Seriously, though, we’ve been over this.
Remember when I asked you [on another thread] to note how this particular argument…
[b][i]a man amidst mankind…
That is the paradox, right? I am an individual…a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called “mankind”. So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological “self” [the me “I” know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me “I” project – often as a chameleon – in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?
How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?
No, I don’t think so.
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
On the other hand:
In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.
Or, of course, is that just my foundation?[/i][/b]
…was not applicable to you? You know, with respect to actual conflicting human behaviors “out in the world” of conflicting value judgments?
To the best of my recollection, you never responded.
All bullshit aside, in other words, I really was curious to know if you might be willing to discuss this “straight”: without all of the histrionics, without all of the hyperbolic routines that folks like you and Trixie tend to employ in your posts.
Not that I don’t marvel at your capacity to entertain us in this regard. You are truly gifted at it. Only zoot [in my opinion] is better.
But, you know me. Or, if not, I’ll tell you: I really, really am preoccupied with delving into the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, one can answer the question, “how ought I to live?”
In other words, in terms of values or ideals or goals.
And this is, after all, a philosophy forum.
Again, you’ll either go there [in an intelligent and civil discussion] or you won’t.
Either way, I won’t stop reading your stuff.
For now though, I’ll put this in…the sandbox? But I am more than willing to shift gears and have the discussion in the philosophy forum.
In the interim…
I tend to relate examples like this to the manner in which, in any given human community, there appear to be but three options [in a world sans God]:
1] might makes right: Folks do whatever the fuck they want: if they have the brute power to do whatever the fuck they want.
2] right makes might: Folks do what they might do but insist that what any rational human being might do is what they do.
3] Democracy: Different folks have different opinions regarding what different folks might do and they agree that, through moderation, negotiation and compromise, they will concoct laws that are ever rooted in shifting political narratives.
Works the same for things like suicide too. Or homicide for that matter. Even genocide. Or any other human behaviors in which folks come to conflicting agendas regarding the “right thing to do”. I merely suggest that much of this is rooted in the manner in which I reflect on the existential nature of human identity, conflicting value judgments [rooted in conflicting goods] and political economy.
I’m not asking you to “accept dasein”. I am asking you how, with respect to value judgments of your own that come into conflict with others, your own particular rendition of “I” is not entangled in this:
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 every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.