obe wrote:Yes, but as to how tenuous these constructs may be, one only has to look at the ease revisionists have with these seemingly - come unfounded beliefs, to become undermined.
iambiguous wrote:obe wrote:Yes, but as to how tenuous these constructs may be, one only has to look at the ease revisionists have with these seemingly - come unfounded beliefs, to become undermined.
That's why it is only one possible narrative.
d63 wrote:But at least his endgame was noble and benign. Where this gets scary is the potential for sociopathic extremes such as with Rand who got to the point where she talked about facts so much and had such a faith in them that she could no longer distinguish between making factual statements and speculative ones such as her assertions about Capitalism.
iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, some analysis seems more reasonable than others. I am more able to embrace Marx with respect to capitalism because he grounded it [as a political economy] in the historical evolution of actual human interaction [empirically, materially] over the centuries. Rand, on the other hand, starts with the assumption that rational human interaction can be understood [deduced]philosophically [metaphysically?] and that capitalism was aligned with these assumption -- if you shared the very same assumptions she did about it.
d63 wrote:Yes, of course, some arguments are simply better than others. I was not arguing for an egalitarian relativity. My only point was that regardless of how good an argument is, it always reaches its limits at the level of the basic assumptions (what Deleuze refers to as presuppositions). And it is this aspect that lends a great deal of credibility to your description and cause for despair since it is the thin air upon which they float that enables the authoritarian element to go right on believing as they do regardless of how good an argument you pose against it. This is because you can never overturn their assumptions since the assumptions you're working from are also floating on thin air. It can only reduce to an impasse of assumptions or differends.
There was a term you once used having to due with incompatibility of arguments and consequent inability to effect one another: incomiserability -or something like that.
iambiguous wrote:d63 wrote:But at least his endgame was noble and benign. Where this gets scary is the potential for sociopathic extremes such as with Rand who got to the point where she talked about facts so much and had such a faith in them that she could no longer distinguish between making factual statements and speculative ones such as her assertions about Capitalism.
What always concerns me most about objectivism is the extent to which objectivists then pursue their "objective truth" as authoritarians -- at least with respect to moral and political values.
Moreno wrote:iambiguous wrote:What always concerns me most about objectivism is the extent to which objectivists then pursue their "objective truth" as authoritarians -- at least with respect to moral and political values.
Which one can translates (in your narrative AND using your narratives terms) as your narrative views them as bad and since you have spend a huge amount of time trying to demonstrate this to others your are pursuing the spread of this narrative as a (rather nice) authority (who makes disclaimers sometimes.) (still within your narrative....) We have no way of knowing if the effects of the objectivists is bad or good, in the specific or as a whole, so the presence of lack of objectivists should each cause concern (if one Believes your narrative) as long as one is aware of the possiblity of objectivists.
Moreno wrote:Another way to sum up the narrative is
It would be better if everyone stopped using moral terms and just said and fought for what they wanted.
And maybe it would be a better World. Of course ants and wasps are like this, never couching things in moral terms and struggling for what they want.
But you avoid this also. Sometimes you say you Believe it. Much of the time you write as if objetivists are wrong and silly and dangerous. What if you actually accepted it, in the World, on the ground? What if it affected your full range of actions, and not just metaconversations like this one?iambiguous wrote:There is an aspect of my own frame of mind [moral nihilism] that is particularly troubling for others. And it is troubling for me too: how can I think like I do and interact with others at all? If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead....Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
In my view, it is to avoid this very frame of mind themselves that others tend to resist [many mightily] accepting it as true.
This may also be true, though to be clear, it is not the Point I make above. Iambiguous, acting in the World, has been a progressive and still has progressive outbursts and will tend to be more critical of conservatives and warmongers and racists and so on. In this tendency a stand is taken that goes against the position. You do not toss a dime up in the air and choose political reactions. You act as if you know what is worse.Now, others can then argue that in professing it to be true I am in turn becoming fixated on it [psychologically] in the same manner in which I profess the moral and political objectivists become fixated on their own alleged truths -- re this very thread.
Can you see how you implicitly, as rhetoric, imply it is clear which is worse?It's either discuss morality as best we can [subjectively as daseins in a world of conflicting goods and political economy] or live in a might makes right, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world.
iambiguous wrote:Here, in my view, is one particular rendition of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism". Applicable to either Religion or to Reason.
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
Not "a philosophy", several.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
Not if you are smart, and open minded. You ought to realist that any single philosophy is one of a competing series of views. If you are a historian you will realise that all such philosophies, in time become abandoned and replaced. This is not always progressive.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
You are describing the religiously minded; football supporters, catholics, scientologists, nationalists, patriots..
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
Mostly people are simply born into such ideological structures, and often accept them without reason or thought. It seems to me that you have a duty you yourself and a duty to truth to be skeptical of all such alignments.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
Not always true. Many ideologies promote evangelism and proselytism.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
There is no doubt that people absorbed by "belief" find it hard to unpack and tend to resist all reasonable and rational attempts to challenge their worldview. As objectivism is predicated on a fallacy of absolute truth, few ideologies are more resistant to reason.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".
d63 wrote:Why? Because it doesn't make you the guru? Actually, I think everything I have said is perfectly pertinent:
You offered one narrative of the psychology of objectivism. I offered others via Delueze. And generally when I create strings like this, rather than snub down my nose at the input of others, I consider it my responsibility to bring it back on track.
Frankly, Ambig, I'm a little repulsed by you right now.
Moreno wrote:But you avoid this also. Sometimes you say you Believe it. Much of the time you write as if objetivists are wrong and silly and dangerous. What if you actually accepted it, in the World, on the ground? What if it affected your full range of actions, and not just metaconversations like this one?iambiguous wrote:There is an aspect of my own frame of mind [moral nihilism] that is particularly troubling for others. And it is troubling for me too: how can I think like I do and interact with others at all? If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead....Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
In my view, it is to avoid this very frame of mind themselves that others tend to resist [many mightily] accepting it as true.
Moreno wrote:It seems to me you have not really tried believing your position all the time. Mull over what this would be like and the reasons you do not actually do this.
It seems like you do do this. You explain why one can know things in science but not about morals. To do this you present models of reality and what is possible for humans.iambiguous wrote:I do believe that many objectivists are wrong and silly. Also, that if they get into a position of power over others they can be quite dangerous. Often with the best of intentions.
But I don't predicate that on Science or Philosophy or God. Or on something said to be Rationally or Metaphysically or Objectively true. Instead, I offer folks my own subjective understanding of myself "out in the world" from the perspective of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
You would do what you want and avoid objective type discussions, like this one. That is what someone who actually believed there was no way to know what is moral or not would do. I mean, they might kill themselves. They might be hypocrits and enter these types of discussions - perhaps just to fuck with people. But if they actually believed there was no way to even know if objectivists are doing harm, which means if any possible moral position is detrimental or beneficial, then ONE MIGHT AS WELL DO WHAT ONE WANTS AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO. If you want to be kind to people, well, you might as well do that. If you want to hurt them, well do that, if the risks involved do not create counterdesires. If you want to go to a Movie, yuo would do that.i]How can I think like I do and interact with others at all?
Sure, but for all you know it might be a good thing. So you don't know if challenging it, as you repeatedly do is doing more harm than good. It's a coin toss. Seems like a waste of energy to me, given your perspective.And this is what I believe others do not want to believe about themselves. They want some sort of objective moral and political Truth they can attach "I" to. Thus objectivism [to me] becomes more and more embodied in human psychology.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users