And look at you, reacting to my reaction as though your reaction is clearly the more appropriate one.
Well, given whatever it is that you are actually trying to convey here. Buying milk? Russian dolls? How on earth does that factor into an assesment of empathy relating to all of the many conflicting assessments of homosexuality as either moral or immoral behavior?
Again, imagine taking this sort of “argument” to a demonstration in which some champion homosexuality while others condemn it. From my frame of mind, it’s less a question of what someone’s “position” is on same-sex relationships, and more the extent to which their value judgments are largely existential contraptions rather that reasoned asssessments.
No, my frame of mind revolves more around grappling with the context. Why did I push the lady to the ground? What were my reasons? How was I able to rationalize/justify doing it?
Sure, I could simply argue that in an essentially meaningless No God world anything I choose to do can be rationalized. Why? Because I wanted to do it. For whatever reason.
But the crowd gathering around me will assess my behavior from within the framework of dasein. Unless of course a philosopher among them is able to insist that my behavior universally wrong. Or, given an objective account of the context, wrong in this instance.
Okay, so how would this philosopher then go about demonstrating this such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share this frame of mind. Especially, given that we live in a world where even things like genocide can be rationalized.
Yeah, but how does the fact that others convincing me of this become any less than an exchange of existential contraption? Either it was wrong for me to push her or it was not. Others hear the reason that I did so and judge. But not as God is able to judge, only as mere mortals are. Then it comes down to the extent to which you are convinced this is something for philosophers/ethicists to decide; or instead that each of us as indivuals in a No God world are going to react subjectively/subjunctively as mere mortals. Then it comes down to noting those behaviors in which an increasingly larger percentage of the population share the same assessment. Raping and killing children for example. That’s wrong.
But: In a No God world, is it necessarily wrong? And here our emotional reactions can just muddy up the water all that more. We become incensed in reacting to particular things but, again, are others obligated to feel that same sense of outrage.
About, for example, aborting babies, or owning guns or eating meat, or hating Trump?
Then an attempt on your part to “probe” my motivation and intention, while knowing almost nothing about the experiences, relationships and ideas that predisposed me to embody them:
How close is this to the “truth”? Let’s bring a team of the world’s most renowned psychologists and see if they can figure it out.
See if they agree with you that I am only “rehashing” dasein irrelevantly here. And ever and always my arguments here are aimed more at those who embrace an objectivist moral and political agenda. Using whatever particular font that appeals to them.
Instead, we get this:
And that settles it, right? Even though I articulated the ambiguities embedded in the manner in which I thought I was reacting to Pedro and Jack about homosexuality, your own assessment here is a better one. Or certainly a less “callous” one.
Besides, in a No God world what could possibly be more important than finding an argument that allows all of us to feel just the right amount of empathy about things like homosexually and abortion.
But, most of all, your reaction is simply better than mine. Let’s at least agree on that?
That and the fact that while you truly do read and understand my points, I clearly do not read and understand yours. Then back to lecturing people in a burning building about Dasein and/or dasein.
Here again we need to take this abstract assessment out into the world of actual conflicting goods. We can discuss my reaction to a particular set of behaiors and you can note precisely why I am guilty as charged here.
No, I broach particular contexts in which individual wants and goals have come into conflict. I then explore the extent to which these conflicts are embodied or not embodied in the components of my own moral philosophy “here and now”.
And, in particular, given that this is a philosophy forum, the extent to which the tools that philosophers have at their disposal either are or are not adequately up to the task of resolving these conflicts.
This takes us to what I construe to be the most wrenching component of human interactions in the world today: sociopathic and narcissistic personalities.
These, for example, include the “show me the money” moral nihilists that own and operate the global economy. It is ever and always their own wealth and power that sustains their own particular motivations and intentions.
The Trumps and the Putins for instance. Imagine discussing the components of our respective moral philosophies with them. And not “off in the clouds” either.
And then back once again to a reckoned to be astute psychological assessment of me:
Note to others:
Should I just throw in the towel here? Is this as rational assessment of me as there is ever likely to be?
Despite the fact that all we really know about each other is embedded in our reaction to a bunch of posts here.