Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Political Philosophy and Moral Philosophy

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter. As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Also, OMG, objective morality is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless objective statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the objective advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. Objective morality is just not valid.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 3:47:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter. As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Also, OMG, objective morality is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless objective statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the objective advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. Objective morality is just not valid.

There's no certainty in nihilism either, dude. I can conceive of a Godly moral standard. It's in not impinging upon others whatsoever. Ammm, I should discard it and live for myself?
signature
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:07:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter.

Both agree that there's no objective moral values. It's apparent that your political and moral views are just based on personal preferences or tastes. In the absence of any higher standard, these become the highest standard - hence your dogmatism in many areas. Subjectivism implies that you're infallible, but I don't need to go this deep since to my understanding you've never formulated your own precise subjectivist position.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:13:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:47:19 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter. As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Also, OMG, objective morality is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless objective statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the objective advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. Objective morality is just not valid.

There's no certainty in nihilism either, dude. I can conceive of a Godly moral standard. It's in not impinging upon others whatsoever. Ammm, I should discard it and live for myself?

....No, just no. If you say "we ought not to steal" then the burden rests on you to warrant that statement. However, whatever possible warrant you can use to justify yourself does nothing except resuscitate the original problem. Suppose you answer that stealing is illogical. Then the question is forwarded thus: Why ought we be logical? This questioning will continue indefinitely. The reason why a statement of "ought" or a categorical imperative will continuously remain unjustified, is because it is fundamentally unjustifiable. Ought and should are naturally contingent words that refer to an action that achieves a certain end, and then evaluates the action against that metric. If you use ought or should and then claim the statement to be objectively valid (as in, contingent on nothing), then that's extremely absurd.

In summation, it is not valid, it is not coherent, it is not logical, and it will never be acceptable in a serious debate to posit one moral edict such as "we ought not steal" and then walk away. An acceptable phrase would be, "we ought not steal, IF _____" (also known as, subjective morality).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:24:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

If there's no objectively better flavor, why prefer vanilla over chocolate? Well, there's no reason in light of which you *must*--you could, for instance, strongly prefer feces-flavored ice cream. People might give you strange looks, but it's just par for the course. Similarly, it isn't that anarchy is better with respect to some binding framework, e.g., rights, utility; rather, following an experience of nihilism, it just is the case that you're left with a bunch of preferences and the potential for deliberation about forms of life. Like, it's not that there's a normative argument against political teleology: it's just that the function of nihilism is a systematic clearing-away of all the fictive inventions, e.g., normative ethics, that dominated discourse up until the nihilistic moment.

In the wake of nihilism--which does not itself determine subsequent political experience--we find ourselves confronting, in a kind of philosophical and political infancy, all of the problems of "getting by" the answers to which were previously guided and determined by tradition. So, rather than saying I advocate anarchism, strictly speaking, I suggest that this kind of experience is where a philosophical experience of nihilism leaves us, whether we're comfortable with it or not. And, as Arendt has pointed out, a forward-moving return to a political arche is something of which we must nevertheless be wary, given the human capacity to induce huge quantities of suffering (e.g., European colonialism, 20th-century totalitarianism).

So. Following nihilism, we're forced by circumstance to reconstruct (and, inevitably, to re-reconstruct, etc.) the tools by which we confront existential and political problems. This admits, interestingly, to an ethics of happiness not governed by any particular conception of the Good, and hence not bound by any kind of normativity. It's more about an explosion of lifestyles in response to the huge, open-ended world in which we find ourselves after experiencing nihilism. So, rather than a specific ethic which imposes itself on us, herding and beating us until we fall in line, nihilism gives way, through a related admission of openness, to an ethos according to which people content themselves with constructing whatever ways of life assist them in representing and navigating the world (but in such a way that there remains, as Foucault suggested in his genealogies of power, a constant vigilance toward the human capacity to "do bad", loosely speaking).

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

I mean, one could Pyrrho it up if they wanted to. I just choose to gamble on something else.

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

Well, given that the function of nihilism is to expose the nothing under all the obfuscatory pretend things we've historically placed on top of it, it shouldn't be surprising that "nothing seems to follow from nihilism".
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:26:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:47:19 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter. As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Also, OMG, objective morality is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless objective statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the objective advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. Objective morality is just not valid.

There's no certainty in nihilism either, dude. I can conceive of a Godly moral standard. It's in not impinging upon others whatsoever. Ammm, I should discard it and live for myself?

I ain't tryin' to tell you what to do.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

Biebz, this might give you an idea.

http://pistolsdrawn.org...
Tsar of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:50:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 4:29:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

Biebz, this might give you an idea.

http://pistolsdrawn.org...

