Top Ten List

Just as it is abundantly clear [to me] that you are unwilling to take that which you construe to be “serious philosophy” down out of the technical clouds and situate it out in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of actual social, political and economic interactions.

And, in particular, at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power.

Starting with the points you raise on the list above.

It’s just that even here I am willing to acknowledge this too as just another “existential contraption”. I have no capacity [philosophical or otherwise] to demonstrate that others ought to think like this.

Again, going all the way back to a complete understanding of the existence of existence itself.

Who, in god’s name, is “we”?

No, I don’t think so. But what has any of that to do with what I am saying? You think it’s all fucked up that we can’t know whether or not abortion is wrong, ever since god died. I’m telling you that even when god was alive this was usually all fucked up. Even the catholics used to allow for grey areas. Read some history. Read Roe v. Wade, for that matter.

No offense, brotherman, but this makes absolutely no sense. If there is no “I” there is no logic to begin with.

Of course it’s situated in “a” particular world - the world itself. The only world there is. I don’t know who you are arguing with here, but it is not me.

This is about where you usually go off the rails. Philosophers use a “technique” in reasoning. So, a valid argument is “technical”. So… what can a philosopher “technically” tell us. You’re confounding technique with substance, form and function. It’s like you read what I write, what other people write, through Google Translate. You almost certainly are doing this deliberately. Ignoring an argument is not winning one.

I can if “to know objective values” makes no literal sense. That’s the big secret that you and objectivists are equally unaware of.

You and I. Or any others here who wish to intertwine the words that serious philosophers use in their disciplined technical discussions with their actual experiences with others out in a world teeming with conflicting goods.

All this demonstrates [to me] is that with respect to morality, you and I are both inclined to focus in on those grey areas. But they can be grappled with either intellectually or existentially. Though most are still inclined to embrace morality objectively. With or without God.

And even “fucked up” is an existential contraption. For some it is precisely those grey areas that allow them considerably more options in choosing behaviors. The objectivists either do the right thing or they don’t.

But few folks here are inclined to explore the possibility that, with regard to conflicting goods, being down in a “hole” is actually a reasonable frame of mind. Let alone that in examining them it is analogous to “ever-changing NFL rules”.

Or that construing “I” as “fractured and fragmented” may in turn be a reasonable perspective given the manner in which I have come to understand the “self” in the is/ought world.

But: Only when language like this is embodied existentially [contextually] are we likely to sustain exchanges that have any practical usefulness in our lives. And this is either important to us or it’s not.

I’m making a distinction between I in the either/or world in which “strict principles of validity” are anchored to, among other things, mathematics, the laws of nature and objective empirical facts, and “I” in the is/ought world where countless objectivists have insisted that their own moral and political narratives are, in turn, anchored to “strict principles of validity”.

Those “strict principles of validity” begin to crumble and “I” as an existential contraption is more readily appreciated. Well, by some of us.

Logic is applicable to all of us. But there are any number of human interactions in which logic is only useful up to a point.

Come on, we all live in a particular world called planet Earth. But each and everyone of us experience this world such that there are endless conflicts regarding what is said to be or not to be true about it.

My own assessment of it revolves the components I note above. And, so, what I deem to be a reasonable set of behaviors [here and now] is derived from them. But what about others? Do they take into account those components themselves. Yes? No? Okay, let’s shift the discussion to a particular context. Let’s take the words out into the world.

Okay, but there is still that gap between what serious philosophers tell us about logic, rational thought, epistemologically sound assessments etc., and the extent to which they can show why/how all of this is relevant to human interactions that, in regard to what is of interest to me, come into conflict over value judgments.

Technique and substance, form and function in regard to what particular set of circumstances?

And the arguments I tend to ignore are those that stay up in the clouds. And, by and large, in my own opinion, yours certainly do.

Again: What on earth does something like this mean? No “literal sense” in regard to what?

