This thread revolves around the moral narratives of those who embrace one or another God.
You of course don’t.
For you “progressive” behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.
Yet you are telling us that in the course of livng your life from day to day over the years, you are unable to recall a specific context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with anothers.
A context in which you are able to flesh out/illustrate the points that you are making scholastically above.
As I was once forced to with respect to John and Mary and abortion. A fundamental context in my own life because, in conjunction with William Barrett’s “rival goods”, my own embodiment of objectivism began to crumble.
I’m simply trying to grasp how your ideas might work given a particular context. If not one of your own then one that we might all be familiar with in following any number of conflicted goods “in the news”.
Not in other words something like this:
I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer’s standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.
Here the relationship between knowing and doing revolves largely around the either/or world. The results are clearly calcuable in that you either do or do not become a great tennis player.
But, again, shift the discussion from that to the arguments [pro and con] about parents who take their kids at a very early age and try to shape and mold them into great tennis players. The controversy surrounding the “sports parent”. 24/7 some kids are made to live and breathe tennis.
Or some other sport.
Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? What would constitute a “progressive” parent in this particlar context?
The sort of controversy that swirls around things like this: huffingtonpost.com/john-oas … 50790.html
And yet everytime I try to bring these things down into the realm of day to day human interactions in conflict…
How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?
You basically respond like this…
There are many perspectives to “right practices.”
Your problem is you don’t even have the concept of “right practices” within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed “right practices” [non-intellectualizing].
All I can do then is to point out just how far removed we are from forging this exchange into a substantive discussion of conflicting goods in a No God world.
Then this:
You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.
Or:
You do not have a dilemma because you have managed to think yourself into believing that you have exhausted all of the necessary knowledge and views. And in the course of living your life from day to day you are wholly in sync with that.
And this brings you comfort and consolation. It brings you equanimity. And some day down the road when everyone else shares your knowledge and views, they too will all be doing the same things.
And, who knows, it may even be possible that you will actually be around to see this happen.
How confident are you of this?