"Baby in the middle of the woods by itself - I don't know how it got there - play along, whatever. Bear finds the baby and mauls the baby and eats the baby. Is the suffering of the child good or bad?"
Well, to be precise, you could say Gary is incorrect. But that implies that one should not make incorrect statements. Is that a universal should? Why bother to correct Gary or argue with him at all?
Essentially, your argument as I grasp it is that you would find a world in which Gary did not propose objective should rules to be more aesthetically pleasing. Would you say that is accurate?
They should regard all arguments that propose universals as they relate to value judgments as meaningless . This includes aesthetics, morality, taste, etc.
If all shoulds are subjective, why would you bother to argue with a person claiming to make objective should rules? In my subjective world, people should believe in objective ethics.
Ah, I missed the semantic tripwire and thus I shall rephrase:
No one CAN, justifiably, propose should arguments as objective. I NEVER mean to tell people what they are to do or not to do. Rather, they are being informed about the meaninglessness with which their propositions should be taken.
From what I can tell, this is at the root purely an argument of the semantics surrounding
'Objective Reality.' Philosophically that concept will never be more than intersubjective speculation, at least to a human. This is as untangable a belief as the fundie's gods, and as "fucktardedly" irrelevant.
Thank you. The illusion of Objectivity exists only due to the intersubjectivity of human experience. Ultimately, suffering is a state experienced by all, but it exists in certain degrees, and differs from person to person. The only problem that we have with everything right now is that we have gotten to a point where we wish to view all things as being objective since MANY experience things the same way.
My point was really that the man made idea of a objective universe is pointless and irrelevant to anything that may applicable to experienced existence. It is good for mental games but contributes nothing tangible, to our experiences, NOTHING!
Sometimes argument is not and cannot be a sane and rational exchange. In order to have that, you must have an interlocutor who knows and respects the basic rules of debate (and of common human decency).
Obviously you don't in this case. I'm glad to hear that you're cutting your losses and moving on.
Nothing can be "bad" objectively, but this is not the point. Something becomes *essentially* objective (intersubjective) when the amount of "bad" outweighs the good for the majority of humans. We (human/mammalian life) will always exist within that perspective, so there is really no point of expecting someone to make all their arguments valid to some external, intangible "objective" standard.
No, because bad is not something we can agree on intersubjectively, which then will become a nearly objective ideal. It is something that is maintained strictly at the level of value and subjectivity.
If we are to start doing this with moral problem, we necessarily (for consistency) have to start doing this with things like taste, importance, etc. So, if the majority of the people, intersubjectively, decide that duck bladder tastes bad, it necessarily is bad, well, via this mentality.
I would probably say something else.... I guess I'm maybe a combination of foundationalist and coherentist. I accept that our beliefs are all founded upon other beliefs and in a coherent set (to some extent), though not in the way outlined by coherentism. I recognize that there is some original unproven and unfounded base upon which all other things are founded.
But we're humans, man.. Baby eaten by bear - is a bad thing. We don't need "the universe" (?) to verify that for us. It's intersubjectively bad, based on patos and logos and genes and social background! Thats enough.. Thats morality. We must 'choose' to an extent, and act upon it! Human nature. Why point out his lack of objectivity, why not constructively argue his system of morality? This debate is dead.. ..and boring
I used to like gary, but he blocked me when I told him that even though the girl saying the depression thing was bad, he should remember that this is the net, and the only way ppl can't use personal info against him is if he doesn't say it. and he sent me a message saying it wasn't true and to fuck off....
I've had civil conversation with him more than once, at least I have in Stickam. But, there's always been a layer of condescension on his end, not that I'm surprised.
My response to him in text and in video now were completely civil; and even though he insulted me throughout, I stayed away from that. So, this block was completely uncalled for.
anybody who blocks you isnt worthy of your video time lol fakesagan and TJ have blocked me and i dont have a vlog up. they dont matter to the world we live in if they block thought. only spam is blockable
pain and pleasure are very closely related though, for example, whilst in orgasm or on the road to orgasm, many people use pain to heighten the pleasure.
others may enjoy being taken close to their pain threshold during non-sexual activity, for example, furthering oneself physically, exercising until it hurts and then going a little further.
this makes the good/bad aspects of pain subjective.
on the other hand 'suffering' could be defined as 'bad' objectively, but even there you get exceptions
Once pain turns into pleasure, it is no longer pain. When something "hurts so good" then it's not really hurting. I think it's fair to say that pain is never experienced as a good thing by the person experiencing it, and this is by definition. But one person can find pleasure in another person's pain.
