philosophy and psychology: the Objectivist Syndrome

You’ve made a false assumption. I think more spirit or consciousness is imbued as the brain or mind develops and more brain or mind is imbued as the spirit or consciousness develops.

She can still choose to have an abortion at 1 to 3 months, she just has to pay a small or large fine, it’s not like we’re holding a gun to her head, lest she chose to have an abortion at 7 or 9 months.

That’s their fault, they should have considered that before not wearing a condom.

…or, the fine could be relative to your income.

I should also mention that I’m not advocating we be precisely in the middle on every major cultural and philosophical dilemma, just as Aristotle wasn’t arguing we eat 50 apples of the 100 set before us, rather, that the truth is usually more/less in the middle. The middle is somewhat relative.

Let’s be blunt. Out in the real world the law reflects [by and large] the policies and the agendas of those who have the wealth and the power to enforce them. We live in the Bilderberg world. And as such the arguments of philosophers are often quite moot. Especially regarding economic and foreign policy issues.

But with respect to “social” issues—abortion, capital punishment, gender roles, gay marriage, gun control etc.—there are real opportunities for give and take. In other words, actual legislation often does fall somewhere in the middle of the moral and political spectrum.

If you are in the political arena—the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government—you can choose compromise and work with those who are willing to compromise in turn. Beyond that the complexities will soon overwhelm you.

Yes, there is always that. We draw different lines in different places at different times. But if you will not compromise here others will not compromise there. And each of us must accept the consequence of that. Sometimes there are only winners or losers. Other times we all get something but no one gets everything. That’s the way of the world depending on the extent to which democracy and the rule of law is embraced.

The tricky part here though is I may believe these issues cannot be resolved objectively but if others believe they can be [or have been] then, from their perspective, it is true. And, again, this is crucial because we base our behaviors on what we believe is true and not on what necessarily is true [or can be demonstrated to be true].

And there is not much likelihood of my changing their minds because they have too much invested emotionally and psychological in any particular Truth Teller. Or they might even see themselves as the Truth Teller.

iambiguous wrote:

1. For whatever reason initially you take an interest in philosophy
2. As time goes by you find yourself increasingly pulled into exploring the Big Questions systemically, as a discipline
3. Over time you gravitate towards particular philosophers and schools thought
4. After a while you are convinced these thinkers and perspectives express the Most Rational Philosophy of all

Sure. But this is a manifestation of dasein. Everyone is different. They are indoctrinated with conflicting beliefs as children. They internalize different experiences, relationships, sources of information etc.; and, thus, they may or may not avoid this particular sequence.

iambiguous wrote:

For some, it reaches the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and pirposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self

That’s why I noted “for some” at this stage. These are often the most zealous True Believers. They wrap their whole world in the words they embrace. The Rands, the Hitlers, the Lenins, the Maos, the Christian Evangelicals, the Muslim jihadists. These folks are invariably the most dangerous people in human history. Why? Because their intentions are purely noble [in their minds] and they are often willing to employ any means to achieve the glorious ends.

Some people do because they assume abortion is immoral and it is immoral because it violates some aspect of the Truth Telling they embace. Legislation and morality are profoundly intertwined to them. They believe laws must be enacted to punish those who transgress the values of the True Believer. It then just depends on the historical and cultural and experiential narratives the Truth is embedded in. For some the moral/legal font here is God, for others it is Reason.

iambiguous wrote:

I champion moderation, negociation and compromise myself. In other words, democracy and the rule of law.

Because democracy and the rule of law are predicated on the assumption there are no philosopher kings able to ascribe either deontological prescriptions or proscriptions to Truth Telling. The law is subject always to any new contingencies and changes embedded in the historical, cultural and experiential evolution of the human species.

So there’s the answer to your question, no?

That assumption is your Truth Telling, though, yes?

Regarding the relationship between abortion, law, morality and Truth Telling, there is my answer and the answers of those who don’t share mine.

But this just brings us back to the limitation of language in discussing these particular relationships. It is like Nietzsche insisting the opposite of truth is not a lie, it’s a conviction. And then someone asking him if he holds that point of view itself as a conviction.

I recognize I can only make that assumption as point of view. And I can’t exclude myself from my own philosophy regarding relationships that can only be expressed as points of view. Which is how I view discussions of morality and truth telling.