Do or do not the objectivists argue that the only reason that conflicting goods exist at all is because the folks in the “one of them” camp refuse to accept the moral narrative/political agenda subscribed to by those in the “one of us” camp?
I’m just still confused regarding the extent to which your own assessment of things like Communism falls into the objectivist frame of mind. And, in turn, how God fits into all of this “in your head”.
You left out this part: But even here this frame of mind is no less an existential contraption.
In other words, I’m admitting right from the start that either with respect to means or ends, “I” is an existential contraption rooted in dasein rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
I left it out because it’s not relevant. A “moral nihilist” has to see that tolerance and intolerance are morally the same whether they are part of an “existential contraption” or not. Dasein and contexts has nothing to do with it unless you are defining “moral nihilist” in some strange way based on context.
Yes, a moral nihilist who is adamently convinced that moral nihilism reflects the most rational understanding of the “human condition”. But that’s not me. Moral nihilism as “I” understand it is no less an existential contraption. Despite that fact that some insist that “in reality” I am no less the objectivist than those I accuse of it.
Again: whatever the context might be, a doctor who performs abortion is constrained by the objective facts inherently embedded in human biology and human sexuality producing an unwanted pregnancy. That isn’t an existential contraption so much as a human contraption applicable to all of our species. Dasein here revolves around whatever actual facts can be established.
In other words, for those who do insist that others play their game by their rules, they might do so based on their assumption that it is the most rational thing to do; or on the assumption that good and bad here always revolve around “what’s in it for me?”
So who said that they can’t use those assumptions? Obviously, they can.
Yes, but in any particular community, there will be those with conflicting assumptions. Then what? My argument [re this thread] always revolves around those who insist that only their own assumptions are the rational and virtuous ones.
Then [in a venue such as this] are philosophers, ethicists, political scienctists etc., able to establish which set of assumptions are in fact the correct ones?
If so, then why shouldn’t the philosopher-kings determine what the laws ought to be with respect to prescribing or proscribing particular behaviors here?
Why leave it up to “the voters” in elections who may or may not be in sync with the most rational assessment?
Also, I never argue that any particular point of view here is either inherently right or wrong.
…
But what the objectivists cling to [in my view] is the assumption that what they do think and feel “here and now” is somehow in sync with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.
And there is nothing inherently right or wrong with that assumption. :-"
(And why not cling to it?)
Exactly! But that’s my point. Unless of course philosophers are in fact able to establish what in fact is inherently right or wrong here.
True. But, really, what else is there?
Tending your own garden. Examining your life.
Isn’t that what all us [objectivists or not] do? More or less. But what does that have to do with actually critiquing the components of my own arguments here? After tending their garden and after examining their lives why are they not down in the hole with me?
Indeed, and that’s why the moral and political objectivists are so intent on shoving all that shit aside. Whether others actually understand their thoughts doesn’t change the fact [for them] that when it comes to moral and political narratives/agendas, what they think is in sync with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.
So what? They can think whatever they want. There is nothing that can stop their thinking.
Yeah, but then some of them are in positions of power such that they are able to enforce their own agenda [socially, politically, economically, legally] on others.
And you still haven’t really addressed the manner in which I speculate that why they think what they do is embodied largely in dasein. Including what you think. About Communism and everything else relating to conflicting goods.
But it really bugs you.
But: from within an existential contraption that is “I”. From within the perspective of a fractured and fragmented frame of mind embedded subjectively/subjunctively in conflicting goods derived from dasein.