Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Aesthetics and ethics (A "rant" at Molyneux)

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 10:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was reminded of this point by a recent Stefan Molyneux video, who I am convinced is becoming more and more neurotic and insane as time passes.

Apparently, we should not 'confuse' aesthetics and ethics, because it would be utterly insulting and 'evil' to put the labeling of one's opinion of a rapist or child-molester in the same category as one's opinion on different types of food.

Those who believe in 'objective morality' will have us believe, that to not rape, is somehow 'more true' than to rape, and that we should simply not rape because we have a natural proclivity to prefer truth. Meanwhile, whether one prefers a particular type of music, or food, is supposedly purely arbitrary, in a totally different category from ethics which derives from 'the facts'.

Let's recognize, on the other hand, why these supposedly arbitrary aesthetic preferences exist in the first place, and why I believe they are more important than they are given credit for. Our preference for certain foods over others, is what has allowed our species to survive; it's what makes us eat foods which are high in certain nutrients, over eating other things which are poisonous or even inedible.. if our preference of food were truly totally arbitrary we would have no reason to prefer actual food over say, dirt or sea water.

And why, in the first place, should we prefer pleasure over pain, or life over death? This is itself an aesthetic preference.

Our life is a purely 'aesthetic' existence. That is, our experience is a series of perceptions. So, the only purpose that those people who posit 'absolute facts', or 'absolute morality' (who are really no different in essence from Plato's positing of a realm of forms,) is to trade whatever those absolutes are, in place of our aesthetic, emotional intuitions in experience. That is, it's a denial of our true preferences, of our true reactions to life itself. There would be no need to propose what we "should" do, if that order were not different from our emotional reaction to the facts involved - it must always be a denial of our intuition.

This view manifests in modern culture. As a result of the idea that 'the truth' is some 'beyond' which stands above our individual experience, it is a common belief that whatever art we take in, is truly completely arbitrary, and therefore that is what is reflected in common films and music. Most people believe that they are not at all, or only tenuously, connected with 'objective' aspects of life, like politics, at all, and that only their little moments voting or watching the news, have any connection to that, while the rest of their lives are spent doing things with no connection, with no effect. We are told not to talk about religion, politics, and so on, at the dinner table or on a date; our relationships are to be grounded on interactions as superfluous as possible.

'Work' is seen as non-arbitrary - as 'true' - and therefore as something we are to have no personal connection with. It is to be purely a 'duty'. We are to have a 'work ethic' - that is, to deny our aesthetic existence for that period of time, and engage only what is 'necessary'. And to what end? It is very arguable that the vast majority of jobs people are currently doing are affecting any concrete improvement of the conditions of people's lives. But that doesn't matter, it only matters that you aren't 'lazy' - that you have a 'work ethic' - that you are able to switch off the aesthetic aspect of your mind, and simply do what is necessary. "Work is truth."

So, which is more damning: to call a murderer "wrong", or "disgusting"? To be disgusted is an emotional reaction; is that not 'strong' enough? Is it obscene to put him in the same category as my preference of food? I deny it, and I deny that the preference of food is unimportant. To fault a murderer for being "wrong" is, essentially, to fault him for being unintelligent. "Incorrect". He has an inaccurate view of "the facts". This is to put him in the same category as someone who hasn't read a lot of books, or who is simply unaware of something else most people know about. Disgust, on the other hand, is pure - undeniable. I would much rather deny such acts with an emotional rejection, than a cold, impersonal, "objective criticism".
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 11:41:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think there are socially-held truths, which sometimes people refer to as "objective" truths and then there are individually-held truths, and you're always having to balance them. Morality arises when you acknowledge that your individual perspective may not align with a socially-held truth, and you can either defer to the group or decide that the group is wrong. The latter path is only moral in the context of a different group category.

For example, if you moved to a society where raping children was normal, you could take action against it and to do so would be moral in relation to the society you grew up in, even though you're not physically in it.

