I know that in your head you’re convinced that this is an adequate response to the point I raise. But in my head it is not even close.
I guess we’re stuck.
You have either ingested all of the knowledge/information available pertaining to these relationships on planet earth or you have not. And while the speculations of those on other worlds is entirely hypothetical, any number of folks in the scientific community are convinced that they are out there.
Instead, you fall back on this:
Note I have been discussing with you 'ALL that is to be known …" is an impossibility. Thus in this case when I stated ‘all’ it does not mean absolutely. Note the contexts I have used it…
What seems an impossibility here is any mere mortal having access to all that has been experienced, written, discussed etc., about these questions. In other words, who knows what insights have been accumulated in the exchanges that we are not privy to.
Right?
Instead, what folks like you insist is that the information/knowledge that you have accumulated is just enough — just enough to make it possible for you to claim to know that what you know is all one needs to know in order to close the book on these mysteries.
Mysteries like this: bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 … ist-at-all
So, where does “I” fit into all of this?
Now, the God folks simply create a shortcut here to one or another Creator. And, dispite your protestations [here and elsewhere], you are not able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does not in fact exist. Other than pertaining to and predicated upon the assumptions embedded in the arguments in your head.
Or so it seems to me.
And then back up into the scholastic clouds bursting at the seams with “general descriptions” of…of something.
What is a Literature Review?
A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, dissertations, conference proceedings and other resources which are relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory and provides context for a dissertation by identifying past research. Research tells a story and the existing literature helps us identify where we are in the story currently. It is up to those writing a dissertation to continue that story with new research and new perspectives but they must first be familiar with the story before they can move forward.Purpose of a Literature Review
Identifies gaps in current knowledge
Helps you to avoid reinventing the wheel by discovering the research already conducted on a topic
Sets the background on what has been explored on a topic so far
Increases your breadth of knowledge in your area of research
Helps you identify seminal works in your area
Allows you to provide the intellectual context for your work and position your research with other, related research
Provides you with opposing viewpoints
Helps you to discover research methods which may be applicable to your work.
How on earth does this pertain to the “intellectual integrity” of the arguments that I have raised on this thread?
Your seemingly sole reliance on “dasein” [the corrupted version] is definitely not sufficient.
The above basis is objective.
Objective pertaining to what? Let’s choose a context in which value judgments come into conflict. And then explore attempts made to resolve them in either a God or a No God world.
On the other hand, we are clearly at odds regarding the “practicals” here:
If you don’t like the intellectual and philosophical bit, you can take short-cuts to a state of equanimity via drugs, e.g. prozacs, various tranquilizers, hallucinogens. The short-cut way has potential side effects.
The above are the practicals I have proposed. So don’t keep accusing me of being a intellectual maniac.
I can only call them as I construe them. And don’t I point out over and again that the problem may well be me not understanding your own particular rendition of a “right makes might” world?
I’m just trying to connect the dots between conflicting human behaviors here and now and this imagined future of yours where objective moral interactions are finally achieved. And achieved not pharmaceutically but philosophically.
I agree a qualified mechanics must be very knowledgeable of the necessary knowledge and skills to repair a car or a specific type of car. But note, even the best professionals would NOT dare to claim they know 100% of the knowledge of their profession.
No, but the point is that an automobile is constructed out of parts that are put together in a particular way. And this is true for all of us. One can then imagine someone with a knowledge of this. And having this knowledge, could repair the car. It’s all encompassed in the either/or world. At least to the extent that science is able to grasp it here and now.
And while a mass transit system is itself able to be built [and then repaired] in the either/or world, there are any number of conflicted political agendas in the is/ought world that tug us closer to or further away from a world in which automobiles are replaced by them.
You cannot compare the make up with human inventions [< 200 years] to a human being which has evolved from 4 billion years ago.
Note the difference between parts a car and the 100 billion of neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses in only the brain and other complicated parts of the human body.
It is ridiculous to compare them in this case.
Ridiculous perhaps in a wholly determined universe. But in a universe in which the human species is said to possess at least some measure of autonomy, where are the philosophers/ethicists able to concoct the definitive argument regarding the political prejudices revolving around those who either do or do not want to replace cars with mass transit systems?
The parts that comprise the car or the subway are able to be noted objectively. But what about the parts embedded in the conflicting goods here? Then we are back to the gap between the knowledge/information that any particular one of us might accumulate here and all of the knowledge/information that was, is or ever will be exchanged by all of those who have thought about this.
What key insights might we never have become aware of?
Opposites and conflicting views are inevitable, e.g. dualism, Yin-Yang, Newton’s third law, antinomies, etc. The challenge is how to hold both opposites in mind and yet live to optimize one’s well being, that’s the Middle-Way.
Okay, but there are still two ways to interpret this:
1] my own Middle-Way reflects the optimal frame of mind prompting the optimal human behaviors
2] I am right given my Middle-Way and you are right given your Middle-WayAnd that [in my view] is where democracy and rule of law comes to reflect the “best of all possible worlds”.
Just not excluding the historical imperatives embedded in political economy.
There you go challenging merely for ‘challenge’ sake.
There is no your Middle-Way or my Middle-Way. It is a general principle of life not to be stuck to one extreme all the time.
Your approach is definitely not the Middle-Way especially when you deliberately ignore and not wanting to know the other-way.Dualism and opposites are inevitable and inescapable in life and one must embrace and toggle between both sides where necessary but stick mainly to the Middle-Way.
All I can do here is to point out how hopelessly abstract this is. Unless and until we bring one or another existential rendition of the Middle-Way down out of the clouds and discuss it pertaining to an actual context, we’re just batting words back and forth.
Although, for some, I suspect, that is really the whole point.