Now, with respect to the arguments that go back and forth in regard to the right to bear arms in America, what are we to make of it?
I would agree that arguments professed by individuals to be rational here cannot be separated from the values derived from their own sense of self.
If that is what she is herself arguing here.
Instead, I focus on the extent to which those alleged rational arguments are derived from the manner in which I construe the self as the embodiment of dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and circumstantially…more so than from the capacity of philosophers using the technical tools at their disposal to provide us with an argument in regard to gun ownership that can be said to encompass the most rational assumptions/premises allowing us to come up with the most rational conclusion.
And that would be what argument in particular?
As for…
"nor should they
that would be the deliberate blinding of a sense
impoverishing perspective, rather than enriching
shit runs deep"
…how exactly does that fit into the 2nd Amendment discussion and debate?
More specifically, given a particular set of circumstances.
I have given you examples. Christianity. Man-made climate change. Trump et al. Choose your pick! (Hint: it’s all about the same thing for me.)
Nothing. I’m not going to tell them, “Listen to me! I’m a perfect nihilist!” It’s just not on the same plane. On your plane I’m no nihilist.
(Note to others: On the meta-plane, I’m a perfect nihilist, which, as I’ve said, means in effect a post-nihilist. What makes a perfect nihilist a post-nihilist is precisely the contrast between these two planes: that there is a plane which is non-nihilist (pre-nihilist, and at most semi- or pseudo-nihilist). Note though that this is no metaphysical dualism; they’re just different aspects of one and the same reality—see Buddhism’s two truths doctrine.)
Yes, at this point I suddenly understand you completely.
“In the seventeenth century, a new philosophy and a new science began to emerge. They made the same claims as all earlier philosophy and science had done, but the result of this seventeenth century revolution produced something which had never existed before—the emergence of Science with a capital ‘S’. Originally the attempt had been to replace traditional philosophy and science by a new philosophy and a new science; but in the course of a few generations it appeared that only a part of the new philosophy and science was successful and, indeed, amazingly successful. No one could question these developments, e.g. Newton. But only a part of the new science or philosophy was successful, and then the great distinction between philosophy and science, which we are all familiar with, came into being. Science is the successful part of modern philosophy or science, and philosophy is the unsuccessful part—the rump.” (Leo Strauss, “Progress or Return?”)
Physical, chemical, biological circumstances etc. versus religious, moral, political values etc.
“We all know of the enormous successes of the new science and of the technology which is based on it, and we all can witness the enormous increase of man’s power. Modern man is a giant in comparison to earlier man. But we have also to note that there is no corresponding increase in wisdom and goodness. Modern man is a giant of whom we do not know whether he is better or worse than earlier man. More than that, this development of modern science culminated in the view that man is not able to distinguish in a responsible manner between good and evil—the famous value judgment. Nothing can be said responsibly about the right use of that immense power. Modern man is a blind giant.” (ibid.)
Of course, I already found the solution to this problem about 14 years ago, though I by no means understood it perfectly back then:
But at the same time, that will mean they no longer have any criteria for choosing between those options; they can only put their chairs in the middle, as you have. So isn’t it actually self-undermining for you to try and convince others of your own conundrum, as you also have? If everyone agreed with you, there would no longer be a middle to sit in…
Right, and/or in sync with reality in general/the cosmic self/World Soul (compare Hinduism’s formula “atman = Brahman”)…
It doesn’t change anything… In fact, it’s only a problem on the plane of conventional truth (see my two truths link above). On the meta-plane, the problem is precisely the opposite, the lack of any natural law or necessity, the freedom or randomness of empty space.—But we the great philosophers (…) have found the solution to that:
“Nietzsche emphasizes necessity by using two phrases twice: nötig hat (has necessary or needs) and nötig macht (makes necessary). This is not a physical or cosmic necessity but a lover’s necessity, erotic necessity. What the lover needs as lover is the beloved, and what the beloved needs as beloved is the lover. […] The lover ‘has precisely this spectacle as necessary—and makes it necessary.’ To have it as necessary is the lover’s recognition of his need of the beloved. To make this spectacle necessary can hardly be to cause it or to inflate himself into thinking he caused it; rather, it must be to make the spectacle necessary as beloved, to acknowledge its indispensability, to avow, to shout, It’s you, you I want and want eternally as you are.” (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche’s Task, page 119.)
Even if an unreal something or an other, I tend to agree with You, but the thought occured, why is the topics of alienation aka known as despair through the metaphor of no exit, can’t be tran- versed into post modern level of inducing some level of certainty of deducing it.in terms of conducing bridges? Why need to take existential leaps, when the gaps are increasingly filled in by willfully arrived corresponding power increments?
