Sure, that is a good point. After all, I went through my own rather grueling existential “crisis”. One in which I was both tugged in the general direction of Marxism/Feminism and in the general direction of existentialism/rival goods.
Still, the folks I’ve aimed my arguments at here over the years are basically those who do embrace a hardcore objectivist frame of mind intertwined in a hardcore authoritarian personality.
And they’re not all just Kids either.
Only my aim here is deflected by the realization that even my arguments here are no less the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption.
This part of dasein:
[b]Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables—some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are “thrown” into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of “reality” suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
On the other hand:[/b]
[i]In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making. [/i]
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
Yeah, some have a more sophisticated grip on this than others. And some are considerably more wobbly here than others.
So, in exposing my straw man arguments, it becomes necessary for you to impose your own straw man arguments in turn.
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.
The irony in your correctly interpreting him as saying this is unfair (read: bad, evil, immoral] will be lost on him. He will simply saying that his calling this ap roblem is just another existential contraption. Of course if he actually believed that he would stop bemoaning the unfairness.
What’s lost on you is my assumption that what you think is lost on me is no less an existential contraption embedded in the assumptions you make about the assumptions you accuse me of making about you.
All I can do here then is to bring these assumptions down to earth and shift the discussion toward a description of our reaction to others who embody conflicting value judgments. And then challange our own. What are we actually able to demonstrate to others is “bad, evil, immoral”
Over and again I point to that which I construe to be “unfair” in the world. Only, unlike most others, I have come to recognize these reactions as political prejudices rooted in “I” as an existential contraption.
But: What if I am wrong? What if one or another rendition of moral and political objectivism is fact reflective of “the right thing to do”?
But: How can I know this?
Other than in coming into places like this and hearing the arguments [and descriptions of experiences] of those who clearly do believe that I am “down in a hole” for nothing.
He does not really want to include nature. He is implicitly a tabula rasa philosopher. It is nurture, period. Hence all his gibberish about ‘I’. When I call it gibberish, I am not dismissing the complexity of knowing oneself, let alone having anything like unity.
Quite the contrary. Over the years I have become increasingly more sympathetic to those that argue that “I” is more the product of those “selfish” genes than those “civilized” memes. Just look at the world around us and tell me the “id” is not holding the reins.
And not just the part about testosterone.
It’s just that “I” here is still able to go in any number directions given any number of particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. To speak of one tug and pull here without the other is ludicrous in my view.
Though this too is no less a manifestation of “I” as an existential contraption.
But he sees himself as a sort of holding tank for memes. And there is no possible way for him to determine, for example, what he really feels or thinks, because he is just a holding tank for the memes he has been exposed to. He cannot even determine his wants and desires. I have tried to point out that he has not tried to find out what is nature in him, but rather focuses on a third person view of himself and what ONE should do.
Again and again: What on earth do you mean by this?
Let’s try again take the components of our respective philosophies out for a test drive in which we explore our own reactions to those who embrace “political prejudices” at odds with our own.
What are the limits of philosophy here? Beyond what understanding are we likely not able to go?
You can start with that which you construe to be the most significant “contradiction” that I make in presenting my point of view.