This is different from preferring certain food, which only affects you unless there are moral dietary codes.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 10:03:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I might read this tomorrow, but I'm going to bed now. I'd just like to make sure everyone knows that Molyneux IS in fact completely insane before I do so. Sh*t, might save countless lives.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 10:58:21 AM, sdavio wrote:

I refuse to watch his videos now, having only seen two or three in the first place, but from clips I've seen hosted by other people he appears to be a crazed cult leader, and intellectually dishonest too. Whenever I have seen him argue with people he relies on diverting his interlocutors away from the weaknesses in his position.

Unfortunately I seem to find myself in the position of agreeing with him, somewhat.

So, which is more damning: to call a murderer "wrong", or "disgusting"? To be disgusted is an emotional reaction; is that not 'strong' enough? Is it obscene to put him in the same category as my preference of food? I deny it, and I deny that the preference of food is unimportant. To fault a murderer for being "wrong" is, essentially, to fault him for being unintelligent. "Incorrect". He has an inaccurate view of "the facts". This is to put him in the same category as someone who hasn't read a lot of books, or who is simply unaware of something else most people know about. Disgust, on the other hand, is pure - undeniable. I would much rather deny such acts with an emotional rejection, than a cold, impersonal, "objective criticism".

You can condemn murderers for being wrong as well as disgusting. However, if all you can do is execrate murderers then morality is, as you indeed believe it to be, false, which to my mind also destroys the concept of truth, which is self-refuting. Wrong actions being based on, as your argument accepts, wrong beliefs.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 5:27:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 11:41:01 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I think there are socially-held truths, which sometimes people refer to as "objective" truths and then there are individually-held truths, and you're always having to balance them. Morality arises when you acknowledge that your individual perspective may not align with a socially-held truth, and you can either defer to the group or decide that the group is wrong. The latter path is only moral in the context of a different group category.

As for socially and individually held truths, I would say that both reduce to my subjectivity making judgements upon the evidence of my senses - I may believe what a scientist says, but this is not because I offload some portion of my faculties to him, but because the fact that he is a scientist is itself evidence for that what he says is reliable.

For example, if you moved to a society where raping children was normal, you could take action against it and to do so would be moral in relation to the society you grew up in, even though you're not physically in it.

You would take action against it, presumably because you would prefer to live in a society which works under a different paradigm. To call these "truths" under different categories is simply another way of wording the fact that you are interacting with the world according to your own values. Do I impose "my own truth" onto "the social truth"? If we define truth to some kind of value distinction, then I guess it could be worded that way.

This is different from preferring certain food, which only affects you unless there are moral dietary codes.

Preferring certain food indeed affects everyone else, perhaps more-so than choosing some moral theory or political action. It affects the diets of those around you, and therefore your own health and the health of those around you, your mood, your values and so on.

This is another example of how this type of thinking affects things: We see the 'self' as a 'self-enclosed' vacuum, existing in its own space separated by a vast gorge of nothingness from the rest of the universe. We see our acts as arbitrary because it seems impossible that they could reach across that moat and contact the outside world. Why is the philosophy of "self-interest morality" one of the most popular lately? It is the culmination of nonsense.. And then utilitarianism, which is the exact same but with a different definition of 'self'.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Unfortunately I seem to find myself in the position of agreeing with him, somewhat.

Actually, ironically from what I can tell your views on morality seem almost identical with his, up to the point of property of course.

You can condemn murderers for being wrong as well as disgusting. However, if all you can do is execrate murderers then morality is, as you indeed believe it to be, false, which to my mind also destroys the concept of truth, which is self-refuting. Wrong actions being based on, as your argument accepts, wrong beliefs.

1.) You cannot condemn a murderer for being incorrect because the only way an action could be incorrect is by not achieving its intended goal.

2.) If I destroyed the concept of truth I'd be quite happy with that, and to say that the concept of truth is impenetrable because it states in its definition that it is so, is absurd. It's assuming your own position before you've started. It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.

