But that just takes me back to pondering the extent to which I can ever be absolutely certain that anything I recommend was not just that which I was never able not to recommend.
Also, at the very least it would all need to be brought down to earth. To the best of your ability, you would need to describe gurlabada; and then attempt to explain its existential relationship to a world of fish in an existential relationship with the human species.
And then grapple with the part where you take a stab at determining [and then demonstrating] if your effort here was ever within your capacity to articulate and resolve autonomously of your own volition.
But [in my view] an answer to a question like this will take us back to the answers to questions like these:
1] why something instead of nothing?
2] why this something and not another something instead?
The hypothetical assumption is that, however these two questions are able to be answered, the aliens reside in a part of the universe where they do have the capacity think freely; while we on earth do our own thinking and feeling and behaving strictly in accordance with the laws of matter. The assumption here being that the human brain/mind is no less matter. Just a very, very unique kind of matter.
And it would seem that in a wholly determined universe anything deemed to be chaotic was only really being misunderstood. The quantum world is no less embedded mechanically in the laws of matter. We just haven’t figured out how yet. On the other hand, in a wholly determined universe, wouldn’t our attempts to figure things like this out also be no less mechanical.
For the aliens though, the laws of nature would allow them to grasp certain inherent continuities that are true objectively for all of them. In the either/or world. But what of the is/ought world? Even assuming their capacity to choose freely those behaviors deemed to be either right or wrong, how would the components of my own moral philosophy be factored into that?
If, on earth, we are in fact free to choose, that doesn’t make the part about dasein, conflicting good and political economy go away. Or so it seems to me.
Bingo. The age old conundrums/quandaries revolving around dualism. How are thinking and feeling connected to the material world? Through God? Through some qualitative leap in the evolution of matter that we are not yet privy to?
You can start by assuming instead that your partner is not obligated to agree with what you say in order to be deemed as making an effort to understand what you say. And then grappling with the extent to which both factors might come into play.
So, in “addressing” them, you are not suggesting that I agree with them?
If so [all the while assuming of course we do have some measure of autonomy in the exchange] note what you construe to be the most important point of yours here that I have not addressed.
Then together we can bring this point down to earth and examine it as it relates to actual human interactions. In either a wholly determined universe, or in one in which we are [up to a point[ able to freely choose what we think, feel, say and do.
How would human interaction in these two contexts be the same or different?