Note to others:
How do you think his point above [and Kilgore’s story] is applicable to my point below:
His clients may well have any number of conflicting points of view regarding the right way and the wrong way to love. Based on any number of conflicting moral narratives [God or No God] and political prejudices. Based on any number of conflicting sets of experience. Either he can tell them that in regard to their their interactions with others…interactions in which conflicting assumptions about love come into play…might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise are more applicable. But what we will need first and foremost is an actual context in which to share thoughts and feelings.
And even our interpretation of proverbs – phrasemix.com/collections/t … h-proverbs – is largely subjective. Is there always a right way and a wrong way to grasp them? Or is that too embodied subjectively in dasein?
Ever and always it depends on the context and one’s point of view.
Take number one:
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
When someone has done something bad to you, trying to get revenge will only make things worse.
Again, from my frame of mind, that you “understand” what it means does not make the way you do understand it the “right way” to understand it. It always depends on the particular context, viewed in a particular way.
Such that the stakes involved may be seen from conflicted points of view.
Quite the contrary, I want to bring the dialogue [in regard to love or anything else] out into the world of actual human interactions. And [on this thread] to speculate on the reasons why we choose the rules of behavior that we do here and now given the assumptions we make about the rules of behavior there and then.
And, in fact, I don’t know either. Only this is predicated on the manner in which I construe the meaning of “I” as the embodiment of dasein. My “I” here is fractured and fragmented in way that yours may not be. Why is that? This is what I wish to explore.
And then on top of that I have to contend with the uncertainty I live with even in regard to human autonomy itself!
Again, how is this not just one more “general description intellectual contraption”? What we need to do is to note our moral positions in regard to a particular set of circumstances and describe what behaviors we might choose. The assumptions I make here revolve around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
So, in regard to your current moral assumptions about aborting the unborn, how would you describe your own existential trajectory? As that relates to your beliefs regarding God and religion.
Again, wholly abstract. The bottom line out in the world that we live in is that convictions of this sort will often collide with the convictions of others who insist that the actual rules of behaviors and the laws in any given community be one way rather than another.
And, from my frame of mind, your moral “intuitions” are no less rooted existentially in dasein than theirs. Re either a God or a No God world.
This is the part in my view that the objectivists become most riled up about. Just as many reacted to Nietzsche’s “God is dead” prediction by insisting that God must exist, objectivists react to the components of my own moral philosophy by insisting that the real me in sync with the right thing to do must exist.
After all, look at the consequences for the is/ought world if both God and “I” are largely existential contraptions rooted in a particular world understood subjectively/subjunctively in a particular way.
Then we’re stuck. Why? Because, from my end, you need to demonstrate to me that you understand the manner in which I understand “I” as the existential embodiment of dasein in regard to individual religious, moral and political prejudices in regard to homosexuality down through the ages.