Determinism

[Serendipper]

The thread I started on objectivity viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194818

[Meno_]

negative, but what would it mean to say positive exists in a world where there is no negative? It's meaningless. So existence is simply the relationship between positive and negative. Positive and negative have to be something that are differentiated from each other first, and then we can recognize existence as a thing next. We can't say positive exists and then negative exists because it's meaningless.



-----

By a priori apprehension . Between prescription and postscriptio, descriptive presentations are possible, where prescriptive ideas are sources of information, including the existential descriptions Sarte informs through being and nothingness, where the source is an inductive (phenomenolycal assertion of a negation at a point of nihilization.

Clarification later

[iambiguous]

Your internal nature and the external causes precipitate "choices" that are always necessarily in sync with a reality that could only ever have been.

This is one thing that frustrates me. I agree with you and then you tell me basically what I said. I don't see why you couldn't just say 'agreed'. Or perhaps you really don't get that I understood. It ends up feeling like you are just in lecture mode. I must not understand, even though I agreed with you.

Consider:

Either our internal natures, necessarily in sync with external causes in a determined universe, precipatated/compelled my post and your reaction to it above, or we had some measure of autonomy enabling us to sustain a different exchange. Had, for example, we been able to freely choose to think about things longer.

That's why many choose to convey it as "choices" here instead of choices

Yet peacegirl then seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word "fated" instead. Yet if fated is defined as "to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way," why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do "choose" to use it.

The reason not to use fated is because it tends to indicate that you are not part of the causes, that the causes are all external. It is more likely to cause passivity.

I am part of the exchange only in the sense that I am compelled by the laws of matter to "choose" my words here. A necessary bit part in a necessary overall reality.

For nature, where do the external causes stop and our internal natures begin? How is "I" -- in a manner we do not yet understand -- not but one of nature's equivalent of dominoes?

She agrees with all of the points that I make but she still "chooses" to back away from our exchange. And this makes sense to me only to the extent that she seems able to convince herself that I am in fact to blame for not agreeing with her. Really to blame because I should have "chosen" to agree with her.

That's the only possible interpretation?

Can't one be compelled by unsuccessfuly getting something across, or by it seeming over and over that the other person is not reading carefully - even if they cannot help but do that.

It seems to me you have a go to interpretation. You can't help that. But now when it is pointed out that there might be other possibilities, perhaps you will not have that same reaction, since information might change your mind. we'll see.

But: how are our interpretations -- any and all interpretations -- not in turn inherently/necessarily in sync with the inherent/necessary unfolding of nature's laws?

This isn't answering my question. You had an interpretation. Is that the only possible interpretation?

And around and around we go. I am compelled to answer as I do above. You are compelled to point out that my answer evades your question. My point is that there might have been a hundred different interpretations, but I interpreted it as I did because I was never able to interpret it in any other way. I "chose" an interpretion. And my brain matter is able to compel me to think that perhaps I chose this interpretation of my own free will.

Then it's back this: did I in fact chose to instead? Yes? No? Maybe?

So, am I compelled to ask this of others here? Are they compelled to answer only as they must?

Same with success and failure. Same with "changing my mind". I will or I won't. But, in a determined universe, it won't be because I freely thought things over again and then freely chose to change my mind.

Agreed. Peacegirl agrees with this.

Which then takes us back to that crucial "choice" again. Understanding it as she is compelled to versus understanding it the way I am compelled to. Nothing is any less compelled but at least we aren't literally dominoes.

I would think you can imagine a woman, say, who has had bad experiences with men, interpreting all advances in one way. If she had had a real trauma, or come from a very harsh subculture. She could over time learn that not all men will treat her the way she has been treated.

What does this have to do with her experiences [and her reactions to them] being anything other than what they were always going to be? As though her "learning" is not in just another determined "choice".

It means that at some point perhaps you will get peacegirls point and despite the causes that previously made you not agree, then agree. One can change due to new causes. This can happen.

If I do get it why won't it be entirely embedded in nature's way? What part of nature's causes and nature's effects do "I" have any capacity to impact other than in "choosing" what I am compelled to? How are her posts any less necessary causes here?

I still construe blame in her arguments. Not all that far removed -- semantically -- from the sort of blame I get from those who insist I should share their own understanding of God, religion, morality, political values, assessment of nature etc.

Well, either you will see if there are other possible interpretations or you will hold on to this single one you seem to think is possible. I don't know which will come to pass.

But "I" don't/can't/won't freely pursue the other possible interpretations. What will pass will pass. Period. It could not ever have not passed.

At least insofar as [here and now] I understand the meaning of [and the existential implications of] a wholly determined universe.

[iambiguous]

Tell that to the Universe.. everything that happens within it's confines is objective, so objectivity does exist, but just not within the confines of our world and our lives.

Now.. I cannot prove that, but on another note.. there are instances when objective reality can happen i.e. when everyone is on the same page.. objective reality is being here, but then that breaks down into our individual outlook of subjectivity.

This more or less reflects the "for all practical purposes" point of view that many/most of us take.

There are things that we think we know are true. And day after day after day, we bump into others who think that the same things are true. All embedded in the laws of nature, the rules of language, mathematics. And [then] the way in which all three, when intertwined out in a particular world, produce any number of "things" -- technologies, engineering feats, the "stuff" in our lives -- that would seem to come as close as we are now able to in encompassing the objective truth.

But then there are all of those things that become entangled in that which we are never really quite able to define definitively as "subjective" points of view.

Moral and political narratives being the most critical. Why? Because conflicting subjective assessments here precipitate all of those numbing headlines we encounter in the media.

But this thread explores another take on subjectivity altogether. The one that revolves around whether in a wholly determined universe human subjectivity itself is just another manifestation of the whole objective truth.

Again, most take their own subjective leap here to human autonomy. Though some will acknowledge that they believe that they are free [to varying degrees] even if they know they can't actually prove it.

As opposed to those here who have actually managed to convince themselves that they are either free or determined.

And [of course] the fact that they believe this [one way or the other] is demonstration enough for them.

[iambiguous]

Yawn.

Once again another smartass attack in which the whole point here is to make me the issue.

But individual humans are the issue. A very large percentage of your posts have you, your history of political positions, the fact that you, as an individual do not know, how this contrasts with objectivists - and you label them as objectivists, making them at least part of the issue.

Yes, but this thread focuses more on whether or not we are able to freely determine if the individual human beings posting here have any capacity argue their points autonomously.

And I only label someone as an "objectivist" when they insist that how they think about right and wrong in the is/ought world encompasses the obligation of all rational/virtuous human beings. Or, in regard to the really Big Questions like this, that their argument reflects the answer.

The entire drive of your participation has to do with you as an individual, a specific one with a specific history and how ideas do and do not affect you. That is the core of your participation here and is combined in various ways with dasein, conflicting goods, how you interpret, you are unsure, etc.

Which fits nicely with my interests, because that is precisely the level I am interested in philosophy. What happens when we have certain memes in our minds? What are these memes doing in individual minds?

You note things like this about me but [generally] it is up in the clouds of abstraction. What particular memes in what particular context? And, here, as that relates to conflicted understandings of determinism.

