iambiguous wrote:Meno_ wrote:Or described in another basic form:
The relation between causa sui and sui generis.
Or extended to Sartre, the relationship between for itself and in itself
: Being-in-itself is concrete, lacks the ability to change, and is unaware of itself. Being-for-itself is conscious of its own consciousness but is also incomplete. For Sartre, this undefined, nondetermined nature is what defines man.
From ' Being and Nothingness' , Sartre
Same here.
Choose a particular context in which actual flesh and blood human beings interact and bring Sartre's assumptions down into it.
What "for all practical purposes" do you suppose that he is telling us here about the pour-soi and the en-soi?
And, in a wholly determined universe, could a distinction such as this even be made? Or, if made, made only because one could never not make it?
Meno_ wrote:As the different nexus appear as insoluable in some instances, and at that level, an existential jump based on extremely small differences, becomes a power issue which is almost an unconscious endeavor this sub consciousness becomes like an auto pilot.
Meno_ wrote: I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.
Meno_ wrote: I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.
Meno_ wrote: Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.
(Since values are variable as they are conflicting
The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.
If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.
Meno_ wrote: But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.
iambiguous wrote:Meno_ wrote: I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.
Okay, that's fair enough. But in my view Jacob is particularly adept at coming in here and making these ponderous observations that appear to be intellectually weighty, but only [in my view] up in the clouds of abstraction.
I still have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.
And now this from him: "All that is definitive is the ring of power."
Right.Meno_ wrote: I was not particularising within the context you bring it down to earth,because that is impossible, given that description, with which I sense agreement.
But what do you mean by impossible here? There are clearly things that are in fact possible in regard to human interactions. Things that we can agree are true for all of us.
And while we do not appear capable of linking our own narratives to an understanding of existence itself, that never stops folks interested in philosophy from giving it their best shot. And do we ever really know which members here might be thinking about all this in a way that never really occured to us? Besides, if it stops being of interest to someone, they can always just cease and desist from coming here.Meno_ wrote: Partixularising is the contextual background, where a reductive effect takes place, I.e, from IO valuation, to basic general evaluation based on the very basic ontological necessity, that exists between particularization/differentiation and identification/integration of variables.
(Since values are variable as they are conflicting
The levels of convertibilitu of values are mostly automatic and deterministic at that level, hence the unconsciousness of any effort for an existential leap.
If I had to spell out every variable in this progression, it way undermine the fact that I am basically with you here.
Again, this might be an extraordinary insight. But I have absolutely no idea what "on earth" it means. Though, sure, if that part is of little or no interest to you, you can always find others here who are willing to trade "technically sophisticated" "general description" "scholastic assessments" with you.
But it always just seems to be so much mental masturbation to me. A ceaseless attempt to coincide conflicting renditions of "definitional logic" so that everyone is at least absolutely certain that they agree on what the words mean.
Will Durant's "epistemologists" in other words.Meno_ wrote: But again, since You are currently taking a positivist -linguistic bases , while extolling the contrary, does not change communication to a degree that would guaranty a mutual communication. However I still keep tryiing grather then point to a one way flow of information exchange, as brilliant or, otherwise it may appear/ to .be.
What I am is someone who is interested in taking observations like this out into the world of actual social, political and economic interactions. And then in exploring how "for all practical purposes" they are relevant to the lives that we live.
What on earth do you suppose the evolution of human speech and language is really all about? In other words, what is it that speech and language is intended to communicate?
First of course words that facilitate our actual subsistence itself. We can't be philosophers unless and until we are able feed ourselves, shelter ourselves, defend ourselves, reproduce ourselves.
And then words that sustain all the things that we are able to want.
Only after all that can the very few focus on those words that revolve around what we call "the big questions" in philosophy.
The stuff that is the aim of this thread.
So, what I do is attempt to connect the dots between what we think we know about the nature of human speech and language, about the "big questions", and how that might be relevant to the behaviors that we choose in the course of living our lives.
As that relates to the question, "how ought one to live"?
iambiguous wrote:Meno_ wrote: I actually tried to relate to Jacob"s comment how it legitimizes his ontological-value description in terms of Being and Nothingness.
Meno_ wrote:
Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.
The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. 'induced', toward the most 'reduced'.
The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.
This too, is or should be self exemplary.
The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)
That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob's description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.
iambiguous wrote:Meno_ wrote:
Imbigious, most matters of this kind can be solved by reduction, instead of inducing them by a positive demonstration. Positive philosophy is more linked to material demonstration s, of the here and now. This You MUST agree because they are the linkage of the beginning and the very end of your summation.
The basic questions or rather, sub questions can flow out of this basic reduction from most complex: vis. 'induced', toward the most 'reduced'.
The point at which they become cognitively upheld on any basis , which is the epoche, or presentation/re-presentation of a tie-in between the materialist and the immaterialiat position, where those two terms are logically tied to ea h other, as Kantianism tried to do.
This too, is or should be self exemplary.
The exemplary-ness of such, was indeed upheld by Sartre, by his invocation in Being AND Nothingness, to which You yourself subscribed to.(see above)
That quote underlines obviously what is at stake, and that is where we can get into trouble. And did! Now before going further, hoping that so far everything seems in order upon agreeing upon them, I will take a pause before getting into theater of Your particular objections. Which are noted in between Jacob's description s and your parting shot at the end about a though about how one ought to live.
Again, the only thing that interrest me regarding intellectual contraptions of this sort is their relevance to the lives that we actually live.