What does it mean to grapple existentially? You seem to be saying that moral judgements cannot be generalized. They certainly can, but one can go too far with that. But no amount of generalization produces an absolute truth. Generalization is something we can do, but not something the world does.

The laws of nature are just as human as any other idea. There are no objective empirical facts, because the idea of objectivity is a stupidity. What would an objective fact be? Something we observe with our human senses or identify with our human brains?

“Principles of validity” which means rules of logic or it doesn’t mean anything, do not crumble. These are simply a method to remain consistent in our claims. Those claims take a certain form and it is this form that “validity” applies to. The validity is baked into the language cake. They concern what we can say and cannot say, that is all. The world at large has no effect on them, nor the other way 'round. It’s just language. Logic is relevant to a certain kind of human actions - claims to truth. Nothing else. It’s pretty simple.

Objectivists, if I understand the term, are merely lost in the shadow of the Ontological Argument, are merely making an appeal to authority.

“to know objective values” makes no sense. To make that claim, to know objective anything, is neither true nor false. It is not a claim at all. It’s nonsense. The term “Objective truth” is likewise nonsense. No one would know an “objective truth” if it bit them in the ass. What form would this truth take and how would we know?

“Truth” is the most abused word in philosophy. Everyone knows what it means, until they read a philosopher. When they stop reading, they know again. That should tell philosophers something.

Again, to make an argument/assessment like this more clearly understood, we need to focus in on a actual context. What moral judgments regarding what conflicting goods? The truth about what in particular?

There are things in our lives that we don’t grapple with. Things able to easily be demonstrated as essentially true for all of us. Let’s call this the either/or world.

For example, the state of Texas executes death row prisoners. Is the fact of this something that generates heated discussions? Or here are the facts the facts? Of course: the facts speak for themselves.

Instead, I consture people “grappling existentially” when the discussion shifts to the morality of capital punishment. Why? Two reasons:

1] “I” here is largely an existential contraption. So much of what we come to believe is right and wrong is rooted in the actual trajectory of our lived experiences.
2] there are reasonable arguments able to be made by those from both ends of the political spectrum. There does not appear to be a way for “serious philosophers” to concoct something in the way of a deontological obligation here on the part of all rational human beings.

So, what particular moral judgements can be generalized here in what particular context? Regarding, say, the next prisoner to be executed in Texas. What facts can we all agree on here…facts that are likely to come as close as mere mortals are able to get to the “absolute truth”. In a No God world.

Sure, until we are able to grasp ontologically [teleologically?] a complete understanding of existence itself, who is really able to say what an objective fact is. But human brains are able to grasp cognitively the reality of executions in Texas and any number of folks can attest to what their senses encompassed while witnessing them.

Again, this appears to be as close to the objective truth as mere mortals are likely to get. And, of course, we have to live with that. Just as we have to take our existential leap to autonomy or determinism even regarding this exchange itself.

Ever and always up on the skyhooks. Imagine taking this “general description” assessment to folks outside the Huntsville Unit when a particularly newsworthy execution is about to take place. Imagine their reaction to it. One of them looks at you and says, “so that’s what serious philosophy is!”

So, in my view, what becomes most crucial here is drawing the line [in particular contexts] between that which logic appears most applicable to and that which it appears to be least applicable to when the language being communicated confronts conflicted goods embedded in issues like capital punishment.

Indeed. And that authority is either God, political ideology, Reason [deontological intellectual contraptions] or assessments of Nature.

Nonsense or not what doesn’t go away is the fact that, if we choose to interact with others socially, politically and economically, we need to establish rules of behavior that come as close as we possibly can to one or another rendition of the objective truth.

Just watch the news from day to day. This happens all the time. After all, is there actually a recourse?

On the news though we bump into those that I construe to be objectivists all the time. Their own moral and political narratives are deemed to be just one more manifestation of the either/or world.

Sigh…

What truth regarding what interactions in what particular context? All we can do as mere mortals in a [presumed] No God world is to grapple with all that we think we know about the truth there and then deal with those who insist that what they think they know is actually the truth instead.