I am interested in other things also, but it seems rather disingenous to dismiss my response because it makes you the issue, when your posts come out of you very specifically as part of the content with you as the issue, and further that you label other people and focus yourself on the dynamics with you - for example the whole peacegirl is blaming me, this still feels like blame issue, thing. That is you focusing on peacegirl and the interpersonal relatoin with you in a thread. That is all about making you, him and the relation the issue. Similar things happen with objectivists.

I'm sorry, but, from my frame of mind, this is an abstract psychologism. You say these things about me but nothing really clicks.

And I note that I raised a issue about your certainty - seen via the word 'clearly' - which you could simply have answered. Why are you clear about that and not about other things? You could have answered that question, but you didn't.

Clearly, "clearly" would not seem to be the most appropriate word. But I either had no choice [only a "choice"] in using it or I should come up with a better word. On the other hand, over and again, I make the point that in regard to relationships such as this, the points I make are no less entangled in the existential contraptions that revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" as the embodiment of dasein. In particular contexts.

and/or the matter of choice itself in world in which the presumption is either human freedom or the lack thereof.

I actually don't think it matters.

Many would disagree.

I understand that it sounds terrible or at least can if everything is determined (or if there is quantum indeterminism which also does not lead to freedom) but it doesn't seem to matter at all to me. How does this affect my next day? My next second? I black box it. I remain unconvinced that I must decide dterminism is the case or decide that free will is the case or that I must be in pain about it. If there is an argument someone has as to why I should do one of these things, that it is good to do so, let me know. I do not mean - demonstrate that free will or determinism is the case. Rather that it is important I decide and commit myself to one of those or to suffering not knowing.

Sure, this is a reasonable manner in which to approach questions such as this. And if you approach it this way only because you were never able not to approach it this way, well, the days still unfold and there are "choices" to be made.

Just as with our discussions regarding the "hole" I'm in. You are able to concoct an understanding of pragmatism that is different from mine. This one "works" for you [for all practical purposes] in a way that I am unable to make mine work for me.

And perhaps that too is only as it ever could have been. But somehow given the accumulated experiences, relationships and access to ideas that have come to encompass your life and mine, we have come to react to these things differently.

And, sure, maybe [in an autonomous world] because your thinking is more reasonable than mine.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes, but this thread focuses more on whether or not we are able to freely determine if the individual human beings posting here have any capacity argue their points autonomously.

Well, the implications of determinism are even more undermining than that. How could a wholly determined person know that their arguments made sense or even applied to other people? All they would know is that it seemed like it made sense to them - perhaps because they were logical arguments, but perhaps just because of qualia.

So I was reacting to the oddity of your humility in relation to language and other places where 'us being creatures of such small mass', and in general being so affected by dasein lead to us not being able to know anything (perhaps) and what was suddenly clear...

but then someone states a position that matches yours...

and your response is 'clearly.....' + agreement.

I find myself often noticing that people do not seem to understand the implications of the own positions. They hold others to a certain kind of rigor, but not themselves. When I was younger I truly suffered the implications of certain ideas. Ideas I was not sure were the case, but if so, it was horrible. Those who were sure these things were the case, seemed not bothered at all. So, I notice when people seem not to understand the implications of their beliefs. And especially anyone who seems to be claiming, at least implicitly, that they can stare into the abyss while anyone who disagrees with them cannot.

And I only label someone as an "objectivist" when they insist that how they think about right and wrong in the is/ought world encompasses the obligation of all rational/virtuous human beings. Or, in regard to the really Big Questions like this, that their argument reflects the answer.

In the context of my argument it only matters that you do label them that, and as it happens this is quite often. This is ad hominim also. And if what promethean said was clear then it becomes 'the answer' regarding communication and an objectivist stance.

Saying X is the answer is objectivist. Saying language is a weak tool for discussing these issues is objectivist. It is making claims about what is going on, what can happen, what is happening and indicates that objectivists who believe in effective communication on Big Questions are wrong.

You note things like this about me but [generally] it is up in the clouds of abstraction.

Precisely. And promethians post, which you cited and agreed with as clearly the case, was also extremely abstract. Who gets to be abstract? You and people you agree with, when you agree with them. When people who seem to be disagreeing or pointing out problems in your position are abstract, suddenly this is a problem.

I'm sorry, but, from my frame of mind, this is an abstract psychologism. You say these things about me but nothing really clicks.

And we both know there is a whole range of possibilities as to why, a number possible at the same time.

And I note that I raised a issue about your certainty - seen via the word 'clearly' - which you could simply have answered. Why are you clear about that and not about other things? You could have answered that question, but you didn't.

Clearly, "clearly" would not seem to be the most appropriate word. But I either had no choice [only a "choice"] in using it or I should come up with a better word. On the other hand, over and again, I make the point that in regard to relationships such as this, the points I make are no less entangled in the existential contraptions that revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I" as the embodiment of dasein. In particular contexts.

Great, then it wasn't clear.

If we are really going to take the position that our situation is such that we cannot know things, this leads to a lot of consequences. Some easier than others to face.

I was pointing out one that seemed harder to face.

and/or the matter of choice itself in world in which the presumption is either human freedom or the lack thereof.

I actually don't think it matters.

Many would disagree.

I agree. But then they also think soon to be released Spring lines of clothing matter. Dasein has many effects.

I understand that it sounds terrible or at least can if everything is determined (or if there is quantum indeterminism which also does not lead to freedom) but it doesn't seem to matter at all to me. How does this affect my next day? My next second? I black box it. I remain unconvinced that I must decide dterminism is the case or decide that free will is the case or that I must be in pain about it. If there is an argument someone has as to why I should do one of these things, that it is good to do so, let me know. I do not mean - demonstrate that free will or determinism is the case. Rather that it is important I decide and commit myself to one of those or to suffering not knowing.

Sure, this is a reasonable manner in which to approach questions such as this. And if you approach it this way only because you were never able not to approach it this way, well, the days still unfold and there are "choices" to be made.

Yes.

Just as with our discussions regarding the "hole" I'm in. You are able to concoct an understanding of pragmatism that is different from mine.

I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism. I described how I am unconvinced by arguments that I should commit to one of the positions and that it matters. That's not me explaining pragmatism- which I never mentioned in this context - that is me describing how I react. I am unconvinced.

This one "works" for you [for all practical purposes] in a way that I am unable to make mine work for me.

Nope. You are positing a 'something' that works for me. I was describing how these arguments fail to engage me. Maybe you have a something that makes you think you need to decide if determinism is the case. I don't know.

And perhaps that too is only as it ever could have been. But somehow given the accumulated experiences, relationships and access to ideas that have come to encompass your life and mine, we have come to react to these things differently.

Yes, we react differently.

And, sure, maybe [in an autonomous world] because your thinking is more reasonable than mine.

Might be more reasonable, might have nothing to do with reason. Might be because I prioritize other things and have no energy to do into this one - if I had set out to prioritize consciously, there might be some reasoning there, but I haven't. I have things I have to get better at. At least, I think I do. I have professional and private challenges. If I am going to tilt at windmills or fight real giants (I don't know which one the issue of determinism is) it seems to be in other arenas. Maybe I am lazy. Maybe I don't realize how important it is to me and my life why Ia must know if determinism or free will is the case. Maybe I should be more concerned about Spring fashions also. i can now mull over reasons i DONT prioritize the issue of determinism. maybe i am right about why i dont. but i dont plan it out. to call it pragmatism is silly. unless we consider cows eating certain herbs when they have a bacteriaL infection pragmatists:

Understanding people and what makes them tick, that has helped me both professionally and privately, I now realize (realizing its relevance to this context). So I do focus on that. I certainly can't prove I am divvying up my interests, focus and energy in the best possible way.

