Let’s presume this is directed at folks like me.
Over and over and over again, he and his ilk refuse to acknowledge the extent to which I make a distinction between the self interacting with others in the either/or world and the self reacting to the behaviors that others choose by either approving or disapproving of them through one or another set of moral and political value judgments.
Let’s note as an example something that has now become “big news” of late. Trump nominating another conservative to the Supreme Court, prompting others to argue for the need to “pack the court” with more liberals.
Does Satyr actually believe that in regard to facts that can be demonstrated to exist for all rational men and women, I am arguing that the self here is an illusion? That if in fact the new conservative court overturns Roe v. Wade, the selves of those women who might be criminally prosecuted for murdering their unborn babies is all embedded in “I” as an illusion?!!
Trust me: The “dissatisfaction” experienced by these women will be anything but illusory.
No, instead, my point is to suggest that the “I” embedded in any particular set of circumstances relating to the facts that can be demonstrated to exist in regard to any particular unwanted pregnancy is indeed a flesh and blood product of the evolution of life on planet Earth.
Genes are everywhere here. But what of the part when different people in different sets of historical, cultural and experiential contexts react to these biological imperatives with very different sets of moral and political value judgments.
What of “I” then? What here can be ascertained as in fact true objectively? And how do Satyr and his ilk demonstrate that only the manner in which they construe nature here reflects the most rational assessment?
So, let’s see if he actually addresses the specific points I raise here. Either in regard to packing the court or abortion. What political policies here are deemed by him to be most in sync with nature.
Stay tuned.