Start with any particular orthodox religious denomination. Then, on the secular side, the Communists, the fascists, the anarchists, the libertarians, the globalists, the hardcore liberals and conservatives, etc etc etc
Or, as I often point out, it’s not so much what they believe that matters [psychologically] as that they are able to embody “I” in one or another existential contraption such that “I” is in sync with the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”. Some are just more fierce about this than others.
In general, I would say that objectivists don’t believe that everyone can be convinced and that there are significant differences between individuals and that errors in judgements will persist. Therefore, conflicting goods don’t go away, even for objectivists.
Then your understanding of “objectivists” is different from mine. Mine revolves around this – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And the extent to which someone divides the world up between “one of us” and “one of them”.
Though I would never argue that my take on all this is more reasonable than yours. That’s reflected in the part about dasein.
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.
So after describing yourself as a “moral nihilist” hundreds of times, you’re not actually a “moral nihilist”??
Doesn’t your butt hurt from sitting on the fence?
Look, only to the extent that “in your head” you are able to grasp the manner in which “I” construe “moral nihilism” as no less an “existential contraption” “in my head” are we likely to close the gap here. Or, of course, the other way around: me coming closer to your point of view.
But that too is reflected in the part about dasein. Unless and until philosophers – ethicists, political scientists – are able to grapple with these conflicting assessments and arrive at the one understanding that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace. Out in the is/ought world. In what I presume to be in turn a No God world.
Yes, but in any particular community, there will be those with conflicting assumptions. Then what?
Then there is a conflict between individuals and/or groups.
Then around and around we go: grappling with the implications of this given the components of our respective moral philosophies. And our respective understanding of God and religion.
But: Only here and now. My frame of mind is particularly keen on noting how in world hip deep in contingency, chance and change, “I” never stops being an existential contraption from the cradle to the grave.
And then oblivion.
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?
Why should it not be resolved by those who are experiencing the conflict? In fact, does it have to be resolved? Why does God or a philosopher-king have to provide THE ANSWER?
Well, my focus here on this thread revolves more around those who insist that 1] it can be resolved 2] that they have already resolved it and 3] that human social, political and economic interactions should/must revolve around their own resolutions.
After all, given that, isn’t the rest history?
I merely suggest that in the absense of either a God or a philospher-king, the “resolutions” revolve existentially around ever evolving historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
This is like the eternal search for the messiah. Why do you need a messiah?
Come on, either a God, the God, my God does in fact exist or He doesn’t. Either flesh and blood philosophers-kings do in fact exist or they do not. If either can be demonstrated to in fact exist why on earth would mere mortals settle for moderation, negotiation and compromise?
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.
That’s your point?? How can it be?
You suggested there was something wrong with this assumption: “…objectivists cling [in my view] to 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 I pointed out : “And there is nothing inherently right or wrong with that assumption. :-”
What the hell?
Again: my speculation here about objectivists is merely another manifestation of dasein – another existential contraption.
Whatever “here and now” I presume to be right or wrong [in the is/ought world] is always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and/or information/knowledge. I don’t exclude myself from my own of view.
On the other hand, what if there is something inherently wrong with my assumptions here? What if right and wrong do in fact exist? Either universally for all of us, or related to each and every particular context.
Note to others: what crucial point is he making here that ever eludes me?
I would never doubt that there may well be one.
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?
Looking to me to give you an answer for your life is not tending your garden.
Yes, that’s how you and others sometimes like to portray me here: “Help me somebody! Tell me how I ought to live here and now!! Tell me about immortality and salvation after I die”!!!
But from my frame of mind that tells us more about you [and them] than me.
Morally and politically, I am down in a hole on this side of grave. And I do believe that oblivion is the fate of “I” on the other side of.
So, for a few hours a day, I come into places like this in order to probe the narratives of those who do not think like this. After all, what have I really got to lose? And I can put on my polemicist hat and [in part] make a game out of it. Just one more manifestation of what someone once called “waiting for godot”.
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.
Yeah, life is unfair and there are things out of your control.
But to the extent that I might convince some that this can take the form of either the sacred/secular objectivists or the “show me the money” moral nihilists, I put my own teeny tiny dent into…what exactly?
Then it’s back to this:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles
Just don’t ask me to explain [fully] why the hell that is. It is somehow buried – deep – in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein. It’s what “I” do “here and now”. And only an extant God might actually be able to clear it all up. Or, perhaps, a philosopher-king?
But: the objectivists will hardly ever be all that concerned about this, will they? Especially those who somehow manage to link all this to a God, the God, my God.
Which with respect to you I am still entirely baffled regarding.
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.
People are the product of their genetics and their environment. I never said that they were not. But I think that genetics is the larger chunk in ethics and morality.
Okay, let’s bring that back to our discussion of Communism or abortion. In particular, the parts that might be clearly shown to not be the embodiment of dasein.