the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Discussing the psychology of objectivism as it relates to conflicting value judgments could hardly be further removed from playing chess. Or do you equate playing chess with the calculations that go into the raging conflagration that revolves around aborting human babies?

My point [aside from the polemics] is to nudge folks away from believing one can approach abortion as though it were just a game of chess. Chess: where each piece can only be moved in particular ways on a particular board and where you either do or not not checkmate your opponent. With chess everything is [ultimately] predicated on what must happen given the particular moves that are made.

The OP offers up one particular subjective narrative for assessing and then evaluating the relationship between an objective moral/political dogma and human psychology. It makes sense to me. Here and now. And since it also makes sense to me here and now that moral objectivism can become dangerous when it takes the form of a political ideology, it makes sense to suggest this to others. But I never go beyond this. I do not insist that this is [in turn] the most rational manner in which to think about these things.

Yes, this is precisely my point when I note this:

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.

That’s the paradox or the dilemma embedded in the irresistable force smashing into the immovable object.

But again: [u]What choice do we have if we do choose to intereact with others?[/u] One way or another one point of view will prevail. Re abortion, either babies will be killed or women will be forced to give birth. You can’t have a world in which both sides prevail.

This is the part I don’t think you really address. My own solution to it was [in part] to withdraw from interactions with others “out in the world”. Though there were other reasons for that as well. My health, mostly.

And there is always the possibility that my epistemological framework here is wrong. But how can I know this if I do not present my arguments in places like this.

But people DO make that assumption. How then do philosophers demonstrate to them that in fact there is no NEED to make it? They WANT to. It is how they have come [existentially as dasein] to construe morality out in the world. The real world that they live in.

No idea? But I do have some idea about all this. I offer a point of view regarding moral and political objectivism as a [possible] component of human psychological predispositions. Then I can note historical instances where moral and political objectivism have caused enormous human pain and suffering. It’s not like I am just completely making all of this up in my head – without making a number of references to the world of actual human interaction.

In my view, the pacifist is an objectivist if she insist that being a pacifist is the most rational and ethical manner in which a human being can interact with others out in the world.

Then she can either go in the James S. Saint/von rivers direction, i.e. that pacifism is applicable only one context at a time, or in the direction of the universalist, i.e. that pacifism is always the right thing to do.

She can either try to explain why hitting someone with an ax can be rationalized in this situation or, if she believes it is always irrational and immoral, then she is not a pacifist.

All I can do is to probe her life…to try to root out the existential factors that led her to become a pacifist [in a world where many do not] and to note how sets of circumstance might unfold that she had not really considered…sets of circumstanctes so dire that she may well change her mind about being a pacifist.

But what I don’t see possible is a philosophical argument able to demonstrate once and for all whether being a pacifist IS the right thing to do. Objectively.

What is it?

Is truth more true when it is vital? Yes I would day so so this is the way to make truth more true. And we need truth to be as true as it possibly can to survive it.

Yes this is true, we find people that agree with us more agreeable… and they us also. Life is a circle but it takes time.

Like God or a pet animal who is beloved by all. Who will feed the cat the most favorite dish is the priest.

Yes! We must do this also with the truth about truth. Vigorous vital truth.

Oh no. But no now you have killed truth.

Now i am depressed. I wanted to fight for truth but you have killed my hope.

Let’s not kill

Let’s watch the pain

And hope for truth!

Well, here is own subjective narrative:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

wrong thread

I can give “one particular rendition” of just about anything.

But unlike you, I do not make the leaping and lustful generalized conclusion that because I can imagine a bad scenario, all scenarios are necessarily bad and anyone saying different is a “dangerous trickster”.

In short, you are still merely preaching your dasein dilemma and ranting against anyone else.
And calling your ranting “psychology of”, doesn’t change what it is.

The only way this relates to psychology is in the question;
“Why do some people have a deep lingering lust to preach their dasein dilemma?”

Of course it is a sociology question as well because it has only arisen due to political warring, not rational thought.

Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger’s solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.

