From outsider’s daseiny thread:
All I am doing is proposing an argument that aims to explore certain aspects of human identity.
Here is the particular thread in which I presented this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Now, I’m not arguing that this is the most “sophisticated” way in which to think about human identity. And I am certainly not insisting that if you don’t share my point of view you are wrong.
Instead, I ask others to imagine folks using the tools of philosophy reacting to the points that I raise. In what manner are they not reasonable? In what manner are they illogical or epistemologically unsound?
And then I will pose to the moral and political objectivists a challenge: How is my argument [u][b]not[/u][/b] applicable to you when your own value judgments come into conflict with another.
But then any number of objectivists akin to uccisore avoid that altogether and make me the argument. Some will even resort to huffing and puffing, name-calling and personal attacks. Anything to avoid actually exploring the points that I raise in a serious discussion.
Again, I’m not arguing that my point of view here is necessarily more sophisticated than others. I am only noting the manner in which given the way that I think about these relationships “out in the world of human interactions in conflict”, I have become ensnared 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.
So, uccisore, how/why is this not applicable to you?
And how/why is it not applicable to moreno and turd and outsider and trixie and all the rest of the folks here who scoff at the mere mention of the word “dasein”.
What on earth is a “nihilistic epistemology”?!
Instead, as with others, my own argument here is based more on certain existential assumptions. Chief among them, the assumption that God – an omniscient and omnipotent font – does not exist.
And if God does not exist how then do mere mortals – actual flesh and blood men and women rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts – come to accumulate a particular set of moral and political values; and then demonstrate that their own assumptions are the ones that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to pursue.
And then I note the chief components of my own frame of mind here: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
So, where are the arguments from others able to demonstrate that my components here are wrong because their components are right. And that the components of their argument reflect a more reasonable assessment when grounded out in the world of actual conflicting behaviors?