So, why don't we just conclude that I refuse to be a "serious philosopher" and leave it at that.
iambiguous wrote:
I have no idea how VO might relate to the manner in which I construe the values that individuals acquire over the course of actually living their lives. Let alone how that relates to something instead of nothing or the debate that swirls around dualism and human autonomy.
Meno_ wrote:
I don't even know how suçcesful this demonstration was, but certainly, if I was a young girl living in Saudi Arabia, where denial of parent's attitudes could result result in my death, I would certainly think twice before becoming pregnant, and if I did, I would certainly see it fit to do anything to abort a child.
Meno_ wrote:Finally , the -'Nothing' that you are reluctant to agree with as the basis of solving problems involving values, is not nothing , as you are attempting to define, but a some-thing, as minimally uses as per existence. There really is no 'absolute nothingness' after all in any sense of the word, no matter how hard you are trying that absolute sense of Being per material.
The contradictory attempt at proof is very obvious.
Meno_ wrote: There is no real difference between a serious philosopher and one who isn't, as long as one is thinking about what thoughts occur between what one sees and hears, as a qualifier for belonging to that art of philosophy.
Meno_ wrote: That you see no point beyond appreciating that process of thought that You consider as practical philosophy, does not disconnect You from the implications of its seriousness, while at the same time does not induce others reading You within considering those implications.
It does make for more sense to become more practically minded, as in our case, having come to practically identical positions.
But at times it makes sense for the sake of more connections, not to completely exclude all else.
Meno_ wrote: Otherwise, there appears no issue, except the arxjaoc contrariness, of left behind truncations but even then, the conflicting ideas can at least be written down as problematic to the degree of becoming paradoxical.
iambiguous wrote:
The point [ mine ] is to take that process of thought out into the world of human interactions such
that for all practical purposes implications part can be described and encompassed more substantively
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
The point [ mine ] is to take that process of thought out into the world of human interactions such that for all practical purposes the implications part can be described and encompassed more substantively
What you can actually do is a subset of what you would want to do because pragmatism is more limited than idealism and so ultimately all choices are between actual possibilities not theoretical possibilities.
surreptitious75 wrote: What determines your preference for one possibility over another depends on multiple factors and especially what the possibilities are in relation to each other and what objections if any there may be to some of them.
surreptitious75 wrote: With the choice being between all actual possibilities the reason for choosing one over another may not even be practical but something else such as moral.
surreptitious75 wrote: There are no objectively right and wrong choices here only subjective ones and the one which is chosen will for you be the least harmful choice of them all.
Meno_ wrote:David Pierce presents an equally compelling argument.Which is more convincing, and/or likely?
iambiguous wrote:Meno_ wrote:David Pierce presents an equally compelling argument.Which is more convincing, and/or likely?
"But the chuckle that follows indicates just how far he and all the rest of us are from actually knowing the answer. In other words, we have competing conjectures predicated [in the end] on certain assumptions that are made."
So, did David Pierce chuckle or not?
iambiguous wrote:
what is construed by you to be the least harmful choice may well be deemed anything but by others
I have come to conclude that the choices we make here are the embodiment of dasein interacting with other daseins in a world awash in
conflicting goods such that what counts in the end are those who have the actual political power to enforce one set of behaviors over another
I dont even seem to have access to a complete understanding of whether anything that I am typing here and now was only ever what I could be typing here and now
I am in the same boat that everyone else is in I just think about it [ here and now ] differently
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
what is construed by you to be the least harmful choice may well be deemed anything but by others
I have come to conclude that the choices we make here are the embodiment of dasein interacting with other daseins in a world awash in conflicting goods such that what counts in the end are those who have the actual political power to enforce one set of behaviors over another. I dont even seem to have access to a complete understanding of whether anything that I am typing here and now was only ever what I could be typing here and now. I am in the same boat that everyone else is in I just think about it [ here and now ] differently
Free will is a consequence of you making a choice that others may disagree with but equally so others may make choices you disagree with
surreptitious75 wrote: But as long as the choices do not directly or indirectly impact negatively upon others then the one making them should be allowed to do so
surreptitious75 wrote: Everything is in a constant state of motion so what you type now will not be the same as what you type at any other time
Even if you type the same words you will be doing so in a different time and space from the last time that you typed them
To get us started thinking about it, let’s distinguish between reasons and causes. When we ask why something is the case, depending on our purposes and what kind of explanation we seek, we might be asking for a reason, or we might be asking for a cause.
If God's existence precedes the cosmos, and God’s will is sufficient to bring a physical universe into existence, then we’ve just pushed the question back a level. Why is there a God rather than nothing at all?
...if we think of the Big Bang as an event, there was something before it that caused it to happen. But whatever caused the Big Bang must itself have a cause, and so on. The result of this thinking is that we end up in an infinite regress of causes, no further toward answering our original question.
Here’s why the question we started off with is so tricky. If you start off with absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no God, no initial conditions—then how does something magically come into existence from nothing? I don’t see how we’ll ever be able to come up with a satisfactory answer to that question.
Maybe, then, we should just conclude that there is no explanation for existence—it’s just a brute fact. Maybe the world just is.
This approach was favored by two great philosophers, David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and it certainly has some appeal. But for some, it may feel like a cop-out. Just because we haven’t yet been able to figure out why there’s something rather than nothing, it doesn’t mean there’s no answer to the question.
iambiguous wrote:
how is it demonstrated definitively that what we agree or disagree with reflects some level of autonomy
Users browsing this forum: Peter Kropotkin