His view is that John wants the child to be born and Mary wants to abort it (the Dasein Dilemma). Then he asks, “Which is the moral solution?” Then answers it with;
“THERE SHALL BE NO MORAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS A DAMN, MALICIOUS, TRICKSTER, DICTATOR, OBJECTIVIST, LIAR!!!”

Thanks for, uh, clearing that up. Though I suspect our understanding of “dasein” may somewhat different.

Here is where I start:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What’s your take on it?

And how do you relate it to morality? Morality and the “objective truth”. Abortion for example. Or choose your own moral conflagration.

James, please!!!

The last thing ILP needs is yet ANOTHER seemingly futile exchange between us about objective morality. Take this over to “our” thread okay? :wink:

The question is, “Why did you bring it over here?

Your OP is merely you inventing a single case of bad reasoning, having almost nothing to do with objective morality or psychology. And let me remind you, you are an objectivist yourself. Soon, you might realize that along with the others who have.

And on top of that, even you couldn’t deny the reality that your own definitions led to concerning the existence of “objective morality”. In a way, you are seriously hating yourself, hating what is You.

My understanding of Dasein is that shared by scholars of Heidegger.
How does it relate to specific morality - it does not.
If you think it does then you’ve missed the whole point.

What kind of thing is “objective truth”, you are pulling my leg aren’t you?

Subject/object is not relevant. One of the key points, i think.

Be careful, Bigus only allows the definitions that HE dictates.

But to Bigus, it means, “conflicting beliefs in good”.

And to me, it appears to mean, “Being in the state of having no fucking idea of what I am thinking or doing”.

No, I am not interested in exploring dasein as it relates to a scholastic pursuit of philosophy.

I am interested only in exploring how you and I have come to understand what it means “here and now”…and in how we would situate that understanding out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict over moral and political value judgments.

Moral objectivists have insisted there is but one truly rational manner in which to understand these things. The way they do. By and large. Then there are those objectivists who insist that the way they understand it is applicable universally. Others, like James, insist that it is applicable only to each particular context.

This thread was an attempt on my part to link either “frame of mind” to human psychology.

In particular, the discussion revolved around abortion. But I am more than willing to explore these relationships regarding any other moral conflict we might all be familiar with.

You mean moral objectivists like yourself who believe that your understanding that there is no objective morality is the only rational way to understand morality?

Can’t even you see the parallel between the atheist who firmly believes in the lack of God attacking people for having a firm belief concerning God and your firm objective belief in the lack of objective morality attacking people for having an objective belief concerning morality? You are a moral-atheist.

In effect, you are saying that there is this objective truth, “…”

Your objective truth is that there is no objective morality.
Other people say there is an objective morality.
Both make claims of objective truth.

So you disagree with their stance on morality. But both are espousing objective truths concerning it. Both have an opinion of objective/universal truth/reality. Theirs is “yea”. Yours is “nay”. But both are declarations of objective truth.

Your real argument seems to be merely one of fixed/blind morality, not “objective”.

And the psychological question (which I could easily guess) is “Why do you hate moralists so much as to not even listen to what they might have to say before preemptively attacking them?

Seriously, perhaps Lev will take up my offer to discuss dasein [as it relates to conflicting value judgments as it relates to the psychology of objectivism] “down here”. Re abortion or some other issue.

Perhaps someday you will too.

In the interim, I am not interested in exploring [on yet another thread!] the circular nature of your own “definitional logic”.

Please bring it over to “our” thread, okay?

That’s pretty objective.

[quote=“Lev Muishkin”]
Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger’s solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.[/quote

Heidegger could not possibly have attempted this, in good faith, since he knew the boundary issues between Germany and France. He may have tried to show a politically expedient good faith. His signature was much more grounded in people like Husserl and Holderline.

Translation: Iambiguous does not know what he is talking about.

Dasein IS a concept as developed by philosophy, reaching its apogee with Heidegger.
If you don’t know what he was talking about then I suggest you read Being and Time.

If al you got is your own uninformed idea, then you are actually talking about something else, so I suggest you stop using a term that does not apply.

It’s not about what he intended to “attempt” ; its about what he achieved with Dasein.

There are no boundary issues to ideas; so what do you think you are talking about?