Then [politically] it’s one or another combination of might makes right, right make might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Yo, Faust, are you still inclined to bring this list “down to earth”? :-k

Iamb man you ruined the shit out of it.
I mean they could handle the horde, somewhat. But then your lugubrious dishonesty on top, naw mayne. Naw.

Classic Jakobean retort!

In other words [sigh] what on earth [or what the fuck] does it mean?

“Handle the horde”? “lugubrious dishonesty”? Or is sounding “deep” as far as it ever goes with you?

And let’s not abandon this thread, my friend: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=194769

As, apparently, Faust has abandoned this one. :wink:

iam - there are no skyhooks here. What we may believe is right or wrong has no effect on logic, nor does logic have any effect on what we believe is right or wrong. Logic allows us to be consistent within a certain given set of assumptions. It does not apply to all language, of course. It applies to claims to truth - in other words, to statements. Surely even you can make a statement, and even a set of statements.

This has nothing to do with skyhooks, even if those statements hang from skyhooks.

Hardly a poster here has any idea what classical logic is and what it’s used for.

We do not have to come close at all to anything like anyone’s version of objective truth. If you think your “truth”, whatever the fuck that is, is in any way objective, you are merely mistaken.

Read my lips - truth applies only to statements. It is arrived at by consensus, which is not to say that it is arrived at unanimously. Morality is a political science. Which is not to say it is a science.

“I” is not an existential contraption. It is a contraption, sure, but not an existential one. There are no existential anythings. Adding a big, philosophical-sounding adjective does no work.

Of course, none of this takes a bite at your main deception - to choose a moral issue that there is no general agreement on and ignore the many there is agreement on (enough agreement) allows you to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it doesn’t show that morality is impossible without god. You are presenting a passive-aggressive argument for god, but you cannot seem to say anything about moral thinking itself.

One is left to wonder why it’s such an interesting topic for you.

Not that I have anything against theists. Some of my best friends believe in god.

Fixed Cross, if I am allowed an aside, I groove to your ILP jam on YouTube.

Logic: “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.”

Now, with respect to the morality of capital punishment [as opposed to the fact of it], how far from being logical about it is being rational about it?

With regard to a “technical” understanding of logic [the rules of language] what are the limitations imposed on philosophers in discussing the morality of the death penalty? In regard to particular instances of capital punishment in particular contexts?

Okay, but my “thing” here at ILP is then to ask this: “what is logic useful for as it relates to the things that we say and do in the course of living our lives from day to day?”

Again:

“magine taking this ‘general description’ assessment to folks outside the Huntsville Unit when a particularly newsworthy execution is about to take place. Imagine their reaction to it. One of them looks at you and says, ‘so that’s what serious philosophy is’”

And today we have the Mueller Report. Were its conclusions “logical”, “rational”…in sync with what was in fact objectively true?

Now, you can make the distinction between how serious philosophers might react to it and how [inevitably] the talking heads in the media will, but one way or the other, value judgments such is this will precipitate behaviors and these behaviors will precipitate very real consequences one way or the other.

So, is your point basically that all of this has little or nothing to do with being “logical”?

See how far that takes you in the discussions here.

Yes, political interactions precipitate political morality. And political science is clearly not the same thing as the sort of science practised by physicists, or chemists, or geologists or meteorologists.

But that’s my point. And philosophers – with the tools at their disposal – are able to react to the point I make. Whether in relationship to logic, to rational thought or to things that either can or cannot be known.

But: Out in world of actual human interactions people draw lines here in very different places.

I’ve never argued that “I” is an existential contraption in all respects. I’ve merely suggested that in regard to value judgments “I” is often derived more from the life that we have lived than from anything that philosophers or ethicists are able to establish.

Then I suggest that in discussing something like this as philosophers we establish a particular context involving particular choices that particular individuals make.

Such as in regards to capital punishment or the Mueller report.

