Again [and again and again and again]: What on earth are you talking about? How are Martin Seligman’s Capital Letter Words applicable to conflicting human interactions derived from particular sets of conflicted goods? Here’s a guy who argues that “pessimistic labels lead to passivity, whereas optimistic ones lead to attempts to change”. Okay, fine, but what specific change in what specific context based on what specific assumptions? And my own pessimism is rooted philosophically in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of these words:
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.
Thus, only when folks like Seligman are willing to take their “general description” abstractions down off the skyhooks, and engage in the sort of discussion that I am aiming for, will the arguments become considerably more substantive.
You claim this:
I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.
Yet [in my own opinion] you refuse to demonstrate this in an exchange revolving around a particular context in which particular value judgments come into conflict. Instead you have constructed this far more “progressive” world that may or may not actually unfold “in the future”.
In other words, “here and now” it’s all in your head.
And then we get to what I argue are basically intellectual contraptions like this:
Note the typical saying’
If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].
Perhaps you are right about me. But I can only conclude the things that I do based on what I construe to be a reasonable frame of mind. And my dilemma above seems reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of the components of which it consist: dasein and conflicting goods in a world sans God.
Sure, your “optimism” is always going to be more palatable for “humanity”. But sooner or later actual rules of behaviors will be legislated. And then enforced. Should they be more in sync with the “liberals” or with the “conservatives”, with the “capitalists” or with the “socialists”, with the “individualists” or with the “collectivists”, with the “big government” folks or with the “small government” folks?
Now, you have that all worked out in your head. Another ideal Republic perhaps. But what of those who share your craving for optimism but insist the Republic must go in an entirely different direction?
The parts that unfold out in the real world that has [time and again] been grimly, grusomely unfolding for thousands of years.
I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more ‘hygienic’ and more healthier.
Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.
Your own.
It is not a matter of ‘right’ per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.
Note to others:
What “on earth” do you suppose he means by this? In other words, given your own interactions with others. Interactions in which conflicts occured over incompatable value judgments.
Is there a way in a Godless universe for philosophers to prescribe and proscribe behaviors deemed to the optimal or the only rational manner in which to interact?
That’s the discussion I can’t yank out of him. At least not so far.
I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font [foundation] mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.
There is only the existential “I” coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human community.