I think this way at least to me, makes much more cohesive arguments. At least in the contexts You bring into focus by corresponding meta arguments.
The fact that my arguments are rejected by being overly intellectual, need not compel anyone to disclaim them, in fact it is almost the mirror image of what You are implying
Perhaps the opposite of Sauwellios take is needed, for his style is topical and dynamically insubstantial. Direct quotes of major philosophers paraphrase , but miss the thought fragments which determine their synctatical organization.
Your dynamic organization does come through, as used , in pointing to the metalevel as a differencial contrast, where such methods like synthetic modes of ‘mediation’ and ’ compromise’ appear as , again politically reified traces which are limited to archaic and unprogressive signals toward the post-modern stage. Admittedly, this was Kant’ s categorical problem as well, which Marx, likewise inherited, and could not transverse to inducing sets of quantifiable social indexes.
So the problem is universal in scope, but singular in an objective manifested stage of constructive development.
How on earth can this be understood in both senses: if even three: metaphysical, psychological and socialpsychological.
Really, Meno? No, it’s not that your arguments are rejected, it’s that your posts are ignored—and not for being overly intellectual but for being overly-intellectual-sounding mosaics of nonsense: there are no arguments in them at all…
I could quote almost any clause of any of your sentences and ask what that even means. For instance, “dynamically insubstantial”… What, as opposed to statically insubstantial? Neither of those things mean anything!
Funny though that you’d make the same old, same old objection to me as so many have done over the years (yes, you do make an objection, that sentence being the one exception where you actually say something even remotely coherent). That objection was always ultimately invalid, and increasingly invalid throughout the years; but now it’s completely invalid. So thanks for demonstrating that! (“If even Meno makes that objection, it must be nonsense!”)
Some things really shouldn’t be revived, and pure Socialism is one of them… though it does become a natural default state during times of war, but a very watered-down one.
The recent austerity measures did not go down well here, and many bemoaned and moaned and wanted to spend (more) from the Treasury’s shrunken coffers, but we came out of it as quickly as we had entered it… and so putting a (current) end, to the trend, of spending what we haven’t got. Now imagine if those exact same people had to live during the time of a post-war rationing Britain?
What have we as humans, become?
Where is The Human Manifesto? a manifesto on being human… would one go down well? probably not, and especially if expectation wasn’t met.
yes , Phoneutria, “could quote almost any clause of any of your sentences and ask what that even means. For instance, “dynamically insubstantial”… What, as opposed to statically insubstantial? Neither of those things mean anything!”
They do mean the difference between simply two ways of analyzing , one I’ll use cliches?: looking in and looking out of the box. The dynamic arrangements come from some source, and do tend to construct an imaginative yet, probable hypothetical, which are met, on some level and interpreted: by a progressive will of intentional abstracted reality. The other, does not necessarily does the opposite, but looking in does relate in degrees or levels of depth to meet the eyes which understand what looking into the itself may mean on some constructed level.
The objective becomes the point they meet, and approximate the form that most nearly simulates it, within the contextual reificaton that recognize the variable boundaries of that context.
Relative and Absolute nihilism relate as such, and there is no adequate simulation, if such conflation of focus does not occur.
That is my impression of the problem of clarity between You and Biggy, and strangely will remain as unresolved as that, which denies any level as You claim to position Yourself : metaphysically. You do come to this same conclusion
I agree they shouldn’t be revived, but then some effects are not recreated by those thus effected.
Like " Make America Great Again, until the newly forming ’ soul’ of the nation is depleted toward bankruptsy. The price becomes an inflated reverse pyramid, and as the whole bottom tier becomes the source of the pyramids apex hardly touching it’s ground, then it is but a matter of time, before the tipping point is reached.
Socialism bisected into national and international segments,( with Capital vampiristically digesting the profit generated by the difference) creates more disunion then union, where more and more control, becomes necessary when mere political labels fail to function.
MagsJ, there was an OP-ed, yesterday, promoting the idea that there are no more moderates left in the US Republican Party, as they have gone under the Trumpian resolve to run in 2004. This willingness to go along with this hugely reactionary theater, has upset the whole socially required integration of equitable elements.
With social justice following this political fragmentation, the question needs to be asked, wether it is the nature of wider contexts, stemming from the unsuccessful resolutions that remained after the World Wars, or is it basic instinctive manifestations of negative human traits which have brought this present crisis into actuality.
