Is Iambiguous...

Is Iambiguous…

  • objectively an objectivist?
  • subjectively an objectivist?
  • annoyingly an objectionist?
  • a GROOTionist?
0 voters

This said scientific research was conducted by WendyDarling for the Psychology Department of ILP and is more scientific than most of the day’s competing research investigating what every philosopher online has always wondered about the infamous philosopher, Iambiguous, the controversy regarding his favored position (Stop with the dirty thoughts!) for the last ten, long years. Unarguably, the best idea of my day and I look forward to the statistics of truth from all rational philosophers and those under that delusion.

Vote away!

We’ll need a context of course.

A familiar groot. Are you voting as a GROOTionist?

No, no, seriously.

We need a discussion that revolves around something more specific. And in particular relating to that which brings me to ILP in the first place: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

You can choose the subject or I can note one from one of my many posts.

Then we can attempt to pin down distinctions between an objectivist and a subjectivist frame of mind. Here however groots are just arguments that I believe are of particular importance in framing my argument. You can never use them too much.

As for the role of science, they don’t call psychology one of the “soft sciences” for nothing.

Beside, as I point out time and again, who really knows with any precision where psychology rooted on genes ends and psychology rooted in memes begins. Let alone the individual idiosyncrasies rooted in dasein.

So, we’ll just plug away as best we can. Vacillating as always [with the Pedros here] between actual substance and yak yak yak, fulminating fanatic bullshit.

Then we can create a poll to vote on that.

We?

As usual, this being the Psychology and Mind board, Wendy goes the extra mile to make sure that her point is well thought out.

A polemicist groot only used twice so far today that I know of but who can keep track of all of Biggums repetitive groots.

Who would have guessed that this thread is just another example of what the yak yak yak Kids here are trying to turn ILP into?!

You know, besides me. =D>

Biggles, check the stats?

The objectivist runs strong in you.

What the fuck does this even mean? :laughing:

Move over, Pedro!!!

youtu.be/waf46eBajkw
youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

Perfect. Caught the narcissism/solipsism in a one word response.

he begins at the top of the quote (after, no, no seriously). The ‘we’ is a universalist claim. The ‘need’ is an objectivist claim, where his preference/value is being confused with a need. And that this simple beginning is actually reflected in the way he ‘responds’ to other posters and in threads is completely lost on him.

It should go without saying that I don’t think I have demonstrated he is an objectivist. But the two word opening of his post does capture his way of posting just so succinctly. Everything anyone writes seems to confirm his issue and his life history starting in the belly of the working class is relevant. Here’s what we need to talk about.

Well, no, actually, that’s just your desire you are objectifying and universalizing.
It seems very hard for him to ue the honest and accurate ‘I want…’ from his universalist objectivist ‘We need…’ You would think that after a decade of railing against objectivism he would have honed his posting down to such a simple honest expression. ‘I want us to discuss…’ even if the thread or the post is about something else.

One can dream.

Something iambiguous fails to appreciate is the motion / object dichotomy. Like light being a wave and a particle. Subject is the motion. Object is the stasis.

When I see a jogger on the street, it is a moving object.

I actually don’t think iambiguous is a deep thinker, iambiguous has a schtick that he thinks is a rhetorical (objectively so) masterpiece.

But he really doesn’t think much about existence, like others who explore it with bravery actually do.

Iambiguous is living in the comfort of his construct, it consoles iambiguous to this regard, in his psychology…

This cognitive dissonance in him projects the accusation of consolation to others who are actually the courageous ones.

Every time I define objectivity and objective things to iambiguous, iambiguous is incapable of that leap.

I define it thusly: when you see something and no matter what occurs forever, you’ll no longer change you mind, then it is objective. It’s built into the fabric of existence just like a triangle has three sides… it’s there without sentience, but every time sentience discovers it (and it will always eventually be discovered), the mind is never changed no matter what more is learned forever.

