Auto-SummaryThe author addresses a comment about simultaneously pitying and envying someone, arguing that pity and envy cannot coexist. They criticize the idea of identity politics and suggest that the commenter is rationalizing their own weaknesses and forming an identity based on these weaknesses. The author emphasizes the importance of addressing the substance of arguments rather than generalizing or mobilizing them. They argue that the commenter's views lack substance and are based on psychological weaknesses. The author encourages the commenter to consider the existential implications of their positions and to avoid generalizations and psychological rationalizations.
blingbling said:
Kurt said:
I can understand your rationalizations, broadly speaking, but how can you actually in a simultaneous moment, pity and and envy someone at once? I can understand but do not sympathize I should say It seems to me the only explanation is you choose to associate with broad identity politics, and their associated psychologies, where you assume this intellectual conceit, rather than looking to the form of content of statements you generally refer to and living by what you know, and might reasonably face as the facts.
I've already explained how I can simultaneously pity and envy someone, I don't understand why you don't believe me. I spoke to a pastor once that claimed that many of the atheists he met "wished they could believe" I totally get that. Why wouldn't someone want to be certain of life meaning?
I'm not sure where your getting identity politics from, we can talk about identity without going down that rabbit hole. But it may be worth pointing out that identity politics is a symptom of this lack of cosmic meaning, it is an hysterical attempt at creating norms around political correctness that takes on a religious flavour.
Speaking as someone who knows something about existential ontology, phenomenology, and history of philosophy, and who studied this at a graduate, what you are saying to me seems like a misunderstanding. There are too many generalizations. In our small microcosm of discourse it could be called pulling an Icelander. You seem to vest in an existential view, but you look to rationalize and mobilize an idea based on your own weakness, and form an identity of this, and then a cult, as you try to level everyone to a mere pyschological issue as a denomination of discussion. Or can you say why you are not trying to pull an icelander on us?
Anytime you generalize argumentative positions in a summary way, or talk about the way people might identify with an idea in a general synopsis (as a historical traditon...an ism... or as a broad description of how these positions play out...) and force others to this level, rather than address the form of content or basic substance of argument in the present dialogue, you are mobilizing a movement around and about ideas, and an identificatory basis rather than actually speaking of ideas.
In your case, like pulling an Icelander you are attempting to rationalize weakness. What you consider your strongest argument is actually weakness, isn't it? Why do you choose to assume that "ignorance is bliss" is an intellectual position, as a conceit, here, when what you are talking about is your own mental weakness and inconsistency, at a more basic level? You look away from the form of content of such statements, and rationalize the way that people might identify with things, out of weakness, as a psychological issue in the matter at issue.
Ignorance is bliss, means that instead of following reason and stepping out into the clearing of these particular terms you refer to you choose to keep them and mobilize them in your own way, through generalization of the positions of argument. You continue to speak as though there is someone is right about "something" (about some imagined thing/being) in a generality and in entrenched and recalcitrant terms, instead of following the movement of reason, to the clearing.
Because you actively choose to frame what you are saying as an intellectual conceit, ignorance is bliss, and level to this, you ignore that at some level this is basically your weakness and vascillation in coming to the conclusion in the matter. Rather than either reasonably admiting your weakness, in this way or overcoming it, you hedge a passive aggressive psychological rationalization in the prior terms you remain occupied with. If god does not exist, as Christians say, the conclusion is stepping into the clearing of these terms.
For example, why do you carry on about an essentially christian ontology, without god? This is vascillating and mental weakness. The only "problem" of meaning in your sense is you do not make any actual statements. At no point do you make any statements about the world, or being (ta on, onta, "being") but only talk about something at a level that people might commonly identify with, and imply this is your ontology by entrenched tradition. Or individually speaking, in terms of the conclusion you might reasonably come to you bring a weak stomach for the world and attempt to mobilize it, as your residing christian ontology.
I think you should back up and at least admit that for some people this conceit of disenchantment, and "ignorance is bliss" is no argument. It is just the way you have learned to look away from the reasonable intellectual conclusion, the substantive argument in fact. You rationalize something vague about this, based on alienation and weakness. It is poor understanding and generalization of history for your march of ideas. So again, I do not know what you mean by something you hold on to in theist's arguments, that makes us realize the necessity of universal/religious meaning. This identification is not based on reason, but psychological, and superficial, and that is how what you say stands out, without substance.
I was trying to get at this psychological level and dig something out.
Why - or how - do you pity and envy christians/theists? You claim a single evaluation, or that you have come to an intellectual conclusion, but I think you are again just vascillating, between terms and letting other people pick up the tab. I can understand where the conflict of these statements may not be immediately apparent to you. Ignorance is bliss, is a more general tongue and cheek statement, or rhetorical pursuasion. But you seem to go about this a bit more seriously, rationalizing and mobilizing this as a common denomination of weakness, rather than authentically coming to the "existential" base you actually might know of.
Maybe I can only speak from my own perspective and experience. I do not pity christians, but I do not envy them. I usually meet christians half way as human beings. To me, it doesn't matter what religions people live by, compared to other things, like general principles, that more clearly determine a person's character. I would never envy someone I pity though, in the same moment. That is too self degrading. What I see in pity is something clearly wretched and neither content or happy, but why even mourn this? If you do not move between different levels of abstraction and try to deceive yourself, this conceit of disenchantment is petty and weak. I think this is as clear as I can be so I will leave it at that.
But here is some advice. Try to speak of the form of content of arguments you refer to, and not always just about it, in generalized positions, or sociological or psychological generalities as what people might identify with. If Christian ontotheology is dead, that means it (you) come into a clearing. If on the other hand you think about pulling an Icelander on us and starting a cult based on on psychological weakness, and alienation, I would say this is not "existential", or a very convincing pissing contest to many of us. Think about where you might end up going that direction. I recommend ditching the bullshit of sociology and psychology, as a generalization, and doing what you are doing in more genuine terms.
Maybe see Heidegger "existential vs. existentiell" for a primer.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentiell)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds
blingbling 
wolfiewolfie 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
)
)
wyldeman007
Poid
floatingcharmer
beatlesrock
1 2 all )
silversoul7
Twirling
Aaladorn