies can and should be used to analyze a situation. They are the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, hedonism, the golden mean, the golden rule, and the veil of ignorance. These are the principle theories that have survived from 2500 years of Western moral philosophy.”
Mary who?
Of course that is basically my point in regard to dasein. And in particular “I” in the is/ought world.
I mean, who knows, Wittgenstein himself might even have “gotten” me.
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
Again: our conception of ethics.
And since these are often completely detached from the ofttimes grim, grimy reality of actual human interactions, we can “discover” that almost anything at all can be defined into existence as a good or a bad action. Wonderfully in sync with the notion that in the absence of God all things can be rationalized. And not just conceivably.
For example, what have you concluded to be conceivably moral. Or immoral.
And how is this not basically just another way of rooting faith in dasein? Your moral and spiritual narrative becomes absolute because it is basically predicated only on your own life…a life that leads up to what you believe because what else would it lead up to? Then it just becomes the extent to which you admit to yourself that it is but a leap of faith, or you go further and convince yourself that you believe it because it is in fact true. And if what you believe about God is unequivocally true then what you believe about your value judgments necessarily flows from that.
And since you cannot be inside the head of someone who thinks like this, what possible arguments could you come up with to change their minds. It’s not impossible but highly unlikely. Especially given that the belief itself is more about how it makes you feel [comforted and consoled] than in how you are able to defend it “intellectually”.
There it is. You have your own personal experiences in connecting the dots between morality and immortality. Others may have more or less similar experiences but they never truly overlap such that you can intertwine them philosophically into an objective truth.
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
And it’s not just in regard to ethics that this frame of mind is entirely reasonable. Even the self in the either/or world is confronted with the sheer mind-boggling mystery of existence itself. It’s just that when confronting moral conflagrations we are reminded that the extraordinary existence of matter has somehow culminated [on this planet] in minds able to think and feel and contemplate questions like this. And be confronted other minds doing the same in which, in regard to conflicting goods, there does not appear to way a way to know for certain what the most rational and virtuous of behaviors even are.
In other words, the gap between words and worlds when we attempt to convey mental, emotional and psychological states that simply don’t lend themselves to either/or conclusions. Safety is ever and always situated out in particular worlds that are always subject to any number of circumstantial combinations contained in a human condition ever subject in turn to contingency, chance and change.
Verbal expressions “in the moment” when the next moment or the moments down the road may be anything but the same.
Where’s the part about W tho?
Oh wait, those quotes are W’s? Never seen that before. Read a lecture once where W said something along the lines of: ‘no values exists in the world, and if they did, there would be no value to that fact.’ Something like that anyway.
Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website
And yet, come on, let’s be blunt: it’s a moot rejection.
And that is because even if one accepts that both ethical inquiries and speaking meaningful of them are essentially – ontologically? teleologically? epistemologically? logically? – nonsense and are ultimately unintelligible in communicating them to others, that doesn’t make the real world go away.
These?
We’ll need a context of course. For, say, your own “these”?
In other words, in regard to your own “mundane feelings of goodness…e.g., feeling contemplative, being in a general state of contentedness, etc.,” what should we all conclude is moral or immoral behavior in that particular context?
And even in regard to Wittgenstein’s own “candidates” here, same thing: if you share his admiration for their great depth in human interactions how does that in itself translate into objective morality in this context?