With respect to capital punishment what on earth is this supposed to mean?

I have never argued that morality is not possible without God, only that mere mortals will derive particular “rules of behavior” from particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts that evolve over time in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

And that the objectivists among us will react to this [and your top ten list] by hammering it down to size. A reality said to be in sync with their very own “one of us” set of assumptions.

Follow the news from day to day. What are the biggest headlines derived from if not precisely the manner in which individuals will answer the question, “how ought one to live”?

Being a “serious philosopher” doesn’t change that.

Actually , there are no “serious philosophers”, at all, and I am ready to declare the most profound news after Nietzsche’s ‘God is Dead’ declaration, of the 20 thcentury,
“Since God is dead, philosophy is dead as well” , because it died before God did, and shame to him for not warning us.

And all that is caused by the devolvement of philosophy onto sophistry.

Please note the distinction between into- sophistry and unto it, for the former would have retained some element of choice between Kant and Hume et al.

Its like someone took an erasor and deleted everything prior to Sassure.

Duplicate

That they make sense. That they are not self-contradictory. That’s all. This is not difficult.

Either you want to make sense or you don’t. A self-contradictory argument is a waste of time. Logic is useful in teasing out the results of a process. If you know that lug nuts hold a tire to its wheel, you know you have to remove the nuts before you yank on the tire. I can only believe that you are asking rhetorical questions, here.

They would be quite stupid to think so. Of course, most people have no idea what philosophy is, so I suppose that would be a good guess.

I’ve no idea if they were logical or not. Leak me your copy. They are not in sync with what is objectively true. Hopefully, they derive from agreed upon facts and evidence that supports claims that will be taken as fact. Facts are agreed upon every day by everybody. This also is not difficult, unless you insist on making it so.

I’m just going to fucking kill myself, now. After all this time, you just cannot understand what logic is. It’s not about the content, but the form.

Repeat that last sentence 100 times. By the time you’re done, I will have driven a rusty screwdriver through my temple. The pain will be a welcome relief from this conversation.

Okay, but the part where arguments are made that capital punishment makes sense or does not make sense morally, is different from the part where arguments are made that capital punishment makes sense or does not make sense politically.

And the facts regarding any particular state execution are what they are. The facts themselves are applicable to everyone. Though any particular point of view may well be out of sync with the facts.

So, those who confuse being reasonable here with being logical are missing the point about the role that logic plays with respect to conflicting goods?

Sorry, but I’m back to this:

“Imagine taking this ‘general description’ assessment to folks outside the Huntsville Unit when a particularly newsworthy execution is about to take place. Imagine their reaction to it. One of them looks at you and says, ‘so that’s what serious philosophy is’”

That’s how I still imagine these folks responding to you. Thus it really comes down to how [philosophically] technical you want to be when utilizing the word logic relating to a particular context. The part where the rules of language themselves make contact with actual human interaction. The part where one says “it is reasonable [or unreasonable] to believe that capital punishment makes sense” and the part where one says “logic itself has only a limited role to play in the discussion/debate.”

Still, I don’t think it would be a question of them being “stupid” so much as some wondering why, if philosophy is understood to be the “love of wisdom”, how such tools as logic and epistemology can be made relevant to the things that are actually important to them.

The part that for me revolves around Will Durant’s rendition of “the epistemologists”.

What is a self-contradictory argument with regard to the morality of capital punishment? If someone points to a man and says, “I’d like to introduce to John Smith, who was executed last night at Huntsville” that would clearly seem to be contradictory. But how would that work with respect to arguments made embracing the conflicting goods here?

I’m just not sure I understand your point.

Perhaps. I’ve always been more fascinated with the limitations imposed on the “tools of philosophy” when language itself comes into contact with the world of actual human behavior. What’s the point of embracing philosophy as the “love of wisdom” when there are so many, many aspects of human interaction that precipitate really, really intense conflicts over what exactly is the wisest thing to do.

