Fallacy of Subjectivity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby zinnat » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:16 am

Though this topic is not new for ILP but i would try to deduce this to up up the last mile in this thread. Let us see what happens. All subjectivities ( or those who think they are ) are welcome to defend their positions.

I do not have any formal education of the subject thus my understanding depends on what i saw on internet forums. And, my understanding is that there are there are basically two types of subjectivists.

1 - Pseudo Subjectivists

There are some intellectuals, who are objectivists at core, but like to present themselves as a subjectivists, both knowingly and unknowingly too. They do it because either they want to criticise any particular position or promote what they like. There is nothing wrong either in criticising or supporting any position but this is not true subjectivity. It is nothing but merely using subjectivity as a mask to promote one's objective opinions.

Most of the leftists and liberals fall under this category. When it comes to social issues like divorce, abortion, homosexuality or even suicide, they argue that one is free to take the decisions regarding one's life. That is fine. But, when the same people claim that rich people should be taxed more and poor should be given extra subsidies, it is nothing but hypocrisy and mockery of subjectivity too.

May i ask why rich should be taxed more, or why poor should be given more facilities? Does this act do not violate the basic principle of equality? Is taxing rich extra not unfair to them?

Secondly, leftists/liberals claim that majoritarian view should not be imposed on minority. I second that opinion. But then, how the same people can ask a minority group (rich people) to be treated differently and unfairly? Do rich not have the same social and constitutional rights as homosexuals have? Is it a crime to be rich and deserve punishment?

This is what i define as pseudo subjectivity. The issue here is not what is good or bad for the society in general but sticking to preferred definitions. I am also in the favor of taxing rich more and giving some essential free facilities to the needy persons, but i do not support this so called misdefined premise of equality. My thinking is that whatever is necessary for the betterment of the society in the longer run, should be done, irrespective of whether it is unpleasant to minority or even majority.

That is my goal thus i am free to choose my means to accomplish that. I am also free either to use liberal or conservative means according to the circumstances because my aim is not creating either a liberal or conservative society, but merely a better society, and i do not mind to called an objectivist too, for the simple reason that i first decide goal, them means, not otherwise. I also have some rules about means, but if they come in the way of accomplishing the predecided goal, i do not hesitate in overruling those.

But, leftists/liberals (pseudo subjectivists) here tweak both the issue and concerned definitions too. They like to remain subjectivist till they talk about social issues, but as soon as it comes to economics, they become true objectivist. Then they tend to forget about their basic principle of proving equality and justice to minority ( rich people). If you ask them if it is okay to suicide, they say it is up to that individual to decide and society should not interfere in that one's rights/privacy. Fine. But, the same people like the society to interfere in riches rights and privacy all the time. Why are these double standards? Either you interfere or you not, choose one. And, if you do not want to choose one, accept that i will do what i think is right, but do not call yourself a subjectivist. Subjectivists are not suppose to hold anything either truly good or bad.

Remember, i am not saying here whether they are right or wrong, my whole point is that leftists/liberals are not subjectivists but objectivists. They merely have a different objective opinion, and name it subjectivity.

2 - Sniper Subjectivists

This is a slightly rare kind of breed, and found once in awhile only, not often. These are shrewd intellectuals who never come out from their intellectual hideouts. They just keep shooting the same ammunition from their distant bunker, just like snipers. They do not have guts to face the opponent in hand to hand battle, because they know that they cannot kill even a fly with their bare hands, and entirely dependant on long range rifle. So, they keep waiting and waiting patiently for any opponent to come out in the open so they can shoot him from their same long distance sniper rifle. And, they take a shot once in a while then again lay down low in their bunker.

Being more intelligent than Pseudo Subjectivists, Sniper Subjectivities are well aware of their shortcomings. They know very well that they cannot argue on any else issue but this, because that will provide the same sniper rifle to the opponent too and he (opponent) would win every time because of having many other and better fighting skills.

Sniper Subjectivists claim that every one has its own subjective opinion, which tends to form slowly and steadily because of the beholder's circumstances. I also agree with that. But, they take one step further and also claim that because of this phenomenon, there neither can be truly objective opinion thus it would be futile attempt even to try.

This a quite dangerous premise to have, for more than intellectuals think, including sniper subjectivists. They do not realize fully what they are suggesting. The issue here is not whether any completely objective (perfect by all means) opinion is possible or not, but whether all opinions have same worth or not.

