Are you actually suggesting that given all of the materials written by all the different men and women in all the different cultures throughout the entire length and breadth human history, you have ingested everything?
Then there are all of the potential materials written by all the potential lifeforms on all the different planets thoughout the universe.
The multiverse?
And then there will still be the gap between this and all that any conscious being would need to grasp in order to be in sync with all that possibly can be known about “I” — I “out in the world”.
It is not what I “think” I have. This is very objective as supported by the books, articles I have read and discussions on the “I.” I am not claiming I have ALL knowledge of the “I” but have sufficient knowledge based on my research.
No, what you have [in my opinion] is “sufficient” information/knowledge “in your head”. You have managed to convince yourself that it matters not that you have failed to ingest all of the countless additional speculations down through the ages [on planet Earth] regarding the existential fabrication/construction of “I” out in a particular world.
Meanwhile, I readily acknowledge that my own conjecture regarding “I” is just another existential contraption rooted in dasein.
Instead, I am waiting for you to integrate what you construe to be the nature of human identity [philosophically, technically] into a particular context that most here will be familiar with.
In other words, how do your analytic assessments above actually work when your own value judgments come into conflict with others out in a world bursting at the seams with those who enforce moral and political agendas in sync with a philosophy that basically revolves around “show me the money”.
But, in my view, you avoid this sort of substantiation like the plague:
Equanimity is not about any argument.
Note the definition above, it is about maintaining a state of psychological composure regardless of how bad or good the situation and conditions one if faced with.To obtain a composure “sufficient state of equanimity” naturally one need to cultivate such a state over a long period of time. It is like developing a skill. Otherwise one can just psycho-analyse and imposed it upon oneself which is troublesome but necessary.
I had stated one has to venture into a sound philosophy of Morality and Ethics to get to the ‘Middle-Way’ on the issue of abortion or any other controversial issue. But it is not easy to get to a sound philosophy of Morality and Ethics unless one put in the effort and take care [suspend] of any habitual resistance that prevent one from gathering further knowledge on it.
As I had proposed the most effective way to get to the Middle-Way re abortion and other issues from the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is the Kantian platform [not the one you are stuck with re the lying casuistry].
How is this not just another “general description” of human interactions embedded intellectually in a world of words – words substantiated by yet more words still?
Note your own Middle-Way narrative/agenda regarding abortion or any other conflicting good of note. However tentative it might be “here and now”.
I agree a qualified mechanics must be very knowledgeable of the necessary knowledge and skills to repair a car or a specific type of car. But note, even the best professionals would NOT dare to claim they know 100% of the knowledge of their profession.
No, but the point is that an automobile is constructed out of parts that are put together in a particular way. And this is true for all of us. One can then imagine someone with a knowledge of this. And having this knowledge, could repair the car. It’s all encompassed in the either/or world. At least to the extent that science is able to grasp it here and now.
And while a mass transit system is itself able to be built [and then repaired] in the either/or world, there are any number of conflicted political agendas in the is/ought world that tug us closer to or further away from a world in which automobiles are replaced by them.
Note for example a doctor would not dare to claim 100% knowledge of his medical specialty.
Indeed, doctors who performs abortions may well not grasp in its entirety the biological imperatives embedded in the evolution of life on Earth. But they either do or do not sucessfully abort the unborn.
But what of those who argue that this is either moral or immoral? Where is the precise distinction made here?
As well, what is the precise distinction between “a clump of cells” and a “human baby”?
And I’m not arguing that this cannot be known, only that no one has convinced me here and now that can be.
And I’m not “demanding” 100% of anything. I’m merely speculating [on this thread] that if an omniscient God does in fact exist then He does know 100% of everything.
What then gets nearly unfathomably is in imagining a Godless universe. How would we even realistically begin to discuss 100% knowledge? Suppose, for example, Earthlings were the only intelligent life form in the universe. Next year the planet is struck by the Big One. A gigantic asteroid that obliterates all human life.
There is then no conscious/self-conscious life forms anywhere at all.
How does that change things?
Indeed, that is precisely what all of the folks who construct arguments like yours tell me. That is what you all share in common. You’re all positive that a way can be found [philosophically or otherwise] to arrive at the most rational human interactions. I merely have to “note the points above”. Then, like you, my “I” can be “well anchored and stable” in turn. By becoming “one of us”.
And even though I point out to them there have been literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of folks down through the ages all embracing one or another completely conflicting [or even contradictory] narrative/agenda like theirs, they still insist that theirs and only theirs is the real deal.
What else can this be called but the “psychology of objectivism”.
I once embodied it myself for years.
I wonder where you get the idea that a suggestion to maintain a state of equanimity and calmness with composure is a ‘dogmatic view’.
All I suggest is that if you are convinced that your own philosophical/moral/political narrative sustains some measure of equanimity/calmness/composure then, great, that works for you.
It’s just that when you bring this narrative to a philosophy venue expect that folks like me are likely to challenge it. If only in imagining that you might be able to yank them up out of holes like mine in order to share it with you.
The “dogmatism” [as I construe it] revolves more around the extent to which one defends his or her own narrative as the optimal or the only rational manner in which to understand, among other things, the “human condition”.
Then the narrative becomes attached to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
In other words, you are either one of us and think like us or you are one of them and don’t. And if you don’t you are necessarily wrong. Why? Because we are necessarily right.
You just have to ask them.
Opposites and conflicting views are inevitable, e.g. dualism, Yin-Yang, Newton’s third law, antinomies, etc. The challenge is how to hold both opposites in mind and yet live to optimize one’s well being, that’s the Middle-Way.
Okay, but there are still two ways to interpret this:
1] my own Middle-Way reflects the optimal frame of mind prompting the optimal human behaviors
2] I am right given my Middle-Way and you are right given your Middle-Way
And that [in my view] is where democracy and rule of law comes to reflect the “best of all possible worlds”.
Just not excluding the historical imperatives embedded in political economy.