Wow, people can really obsess over one word.
I used the word ‘concept’ in a couple of relies to Iambig and he really could not think of anything besides that word.
Maybe it’s contagious. 
This is so far removed from the point that I am making, it brings me around to speculating about the manner in which this is often actually the rule here.
In other words, not just between you and I.
Someone will make an argument. An argument that, to her, is seamless. Then someone else will react to the argument in such a manner she is flabbergasted at the gap between what she thinks she is saying and how others react to what they think she is saying instead.
But: relating by and large to the world of is/ought. The part where “I” and my value judgments come into conflict with “you” and your value judgments: out in a particular context out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
Thus, the difference between you and I [from my point of view] is that I have no illusions that my own values reflect more than just particular existential fabrications/contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
I don’t have God or Reason to fall back on. To, for example, comfort and console me. To ground Me in the world “naturally”.
Okay, I’m going to explain some of my reasoning.
It’s not even restricted to value or value judgements any more, in this thread.
In other threads you would write about the distinction between the statements “Obama was president of the USA” and “Obama was a good president”. You have completely lost that distinction in this thread (and others).
I can go to school, take a history class and learn whether Obama was president or not. I can learn about events that occurred during his administration - rates of unemployment, economic growth or decline, etc. I can learn facts about capitalism and communism in school.
But you don’t think so, which is why you write this :
This is the idea that there is no right and wrong to be learned about history or economics … that there are no fact in history or economics.
You reinforce the idea with this statement:
It ought to be possible to determine whether the external threat was real and whether a dictatorship was a reasonable response. But again, you are suggesting that it is impossible to reason about these historical events.
So in your view, history is entirely the product of dasein and perspective and there are no objective fact or “essential truths” in it.
If that is true, then how can the statement “Obama was president of the USA” contain any truth? One only needs to find some radical anarchist who claims that “Obama was not a legal president” and you have two equally legitimate truths. Which may be taught in two separate schools.
If you completely give up on reason and if you don’t agree that there is an objective foundation for reason, then any statement, no matter how bizarre, can become true. Even outright lies are the product of dasein.
The statement “Obama was president of the USA” requires the use of objective reason. The word “Obama”, "president"and “USA” don’t make sense without reason.
So if you say that everything in history is "“just particular existential fabrications/contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy”… if you don’t have “reason” to fall back on … then you are purely living in your own head, unconnected to any outside reality.
Really, will Carleas actually debate a Kid?!
On the other hand, this is ILP, right? 
I’m assuming this “adult” tattled on me twice…
Complaining that someone replied to him when there is no right or wrong…
Maybe it’s your turn to be banned…
I see you’re still using winks as a sign of social dominance…
Here’s my reply to you as long as you speak like this (it’s not philosophy)… You just speak:
“Ofpfuyspnlblvlf”
Okay, you have your collection of facts about capitalism and socialism. And you have the life that you have lived precipitating a particular set of personal experiences with both as well.
Others, however, with a political prejudice in conflict with yours, have their own collection of facts, their own personal experiences.
How then is the distinction that I make here “lost”?
In the links I noted above both sides have facts about the other side that don’t just go away when one or the other rendition of “one of us” prevails politically.
And, again, where is the philosophical argument that, having taken into account the components of my argument – of my dilemma – is able to provide us with a frame of mind that all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to share?
In other words, the argument that makes my dilemma go away?
Come on, when this is translated into the arguments of the moral/political objectivists we get this…
“If you examine the arguments of those who are not ‘one of us’ you will discover that their arguments are less reasonable.”
If not completely irrational.
No, history is a series of events that either are or are not able to be demonstrated as having unfolded in a particular way.
And then [culturally, experientially] history is a series of particular folks interpreting these events as either “good” or “bad”; as events that either ought to have unfolded as they did or ought not to have.
And that’s the distinction I focus on. What is in fact true objectively and what is more a matter of one’s subjective opinion.
After all, what else, “for all practical purposes”, can we fall back on when discussing…anything?
You believe something. Are you then able to demonstrate that what you believe all others are obligated to believe in turn?
Instead, you argue…
Well, if it is in fact determined that Obama was born in Kenya and was not legally presdient, then that does become a historical fact. But it doesn’t make his administration, his policies over the course of 8 years go away. And it doesn’t get us any closer to determining if any particular policy was more or less reasonable, more or less ethical.
But what reasonable man or woman would argue that he did not in fact occupy the White House for those 8 years?
What particular lie though? Pertaining to what particular context out in what particular world? I am not “giving up on reason”, I am suggesting that, given the components embedded in my dilemma, there are limits beyond which reason cannot go.
But even here I note [time and again] that I am myself unable to demonstrate this beyond the fact of my believing it “here and now”.
In fact, polemics aside, I participate in exchanges like this precisely in order to bump into arguments that might persuade me otherwise.
In other words, you say that I am saying “that everything in history is just particular existential fabrications/contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy…”.
I am not saying that at all. Instead, I go back to the distinction I make between that which folks believe [or claim to know] “in their heads” is true, and that which they are able in turn to demonstrate that all other reasonable folks are obligated to believe in turn.
I didn’t say anything about interpreting the facts learned about history as good or bad. But you already jumped here:
and here:
In both of which, you wrote about facts - not value judgement or interpretations of good and bad.
So, it’s clear that you are treating facts and value judgements in the same way - as being subjective judgements.
And again, you are evaluating the arguments about the historical facts through the perspective of personal feelings - us versus them.
Is there some context in which the lie is true?