Narrowing national socialist interests are reductive, and bring on the stereotypical devolutions of what group identity can entail what national organization appears to topically and internally represent.
Britain suffers this problem even more acutely, albeit and it is no co- incidence that wider applications were prophisized by Huxley and others with apprehending the coming of a brave new world. Though the predated it to 1984, it is only now that they seem to be coming into focus.
Perhaps, there is some association with that idea (Huxley, HG Wells) and the intended post modern idea of failure -a suspected Marxian idea . After all, Marx intended socialism toward the developed and advanced industrial country that Britain was at the turn of the 20th century and not Russia, the underdeveloped agricultural serfdom of Russia.
“Where is The Human Manifesto? a manifesto on being human… would one go down well? probably not, and especially if expectation wasn’t met.”
Let’s not abandon hope ! We may wake up to the real purpose we were torn from the natural womb to post industrial contensions.
Then we understand examples and the point of them differently.
In regard to Christianity, climate change, Trump etc., someone can note a context in which they express their own particular spiritual or moral or political prejudices. These prejudices precipitate behaviors that conflict with my own. Now, as a moral nihilist, my point to them is that the conflicts revolve around the manner in which I construe individual value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein. Conflicts are expected by me because, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a font that mere mortals can turn to make the conflicts go away. So while the conflicts are expected, I don’t expect there to be any actual definitive resolutions.
What I’m trying to grasp is how, regarding your own conflicts with others pertaining to spiritual, moral or political values, you explain the conflict to them as a perfect nihilist.
Note where your examples above have accomplished this.
On the other hand, as an objectivist myself back then, if someone expressed an opposing opinion about Christianity, Nixon, abortion etc., I would insist that they were wrong. They must be. Why? Because I knew for certain that I was right.
Sure, to the extent you largely avoid interacting with others, your values and your behaviors don’t get challenged. What interest me however are those who call themselves perfect nihilists and who do find their values and behaviors challenged by others. And this is the case because they do spend a lot of time interacting with them. What then for the perfect nihilists when explaining the behaviors they choose?
Note to others:
Let’s try this:
1] If you think you do understand what he is saying here and
2] if you do interact with others and
3] If, from time to time, your values and behaviors are challenged by them, what do you imagine his point above about being a perfect nihilist is?
Maybe you do. We’ll still need to examine a specific set of circumstances in order to explore the components of moral nihilism and the components of perfect nihilism.
But: my point here is even more dismal. To wit: Even to the extent that I would embrace “moderation, negotiation and compromise” if I was socially, politically and economically active again, “I” would still be no less “fractured and fragmented”.
And it’s that part the objectivist are themselves most repelled by. This thread itself revolves around exploring the extent to which phoneutria is herself an objectivist as I understand it. If she is, is she smart enough to perhaps yank me up out of the hole I’m in? Or, if she engages with me, will I be the one who succeeds in yanking her down into it.
In fact, I suspected that this concerned her enough to “foe” me.
As for all this…
…what is it other than just another ponderous “intellectual contraption” that in no way addresses itself to any particular contexts that revolve around “morality here and now and immortality there and then”. The existential relationship I wish to explore with phoneutria and her ilk.
Thus…
Bring “Nietzsche’s Natural Ethical Order” out into the world of conflicting goods, note a context most here will be familiar with and we can exchange specific description of the “moral nihilist” and the “perfect nihilist” interacting with others who challenge their values and behaviors…
More to the point, they don’t care about your intellectual contraptions above. And they sure as shit don’t care about mine. And, in this postmodern world, they are everywhere. They live their lives entirely in sync with doing whatever the fuck they want to. And if you or I or phoneutria or others get in their way, it’s dog eat dog survival of the fittest.
For them, the number one concern is this: don’t get caught. And, if you do, mow them down.
Again, from my frame of mind, it depends on the extent to which they see their interactions with others [in a world of conflicting goods] as a “fractured and fragmented” persona. Yes, the more successful I am at bringing them over to my frame of mind, the greater the chances are that they themselves might choose the route of the sociopaths. I can only attempt to suggest instead that they accept the arguments I make in my signature threads and agree to accept their values and their behaviors as the embodiment of “existential leaps of faith” based on particular political prejudices rooted in dasein.
And then when they note that this is just another “intellectual contraption”, I say ,“you’re right, let’s bring it down to earth.”
We don’t know what changes or does not change as a result of a “will to power” rooted in the actual reality of human autonomy. All I can do is to speculate regarding this. If my own understanding of determinism is the case any change at all is only in accordance with whatever set the laws of matter into motion going back to whatever set into motion existence itself.