For the sake of an argument, let us assume that it is impossible to conclude perfectness, so given that, should we also discard those options also which are better than the existing ones? If one cannot have Pule cheese (the rare and costliest Cheese in the world, though made from donkey milk)) all the time, should he also stop eating Parmesan also just because it is not of the highest grade? Of should he continue to have Parmesan without stopping his quest for better alternative? He may well end and Mascarpone in his quest. Is it better or it would be better to eat cheese not at all unless one does not get Pule?

The real issue is not this that all opinions are rooted in dasein, they certainly are, but that does neither mean that all daseins were the same and even they were, all people would have driven opinions of having same worth. The value and worthiness of the driven opinions depends more on the intellect of the beholder than the dasein. Millions of people were seeing apples falling from the trees since ages, but it striked only to Newton why they always fell to the ground, not go towards the sky. The the same way, millions of people are having bath in bathtubs since centuries, but it striked only to Archimedes when a particle is submerged in any liquid, it displaces exactly the equal liquid to its weight. The daseins were the same for millions, yet why a few always able to outthink the majority?

Secondly, these sniper subjectivity tend to forget one more very important thing. It is not important whether you get perfectness or even something better or not. The more important thing is to keep the intent for betterment alive. If that is lost, everything would be lost forever. If the intent would be there, the society would progress for sure. The progress may be slow and late, but there will be some for sure.

People do not realize this but Laden is better than Nietzsche because, Laden may be wrong but he at least believe that there can be something right. So, there are some chances that he may get it right in the future. But, there is no hope whatsoever with Nietzsche because there is nothing right and wrong according to him as everything is subjective and rooted in dasein or WTP.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby surreptitious57 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:03 am

One has greater control over their life with regard to social issues than with economic ones which would explain the so called hypocrisy
you speak of. You are presenting them as if they were positions of equivalence when only one is absolutely necessary while the other is
not. Now I would be in favour of everybody in full time employment paying the same rate of tax but this is not practical and so the rich
have to pay more. When logic dictates the only solution to a problem one should not be accused of hypocrisy. As there is no alternative
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby zinnat » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:One has greater control over their life with regard to social issues than with economic ones which would explain the so called hypocrisy
you speak of. You are presenting them as if they were positions of equivalence when only one is absolutely necessary while the other is
not. Now I would be in favour of everybody in full time employment paying the same rate of tax but this is not practical and so the rich
have to pay more. When logic dictates the only solution to a problem one should not be accused of hypocrisy. As there is no alternative


Are you proposing that some unfairness to some people may be allowed if there is no other alternative?

I do not disagree with that either but how can one call it subjectivity?

And, how can one call it equality for privileged minorities Should they be treated differently and unfairly just because they are privileged?

Ss57, you cannot tax rich more and give extra facilities to needy ones unless you deviate from the premise of rigid equality to all, and consider overall betterment of the society as a final and only aim.

But, are you ready to allow this some suffering to some people in all cases, if it brings overall betterment to the society in the long run?

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:44 am

Yeah, I read this thread and really can't understand it.

I'm guessing it has something to do with an objectivist minded individual that wants to dispose of subjectivism in order to apply their delusions of grandeur onto the world objectively. Sound about right? Yes? No?
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby zinnat » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:53 am

Ss57,

Secondly, how can a subjectivist even supposed to conclude in the first place, that taxing rich more is good for the society and there is no other alternative!

Would that not merely be his subjective opinion!

Yes, an objectivist like me can certainly claim that.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:55 am

zinnat wrote:Ss57,

Secondly, how can a subjectivist even supposed to conclude in the first place, that taxing rich more is good for the society and there is no other alternative!

Would that not merely be his subjective opinion!

Yes, an objectivist like me can certainly claim that.

With love,
Sanjay


Yes, an objectivist like me can certainly claim that.


I thought as much.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:58 am

Two objectivists walk in a bar one day, one objectivist said to the other that their conceptual understanding of objectivism is better and far more superior than theirs. The other objectivist said something very similar in reply and rebuttal.
Last edited by Mictlantecuhtli on Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby zinnat » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:59 am

HaHaHa wrote:Yeah, I read this thread and really can't understand it.

I'm guessing it has something to do with an objectivist minded individual that wants to dispose of subjectivism in order to apply their delusions of grandeur onto the world objectively. Sound about right? Yes? No?


Something like that.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3596
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:01 am

zinnat wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:Yeah, I read this thread and really can't understand it.

I'm guessing it has something to do with an objectivist minded individual that wants to dispose of subjectivism in order to apply their delusions of grandeur onto the world objectively. Sound about right? Yes? No?