Perhaps someone here will convince me I should be concerned about knowing determinism is correct or not. Sillouette, elsewhere, or maybe in this thread seemed to think he could. Or at least, that I should believe in dterminism, that this had good consequences. I am skeptical he will convince me.

We'll see.

[MagsJ]

Waiting for Serendipper's reply to my last..

I'll start a thread about objectivity since there is a lot of information in the Turd thread I need to consolidate. I just posted that link mainly for biggie's benefit stemming from a conversation in that thread. The short answer is objectivity has no observer. What reality is depends just as much on how the subject is put together as it does on how the object is put together, so there is no objective way of viewing anything and every reality is subjective.

As an objectivist, I see subjective reality underpinning the objective world.. an omniscient perspective on all things, if you will.. the subjective feeding into the objective.

To be continued.. in your 'Objectivity' thread.

[iambiguous]

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6130 ... e-reality/

Heck, I didn't need science to tell me that LOL

One problem with this sort of speculation is how wide the gap might be between what we think we know about the quantum world here and now and what we will be able to more fully demonstrate is true about it a hundred years from now.

And, of late, I've found myself coming back to this:

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

How are we to factor this into our understanding of QM?

Anyway, it would seem that in a wholly determined universe, matter is either in sync with laws that are in fact objectively true for all material interactions or there are dimensions of reality that even our own brains are simply not capable of grasping.

[iambiguous]

Yes, but this thread focuses more on whether or not we are able to freely determine if the individual human beings posting here have any capacity argue their points autonomously.

Well, the implications of determinism are even more undermining than that. How could a wholly determined person know that their arguments made sense or even applied to other people? All they would know is that it seemed like it made sense to them - perhaps because they were logical arguments, but perhaps just because of qualia.

We don't really know what the full implications of determinism would be. If only because we don't really know if what we think, feel, say and do is in fact determined by a necessary, inextricable intertwining of "I" out in the world it exist in. And then there are all the conflicting assessments of how one is expected to define the meaning of the word.

The bottom line is that for whatever reasons existentially a few of us become fascinated by questions like this. We think about it more than most and offer up our conjectures. While accepting that the gap between what we think we know about it and what we are able to demonstrate that others ought to think about it in turn will no doubt follow us to the grave.

I find myself often noticing that people do not seem to understand the implications of the own positions. They hold others to a certain kind of rigor, but not themselves. When I was younger I truly suffered the implications of certain ideas. Ideas I was not sure were the case, but if so, it was horrible. Those who were sure these things were the case, seemed not bothered at all. So, I notice when people seem not to understand the implications of their beliefs. And especially anyone who seems to be claiming, at least implicitly, that they can stare into the abyss while anyone who disagrees with them cannot.

Over and again, I point out that I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. But, sure, there are [no doubt] points of mine that others can note as inconsistent; or even in conflict with a basic premise of mine.

For example, a few years ago it was moreno who noted that, while embracing moral nihilism on the philosophy board, I would often come down as a hardcore leftist on the Society, Government, and Economics. I would critique the conservative point of view as though liberals were always right and conservatives were always wrong. And it was true. I wasn't practicing what I preached. And ever since I have been more self-conscious of that. I still embody many liberal/left points of view but I am more aware that, given my own rendition of the "hole", they can only be particular political prejudices embedded in "I" as dasein.

As for the abyss, I don't pretend to be more sync with the existential implications of it than others. At least not any more. I think that my frame of mind is reasonable. But that can only be "here and now". Why? Because given the nature of my own philosophy, I can never really be certain if new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might change my mind.

Same with determinism.

And I only label someone as an "objectivist" when they insist that how they think about right and wrong in the is/ought world encompasses the obligation of all rational/virtuous human beings. Or, in regard to the really Big Questions like this, that their argument reflects the answer.

In the context of my argument it only matters that you do label them that, and as it happens this is quite often. This is ad hominim also. And if what promethean said was clear then it becomes 'the answer' regarding communication and an objectivist stance.

Here, in my view, you are trying to make communication in places like this relating to issues like these something more precise than I think it can be.

I tell others how I have come to understand [subjectively] an objectivist frame of mind. It's not a science. It's not an exercise in pure logic. It's a value judgment. It's a point of view embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as an existential contraption. In regard to conflicting value judgments.

Saying X is the answer is objectivist. Saying language is a weak tool for discussing these issues is objectivist. It is making claims about what is going on, what can happen, what is happening and indicates that objectivists who believe in effective communication on Big Questions are wrong.

That's you saying I'm saying these things. I'm simply suggesting that in regard to conflicting goods in the is/ought world and the nature of reality itself embedded in the Big Questions, "effective communication" is often problematic to say the least.

If we are really going to take the position that our situation is such that we cannot know things, this leads to a lot of consequences. Some easier than others to face.

That's why to the extent that we are able we need to situate our positions in particular contexts. The things that we claim to know -- are we able to actually demonstrate them to others or not.

Just as with our discussions regarding the "hole" I'm in. You are able to concoct an understanding of pragmatism that is different from mine.

I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism. I described how I am unconvinced by arguments that I should commit to one of the positions and that it matters. That's not me explaining pragmatism- which I never mentioned in this context - that is me describing how I react. I am unconvinced.

But being convinced is no less an existential contraption to me. You are convinced about certain things because the trajectory of your actual lived life predisposed you to one frame of mind over another. You recognize that had your experiences been different you might just as well have been convinced of the opposite point of view. And in a No God world you recognize in turn that reasonable arguments can be made by those on both sides [on many sides] of any particular issue. Here philosophy does not appear able to provide us with a deontological assessment such that being rational is said to be the equivalent of being virtuous.

That you are convinced or unconvinced about particular value judgments "here and now" doesn't make them [in my view] any less political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And that is the assumption that I make when describing the hole that I am in

And then on this thread whether all of this may well be "beyond my control" as a "determined" human being.

The practical implications of that are of course of fundamental importance. But if I could never have not pointed that out here...what are the implications of that?

Understanding people and what makes them tick, that has helped me both professionally and privately, I now realize (realizing its relevance to this context). So I do focus on that. I certainly can't prove I am divvying up my interests, focus and energy in the best possible way.

What doesn't change here for me is that some things can be understood more rather than less objectively than others. What makes people tick biologically, chemically, neurologically etc., is one thing, what makes them tick morally and politically, something different. To me very different.

And what ultimately explains "I" [determined or autonomous], going all the way back to an understanding of existence itself, is, as well, a far more peculiar reality.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism. I described how I am unconvinced by arguments that I should commit to one of the positions and that it matters. That's not me explaining pragmatism- which I never mentioned in this context - that is me describing how I react. I am unconvinced.

But being convinced is no less an existential contraption to me. You are convinced about certain things because the trajectory of your actual lived life predisposed you to one frame of mind over another. You recognize that had your experiences been different you might just as well have been convinced of the opposite point of view. And in a No God world you recognize in turn that reasonable arguments can be made by those on both sides [on many sides] of any particular issue. Here philosophy does not appear able to provide us with a deontological assessment such that being rational is said to be the equivalent of being virtuous.

That you are convinced or unconvinced about particular value judgments "here and now" doesn't make them [in my view] any less political prejudices rooted in dasein.

