My point of course is embedded more in the manner in which your hatred here either is or is not what I construe to be an “existential contraption” rooted in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Or, instead, using the tools of philosophy [or science] is it possible to determine if all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to feel hatred for it.
After all, given this Brave New World, any number of individuals might support it if for no other reason than that “for all practical purposes” they greatly benefit from it. Or they have managed to think themselves into actually believing in an ideological justification for it. Or they are sociopaths who go along with it on the surface because they are able to sustain a life that furthers their own selfish interests.
Same with the coronavirus/vaccination arguments. There are those who insist that their collection of facts attached to their own objectivist moral and political font precludes anyone not sharing their own conclusions from being rational and virtuous in turn. Whereas “I” see how both sides – many sides --can cherry pick particular sets of facts that allow them to reconfigure the debate such that it merely reinforces their own existential predispositions and political prejudices. Predispositions and prejudices that, in my view, are embedded subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.
“I” myself here am more “fractured and fragmented” than you are because I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy [in my signature threads] differently from how you do. Though I am certainly not suggesting that my assessment here is more reasonable than yours. At least not necessarily.
It seems to me your recent posts imply that if people were more like you - non-objectivist - things would be better.
On the contrary, over and again I point out that, so far in the 21st Century, the “show me the money” nihilists who own and operate the global economy inflict at least as much if not far more human pain and suffering around the globe.
Demonstrate that so all rational people will agree. And if you can’t demonstrate that to all rational people, why do you allow yourself to do it?
Again, over and over I note that my own assessment here is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That in fact I am not able to demonstrate that what I argue seems reasonable to me here and now ought to be reasonable to others.
And yes, I know, you are not saying that everyone should do what you do: but here’s the rub: you have strongly implied that there is no reason for you to try things unless someone can convince you that every rational person should. Well, who did this to you about posting online? How did you manage to convince yourself?
Bullshit. I have noted time and again that my actual options are limited insofar as being able to go out into the world and try new things. And I argue less that others are obligated to convince me that all rational people are obligated to try new things…and more that they try to convince me that they are able to demonstrate the worth of their own arguments here.
I think people tend not to want to look at certain things, I try to make it hard for them to dismiss them. I think this gives a better chance for the world to be more as I would like it. If people are more willing to entertain the likelihood that power will be abused in ways most people’s intuitions decide only happens somewhere or somewhen else.
Okay, but given what context? And how is what someone likes not a manifestation of how I construe that as the embodiment of dasein? And “intuitions” in regard to what situation? How much closer are intuitions to objective morality than to the subjective parameters I ascribe to dasein?
There is tremendous moral judgment of anyone who thinks major evil acts are not being revealed by the mass of media. I think this group is sometimes right and that post explains a bit how I deal, practically with achieving my wants. It is one specific type of reaction to what behaviors related to political agendas.
The mass media is no less an existential contraption rooted historically, culturally and experientially out in a particular world given particular political prejudices. And, given the capitalist political economy, dollars and cents. And all I know for sure about the MSM is they take in an enormous amount of income each year from, among others, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industrial complex, the big banks, the Wall Street community.
You have also expressed that you cannot understand why I am not F & F like you. I think our differing approaches are related to my being less F & F. We both seem to think I am less F&F. Of course such things are very hard to tell over the internet and even in person. But my sense is that since you are looking for utterly compelling universal and objective moral arguments, this gives you extra burdens.
My best guess is that this is rooted in the sheer complexity of any particular human personality. All of variables that go into the making of my own psychological reaction to human interactions involving identity, value judgments, and political economy, as opposed to yours and others.
But here in a philosophy venue it seems reasonable to argue that given my own understanding of these components, not being fractured and fragmented just doesn’t make sense. It’s only a matter of how “broken” one feels with regard to any set of circumstances.
Also, I’m not looking for objective moral arguments so much as exploring the arguments of those who say that they exist. And, in turn, noting the consequences of those who insist that their own political agenda is rooted in them…and, subsequently, have acquired the power to force their own agenda on others.
Finally, as I note time and again, moral nihilism creates and then sustains an existential reality whereby one is not anchored to a rigid, dogmatic font – God or No God – requiring one to always do the right thing. Or else.
Nihilists always have considerably more options when choosing behaviors.
For better or for worse.