Bignastydragon, I've experienced wanting something to continue (pleasure) and not wanting something to continue (pain), and I am very clear about the difference. Unrequited love is something I've experienced which has elements of both pain and pleasure, but I seem to be pretty clear about when I want it to continue and when I don't. I suspect this may be different for women, since I think their thought is less focussed.
"I suspect this may be different for women, since I think their thought is less focussed. "
erm...
as for the rest, i have experienced unrequited love. i have also experienced pain that i wished to continue. from what you have mentioned though, your objections are moot because you have not experienced pain in the 'pleasurable' setting.
it was nice speaking to you again, and i hope you are wise enough to learn from this exchange.
Within philosophy those are normative statements. Normative statements at their core are subjective. They're supposition about what it "would be best to do"...Your normative and my normative might or might not overlap. You've outlined that very well here. So how can such statements ever be classified as 'objective'? They can't obviously. A lot of dogmas insist on claiming that "Should" statements are objective to enforce compliance with their norms
Hmm, tough to say. I see where both of you are coming from, but I think perhaps there's something that's been left out. You say suffering is objective, but what we should do about it is not. I would agree. To do anything about suffering, we have to take responsibility for it individually. This is not objective because obviously most people never take responsibility for the objectivity of suffering. They deny it, repress it, or celebrate it. To take responsibility we'd have to resolve to cure it.
I watched your first video to inmendham and then watched his 30+ minute reply (mostly for comedic value) and it was as if he was replying to a different video. It seems like he is conflating you with every other single person that disagrees with him, calling you a phatasmagorical when in every video of yours I have seen you seem to come across as a sceptical materalist atheist (if I am wrong, correct me).
He misrepresented my points, then went on to discuss something entirely different. I believe I explained myself very well in this video. I find it to be one of my most well put and most understandable.
I'm starting to get the impression that objective morality advocates lack the critical thinking skills to comprehend the fact that making a mind-dependent value judgment regarding code of conduct is inherently subjective no matter how badly they would like to wish otherwise.
I'm curious as to how Immendham would address the question of how he can prove causing pain and suffering is objectively wrong without making a value judgment.
I think the question is completely over his head, either intellectually or just because he's come to the table with such a strong emphasis on his baseless premise that he can't see passed it.
The more fundamental point from "pain is bad" being subjective is that *any* statement "X is good" or "X is bad" being subjective stems from "good" and "bad" being subjectively defined to begin with.
Give a context in which "good" or "bad" is objectively defined (i.e. a move in checkers is objectively bad against a perfect opponent if it puts the opponent in a guaranteed-win situation), and you can then build up objective statements in "X is good/bad" forms.
This is true, but misappropriated for the example at hand....
This works for something like chess or a sport because that is a construct of the human mind, as such, there are particular rules attached at conception. However, when it comes to morality, humans have been supplanted into an amoral, careless universe, and out ability to perceive our pain doesn't make it any more significant in the big picture than it was before we got here.
"Baby in the middle of the woods by itself - I don't know how it got there - play along, whatever. Bear finds the baby and mauls the baby and eats the baby. Is the suffering of the child good or bad?"
thepaulalfonso 2 years ago
For the child or for the bear?
For the child? It's certainly bad.
For the bear? Yum.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Who the hell is Gary?
thepaulalfonso 2 years ago
The guy I was responding too....
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Gary is always proposing objective rules.
thepaulalfonso 2 years ago
Which doesn't, in any way, make him right.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
So, would you say it was wrong for Gary to claim to make objective statements about right and wrong?
mikepeino 2 years ago
I would say Gary is wrong, not that Gary was acting wrongly.
The word has two definitions :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Well, to be precise, you could say Gary is incorrect. But that implies that one should not make incorrect statements. Is that a universal should? Why bother to correct Gary or argue with him at all?
mikepeino 2 years ago
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm just saying I like to correct people who make incorrect statements.
You're certainly not going to pigeonhole me here. This isn't something I haven't examined for logical holes. :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
So all of this is just about your aesthetic preference then?
mikepeino 2 years ago
Do you know what aesthetic means? :(
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Essentially, your argument as I grasp it is that you would find a world in which Gary did not propose objective should rules to be more aesthetically pleasing. Would you say that is accurate?
mikepeino 2 years ago
So then all people should regard arguments that propose a universal should as meaningless?
mikepeino 2 years ago
No.
