exploring the "fractured and fragmented" self

Yet again, in my view, what’s the first thing to note about this particular assessment of his?

Is it not yet another intellectual contraption that aims to analyze, assess and then to judge the points I raise without bringing them into contact with a set of circumstances in which we can explore more in depth what I mean by a “fractured and fragmented” sense of self rooted existentially in dasein.

No, instead, it seems, the closest he’ll go to that is eating or not eating cake.

Instead, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, I prefer to explore this in regard to far more fierce and well known instances in which “conflicting goods” result in political wars that result in actual legislation that can have an enormous impact on the lives that we live down here on the ground.

Roe v. Wade and the Supremes for example.

Here’s the problem though. While he feels free to hurl these accusations at me, he also tells me that he won’t engage in a discussion with me in regard to the “fractured and fragmented” self. He does not believe it would be “fruitful”.

So, I created this thread just in case he ever changes his mind.

Also, for others here who share his point of view above, by all means defend it here yourself.

An entirely civil exchange devoid of any name calling, huffing and puffing, or ad homs.

I know how he feels when trying to converse with you.

Your entire post here is an ad hominmem.
Perhaps you should referain from huffing anf puffing first.
Now, to start…
Why do you not tell us all in a clearly worded paragraph of two what you mean exactly by “fractured and fragmented”.
Perhaps you could start with each word. Fractured how , and fragmented how?

PS I know what RoeVs Wade is but what is this about The Supremes.?

No Stooges please. =;

Only one stooge can be of concern at any one time, which is it? Or, does it really matter?
( and until Proven guilty , You are innoscent of all charges, regardless of how tiny or humongous)

Or, inconsequential.

And the reminder of the echo proclaiming You being on my side, nerd not be repeated ad-absurdum, time and again

But that postscription puts You square in the middle. The 2 nd stooge.

And that has to be Shemp.

First we should settle whether or not, in defining anything, we are doing so freely of our own volition or, on the contrary, could never have not defined anything other than as we must given your own understanding of Saint’s understanding of determinism.

And, as I noted with Magnus, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of a free will world, we need to focus in on an exchange exploring the relationship between human identity and value judgments given the manner in which I construe the self here as the fractured and fragmented embodiment of dasein. Something, however, more controversial than eating or not eating cake.

So, choose the issue, choose the context, and note your own moral narrative and political agenda. Then we can discuss in turn the manner in which I construe the existential meaning of “intellectual contraptions”.

Or should we first agree on the definition of every single word here?

No. No more deflections. This isn’t about determinism - nothing to do with James.

Clarify the meanings of your words - else trying to communicate with you is useless.

It is an attempt to understand some of the things you’re saying. Specifically, it is an attempt to understand the difference that you make between the two mindsets you often speak of. And what I did in that post is merely share my conclusions. That post was actually directed at obsrvr524. It wasn’t directed at you.

Not sure what you’re going to achieve by calling it “an intellectual contraption”. I am not sure there is a single person on this forum who knows what you mean when you use that term. The only thing obvious about it is that it’s something bad – something really, really bad. And perhaps that it is something that has nothing to do with reality or that is useless, impractical, etc.

I am merely trying to understand what you’re saying. You constantly talk about “the psychology of objectivism”, right? I am merely trying to understand what it entails (as well as how it differs from that other type of psychology – the better kind.)

That post wasn’t directed at you. It was directed at obsrvr524 (as well as everyone else trying to make sense of your posts.)

Okay, let’s push that to the side for now.

Let’s focus instead on this part:

No. No more deflections. Answer the question because it is critical to our discourse.

Again I ask - define “intellectual contraption”.

Again, in the way that I have come to understand the meaning of “intellectual contraption” as the embodiment of “I” given the manner in which I construe human identity as derived existentially [subjectively] from dasein with respect to conflicting moral and political value judgments, we are still in two different discussions.

We need to take the abstract points you note and intertwine them in the sort of discussions that unfold all the time here on the Society, Government, and Economics/Current Events board.

That’s why I created this thread. To explore your assessment of my own understanding of the “fractured and fragmented” self in a discussion that unfolds around a controversial issue [like abortion, gun control, animal rights etc.] in which there are proposed “goods” that come into conflict.

Why do some believe one thing and not another? How might that be attributed more to the points I raise in my signature threads rather than from the arguments of those I call “objectivists”.

An objectivist to me being someone who is convinced that their own take on things like the Trump presidency is derived from their belief that their values are in sync with the “real me” in sync further with “the right thing to do”.

Thus dividing up the world between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys].

A frame of mind I no longer have access to myself given my current understanding of human morality in a No God world.

Note to others:

Decide for yourself which of us is most sincere in exploring all of this substantively.

Since it is apparent that you do not know what your own accusations mean perhaps you should stop making them.

Or as you put - “Put up or shut up”.

Indeed, put up or shut up:

I’ve lost track of all the times on all the threads I have given him the opportunity to defend his own moral and political value judgments. Philosophically, for example. And even to explore with me the manner in which our exchanges themselves should be understood given Saint’s take on determinism.

Yes, he will continue to make it all about me. After all, for the hardcore objectivists, what’s the alternative?

So far you have not been sincere.

I asked you a prefectly reasonable question
And I was responding to your pleas for questions.
You have also said that you would procede without ad homs.
Why do you not tell us all in a clearly worded paragraph of two what you mean exactly by “fractured and fragmented”.
Perhaps you could start with each word. Fractured how , and fragmented how?

Are you still here? :laughing:

I asked you a prefectly reasonable question
And I was responding to your pleas for questions.
You have also said that you would procede without ad homs.
Why do you not tell us all in a clearly worded paragraph of two what you mean exactly by “fractured and fragmented”.
Perhaps you could start with each word. Fractured how , and fragmented how?

youtube.com/watch?v=ZAWSiWtUK2s

I know why you started it. And no, I am not going to have a debate with you.

I posted in this thread only because you opened this thread by saying certain things about me that are not true.

I have a neat albeit simplistic solution, before each bout. Shake hands and whatever happens , in spite of unintended outcomes, kiss and make up.

It is reasonable to suppose that the truth lays in some Grey area, in continuous co-existence with the intended object of such supposition in concert with the assessment of the objectives initially set in motion for the betterment of all , inter-alias.