Philosophy ILP style

point 7:

Again, the sheer irony here!!

My point of course is that it is the moral and political objectivists among us who insist that everyone is obligated to accept the one answer.

Their own for example.

Why else would they frame their mentality here re one or another rendition of a Coalition of Truth. An ideological/deontological platform where they can “observe” those among us who do not toe the line. Expose us as “one of them”. The Evil people. The…LIBERALS!!!

Oh, and then the part where I acknowledge right from the start that my own arguments here are in turn just subjective conjectures based on my very own embodiment of dasein. Never would I argue that others are obligated to think as I do. Only that, if they are inclined to, they compare and contrast our respective moral philosophies given a specific “situation” that most here would be familiar with. I even give them the option to pick it.

point 8:

Which [sigh] brings me back around to this: we’ll need a context.

Then the distinction between those who make no distinction whatsoever here between the either/or and the is/ought world.

The part where, in regard to value judgments, “you’re right from your side and I’m right from mine” ever and always configures into “one of us” vs. “one of them”.

Okay, Biggus is done commenting.

So what we got was lots of rationalization and no recognition that he might be posting fallacies and logic errors.

Now, this is philosophy ILP style from my side of the track.

I’ve given you my own more substantive reactions to the points you raised about me here. So, go through them and note the posting fallacies and logic errors.

And, sure, I dare you to do so given a particular contest.

What did PK write?

What did Biggus write?

A question… is a context always needed in philosophy, or do you request one in order to better understand the argument?

When thoughts arise in the mind, they do not need or require a context to exist… we have a thought, then we decide what to do and/or how to act-upon that thought, and that would be dependent on a multitude of factors.

And this demonstrates a posting fallacy and an error in logic on my part…how?

Let alone given a particular context revolving around my own main interest in philosophy: how ought we to live morally and politically in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods awash in contingency, chance and change.

Or, in regard to the Really Big Questions, the “for all practical purposes” implications of “the gap”.

Again, you made your points above and I responded to them. Let’s get the more substantive exchange going.

Even Kropotkin understands that the vastness of the universe has nothing to do with the merit of an answer or argument (unless the argument is about the vastness of the universe).

You’re a philosopher. And philosophers are interested in many things. They have tools. Logic. Knowledge. Language.

Now, I’m a philosopher interested mainly in three things: morality [one of us, one of them], immortality [God and religion] and the Big Questions [determinism, the nature of existence itself given the gap]

Phyllo created this thread in order to make certain accusations about the manner in which I go about pursuing these things philosophically. He called it philosophy ILP style but he means philosophy iambiguous style.

Okay I responded to his points one by one.

But: how on earth can we discuss any of these things without it all coming down to particular sets of circumstances in which we often have conflicting personal opinions about morality, religion and the Big Questions?

Sure, if there are those here who insist we must stay up in the intellectual clouds pinning down precise, technical definitions for the words we use, fine, let them. And, after having arrived at them, then they can bring them out into the world of actual human interactions.

But: Absolutely no one here is required to do so. So, I can only surmise/suspect that, given my many, many, many experiences with the objectivists among us over the years, the reactions I get from those like phyllo revolve more around the extent to which my own frame of mind disturbs them. Their concern [conscious or otherwise] that they may well themselves find their very own precious “I” [in the is/ought world of value judgments] becoming increasingly more fractured and fragmented as well.

I know this experience well because I have been there myself. Twice.

You folks ignore the fuck out of me.

Existence has 3 structural problems:

1.) consent violation (occurring for every being in existence in some way shape or form)

2.) the pleasurable exclusive access problem (I’m stomping on someone else’s heart while having the best time of my life)

3.) the negative zero sum problem (for every winner there is more than one loser)

I beg of people on these boards to understand and contemplate these three structural (objective) problems of existence and join the good fight. Reason, purpose, rationality.

Since he [like you and I] is utterly ignorant regarding the precise ontological – teleological? – understanding/nature of the existence of existence itself [as that relates to the human condition here on planet earth as that relates to our own individual identities and value judgments], I’d take that “understanding” myself with more than just a few grains of salt.

Instead, like you and I, he is the embodiment of this:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

And, no, not just in regard to American involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, it can be argued it is applicable to everything where there is a gap between what we think we know about something and all that there is to be known about it. The part where I make a distinction between what we think or believe is true and what we are able to demonstrate to others that, as rational human beings, they are obligated to think or believe is true as well. Indeed, even in regard to how we go about demonstrating that even to ourselves.

About Communism or abortion or determinism or, well, you tell me.

Only, silly me, I keep coming back to the part where we will need an actual “situation” that most of us will be familiar with in order to flesh out our own arguments.

The vastness of the universe is not synonymous with the limits of human knowledge and understanding.

We’ll need an actual context of course.

If someone has a context which shows that the vastness of the universe is synonymous with the limits of human knowledge and understanding then he/she can post it.

Okay, how about if the context is Communism or abortion?

On the other hand, how exactly would they go about showing it?

I merely make the assumption that given facts and conjectures of this sort…

[b]The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

“To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager’s speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!”
The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

“The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Light reaching us from the earliest known galaxies has been traveling, therefore, for more than 13 billion years. So one might assume that the radius of the universe is 13.7 billion light-years and that the whole shebang is double that, or 27.4 billion light-years wide.”[/b] nasa

For all practical purposes, it is beyond the imagination of mere mortals here on planet Earth to grasp just how staggeringly immense the universe is.

As for situating “I” in all of this…?

And this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. nasa

And this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. Rummy

…what any particular one of us thinks he or she knows about Communism and abortion is synonymous with the limits of human knowledge and intelligence.

On the other hand there are those here who not only shrug off “the gap”, but insist that unless others share exactly the same point of view they do about Communism and abortion they are inherently, necessarily WRONG!!!

I call them objectivists by the way. And, unless I’m mistaken, you are less one of those now yourself than when we first stared in on exchanging posts here.

Then there are those who consider an iota of immeasurable difference may imply a contextual reality that implies certainty, whereas it may be merely a counterproposal.

Not that reality is not contensional, but that a certain conclusive objectivity based on the certainty of filling that gap may not be just as elusive.

And some people can’t swallow a Thesaurus without vomitting word salad.

It’s hilarious how quickly Biggus jumps, from “the gap” in knowledge and understanding, to knowing all sorts of things about other people.

And then there are the times when does a complete 180 and he actually expresses scorn for those who refer to the “the gap” … as if they are doing something wrong. For example, when religious people talk about God’s mysterious ways. That’s “the gap” right there, isn’t it?

Let’s face it. Shopenhauerian pessimism was merely a luxury ridden view of sadly flying down from the perch of the bird’s eye view.it drained vital energy more, to come down.
.

From ancient foundations, now only the glitter of it attracts and most stumbling blocks forgotten

Nietzche tried to replace that metaphoric hubris with It most generally looking boldly back, turning it into anathema, a fearful descent

The violation of primal consent is overcome, by muffling cries of innocent babes, "why did the bring me forth from my comfortable domain, the attractive womb, mow again to be raped over and over, into the harsh direct gaze of europa? Did not a colony of bees, raping her emitting the sweet ofir, from ejaculate honey that bear so much restrained poesy? To be or not, indifferent to all, but the soblimest rhetoric?

Rubbish.
a Light-Year is not a time period but a distance; the distance travelled by light in one year.
The centre of the galaxy is 25,000 Light years away.
Currently the fastest ever space craft achieved an amazing 0.05% of the speed of light. Do the maths!