Oh the irony!!! My point of course being the opposite.
Or pretty damn close to it.
In order to obviate the complexities and the ambiguities that are embedded historically, culturally and experientially out in the “real world” [teeming with contingency, chance and change], the objectivists are obliged to create an idealistic narrative “in their head”.
That way “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” is gone. Right and wrong, good and evil now have a font. Sometimes it’s God, sometimes Reason, sometimes Nature.
And, sure, sometimes these truly bizarre combinations!!!
But the point is always to secure for themselves the comfort and the consolation that is found when “I” can be grounded in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
No, I am only noting [suggesting] this:
We can live in a world where the unborn is skullfucked literally in being aborted, or we can live in a world where pregnant women are skullfucked politically in being forced to give birth.
Conflicting goods.
So, where is the philosophical argument that makes this go away? And where is the philosophical argument that obviates the point I raise regarding the narcissist/sociopath in a Godless universe?
Coming from a Kid though, it’s just not the same. Instead, I prefer it when folks like James and Turd and Uccisore and Fixed Cross loath me.
If only from a distance. I can never seem to persuade them to actually explore the points that I raise here in a civil and intelligent exchange.
Like, for example, this one: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&start=175
I can only speculate that their distaste for me is rooted more in their concern that the points I make may well be applicable to them too.