Top Ten List

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

[iambiguous]

Yo, Faust, are you still inclined to bring this list "down to earth"?

[Jakob]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Faust]

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

[iambiguous]

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.

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?

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

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?"

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.

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" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[Meno_]

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 th century,
"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 saying philosophy into- sophistry and unto it, for the former would have retained some element of choice between Kant and Humel et al.

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

Duplicate

[Faust]

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?

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

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?"

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.

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'"

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[iambiguous]

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?

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

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?

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?"

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Note to others:

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

Also, is it the logical thing to do?

[Faust]

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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?

[Jakob]

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."

Meanwhile,

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

Logic plays absolutely no role with respect to conflicting goods.

Well, we can google logic and morality and bump into any number of takes on that: https://www.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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

We'll need a context though, right?

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....

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.

[Faust]

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.

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?

I think this is precisely correct.

[Faust]

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.

I should have said anti-Rationalist. As in Rationalism, a flavor of formal philosophy. These are not merely reasonable and logical people. In fact, they usually badly mangle logic. And they tend to reach entirely unreasonable moral conclusions. They believe that important moral dicta, and other dicta, like epistemic dicta, can be reached by reason alone. Compare and contrast to Empiricists. Plato was a rationalist, setting wild and wacky precedence for much of the philosophy that ensued. Descartes was a rationalist, despite that he had to throw God in the get started.

On being logical, rational and moral - to lump these together is to invite a big fat category error. While the first two are related, the third is not.

The way you phrase it, being logical and being rational are pretty much synonymous. When we say someone is rational, we are saying he uses logic. But he's got to do more than that. You can use the finest tools and still build a crappy house. We really ask for sound arguments, which are valid and which use only true premises.

So, no one is logical in regard to capital punishment. That's nonsense in a way that may be beyond my powers to explain. We can ask if someone uses a logical (sound) argument to justify one position or the other on capital punishment. But to say that someone is "logical in regard to" capital punishment t says absolutely nothing, even though it sounds like it does. Is he being rational? Is he using his brains and not his balls? Is he hallucinating? has he thought about this?

What does it mean to say that he is "moral" in regard to capital punishment? In regard how? That term, "in regard to" is too vague for philosophy. It does't describe the relation well.

Logic is applied only to arguments. Only to arguments. It was formulated to analyze arguments and that's all it does. There are other uses for the word "logic" of course, but we're only talking a bout one use. If we have a purely emotional, unreflective reaction to the idea of capital punishment, we are not being rational. But no matter what our view, we can be thinking lucidly.

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?"

Philosophers have been giving their answers for a long time. But philosophy has progressed enough to consider questions about the relationship between morality, politics and law, for instance. It's just a very much more interesting question than the one you are asking.

You must remember that philosophy doesn't justify itself. Morality doesn't justify itself. Nothing justifies itself. That's what you asking philosophy to do. No field of human endeavor justifies itself.

[iambiguous]

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.

Again:

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.

You tell me: how would you make that distinction for the opposing camps protesting outside the Huntsville unit in Texas?

Or is your own "general description" "intellectual contraption" here reserved only for those able to discuss "rationalism" analytically, scholastically, academically. In the hallowed halls as it were.

If, philosophically, rationalism "is the epistemological view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" apply that to the political conflagrations that revolve around state executions.

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.

[Note to others: You tell me how any of this is relevant to the distinctions I am attempting to grapple with above. With regard to the death penalty or to any other human interactions that revolve around conflicting goods]

You and I both seem to agree that with regard to abortion mere mortals don't have access to objective morality. Okay, given that, how do you make the distinction yourself between logical, rational and normative points when you bump into someone who does not share your own point of view?

Me, I'm down in my hole as encompassed above and elsewhere. I embrace my own rendition of pragmatism but that does not make me -- "I" -- any less fragmented and fractured.

And that seems to revolve around how we construe the meaning the "self" here [in the is/ought world] as more or less an "existential contraption". An ever and always evolving frame of mind ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to other points of view.

[Ecmandu]

Debate me iambiguous.

Stop toying with the children.

Debate me.

[iambiguous]

Debate me iambiguous.

Stop toying with the children.

Debate me.

Why on earth would I debate someone whose intelligence I have absolutely no respect for? Folks like Faust and KT I have considerable respect for. But you are just another Kid here to me.

[Ecmandu]

Debate me iambiguous.

Stop toying with the children.

Debate me.

Why on earth would I debate someone whose intelligence I have absolutely no respect for? Folks like Faust and KT I have considerable respect for. But you are just another Kid here to me.

A kid who is the only person on the entire Internet who can beat you at this debate.

[iambiguous]

Debate me iambiguous.