Maybe, to the ears of the people in some future society, people espousing these imperialistic 'defenses' of objective truth will be reminiscent of those who 'defend' the bible by citing the bible itself; "the bible is true because it says so in the bible" ... AKA "there is no logical way to disprove logic". lol, this is orthodoxy in a different mask.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 5:59:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, see Nietzsche's idea that perhaps some incorrect views are necessary for success, or more useful than accurate views. Tell an 'immoral' millionaire, "the way you are living, which leads to living a life of success and luxury, is 'incorrect', so you should live more like those in poverty, because (and only because, that is, there's no other reason,) that would be more correct", and see how tempted they are to 'accuracy'.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:21:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Unfortunately I seem to find myself in the position of agreeing with him, somewhat.

Actually, ironically from what I can tell your views on morality seem almost identical with his, up to the point of property of course.

Heh, I know, it's a little scary really. I suppose we have conclusive proof that I'm not a bad person, then, if I can agree with him on so much and yet so little?


You can condemn murderers for being wrong as well as disgusting. However, if all you can do is execrate murderers then morality is, as you indeed believe it to be, false, which to my mind also destroys the concept of truth, which is self-refuting. Wrong actions being based on, as your argument accepts, wrong beliefs.

1.) You cannot condemn a murderer for being incorrect because the only way an action could be incorrect is by not achieving its intended goal.

I suppose you could say that it fails to be the right course of action, which seems to be a failure immensely more significant than simply failing to accomplish something.

2.) If I destroyed the concept of truth I'd be quite happy with that, and to say that the concept of truth is impenetrable because it states in its definition that it is so, is absurd. It's assuming your own position before you've started. It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.

Am I turning into a right-wing lunatic? I actually feel the need to quote our friend Dylan. Truth is that which you claim my position lacks. It's actually not bad. Anyway, 'the incoherent violence of the concept' is, to you, a truth, thus, try again.

Maybe, to the ears of the people in some future society, people espousing these imperialistic 'defenses' of objective truth will be reminiscent of those who 'defend' the bible by citing the bible itself; "the bible is true because it says so in the bible" ... AKA "there is no logical way to disprove logic". lol, this is orthodoxy in a different mask.

But you see, there is no logical way to dismiss truth, since if there was, dismissing the truth would be the truth.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:21:54 AM, Wocambs wrote:
1.) You cannot condemn a murderer for being incorrect because the only way an action could be incorrect is by not achieving its intended goal.

I suppose you could say that it fails to be the right course of action, which seems to be a failure immensely more significant than simply failing to accomplish something.

It's funny that you mentioned Dylan below, because I thought of that as soon as I read this argument, because you did exactly the same trick by essentially trying to turn the whole universe into some kind of infinite russian stacking doll - pushing the argument inside of itself.

"The action is wrong because it fails to be the right action."

"The universe is that which the universe contains."

Oh, the A = A of it all!

Am I turning into a right-wing lunatic? I actually feel the need to quote our friend Dylan. Truth is that which you claim my position lacks. It's actually not bad.

Your position also lacks the quality of being a square-circle. This does not make the concept of a square-circle coherent.

Anyway, 'the incoherent violence of the concept' is, to you, a truth, thus, try again.

The irony is how you've just enacted it in the response, by trying to impose a belief on me. "Every statement implies the universal validity of what it asserts", because you say so. It is a rule. And the rule itself, by necessitating universality, contains the seeds of its own imperialism. It is imperialism reduced to the simplest principle possible.

Honestly, analyze Dylan's concept of 'self-containment' or A = A and tell me that isn't what it is. The concept contains itself; therefore there is the space of the 'contained', and the 'container', and, since the contained and the container are 'identical' (and because ethics and facts are actually one,) it is only right that the contained expands to fill the container.

But you see, there is no logical way to dismiss truth, since if there was, dismissing the truth would be the truth.

Your standard of what you will believe, is set to "anything which engenders the concept of objective universal truth", and you assume that I have the same standard. It is the same thing as the guy who builds a wall around himself to "lock up the world".
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 7:13:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"What is good is what is good for the nation, so harming the nation cannot be good because it isn't good for the nation. Therefore the sanctity of the nation is an objective fact." - this is basically the argument.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

I really do find it quite strange that you're accusing me of being the dogmatic imperialist. I don't support power or violence, you do, so spare me the disgust, and you know I do not find it inconceivable that I am wrong. Your melodramatic cries that I attempt to 'impose' beliefs upon you when I am simply arguing for them actually does make me wonder whether I like you or not. What do you know of suffering? What do you care for freedom? I have never seen you stand up for any cause other than an insincere nihilistic philosophy which you do not even live .