They should regard all arguments that propose universals as they relate to value judgments as meaningless . This includes aesthetics, morality, taste, etc.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Are you proposing this as a universal should rule, or just your aesthetic preference?
mikepeino 2 years ago
It's not an argument completely unrelated to aesthetics.
Are you fully aware of what the argument is?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
If all shoulds are subjective, why would you bother to argue with a person claiming to make objective should rules? In my subjective world, people should believe in objective ethics.
mikepeino 2 years ago
That's fine.
You continue along doing that.
I'm merely explaining why he hasn't proven a god damn thing objectively.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
So are you saying that no one should ever propose a should argument as an objective rule?
mikepeino 2 years ago
More or less, yes.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Do you see the glaring contradiction in your argument?
mikepeino 2 years ago
Ah, I missed the semantic tripwire and thus I shall rephrase:
No one CAN, justifiably, propose should arguments as objective. I NEVER mean to tell people what they are to do or not to do. Rather, they are being informed about the meaninglessness with which their propositions should be taken.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
What do you mean by "justifiably"? Is that a universal standard?
mikepeino 2 years ago
Are you of the impression that logical argumentation is not something applicable in this circumstance as well?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You 2 idiots would argue aboout anything huh. What the hell is this?
535wer 2 years ago
You are fucking adorable. End of story.
gah.
You just take this video on with the whole, "Hey, fuck you man, I know what I'm talking about, and you're just grotty scum." additude.
I like the color black on you. Very much so. Stick with it.
Oh, and the whole nice-guy thing is working out for you hella great too. Great Job. :)
Jillersaurus 2 years ago
WORDS ARE SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!
From what I can tell, this is at the root purely an argument of the semantics surrounding
'Objective Reality.' Philosophically that concept will never be more than intersubjective speculation, at least to a human. This is as untangable a belief as the fundie's gods, and as "fucktardedly" irrelevant.
demiz2305 2 years ago
Thank you. The illusion of Objectivity exists only due to the intersubjectivity of human experience. Ultimately, suffering is a state experienced by all, but it exists in certain degrees, and differs from person to person. The only problem that we have with everything right now is that we have gotten to a point where we wish to view all things as being objective since MANY experience things the same way.
cm2dude 2 years ago
My point was really that the man made idea of a objective universe is pointless and irrelevant to anything that may applicable to experienced existence. It is good for mental games but contributes nothing tangible, to our experiences, NOTHING!
demiz2305 2 years ago
Sometimes argument is not and cannot be a sane and rational exchange. In order to have that, you must have an interlocutor who knows and respects the basic rules of debate (and of common human decency).
Obviously you don't in this case. I'm glad to hear that you're cutting your losses and moving on.
I'm looking forward to more of you videos.
2bsirius 2 years ago
Pain is bad, next story geniuses
BeyondWrittenWords 2 years ago
psychotic sociopaths sometimes view pain as pleasurable.
skateon420 2 years ago
You guys need to go duck it out on stickam tomorrow nite.
AgainstAllGods 2 years ago
Comment removed
VonSchnutze 2 years ago
Man people are straw manning and or missing what you are pointing at entirely i just watched recking's response.
His equation fails, and hopefully i gave a good enough pointer so he understands why.
Mathfails 2 years ago 2
Well, they are Gary's followers.
Of course they use strawman arguments most of the time.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
He's in over his head.
And I don't mean that to say "I'm so smart." I mean to say, "This is simple shit."
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Remind you of anyone?
AntiSisyphus 2 years ago
Wow, I've heard of that before; but reading the studies and results, that is awesome... Perhaps I'll redirect him to that...
JasperAvi 2 years ago
reg: The dunning-Kruger effect, it is posted on the other video as a comment there also..
fyi
f417h 2 years ago
Nothing can be "bad" objectively, but this is not the point. Something becomes *essentially* objective (intersubjective) when the amount of "bad" outweighs the good for the majority of humans. We (human/mammalian life) will always exist within that perspective, so there is really no point of expecting someone to make all their arguments valid to some external, intangible "objective" standard.
adjohnson916 2 years ago
No, because bad is not something we can agree on intersubjectively, which then will become a nearly objective ideal. It is something that is maintained strictly at the level of value and subjectivity.