I also tell iambiguous that moral problems are like mathematic proofs… it takes LOTS of REALLY hard actual work to discover them. From the perspective of iambiguous, since we still have outstanding moral puzzles that haven’t been solved or that our first attempt at proofs were shown to have flaws, that ALL mathematical and moral proofs must be false.

Iambiguous at his core is a lazy ass person who doesn’t move anyone forward and has no courage to do the actual work of the human species. He’s a parasite who feels intellectually threatened and ego threatened by the bravery of all these people actually making things happen (real things) everyday.

And, yes Karpel, iambiguous is a narcissist with a fragile ego at core.

That’s why when iambiguous thinks that when he was incorrect about one thing once in his life, that everyone is and will always be wrong about everything.

It means you’se a punk.

First of all, yet another brand new thread started here by either one of the Kids or one of my Stooges…with iambiguous as the subject!

Now that’s entertainment!!

I love it!!!

Look, I know that tormenting and then humiliating these poor souls speaks volumes regarding my own character. And, really, a part of me is in fact rather embarrassed by it.

But, given the decrepit state that ILP is in now [thanks largely to them], a bigger part of me just can’t resist making fools out of them…

What else:

But if you come and say God says iambiguous is not a narcissist/solipsist, or you have a logical proof (somehow) a secular one that proves iambiguous is not a narcissist/solipsist, I will not override my revulsion that he is. Because that revulsion is, at least now, more me than a bunch of words on a page that seem, even to me, logical.

At least now.

Note to Wendy, the Kids and all of my other Stooges here:

Curly’s conclusions about me are derived from his “visceral, intuitive, deep-down-inside-me” Self.

What do you derive yours from? You know, as Kids and Stooges.

As for “we”, there was nothing either “universalist” or “binary” about it. I was merely referring to the members of our own beloved community. :sunglasses:

Okay, so that only leaves prophet, genius, billionaire and traitor before I’m the next Mark Zuckerberg!

On the other hand, where does that leave you? :laughing:

Okay, here’s where we stand…

With four votes in, three claim that I am probably “objectively an objectivist”.

So, back to this:

In other words, is there at least a small chance that we can save this “exchange” from being but another “yak yak yak, social media” rendition of the poop thread?

Given a particular context, lets seriously explore what is thought to be an objectivist rather than a subjectivist frame of mind. With this very thread – perhaps – we can pull together and turn ILP around. We can confront Grace Slick with, “the idiots don’t have to win”.

Or, sure, perhaps I have already embarrassed you enough. Especially those here without a “condition”. And the thread will just tumble down into nothingness on page 5 or 6.

He’s an objectivist that pretends he’s not an objectivist and camouflages himself as a nihilist hoping nobody will notice his real identity or beliefs. In other words, he’s a phoney. :sunglasses:

Here’s a “joker” I have made a fool of over and over again on thread after thread after thread. You know, if I do say so myself. Though not quite a Kid, he is definitely one of my Stooges. And with Zero_Brains – in his exchanges with me – clearly still one of the fulminating fanatics who comes in here only to vent against all the scumbag liberals. Why? Because there is not a goddamn thing he either can or will do against the Deep State forces that really do fuck him. And [ironically enough] most of the rest of us too. Instead, he’s like Gloominary decked from head to toe in a clown costume.

And, as with satyr and phoneutria and pedro and so many others, I have given him ample opportunity to stop being just a “smart ass” clown and exchange something at least in the general vicinity of philosophy.

In fact [along with so many other threads] he is up here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&start=50

Biggie wrote

There is only a “probably” in your world (not THE world) lacking of intellectual integrity.

This is a primo example of Biggie refusing to accept reality as it is. Biggie says it’s probably reality, but probably not too, right, unless I’m incorrect?

Biggie, four votes in, is objectively an objectivist.

Even in his own words and writings he’s always objectively right about everything where he can do no wrong, everybody else is always wrong, guy has no fucking humility at all.