There is no truth, so you create your own. I get it.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:00:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 4:50:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/2/2012 4:29:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

Biebz, this might give you an idea.

http://pistolsdrawn.org...

There is no truth, so you create your own. I get it.

On a not entirely unrelated subject, what do you know of critical theory? If you're versed in it I won't rehash, but it might be something you'd enjoy looking into if you haven't. The Frankfurt school has made some remarkable contributions... imo.
Tsar of DDO
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:21:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Following this thread. Seeing as even though I'm critical of nihilism, I admittedly don't know that much about it. This is certainly a learning experience.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:00:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/2/2012 4:50:54 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/2/2012 4:29:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:23:21 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I know there are a lot of nihilists on DDO, and I want to know how you do political philosophy. If no order is more just than any other order, why does it make sense to advocate democracy over dictatorship or anarchy over democracy? If human rights are a fiction, why do you fault government when it fails to protect them or commits atrocities overseas?

Yes, you can say "government lacks justification" but so does virtually everything in your view. But I suppose anarchy and the other views you take somehow don't need justification. It's funny how deep skepticism rests on deep certainties or that it is beyond doubt or "it just IS."

Nothing seems to follow from nihilism because nihilism basically just doubts truth, and in doing so, rationality. There would seem to only be one way out of this, and that would be the honest anarchist admitting that his thoughts on political philosophy are just as groundless and absurd as anyone else's are. I would like to hear nihilists come clean about this.

Biebz, this might give you an idea.

http://pistolsdrawn.org...

There is no truth, so you create your own. I get it.

On a not entirely unrelated subject, what do you know of critical theory? If you're versed in it I won't rehash, but it might be something you'd enjoy looking into if you haven't. The Frankfurt school has made some remarkable contributions... imo.

You're barking up the wrong tree, my department is entirely analytic. I don't believe in dialectics or Marxism, but I wouldn't write off what I've read of Habermas. The gap between analytic and continental has been narrowing, but the stress given to analytic philosophers in most American universities places these ideas on the fringes for a lot of Americans.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

I'd love to hear your defense of objective morality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 5:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

What the hell is a "Nihilistic ideology"? I've never heard of it.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 8:02:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:31:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

What the hell is a "Nihilistic ideology"? I've never heard of it.

Good point, what I always like best about your posts is the precision with which you use language, damn it :)

Granted, ideology was a poor choice of word, I meant it in the sense of a systematic and consistent body of concepts, when people say they are a nihilist I'm looking for some kind of characteristic thinking that qualifies it as true nihilism. While it's clear that nihilism is not an ideology, I do think it is ideologically motivated by a radical egalitarianism that extends such egalitarianism to concepts such as truth, morals, and knowledge. My point was, that in practice I just don't see that from our self proclaimed nihilists. Instead I see it as a label used to justify denial of the opponents position rather than any attempt to grant equality to differing positions.

Roughly speaking, I think it's fair to say that true Nihilism seeks to abolish all inequalities through resolute denial of all distinctions between values, truths, and standards. Yet, in practice, what I see from our self proclaimed nihilists is a lot of people claiming status for beliefs that advance their agenda, they are making arguments that appear to be nothing more than power plays. A lot of folks claiming nihilism, are denying the existence of something, and at the same time working pretty hard to repudiate and destroy that same something that supposedly doesn't exist. Whether it's an ideology or not, nihilism may be a convenient label, but I don't think it is the proper label for that kind of approach.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 10:03:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:28:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

I'd love to hear your defense of objective morality.

And I'd like to see you make a real argument for a change, so I'll tell you what, let's have a debate, we'll title it "Objective Morality"

Complete Resolution: Sidewalker can make a logical and compelling argument for believing in objective morality.

Definitions:

Logical: [1]
1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument
2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoning

Compelling: [2]
1. Forceful
2. Not effectively refuted by Ike

That"s pretty straightforward, you want to see my argument and you will get to see it, I want to see you make a real argument, and presumably I"ll finally get to see you make one.

But you will have to do more than just make base assertions along with a declaration that your position is more logical, you"ll have to present a real argument that effectively refutes mine, and if you do, you will win the debate.

So there you go, do you want to finally agree to an actual debate Ikey?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:18:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 8:02:42 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:31:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

What the hell is a "Nihilistic ideology"? I've never heard of it.

Good point, what I always like best about your posts is the precision with which you use language, damn it :)

Granted, ideology was a poor choice of word, I meant it in the sense of a systematic and consistent body of concepts, when people say they are a nihilist I'm looking for some kind of characteristic thinking that qualifies it as true nihilism. While it's clear that nihilism is not an ideology, I do think it is ideologically motivated by a radical egalitarianism that extends such egalitarianism to concepts such as truth, morals, and knowledge. My point was, that in practice I just don't see that from our self proclaimed nihilists. Instead I see it as a label used to justify denial of the opponents position rather than any attempt to grant equality to differing positions.

