Top Ten List

[promethean75]

biggy's a bonifide existentialist who's most important contribution is in his forcing thinkers to ground theory in the immediacy of experience. to force the thinker to examine a theory in regards to how one can - in a generically wittgensteinean style - see the efficacy of theory x rather than y, how one can point and say 'this is what a person does when they subscribe to theory x.' then to force further; what makes this act the 'rational' act, and then again further; if this is the rational thing to do, why aren't we all doing it. but behind this maieutic meddling, which he is so skilled and persistent with, is an even more important revelation. there's a secret assault on rationality itself going on... and it's focus is to bring the thinker down and out of the 'philosophical clouds' and perhaps ground people in an environment that is simplified and free from the ambiguities of philosophical language. 'i'm ambiguous' is a wonderful doubly irony, for while he professes his own sense of 'I' as just another rational or irrational philosophical contraption, he would be the first to contribute to figuring out ways in which our conflicting goods (values) could come into cooperation if we were, to once, bring down our formulas and set to work coming to agreement on practical (and philosophically free) ways to solve problems. so in being constantly reminded that group x's argument that abortion if bad, and group y's argument that abortion is okay, can't be reconciled with recourse to rational philosophy... we are forced to invent a new space in which we examine the problem. and this is why i adore him... even though he sounds like a broken record sometimes. he is, quite certainly, the unwitting voice of the analytical tradition ('ordinary language' philosophers) and its assault on metaphysical, a priori methods of philosophy... where so much of our fragile, self assured certainty hides without our knowing.

when i hear him say somewhere 'wtf does that even mean', i see a kindred spirit at work and laugh to myself; biggy understands, but not the others... not yet... maybe not ever. because he's experienced enough to see the almost infinite ways a person might understand a particular philosophical statement, and therefore sees in advance the entanglement around the corner, he seizes it... locks onto it... stops it from developing... and pins it down. and there is no hint of malevolence in the spirit of this interrogation. he's genuinely concerned and interested and with good will. maybe what this seasoned thinker is trying to tell us is 'i've tried that, and it doesn't work. let me warn you before you get carried away.'

now as a fellow very familiar with the analytical tradition and a solid understanding of logic, you, faust, should be able to recognize biggy's quasi-deconstructivist modus operandi. is he not declaring out loud the very thing you so adamantly insisted; that logic cannot tell us what to do, or why to do it? again, he's not throwing the baby out with the bath water... but he's sure as hell throwing the bath water out. that bath water is where we felt comfortable with our 'rational theories'.

biggy is a midwife for something more primitive in our being, something we can't give birth to without becoming very uncomfortable first. he's anchoring the ethical in something simpler which we have to strive to find without relying on our rationality. the existentialist wizard non plus ultra.

see what he did to peacegirl? he brought 'determinism' to its most terrifying, logical conclusion. maybe everyone else missed it, including peacegirl, i dunno. but he showed the absurdity involved in any effort to make the thesis reasonably useful for anything. constantly drilling peacegirl; but isn't my inability to agree with you just one more inevitably determined thing? why then the frustration at my deference?

there is a mix of playfulness, toying and serious concern in all of this. there's a swagger to it, a groove to it. and he's not trying to offend or confuse or irritate, believe me. it's a very earnest and important game that changes the rules of philosophy... a game we could call gaslighting abbie.

[Faust]

Theories are not wrong because they are rational, whatever the hell that means.

Existentialism leads exactly nowhere. I hope iam grows out of it. European Emotionalism.

Asking "if it's the rational thing to do, why aren't we all doing it is not even an interesting question. Having a non rational argument is a waste of time, but there are many irrational activities that are not and are in fact a lot of fun. "Being rational" is not the result of having a rational argument over ethics. So what?

That's the problem with European Emotionalism - it's a waste of time. It may tell us much, but none of it is interesting.

[promethean75]

*holds hands up*

Theories are not wrong because they are rational, whatever the hell that means.

we're working outside of the natural sciences here, where any claim to a 'rational' theory to explain anything more than observations made in normative ethics, is a great leap of faith in the faculties of reason. there are lists of reasons why value judgements express nothing but the personal preferences and attitudes of human beings, without the slightest foundation in the theoretical sciences. the big question, the biggy, is why do i choose to value x. how do i explain that? because i like to? that doesn't explain anything. in an emotivist sense, such a statement is equivalent to saying 'yea my choice!' or 'yahoo!' these expressions tell us nothing about the goodness or badness of the value. if it is good merely because we like it, this is circular reasoning. we've made no progress.

Existentialism leads exactly nowhere. I hope iam grows out of it. European Emotionalism.

oh come on, dude. you can't be that dismissive about a movement that is so importantly part of our philosophical heritage. even if 99% of the questions these guys were asking were nonsense, that 1% of real questions are incredibly important. you must be a robot. a faustbot. faustspock. 'your actions are emotional, captain. stop reading sartre.'

Asking "if it's the rational thing to do, why aren't we all doing it is not even an interesting question. Having a non rational argument is a waste of time, but there are many irrational activities that are not and are in fact a lot of fun. "Being rational" is not the result of having a rational argument over ethics. So what?

okay, my bad. left the definition of 'rational' open-ended. what i mean is (which might not be what other people mean but i'm confident i can hit the nail on the head for everyone); wait. scratch that semicolon. let me tell you what i don't mean by 'rational'. that would be much easier; a sound and valid argument with a true conclusion could be called 'rational' if that means we followed all the proper forms and rules of reasoning. but we've already identified those qualities with what we call valid and sound. so we have a redundancy. a truism. rational, then, should be thought of as what compels us to want to follow proper form and rule. and this is a purely ethical matter (why truth... why not untruth? - N) so when joe asks 'are you being rational', he's not asking me if i did my logic shit right. he's instead implying the question of whether or not i attribute any importance to wanting to do my logic shit right. a subtle difference, but its there.

what is rational can't simply mean 'what is true' or 'what is correct'. it has to demand another element in reasoning, another layer, and ethical evaluating form of thinking. so when i ask 'is abolishing capital punishment or pro-choice the rational thing to do', i can't possibly be asking if there is a series of logical arguments which can certify those things... because they're aren't any. no... what i'm asking is 'should you want to do so, and if so, why.'

this is how i'm using the word... and how i suspect biggy is using it also. that's the crux of the biscuit. being rational is the most challenging thing to do because it involves much more than the simple adherence to a few rules of logic. it evokes a... *gasp*... existential dimension to our experience. c'mon man, you know what the fuck i'm talking about. don't shrug this shit off.

It may tell us much, but none of it is interesting.

not now, but it was when you were in your twenties. you ate that shit up, dude. just because you're older and wiser doesn't give you excuse to dismiss it. your responsibility is to lead the fledgling philosophers through its labyrinths. that is your DUTY.

[Faust]

I never thought Existentialism was worth shit.

Look - everyone wants to live in a just society and everyone wants others to act ethically. Everyone wants the power of rational thought. Philosophy didn't invent these desires. It seeks to make them more useful to people. It usually fails, but not because it is trying to clarify our thoughts. Philosophy doesn't fail because it analyzes generally held ideas that have always existed, well before Plato.

Philosophy doesn't fail because it seeks to identify our most basic assumptions. And logic doesn't fail because it can help us to remove self-contradictory thought. Logic is a tool that probably shouldn't be applied to our every moment of existence. But it does help us to answer why we choose the values that we do and very much help us to resolve conflicting goods within ourselves.

If ten percent of the posters here could only avoid contradicting themselves, if one percent of humans could, logic would be seen as useful. But it will not be seen as useful by those who fail to realize that we all use logic every day. The philosopher is just better at it. Except many famous philosophers were not. Oh, well.

And sure, what is rational can't simply mean "what is true". That's a straw man. No one says it does. Except rationalists. So, Liam's rejoinder to rational;its is okay by me. But he doesn't seem to know who is a rationalist and who is not. Being rational is challenging, yes. So what?

[Karpel Tunnel]

biggy's a bonifide existentialist who's most important contribution is in his forcing thinkers to ground theory in the immediacy of experience.

I think this is a myth. He often challenges people to demonstrate here that what they would do in a discussion with a hypothetical anti-abortionist and a hypothetical abortionist would resolve all such conflicts between people with conflicting ideas about what is good think about abortion. This is not immediate experience. It is a very abstract though experiment. It even confuses 'what wil convince people' with 'what is the case or true'. (my pointing this out does not mean that I think I know the objective good position on abortion) IOW it is an odd criterion.

If one explains to him that his version of concrete lived experience is a radically abstract thought experiment, one is often told it is 'serious' philosophy - which is a pejorative term to him. If one seems not as upset as him at the situation we live in where we cannot produce arguments that convince all rational people of things, then one is told that one has a contraption that one uses (believes in) to hide from the horror of the hole that he finds himself in.

If you DO, in fact, work with the only concrete immediate experience experiences we have here - reading each other's posts and responding to them - he does not see this as a part of life. His actions, here, can never be looked at, despite these being vastlyl more concrete 'cases' to look at behavior in and be rational about and seek to change others view of here.

to force the thinker to examine a theory in regards to how one can - in a generically wittgensteinean style - see the efficacy of theory x rather than y, how one can point and say 'this is what a person does when they subscribe to theory x.' then to force further; what makes this act the 'rational' act, and then again further; if this is the rational thing to do, why aren't we all doing it. but behind this maieutic meddling, which he is so skilled and persistent with, is an even more important revelation. there's a secret assault on rationality itself going on... and it's focus is to bring the thinker down and out of the 'philosophical clouds' and perhaps ground people in an environment that is simplified and free from the ambiguities of philosophical language.

A read of his posts will show an incredible amount of very abstract often confusing and idiosyncratic use of language. And there is no secret assault on rationality. he repeated contraposes things where we can have objective knowledge - for example the products of scientific research are contrasted with the conclusion of moral argument. He makes this contrast over and over and his position hinges on it. Here we can be objective, here we cannot. Here we can draw rational objective conclusions, here we cannot. (as a side note he confused objective and universal and even popular)

'i'm ambiguous' is a wonderful doubly irony, for while he professes his own sense of 'I' as just another rational or irrational philosophical contraption, he would be the first to contribute to figuring out ways in which our conflicting goods (values) could come into cooperation if we were, to once, bring down our formulas and set to work coming to agreement on practical (and philosophically free) ways to solve problems. so in being constantly reminded that group x's argument that abortion if bad, and group y's argument that abortion is okay, can't be reconciled with recourse to rational philosophy... we are forced to invent a new space in which we examine the problem. and this is why i adore him... even though he sounds like a broken record sometimes.

It's true, perhaps, that he does suggest that compromise, negotiation and I forget the third process are an approach to dealing with the 'situation'. But these cannot be justified from within his position. he seems to be mentioning these less. Perhaps he has noticed this. You cannot even determine problems objectively, not in the moral realm, from his position. So it is inconsistent to then assert one knows a way to solve them or even a direction one might head in. And we would have no tools to evaluated if moving in that direction was good.

And note: I don't blame him for not having a solution. I disagree that he is t

he first to contribute to figuring out ways in which our conflicting goods (values) could come into cooperation if we were, to once, bring down our formulas and set to work coming to agreement on practical (and philosophically free) ways to solve problems.

he is, quite certainly, the unwitting voice of the analytical tradition ('ordinary language' philosophers) and its assault on metaphysical, a priori methods of philosophy... where so much of our fragile, self assured certainty hides without our knowing.

He'd better take a good look, then, if this is true, at his own use of 'dasein' but most clearly 'contraptions', especially where the latter plays a role in his interpersonal psychic claims.

when i hear him say somewhere 'wtf does that even mean', i see a kindred spirit at work and laugh to myself; biggy understands, but not the others... not yet... maybe not ever. because he's experienced enough to see the almost infinite ways a person might understand a particular philosophical statement, and therefore sees in advance the entanglement around the corner, he seizes it... locks onto it... stops it from developing... and pins it down. and there is no hint of malevolence in the spirit of this interrogation. he's genuinely concerned and interested and with good will. maybe what this seasoned thinker is trying to tell us is 'i've tried that, and it doesn't work. let me warn you before you get carried away.'

Certainly there are instances where his incredulity is grounded. Other times it is not, and regularly.

now as a fellow very familiar with the analytical tradition and a solid understanding of logic, you, faust, should be able to recognize biggy's quasi-deconstructivist modus operandi. is he not declaring out loud the very thing you so adamantly insisted; that logic cannot tell us what to do, or why to do it? again, he's not throwing the baby out with the bath water... but he's sure as hell throwing the bath water out. that bath water is where we felt comfortable with our 'rational theories'.

If he remained a skeptic, this would be fine. But he does not, he has promoted approaches to solving problems - as you noted above - which do not hold water with the rest of his position. He is quasi-religious. IOW 'what could be more important than finding out how one ought to live?' We should, and I emphasize that word 'should' be in the hole and focused on getting out? We should experience it as he does or we really haven't 'gotten it' (and have a contraption)? we should be looking for rational arguments that will convince every rational person on earth that X is good? IOW he is, as I said elsewhere in different terms, an existentialist demanding to be talked out of being an existentialist and judging other existentialists or nihilists or non-objectivists as immoral or confused if they do not prioritize his project.

biggy is a midwife for something more primitive in our being, something we can't give birth to without becoming very uncomfortable first.

This is a myth too. That if we do not share his hole or positions we are not willing to face the uncomfortable. Biggie, as you call him, has no idea what people have faced philosophically or experientially. Hell, I think there are worse holes than not having the unstoppable rational argument for an objective moral position. I think Ship of Thebes type issues are a much darker hole. And I have been in his hole. I reject the Christ-like role he positions himself as having: I am here, suffering what all of you really should be suffering.

he's anchoring the ethical in something simpler which we have to strive to find without relying on our rationality. the existentialist wizard non plus ultra.

Here you are misrepresenting him. He is always calling for the rational argument. I did for a while think that was him rhetorically showing that there is none. But then, he objects to others who are not interested in trying to find this objective argument no one can resist.

see what he did to peacegirl? he brought 'determinism' to its most terrifying, logical conclusion. maybe everyone else missed it, including peacegirl, i dunno. but he showed the absurdity involved in any effort to make the thesis reasonably useful for anything. constantly drilling peacegirl; but isn't my inability to agree with you just one more inevitably determined thing? why then the frustration at my deference?

But that was disingenous. Even in a deterministic universe one can learn/change one's mind. I don't know how well or not peacegirl presented his case, but iambiguous never seem to get that a meme could be infectious. I am not optimistic in the way peacegirl is, but Iamb could have focused on himself as an individual being convinced or not by the case peacegirl presented, rather then making himself an object that cannot change. IOW he abstracted himself out of the situation and demanded to be loved by the determinist even if he might never agree. That was abstract. He is not everyman. He is one guy.

there is a mix of playfulness, toying and serious concern in all of this. there's a swagger to it, a groove to it. and he's not trying to offend or confuse or irritate, believe me. it's a very earnest and important game that changes the rules of philosophy...

Sorry, I find that there is a great deal of not reading well, not considering that he might be missing something in specfiic - he's great at making discalimers (of course I might be wrong), but not once have I even seen him consider that a specific point made about something he did or said might be correct AND WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN, he mind reads, demands things that have been done, lectures and repeats himself as if it is relevent when it is not, takes every point made as an attempt to solve conflicting goods. So you point out that argument X was wrong because of Y, he will respond to what you wrote by saying 'how does this resolve conflicting goods?' when it obviously was not an attempt to. You can see a clear example of this pattern when he responds this way above to my response to Faust about him.

The mythical Iambiguous, the one who stays on the skeptic side, needling objectivists to demonstrate the objective nature of their moral claims, that's a useful character. And I know he has done this well at times. But the actual Iambiguous is a quasi-religious figure on a mission and one he thinks we all should be on, and like many people on missions, everything gets filtered through that mission - which means he is not a good reader and not very aware of himself and what he does interpersonally with others. Why? Because he is saving the world or at least grieving it in the right way, so whatever he does or does not do or mistakes he makes...these are all trifles.

[iambiguous]

Again:

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

This contains, pretty likely, a misunderstanding of logical. You can't be (just) logical in relation to capital punishment. It's a category error. You can present logical arguments about it. Or your arguments might, it turns out, contain fallacies - that is they were not logical.

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

Okay, let's assume you do know considerably more [philosophically] about the technical meaning of being logical in discussing capital punishment. Give us some examples of how you might instruct the protesters at Huntsville in grappling with the difference between being logical, being rational and being moral in regard to the particular execution about to take place.

Other then by way of yet another "general description" "analysis".

For me, everything here revolves around the gap between what you think you know is true about it "in your head", and what you are able to demonstrate is true about it to those you would deem to be reasonable men and women.

There would seem to come a time when you would have to acknowledge the limitations of "being logical" in the discussion. Which all of us would agree on. The part where only the language is critiqued vs. the part where the words intertwine with the world and the critiques become what I construe to be more or less "existential contraptions".

And, for me, that revolves largely around the conflicting goods, derived from dasein out in a particular world where what you think you know is true may well butts heads with those who have the actual political power to enforce their own [conflicting] moral agenda.

In my view, you can't turn to the folks here who embrace Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or Kant for the one size fits all answer. Or, rather, so it seems to me. No moral obligations, just the obligation to be in sync with the rules of language.

But it's the part about what one "ought to do" here that by far generates the most controversy and conflict.

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

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

My guess: a lot of people will be scratching their heads.

Then those on both sides hit you with arguments like this: https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.re ... eID=002000

Then they pummel you with endless facts [and interpretations of the facts] with regard to this particular execution. Then you can either be an objectivist here or a pragmatist.

Pragmatism as you understand it, pragmatism as I do.

Meanwhile the one thing that everyone can agree on is this: the prisoner is either executed or not.

And the execution itself is neither logical or illogical. But [of course] that's not at all what motivates people to protest for or against it.

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

What fucking contraption?

The one that makes sense to me as a description of your "assessment" here but makes considerably less sense to you.

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

Why?

Because there will be conflicting assessments regarding which rendition of being reasonable ought to be "the chief source and test of knowledge" regarding this particular execution.

Ah, but forget about folks actually being executed and the relevancy of logic and rational thought and morality in discussing it. Instead, the problem here is really me:

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

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

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

This need on your point to expose me, to explain me, to disclose to everyone what is really going on beyond the curtain.

Or so it seems to me.

And then the role that logic, rational thought and virtue either play or do not play in discussing capital punishment is no longer even the point of the exchange.

[iambiguous]

Look - everyone wants to live in a just society and everyone wants others to act ethically. Everyone wants the power of rational thought.

No, as a matter of fact, any number very rich and powerful folks want only to sustain a world that they deem to be in their own best [and selfish] interest. Basically, their "morality" revolves around "show me the money". Capitalism thrives on a generally amoral approach to human interractions. What counts are market transactions in which there are winners and losers. Interactions then rationalized by one or another rendition of suvival of the fittest. A dog eat dog world that revolves largely around K Street and Wall Street. And their cronies in Washington. At least here in America.

And then there are all the narcissists and sociopaths.

And what about the folks who own and operate nations like Russia and China. Do they want to create a just society? Do they want others to act in a manner other than in sustaining their wealth and power? Where does the "power of rational thought" fit in here?

And for those who are intent on creating a just world, what on earth does that mean with respect to actual issues like abortion or gun control or animal rights or energy policy or the role of government or separation of church and state or homosexuality or gender norms?

Rational thought here? Who gets to decide what that is? And common sense tells us that, in regard to value judgments, any particular individual's point of view is going to be largely embeded in historical and cultural contexts. And clearly derived from the actual experiences that unfold in the life that they have lived.

Existential -- subjective/subjunctive -- variables are everywhere here. Engendering social, political and economic permutations that then fall up and down the political spectrum. And [so far] throughout all of human history.

Philosophy didn't invent these desires. It seeks to make them more useful to people. It usually fails, but not because it is trying to clarify our thoughts. Philosophy doesn't fail because it analyzes generally held ideas that have always existed, well before Plato.

And yet "general descriptions" of the relationship between words and worlds brings philosophy [however it is understood] no where near the actual contexts that make up our day to day interactions with others.

Philosophy doesn't fail because it seeks to identify our most basic assumptions. And logic doesn't fail because it can help us to remove self-contradictory thought. Logic is a tool that probably shouldn't be applied to our every moment of existence. But it does help us to answer why we choose the values that we do and very much help us to resolve conflicting goods within ourselves.

In my view, philosophy fails when it does not take into account the existential nature of human interaction. When, instead, it proposes that moral obligations can be "thought up" or "deduced" into existence; and then attached to words like "categorical" and "imperative". Morality differentiated as either shadows on the cave walls or out in the clear light of one another rendition of philosophical realism or political idealism.

And then those who throw in one or another rendition of God in turn.

If ten percent of the posters here could only avoid contradicting themselves, if one percent of humans could, logic would be seen as useful. But it will not be seen as useful by those who fail to realize that we all use logic every day. The philosopher is just better at it. Except many famous philosophers were not. Oh, well.

In what particular context? Regarding what particular behaviors?

Again: All I am trying to distinguish here is the difference between being logical in regard to value judgments, being rational in regard to them, and being moral in regard to them.

And in order to flesh this out you have to actually discuss your own views regarding these issues. And then when others react to that you can point out deficiencies in their use of logic and rational thinking and assumptions regarding virtuous behavior.

And sure, what is rational can't simply mean "what is true". That's a straw man. No one says it does. Except rationalists. So, Liam's rejoinder to rational;its is okay by me. But he doesn't seem to know who is a rationalist and who is not. Being rational is challenging, yes. So what?

Okay, then be rational in reacting to the conflicting goods that revolve around the death penalty. Note your own value judgment here. Note for us why it is deemed rational to you.

And then when I note that my own value judgments here revolve precisely around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, you can point out the parts that are in sync with the true rationalists and those that are not.

[Faust]

Morality is not fundamentally about what is true. Nothing is fundamentally about what is true. Morality, in the sense you are using it, meaning social justice, is about what enough people with enough power (people who matter enough) will accept.

I want you to picture a wall that someone has just painted, except that he has left a few square feet undone. If you had hired him for this job you would not pay him, because he hasn't done the job at all. That is, that he was hired to paint the wall, the entire wall, and he didn't do that. This position is consistent with your all-or-nothing view of morality.

He claims he did 90% of it, so you should pay him 90% of the money. You both claim that your position is just. In the end a small claims judge decides, according to laws that are informed by moral thinking, thinking concerning "what is just".

This is not difficult.

The fact is that a decision is made. See what we (humans) did there? We made rules so that you didn't have to shoot the painter and ransack his house. And kill his bird. Some of this process included rational thinking (as an antidote to your homicidal rage). Some of this was valid arguments using premises that are generally accepted as true, some of which are not directly related to morality at all.

These rules are applied to your very real civil case, your very real wall, partially covered with very real paint. But no mother's son is going to make a rule just for you. So, yeah, it has to be kinda general. The "off the skyhooks, down to earth, nose stuffed into Godzilla's armpit (or whatever)" stuff already has happened and happens every day. There would be no purpose to the rules if it did not. The rules were formulated exactly because of everyday daseinpoopen.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Okay, let's assume you do know considerably more [philosophically] about the technical meaning of being logical in discussing capital punishment. Give us some examples of how you might instruct the protesters at Huntsville in grappling with the difference between being logical, being rational and being moral in regard to the particular execution about to take place.

Give me a specific situation. I have the option of doing this, but I don't. I don't try to find those people and engage with them. So what is a specific situation with protester at Huntsville. How do I meet them? Do they stop me in the street? There are hundreds or thousands of issues and arguments related to capital punishment. Can you give me some kind of concrete scenario revolving around a specific argument? I am willing to hallucinate that I would spend time instructing some Huntville protester for a thought experiment, but you are also asking me to choose out of mass of different arguments some random one to demonstrate my ideas about logic. And I am not sure why?

Otherwise I am just making shit up, even if I am specific.

And by the way, I have nowhere said whatever I say to them would be effective, let alone end the conflict, so I don't understand why you are asking me to do this.

It seems like a set up. I present what I say. Then you say 'oh, they won't understand that.' Or 'but they still have conflicting values'

and to that all I can say is ''Yeah, duh.'

So, why are you asking me to instruct these protesters about logic

and why don't you instruct them about dasein and contraptions?

There would seem to come a time when you would have to acknowledge the limitations of "being logical" in the discussion. Which all of us would agree on. The part where only the language is critiqued vs. the part where the words intertwine with the world and the critiques become what I construe to be more or less "existential contraptions".

And, for me, that revolves largely around the conflicting goods, derived from dasein out in a particular world where what you think you know is true may well butts heads with those who have the actual political power to enforce their own [conflicting] moral agenda.

Needless repetition.

In my view, you can't turn to the folks here who embrace Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or Kant for the one size fits all answer. Or, rather, so it seems to me. No moral obligations, just the obligation to be in sync with the rules of language.

If anyone here is saying that conflicting goods go away when we clean up language, have at them.

My guess: a lot of people will be scratching their heads.

Fuck yeah. That's one of the reasons I would not engage them. They'd scratch their heads at dasein and contraptions also. So what? You let me know what I say 'all the people need are some lessons in logic and conflicting goods disappear' or 'a good approach to Huntsville is teaching them about logic in arguments' or whatever strawman position you seem to be attritubing to me.

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

Why?

Because there will be conflicting assessments regarding which rendition of being reasonable ought to be "the chief source and test of knowledge" regarding this particular execution.

Ah, but forget about folks actually being executed and the relevancy of logic and rational thought and morality in discussing it. Instead, the problem here is really me:

Why should I apply rationalism to conflicts? what position are you hallucinating that I have? Have I asserted this would be a good thing? Not in my memeory

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

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

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

This need on your point to expose me, to explain me, to disclose to everyone what is really going on beyond the curtain.

Behind the curtain. It was right there in the posts I quoted. You responded to a post to Faust I made.

and Ironically elsewhere You asked for a specific example when you do the kind of thing you did in relation to my post to Faust. So, following YOUR request I pointed out the example.

Now you shift the context using an inappropriate metaphor about revealing what is behind the curtain.

And notice how you do not respond. You ask for an example. I give one. Now you ignore the example and blame me for focusing on you. Why did you enter a discussion between me and Faust about you?

Or so it seems to me.

And then the role that logic, rational thought and virtue either play or do not play in discussing capital punishment is no longer even the point of the exchange.

The post that you quoted was my response to Faust. Right?
That post had a purpose dealing with you and a confusion he seemed to have. Right?
I explained my sense of what was going on. YOu quoted me doing that.
that interchange was not about capital punishment and it is in thread not about capital punishment.
It was not the point of the exchange.

but you will never admit that.

Its a simple thing. You responded to my post to Faust as if I was solving some OTHER issue. I pointed this out. If you can't see it, go through the posts again.

I get blamed if I do what you ask.
I get blamed for not solving problems I never claimed to have solved.
I get blamed for executions because in a philosophy forum I focused on certain issues and people are still being executed, while the one blaming me focused on philosophical issues and people are still getting executed.
I get blamed because my explanations would have people shaking their heads at Huntville by someone using arguments that would have poeple shaking their heads at Huntville.
I am asked to give a specific example - I actually already had when asked - of a pattern of behavior. I give a new example,s ince I was provided with one in this thread and then I get blamed for focusing on you.
I respond to anohter poster about an issue he had and get told by you, a third poster, that my post to him was not on the topic it should have been and failed to solve your problem.

I think we have hijacked Faust's thread enough. Feel free to pm me or bring this up elsewhere if you are confused by any of your behavior as much as I am.

I will leave this thread or at least the dialogue with you in it. Probably similar stuff will arise elsewhere.

[iambiguous]

Morality is not fundamentally about what is true. Nothing is fundamentally about what is true. Morality, in the sense you are using it, meaning social justice, is about what enough people with enough power (people who matter enough) will accept.

I agree. But any number of men and women down through the ages have scoffed at that. They have instead embraced "might makes it right" or "right justifies might". There are the dictators and the ideologues. And the ideologues that become dictators.

And then those who recognize that [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds is embedded instead in democracy and rule of law. But [in the real world] ever and always subsumed in political economy.

Still, in focusing in on particular behaviors in particular contexts, there are the lines that are drawn between the logical rules of language, the assumptions made about rational thinking and the extent to which it can be argued that human morality ought to be predicated on rational thinking expressed logically.

I accept that. But then I introduce the elements of my own nihilistic morality: dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power.

In a [presumed] No God world.

And then the "hole" that I have thought myself into as a result of putting all the variables together.

I want you to picture a wall that someone has just painted, except that he has left a few square feet undone. If you had hired him for this job you would not pay him, because he hasn't done the job at all. That is, that he was hired to paint the wall, the entire wall, and he didn't do that. This position is consistent with your all-or-nothing view of morality.

He claims he did 90% of it, so you should pay him 90% of the money. You both claim that your position is just. In the end a small claims judge decides, according to laws that are informed by moral thinking, thinking concerning "what is just".

This is not difficult.

The fact is that a decision is made. See what we (humans) did there? We made rules so that you didn't have to shoot the painter and ransack his house. And kill his bird. Some of this process included rational thinking (as an antidote to your homicidal rage). Some of this was valid arguments using premises that are generally accepted as true, some of which are not directly related to morality at all.

Huh? Where does dasein, conflicting goods and political economy really fit in here? As they do with regard to life and death issues like abortion or conscription or capital punishment or gun control or animal rights.

Painting a wall?!

Then this: All-or-nothing morality? My point is that if God does exist, if a particular political ideology or a deontological philosophical argument comes along able to be demonstrated as wholly in sync with objective morality, or an understanding of nature [re Satyr and his ilk at KT] is determined to definitively differentiate natural from unnatural human behaviors, then morality could be anchored to an all-or-nothing set of rules able to prescribe or proscribe human behaviors.

On the other hand, moral nihilism is exactly the opposite of all-or-nothing. But, given my own rendition of it, I've still thunk myself down into that hole. I embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise, but I have no illusions that this is anything other than the embodiment of my own particular "I" here as an "existential contraption".

Then with folks like KT who seems to share my views regarding the presumed absence of objective morality and the need to be pragmatic in our interactions with others, I probe to understand how he himself is not down in the same hole that I am in.

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Over and again with regard to either the objectivists or the pragmatists, I ask them to explain how that is not applicable to them in regard to an actual set of conflicting behaviors in an actual circumstantial context.

[Ecmandu]

Morality is not fundamentally about what is true. Nothing is fundamentally about what is true. Morality, in the sense you are using it, meaning social justice, is about what enough people with enough power (people who matter enough) will accept.

I agree. But any number of men and women down through the ages have scoffed at that. They have instead embraced "might makes it right" or "right justifies might". There are the dictators and the ideologues. And the ideologues that become dictators.

And then those who recognize that [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds is embedded instead in democracy and rule of law. But [in the real world] ever and always subsumed in political economy.

Still, in focusing in on particular behaviors in particular contexts, there are the lines that are drawn between the logical rules of language, the assumptions made about rational thinking and the extent to which it can be argued that human morality ought to be predicated on rational thinking expressed logically.

I accept that. But then I introduce the elements of my own nihilistic morality: dasein, conflicting goods and political/economic power.

In a [presumed] No God world.

And then the "hole" that I have thought myself into as a result of putting all the variables together.

I want you to picture a wall that someone has just painted, except that he has left a few square feet undone. If you had hired him for this job you would not pay him, because he hasn't done the job at all. That is, that he was hired to paint the wall, the entire wall, and he didn't do that. This position is consistent with your all-or-nothing view of morality.

He claims he did 90% of it, so you should pay him 90% of the money. You both claim that your position is just. In the end a small claims judge decides, according to laws that are informed by moral thinking, thinking concerning "what is just".

This is not difficult.

The fact is that a decision is made. See what we (humans) did there? We made rules so that you didn't have to shoot the painter and ransack his house. And kill his bird. Some of this process included rational thinking (as an antidote to your homicidal rage). Some of this was valid arguments using premises that are generally accepted as true, some of which are not directly related to morality at all.

Huh? Where does dasein, conflicting goods and political economy really fit in here? As they do with regard to life and death issues like abortion or conscription or capital punishment or gun control or animal rights.

Painting a wall?!

Then this: All-or-nothing morality? My point is that if God does exist, if a particular political ideology or a deontological philosophical argument comes along able to be demonstrated as wholly in sync with objective morality, or an understanding of nature [re Satyr and his ilk at KT] is determined to definitively differentiate natural from unnatural human behaviors, then morality could be anchored to an all-or-nothing set of rules able to prescribe or proscribe human behaviors.

On the other hand, moral nihilism is exactly the opposite of all-or-nothing. But, given my own rendition of it, I've still thunk myself down into that hole. I embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise, but I have no illusions that this is anything other than the embodiment of my own particular "I" here as an "existential contraption".

Then with folks like KT who seems to share my views regarding the presumed absence of objective morality and the need to be pragmatic in our interactions with others, I probe to understand how he himself is not down in the same hole that I am in.

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Over and again with regard to either the objectivists or the pragmatists, I ask them to explain how that is not applicable to them in regard to an actual set of conflicting behaviors in an actual circumstantial context.

You're an objectivist. That's why you still drink water.

Regardless of what anyone says, they still drink water.

That's very down to earth.

You could have chosen differently, but like everyone else on earth, you didn't WANT to choose differently, because you understand the objective, political and moral consequences of it.

You're basically a fraud

[iambiguous]

Okay, let's assume you do know considerably more [philosophically] about the technical meaning of being logical in discussing capital punishment. Give us some examples of how you might instruct the protesters at Huntsville in grappling with the difference between being logical, being rational and being moral in regard to the particular execution about to take place.

Give me a specific situation. I have the option of doing this, but I don't. I don't try to find those people and engage with them. So what is a specific situation with protester at Huntsville. How do I meet them? Do they stop me in the street?

We do what we can here. We're not likely to agree to congregate outside the Huntsville unit the next time a particularly controversial execution takes place. Instead, here at ILP, we bring into the discussion our own personal experiences with the issue. Or we can discuss a film like Dead Man Walking, which powerfully presented both sides of this literally life and death issue.

Here we can think through the conflict and note to others where we draw the line ourselves between logical language, rational thinking and moral behavior.

There are hundreds or thousands of issues and arguments related to capital punishment. Can you give me some kind of concrete scenario revolving around a specific argument? I am willing to hallucinate that I would spend time instructing some Huntville protester for a thought experiment, but you are also asking me to choose out of mass of different arguments some random one to demonstrate my ideas about logic. And I am not sure why?

No, I am asking you [and others] to examine the extent to which any particular individual's argument for or against the death penalty is embedded [problematically] in the lives that we live in any particular historical, cultural and experiential context.

And while there are clearly things able to be distinguished as being expressed logically or expressed illogically, as comporting rationally with the facts or not comporting rationally with the facts, when we shift gears to value judgments regarding capital punishment, things are often not nearly as black and white.

And the reason that there are "hundreds or thousands of issues and arguments related to capital punishment" is because there are any number of different contexts that each of us grew up in, exposing us to very, very different sets of variables. Issues relating to class and race and gender. Issues embedded in aggravating and mitigating circumstance. Issues embedded in police bungling, jury selection, and out and out fraud. And then all the folks who have been released from prison [on death row] because it was finally determined that they really were innocent all along. Or the extent to which it can be pinned down once and for all if the death penalty is the very embodiment of "cruel and unusual punishment".

What can philosophers [or scientists] tell us here. And what is beyond their purview, their expertise, their wisdom?

And by the way, I have nowhere said whatever I say to them would be effective, let alone end the conflict, so I don't understand why you are asking me to do this.

My point revolves around the likelihood that some will be impressed with your own moral and political narrative, while others will only be scornful of it. Why? How is this -- these conflicting reactions -- embedded in dasein?

So, why are you asking me to instruct these protesters about logic and why don't you instruct them about dasein and contraptions?

Okay, imagine that I did. Here I am telling them that the choices that they make in their lives relating to value judgements are just so many ever and always subject to change existential contraptions in the No God world. Values that are no more necessarily virtuous than those who embrace just the opposite point of view. That "I" here really is just a historical and cultural and experiential construction, deconstruction and reconstruction from the cradle to the grave.

How would their reaction be all that different from the reactions of many here?

There would seem to come a time when you would have to acknowledge the limitations of "being logical" in the discussion. Which all of us would agree on. The part where only the language is critiqued vs. the part where the words intertwine with the world and the critiques become what I construe to be more or less "existential contraptions".

And, for me, that revolves largely around the conflicting goods, derived from dasein out in a particular world where what you think you know is true may well butts heads with those who have the actual political power to enforce their own [conflicting] moral agenda.

Needless repetition.

Two points:

1] repetitive points can be needless for some or they can finally begin to sink in for others
2] there are always new members here at ILP for whom the points are not repetitive at all. They're hearing them for the first time and may well have something to tell me that effectively challenges my own assumptions here.

[Faust]

No, iambiguous, you do not agree. "What enough people with enough power will accept" is might makes right or it certainly could be. Ideologue dictators are regularly chosen by "the people" and are not necessary morally aberrant.

I have to ask you, do you keep asking about particular contexts because you don't see the context of what others claim?

I'd be glad to "be rational" about conflicting goods:

People, or at least people who think about it, tend to come down on one of two sides of the issue of the death penalty - they are usually either for it or against it. But it's noteworthy that many who are for it are for it in only certain circumstances, the relative importance of which varies a bit from one person to the other. People sometimes even argue about it. And laws are from time to time passed about capital punishment. The courts are constantly involved.

Now, why can't we agree? And let's stipulate that agreement would mean something that reveals a clear mandate for all the governments of the world. And that, given the impossibility of even knowing what 90 or 95% of the actual population of the world thinks, that we're keeping the parameters inside the realm of the possible. But the rest is wide open - educational levels, literacy, IQ, mental health, wealth - it's all on the table.

Is this starting to look like a waste of time, yet? It does to me. We don't even know who we want to vote on this and we know it can't be everyone.

So how do we get the two sides to agree? Well, God comes to mind, except that he has already abjectly failed to produce agreement. But here's another problem - why the fuck should i care if the whole world agrees? Because i fancy myself a philosopher? Why do you care?

This is all on the skyhooks, but you have a) asked the question and b) not even attempted to give your own solution. The "real world" is that people argue about this stuff using moral language. Moral philosophers provide the vocabulary. No matter what else they claim to do. But moral philosophers have made many errors. The error that they can provide some universal and permanent solution to this problem is just one of many. Ignoring the logic of their arguments will guarantee that you do not understand that which you rail against,which is kind of a waste of time.

Getting obsessed with that certain mistake and ignoring the others will pretty much do the same thing.

But back to agreement - it happens one agreement at a time. Griping about there being no use for moral language, some of it provided by absolutist, rationalist assholes who are still hallowed and followed by many, is the complaint of someone who seldom wins an argument.

The fact is that people do get talked into things. They change their minds. ultimately, it's the argument they have with themselves, using the tools made available by philosophers, that tells the tale. It helps if those arguments are valid and uses premises accepted as true by that one person. It's not as easy as it seems.

[iambiguous]

No, iambiguous, you do not agree. "What enough people with enough power will accept" is might makes right or it certainly could be. Ideologue dictators are regularly chosen by "the people" and are not necessary morally aberrant.

What I was basically agreeing with was your point that "[m]orality is not fundamentally about what is true."

Fundamentally in the sense that the might is said to be justified because it reflects the moral obligation of all rational and/or just people. Then you have all of the historical renditions of this. Lenin with his Communist Manifesto, Hitler with his Mein Kampf, Mussolini with his fascism, Mao with his Cultural Revolution.

Or there are those who skip that part and impose their will simply because they have the political and economic and military and police wherewithal to impose it.

And while there are behaviors in any particular human community that can be described accurately as "morally aberrant", who is to say which behaviors all rational men and women are in fact obligated to choose?

I'd be glad to "be rational" about conflicting goods:

People, or at least people who think about it, tend to come down on one of two sides of the issue of the death penalty - they are usually either for it or against it. But it's noteworthy that many who are for it are for it in only certain circumstances, the relative importance of which varies a bit from one person to the other. People sometimes even argue about it. And laws are from time to time passed about capital punishment. The courts are constantly involved.

Yep, that's how it works alright. At least in those jurisdictions that practice one or another rendition of democracy and the rule of law. And not those who are in a position to dictate how all citizens are required to view state executions. Re God or one or another ideological dogma or one or another philosophical assessment. And certainly not in communities where for all practical purposes it's the law of the jungle.

In my view, human interactions are ever and always embedded in an actual historical and cultural or experiential context. Out in a world where contingency, chance and change are always right around the corner.

Then further in my view it comes down to how any particular one of us implicates that in our own lives.

Now, why can't we agree? And let's stipulate that agreement would mean something that reveals a clear mandate for all the governments of the world. And that, given the impossibility of even knowing what 90 or 95% of the actual population of the world thinks, that we're keeping the parameters inside the realm of the possible. But the rest is wide open - educational levels, literacy, IQ, mental health, wealth - it's all on the table.

Again, that's my point. That and the part about any actual flesh and blood "I" out in any actual flesh and blood world being at the intersection -- the existential intersection -- of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

In any specific context.

This is precisely the argument I make when confronting the moral and political objectivists among us. There are simply far, far, far too many variables intertwined in any number of actual social, political and economic contexts to ever realistically suppose that some sort of deontological prescription can reflect the ethical equivalent of "one size fits all".

Is this starting to look like a waste of time, yet? It does to me. We don't even know who we want to vote on this and we know it can't be everyone.

But: whether accomplishing it is a waste of time it doesn't change the fact that one way or another rules of behaviors must be proposed and then legislated in any given human community. And then enforced.

Again, it is here where I argue that "I" is largely an intersubjective agglomeration of value judgments out in a particular world of conflicting points of view derived from the actual trajectory of ones life experiences.

And not from God or ideology or reason or logic or views of nature. Not from the intellectual assumptions of folks like Plato or Aristotle of Descartes or Kant.

But that in turn is merely how "I" have come to view this existentially here and now given all the variables that came together in my own life. Many of which are surely beyond my understanding and control.

So how do we get the two sides to agree? Well, God comes to mind, except that he has already abjectly failed to produce agreement. But here's another problem - why the fuck should i care if the whole world agrees? Because i fancy myself a philosopher? Why do you care?

When have I ever argued that any one of us ought to care about any of this? It's just that down through the ages there have been any number of folks who called themselves philosophers who took it upon themselves to care about it.

And what I propose we do here is to take their words, their ideas, their concepts, their theories, their intellectual contraptions down out of the "general description" clouds, and stick them out in the world that we live in here and now. As this revolves around the question "how ought one to live"?

This is all on the skyhooks, but you have a) asked the question and b) not even attempted to give your own solution.

My point is that with respect to an issue like capital punishment, there do not appear to be any objective solutions that philosophers, using the tools at their disposal, can provide us with.

Then [for me] it's probing how others are not down in the hole that I am in when confronting this.

I propose first and foremost that my values here are embedded in the points I bring up here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Then I ask others how this frame of mind is not applicable to them. Given a particular context that most here are likely to be familiar with and to have thought about.

The "real world" is that people argue about this stuff using moral language. Moral philosophers provide the vocabulary. No matter what else they claim to do. But moral philosophers have made many errors. The error that they can provide some universal and permanent solution to this problem is just one of many. Ignoring the logic of their arguments will guarantee that you do not understand that which you rail against,which is kind of a waste of time.

Yet another "general description" in which the supposed "errors" that philosophers have made are not fleshed out in regards to an issue like capital punishment.

Again, errors [or truths] that revolve around the part where logic and rational thinking and morality are grappled with "in reality".

[Faust]

You still don't get it. Philosophers don't provide the answers using the tools at their disposal. They provide some of the tools so that you can provide answers for yourself.

[iambiguous]

You still don't get it. Philosophers don't provide the answers using the tools at their disposal. They provide some of the tools so that you can provide answers for yourself.

Well, you can't describe philosophers more generally than this, right?

And my point has always been that whatever tools philosophers [or scientists] use in confronting the question, "how ought one to live?", there does not appear [to me] to be a way to get around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

All I have ever asked of folks like Faust and KT is that they at least make an attempt to explain why they are not down in that hole I have thought myself into.

Sometimes they claim to have done so. But not in a way that has ever managed to sink in for me.

So, all we can do is to try another context and see what might begin to sink in. Stuff that they propose to me, stuff that I propose to them.

[Faust]

What hole? You don't know how you ought to live?

I'm not in any hole. I decide how i ought to live. Now, every second of my existence informs those decisions and there are about eleventy-million decisions to make, if you're lucky enough to live that long.

What would you have happen when you encounter someone you disgaree with? A merging of the minds? When did that ever happen? To anyone? That people were in agreement. i mean, other than a relatively small group? And even then...

[Faust]

By the way, you have accused me of a vast generization. But given the context of many other things I have said, it should be easily understood by anyone who knows that context that I do not mean that everyone we may call a philosopher is any good at providing those tools. So, in which context have I generlized enough to warrant an eyeroll?

The problem in philosophy is not generalization, it's reification. It's abstracting the living shit out of an idea and pronouncing the result a thing. Like a Platonic Form. Logic is easier when you are reifying, because you've made up all the important words yourself, or copped them from someone who has. Still, these reifiers slip up. But what has that to do with disagreements about abortion? It's a strategy.

Political economy requires strategy. Ask Plato.

But compromise requires knowing the opposition's position. Philosophy is the art of knowing their position better than they do. Or at least making them think so. It's the art of argument for ideas we can conceptually point to but are not quite sure why we can and why we do point to them. Philosophy can tell us why, but has a different influence than experience or chromosomes have. Again, not very many people are good at it.

[Dan~]

I thought that philosophy was supposed to be about love of thought.
I made a post about this already.
Love of thoughts, love of ideas, love of the beings which store and distribute ideas.

Love without intelligence is brought to basically nothing, though.
Love is a mode. It's an existential condition.

Anyone who loves truth needs to also know truth.
Otherwise the love has no direction or goal.

Thus knowing is more important than loving.
Christians would disagree on that.

[iambiguous]

What hole? You don't know how you ought to live?

The hole that revolves around the manner in which this...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...seems reasonable to me.

Thus when I am confronted with a context in which values come into conflict, I recognize that my own values are largely derived existentially from the life that I lived. That had my life been very different I might now be espousing the opposite point of view. And that in regard to opposite points of view, both sides have reasonable arguments to make. There does not appear to be a way for philosophers to propose an optimal point of view.

Thus when I was a Marxist and a feminist, there was no doubt about it: abortion was the absolute political right of all women. Now, I am drawn and quartered by the arguments from both sides. And I recognize that had I not been drafted into the Army allowing me to meet men who profoundly reconfigured my very conservative views on abortion into very radical leftist views, I might easily have remained staunchly anti-abortion as a devout Christian.

I'm not in any hole. I decide how i ought to live. Now, every second of my existence informs those decisions and there are about eleventy-million decisions to make, if you're lucky enough to live that long.

Here all you can do with respect to an issue like abortion is to explain to me why you believe this.

How are your decisions not the embodiment of how I construe the "self" here? How do you deal with those reasonable arguments able to be made by both sides?

To wit: https://abortion.procon.org/

You tell me: which point of view is the most rational? Which narrative is most in sync with virtue?

You either believe that it is one over the other or a rendition of "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine"

Then what? Then it's who has the power to enforce their own moral agenda.

What would you have happen when you encounter someone you disgaree with? A merging of the minds? When did that ever happen? To anyone? That people were in agreement. i mean, other than a relatively small group? And even then...

It's not a question of what I would have happen, but how I have come to actually react to those who don't share my own values. Values that, in any event, I have come to construe as an "existential contraption".

[iambiguous]

By the way, you have accused me of a vast generization. But given the context of many other things I have said, it should be easily understood by anyone who knows that context that I do not mean that everyone we may call a philosopher is any good at providing those tools. So, in which context have I generlized enough to warrant an eyeroll?

The problem in philosophy is not generalization, it's reification. It's abstracting the living shit out of an idea and pronouncing the result a thing. Like a Platonic Form. Logic is easier when you are reifying, because you've made up all the important words yourself, or copped them from someone who has. Still, these reifiers slip up. But what has that to do with disagreements about abortion? It's a strategy.

Political economy requires strategy. Ask Plato.

But compromise requires knowing the opposition's position. Philosophy is the art of knowing their position better than they do. Or at least making them think so. It's the art of argument for ideas we can conceptually point to but are not quite sure why we can and why we do point to them. Philosophy can tell us why, but has a different influence than experience or chromosomes have. Again, not very many people are good at it.

Another vast generaliztion about generalizing itself.

And political economy is rooted historically in all of the various ways in which the means of production allowed a particular community to set up the distribution of goods and services.

Thus the behaviors of those in nomadic communities, hunter and gatherer communities, slash and burn communities, feudal communities, mercantile communities, capitalist communities and socialist communities overlapped in the sense that they are all of the same species of animal. Human all too human. But there were also differences more in sync with each particular type of economy. And how that then engendered more or less separate and distinct social and political interactions.

Imagine if Plato were around today. What would be the same in his thinking and what might be very, very different?

[Faust]

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

This is an unfortunate viewpoint. You might have gone in another direction. What you are saying is that you don't have any compelling reason for action. Most people do have a reason. That may be ideology or religion or god knows what, but when you're lost in an Existential wasteland and reckon that no one is going to come and rescue you (which is a very Existentialist thing to reckon) you have to strike out in some direction or perish. In this context (are you getting the whole metaphor here?) any direction is better than standing still.

No "I" need fracture here. It's the "I" that's getting you away from crying beasts and back to your hut in the shadow of the Temple of Dasein.

And political economy is rooted historically in all of the various ways in which the means of production allowed a particular community to set up the distribution of goods and services.

Distributive justice, the political morality if you will, is like this, too. So what?

I don't think Plato would be very different. There are still plenty of Platonists around.

[Faust]

There does not appear to be a way for philosophers to propose an optimal point of view.

Philosophers can help us to understand what the words "right" and "wrong" mean, before we decide which particular acts are right or wrong. That's why they so often fall prey to metaphysical lust. So, a morally good act is right because it's consistent with previously accepted principles. Like Rawls' fairness or Aristotles virtue.

In the end, moral philosophers help describe the Social Contract, whether that's what they're trying for or not. Social contracts occur not when everyone agrees, but because not everyone agrees. If you have no concept of the operative (at a certain time and place) social contract, you will be lost indeed. The social contract is the motherfucking context.

So you were prochoice and now you're.... am I to believe that you have done no thinking, throughout all these influential experiences? What is your case against legal abortion?

[Jakob]

It's the "I" that's getting you away from crying beasts and back to your hut in the shadow of the Temple of Dasein.

Nice.

[iambiguous]

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

This is an unfortunate viewpoint. You might have gone in another direction. What you are saying is that you don't have any compelling reason for action.

No, I'm suggesting that what compels the moral objectivists and the political idealists to action is the belief that they are in touch with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

Just as the religious folks are compelled by their faith in God. Just as the political ideologues are compelled by their own rendition of Humanism. Just as the KT crowd is compelled by their own [meaning Satyr's] assessment of nature.

What is of greatest importance [in my view] is not what they believe that compels them to action, but that they are convinced there is a way in which to know this.

This is the psychological component of "I" that sustains both comfort and consolation in a postmodern world in which meaning and purpose are becoming increasingly more problematic.

One or another variation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Instead, I speculate that "I" here is an existential, construction, deconstruction and reconstruction from the cradle to the grave.

Most people do have a reason. That may be ideology or religion or god knows what, but when you're lost in an Existential wasteland and reckon that no one is going to come and rescue you (which is a very Existentialist thing to recko, you have to strike out in some direction or perish. In this context (are you getting the whole metaphor here?) any direction is better than standing still.

They are not lost in an existential wasteland because they do not construe "I" here as I do. So I ask them to reconfigure their moral and political narrative into a discussion involving an actual context. How are they not fractured and fragmented as I am? What is their argument in reacting to the components that are particularly meaningful to me.

Instead, over and again, they "explain" themselves by generating "general descriptions" like you do here.

No "I" need fracture here. It's the "I" that's getting you away from crying beasts and back to your hut in the shadow of the Temple of Dasein.

I'm not arguing that "I" need fracture with regards to conflicting goods. I'm only pointing out that given how I have come to think about "I" at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power, "I" am fractured and fragmented.

If you are not, okay, fine, try to explain to me why you are not given a particular context. Or don't and move on to others.

And political economy is rooted historically in all of the various ways in which the means of production allowed a particular community to set up the distribution of goods and services.

Distributive justice, the political morality if you will, is like this, too. So what?

So, in acknowledging this, you are confirming what many believe to be that crucial intertwining of "I" in unique sets of existential variables out in a particular world historically, culturally, and in terms of ones own personal experiences.

That, in other words, this is what the deontologists, the philosopher-kings and the political ideologues [among others] conveniently leave out of their own one-size-fits-all dogmatic strictures.