Stop toying with the children.

Debate me.

Why on earth would I debate someone whose intelligence I have absolutely no respect for? Folks like Faust and KT I have considerable respect for. But you are just another Kid here to me.

A kid who is the only person on the entire Internet who can beat you at this debate.

Thus proving my point. Unless of course I'm wrong.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Again:

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.

This contains, pretty likely, a misunderstanding of logical. You can't be (just) logical in relation to capital punishment. It's a category error. You can present logical arguments about it. Or your arguments might, it turns out, contain fallacies - that is they were not logical. But since any argument about capital punishment is going to have value judgments - unless it has to do with the effects of various chemical poisons, or similar practical issues - there can be logical arguments that reach different conclusions, since they have premises that are different. Of course there might be a chance of resolving something if boht parties had exactly the same values, but one party was using fallacious logic. then you might be able to demonstrate this to them. But that is generally not the case. Usually there are differing value judgements, that is differing assumptions (about the good or the bad or the evil) that form the base of the arguments. Things/phenomena/acts aren't logical or illogical, arguments or acts of reasoning are or aren't. See sound vs valid arguments, google that, and you'll get where I am heading.

You tell me: how would you make that distinction for the opposing camps protesting outside the Huntsville unit in Texas?

Most likely I wouldn't, but if I got into a discussion and it felt OK, then it might be somewhat like the above.

Or is your own "general description" "intellectual contraption" here reserved only for those able to discuss "rationalism" analytically, scholastically, academically. In the hallowed halls as it were.

What fucking contraption?

If, philosophically, rationalism "is the epistemological view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" apply that to the political conflagrations that revolve around state executions.

Why?

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.

[Note to others: You tell me how any of this is relevant to the distinctions I am attempting to grapple with above.

OK. Here is your solipsism.
Who did I write that post to? (hint: Faust)
Was Faust seeming a little confused by a contradiction he found in you? (I think the answer is yes. See the post I responded to)
Was I trying to solve the problem you were raising? Clearly and absolutely not. I addressed Faust. And notice, he understood. I made it clear I was addressing Faust and on what issue I addressed Faust.

Now: note the irony. I pointed out in my repsonse to Faust

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 here you are doing precisely that. I did not solve your issue. But I was responding to Faust. In other places, I am pointing out things in your posts to you, that have to do with issues you may not be as obsessed with. You respond precisely like this 'that did not solve my issue X.' Well, gosh I AM NOT YOU. i HAVE MY FOCUS AND INTERESTS AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ASSUMPTIONS OR CRITICISMS OF BEHAVIOR.

I AM ALIVE. I HAVE GOALS AND INTERESTS. I have never encountered a so solipsistic poster, who at the same time seems like a nice guy and is intelligent. I mean, I expect empathiless babbling and focus from KThyself type kids.

You respond AS IF everything is just for you and what you demand for answers and you just it as failing for you and that it should be judged that way. Even here, when I am clearly posting to a third party. This can be very irritating, though here I am grateful to you for giving me an exactly and perfect example of what I told Faust it was like to be responded to by you.

I know you think I get irritated at you because I fear the hole. That you trigger what it would be like without whatever contraptions you hallucinate I have. That's irritating too. there is such an obvious interpersonal, consistant and repeated irritation in the way you respond and/or often do not respond at all, as if you hadn't even read it.

and that you, in essence, treat only your goals as mattering or even existing. Even many objectivists notice that I have my own goals and interests. and many of them read my posts and respond to the points I make. they just as often think I am wrong. But they fucking see me, lol.

[Faust]

Karpel - I'd like to expand upon something you said a couple of posts up. Sometimes two people can reach partial agreement because they realize that they are using some of the same premises in their arguments and/or because a logical lapse is discovered. So, arguing about capital punishment may yield agreement on some tangential (to the argument at hand) point. It's still agreement.

I have a friend who was until recently pro-life but is now pro-choice. And yes, part of the reason for her shift is life experience. But while she was going back and forth over the issue of abortion, she was weighing different arguments.Those arguments constitute the narrative of her mental machinations. They provide the narrative for her position.

Humans are the species that requires narrative. And for most people, that narrative has to progress, somehow, on some level.

Our friend iambiguous - and now I will address you, Iam. You're stuck in a narrative that spins round and round and ultimately tells you nothing. The proper use of philosophical technique can help. And it doesn't matter how badly other philosophers have done with their technique. Philosophy is just one of those things that very few people are good at.

Agreement is useful even if it's partial and conditional. Everything that's even interesting exists on a spectrum.

If everyone agreed, there would b e no use for morality at all.

[Faust]

Duplicate. Sorry.