Yes, and we have been over this before. Dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are terms I use to express my own subjective narrative regarding what “I” construe to be the nature of objective narratives made applicable to moral and political values.
Which is just another way of noting the limitations of language in discussing relationships like this. Again, back to Wittgenstein’s, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
But, come on, who is kidding whom? Though we can’t speak of moral and political values objectively, we certainly cannot choose to be silent about them.
Not if we choose to interact WITH others.
Right?
But then that is when my narrative brings me back around to this:
There is an aspect of my own frame of mind [moral nihilism] that is particularly troubling for others. And it is troubling for me too: how can I think like I do and interact with others at all? If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then everytime I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might just as well have gone in the other direction instead…Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it together at all. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
In my view, it is to avoid this very frame of mind themselves that others tend to resist [many mightily] accepting it as true.
Now, others can then argue that in professing it to be true I am in turn becoming fixated on it [psychologically] in the same manner in which I profess the moral and political objectivists become fixated on their own alleged truths – re this very thread.
But then that just brings us back around to how tricky language can be in attempts [like these] to align words with worlds.
Is there a way around that? Well, none that I have ever come across. Not yet. But in part that is why I still frequent places like this. I mean who really knows what the next post might bring.
Another way to sum up the narrative is
It would be better if everyone stopped using moral terms and just said and fought for what they wanted.
And maybe it would be a better World. Of course ants and wasps are like this, never couching things in moral terms and struggling for what they want.
Yes, but I addressed that on the mundane babble thread:
[i]What I want is no less embedded in dasein.
Why do I want one thing and not another? Why do I want one thing while others want something else? Why do I think I ought to behave in one manner rather than another? Why do I think I ought to behave in one manner while others think they ought to behave in another manner?
Of course others [who do not share my perspectives on dasein] might imagine I ought to want what they want…that I ought to behave as they behave. Why? Well, because they have come to conclude that what they want and how they behave is the most rational thing that one can want and the most rational manner in which one can behave.
Either way, what we want and how we think we ought to behave will become attached [existentially] to “goods” that come into conflict. Or will if we choose to interact with [around] others.
But how often are folks asked about these relationships so as to prompt/compel them to think about them in the manner in which I do?
If you wish to transcend dasein here the question to ask is: What do I need? Obviously, there are things that we all need in order to sustain our very existence.[/i]
It’s either discuss morality as best we can [subjectively as daseins in a world of conflicting goods and political economy] or live in a might makes right, survival of the fittest, dog eat dog world.