That’s just common sense though. My point is the extent to which we are able to demonstrate that the understanding in our own mind is the understanding that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share.
Here as that relates to speculation regarding things that will remain forever in the universe. In what may well be but one of an infinite number of additional universes.
Thus I propose that there may well be limits regarding the extent to which our own definitions here are in fact in sync with the very ontological [and perhaps teleological] understanding of “existence” itself.
If they don’t care to have an understanding, such as yourself, it doesn’t matter how they define their words. But if they DO want to have an understanding, then they can gain one by defining their words such that an understanding is formed (the whole point in defining the concepts/words to begin with). If they find someone who at least claims that his words come together to form a solid, coherent, and comprehensive understanding, then perhaps the search is over. Investigate the coherency of his words to find out if solid under-standing has in fact been formed and found.
Again, what matters to me regarding the meaning/definition of the words that I choose here is in recognizing that they are entangled in an existential contraption – “I” – that necessarily reflects an “understanding” embodied in what I have come to think about these things over the course of my “lived life” up until “here and now”.
I certainly don’t profess a TOE that explains…everything? Let alone one – anchored? – to the Real God.
Or are you admitting that while you are right from your side, others may well be right from their side. Depending on which set of assumptions/premises reflects the one true reality.
I have stated that many times. If you were paying attention rather than ranting, you would have known that.
Pleases note particular posts in which you have acknowledged this?
As we well know, not many objectivists will.
After all, if you acknowledge that others may well be right [regarding both the either/or and the is/ought world] then you are acknowledging that you may well be wrong here and now.
That, given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge [in a world teeming with contingency chance and change], you may well change your mind completely about RM/AO and the Real God.
Are you acknowledging this?
And, if so, how far removed is that from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least insofar as that pertains to what does not last forever on this side of the grave.