Roughly speaking, I think it's fair to say that true Nihilism seeks to abolish all inequalities through resolute denial of all distinctions between values, truths, and standards. Yet, in practice, what I see from our self proclaimed nihilists is a lot of people claiming status for beliefs that advance their agenda, they are making arguments that appear to be nothing more than power plays. A lot of folks claiming nihilism, are denying the existence of something, and at the same time working pretty hard to repudiate and destroy that same something that supposedly doesn't exist. Whether it's an ideology or not, nihilism may be a convenient label, but I don't think it is the proper label for that kind of approach.
.
.
.
tl;dr: Nihilism is some weird extension of radical egalitarianism.

Not really bro. ~value =/= radical egalitarian value
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 5:31:31 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

What the hell is a "Nihilistic ideology"? I've never heard of it.

Well, that's because it's a bit contradictory even to conceptually consider.
Tsar of DDO
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 11:18:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
.
tl;dr: Nihilism is some weird extension of radical egalitarianism.

Not really bro. ~value =/= radical egalitarian value

That's not really what I said bro, what I said is that I think it is ideologically motivated by a radical egalitarianism.

Is this just the puerile contrarianism I was talking about or do you have an actual argument about what true nihilism is, or perhaps an opinion about what motivates it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 12:22:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 12:10:47 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/3/2012 11:18:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
.
tl;dr: Nihilism is some weird extension of radical egalitarianism.

Not really bro. ~value =/= radical egalitarian value

That's not really what I said bro, what I said is that I think it is ideologically motivated by a radical egalitarianism.

How can egalitarianism motivate one to repudiate all value? Isn't egalitarianism itself a value?

Is this just the puerile contrarianism I was talking about or do you have an actual argument about what true nihilism is, or perhaps an opinion about what motivates it?

Even the concept of what constitutes "true" nihilism is a no true scotsman. Furthermore, psycho-analyzing nihilists as being motivated by radical egalitarianism isn't really an argument. Why do you think so and why do you think it's necessary to be a "true" nihilist (again, no true scotsman fallacy)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 2:12:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 10:03:08 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:28:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

I'd love to hear your defense of objective morality.

And I'd like to see you make a real argument for a change, so I'll tell you what, let's have a debate, we'll title it "Objective Morality"

Complete Resolution: Sidewalker can make a logical and compelling argument for believing in objective morality.

Definitions:

Logical: [1]
1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument
2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoning

Compelling: [2]
1. Forceful
2. Not effectively refuted by Ike

That"s pretty straightforward, you want to see my argument and you will get to see it, I want to see you make a real argument, and presumably I"ll finally get to see you make one.

But you will have to do more than just make base assertions along with a declaration that your position is more logical, you"ll have to present a real argument that effectively refutes mine, and if you do, you will win the debate.

So there you go, do you want to finally agree to an actual debate Ikey?

Knock it off. You should be able to put forward a simple argument for a simple belief that you've decided to express in this forum. If it's simply too much for you to expound on an argument in this setting, then I'll go my way. I've gone past this stage, and I'm done dealing with you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 6:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/3/2012 2:12:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/3/2012 10:03:08 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:28:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 5:26:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I doubt you"ll get much of a response here OMG.

I think there are very few actual nihilists here, it"s more of a label of convenience for a puerile contrarianism, its not a real commitment to a Nihilistic ideology as much as it is just perceived as some kind of intellectual license for a culture of complaint. I"ve come to believe that in most cases, the ideological label has been pirated specifically because it is felt that with that particular label there is no intellectual need to defend the arguments that one presents, or even to present arguments at all.

I'd love to hear your defense of objective morality.

And I'd like to see you make a real argument for a change, so I'll tell you what, let's have a debate, we'll title it "Objective Morality"

Complete Resolution: Sidewalker can make a logical and compelling argument for believing in objective morality.

Definitions:

Logical: [1]
1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument
2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoning

Compelling: [2]
1. Forceful
2. Not effectively refuted by Ike

That"s pretty straightforward, you want to see my argument and you will get to see it, I want to see you make a real argument, and presumably I"ll finally get to see you make one.

But you will have to do more than just make base assertions along with a declaration that your position is more logical, you"ll have to present a real argument that effectively refutes mine, and if you do, you will win the debate.

So there you go, do you want to finally agree to an actual debate Ikey?

Knock it off. You should be able to put forward a simple argument for a simple belief that you've decided to express in this forum. If it's simply too much for you to expound on an argument in this setting, then I'll go my way. I've gone past this stage, and I'm done dealing with you.

