Well, I think at this point, it needn’t be said that I’m in the same boat as you where this is concerned. I would like to see an objectivist (or any philosopher) obviate this as much as you would.
I suppose–I mean, if we’re defining “I” in terms of “ist”–as in, I’m a determinist. When we realize just how fragile such an “ist” is in a world of varying opinions and value judgements, the “I” indeed begins to fragment, and we lose a huge chunk of it. We realize that I the determinist is grounded on nothing–nothing objective at least–and is a fraud. All of what your “ism”–your morality in particular–was rooted in suddenly evaporates and you find yourself standing on nothing.
Well, what I’ve been trying to say in this thread is that when I come into conflict with people–real conflict, the kind that poses a danger to me and makes me think: I’d better put up my guard–I don’t have a habit of bring my subjectivist theory to the fore, as if it is my primary weapon of choice–I save it for my writings (like my book) or my philosophical discussion with people like those at ILP–which can evolve into conflict, but I don’t think this is the type we’re arguing about here (is it?)–the kind that often means risking life and limb, the kind that leads to bloodshed and war. In the latter case, the last thing I want to do is argue for my theory about consciousness and why it is the foundation of being. Instead, I would think my reaction to such forms of conflict wouldn’t be all that different from anyone else’s.
What do you mean? You mean when we reach the point at which the “I” fragments because of the realization that our “ism” is vacuous? And then that “informs” us of what to do regarding the existential implications of prong #2 (conflict with others)?
Yes, what you’re talking about here is what I’m calling the “traditional objectivist approach”, and I would agree that “sans God, there does not appear to be a methodology available to [these objectivists] enabling them to resolve these conflicts.”
So what is your approach if not the traditional objectivist’s one? So far it seems to be an inquisitive one (to put it lightly); maybe an aggresively inquisitive one, aggressive because, I would think, one would have to be aggressive in forcing the typical objectivist to face up to the dilemma you pose–to admit to being in the same dasein boat as the rest of us, to seeing how his “I” fragments the minute he recognizes that he could have gone in the other direction, or might as well have.
But once at that point, there’s nothing for him to cough up (at least insofar as I can imagine)–he’s simply struck bear and made painfully vulnerable–I guess your strategy is to put him into that position in order to see what he does, to be surprised at what he might, after all, coughs up. But I’m left asking: what can one cough up when all the pressure put on one is to strip him of anything he might cough up?
But do you at least see how this approach I’m describing is an alternative to the one I’m calling the “traditional objectivist approach” (i.e. attempting to resolving conflict by arguing for the objective reality of what you believe in)?
Well, ideally, it would work best if both parties were cooperative enough to use the same approach (of looking for or inventing a new truth that works for both of them)–so my disclaimer is that it isn’t guaranteed to work with everyone–but supposing I was a pro-choice advocate and someone I come into conflict with was a pro-life advocate; if I somehow managed to get on their good side, I may persuade the person to work with me to come up with ideas that satisfy both our values. For example, I could propose that for every abortion a mother undergoes, she must legally find a way to incubate her fetus such that it stands a reasonable chance of surviving until it can be cared for by a foster parent (and then still survive, of course ). ← It’s kind of a Mickey Mouse example, I admit, but I hope it’s enough to get the point across. If the pro-life advocate is serious about the only thing mattering being that the unborn child has just as much a chance for life as any other child born in the natural way, then this should be reasonable. It satisfies her values, it satisfies mine.
Another example, taken from real life, is the sorts of ventures we’ve all seen wherein big oil companies cooperate with environmentalists. There are numerous ad campaigns that speak of “cleaner, more environmentally friendly, fuel sources” ← These innovations are inspired by what were originally conflicting groups–but somebody had the bright idea of putting aside the traditional approach of arguing for what was important to them against what was important to their opposition in favor of inventing a whole new argument that worked for both of them–if the big oil companies could continue to extract and sell oil in a way that didn’t harm the environment, then both the oil companies and the environmentalists could have their cake and eat it too.
Well, let me put it this way: if prong #2 can be summed as: conflict with others, then prong #1 can be summed up as: conflict with one’s self.
I realize there’s a lot more to it than that, but I think for our purposes that’s a good enough “rough and ready” interpretation.
Prong #2 happens all the time all around the world–it more or less arises naturally–but prong #1 arises only through the realization that you’ve made plain several times:
Notice that this ends with “I” fragmenting. So this realization, which few people come to despite their being enmeshed in prong #2, results in one being conflicted with one’s own self. The self “self-desctructs” so to speak.