Of course, my not being swayed that I should form some conclusion about determinism likely has a lot to do with dasein and, then also, whatever genetic tendencies.

But that has nothing to do with what I said and responded to. I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism and this then affected my being unconvinced.

I seem to lack a contraption that says I should work out whether determinism or free will is the case.

You see a difference between us and you attribute a very abstractly described process to me. That I concocted an understanding of pragmatism and that this makes me not be like you there.

Notice the pattern: someone is different from you; then they must have performed some rather complex cognitive act.

No, sorry. Dasein affects us in many ways. Perhaps you have a contraption that tells you one should find out if free will or determinism is true. Perhaps we have tempermental differences that leads us to have different areas of focus.

Just because someone is different from you, including when they suffer less, does not mean they have a contraption or have engaged in some vague cognitive proccess such as the one you attribute to me above.

Otherwise we seem not so far from each other in this last exchange. I don't feel the urge to try to once and for all find out whether determinism or free will is the case. You are more drawn to that. But neither of us seems to think the other should necessarily be like him.

It does not seem to bother you that you see us as very unlikely to solve such problems or even know if we have. 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.

[iambiguous]

But being convinced is no less an existential contraption to me. You are convinced about certain things because the trajectory of your actual lived life predisposed you to one frame of mind over another. You recognize that had your experiences been different you might just as well have been convinced of the opposite point of view. And in a No God world you recognize in turn that reasonable arguments can be made by those on both sides [on many sides] of any particular issue. Here philosophy does not appear able to provide us with a deontological assessment such that being rational is said to be the equivalent of being virtuous.

That you are convinced or unconvinced about particular value judgments "here and now" doesn't make them [in my view] any less political prejudices rooted in dasein.

Of course, my not being swayed that I should form some conclusion about determinism likely has a lot to do with dasein and, then also, whatever genetic tendencies.

But that has nothing to do with what I said and responded to. I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism and this then affected my being unconvinced.

This, in my view, is a squabble over the meaning of words. Whether or not the manner in which I describe someone being convinced about a particular value judgment is or is not in sync with the manner in which you construe the meaning of a "concoction". And the extent to which your own understanding of pragmatism is or is not in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of any particular "I" being convinced or not convinced about any particular value judgment as an existential "contraption".

But: We still need to bring these abstractions down to earth.

We both have opinions about rightness and wrongness pertaining to any specific human behaviors. I then make the assumption that we both make the assumption that in a No God world there is no objective morality. It is not necessarily right or wrong to, for example, be a sport hunter. Like, say, the Trump sons.

So, when we bump into those who champion sport hunting and those who, in embracing animal rights, abhor it, how do we express our own opinions about it? I call this an existential contraption because our opinions are rooted not in the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view sport hunting [philosophically or otherwise], but, instead, in the actual lives that we lived that predisposed us to one frame of mind rather than another.

We take our "political leaps" here but my own becomes considerably more embedded in the fractured, fragmented "I" down in the hole.

How then is your own sense of self here not more or less the same?

What is crucial to me though is that the objectivists here are intent on insisting that sport hunting is either a good thing or a bad thing. And if others don't share their own point of view then they are not "one of us".

That's how they see the world: one of us [those who are right] and one of them [those who are wrong].

But [psychologically] it is being able to view these conflicting goods such that "I" is able to be embedded in either what is said to be true or what is said to be false, that propels their motivation most of all.

Being pragmatic here [in my view] is a recognition of just how problematic one's value judgments are. The fact that "I" is not able to be certain about either what it believes here and now or what it might believe in a future bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, is what precipitates and then sustains the fractured and fragmented self.

Notice the pattern: someone is different from you; then they must have performed some rather complex cognitive act.

Until this "general description" of me is situated in a discussion of a particular context, it remains hopelessly vague to me.

No, sorry. Dasein affects us in many ways. Perhaps you have a contraption that tells you one should find out if free will or determinism is true. Perhaps we have tempermental differences that leads us to have different areas of focus.

In a wholly determined universe the contraption -- in its entirely -- would be the laws of nature themselves. Nothing that is matter [including presumably the human brain] would be exempt.

Right?

Just because someone is different from you, including when they suffer less, does not mean they have a contraption or have engaged in some vague cognitive proccess such as the one you attribute to me above.

Again, I call this a contraption. I try to describe the reason that I do. They might call it something else. But what I am interested in is how they describe the reasons that they choose to behave in one way rather than another in any particular context. How might they see themselves as less fractured and fragmented than "I" do?

Otherwise we seem not so far from each other in this last exchange. I don't feel the urge to try to once and for all find out whether determinism or free will is the case. You are more drawn to that. But neither of us seems to think the other should necessarily be like him.

You don't feel the urge either because you were never really free to feel it, or because your pragmatic frame of mind here is such that [given your own existential trajectory in an autonomous world] you have come to different conclusions regarding "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

It does not seem to bother you that you see us as very unlikely to solve such problems or even know if we have.

What problem, in what context, viewed from what point of view?

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".

[Karpel Tunnel]

This, in my view, is a squabble over the meaning of words. Whether or not the manner in which I describe someone being convinced about a particular value judgment is or is not in sync with the manner in which you construe the meaning of a "concoction". And the extent to which your own understanding of pragmatism is or is not in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of any particular "I" being convinced or not convinced about any particular value judgment as an existential "contraption".

Jesus. You ascribe some wildly abstract cognitive process to me as if your wording applies and is meaningful. When I say I had no such process or contraption or 'understand of pragmatism', you tell me I am squabbling over words. This does not mean what I prefer or what I do is the right thing to do or the objectively correct way or that I am unaffected by dasein. It just means that that abstract process you attributed to me had nothing to do with me.

If someone tells you you don't like X flavor ice cream because you concocted an understanding of your version of pragmatism, I hope you have the good sense to tell them they are just making up shit.

So, when we bump into those who champion sport hunting and those who, in embracing animal rights, abhor it, how do we express our own opinions about it?

That's a real abstract situation. Because there will always be details: are the people scary? Do they have power that could affect me`? (is it my boss?) Do they seem interested in a discussion of it? Do they like me? Do I like them? What ways are they comfortable discussing things? And on and on.

I might say 'I don't like that.' I might decide to speak in moral terms, becuase that is how they think, if I had decided to try to change their behavior. I might make fun of them. I might say nothing.

I call this an existential contraption because our opinions are rooted not in the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view sport hunting [philosophically or otherwise], but, instead, in the actual lives that we lived that predisposed us to one frame of mind rather than another.

I don't know what 'thing' that this is referring to. A contraption is something human made
From the dictionary....

a machine or device that appears strange or unnecessarily complicated, and often badly made or unsafe.

I find your use of the term here as strange and unnecessarily complicated.

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.

How then is your own sense of self here not more or less the same?

What is crucial to me though is that the objectivists here are intent on insisting that sport hunting is either a good thing or a bad thing. And if others don't share their own point of view then they are not "one of us".

Well, they're still not going to think you are one of them. And you do not think they are 'one of you'. So this is still going on. And if everyone simply believed that they had preferences - deeply affected by dasein and genetics - there would still be us and thems.

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. 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.

And I certainly feel connected to some people more than others. I feel we-ish with some and not with others.

Notice the pattern: someone is different from you; then they must have performed some rather complex cognitive act.

