Really, what on earth does this mean?
All I can do with folks like you is to note how obtuse, how abstract it is.
Then back to this:
Choose a set of conflicted behaviors out in a particular context that we are all likely to be familiar with. Which particular points will be made regarding which particular behaviors? What [in those points] can or cannot be demonstrated to be “good”?
Then we can discuss more descriptively, more substantively what it means to be a “functioning objectivist” in regards to our actual interactions with others. In particular, when they precipitate conflicts as a result of value judgments out of sync.
Perhaps the people you label objectivists ‘really’ or really deep down are not. Who knows?
That’s basically my point. I describe the manner in which I construe the meaning of “objectivist” out in the world of conflicting human behaviors. But: How can this description be any less an existential contraption?
All others can do is to note the manner in which I stray from the official, technical understanding of the word by “serious philosophers”.
Or, if they are willing to accept my understanding of it, note why they are not themselves an objectivist out in the is/ought world.
What we have to work with is words and actions. You decided to misrepresent what you said/did. I can’t be sure of the motive, but it was slippery.
Please, let’s bring this down out of the scholastic clouds and explore the words that we use in relationship to the world that we actually live in with others.
What words pertaining to what actions?
Instead, it’s straight back up into the stratosphere of analyzing language itself:
And then given your own dasein based philosophy, how would ‘you’ know what ‘you’ really meant when you acted like an objectivist?
In a word: Huh?