Wait the reason you randomly came up with an extremely abstract explanation for my behavior was to get us to come down from the clouds? There are easier ways to do that. Further those are your up in the clouds words. And you use them oddly, though I can work with dasein now, having gotten used to your idiosyncratic use of it.
It seems like here you are attributing the position of free will to me. That’s very weird. It often feels like you don’t know who you are responding to anymore.
Sure. I think we both know what determinism is.
No, it’s a fair parallel to what you did. I was not saying what your point was, I was saying, with the ice cream example, what you did.
You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.
Right, and you wouldn’t need some concocted understanding of pragmatism to have a preferred flavor, just as I don’t need some concocted understanding of pragmatism to not be interested in determinism vs. free will. Get it?
Jesus.
Yup. But again, not relevent. You ‘show’ me a ‘concrete’ example. I point out that it is not concrete at all. It is general and abstract.
You respond as if I had said something about determinism.
You are just repeating something you have said hundreds of times that has nothing to do with whether your hunting example was concrete or not.
You’re all over the place and repeating randomly.
Golly gosh, as if I haven’t show I understand this, other issue many times.
I never said it wasn’t the embodiment of dasein. I was showing you that to answer your question, what would you do, it would depend on an actual concrete situation, as part of my demostrating that your example was not concrete.
Get it?
Where on earth you got the idea I was saying my various possible reactions were free of dasein’s effects or free of determinism, I have no idea.
But what of “intellectual contraptions” or “psychological contraptions”? Worlds of words used as a “devise”, an “invention”, a “contrivance”, a “mechanism” for getting a point across?
Well, I guess you decided not to let me now what ‘this’ was referring to.
We take our “political leaps” here but my own becomes considerably more embedded in the fractured, fragmented “I” down in the hole.
I don’t think there is a political leap, at least for me. Which, again, does not mean that I am unaffected by dasein or that I am objectively correct. A political leap would be me considering my preferences to be the right ones the GOOD ones. That’s a leap.
If you don’t believe in an objective morality that all rational and virtuous people are [deontologically] obligated to embrace, then what is the alternative out in the real world? Out there the bottom line will always revolve around who has the power to enforce one set of behaviors over another.
You say all we have is a political leap.
I say I don’t make a political leap and explain why.
Your response seems to be bemoaning not having an objective morality that all people are obligated to embrace. You don’t have one either. So what?
I still don’t make a political leap.
You just keep sliding around, never responding to the point I am making, but jumped to some issue you have and saying it doesn’t solve it. Or you take my point as me attempting to refute determinism or to say I am nto affected by dasein.
It’s very strange.
han another? Knowing that, given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, you might change your mind.
That to me encompasses the practical implications of living in a No God world in which moral narratives are largely existential contraptions. And in this regard how are your “preferences” not in turn rooted in dasein.
Of course they are. I have acknowledged that dozens of times.
Again, you are acting as if I have said I am free of dasein. I haven’t. I don’t know sometimes if you are actually reading me or just getting triggered by me.
That’s how they see the world: one of us [those who are right] and one of them [those who are wrong].
And you see them as one of them - people who are incorrectly sure they know what is objectively right. You are not sure they are wrong, but they are still a them to you.
Again, I don’t exclude my own point of view here.
You don’t exclude it as far as your leftist politics, but you don’t seem to realize that the way you couch objectivists as making us/them, is making us/them. I say this since you just complained about them being like that.
They may well be right in embracing their own moral narrative in regard to sport hunting. I’m certainly unable to demonstrate that they are wrong. Instead, I continue to be “drawyn and quartered” in accepting that my own liberal position here is rooted existentially in the life that I lived. And that both sides are able to make reasonable arguments pro or con for this particular behavior.
I don’t draw and quarter you for that.
You refer to something the objectivists do. I pointed out that you do it too, not because you have a lefty position on sport hunting, or not only because of that, but I know you know that. But also due to your contrasting yourself with objectivists. Not just contrasting yourself with righty objectivists, but with any objectivist.
If you realize you are making another us them on that level, great. It was simply unclear.
And you think they are a problem in a way you are not. You do acknowledge you might be wrong. They tend not to, though some certainly will, and certainly on some issues. But we still have you and them.
On the contrary, if, in the end, it turns out that they are right [re God, or reason, or the optimal view of nature], then I am the problem. In encouraging people to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in the political/legislative realm, I am putting up roadblocks to that which can be demonstrated to be the most rational/virtuous human behavior.
Yup, it sure could be. Glad to hear you write it out clearly. You used to write as if these were the rational response to not knowing if there was an objective morality or knowing which one it was. IOW even if one had no idea if there was or what was an objective morality, there is not reason to choose those approaches over any other. It’s just one you prefer. Perhaps when you bring up those again, it will seem less high and mighty.
You still want to find out. That’s kind of romantic, as opposed to classical. I am not romantic about that but about other things I am. Reach exceding or at least possibly exceding grasp and all that. And I mean de facto romantic, not like you have planned to be romantic regarding this, nor me regarding other things.
What I want is to discover an argument [from others] able to convince me that these things can be “found out”.
Precisely. That is what I am calling a romantic endeavor, and it is romantic because of how your philosophy makes achieving this seem incredibly unlikely.
You are calling it the romantic endeavor because, in a determined universe, your brain matter compelled you to; or, in an autonomous universe, your mind, based on all of your own uniquely personal experiences, relationships and access to ideas, predisposed you existentially to call it that.
My point would then be to note that you are either convinced that all rational men and women are obligated to think of me as you do here or now or you recognize that as the exchange further unfolds there is always the possibility that [for whatever reason] you may well come closer and closer to my own point of view.
LOL. Is your own point of view that you are not a romantic? Sure. YOu might convince me of that.
But you made a bad start since you didn’t even say whether you thought it was true or not.
I’m not attached to that observation, you being a romantic. It was a new one. More often I am inclined towards Ecmandu’s interpretation in the post above. I tend to like romantics and I was trying on another interpretation of your behavior. Felt nice. And you are quite right, it might not stick. But since you cannot seem to actually respond to any point I am making in the context I am making it, it seems unlikely that I will come to agree with you because of what you say. I mean, you couldnt even manage to say if you thought you were a romantic or not. Lol. I mean, seroiusly that was absurd. I might come to agree with you. Well, probably not if you never say what your position is. Lol again. This was one of the most incredibly unintentionally humorous posts of yours ever.