It's funny that you mentioned Dylan below, because I thought of that as soon as I read this argument, because you did exactly the same trick by essentially trying to turn the whole universe into some kind of infinite russian stacking doll - pushing the argument inside of itself.

Is it true that I did that? If it isn't, then please stop lying.

"The action is wrong because it fails to be the right action."

"The universe is that which the universe contains."

Oh, the A = A of it all!

Is it true that I said that? If I didn't, please stop lying.

Your position also lacks the quality of being a square-circle. This does not make the concept of a square-circle coherent.

Is it true that a square circle is incoherent? If it isn't, please make sincere arguments.

The irony is how you've just enacted it in the response, by trying to impose a belief on me. "Every statement implies the universal validity of what it asserts", because you say so. It is a rule. And the rule itself, by necessitating universality, contains the seeds of its own imperialism. It is imperialism reduced to the simplest principle possible.

I suppose I better apologise, then? Unless of course you're debasing the word 'violence' so that it implies a certain barrier to criticism of your beliefs. Anyway, as far as I am aware, I have not asserted that every statement implies the universal validity of what it asserts, because I have no idea what 'universal validity' would mean in this context.

Honestly, analyze Dylan's concept of 'self-containment' or A = A and tell me that isn't what it is. The concept contains itself; therefore there is the space of the 'contained', and the 'container', and, since the contained and the container are 'identical' (and because ethics and facts are actually one,) it is only right that the contained expands to fill the container.

I think you're confused. The '=' sign means 'identical to'. Content =/= container. To be something =/= to contain something. You really ought to be less arrogant. Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Your standard of what you will believe, is set to "anything which engenders the concept of objective universal truth", and you assume that I have the same standard. It is the same thing as the guy who builds a wall around himself to "lock up the world".

This really isn't the case. I cannot reject truth, because I must believe. If I believe that there is no right way to conceive of something then that very conception deems itself incorrect. Normativity is the foundation of my ability to believe. If I could not deem a belief right then I could not believe it, and if I could not deem it wrong then I could not reject belief in it. How could I reject 'truth' without deeming it not true? It contradict what I am to reject truth. The only similarity I need to think you and I share to conclude that you should agree with me on this is that you are conscious and intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

The hostility in our discussions is needless. I don't want it, but you insist on accusing me of such terrible things, the worst perhaps being dogmatism. I really think you are being hypocritical here. You never give me a chance. I'm dismissed as an imperialist. A tyrant who wants to rule over you, merely for suggesting that certain standards which apply to me also apply to you. I don't find it particularly enjoyable to have to insult people, but you should stop exploring philosophy if it only serves to make you a dogmatic, hostile hypocrite who complains when people attempt to criticise your views.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:

and to say that the concept of truth is impenetrable because it states in its definition that it is so, is absurd. It's assuming your own position before you've started. It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.

What's wrong with "assuming your own position before you've started" if your goal (truth) coincides with what what you start with by definition?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Once again, they are only identical on the most basic level. I realize that "aspect of reality' isn't synonymous with "reality", despite the fact that they share the same identity and are therefore *ultimately* identical.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:14:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:09:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:

and to say that the concept of truth is impenetrable because it states in its definition that it is so, is absurd. It's assuming your own position before you've started. It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.

What's wrong with "assuming your own position before you've started" if your goal (truth) coincides with what what you start with by definition?

In other words, how is false to take for granted that truth is true? It is, after all, the standard against which you claim it falls short.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:09:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:
It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.


You might as well not speak then.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Once again, they are only identical on the most basic level. I realize that "aspect of reality' isn't synonymous with "reality", despite the fact that they share the same identity and are therefore *ultimately* identical.

You did not see fit to respond to me earlier, only to defend your honour in another thread? You really are beginning to frustrate me, because 'ultimately identical' appears to be a meaningless phrase. Would you employ the '=' sign to describe this relationship? If not, please accept that the CTMU has, apparently, been refuted, according to the premises you have laid out.

I am also still waiting for you to come out. Seriously.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:24:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:19:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Once again, they are only identical on the most basic level. I realize that "aspect of reality' isn't synonymous with "reality", despite the fact that they share the same identity and are therefore *ultimately* identical.

You did not see fit to respond to me earlier, only to defend your honour in another thread? You really are beginning to frustrate me, because 'ultimately identical' appears to be a meaningless phrase. Would you employ the '=' sign to describe this relationship? If not, please accept that the CTMU has, apparently, been refuted, according to the premises you have laid out.

I am also still waiting for you to come out. Seriously.

I didn't respond because it was a long post and I was tired of repeating myself over and over again. We are identical to God (reality) in the sense that the entire structure of reality is implicit in (distributed over) our minds, such that we can theorize about reality using our minds even though they are localized.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:26:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In other words, us defining God amounts to God defining himself. There is no absolute separation of the kind you propose.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:31:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:19:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Once again, they are only identical on the most basic level. I realize that "aspect of reality' isn't synonymous with "reality", despite the fact that they share the same identity and are therefore *ultimately* identical.

You did not see fit to respond to me earlier, only to defend your honour in another thread? You really are beginning to frustrate me, because 'ultimately identical' appears to be a meaningless phrase. Would you employ the '=' sign to describe this relationship? If not, please accept that the CTMU has, apparently, been refuted, according to the premises you have laid out.

I am also still waiting for you to come out. Seriously.

You should read this: http://www.docdroid.net...

It's probably the least verbose explanation of the CTMU Chris has given.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:24:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:19:35 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:12:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:
Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

Once again, they are only identical on the most basic level. I realize that "aspect of reality' isn't synonymous with "reality", despite the fact that they share the same identity and are therefore *ultimately* identical.

You did not see fit to respond to me earlier, only to defend your honour in another thread? You really are beginning to frustrate me, because 'ultimately identical' appears to be a meaningless phrase. Would you employ the '=' sign to describe this relationship? If not, please accept that the CTMU has, apparently, been refuted, according to the premises you have laid out.

I am also still waiting for you to come out. Seriously.

I didn't respond because it was a long post and I was tired of repeating myself over and over again. We are identical to God (reality) in the sense that the entire structure of reality is implicit in (distributed over) our minds, such that we can theorize about reality using our minds even though they are localized.

The model you propose requires that our conceptions be identical, but this annihilates the individual. The 'you and I' distinction must be eliminated, rendering us both the same individual, making you a solipist, as the distinction is based on a difference between our minds. 'You and I' is fundamentally an assertion of difference in identity. If we are truly all different nodes in this superstructure, all with the same identity, then we would think in unison - 'we' would be one ego, simply 'I'. 'I' repeated seven billion times in different locations. If this is not the case, then there are distinctions between us. Each 'localisation' would have to be unique and distinct, which would of course mean it is not a localisation of the same identity, but a multitude of separate entities.

I appreciate the link but I am about to sleep after I write a response to the so-called rational thinker, serial number 9119... I can understand why you felt the need to repeat yourself, because I did not completely comprehend the idea. Nonetheless, I think my criticism of it was accurate. All I have done is apply that criticism directly to the model I am pretty sure you are proposing.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 10:09:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 5:57:50 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/14/2014 7:01:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

I really do find it quite strange that you're accusing me of being the dogmatic imperialist. I don't support power or violence, you do, so spare me the disgust, and you know I do not find it inconceivable that I am wrong. Your melodramatic cries that I attempt to 'impose' beliefs upon you when I am simply arguing for them actually does make me wonder whether I like you or not.

Well I do like you, and my arguments here were in no way supposed to imply that you are especially tyrannical or anything like that, or even to say that your intention is anything other than the noblest; rather to point out what is inherent in what we consider the most basic units of our language and thought; that since our society is built upon imperialism and dogmatism, these are inculcated and fused into our language at the most basic level. So, I can and do try to be polite, but my greatest interest is in the extreme of that. To find it possible to eradicate all instances of it, rather than deem some of them 'necessary'.

What do you know of suffering? What do you care for freedom? I have never seen you stand up for any cause other than an insincere nihilistic philosophy which you do not even live .

The only possible reason I can imagine for you typing this is that you thought, I was insulting you so you'd retort with some insults?

Is it true that I did that? If it isn't, then please stop lying.

Is it true that I said that? If I didn't, please stop lying.

Is it true that a square circle is incoherent? If it isn't, please make sincere arguments.

I considered my last response to you a critique of this mode of argument. If we expand the definition of truth far enough, we can say that it is what is implied by my every statement. But the trick is where then it is narrowed back to specifically "objective truth", and the attempt is made to smuggle in the further specifications entailed by that.

Objective truth implies that there is a truth divorced from subjectivity; 'over and beyond' subjectivity, which I have access to, but is identical for all people.

My statements could imply a sense of 'truth', if we expand the definition far enough, but really all implied is that I intend for my meaning to be received. That I intend to affect the person being communicated with in a certain manner.

I suppose I better apologise, then? Unless of course you're debasing the word 'violence' so that it implies a certain barrier to criticism of your beliefs. Anyway, as far as I am aware, I have not asserted that every statement implies the universal validity of what it asserts, because I have no idea what 'universal validity' would mean in this context.

Universal validity is implied by 'objective', meaning that it is not predicated on a single person's subjective experience, but that they recognize something beyond themselves, and that it is also equally available to any other person who was in the same situation.

Honestly, analyze Dylan's concept of 'self-containment' or A = A and tell me that isn't what it is. The concept contains itself; therefore there is the space of the 'contained', and the 'container', and, since the contained and the container are 'identical' (and because ethics and facts are actually one,) it is only right that the contained expands to fill the container.

I think you're confused. The '=' sign means 'identical to'. Content =/= container. To be something =/= to contain something. You really ought to be less arrogant.

To be clear, I was specifically referencing Dylan's conception of it there.

Dylan himself is very confused about the law of identity. He has recently attempted to convince me that a part of something is identical to the whole, merely because they are both real.

That's what I was talking about...

This really isn't the case. I cannot reject truth, because I must believe. If I believe that there is no right way to conceive of something then that very conception deems itself incorrect. Normativity is the foundation of my ability to believe. If I could not deem a belief right then I could not believe it, and if I could not deem it wrong then I could not reject belief in it. How could I reject 'truth' without deeming it not true? It contradict what I am to reject truth. The only similarity I need to think you and I share to conclude that you should agree with me on this is that you are conscious and intelligent enough to understand what I am saying.

There is a whole metaphysics implied on top of that, unfortunately. That there are certain things which I can access which are beyond my subjective experience. That my experience of the table indicates a 'fact', while my experiences of emotions or ideas do not.

The hostility in our discussions is needless. I don't want it, but you insist on accusing me of such terrible things, the worst perhaps being dogmatism. I really think you are being hypocritical here. You never give me a chance. I'm dismissed as an imperialist. A tyrant who wants to rule over you, merely for suggesting that certain standards which apply to me also apply to you. I don't find it particularly enjoyable to have to insult people, but you should stop exploring philosophy if it only serves to make you a dogmatic, hostile hypocrite who complains when people attempt to criticise your views.

To make clear what I was responding to and why, you said:

"Anyway, 'the incoherent violence of the concept' is, to you, a truth, thus, try again."

This is not a suggestion, or even an critique, it is an instruction. And I do not berate you in particular for this, but rather I recognize that this topic lies at the base of how all justification of imperial and violent impulses works, and therefore it is the status quo to use such techniques with regard to this issue in particular. When we come to the ground-floor of all the justifications of the state and society as it is, we find, not an argument or 'advice', not anything else but an order, and only rightly so. So my intention was not to weigh that entire burden on you, rather to attempt to make what is going on with that as blatant as possible.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 3:40:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:09:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:

and to say that the concept of truth is impenetrable because it states in its definition that it is so, is absurd. It's assuming your own position before you've started. It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.

What's wrong with "assuming your own position before you've started" if your goal (truth) coincides with what what you start with by definition?

Hey, I'd be really interested in your opinion of this article:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

In particular the first 5 paragraphs of the section called, "3. Basic Argumentation and its Implications: Time, Hearing-Oneself-Speak, the Secret, and Sovereignty". If you ever feel like reading it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 3:55:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 6:17:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 6:09:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/14/2014 5:51:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:14:42 PM, Wocambs wrote:
It is not my goal to prove the statement, "it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true", but rather, to point out the inherent violence of the concept itself.


You might as well not speak then.

Your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that all language conforms to an identical syntax, and that this fact is proven by the fact that the syntax itself does not contain the parameters for its own dismissal. Am I missing something?

We can understand, then, that a syntax is not at all concerned with any particular content, rather, entirely with the form; that is, it concerns a set of principles for which the exact application is interchangeable. An example would be, "a thing cannot go beyond what it is."

We presumably believe that everyone uses these identical parameters, because everyone has an identical goal. We could effectively redefine it as a cause and effect relationship; "If you wish to talk objectively, about reality, then you must use these parameters". And then it must also be necessary, that the only possible goal of communicating, is to talk objectively about reality.

We can therefore translate the theory to the following demand:

"Whenever a being communicates, it must do so with the goal of talking objectively about reality, which is defined as conforming to these parameters."

This would presumably explain your reasoning behind consistently telling people not to speak, or how to speak.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 7:50:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 10:09:38 PM, sdavio wrote:
The only possible reason I can imagine for you typing this is that you thought, I was insulting you so you'd retort with some insults?

You were insulting me. It also offends my sensibilities that you say things like "our society is built upon imperialism and dogmatism" while not giving a damn, or so it seems, hence the accusation that you do not live your philosophy.

I considered my last response to you a critique of this mode of argument. If we expand the definition of truth far enough, we can say that it is what is implied by my every statement. But the trick is where then it is narrowed back to specifically "objective truth", and the attempt is made to smuggle in the further specifications entailed by that.

Objective truth implies that there is a truth divorced from subjectivity; 'over and beyond' subjectivity, which I have access to, but is identical for all people.

And this is why I accuse you of dogmatism, since my "I cannot reject truth" paragraph describes what is clearly an intersubjective idea of truth. When you respond to someone who claims that to be a conscious individual entails an idea of truth by the very nature of their subjectivity, accusing them of divorcing truth from an individual and making it "over and beyond" subjectivity makes little sense. There is a certain pattern you notice to dogmatic people, and that is when they reply to you, you get the feeling that they merely read your criticisms so that they can paste some of their preconceived beliefs together to form a response.

That's what I was talking about...

I suppose I did a better job of it, then. In fact I maintain that I am doing a better job of it.

There is a whole metaphysics implied on top of that, unfortunately. That there are certain things which I can access which are beyond my subjective experience.

That is simply not a feature of my argument.

This is not a suggestion, or even an critique, it is an instruction. And I do not berate you in particular for this, but rather I recognize that this topic lies at the base of how all justification of imperial and violent impulses works, and therefore it is the status quo to use such techniques with regard to this issue in particular. When we come to the ground-floor of all the justifications of the state and society as it is, we find, not an argument or 'advice', not anything else but an order, and only rightly so. So my intention was not to weigh that entire burden on you, rather to attempt to make what is going on with that as blatant as possible.

Actually, it's more a mocking statement of your abject failure to present anything even remotely challenging to me. Instead, you seem to be only interested in parroting the views of others whom you have recently read, regardless of whether they form a coherent and focused criticism of my views or not.

I suggest that you criticise the view that truth is an essential element of a conscious mind, due to the fact that I must either believe or not believe, and I must be responsible for that. Coming back to me with the 'there's no objective standard' argument you have been repeating ad nauseam really will accomplish nothing, unless you can prove I am guilty of it, instead of simply assuming that I am guilty of it and proceeding from there.