phyllo wrote: Is there a way then for "serious philosophers" to accumulate both logical asssessments and empirical evidence such that the optimal or the only rational reaction is reached? An obligatory reaction?
The "serious philosophers" ought to recognize the scope of the conflict and work to keep it within limits. At it's simplest, it's a case of correcting a student who makes a math mistake. Surely, it's relatively simple to agree that math mistakes, student mistakes in general, ought to be corrected. We want to minimize the "trauma" to the student. But a little trauma may be unavoidable in the process of education.
You would think it relatively simple wouldn't you? And yet there are any number of folks who embrace one or another rendition of the rugged individual surviving by his or her own wits in a dog eat dog world.
Boris either rises to the top or he doesn't. In the end, it's his own responsibilty. And he is never too young to learn this.
Here, I like to come back to this:
https://youtu.be/v1qtv7uKUlYNow, ideally, this is how we are supposed to approach competition: through cooperation.
You tell me though: what does that have to do with the real world of sports competition in America? And of competition on, say, Wall Street. Or in the courtroom.
My point is that your point or their point is embedded in dasein out in a particular world unfolding in a particular historical and cultural context.
That, in other words, philosophers don't seem able to consider both agendas [and many more besides] in order to come up with the optimal or only rational assesment. One in which, if one wishes to be thought of as a virtuous human being, one is obligated to embrace.
And, sure, in a racist culture the color of his skin matters. Or, in other contexts, gender, ethnicity, religious affliation or sexual orientation. All of these become embedded in "conflict" to make it all that much more complex and vexing.
And I would never argue that this is all "unsolvable", only that I have not come upon an argument of late that nudges me back in a direction [that I once embraced myself] able to demonstrate that it might be.
phyllo wrote: What's necessary is to remain focused on the core problem. That seems doable with "the tools of philosophy" in the case Boris. A complete understanding of life, the universe and everything is not required.
Right, and that's never embedded in particular political prejudices embedded in particular ontological prejudices regarding the optimal narrative embedded in one or another rendition of the philosopher-king: right makes might.
I'm only arging that moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] may well encompass the "best of all possible worlds".
