This makes about as much sense as one might expect from you. Not that it isn’t true of course. 
Well, Durant’s epistemologists might argue that before we can discuss day to day human interaction we must first agree on that which can be discussed – discussed rationally, logically.
And that involves a technical understanding of the rules of language.
True enough. But sooner or later they have to be willing to take all that is claimed can be known about these things and plug it into our day to day interactions. And in particular [from my frame of mind] interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.
Are there or are there not limitations regarding what can in fact be known here? Objectively as it were.
Now, I’m not arguing that these limitations necessarily do exist. I’m only pointing out that I have not come upon any arguments of late that convince me that they don’t.
Okay, so why can’t I ever get you to do the same?
Yes, most philosophers will make the attempt to intertwine deduction and induction, rationalism and empiricism, phenomena and noumena, a priori and a posteori frames of mind. And yet to this day there are still hundreds and hundreds of moral and political conflicts that remain hotly in dispute.
Indeed, point to a single issue in which all philosophers are completely in agreement regarding behaviors that rational men and women are obligated to pursue.
And then there are the narcissists/sociopaths who root morality solely within the framework of their own self-gratification. Where is the “epistemologically sound” argument that obviates this point of view?
In a world sans God in other words.
How does this make the words that we use here any more or less connected to the lives that we live?
Where are the words able to demonstrate that the lessons you learned from your own personal experiences are applicable to all?
Note to others:
How is this an adequate rejoinder to the point I raised? A point that makes a distinction between abortion as a medical procedure and abortion as a moral issue.
After all, there are doctors who will all agree on the most rational manner in which to perform an abortion; and yet [like the rest of us] will be profoundly at odds regarding whether [or when] this procedure ought to be performed.
What particular experience in what particular context reacted to in what particular way?
And: What can the words that we choose encompass/describe/depict it more or less objectively?
This thread started out with some potential because it seemed to recognize that there are two ways to approach philosophical problems … grounded in abstract concepts or grounded on daily experience. The daily experience being the kernel of existence and the abstract concepts forming around the kernel and hiding it.
If one could get to kernel, then one would have a more practical, objective, philosophy.
I posted because I think that’s an important and desirable goal.
Unfortunately, the discussion is again being framed in the same terms that Iambig always uses. It’s the same jargon, the same approach, which prevents getting closer to the kernel.
This is a thread started by me. So by now most will no doubt suspect that the “gist” of the OP will revolve around the extent to which abstract jargon like yours [here] gets us any closer to the “objective truth” when that truth revolves around intertwining an epistemological framework and a moral/political agenda pertaining to actual conflicting human behaviors.
Over and again I ask those who embrace particular political values in the “society and government forum” to connect the dots between those values and the manner in which in the “philosophy forum” they encompass the nature of valuing itself.
In other words, the manner in which they make a distinction between subjective/subjunctive opinions [the ones “in their heads”] and objective truths [the facts that are applicable to all of us].
I merely ask them to bring all this “down to earth” in the manner in which I convey the meaning of that “in my head”.
That’s the part that you generally eschew altogether.
Again, most objectivists that I have come across over the years seem to assume that the “kernel of truth” revolves around their own “ideals”. And then [scholastically, academically, didactically] they “lecture” us on why/how the manner in which the conclusions that they have derived from their own personal experiences ought to be the conclusions that we derive from ours.
Always one or another rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the Ideal
3] I have access to the Ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World
4] I grasp the one true nature of the Objective World because I am rational
How are you any different?
Indeed, the one thing that we can almost certainly count on now is that you won’t choose a particular moral conflict of note and take it down to the intersection of epistemology and applied ethics.
Epistemology covers a lot of ground. It’s always going to produce a theoretical discussion.
To bring the philosophy closer to daily living, the scope has to be narrowed and the terms have to be accessible on a daily basis. Discuss one small aspect of epistemology and talk about it with the plain words of common experience.
In order to understand the limits of knowledge epistemology is a great place to start.
You’re the one using jargon, not me.
Just had lunch. What does epistemology mean to me now? What practical use is it on this wonderful day?
See what I mean:
Indeed, the one thing that we can almost certainly count on now is that you won’t choose a particular moral conflict of note and take it down to the intersection of epistemology and applied ethics.
I was referring how epistemology is a great place for the skeptic in understanding the limitations of knowledge.
I was talking about my opinion on the subject not yours.
Again with the same jargon. Again you ignore my point. Which, by the way, was about how one would make these philosophical discussions less theoretical.
Looks like we’re stuck then, doesn’t it?
We simply think about these things – these relationships – in two very different ways.
Or, as Mr. Lucas Jackson once put, “what we have here is failure to communicate”.
On the other hand, that way we both win!
Of course, that’s more or less my point, isn’t it?
So you are going to keep doing what you are doing in spite of the fact that it leads nowhere and people stop talking to you.
Sounds pretty silly but it’s your life. 
You don’t think that I gave you a clue about how to move away from theoretical discussions and into the practical?
I don’t see what I won. You had a complaint about philosophy/epistemology. I offered a way of looking at it and possibly making some progress. You rejected it.
I didn’t get anything out of it. I invested some of my time in order to help you out. It wasn’t helpful to you but maybe somebody else benefited. That’s life.
I’ll take my chances.
A clue? Sorry, I blinked an missed it. What I still need from you of course is an explanation for why this…
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion [like premarital sex] was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
…is not a clear example of how one might go about intertwining theory and practice pertaining to philosophy and value judgments.
Oh, and why you are unwilling [unable] to provide a similar chronology. Instead, you offered me “another way” to go about it. A way that does not actually involve intertwining epistemology and applied ethics out in the world of flesh and blood human interactions that come into conflict.
A “clue” to it all in other words. 
You grew up and people told you about abortion and other sin.
You went to Nam and people told you about abortion.
You read some books in college.
You talked to John and Mary.
You read ‘Irrational Man’.
You became embedded in existentialism, whatever that means.
Almost all of it is talking and reading rather than direct experience. The John and Mary part is the closest to direct connection between philosophy and day to day life. You may have actually witnessed their emotional reactions, although even that is not too clear from your account.
So, I don’t see very much practice … I see lots of theory.
I wrote a couple of times about my experiences living under communism and other political and economic systems. You ignored it.
You probably ignored it because I drew a conclusion from my life … communism is destructive and should be opposed at every stage. You know, I’m saying that there is a right and wrong. But you want to keep saying that there are two rights, depending on your assumptions.
I am glad that you asked for clarification, and i am more than happy to oblige.
Iamb, have you not seen the guardians of the galaxy (movie), in which a crossbreed type of creature (between humans and plants) named as Groot, answers each and every question with a single line - I am Groot?
You also more and less do the same. No matter what the issue of thread is, no matter who the poster is, no matter what the other person is asking/discussing at any given time, you just keep repeating those same lines, which you have been repating at ILP since ages.
Grooting kind of Philosophy!
Note to others -
As we all have been noticed more than many thousands times that our learned ILP fellow poster iambiguous has to cut and paste some paragraphs again and again. Thus, in order to make things easier for him, let us give some Grooting symbols to his those patent lines, as that would save a lot of time and effort of him and others as well.
Like -
We can call his above mentioned and thousands time repeated paragraph as I am Groot (1).
And,
In the same way, we call this I am Groot (2).
Now, iamb does not have to cut and paste the whole paras again and again. He can mention I am Groot (1) or I am Groot (2) instead.
Would it not be easier both for iamb and other posters also, besides shortening the lengths of the posts and saving some server space as well!
with love,
sanjay
with love,
sanjay