Earlier in this discussion, I took you to be troubled (to be caught in the dilemma of) your own “I” fragmenting. I mean, I would think you of all people would admit that you too are caught in this dilemma. So you too must be quite familiar with being faced with the vacuousness of your own “ism” (if I may put it that way)–even if that “ism” is your existentialism/nihilism–and thus you are ever troubled by your “I” fragmenting.
Later I got the impression that this doesn’t trouble you so much, and it seemed to me that the reason for this is that I made the mistaken assumption that the force by which the “I” (your “I”) fragments equalled that which reinforced your existentialism/nihilism–but later it seemed to me each force was unequal; that is to say, the force by which your existentialism/nihilism is reinforced is just the volumes of evidence that exist around the world that we, as the human species, are steeped in conflict revolving around dasein and the consequent moral values and judgements that ensue. I mean, that’s quite undeniable as far as I’m concerned. The force by which one, or you in particular, is pressed to admit that the conclusions drawn from this–namely, your existentialism/nihilism–apply even to one’s self–that is, to the very existentialism/nihilism drawn (it is an existential fabrication/contraption like any other, after all) would, in principle, fragment the “I” (you, IOW, would be forced to admit that you, the existentialist/nihilist, are vacuous). But I eventually got the impression that, though this may be true in principle, that principle carries less force (i.e. is less convincing psychology) than the real-world evidence that we are indeed enmeshed in our own dasein-based existential contraptions/fabrications. Real-world evidence is often very powerful–way more powerful than principles and philosophical theories. Therefore, I soon abandoned my attempt to dig into prong #1 with you on the presumption that this really wasn’t a struggle with you. The evidence that your existentialism/nihilism is indeed correct seemed to far out weigh, at least for you psychologically, the (rational/philosophical) evidence that your own existentialism/nihilism, in principle, undermines itself.
A very long winded way of answering your question–I realize–but I guess my response is: since prong #1, to me, is just how I would think your quote above (about how the “I” fragments, and why) applies to yourself, I need to ask: are you mostly concern with how this quote applies to others or how it applies to yourself.
The only reason I feel I have risen above prong #1 is because my particular existential fabrication/contraption–the logic of it–is not self-destructing–it doesn’t draw conclusions that say: this very philosophy, with this very conclusion being drawn, undoes itself. Thus, my “I” doesn’t fragment–at least not so easily. What I’ve been trying to convey (obviously not successfully) is how this very philosophy of mine draws one to the conclusion that if only it just is and existential fabrication/contraption, it actualizes itself, not nullifies itself–it has the opposite effect (and I realize I haven’t given the full justification for how this works, but I’m just conveying to you the effect it has–at least on me).
And what more do you want to resolve the problem? Do you want everyone to be happy? Even the sociopath?
Yeah? That’s my point too.
Yes, because if the sociopath is not the least bit concerned with the welfair of others, then there is no other choice but to resort to “dog-eat-dog” mentality with him. Doesn’t mean that we have to commit to this mentality, just when dealing with the sociopath.
Well, sure, it’s an analysis, but do make a distinction between this analysis, which I contrived in order to respond to you, and what I would say to this moral objectivist whose argumentation with myself you would be interested in observing. Please realize that when you put this scenario forward–that of me having a discussion with a moral objectivist (presumably one with whom I disagree)–I can’t predict how I would respond. It all depends on what he’s saying.
You seem to be expecting that, in my response, I woud bring forward what I believe about my subjectivist theories. I’m trying to say that I wouldn’t necessarily bring forward anything about my subjectivist theories. What I’m trying to say is that my subjectivist theories allow me to move beyond what I actually believe (without rejecting what I believe) such that I don’t feel the need to convince the other of those theories. Instead, what I would do is focus on what they believe, and based on that, figure out what they need to hear in order to be persuaded by what I say to them.
I mean, maybe I can appreciate the fact that you want to hear what I would have to say if I were to attempt to persuade the other using the very logic and the actual contents of my subjectivist theory, but as I said before, I’m not 100% confident that this logic and this content will be persuasive at all–I mean, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Isn’t that what we both agree on? That nobody ever seems to be convinced of the other’s point of view if they begin in opposition to each other? That as hard as one objectivist might try, he will never convince another opposing objectivist of his point of view? So I don’t really have much motive to try (not that I never try)–coming to grips with this fact is what motivates me to move beyond it and try the next best thing: persuade the other based on his point of view.
Right, which is what I’m saying. The objectivist method can, at best, only result in bolstering one side at the expense of the other.