Until this "general description" of me is situated in a discussion of a particular context, it remains hopelessly vague to me.

It was in the very specific context of saying that I had concocted an understanding of pragmatism (or some such ludicrously abstract phrase for a process that had nothing to do with me). I specificly quoted that, explained that it was not the case. What you quoted here came right after me working on that specific example, in a post dealing with it. IOW I was working with a specific example in the post you just quoted, one that happened in the exchange between us. I pointed out the example, by quoting you. Explained that it did not apply. Pointed out other possible interpretations - ones you regularly never seem to think of, nor do you explain why they are not possible. And then I remarked with some exasperation that this is a pattern.

If we are different, than I have this extra contraption. One that makes me suffer less. Or in this case, one that does not make be focus on finding the answer to whether determinism or free will is the case.

You concluded that since I do not focus on that, I have a contraption involving my understanding of pragmatism. This is just not the case.

No, sorry. Dasein affects us in many ways. Perhaps you have a contraption that tells you one should find out if free will or determinism is true. Perhaps we have tempermental differences that leads us to have different areas of focus.

In a wholly determined universe the contraption -- in its entirely -- would be the laws of nature themselves. Nothing that is matter [including presumably the human brain] would be exempt.

See the above definition of contraption, this just doesn't work. It makes no sense.

You don't feel the urge either because you were never really free to feel it, or because your pragmatic frame of mind here is such that [given your own existential trajectory in an autonomous world] you have come to different conclusions regarding "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments and political economy.

Or I have other urges. It sure isn't that ludicrous abstraction that you offer as the second option, which I bolded. At least you have opened up the possibilities.

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.

[iambiguous]

This, in my view, is a squabble over the meaning of words. Whether or not the manner in which I describe someone being convinced about a particular value judgment is or is not in sync with the manner in which you construe the meaning of a "concoction". And the extent to which your own understanding of pragmatism is or is not in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of any particular "I" being convinced or not convinced about any particular value judgment as an existential "contraption".

Jesus. You ascribe some wildly abstract cognitive process to me as if your wording applies and is meaningful. When I say I had no such process or contraption or 'understand of pragmatism', you tell me I am squabbling over words. This does not mean what I prefer or what I do is the right thing to do or the objectively correct way or that I am unaffected by dasein. It just means that that abstract process you attributed to me had nothing to do with me.

That's why over and again I suggest that we take "general description" analysis of this sort down out of the clouds and embed words like "concoction" and "pragmatism" and "dasein" in a situation.

You pick the context. You pick the particular behaviors that might be chosen in a world where it is presumed that some measure of human autonomy does in fact exist.

After all, in a wholly determined universe, I presume that this entire exchange is unfolding only as it ever could have.

If someone tells you you don't like X flavor ice cream because you concocted an understanding of your version of pragmatism, I hope you have the good sense to tell them they are just making up shit.

That's your own twisted rendition of what my point is. In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.

But in a universe in which the human brain/mind has [somehow] acquired the capacity to choose freely, your choice will be embedded existentially in dasein. And no one would seem able to insist that one ought tp prefer one flavor over another.

So, when we bump into those who champion sport hunting and those who, in embracing animal rights, abhor it, how do we express our own opinions about it?

That's a real abstract situation.

Jesus.

Because there will always be details: are the people scary? Do they have power that could affect me`? (is it my boss?) Do they seem interested in a discussion of it? Do they like me? Do I like them? What ways are they comfortable discussing things? And on and on.

Yes, but in a wholly determined universe the details [like the broad strokes] are only as they must be.

But in an autonomous universe it is precisely the details of your own lived life that will largely determine which side you come down on. And there does not appear to be a way in which to determine which side all rational and virtuous men and women ought to choose.

That's my point about encompassing the rightness or wrongness of sport hunting in an "existential contraption". But this would seem relevant only in a world where we can freely choose our behaviors.

In other words, even if "I" is free, it is bounded by the political variables embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

I might say 'I don't like that.' I might decide to speak in moral terms, becuase that is how they think, if I had decided to try to change their behavior. I might make fun of them. I might say nothing.

Yes, but why are some disposed to do one thing rather than another? How is that not the embodiment of dasein?

I call this an existential contraption because our opinions are rooted not in the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view sport hunting [philosophically or otherwise], but, instead, in the actual lives that we lived that predisposed us to one frame of mind rather than another.

I don't know what 'thing' that this is referring to. A contraption is something human made
From the dictionary....

a machine or device that appears strange or unnecessarily complicated, and often badly made or unsafe.

I find your use of the term here as strange and unnecessarily complicated.

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?

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.

And if your own value judgments are rooted largely in the existential trajectory of your lived life, how are they not political leaps [here and now] to one position rather than 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.

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. 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 "drawn 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.

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.

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.

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

I can't elieve you're still posting the same thing over and over still

we've already established that not one being in existence wants their consent violated against their consent. That's a thousand times more down to earth than ANYTHING you've ever typed or written out.

It's an objective law of existence for all beings in all possible universes.

So let's see how your consent is being violated against your consent.

No perfect answers to all moral questions
And a fractured sense of self

So, the answer for you is that being solve every moral equation (that nobody ever has their consent violated against their consent from now on) and that you have a stable and concrete sense of self.

All of this is objectively true.

Objectively true meaning: it's true for all possible beings regardless of anyone's opinion and or argument against.

Another example of an objective truth is:

In order for any being to exist in some way, they must exist in some way.

This statement will never be contradicted.

You are living proof amongst us that you don't like having your consent violated against your consent, you go out of your way in almost every post to let us all know it.

You are a living subset of this law, this objective truth.

You've been told all of this before, but you still haven't evolved. This means that what you really want is to be the victim, while calling all of us stupid, as in every post you do implicitly. Every post you type is ad hom, where you, the ad hommer! are the victim!

It's getting old

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's why over and again I suggest that we take "general description" analysis of this sort down out of the clouds and embed words like "concoction" and "pragmatism" and "dasein" in a situation.

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.

You pick the context. You pick the particular behaviors that might be chosen in a world where it is presumed that some measure of human autonomy does in fact exist.

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.

After all, in a wholly determined universe, I presume that this entire exchange is unfolding only as it ever could have.

Sure. I think we both know what determinism is.

If someone tells you you don't like X flavor ice cream because you concocted an understanding of your version of pragmatism, I hope you have the good sense to tell them they are just making up shit.

That's your own twisted rendition of what my point 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.

In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.

You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.

But in a universe in which the human brain/mind has [somehow] acquired the capacity to choose freely, your choice will be embedded existentially in dasein. And no one would seem able to insist that one ought tp prefer one flavor over another.

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?

So, when we bump into those who champion sport hunting and those who, in embracing animal rights, abhor it, how do we express our own opinions about it?

That's a real abstract situation.

Jesus.

Because there will always be details: are the people scary? Do they have power that could affect me`? (is it my boss?) Do they seem interested in a discussion of it? Do they like me? Do I like them? What ways are they comfortable discussing things? And on and on.

Yes, but in a wholly determined universe the details [like the broad strokes] are only as they must be.

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.

But in an autonomous universe it is precisely the details of your own lived life that will largely determine which side you come down on. And there does not appear to be a way in which to determine which side all rational and virtuous men and women ought to choose.

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.

That's my point about encompassing the rightness or wrongness of sport hunting in an "existential contraption". But this would seem relevant only in a world where we can freely choose our behaviors.

