No, it was you making the claim that I was making the claim that Nietzsche was an objectivist. Now that I’ve pointerd out that your claim was erroneous, you can’t admit that so I’ve still got to be the one who fucked up here:
I’m just sayin’. Cause like I said, I had to protest. Glad you are honest and humble enough to accept this mistake.
And incredibly enough this sort of thing doesn’t embarass you because you can’t even bring yourself to own up to the fact that the mistake was your own.
Then this part:
For example, how might someone who shares what he believes Nietzsche meant by the will to power situate it in the moral and political conflict that revolves around abortion?
Or around any other particularly well known set of conflicting goods?
Give it a go yourself.
No thank you, I have no interest.
Note to others:
Ask yourself why the folks here who react to me as Pedro does never seem to have any interest in this part:
[i]How might Rawls’s “method” be applicable with respect to the killing of the unborn? While I don’t pretend to understand metaphysically how any particular abortion is related to a complete understanding of existence itself, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that with respect to the law, political power and moral narratives, “distributive justice” is either more or less effective in responding to my point that value judgments are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
We? What “we” do here and now is to be the default in evaluating what others have done, do otherwise or ever will do? You simply exclude any and all religious or political or philosophical narratives that don’t overlap with the U.S. Constitution? And what does this document tell us about the existential relationship between “distributive justice” and abortion? Or, say, the Second Amendment. How might Rawls’s “methods” be applicable here?[/i]
Only, instead of Rawls’s methods/conclusions, I’m after their own.
Note to Faust:
In particular, I am after yours. Someone whose intelligence I actually have considerable respect for. Why? Because it exposes the fundamental weakness of my own position. And that is a lack of sophistication in grappling with the tools of philosophy as they might be useful in allowing me to yank myself up out of this fucking hole I have thought myself into.
In that regard, I truly do miss folks like Moreno and von rivers and only_humean. And I wish that ILP might somehow rid itself of both the Kids and the folks here who seem to use ILP as just another adjunct of the internet’s “social media”.
A philosophy board in which the participants really do dig philosophy. If only as an “existential contraption”.