No real argument huh?

I didn't think so.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 7:03:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 4:13:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:47:19 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

I'm not very clear on the difference between nihilism and subjectivism...so I'll just speak for the latter. As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Also, OMG, objective morality is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless objective statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the objective advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. Objective morality is just not valid.

There's no certainty in nihilism either, dude. I can conceive of a Godly moral standard. It's in not impinging upon others whatsoever. Ammm, I should discard it and live for myself?

....No, just no. If you say "we ought not to steal" then the burden rests on you to warrant that statement. However, whatever possible warrant you can use to justify yourself does nothing except resuscitate the original problem. Suppose you answer that stealing is illogical. Then the question is forwarded thus: Why ought we be logical? This questioning will continue indefinitely. The reason why a statement of "ought" or a categorical imperative will continuously remain unjustified, is because it is fundamentally unjustifiable. Ought and should are naturally contingent words that refer to an action that achieves a certain end, and then evaluates the action against that metric. If you use ought or should and then claim the statement to be objectively valid (as in, contingent on nothing), then that's extremely absurd.

In summation, it is not valid, it is not coherent, it is not logical, and it will never be acceptable in a serious debate to posit one moral edict such as "we ought not steal" and then walk away. An acceptable phrase would be, "we ought not steal, IF _____" (also known as, subjective morality).

Badger, if you"re not very clear on the difference between Ike's argument and nonsense, I'll demonstrate how they are one and the same. Note how he defended his political opinions in one paragraph and then attacked objective morality in the next, applying his exact argument against objective morality to his own argument for the relative validity of his political opinions follows (the replaced words are bolded):

Also, the relative validity of political opinions is just completely incoherent. Attacking the alternative doesn't do anything to save this one. And the most frustrating thing about this whole debate, is how little effort is actually required to see how bold, assertive and meaningless political statements are. All you have to do is keep asking the political advocate "why?" and you'll find that he never has a consequential answer. The relative validity of political opinions is just not valid.

When you saw that and challenged his distinctions he furthered the non-argument, which applied to his own "relative validity of political opinion" argument is as follows:

....No, just no. If you say "liberalism is valid" then the burden rests on you to warrant that statement. However, whatever possible warrant you can use to justify yourself does nothing except resuscitate the original problem. Suppose you answer that liberalism is illogical. Then the question is forwarded thus: Why ought we be logical? This questioning will continue indefinitely. The reason why a statement of "relative validity" or a political opinion will continuously remain unjustified, is because it is fundamentally unjustifiable. Relative and valid are naturally contingent words that refer to an action that achieves a certain end, and then evaluates the action against that metric. If you use relative or valid and then claim the argument to be different (as in, how his non-argument contradicts his own position also), then that's extremely absurd.

In summation, it is not valid, it is not coherent, it is not logical, and it will never be acceptable in a serious debate to posit one political edict such as "liberalism is valid" and then walk away. An acceptable phrase would be, "Ike thinks his argument is vald, ONLY WHEN it is applied to the opposition" (also known as, subjective Ikeism).


This is why Ike always posits a bare assertion such as "Anyone who disagrees with me is illogical" and then just walks away, refusing to actually debate his position. He just doesn"t have an argument, only a puerile contrarianism with baseless assertions that his position is more logical, and it"s always followed by name calling and an equally puerile declaration that he is the winner of the debate. This is also why I insist on a formal debate with Ikey.

If you take a look at his last debate you"ll see that a new poster saw that his one and only inane regression argument applied equally to both sides of their forum debate, he called BS and formally debated him on it, and the new poster got every single vote. Did Ike stop applying his non-argument to everyone that disagrees with him? Nope, he just started a new thread, and guess what, he declared himself the winner of the debate. I pointed out that it"s illogical to declare that he won the debate when he didn"t get a single vote, and guess what, he resorted to name calling.

His MO is so predictably illogical that I"m pretty sure I could have one of my programmers write a simple "Ikey Simulator Program", replace him here with an Ikeybot, and nobody at DDO would ever know the difference.

Now...the Ikey Simulator Program's decision tree says he will either walk away, or come back for some name calling, I need to see what happens so I can assign decision tree probabilities for the Ikeybot. :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 5:10:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2012 3:31:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

An explanation of, literally, objective morality:

As normal human beings, we have certain things in common, including what basic values we would like to protect, this is furthered even more so by common culture. I don't think you'll find many people who think fairness and justice are bad, and freedom is also bad. So when we argue, and we both agree that fairness, justice, and freedom are virtuous objects, we may use those values to test the relative validity of our political opinions.

Then,

Also...objective morality is just completely incoherent.

Lol??