You're all over the place and repeating randomly.

In other words, even if "I" is free, it is bounded by the political variables embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

Golly gosh, as if I haven't show I understand this, other issue many times.

I might say 'I don't like that.' I might decide to speak in moral terms, becuase that is how they think, if I had decided to try to change their behavior. I might make fun of them. I might say nothing.

Yes, but why are some disposed to do one thing rather than another? How is that not the embodiment of dasein?

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.

I call this an existential contraption because our opinions are rooted not in the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view sport hunting [philosophically or otherwise], but, instead, in the actual lives that we lived that predisposed us to one frame of mind rather than another.

I don't know what 'thing' that this is referring to. A contraption is something human made
From the dictionary....

a machine or device that appears strange or unnecessarily complicated, and often badly made or unsafe.

I find your use of the term here as strange and unnecessarily complicated.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are living proof amongst us that you don't like having your consent violated against your consent, you go out of your way in almost every post to let us all know it.

You are a living subset of this law, this objective truth.

You've been told all of this before, but you still haven't evolved. This means that what you really want is to be the victim, while calling all of us stupid, as in every post you do implicitly. Every post you type is ad hom, where you, the ad hommer! are the victim!

It's getting old

This matches the reaction I have had the most to his way of relating here. It was nice to read it so clearly and bluntly expressed.

[jrabul]

I'm merely describing my reaction to your participation in threads that include me. It seems true to me. On the other hand, all of this may well be embedded in a wholly determined universe such that these very words that I am choosing to type [and that you either are or are not choosing to read] may be entirely beyond our control as autonomous human beings.

[iambiguous]

That's why over and again I suggest that we take "general description" analysis of this sort down out of the clouds and embed words like "concoction" and "pragmatism" and "dasein" in a situation.

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.

Not at all what I deem to be a situation in which to explore the existential meaning of those words. How about something from the headlines?

Here are a few from today:

Republicans Cheer, Democrats Challenge Mueller's Findings --- politics
Trump’s misleading spin on the 2018 GDP growth rate --- the economy
With its ties in Washington, Boeing has taken over more and more of the FAA’s job --- crony capitalism
Rick Perry calls expanding nuclear energy “the real” Green New Deal --- environmental issues
Why Congress isn't expanding virtual health care --- the role of government in our lives
Brits pretend they’re sick of Brexit. But truth is they’re obsessed --- nationalism
Parkland student dies in ‘apparent suicide,’ police say --- gun control
Powerball is up to $750 million — the fourth-largest jackpot in U.S. lottery history --- gambling

How might words like those above be used in discussions of these issues?

You pick the context. You pick the particular behaviors that might be chosen in a world where it is presumed that some measure of human autonomy does in fact exist.

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.

Look, my point in regard to determinism is that sans human autonomy this very exchange could only have ever unfolded as it must. Thus all of the words that we use in it we are compelled to use.

Whether your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine would then seem to be moot. Both frames of minds are wholly [necessarily] in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.

You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.

I am simply drawing a parallel between you liking or disliking flavor X ice cream and the points that you raise about me here. As I understand determinism, you are no less compelled to react as you must in either context.

Yet you seem to be criticizing me here as though I were in fact free to rethink all this through more clearly. To think like you do.

As though I do in fact have the autonomy necessary to change my mind. Which I may well have.

Then this part...

But in a universe in which the human brain/mind has [somehow] acquired the capacity to choose freely, your choice will be embedded existentially in dasein. And no one would seem able to insist that one ought tp prefer one flavor over another.

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?

Nope.

We live in a world where value judgments come into conflict. And I believe my own opinions about these issues [like yours] are derived existentially from the life that one lives. Call these beliefs concoctions, call them something else. Call the manner in which we react to them pragmatic, call it something else.

And even though I don't know the extent to which human autonomy is a factor in all of this, what could possibly be more important to know?

We explore it here "intellectually" on this thread, others explore it experimently using functional magnetic resonance imaging technology.

The jury is still out.

Then the sarcasm you often resort to when in "retort" mode:

"Golly gosh, as if I haven't show I understand this, other issue many times."

You often seem to get flustered in responding to me. Why is that? What is it about me that perturbs you? I have my own suspicions of course but I'm curious about what you think is prompting this.

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.

I have never said that. Instead, what intrigues me far more is coming to understand how someone who [here and now] rejects objective morality, deals with actual moral and political conflicts in their life. In a way that allows them to feel less fractured and fragmented than "I" am. Given that they acknowledge [like me] that their own values are derived existentially from the lives they lived. And thus might have been very different. And, in turn, that there does not appear to be a way [philosophically] to determine how one ought to behave in any particular context.

All we can do here is to note examples of this from your life relating to issues like sport hunting and all the others above.

I am ever drawn and quartered in recognizing this. How are you less so?

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.

Once I came to believe that my own value judgments are the embodiment of a particular life, no more or no less essentially reasonable than those who take an opposite point of view, I looked around me at a world in which political and economy power clearly propelled human interactions around the globe. It's a political leap because in any number of contexts, I was excpected to take sides. But I don't have access [as the objectivists do] to a "right makes might" frame of mind. Existentially, I have just felt more comfortable with idea of moderation, negotiation and compromise in the political arena. As opposed to the more blunt "might makes right" approach embraced by the dictators/authoritarians/thugs around the world.

Okay, you don't call it a political leap. But the variables I point to are still there.

* "I" is constructed existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts
* "I" is ever confronted with contingency, chance and change
* "I" is ever embedded in new experiences, new relationships, new information, knowledge, ideas
* "I" is unable to establish a moral and political foundation said to be the obligation of all rational men and women
* "I" is ever confronted with the nihilists who own and operate the global economy

I encompass "I" here on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How then is it not applicable to you and to others? In a particular context where you choose one thing and not another.

[iambiguous]

You are living proof amongst us that you don't like having your consent violated against your consent, you go out of your way in almost every post to let us all know it.

You are a living subset of this law, this objective truth.

You've been told all of this before, but you still haven't evolved. This means that what you really want is to be the victim, while calling all of us stupid, as in every post you do implicitly. Every post you type is ad hom, where you, the ad hommer! are the victim!

It's getting old

This matches the reaction I have had the most to his way of relating here. It was nice to read it so clearly and bluntly expressed.

What on earth is he telling us here? A consent violated in what context, construed from what point of view?

You actually believe that this "world of words" "general description" "intellectual contraption" is "clearly expressed"?!

Or are you actually mocking him here?

If not, why don't you and him discuss the existential implications of having your consent violated in what you construe to be a world unable to come up with an objective morality.

In an actual context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

[Ecmandu]

You are living proof amongst us that you don't like having your consent violated against your consent, you go out of your way in almost every post to let us all know it.

You are a living subset of this law, this objective truth.

You've been told all of this before, but you still haven't evolved. This means that what you really want is to be the victim, while calling all of us stupid, as in every post you do implicitly. Every post you type is ad hom, where you, the ad hommer! are the victim!

It's getting old

This matches the reaction I have had the most to his way of relating here. It was nice to read it so clearly and bluntly expressed.

What on earth is he telling us here? A consent violated in what context, construed from what point of view?

You actually believe that this "world of words" "general description" "intellectual contraption" is "clearly expressed"?!

Or are you actually mocking him here?