If you need to ask these questions … if you can justify asking these questions … then you are living in a fantasy world in your head - a world without a true/false of any sort.
I don’t have to say any more. 
Ok, you asked a real question this time, so you’ll get a real answer …
If it’s objective that it’s objective; it’s objective
If it’s objective that it’s subjective; even the subject thinks it’s objective
If it’s subjective that it’s objective; the person still believes in objectivity
If it’s subjective that it’s subjective; the only solution after they cancel each other out is: objective
We are clearly failing to communicate here.
If John is about to be executed for murdering Jim, those on both sides of the political divide can agree on the facts: that at such and such a time under such and such a set of circumstances John did in fact kill Jim.
They all agree on the objective facts here. John flat out admits to murdering Jim; and it is captured on camera and in front of numerous witnesses.
But, given these undisputed facts, is it in fact then moral or immoral for the state to execute John? What set of facts would/could be collated by the ethicist into an argument that settles it once and for all?
Is capital punishment in fact moral or immoral?
Now, it is a fact that if John is executed many of his loved ones may suffer. And it is a fact that if he is not executed, many of Jim’s loved ones may be outraged. Both sides have conflicting renditions of what constitutes justice here.
And, again, both sides have arguments that can be said to be reasonable: deathpenalty.procon.org/
Arguments, in other words, that contain facts about the death penalty as it pertains to issues of race and class. As it pertains to the issue of possible innocence. As it pertains to mitigating and aggravating circumstances. As it pertains to particular political prejudices.
[b][i]Note to others:
Is this clear to you as well? What am I missing here regarding the point that he is making?[/i][/b]
No, a real answer [from my frame of mind] is one in which abstract assertions such as these are taken out into world of actual conflicting human behaviors, and shown to be relevant/applicable.
For example, with respect to the context above – John killing Jim, conflicting arguments that he be executed/not executed for it – how are your four instances pertinent?
What we know is that there is objectivity…
Though we may not always know the answer.
What you’re doing is trying to glorify yourself for being ignorant and/or lazy
Note to others:
So, what do you think? Does this reflect a reasonable response to the point I raised?
Or, instead, is this but one more example of how any number of “serious philosophers” here avoid altogether bringing their dopey scholastic contraptions “down to earth”.
Wow … Is iambiguous really asking subjects for feedback !!!
Hilarious!! 
It’s very simple. Can I go to school and learn objective facts about capitalism, socialism and communism?
Can I learn that the Soviet Union quickly became a dictatorship? Can I learn that communist governments inevitably descend into dictatorship? Can I learn about the abuses of power which are common under a dictatorship?
If the answer is yes, then I can use that objective information to make value judgements. If I find the abuses unacceptable, then I won’t pursue communism.
Sure, some people see no problem with dictatorship, murder, concentration camps, etc.
I will work against these people. I will attempt to prevent them from creating a communist dictatorship. I will use the resources available to me.
But it’s clearly not as you frame it : “us versus them” knowledge or “each side has it’s own facts”.
Sure you can. Just as the apologists for socialism can go to school and learn all of those nasty things about capitalism.
Then what? You dump all of your facts on them, they dump all of their facts on you.
And, again, that’s before we get to the hardcore political ideologues who argue that historically we have never really seen true communism or true capitalism.
All you are basically arguing here is that regardless of any particular individual’s personal experiences out in a particular world historically and culturally, it is possible – theologically? philosophically? politically? morally? scientifically? – to reason through to the optimal frame of mind regarding communism and capitalism.
For example, your own frame of mind.
And that all of those folks who don’t think about it exactly like you do are wrong.
Maybe even evil.
Only [of course] there are all of those objectivists out there who actually share this frame of mind but who insist instead that it is you that is wrong.
Indeed, that’s what constitutes a “demonstration” for objectivists of their ilk.
Either from the left or from the right, you don’t/won’t/can’t even recognize just how similar you are. Nor will most of you ever really probe the inevitable gap between the simplistic world as you imagine it “in your head” and the far, far, far more complex and convoluted world that we all actually live in in the course of surviving [precariously more often than not] from day to day.
Here’s the deal dude (iamb)
It is political to say that in order to eat a meal, you must eat a meal…
It’s objectively true too.
The politics is rationality vs. violence
You are on the violence spectrum
Okay. Good.
Then the fact that communism invariably becomes a dictatorship carries a lot of weight in an argument with a communist apologist. Or it should for anyone who cares about the abuses of dictatorships. It’s not a trivial fact. It has to be addressed by any advocate of communism.
I already talked about that.
To which you have no answer, no counterargument.
Instead you have a vague accusation of impropriety against me:
Kind of like asking me to answer the question : “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Or accusing me of antisemitism if I question anything that Israel does. Or racism if I question race policies, or homophobia if …
I just spent a bunch of time pointing out that there are objective historical facts that can be used to ‘demonstrate’ what a person is saying about communism and capitalism.
Your answer is to blow it off with a standard rant about ‘objectivists’.
Just to be clear … you see the world as it actually is and the objectivists imagine a simplistic world in their heads.
Well aren’t you great. 
Phyllo, he’s religious…
Subjectivism is his “god of the gaps”
Subjectivists argue that all heads are equal, yet somehow iambiguous would have you believe he transcended mind…
Isn’t that the opposite of subjectivism!?!?
He’s unravelling - obviously he knows that in order to type a message, you must actually type a message…
Objective fact…
He’s religious, and in denial, because this platform gets him attention…
That’s objectively true
Yeah.
People point out his inconsistencies (hypocrisy) all the time but it makes no difference to him. Eventually, they just stop talking to him.