In your head, you think there is a difference.
But in practice, what is that difference?
In your ‘philosophy head’ you think … if I had free-will, then I would be able to choose otherwise.
But in practice, there is no going back. In real life everything is a one-off event. Even if you had free-will, you would not have an opportunity to make a different choice.
But going back does matter out of the box, out of the design that duplicity Heiddegger defined. Qua duplicitous in-its-self.
The way back is not on the level of demonstrating in a world of intrinsic/extrinsic split between the general categories that divide the world into either inclusive or exclusive content.
Realizing vast series of underlying sets of sub-plotted schemastic series, underlying vastly gaped choices of meaningful options, the cognative reflex, which at one point was still manageable by ‘dasein’ which is tantamount as saying ; decision making on a conscious level- the underground reflexivity of decision reflexivity is that has attained an unconsciousness that determines choices fir the most part.
That reflectivity is the mirrirored literal subjectivituwhich limits narcissus perception to stay within the matrixes limits within the box of his consciousness.
Going back and undue this limitation, through uncovering the man behind this mirror will terminate the allusion of time being taken literally , as if, transcendence meant the usd of some machine to overcome the reflexive immanance which permeates this appearent difference
The inability to “go back” is not the only issue.
A person with free-will makes decisions for a reason which are based in the environment.
Even if that person could go back, he/she would have no reason to make any other decision than what he/she made previously because he/she would be in exactly the same environment.
‘’
Just for the record, the part he left out:
Yes, and how is that not also the case in regard to all of the other issues that pop up “in the news”. Those on the left have their facts and figures and arguments, those on the right have theirs. And everyone else in between.
Now, is there a definitive set of facts and figures and arguments that pins down the optimal or the only rational “final answer”?
Sure, if there is a God and He is omniscient. And if He reveals Himself to the world and tells us what we are required to believe if we want to go up instead of down.
But what of mere mortals in a No God world? Should we just assume that those on the left or the right or in between have the optimal or the only rational set of facts and figures and arguments. Does noting that you are in one or another Coalition of Truth settle it?
I merely suggest that in the absence of a font able to provide mere mortals with the optimal or the only rational “final answer”, many come down where they do on the moral and political spectrum [re covid and every other “conflicting good”] based largely on…
1] the historical and cultural context into which they are “thrown” adventitiously at birth
2] their indoctrination as children
3] their unique set of circumstances putting them into contact with one particular trajectory of experiences rather than another
Let’s call this common sense.
Simply split?
Quite the contrary. When it comes to pinning down the “final answer” that any of us might give in regard to covid or abortion or the role of government or just wars etc., there are so many variables embedded in both the either/or and the is/ought worlds, that none of us are really able to sort through them all in order to come up with the “final answer”.
Indeed, for all of us there will be any number of variables we are note fully aware of at all, or are not fully in control over.
I simply make the distinction between those who lump both the either/or world and the is/ought world into one or another Coalition of Truth.
Go ahead, ask them whether in regard to the facts and figures or our reaction to those facts and figures in creating a moral and political narrative/agenda, if others are permitted to disagree with them? Let alone act against them.
In fact, “in practice” it is almost always a jumbled mess. That’s why democracy and the rule of law can get so complex and convoluted.
If mere mortals were in fact able to provide definitive answers to the questions you pose about covid then there would be no is/ought world conflagrations. There world simply be those on the side of the wholly objective truth and those who were not. Easily demonstrated.
It’s like FreeSpirit insisting that there is a God/the God and it is his God. The Catholic God.
Then one day the true Gods reveal Themselves to the world. It’s not a God/the God at all, it’s the Gods/Goddess of the Hindus: Brahma, Devi, Shiva, Vishnu.
No more my God/your God embedded historically/culturally, subjectively/existentially in dasein. It’s the real deal Gods.
That distinction.
Ask them to answer your questions about covid.
You were just saying that some things are true and false. Objective.
That you could demonstrate it to someone.
That would seem to apply to COVID.
But no.
Either you changed your mind or it only applies to who is POTUS.
No, I am suggesting that, in regard to covid being an actual virus or a complete hoax, as with whether Joe Biden is in the White House and, if so, is doing a terrific or a terrible job, some things are able to be more readily demonstrated to be true or false than other things.
So, sure, for those who insist covid is a complete hoax, let’s hear their arguments and see their evidence. And for those who insist that Donald Trump now occupies the Oval Office, same thing.
No God? Then this all comes down to that which mere mortals are able to establish definitively as true or false. It just seems rather obvious to some of us that this is more easily accomplished in the either/or world.
Though, sure, sans God, we can’t be completely sure that this thread itself isn’t merely a manifestation of one or another sim world, dream world, solipsistic reverie or taking the blue pill or the red pill: “a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth…or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill”.
Assuming of course it can be demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that we have any free will at all here in either submitting posts to the thread or reading them.
Given, for example, “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. 
Dasein is just a cover, phyllo. As long as you don’t address the question of why dasein, he will keep weaseling out.
Everything you are saying is true, but that is not what concerns iambalam.
He will keep weaseling out no matter what I say or do.
There is always the ignore button of course.
I can tell you have never received an “over and out” from iambiam.
Note to others:
Let him provide us with more detail regarding why one should believe that everything phyllo said above is true.
If nothing else it provides me with yet more opportunities to make a fool out of him. Though of course he does a rather fantastic job of that all by himself.
How big a fool you might ask?
Follow our exchange here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197446
Phyllo learning the ropes in order to master the art of Philosophy Pedro’s Corner Style.
He’ll soon be down to one or two “clever” words at a time.
Note to others:
No, seriously, what the hell happened to him? Perhaps my recollection is off but I remember the exchanges we had back in the day when Pedro’s Corner would have been almost unthinkable here. Back when he actually had something to say. Philosophically for example. At least with me. Now it’s mostly retorts. Or posts that scarcely qualify as substance at all.
As for him ignoring me, I’d consider it an honor.
As it were.
Pedro perfecting his Philosophy Pedro’s Corner Style artistry.
Only Mr. Reasonable comes even close to mastering it himself.
And his obsession with asses?
A new thread perhaps?
Anyway, I invite others to follow our exchange here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=197446
Let us know why you believe one of us is the bigger fool. Focusing on, for example, the actual arguments themselves.
Lol.
Hahahahaha “noooo nooo, please help me! nooo! I’m outta here!'”
Hahahahahahahaha.
Top this, phyllo!
Or, as Pedro himself might note on the Corner: checkmate!! 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
What a loser.
now he’s clout chasing trying to drop my name
when he says, “note to others” who does he think is reading all that? what others?