iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

OK, so this thread is basically about this:

Here, iambiguous presents a clearly objectivist worldview, where everything is determined by his three options. When challenged on this, he answered with:

I, of course, pointed out that this is a typical objectivist reaction. Namely, that the source of the objectivist ideas cannot be named because that would mean they are subjective ideas, and not objective truths. This went on, you get the gist.

And here I simply would like iam to bring his objectivist ideas down from the skyhooks of evolutionary theory academia, and down here on Earth where we can examine how they are not simply another instance of “I am right and whatever you say is wrong,” and how they can help us resolve a situation of conflicting goods.

Pick a context, iam, and let’s explore how your ideas about genes/memes are not simply rooted subjectively in dasein but can aply objectively to everybody, here and now.

Now this will be tough, just kibitzing, …

Actually, from my point of view, the thread should be more about this:

Now on to his OP:

Huh? When we choose particular behaviors [assuming human autonomy] “I” first comes into the world given particular biological imperatives: race, gender, ethnicity, certain character traits, temperament etc… And then all of the arguments that revolve around other possible congenital propensities like sexual orientation. Then the memes – “an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation” – that are grounded historically, anthropologically, ethnologically, socially, politically, economically, etc., in any number of vast varied human communities. All of which evolve over time in a world bursting with contingency, chance and change.

Three options? How about hundreds and hundreds of them given the manner in which I construe human identity on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529

Over and over and over again, I make it clear that my own understanding of an objectivist is someone who, in regard to moral or political or esthetic value judgments, is convinced that they are in sync with the Real Me, a Core Self, a Soul. And that this Real Me is, in turn, in sync with the “right thing to do”. Either through God or political ideology or deontology or one or another rendition of Nature.

Then I suggest that intellectual contraptions of this sort…

“Namely, that the source of the objectivist ideas cannot be named because that would mean they are subjective ideas, and not objective truths.”

…be relocated to an actual circumstantial context where behaviors come into conflict existentially over particular conflicting goods.

Which is precisely what I have done on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

I explored my political prejudices today revolving around abortion. I did this by noting the experiences I had over the course of my actual lived life intertwined with my experiences in exploring philosophy.

As for genes here, it is obvious that the biological evolution of life on earth has culminated so far in us. A species able to choose either to abort or not to abort. But: is there an understanding of human biology that would enable us to decide whether abortion is inherently moral or immoral? Or is that far more likely to be embodied in the manner in which I construe the “self” here as a subjective/subjunctive existential contraption rooted in dasein?

Please. No contending in this thread. Stick to the topic gentlemen.

That’s all gobledygook iam.

You assert that Dawkins’ meme gene paradigm is the actual, objective truth for all of us. Now, perhaps you could enlighten us, in an issue regarding abortion, how your vision of truth can help us break the deadlock one way or another.

Right now, I am not interested in the details of your meme gene paradigm, which I construe to be just another instance of up-in-the-clouds academic gobbledygook, and would like you to explore down here on Earth how that might help us solve actual every day problems surrounding conflicting goods. How it may help Mary and Joe resolve their issues.

Note where I asserted that "Dawkins’ meme gene paradigm is the actual, objective truth for all of us. "

And a “vision of truth” is completely the opposite of what I contend: that in regard to my own particular “self” here and now pertaining to the morality of abortion, “I” am “fractured and fragmented”.

And I explain my reasoning for that in my signature threads.

And it is folks like Satyr and the “blank slate” philosophers who insist not only that the deadlock can be broken but that this must be the case because their own frame of mind has already broken it.

Now, I’m not arguing that it can’t be broken, only that given my own frame of mind “here and now” genes and memes seem embedded in the labyrinthian trajectory of our lived experiences such that we only have so much understanding and control over them.

I have already addressed that above:

In regard to memes…

In other words:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Memes are everywhere on that thread: from my childhood, the Army, Vietnam, college, political commitments, particular experiences in particular contexts…philosophers I’ve read.

Where is the equivalent from you.

And then…

And my whole point is not only was I unable to resolve the conflicting goods embedded in John and Mary’s calamity, the calamity itself was part of the epiphany [along with Barrett and Novak] that led to my abandonment of objectivism itself.

As for calling my arguments “gobbledygook”, rather than actually addressing them, I can’t help but wonder how long it will be before you are back to “You dirty Communist!”

Is this going to be a substantive exchange or not?

pedro i cant believe you fell for this old iambig trick

Okay, you respond to the points I raised.

Here for example: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 2&t=179879

?

hes a bot bruh

Maybe so.

pretty sure of it he always defaults to the whole bHut hOw cAN nEtHiNg be oBJecTive??

Maybe I found the ghost in the machine.

Where the anti-objectivist bot is objectivist.

My point here was that some will insist it is genes, some will insist it is memes, while I see it as the third option.

Which I then elaborated on:

I should have known you had no intention of pursuing a serious exchange.

But, given your rejoinder to my query about women and chess, I had to at least give you the benefit of the doubt.

he fundamentally misunderstands the distinction and he has explained a million times just what his mistake is but he insists that its not a mistake and he just keeps on with it going in a loop forever confused

Now the thread will continue with Shit Smears…

I’m sitting on my couch, watching a video of the alabama/lsu game while smoking a bong and waiting for chinese food to be delivered. I was thinking of getting someone over here to clean the place. This is usually what I’m doing, I’ve seen this game about 130-140 times now. Or I’m in the bathroom someplace, bored and using my phone to post on message boards while I poop.

…and Pedro in “yak yak yak” mode.

Their own rendition of serious philosohy. :laughing:

But you insist, you, imabiguous, insist that it is either genes, memes, or a combination of the two, a paradigm introduced by Dawkins. And you state this is true objectively for everyone.

Am I wrong?

iambig you are stupid man you arent capable of philosophy or yak yaking youre a bot and youre socially awkward part of your prog is to say anyone who wont do your whole confused circle jerk with you isnt serious lets be real in no phl dept in the world would you not get laughed at

iambig i want you to know that as soon as i figure out how to rhyme your name with some bodily fluid or exrement im gonna do it and its gonna hurt your feelings so bad and im just gonna keep on doing it forever im gonna start reading books about how to be a rapper so i can learn how to rhyme things better so you should watch out

You don’t need a book.

Just pull the commie worm out of your asshole and the rhymes will flow by themselves.

Jokes aside I am sure of it.