What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.
In a No God world.
Note to others:
I don’t read all of his posts. Has he attempted to demonstrate this to you on another thread? All I want to do here is to bring these assessments down to earth.
Think about it: How is it even possible for one mere mortal to “gather all of the necessary knowledge” when any particular one of us only has access to a tiny sliver of all the exchanges [experiences/information/knowledge] that our species has disseminated amongst and between ourselves over the centuries.
Then think about this:
There may well be be any number of key insights here that we are completely oblivious to. As this pertains to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.
Right?
Here you don’t grasp the manner in which I surmise that, psychologically, you too are merely concocting [in a world of words] the secular rendition of God and theism. A frame of mind into which you can subsume “I”. Why? In order to sustain “in your head” the comfort and consolation embodied in championing one or another TOE. Indeed, at ILP alone there have been dozens of them proposed over the years. They clearly cannot all be right but down to the individual objectivist, they are all argued to be the one true assessment of the human condition.
Still, as with most of the other secular [humanist] narratives, when you die that’s it. No immortality, no salvation, no divine justice.
But at least you can take pride in having both the Intestinal fortitude and the intellectual integrity of encompassing All There Is – as it really, really is – in a No God world.
And folks like me are deemed “weak” because we won’t/don’t display the same qualities. We are still groping for a way up out of an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.
You, on the other hand, have figured out how this all works. You understand God and religion [and why folks embrace them] wholly, fully, definitively. Not only that but “in your head” you have concocted the intellectual scaffolding from which mere mortals can derive absolute moral agendas in a No God world. As in fact they finally will “in the future”.
Here [of course] you speak of existentialism in an intellectual contraption. A “general description” of the philosophy. Okay, so let’s bring it down to Earth by embedding its components [as we understand them] in the is/ought world. In a context most here will likely to be familiar with.
In other words, “what in the world” are you talking about here:
From my frame of mind, this sort of thing smacks of pedanty. Almost as though you are imagining others reading it and marveling at how “deep” it sounds. How intellectual. But what on earth does it have to do with any actual conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods pertaining to a particular “human all too human” context?
Here you demur:
What “right practices”? In what context?
Then back again to this: How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?
Hell, you don’t even follow “politics”. In other words, so as to discern just how many conflicting goods still abound thousands of years after the pre-Socratics first broached [as philosophers] these interactions in the is/ought world.