Conventional truth, unconventional truth…what’s the difference if truth itself is merely an “act of nature” going back to the explanation for existence itself.
What, you think that anything Nietzsche thought, felt, said, wrote or did is somehow the exeption? Or that perhaps you and I are?
I admit , another’s opinion does count to reinforce one’s own convictions.
That goes to the heart of objectivism, reliance on the other. The singular Das Ein in then is circumvented.
Then, the effects will not disentangle affectively, leaving shorted out projections, in favor over long held conventional objectives.The ego gets involved , so political biases form, that result in polarized social organization.
phoneutria takes up abortion on the 2nd Amendment thread.
No, really.
Can we assume that this is merely her own subjective opinion rooted existentially in dasein…or do you think she might actually be arguing this frame of mind reflects that which all rational and virtuous people are obligated to share in turn?
Is this an important question for philosophers to ask?
Again, to what extent does she take the time to explore how “points of view” like this come to be a part of her contributions in a philosophy venue.
Or, perhaps, does she just figure that for whatever reason this is how she thinks “here and now”, and that need be as far as it goes.
Now, this seems to be an incredibly naive approach to grappling with your own value judgments. But I have come upon any number of people are were quite content to let it go at that.
This certainly coincides with her self categorical assertion of being an absolute nihilist moralist.
Since it is based on reverse moralism, it can present an early arcytipical type of primitive ethical stance.
For instance , Tibetan monks follow a long adhered to custom of burial; take the deceased up into the mountains, after breaking the back of the corpse, then bundle it, and leave it unburied for animals to feed upon it.
Another one is similar to the Ancient Inca civilizations of Mexico , the hero of a war was taken to the top of a Mayan pyramid , his back broken while alive, and left as a sacrifice to the Sun God, to assure a long and fertile rain during the coming wet season with plenty of sunshine to follow.
[quote=“Pedro I Rengel”]
Hey Meno, Incas where 100’s of 1000’s of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.
Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.
But cmon. Never happened.[/quo
Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.
You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person
Well, I suppose he does have relatively lucid moments. Thus he’s actually said something since then, namely that phoneutria’s “absolute nihilist moralism” or “reverse moralism”, whatever that means, can be compared to the “primitive ethical stance” of Tibetan monks and Incan or Aztec (but not Mayan) civilizations (which is “arcytipical” because it was shared by such remote people as Tibetans and Native Americans). I find it strange, though, that you haven’t objected to this assertion. I mean, aren’t you in love with phoneutria, and weren’t you of the opinion that it was a good thing that Christianity mostly replaced such “barbaric things” in the Americas? (Fixed Cross told me that last bit once.)
Also, seeing as you do understand what Meno means, please tell me what he means by that post of his in which he did the opposite of avoiding contention by claiming that my style was “dynamically insubstantial”:
[/quote]
You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that’s also wise.
Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.
they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I’m sure this is off point.
You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that’s also wise.
Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.
they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I’m sure this is off point.
[/quote]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
If I got false ’ facts’ then i shouldn’tshouldn’t be blamed with breaking a budding romance with fishy Phoneutria. The source believed reliable was in Yucatan and near a pyramid, as this innuendo was reported.
The hero, iaccompanied by a highly placed priest and the king of the land, accompanied the hero to the top of the pyramid, in sight of the crowd, and his back was broken, and then that is where the story ends. The virgins, all stunning beauties, all dressed in magnificent jewels, were cast into a deep vat, all of them nonesswimmers.
As far as not liking intelligent women, maybe. interpreting this as a sign of demanding submission from a challenging women, well perhaps but no.
Anyway ruffling feathers is not my forte, and maybe the intelligence bit, may occasion reversely in this case.
That she is lovely, no doubt about it, and with wit to boot, and of course she must be able to begin to understand that to me , rejecting a sound argument and thinking that my posts add answered for a purpose could translate to very similar signals: namely some arguments remain closed, not by the author, but by the reader, for reasons unknown.
Note: to live on a plateau which requires post modern undefstanding, one must behind to live there, as the Romans once did.
Of course there, the habit of wearing masks, still determined the roles meant to be conveyed.
No and maybe we shouldn’t. Masks yes. We are all wearing them. for real or not, and someone said that in the end we wear the most deserving one The point is, we really do not know one another, and so. allowences are to learn how to respond according to some appraisal calculated beat in that context, within a wider margin of situation.
So it is, so it should not come as a surprise if some off the wall presuming response of the
No, it’s not that your arguments are rejected, it’s that your posts are ignored—and not for being overly intellectual but for being overly-intellectual-