Whatever you do, don’t ask a philosopher?

Note to others:

Can I be held legally liable if he actually does this? :wink:

Also, is it the logical thing to do? :-k

Make sense morally? This is just deliberate equivocation, which is the bread and butter of the rationalist. Why would an anti rationalist like yourself use rationalisms main tool? That doesn’t make sense.

Logic plays absolutely no role with respect to conflicting goods.

I think capital punishment is jolly good and you do not, for instance. This is not in itself a matter of logic. I might use logic to make a case for the death penalty, but that’s not the interesting part. You bemoan the fact that we can both use logic to arrive at different conclusions. But that’s just me driving a Chevy to to the bank to rob it while you use a chevy to withdraw money to give to a homeless person.

There is nothing to talk about, here.

Rationalist, metaphysical religious types are not wrong because they use logic, they are wrong because they fuck up well before applying logic. Before they even get that far.

Logic has limited role in human life, but to laud people who wish to make an argument for their position but who don’t know how to makes sense is to say “everyone can play golf really well, they are all worthy, and in fact, shitty golfers are really better, because they are shitty. Since I know nothing of golf, I like them better, I champion their cause. They are the really really real golfers, because they suck. Lowering the bar like this makes everyone, especially me, feel better.”

Doesn’t do much to advance the game of golf, but advancement is just not your thing. Over the years, you have made it clear that you do not wish to advance your case a single inch.

It’s not like I don’t get it.

I think this is a very clear and concise pointing out of an irony.
I think what we have is an anti-rationalist - he might misunderstand what you mean by ‘rationalism’ - who yearns to be a rationalist. Make me, via irrefutable argument, a rationalist, or grieve with me that we are not rationalist in precisely the same way and to the same degree that I do, or find life as unbearable as me if you are not a rationalist.
It is as if you have entered a contract to do one of those things, if you engage with him. He may not think like that, but his responses are often as if you have failed to solve or grieve. But that doesn’t resolve the abortion issue?
Saying, well of course not seems to just reset the process, to start again.

And did he understand what logic is not?

Meanwhile,

All I’m trying to distinguish here is the difference between being logical in regard to capital punishment, being rational in regard to it, and being moral in regard to it.

In a way that a philosopher might make this distinction to those on opposite sides at Huntsville during an execution.

And I am not an “anti-rationalist”. The overwhelming preponderance of human interactions from day to day can be described and explained in a clearly reasonable, logical manner. We can all agree it’s rational to do any number of things. We can agree that in regard to the laws of nature, we can’t all just have our own personal opinions. Not if we want to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.

Well, we can google logic and morality and bump into any number of takes on that: google.com/search?ei=-RSZXL … B7cSTKIibc

Which of the arguments here nails it?

And it would seem to revolve around where the line is drawn between being logical and being rational and being virtuous when reacting to a particular execution.

Actually, from my frame of mind, the interesting part would revolve around examing the life that you have lived and noting the confluence of experiences/relationships/ideas etc., that became “I” — and, which, over the course of your life, predisposed you to think of it as “jolly good”. Then bumping into another who lived a very different life that predisposed him to think that is not “jolly good” at all. Then bumping in serious philosophers and asking them, “what now?”

Tell that to the cops who arrest you for robbing the bank. Or the homeless person taking the money.

The bottom line is that we all have different reactions to different behaviors. And however one constures the correct usage of logic in those reactions, what truths are we able to demonstrate as applicable for all rational human beings.

It’s just that any number of philosophers down through the ages have intertwined rational thought with moral obligations.

We’ll need a context though, right?

We’ll need a context though, right? With or without the use of logic, what does it mean to make sense of any particular set of behaviors?

We can describe rationally in great detail what the behaviors consisted of. But: What can we describe rationally in great detail regarding our reaction to the behaviors?

And what on earth would constitute an “advancement” for “I” when contemplating “how ought one to live”?

Morally and politically in particular.

I think this is precisely correct.