This just mimics our discussion of Communism. There are interpretations of various quality regarding that too. And the manner in which objectivists of you ilk differentiate meritorious assessments from mere blather, is to insist that there are two kinds of people in the world:
1] one of us [who grasp what Communism really is]
2] one of them [who don’t]
But you insist on making it black and white
No, that is what the objectivists do. I’m the one suggesting that interpretations in the is/ought world are derived existentially such that a definitive interpretation does not appear able to be pinned down.
You know, assuming any of us at all have any capacity at all to do anything at all of our own free will.
Huh?
Until the human species here on Earth knows definitively whether its capacity to use any words at all comes attached to the capacity to have freely chosen other words instead, all any of us can do is to take that intellectual/philosophical leap to one set of assumptions or the other.
Right?
Or, if not, where is the link to the argument linked to the demonstration that does settle it once and for all.
This sums up the extent of your probing - repeating this mantra no matter what anyone says.
Again, the same sort of dichotomy - one definitive answer or everyone is leaping to assumptions.
That encompasses your rendition of a sophisticated probe?!
In other words, bitching about me again.
I don’t throw away the tools of philosophy. I suggest only that, in a universe in which we do have some measure of free will, they are of limited use value and exchange value in regard to assessing particular human behaviors as [morally] either necessarily good or bad.