Something like that.

With love,
Sanjay


Excellent, burden of proof or evidence is on you.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby surreptitious57 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:44 am

zinnat wrote:
Are you proposing that some unfairness to some people may be allowed if there is no other alternative

One has to work within the boundaries of what is practical rather than what is desirable. True equality is not possible so one
has to then settle for the most equal solution and because paying tax is a legal requirement imposed by the state then those
that have to pay more may think it is unfair but it is for the needs of society as a whole not the one paying it. The unfairness
is therefore no more than a false perception upon their part that fails to acknowledge the reason why they have to pay more
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:35 pm

Subjectivity does not mean it is wrong. Acknowledging the subjectivity of all human understanding and perception leads one to understand that subjectivity is often more correct than someone claiming objectivity. There is no objectivity, only varying degrees of subjectivity.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:54 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Subjectivity does not mean it is wrong. Acknowledging the subjectivity of all human understanding and perception leads one to understand that subjectivity is often more correct that someone claiming objectivity. There is no objectivity, only varying degrees of subjectivity.

Excellent post. I approve of this message.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby The Golden Turd » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:34 pm

Its also a very objective statement you just agreed to Joker. Fantastic Telelogy there too, Cicero would be proud. You really have a proper grasp on "The Ends" of things.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:35 pm

Turd Ferguson wrote:Its also a very objective statement you just agreed to Joker. Fantastic Telelogy there too, Cicero would be proud. You really have a proper grasp on "The Ends" of things.


My statement was not objective, it was merely, less subjective.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby The Golden Turd » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:43 pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fini ... et_malorum

Maybe everyone is asserting a Eudamonist position, and decided to semantically splice the argument in a fucking retarded spot, like Objectivity and Subjectivity, fear of Telelogy, without grasping where they stood in relation in actuality to the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it, and it split in two very different directions?

I can forgive Zinnati for not knowing this, but people on this forum are dive bombing Plato now without really understanding anyone's position. Its not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing "professor says" through second hand sources.

I am not gonna tell you, Only Humean isn't.... just fucking read, and stop making incomprehensible fools of yourself. Even Stirner read these classics.

Zinnati is from a different philosophical tradition, so isn't expected to know the Greek and Roman roots of this debate. I pardon him. Not you Joker.... you live in a cabin, so you have no excuse, get your read on.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:48 pm

Turd Ferguson wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_finibus_bonorum_et_malorum

Maybe everyone is asserting a Eudamonist position, and decided to semantically splice the argument in a fucking retarded spot, like Objectivity and Subjectivity, fear of Telelogy, without grasping where they stood in relation in actuality to the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it, and it split in two very different directions?

I can forgive Zinnati for not knowing this, but people on this forum are dive bombing Plato now without really understanding anyone's position. Its not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing "professor says" through second hand sources.

I am not gonna tell you, Only Humean isn't.... just fucking read, and stop making incomprehensible fools of yourself. Even Stirner read these classics.

Zinnati is from a different philosophical tradition, so isn't expected to know the Greek and Roman roots of this debate. I pardon him. Not you Joker.... you live in a cabin, so you have no excuse, get your read on.


What exactly are we failing to grasp Turd? I'm open to suggestions.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:53 pm

Turd Ferguson wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_finibus_bonorum_et_malorum

Maybe everyone is asserting a Eudamonist position, and decided to semantically splice the argument in a fucking retarded spot, like Objectivity and Subjectivity, fear of Telelogy, without grasping where they stood in relation in actuality to the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it, and it split in two very different directions?

I can forgive Zinnati for not knowing this, but people on this forum are dive bombing Plato now without really understanding anyone's position. Its not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing "professor says" through second hand sources.

I am not gonna tell you, Only Humean isn't.... just fucking read, and stop making incomprehensible fools of yourself. Even Stirner read these classics.

Zinnati is from a different philosophical tradition, so isn't expected to know the Greek and Roman roots of this debate. I pardon him. Not you Joker.... you live in a cabin, so you have no excuse, get your read on.


Zinnati deserves the lesson I am bringing, not just being told to read. Plato, is not the arbiter of knowledge as well
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:56 pm

Fuck Plato.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:57 pm

HaHaHa wrote:Fuck Plato.


I approve of this message as do all the little boys he raped with the consent of his culture.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:02 pm

2,500 years and certain people don't want to transcend beyond the myopia of Greek philosophy, its been romanticized, overly romanticized. Give them credit for getting the ball rolling. A monumentous achievement and monumentous credit indeed.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:16 pm

zinnat wrote:
HaHaHa wrote:Yeah, I read this thread and really can't understand it.