If not, why don't you and him discuss the existential implications of having your consent violated in what you construe to be a world unable to come up with an objective morality.

In an actual context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

Wow, iambiguous .. I genuinely thought you were an artificial intelligence program, but look at that anger!!

You're super pissed!

So here's the deal iambiguous: leave Karpel out of it and debate me.

Even trixie saw the sketches of this debate and declared: I don't think iambiguous can defeat that.

The thing is: you can't

What I find additionally funny, is that you said, "why should I debate a person who knows that they've won, obviously they're too close minded... and then you crawled back into your hole for a while.

I'm still here iambiguous.

[Artimas]

Will is free, choice is not.
Will is thought, choice is action spawned out of thought, which attached to choice is preference of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
If one never makes a choice but only lives in the mind, how can one be satisfied or dissatisfied?

Making a Choice also creates a cycle, cycles we see today are results of past choices which in turn effect people and they make choices and create more cycles. The point is to escape cycles of redundant mundanity. To break the cycle of a lack of free choice is to understand the cycle and ones own role inside of it.

[Urwrongx1000]

The rarer ones who can break habit, expectations, and indoctrination, have greater willpower, and recognized by all as "freer".

Those like the OP, who cannot break habit, expectations, and indoctrination, claim it is impossible. It doesn't mean it is. Freedom is objective, not subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of ability and choice, results and success.


Like an obese person who actually loses the weight. Most will not. Some can.

Because some people can break the mold, it means it's possible, at least for a few.


Some people are freer than others.

Some people are freer than everybody else.

The nay-sayers, the cynics, the weak-willed (OP), will deem it all impossible, and cannot be reasoned with.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are living proof amongst us that you don't like having your consent violated against your consent, you go out of your way in almost every post to let us all know it.

You are a living subset of this law, this objective truth.

You've been told all of this before, but you still haven't evolved. This means that what you really want is to be the victim, while calling all of us stupid, as in every post you do implicitly. Every post you type is ad hom, where you, the ad hommer! are the victim!

It's getting old

This matches the reaction I have had the most to his way of relating here. It was nice to read it so clearly and bluntly expressed.

What on earth is he telling us here? A consent violated in what context, construed from what point of view?

You actually believe that this "world of words" "general description" "intellectual contraption" is "clearly expressed"?!

Or are you actually mocking him here?

If not, why don't you and him discuss the existential implications of having your consent violated in what you construe to be a world unable to come up with an objective morality.

In an actual context that most here are likely to be familiar with.

The parts I thought were clear and match my most common reaction:

you have told us all this before

you have not evolved

That you want to be or be seen as a victim.
That it is implicit in many of your posts that all others or at least objectivists are stupid.
That your posts are ad hom - (since they go to motive, as a rule.)

I haven't seen anyone else sum up my general reaction to how you position yourself in relation to others in such a concise and clear way.

As far as the not wanting consent violated, I understand what he means from other threads and I think he is correct. It was clear to me, given what he has written elsewhere. Yes, standing on its own that part of his post, without what he has written in other threads, would be hard to understand and very abstract.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You pick the context. You pick the particular behaviors that might be chosen in a world where it is presumed that some measure of human autonomy does in fact exist.

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.

Look, my point in regard to determinism is that sans human autonomy this very exchange could only have ever unfolded as it must. Thus all of the words that we use in it we are compelled to use.

Sure. I don't disagree. That is the implication of determinsm.

Whether your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine would then seem to be moot. Both frames of minds are wholly [necessarily] in sync with the immutable laws of matter.

Are you trying to say it is unreasonable of me to think you are not responding to me as other people do? If so, then this message should go to you also. I really don't know what you are on about. Are you angry that a determinist gets irritated with you? Because you can't help but be who you are? Is that what you are saying? You might want to mull over the irony in that.

Me, I black box determinism/free will.

In a determined universe you were never going to not like or dislike flavor X. All so-called pragmatic concoctions here are necessarily in sync with the ubiquitous laws of matter.

You often explain things that you have no reason to explain to me, and as if they are relevent.

I am simply drawing a parallel between you liking or disliking flavor X ice cream and the points that you raise about me here. As I understand determinism, you are no less compelled to react as you must in either context.

You attributed a complicated abstract reasoning process to a preference of mine. I said that was silly and that it was more like preferring an ice cream flavor. My point is only stronger in the context of determinism. IOW exactly! they are alike. So you don't have to make up some complicated hysterically convoluted contraption for my preference. I didn't concoct an understanding of pragmatism to choose vanilla as my childhood favorite flavor. You see contraptions and complicated, very abstract mental thinky verbal ones when someone is different from you. Not everyone decides everything via working it out logically and in words in their minds. I did not sit down and decide my understanding of pragmatism and then apply this to the issue of free will and determinism. I find that it does not interest me much and no one has every said anything that pulls me away from my gut reaction. Maybe they will, but so far it is just like someone telling me I should be more interested in butterscotch.

Yet you seem to be criticizing me here as though I were in fact free to rethink all this through more clearly. To think like you do.

This is precisely the kind of thing that Ecmandu is pointing out as a victim stance. Of course pointing out what I think it is the case, might change your mind. and yes, I think it is the case. You seem to be saying here 1) you can never change your mind because of determinism - which runs counter to all your ramblings about dasein and not knowing what you will believe in the future 2) that you are victimized if someone else asserts what they think is the case. 3) that no determinist can assert what they think is the case or they are victimizing 4) that I am a determinist.

I disagree with all of those.

As though I do in fact have the autonomy necessary to change my mind. Which I may well have.

You don't need free will to change your mind. You do understand that right? You can learn, even in a determined universe.

But in a universe in which the human brain/mind has [somehow] acquired the capacity to choose freely, your choice will be embedded existentially in dasein. And no one would seem able to insist that one ought tp prefer one flavor over another.

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?

Nope.

Great. So when you assumed I had one, that was a poor assumption.

We live in a world where value judgments come into conflict. And I believe my own opinions about these issues [like yours] are derived existentially from the life that one lives. Call these beliefs concoctions, call them something else. Call the manner in which we react to them pragmatic, call it something else.

And even though I don't know the extent to which human autonomy is a factor in all of this, what could possibly be more important to know?

Oh, you are victimizing me. I should prioritize it like you do? The universe may be dtermined but if it is, I can't help but not priortize it like I do. Poor me.

You do understand that you cannot possibly imagine it is correct to not prioritize finding the answer to dterminism vs. free will. YOu don't justify this, but you express it. Which is fine, it's just you don't seem to notice.

We explore it here "intellectually" on this thread, others explore it experimently using functional magnetic resonance imaging technology.

The jury is still out.

Then the sarcasm you often resort to when in "retort" mode:

"Golly gosh, as if I haven't show I understand this, other issue many times."

You often seem to get flustered in responding to me.

Sarcasm and flustered don't fit well together. They are both negative, generally, but they do not fit the same reaction.

I got annoyed because nothing I said indicated I did not understand something we have gone through many times.

Perhaps I am utterly determined to get irritated when someone continuously tells me things they have told me before as if I need to understand it and yet I have shown this before.
Perhaps I am freely choosing to get irritated.

I can live with either one of those being the case.

Why is that? What is it about me that perturbs you? I have my own suspicions of course but I'm curious about what you think is prompting this.

