Its also a very objective statement you just agreed to Joker. Fantastic Telelogy there too, Cicero would be proud. You really have a proper grasp on “The Ends” of things.
My statement was not objective, it was merely, less subjective.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fini … et_malorum
Maybe everyone is asserting a Eudamonist position, and decided to semantically splice the argument in a fucking retarded spot, like Objectivity and Subjectivity, fear of Telelogy, without grasping where they stood in relation in actuality to the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it, and it split in two very different directions?
I can forgive Zinnati for not knowing this, but people on this forum are dive bombing Plato now without really understanding anyone’s position. Its not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing “professor says” through second hand sources.
I am not gonna tell you, Only Humean isn’t… just fucking read, and stop making incomprehensible fools of yourself. Even Stirner read these classics.
Zinnati is from a different philosophical tradition, so isn’t expected to know the Greek and Roman roots of this debate. I pardon him. Not you Joker… you live in a cabin, so you have no excuse, get your read on.
What exactly are we failing to grasp Turd? I’m open to suggestions.
Zinnati deserves the lesson I am bringing, not just being told to read. Plato, is not the arbiter of knowledge as well
Fuck Plato.
I approve of this message as do all the little boys he raped with the consent of his culture.
2,500 years and certain people don’t want to transcend beyond the myopia of Greek philosophy, its been romanticized, overly romanticized. Give them credit for getting the ball rolling. A monumentous achievement and monumentous credit indeed.
Something like that. Exactly. Bin Laden differentiated right from wrong behavior because he was firmly convinced in the existence of God. And God [the one in his head] becomes the omniscient/omnipotent font for determining [absolutely, objectively] which behaviors are either right or wrong.
Nietzsche on the other hand didn’t have a God, the God, my God to fall back on. He had to speculate about things like taxing the rich or what to do about the poor from the perspective of a mere mortal.
But then out in the world that we live in mere mortals have conflicting and contradictory assessments of things like the role of government or the meaning of equality.
But then the objectivists [though still mere mortals] are able to “think through” these things [philosophically or otherwise] and come to embody one or another existential rendition of this:
1] I am rational [about taxing the rich]
2] I am rational [about taxing the rich] because I have access to the political ideal
3] I have access to the political ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively]
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively] because I am rational
Nietzsche merely speculated that in the absence of God, mere mortals, exercising their will to power, should sort things out in terms of the best of us imposing their will on the least of us.
So it is part “might makes right” and part “right makes might”.
The important point still is that from the perspective of the objectivists these things can be rationally differentiated. Why? Because they have themselves already figured it all out.
You know, if only “in their head”.
It’s just that historically there have been those objectivists who insisted on taking the ideas out of their heads. Folks like, say, the fascists or the communists or the capitalist imperialists or those embracing one or another denominational God.
So, will someone like Donald Trump lead the next objectivist charge? Or is he just one more pretender to the throne? Another moral nihilist rooted in the grand tradition of the global economy: Show me the money!
The facts of the matter is that Middle Class has to pay the most taxes, and Rich and Poor get the most amount of welfare, but Rich get much more Welfare than poor, which is utterly backwards.
So when someone says Rich must pay more taxes than poor, it means the Middle Class should not have to pay as much taxes, so it is good for the Middle Class. And also, people hate Rich people, because they were born with money they don’t deserve, and many of them are part of a Conspiracy Against Earth and plot on ways to lower the quality of human life, and are responsible for shitty TV shows like MTV, lack of freedoms, poisoned food, and crappy music like Justin Bieber.
This [in me own humble opinion] is rather typical of Turd’s contribution to a thread of this sort.
He makes it rather clear who the true scholar is among us. He speaks didactically [pedantically?] of a “Eudamonist position” in relation to “the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it”.
He notes that, “[i]ts not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing ‘professor says’ through second hand sources.”
Which seems to imply that the truth regarding subjectivity can be found only in a library. After all, “[e]ven Stirner read these classics.”
Get “your read on” he suggests.
Okay, suppose we read everything that he has read. Suppose we too become true scholars. How will that get us any closer than he has come to addressing the existential relationship that Zinnati broaches between subjectively and objectivity as it relates to taxing the rich or responding to the needs of the poor?
Is he suggesting that if we really understood Plato and Aristotle these things would be, what, self-evident…axiomatic?
Wow iambig, that post of yours was actually not an utter bore to read. Im proud of you
Thanks.
Well, coming from one of the Kids anyway. 
Oh, yeah, Turd has “foed” me. So he may not be gathering my insights here. I’d appreciate it if someone would include them in one of their own posts.
He’ll thank me later.
I shall.
I appreciate that the response to Turd was outrage at the idea that somebody who wants to make pronouncements on philosophy should be expected to actually fucking read some philosophy.
You don’t need no books, you gots bluster and Youtube!
But seriously, he’s right. You guys look dumb arguing about something you obviously haven’t actually studied. I’m not as up on the Greeks and can’t speak to it, but I can speak to the same phenomenon when you guys discuss epistemology.
You skipped a couple of paragraphs, but thanks. Unless of course Turd has you on ignore too.
Yes, this is a legitimate point.
As long as one is willing to acknowledge in turn that there may well be limitations imposed on philosophy [on language, on logic] as it pertains to what can be known [epistemologically] about the moral parameters of taxing the rich or attending to the poor.
In other words, lots of folks clearly embrace political prejudices that they insist instead reflect the only rational manner in which to address issues such as this.
They really do believe if that you spend years and years reading books on philosophy [and the books of those who made significant contributions] you can know for certain what one is obligated to think about the role of government or the nature or equality or justice or freedom.
Or at the very least the only way in which a true intellectual is obligated to think about them.
In other words, if you think about them exactly like they do. And in exactly the same manner that they do. Then you become “one of us”.
If only there was some way to take these ideas out of their heads and try them out in the real world. Maybe they could try different taxation schemes and studying the results. Or even better, by studythe results of other societies which have already tried different schemes.
Oh, right … that’s why you can’t do it. Any objectivist who takes some idea “out of his head” and tries it in the real world is ‘bad’. He is imposing his objectivist ideas on other people.
Well, all those ‘bad’ objectivists got some kind of results - why not study the historical results?
Let me guess - those results are only valid for that time and place and it’s impossible to learn anything from them. 
Have all subjectivists been taken the bait, or anyone still left?
With love,
Sanjay
What would a statement that is less subjective or more subjective look like? IOW, in what way does your statement differ from a statement which is less (or more) subjective?
How are you measuring the subjectivity of your statements?