If we are to start doing this with moral problem, we necessarily (for consistency) have to start doing this with things like taste, importance, etc. So, if the majority of the people, intersubjectively, decide that duck bladder tastes bad, it necessarily is bad, well, via this mentality.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Hey Jasper, what is your epistemic worldview? Are you a foundationalist, a coherentist, or something else?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I would probably say something else.... I guess I'm maybe a combination of foundationalist and coherentist. I accept that our beliefs are all founded upon other beliefs and in a coherent set (to some extent), though not in the way outlined by coherentism. I recognize that there is some original unproven and unfounded base upon which all other things are founded.
So, do with that what you will! :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
But we're humans, man.. Baby eaten by bear - is a bad thing. We don't need "the universe" (?) to verify that for us. It's intersubjectively bad, based on patos and logos and genes and social background! Thats enough.. Thats morality. We must 'choose' to an extent, and act upon it! Human nature. Why point out his lack of objectivity, why not constructively argue his system of morality? This debate is dead.. ..and boring
taratasarar 2 years ago
It's an intellectual argument.
It has nothing to do with pragmatism.... necessarily.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
forget inmendham, he is on a crusade and you are his imaginary muslim.
jogayot 2 years ago
Hippies!
Look to the hippy for the answer!!
Hippies care about everything when they are young but gradually loses interest as time moves on.
Should, could, can.
You decide.
rockerwere 2 years ago
I realise that comment was probably the stupidest you've ever read.
rockerwere 2 years ago
LOL
Every comment is useful!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I used to like gary, but he blocked me when I told him that even though the girl saying the depression thing was bad, he should remember that this is the net, and the only way ppl can't use personal info against him is if he doesn't say it. and he sent me a message saying it wasn't true and to fuck off....
jesskat 2 years ago
I've had civil conversation with him more than once, at least I have in Stickam. But, there's always been a layer of condescension on his end, not that I'm surprised.
My response to him in text and in video now were completely civil; and even though he insulted me throughout, I stayed away from that. So, this block was completely uncalled for.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
anybody who blocks you isnt worthy of your video time lol fakesagan and TJ have blocked me and i dont have a vlog up. they dont matter to the world we live in if they block thought. only spam is blockable
melbn 2 years ago 3
Does he just keep defining philosophical terms?
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
Or redefining terms? Or not BOTHERING to define the terms?
If he is he's likely trolling you JasperAvi.
What are Christians? Easily fooled.
You didn't think that people could be THAT easily fooled. I guess you were fooling yourself!
The jokes on you. Maybe he enjoys the attention.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 years ago
I think I understand why Inmendham regards pain to be objectively bad . . . because pain is bad *by definition*.
But it is only defined as such by those who experience it - which makes it subjective.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
pain and pleasure are very closely related though, for example, whilst in orgasm or on the road to orgasm, many people use pain to heighten the pleasure.
others may enjoy being taken close to their pain threshold during non-sexual activity, for example, furthering oneself physically, exercising until it hurts and then going a little further.
this makes the good/bad aspects of pain subjective.
on the other hand 'suffering' could be defined as 'bad' objectively, but even there you get exceptions
bignastydragon 2 years ago
Once pain turns into pleasure, it is no longer pain. When something "hurts so good" then it's not really hurting. I think it's fair to say that pain is never experienced as a good thing by the person experiencing it, and this is by definition. But one person can find pleasure in another person's pain.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
i must say that in my experience you are wrong.
the pain is still pain, it still hurts. have you ever tried such things? if not then your objections are moot.
bignastydragon 2 years ago
Bignastydragon, I've experienced wanting something to continue (pleasure) and not wanting something to continue (pain), and I am very clear about the difference. Unrequited love is something I've experienced which has elements of both pain and pleasure, but I seem to be pretty clear about when I want it to continue and when I don't. I suspect this may be different for women, since I think their thought is less focussed.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"I suspect this may be different for women, since I think their thought is less focussed. "
erm...
as for the rest, i have experienced unrequited love. i have also experienced pain that i wished to continue. from what you have mentioned though, your objections are moot because you have not experienced pain in the 'pleasurable' setting.
it was nice speaking to you again, and i hope you are wise enough to learn from this exchange.
bignastydragon 2 years ago
Now I know why Inmendham was classified as a "swearing atheist:
v=fQD6iIXHJC4
KevinSolway 2 years ago
"We should care. We should change the world"
Within philosophy those are normative statements. Normative statements at their core are subjective. They're supposition about what it "would be best to do"...Your normative and my normative might or might not overlap. You've outlined that very well here. So how can such statements ever be classified as 'objective'? They can't obviously. A lot of dogmas insist on claiming that "Should" statements are objective to enforce compliance with their norms
2bsirius 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. Remind you of anyone?
AntiSisyphus 2 years ago
Job well done on putting gary to the point of blocking you.
He's such a bitch. : )
Good material here.
crazycrazycaleb 2 years ago
Lol
Thanks, man.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
posting a response, to you and to gary.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Looking forward to it; may ask which side you are on, if any at all?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Hmm, tough to say. I see where both of you are coming from, but I think perhaps there's something that's been left out. You say suffering is objective, but what we should do about it is not. I would agree. To do anything about suffering, we have to take responsibility for it individually. This is not objective because obviously most people never take responsibility for the objectivity of suffering. They deny it, repress it, or celebrate it. To take responsibility we'd have to resolve to cure it.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Interested in seeing this.
Oh, unless you're going to link your video to this one, can I post mine as a video response to yours??
JasperAvi 2 years ago
No it will be linked here, its still rendering.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Krishnamurti was in the related videos to this... very relevant to my response:
watch?v=HhFrZ4-nxa4&feature=rec-HM-r2
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Will take a look.....
And thanks for the response; with the exception of some disagreement on transcendence and my views on suffering, I really enjoyed it.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Avi,
I watched your first video to inmendham and then watched his 30+ minute reply (mostly for comedic value) and it was as if he was replying to a different video. It seems like he is conflating you with every other single person that disagrees with him, calling you a phatasmagorical when in every video of yours I have seen you seem to come across as a sceptical materalist atheist (if I am wrong, correct me).
Mjhavok 2 years ago 4
He goes on to play quotes from you then talk on wild tangents about stuff that is totally irrelevant to what you said.
Did I miss something?
Mjhavok 2 years ago 5
You're 100% correct.
He misrepresented my points, then went on to discuss something entirely different. I believe I explained myself very well in this video. I find it to be one of my most well put and most understandable.
Oh, and yes, I am a materialist.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Is this why nobody will 'bring the godamn mutherfucking argument' to inmendham?
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
He is too abusive and emotional.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Awesome video!
RoundSquareX 2 years ago
Thanks!
You've been pumping out some great ones too! :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I'm starting to get the impression that objective morality advocates lack the critical thinking skills to comprehend the fact that making a mind-dependent value judgment regarding code of conduct is inherently subjective no matter how badly they would like to wish otherwise.
I'm curious as to how Immendham would address the question of how he can prove causing pain and suffering is objectively wrong without making a value judgment.
smpunditz 2 years ago
I think the question is completely over his head, either intellectually or just because he's come to the table with such a strong emphasis on his baseless premise that he can't see passed it.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I mentioned that I liked pain. And that people who were into S&M dont value pain as bad.
hahaha i was so proud I got myself into a video. shows people are paying attention.
anonforuz 2 years ago
The more fundamental point from "pain is bad" being subjective is that *any* statement "X is good" or "X is bad" being subjective stems from "good" and "bad" being subjectively defined to begin with.
Give a context in which "good" or "bad" is objectively defined (i.e. a move in checkers is objectively bad against a perfect opponent if it puts the opponent in a guaranteed-win situation), and you can then build up objective statements in "X is good/bad" forms.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
This is true, but misappropriated for the example at hand....
This works for something like chess or a sport because that is a construct of the human mind, as such, there are particular rules attached at conception. However, when it comes to morality, humans have been supplanted into an amoral, careless universe, and out ability to perceive our pain doesn't make it any more significant in the big picture than it was before we got here.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Great video Avi, very well spoken.
brouhajoe 2 years ago
Thanks, Joe!
How've you been, man!? Haven't spoken to you in a while...
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Very busy, but well, and you?
brouhajoe 2 years ago
About the same..... Though, I guess less busy than you. Lol
JasperAvi 2 years ago
It's interesting though, why bother believing in objective moral values if you have no reason to accept them?
DonusAmbrose 2 years ago
Gary has platonic forms that he ascribes to opponents positions that they usually don't promote or demonstrate whatsoever.
so he takes a grain of truth in someone else's argument and slaps on a phantom skin to it that he can attack.
Mathfails 2 years ago 2
Undoubtedly.
The strawmen, misrepresentations, and false versions of others' arguments that he puts forth are pretty much consistent video to video.
JasperAvi 2 years ago