''Existential Absurdity" is When a Person Claims a Given State of Affairs Like

[HeroHog]

[Perd Hapley]

[Bosco1]

Why would I bother? You're only here to preach not listen. You haven't listen to a single person yet on any other forum. Why are you here?

Seriously, why are you here?

You've blindly claimed Sartre is discredited and cannot back that foolish claim up with facts. That is plain hot air.
You concentrate only on my person and never never ever on my position. You are not at all competent.
I am here to interact with other persons regarding the existential absurdity of law. But all you all are capable of is attacking my person, which clearly demonstrates your profound ignorance and barbarity!

[HeroHog]

I didn't want to do this, but...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[griz]

I am here to interact with other persons......

Persons or Test Subjects?

[HeroHog]

[230RN]

Readers of the novel (Don Quixote, by Cervantes  --230RN ) do not laugh with Don Quixote, but rather at him. Unlike the title character, readers are acutely aware that Don Quixote, who is committed to enacting the imagined into real life, has in turn, lost complete touch with reality. Indeed, so famous are scenes of his clashes with these imagined giants, that from this novel grew the popular expression, “tilting at windmills.” A direct allusion to the S (satirical --230RN) character and his relentless quest to defeat the giant windmills, to tilt at windmills means to either attack imaginary or perceive imaginary enemies.
(Bolding mine)

https://spectator.org/tilting-at-windmills-or-a-warning-for-our-times/   



Don Quixote de la Mancha  Pablo, 1955

Good luck with your windmills.

Terry, 230RN

Pic credit in properties.

[dogmush]

Sartre was absolutely free to express his feeling regarding a creator! Which does not undo his theory of the originative mode of human action.
If you saw another treatise of mine which a member posted on the locked thread, I speak of a creator...

Anyone know a Calvinist?  I'm going to need to tag them in here.

[cordex]

I'm with dogmush - I don't think this premise is true at all.

Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.

It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority.  Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy.  He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to.  In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.

Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.

[WLJ]

You've blindly claimed Sartre is discredited and cannot back that foolish claim up with facts. That is plain hot air.

Says the Hot Air Balloon Commander

[WLJ]

[WLJ]

Note the underlined

He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution

So why don't you follow Sartre?

[WLJ]

We're trying to get you to change the subject to something other than this pointless preaching into the abyss
But you won't.

[fifth_column]

{snip}
It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority.  Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy.  He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to.  In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.

{snip}

This I believe is why there is so much polarization in US politics today. People want to identify with one side or the other in order to simplify the decision-making process on a particular topic. This is also why it is so difficult for most people to accept a point of view not their own. It makes sense from an energy-saving aspect that once a person decides their stance on a particular topic, 2A for example, that they not reevaluate every time it comes up. I'd like to think most people would reevaluate if more information becomes available, but in my experience, this isn't the case.

[Perd Hapley]

This I believe is why there is so much polarization in US politics today. People want to identify with one side or the other in order to simplify the decision-making process on a particular topic. This is also why it is so difficult for most people to accept a point of view not their own. It makes sense from an energy-saving aspect that once a person decides their stance on a particular topic, 2A for example, that they not reevaluate every time it comes up. I'd like to think most people would reevaluate if more information becomes available, but in my experience, this isn't the case.

I’m sure that comes into it, but I think the bigger factor is that we don’t want the people around us to think we’re “going soft,” or letting the side down, or turning into “one of those guys.” It’s also possible to be so angry with, or disgusted by, the other side that we can’t stand to admit they’re right about just this one thing. I think the latter motivation might be even stronger if it’s specifically Trump or Obama or Hillary Clinton that’s right. (OK, I’m kidding. Clinton would never be right about anything.)

[fifth_column]

I’m sure that comes into it, but I think the bigger factor is that we don’t want the people around us to think we’re “going soft,” or letting the side down, or turning into “one of those guys.” It’s also possible to be so angry with, or disgusted by, the other side that we can’t stand to admit they’re right about just this one thing. I think the latter motivation might be even stronger if it’s specifically Trump or Obama or Hillary Clinton that’s right. (OK, I’m kidding. Clinton would never be right about anything.)

That's interesting. I agree that those are motivations for many people and that all of us are capable of feeling that way. But I don't see them as a bigger factor. Probably because I'm less concerned with any "image" others have of me. Perhaps less concerned than I should be . . . . although I do draw the line at going out in sweats.

[Nick1911]

Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.

It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority.  Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy.  He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to.  In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.

Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.