I've told you before. You repeat things you have said hundreds of times as if they are relevent when they often are not. You do not respond directly to points made, but they often seem to remind you of positions that you repeats, yet again. You attribute contraptions to things that do not require contraptions, whenever I suffer less than you - or seem to - or when I differ from you. You do not respond to points made about, for example your use of the term *contraptions* that do not match the dictionary definitions, but come back to contraptions and use it again the same way. I point out that I did not need to concoct an understanding of pragmatism to not be interested in finding the solution to determinism vs free will. Many posts later - in this last post - you agree with me. But you never conceded the point. Then right after agreeing you go back and start building an argument where is seems like you don't actually agree. A couple of posts ago, I point out that you were assuming I had concocted some understanding of pragmatism to reach a belief that figuring out if determinism is the case is not that important. I discuss this as you see contraptoins where there are mere preferences. then I add that you have a habit of seeing contraptions when people disagree with you or suffer less. Your response included asking me for specific examples. BUT I HAD CLEARLY GIVEN YOU A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. So it is as if you don't read my posts. I find this irritating. And it is not an exception, I find it to be the rule. I do not find this to be the rule with other posters. I find your level of seeming not to read, when taking into consideration your intelligence, remarkable.

That's the kind of thing that pisses me off. I do know what your self-serving interpretation is - since you've told me before.

I also find you fascinating. It's embarrassing, but I do. Look, your points about dasein and conflicting goods are fine. Sometimes when you engage with specfic objectivists, it's pleasant to watch. But your whole pattern of relating...I know you don't understand why ecmandu would say something like that. You don't come off as someone much interested in psychology or the specific kinds of introspection associated with that. Fine. But consider that certain things might be obvious to other people but not to you. There's a boatload of cognitive science research that says this is possible and in general applicable to everyone, though some more than others.

Pehraps we are reacting to contradictions and confusions you just are not aware of because you focus on the everyman, the predicament we all find ourselves in, as opposed to wanting to know much about your own personal responses to trauma, emotional pain, isolation, existential crises, your parents, etc. I am not saying you should be interested in anything else. Your choice.

I am sayng that perhaps the way you feel victimized and position yourself as the brave person facing the extential void, mistreated by others who are triggered by the issues I raise and cannot face them....

That all that may be missing that we can actually see something about what you are doing and how it is not what you think it is.

Note: this is not an agrume to convince you. That would look very different. This is me saying: consider that you have a giant blind spot regarding what you are doing here. Cause sure looks like it.

When you 'suspect' you know why I get 'flustered' and 'sarcastic', it really comes off as just silly to me.

And that interpretation you have, this self protecting interpretation fits perfectly with Ecmandu's summation of the way you position yourself in relation to others. If you want to call this all psychobabble, this is just you showing that for all your talk about dasein, in the end, you can no longer actually consider that it applies to you and how you behave. You have gotten beyond all that, since you are in the hole.

There is shit you just don't want to look at and it shines in most of your posts. Or so it seems. There is something that does not fit, in some big way. Whetehr you are aware of it or not and exactly what it is, I don't known. I suspect Ecmandu is right, but I am nto sure. I suspect that rage drives you much more than concern about finding the answers, though I suspect you don't know this. This is all what is fascinating.

And every single post in response to me contains stuff that just adds to this. The avoidance, the repetition, the not fitting together, the positioning of yourself as the only of (of few at most) who can just be in the hole wihtout making up contraptions to comfort yourself, etc.

It happens over and over. And no matter who points it out, you go ad hom and say it is them not being able to face the hole. You say you aren't sure, but you go there, sooner or later.

The fascinating thing is, as I think it: does Iamb truly no notice at least in his periperhal vision, that something else might be going on when he posts and relates to others here than what he puts forward? So the temptation returns: hold a mirror up. Nope, not that time. Hold up a different mirror, focused on something else. Nope. I mean, perhaps I should not be surprised. I have been quite oblivious to things that were obvious to others about me. We are good at defending ourselves. But there it is.

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.

I have never said that

Then why incredulously lecture me yet again about dasein or the implications of determinism. If it was relevent it had to be a 'seeing a need to remind me of these things', if it wasn't relevent, why bring it up.

Instead, what intrigues me far more is coming to understand how someone who [here and now] rejects objective morality, deals with actual moral and political conflicts in their life. In a way that allows them to feel less fractured and fragmented than "I" am. Given that they acknowledge [like me] that their own values are derived existentially from the lives they lived. And thus might have been very different. And, in turn, that there does not appear to be a way [philosophically] to determine how one ought to behave in any particular context.

I've told you all this before. Of course I cannot know how you and I are different, so there could be many different causes to why I am not in a hole. Maybe my form of PTSD and what I did about it is different from yours and what you did about yours. The way we emotionally react to things need not come from rationally reached cnoclusions. It seems implicit in your reactions to others that if they are different from you they have some kind of different ideology. This need not be the case. They could have less. I suspect that while we each think we have no access to an objective morality, you think you SHOULD find it and do every thing you can to find it. I do not have that contraption. I suspect you will deny you have that contraption and just repeat your incredulity that anything else could be more important like you did above. But you act like and often write like you follow a moral must. and it's one I do not have.

I try to find out what I want - which, yes, can change - and achieve, allow for, create that and to prevent things that I do not like. Stuff you do also. I just don't add on some of the goals you seem to have.

IOW

I also do not

[philosophically] to determine how one ought to behave in any particular context

I do not have a contraption that says I must do that.

All we can do here is to note examples of this from your life relating to issues like sport hunting and all the others above.

I am ever drawn and quartered in recognizing this. How are you less so?

[/quote]People disagree with me. If you move out into political discussions with preferences or morals, you will be drawn and quartered, or at least one will meet people trying to do that emotionally at least.

I am not saying life is easy or I have it all solved. It is fucking hard. I think it is possible you are creating extra problems for yourself and/or displacing pain about other things onto abstract philosophical issues.

[Artimas]

The rarer ones who can break habit, expectations, and indoctrination, have greater willpower, and recognized by all as "freer".

Those like the OP, who cannot break habit, expectations, and indoctrination, claim it is impossible. It doesn't mean it is. Freedom is objective, not subjective. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of ability and choice, results and success.


Like an obese person who actually loses the weight. Most will not. Some can.

Because some people can break the mold, it means it's possible, at least for a few.


Some people are freer than others.

Some people are freer than everybody else.

The nay-sayers, the cynics, the weak-willed (OP), will deem it all impossible, and cannot be reasoned with.

Both sides do sort of exist, it's just choice isn't free but what reaction comes from a thought out of will of which never leaves the body?

Nothing because it's ones free thinking inside their own mind, there is no reaction other than maybe for the individual, which that would most often lead to a choice.

Every choice we make is bound by reaction which is deterministic in this reality but our ability to think outside of cycles that are redundant and may repeat forever, we may break and escape from, which is a greater satisfaction in a sense, an unknown one and may not always be satisfactory as one may think or believe, but that satisfaction may come only from thought and not even making a choice and vice versa. Everything has a price.

I am not satisfied at this time, not by my choices but I am not satisfied with others, which effect me and my will.

So if one cycle can be broken or exploited, can all not be? This is what "god" is, doing what seems impossible or incomprehensible to others, there's a lot more to learn of other cycles.

Hell, one may even be able to break the cycle of life and death. Spiritual knowledge I am not sure is achievable anymore, within this generation of humanity.