What intrigues me most here is the extent to which you are self-conscious in shifting the discussion away from the interactions of flesh and blood human beings experiencing value judgments in conflict, to the sort of exchange that revolves basically around the analytic concerns of the “serious philosopher”.
Nailing it technically and then…and then what? Eventually that which is deemed to be logically and epistemologically sound thinking – either A or not A – has to be integrated into the subjective/subjunctive entanglements embedded in one or another politically correct narrative.
Instead, you seem far more comfortable with this…
Example [only to get to the point].
If like you having a college level Physics trying to convince Einstein is wrong in his theories on Physics are wrong.
or You are like a kindergarten trying to argue with a PhD, insisting you are not convinced by a PhD on mathematics that s/he is insufficient in his thesis.This is why I keep suggesting you need to widen and deepen your database in relation to the issues we are discussing here.
Here, I am completely at a loss regarding what this has to do with the moral ambiguites I introduce into human interactions re the components of my own argument.
These components do not appear to be relevant/applicable to the seeming either/or truths embedded in mathematics or physics.
With them one actually can widen and deepen their database. And there are problems to be solved here in which you either do or do not succeed.
Unless of course I am still misconstruing your point. Which is certainly possible.
I keep telling you I am not a philosophical objectivist, but you seem to persist to label [by implication or otherwise without valid argument] me as an objectivist with a ‘contraptions’ - a straw man strategy - so that you can feel good about it.
In the manner in which I convey the meaning of objectivist above, you are one. It’s just that you insist that technically there is but one meaning that all serious philosophers embrace. And to this I suggest that they bring this meaning out into the world of conflicting human behaviors.
And I don’t feel good at all regarding the implications of my own argument: that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world, one in which right and wrong and good and bad are largely existential contraptions evolving and devolving over time in a world of contingency, chance and change. And then the part about oblivion in a No God world.
What exactly should I feel good about here?