I argue that while these systems of authority influence behavior, behavior is not originated from them.  They are specifications that one is expected to adhere to, compliance is typically enforced by coercion, but the decision to follow or not follow them still lies within the free will of the individual.  It is still their choice.  I'll grant that most people at some point (myself included) decide to comply with these systems by default because it's easier, smoother, and often in their self interest even absent coercion - and while it might appear that their actions are originating from said authority, they are actually freely and voluntarily choosing to follow that ruleset.

I'm a pretty strong "internal locus of control" guy, so my perspective is tinted by that.  I'm generally happy to follow laws, but am acutely aware that I'm choosing to do so and that I can break said laws if I judge the risk and consequences to be more tolerable than compliance.

[Brad Johnson]

He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job, to offer battle
To bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned our night into day
He made his blazing saddle
A torch to light the way

When outlaws rule the West
And fear filled the land
A cry went up for a man with guts
To take the West in hand
They needed a man who was brave and true
With justice for all as his aim
Then out of the sun rode a man with a gun
And Bart was his name, yes, Bart was his name

He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job, to offer battle
To bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned our night into day
He made his blazing saddle
A torch to light the way

Brad

[cordex]

I argue that while these systems of authority influence behavior, behavior is not originated from them.  They are specifications that one is expected to adhere to, compliance is typically enforced by coercion, but the decision to follow or not follow them still lies within the free will of the individual.  It is still their choice.  I'll grant that most people at some point (myself included) decide to comply with these systems by default because it's easier, smoother, and often in their self interest even absent coercion - and while it might appear that their actions are originating from said authority, they are actually freely and voluntarily choosing to follow that ruleset.

I'm a pretty strong "internal locus of control" guy, so my perspective is tinted by that.  I'm generally happy to follow laws, but am acutely aware that I'm choosing to do so and that I can break said laws if I judge the risk and consequences to be more tolerable than compliance.

I don't disagree, but it is the "compl[iance] by default" that might make it appear to sometimes be the genesis of an action.  I'd also note that not everyone has the same internalized locus of control as you.  Locus of control was something I remember my dad talking a lot about when I was a kid.  Realistically, many people do simply let others or outside ideologies do a large part of their thinking for them.

Also, if someone is in a position where they have to do something unpleasant or confrontational (pronouncing or executing punishment, for instance) being able to claim that one's decision is made strictly in accordance to a higher authority might well be a way to defer responsibility either to one's own conscience or when speaking to an aggrieved party.  If Bosco were to hear such justifications and take them literally it might explain how he has gotten to where he is.

[Bosco1]

Bosco has proven to be an abysmal communicator, comically overstates his case, and has repeatedly demonstrated a weak and flawed understanding of what he's claiming deep insight into, but let's steelman Bosco's position for a moment.

It is true that people regularly outsource their decision making to one degree or another through subordinating their own will to an external authority.  Some do so based on religion, or a political ideology, or a military hierarchy.  He is correct that the people tasked with judging and enforcing the law are going to sometimes - maybe even regularly - make decisions based not on their own careful analysis, but based on the particular rulesets they've chosen to subject themselves to.  In fact, we are such creatures of habit that one of the few times we are forced to consciously work through the ethics of a particular decision are when multiple rulesets are in conflict and they don't have an ingrained, pre-calculated response to a situation.

Granted, the above is all solidly within "well, obviously" territory, and is no great insight, but if you squint just right you can sort of work his new revelation into making the above argument.

Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case; I possess an absolutely excellent comprehension of Sartre's theory of freedom. You insultingly denigrate me and, falsely set yourself up as an authority on Sartre, incompetantly putting me down. But your steelman position is cool...

[Ben]

Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer;

Perhaps you're trolling us after all. You are an abysmal writer. The only person on any of the forums you post on, or anywhere in the world, actually, that thinks you are a good writer, is you. You continually create pots of polysyllabic alphabet soup that very inefficiently (don't) get your points across.

It's what I would expect from someone who took four decades to get a four year degree from a third rate university. Come down off your high horse. The legs are wobbly.

[Nick1911]

Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case;

I must disagree with this - communication involves conveying information from one party to the next.  If you consistently have difficultly communicating ideas in writing to other people, then by definition you are not good at written communication.

[Brad Johnson]

I am a fabulously fantastic writer

 

Assertion made, and negated, in a single sentence.

Brad

[Bosco1]

I must disagree with this - communication involves conveying information from one party to the next.  If you consistently have difficultly communicating ideas in writing to other people, then by definition you are not good at written communication.

I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow.

[WLJ]

I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated indoctrinated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently poorly; my readers are merely not toughminded indoctrinated enough to follow.

FIFY