You and I. Or any others here who wish to intertwine the words that serious philosophers use in their disciplined technical discussions with their actual experiences with others out in a world teeming with conflicting goods.
Did folks invent philosophy all those years ago so that flesh and blood human beings could grasp only the “technical” aspects of human language/communication: “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.”
No, I don’t think so. But what has any of that to do with what I am saying? You think it’s all fucked up that we can’t know whether or not abortion is wrong, ever since god died. I’m telling you that even when god was alive this was usually all fucked up. Even the catholics used to allow for grey areas. Read some history. Read Roe v. Wade, for that matter.
All this demonstrates [to me] is that with respect to morality, you and I are both inclined to focus in on those grey areas. But they can be grappled with either intellectually or existentially. Though most are still inclined to embrace morality objectively. With or without God.
And even “fucked up” is an existential contraption. For some it is precisely those grey areas that allow them considerably more options in choosing behaviors. The objectivists either do the right thing or they don’t.
But few folks here are inclined to explore the possibility that, with regard to conflicting goods, being down in a “hole” is actually a reasonable frame of mind. Let alone that in examining them it is analogous to “ever-changing NFL rules”.
Or that construing “I” as “fractured and fragmented” may in turn be a reasonable perspective given the manner in which I have come to understand the “self” in the is/ought world.
But: Only when language like this is embodied existentially [contextually] are we likely to sustain exchanges that have any practical usefulness in our lives. And this is either important to us or it’s not.
Or [sooner or later] would this technically correct knowledge have to confront those “strict principles of validity” that revolve [existentially] around assessments of “I” out in a world of conflicting goods rooted in one or another extant configuration of political economy.
No offense, brotherman, but this makes absolutely no sense. If there is no “I” there is no logic to begin with.
I’m making a distinction between I in the either/or world in which “strict principles of validity” are anchored to, among other things, mathematics, the laws of nature and objective empirical facts, and “I” in the is/ought world where countless objectivists have insisted that their own moral and political narratives are, in turn, anchored to “strict principles of validity”.
Those “strict principles of validity” begin to crumble and “I” as an existential contraption is more readily appreciated. Well, by some of us.
Logic is applicable to all of us. But there are any number of human interactions in which logic is only useful up to a point.
Yes, but this spectrum is no less situated out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And the rules of behavior that are chosen are, in my view, no less the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Of course it’s situated in “a” particular world - the world itself. The only world there is. I don’t know who you are arguing with here, but it is not me.
Come on, we all live in a particular world called planet Earth. But each and everyone of us experience this world such that there are endless conflicts regarding what is said to be or not to be true about it.
My own assessment of it revolves the components I note above. And, so, what I deem to be a reasonable set of behaviors [here and now] is derived from them. But what about others? Do they take into account those components themselves. Yes? No? Okay, let’s shift the discussion to a particular context. Let’s take the words out into the world.
So, imagine then someone who professes to be a “serious philosopher”. What “technically” can she tell us about these flesh and blood interactions when they come into conflict over value judgments? How would she assess each point on your list above as they are pertinent in a particular context?
This is about where you usually go off the rails. Philosophers use a “technique” in reasoning. So, a valid argument is “technical”. So… what can a philosopher “technically” tell us. You’re confounding technique with substance, form and function. It’s like you read what I write, what other people write, through Google Translate. You almost certainly are doing this deliberately. Ignoring an argument is not winning one.
Okay, but there is still that gap between what serious philosophers tell us about logic, rational thought, epistemologically sound assessments etc., and the extent to which they can show why/how all of this is relevant to human interactions that, in regard to what is of interest to me, come into conflict over value judgments.
Technique and substance, form and function in regard to what particular set of circumstances?
And the arguments I tend to ignore are those that stay up in the clouds. And, by and large, in my own opinion, yours certainly do.
You can’t possibly know this.
I can if “to know objective values” makes no literal sense. That’s the big secret that you and objectivists are equally unaware of.
Again: What on earth does something like this mean? No “literal sense” in regard to what?