I'm guessing it has something to do with an objectivist minded individual that wants to dispose of subjectivism in order to apply their delusions of grandeur onto the world objectively. Sound about right? Yes? No?


Something like that.

With love,
Sanjay


Something like that. Exactly. Bin Laden differentiated right from wrong behavior because he was firmly convinced in the existence of God. And God [the one in his head] becomes the omniscient/omnipotent font for determining [absolutely, objectively] which behaviors are either right or wrong.

Nietzsche on the other hand didn't have a God, the God, my God to fall back on. He had to speculate about things like taxing the rich or what to do about the poor from the perspective of a mere mortal.

But then out in the world that we live in mere mortals have conflicting and contradictory assessments of things like the role of government or the meaning of equality.

But then the objectivists [though still mere mortals] are able to "think through" these things [philosophically or otherwise] and come to embody one or another existential rendition of this:

1] I am rational [about taxing the rich]
2] I am rational [about taxing the rich] because I have access to the political ideal
3] I have access to the political ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively]
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively] because I am rational

Nietzsche merely speculated that in the absence of God, mere mortals, exercising their will to power, should sort things out in terms of the best of us imposing their will on the least of us.

So it is part "might makes right" and part "right makes might".

The important point still is that from the perspective of the objectivists these things can be rationally differentiated. Why? Because they have themselves already figured it all out.

You know, if only "in their head".

It's just that historically there have been those objectivists who insisted on taking the ideas out of their heads. Folks like, say, the fascists or the communists or the capitalist imperialists or those embracing one or another denominational God.

So, will someone like Donald Trump lead the next objectivist charge? Or is he just one more pretender to the throne? Another moral nihilist rooted in the grand tradition of the global economy: Show me the money!
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37567
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:32 pm

The facts of the matter is that Middle Class has to pay the most taxes, and Rich and Poor get the most amount of welfare, but Rich get much more Welfare than poor, which is utterly backwards.

So when someone says Rich must pay more taxes than poor, it means the Middle Class should not have to pay as much taxes, so it is good for the Middle Class. And also, people hate Rich people, because they were born with money they don't deserve, and many of them are part of a Conspiracy Against Earth and plot on ways to lower the quality of human life, and are responsible for shitty TV shows like MTV, lack of freedoms, poisoned food, and crappy music like Justin Bieber.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:37 pm

Turd Ferguson wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_finibus_bonorum_et_malorum

Maybe everyone is asserting a Eudamonist position, and decided to semantically splice the argument in a fucking retarded spot, like Objectivity and Subjectivity, fear of Telelogy, without grasping where they stood in relation in actuality to the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it, and it split in two very different directions?

I can forgive Zinnati for not knowing this, but people on this forum are dive bombing Plato now without really understanding anyone's position. Its not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing "professor says" through second hand sources.

I am not gonna tell you, Only Humean isn't.... just fucking read, and stop making incomprehensible fools of yourself. Even Stirner read these classics.

Zinnati is from a different philosophical tradition, so isn't expected to know the Greek and Roman roots of this debate. I pardon him. Not you Joker.... you live in a cabin, so you have no excuse, get your read on.


This [in me own humble opinion] is rather typical of Turd's contribution to a thread of this sort.

He makes it rather clear who the true scholar is among us. He speaks didactically [pedantically?] of a "Eudamonist position" in relation to "the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it".

He notes that, "[i]ts not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing 'professor says' through second hand sources."

Which seems to imply that the truth regarding subjectivity can be found only in a library. After all, "[e]ven Stirner read these classics."

Get "your read on" he suggests.

Okay, suppose we read everything that he has read. Suppose we too become true scholars. How will that get us any closer than he has come to addressing the existential relationship that Zinnati broaches between subjectively and objectivity as it relates to taxing the rich or responding to the needs of the poor?

Is he suggesting that if we really understood Plato and Aristotle these things would be, what, self-evident...axiomatic?
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37567
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:46 pm

Wow iambig, that post of yours was actually not an utter bore to read. Im proud of you
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Fallacy of Subjectivity

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:51 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:Wow iambig, that post of yours was actually not an utter bore to read. Im proud of you


Thanks.

Well, coming from one of the Kids anyway. :wink:

Oh, yeah, Turd has "foed" me. So he may not be gathering my insights here. I'd appreciate it if someone would include them in one of their own posts.

He'll thank me later.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37567
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron