I have a very straight forward sentence for you about your experientialism psychology/inclination.
Anti-reasoning is not a part of my being. There’s nothing in me there to “express itself in quiet”. That this is true for you, means that you’re drawn to iambiguous because this is a “part of you” that needs to express itself in the innocuous context of a message board. Part of you, like iambiguous, is always arguing that your arguments never mean anything (anti-reason), but you still post them anyways, just like iambiguous —— and that causes self hatred.
I understand why people try to rationalize anti-rationality —— life has denied them in cruel ways, and everyone deserves the best. You’re making an alliance with your captor (Stockholm syndrome)
No, I don’t refute them. I merely acknowledge that “I” in the is/ought world grappling with such value judgments as racism and privilege in any particular community in any particular historical, cultural and experiential context is the embodiment of dasein.
“I” as an existential contraption embodied in a particular subjective/subjunctive narrative interacting with others intersubjectively by way of accumulating particular political prejudices.
Intellectually, the antithesis of objectivism.
In the OP you asked, “as a white male should I feel guilty because I enjoy white privilege?”
I responded:
To which you responded…
Uh-oh, I thought, he’s back to being a “stooge” again!
And my main intention here is not to suggest that others ought to think like I do. After all, why on earth would anyone want to?! Why would someone actually choose to feel “fractured and fragmented” in what they have come to construe to be an essentially meaningless existence that, in accumulating any number of cherished existential relationships is then faced with the obliteration of all that he has come to know and love by way of tumbling over into the abyss that is nothingness?
That I take to be a self-refutation. You think life is meaningless, therefore any meaning you argue for is refuted, including the proposition that life is meaningless as an absolute. Therefore you insinuate your position for others rather than argue for it directly. But there’s no logical necessity for them to do that since you’ve already refuted yourself.
The way I see it, you are simply denying the meaning in which you are embedded by virtue of being a human and all that that implies including its tragedy which you inadvertently affirm with your lamentation of approaching Oblivion.
This has been answered. Many people will accept all sorts of things (true or not) even though they are horrible, if they help them avoid things that scare them more. And note: people can have illogical fears. It might seem like someone could not fear what you described less than something else, but they can. This may not apply in your case. But you ask this rhetorical question as if it must be the case that no one would chose an extremely pain set of beliefs. But people do this all the time.
Perhaps you wouldn’t, but others choose such things. I mean, there are plenty of people who have, within Christianity ended up believing they are going to Hell for their sins. And on no evidence that you would accept as evidence.
So you’re claim here is wrong.
You might not, but others might and many do choose or find themselves having really quite horrendous beliefs that they then suffer immensely based on little or no evidence.
And often people will belief things to avoid stuff that seems logically less aweful.
Right. Total annihilation would be better than eternal torture in hell. And to suppose that nothingness entails suffering is illogical. One must exist to suffer.
And around and around we go. Over and again, I attempt to explain the manner in which I distinguish between meaning in the either/or world [meaning that we all share because it is clearly demonstrable] and meaning in the is/ought world [meaning derived more from the manner in which I construe a “self” as derived from dasein].
And I challenge you to note where I have ever argued that “life is meaningless as an absolute”.
Huh?!
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Again, in regard to white privilege, you will either note how this is applicable to your life or you won’t. Then when I react to this more substantive description, you can note what you mean by the above.
To me, just more intellectual gibberish.
Note to others:
In the context of white privilege, what do you think he is accusing me of here? What meaning am I denying in regard to my reaction to the question he posed in the OP?
And, in regard to oblivion, what ever and always concerns me is in how my own attitude pertaining to white privilege may or may not be judged such that on the day that I die there is a possibility that oblivion itself reconfigures into one or another rendition of immortality and salvation.
That’s always been my “thing” here at ILP in regard to value judgments.
What, because someone provides me with an answer…that settles it? No, what happens here at ILP is that we react to the answers that others give us. Some will seem more reasonable/sensible than others. But when it comes to conflicting value judgments revolving around things like race and privilege, my suggestion is that the answers we all give are derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein than in anything that philosophers have been providing us now for thousands of years.
And what frightens me here is that whatever particular political prejudices “I” espouse in regard to race and privilege “here and now”, it doesn’t change the fact that this is just another manifestation of my belief that my own existence itself is essentially meaningless and that whatever existential meaning I have been able to ascribe to the things I love dearly inches closer and closer to the abyss that is nothingness.
Or, rather, as some seem able to take comfort in, all the way back to “star stuff”?
Given the gap between what “I” think I know about all of this and all that can be known about it going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, what does it even mean to speak of a logical or an illogical fear? All I can do is to hear out those who say that they fear it less than I do. And when I ask them how and why maybe they can provide me with an answer that tugs me closer to their own frame of mind.
Again, my thing here is always zeroing in not on what someone claims to believe or to think or to know, but on the extent to which they are able to convincingly demonstrate how and why I should believe and think and know the same thing. Especially if it manages to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself.
And it’s your own rendition of my “claim” that you insist makes me “wrong”.
Look, there either is or there is not a God, the God.
And, if there is, He will be the Judge and the Jury in regard to one’s fate on the other side of the grave given how one behaved on this side of the grave in regard to race and privilege.
But I cannot pin this God down. Or not anymore. So how on earth would/could I realistically pin down in turn whether nothingness or eternal damnation is preferable? I suspect this too would be embodied in dasein.
And what frightens most of us about oblivion in a No God world, is not the part about not suffering “for all of eternity”, but of losing all of the things that we have come to know and love “for all of eternity”.
We exist here and now. And for each of us as individuals we have accumulated those things that bring us satisfaction and fulfillment; and those things that bring us misery and travail. What could possibly be more existential than that?
And, sure, for any particular one of us, there may come a point where the pain and the suffering begins to dwarf all that brings us pleasure. We may reach the point where the agony becomes so unbearable that we plead to die. And then nothingness would surely be preferable to Hell.
Though I suspect thinking “logically” here would hardly enter into it at all.
.
No, but it has been answered and you never countered it. In other words you as a rhetorical question which is a statement. But it has been responded to before, and you never bothered to refute or try to that answer. But you continue to assert it anyway. IOW you act as if what you said has been determined to be true. You appealed to incredulity. That appeal to incredulity has been answered before. And you never even try to refute it. So I said ‘that has been answered’. This is a common pattern of yours. Just like when you accuse people of not giving concrete examples, when they have. There are many other examples of this behavior.
In this specific case you act like what you quoted had to do with racism and priviledge…
That issue, the one you quoted above, that I responded to with ‘it has been answered’ has nothing to do with race and priviledge.
This kind of not responding is part of why you find people attacking you. You waste people’s time.
You actually quoted it. You actually quoted your own writing and my response, and then you go off on a tangent as if what you are writing about is relevent.
I responded to a specific assertion you made in the form of a rhetorical question.
Then you continue not responding with…
But that is precisely what you did and which I pointed out. You were saying it would make no sense for someone to take on the beliefs you have about the meaninglessness of life, etc. since they are unpleasant and lead to fractureness and fragmentedness. And I responded there and in earlier posts that people do take on unpleasant beliefs with regularity despite them being unpleasant, often to avoid something. You made an assertion in a rhetorical question that people (why would someone etc…) take on an unpleasant belief. That is you assuming in a rhetorical question that no one would.
You did it. Ask yourself why, not me. It may very well not fit with your philosophy. But you did it. People contradict themselves. You can’t deny saying something by saying ‘but I believe X’
You’re a waste of a interlocuter. Done. You’re no better than Ecmandu.
A couple of solipsists. Him functionally, you it seems literally.
Note the best [or the latest] example of this. I need to note if there is a gap between me not countering it and me not accepting it. And how on earth could I possibly counter someone else’s argument that they would choose to be like me when by and large they insist that they are not like me at all.
I must be misunderstanding you. Or you me.
I’m sticking with this:
As for your reaction to it…
…I am at a complete loss as to what it has to do at all with the question I posed. The objectivists on both sides have their political prejudices – “objective truths” – to fall back on.
You have whatever it is that keeps you from feeling less fractured and frgamented than “I” am. But, me, I’m still drawn and quartered when approaching value judgments of this sort as a philosopher/ethicist.
Re the objectivists, there are the sets of facts that both sides [all sides] accumulate. There are the conclusions they draw from those sets of fact and there is the comfort and the consolation they derive from knowing that in regard to race and privilege [and to every other known conflicting good] they are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do.
As for your own “I” here…I am still at a loss as to how to pin that down. I am unable to think myself into understanding how someone [anyone] who does not believe in either God or objective morality can not be fractured and fragmented in the is/ought world.
Instead, I can only struggle further to understand how you yank your own self up from out of 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.
And that’s before we get to the even tougher conflicting goods like abortion and gun control and animal rights and human sexuality.
Come on, to the best of my knowledge, none of us know for certain how to connect the dots between white skin privilege, the meaning of life and a full and complete understanding of existence itself. And, to the best of my knowledge, we can’t even pin down for certain whether this exchange itself is or is not only as it ever could have been.
But here we are anyway.
Hey, what else is there? And my question is still whether others would choose to think like I do if they could continue to think like they do instead. In fact, I have always suspected that other’s reaction to me here [including yours] revolves more around the discomfit – dread? – of imagining that they did think like I do!
Instead, time and again, I manage only to reduce you down to flustered retorts like this:
White privilege is mostly education; “people such as myself” have been educated in the Classical subject for dozens of generations. This makes life infinitely richer, better, lovelier.
Even if you havent personally been as fortunate to be educated classically, some of your ancestors have, and many of the people that built the culture you’re thriving in.
So this is what the people who want to balance the scales should be doing. Enforcing large scale Greek and Latin courses on what we may call inner city youths.
You cant know what is good in life if you havent been granted some kind of link with the ancient Mind.
=D> :-"