Over and again I make it clear that dasein can educe either positive or negative embodiments of nihilism. Yes, to the extent that I am entangled in my dilemma, I recognize the essential futility of any particular political prejudice that I might have come to embrace existentially. There are no necessarily moral or immoral behaviors. And the extent to which I embrace one or another personal opinion is rooted subjectively/subjunctively in the life that I have lived. Rather than through, say, a philosophical analysis a la folks like Plato or Descartes or Kant.
Or Nietzsche. The Übermensch is no less a political prejudice derived from a set of subjective assumptions that Nietzsche made regarding human interaction in Godless universe. Just as are all the political contraptions concocted by those who reject it.
But there is clearly a distinction to be made between “there is no God” and “largely rooted in dasein”. In other words, as this pertains to moral and political values. After all, someone might reject God but then merely replace Him with one or another rendition of Reason:
1] a dogmatic political ideology or
2] a deontological philosophical agenda
But, from my perspective, both approaches become embodied psychologically in this:
[b][i]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
[/i][/b]
And, in a more positive vein, once you come to recognize the extent to which your values are the embodiment of dasein [in a world of conflicting goods and political economy] you recognize that you are afforded considerably more options. After all, to the extent that you embrace one or another “value ontology” is the extent to which you always judge your own behaviors [and the behaviors of others] is either Reasonable or Unreasonable, Right or Wrong.
Instead of beyond both. You come to a particular conclusion regarding the “natural” way in which to live [in sync with the way in which you construe the world to be] and then you set about making that crucial distinction between “one of them” and “one of us”. Call it the Satyr Syndrome. But there are any number of folks here who are just like him. They simply argue that, “no, Satyr is wrong because he does not think like I do”.
Again and again: What on earth does something like this mean? Can you cite a particular context enabling you to demonstrate how it is not applicable to you?
We’ve had this discussion before. If, say, aborting you baby furthers philosophy more, you should abort it; if keeping it furthers it more, you should keep it. But how do you know? You don’t, you have to consider how it seems to you and then make a decision…
Do you honestly imagine that when folks embrace either of the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars, they are concerned with furthering or not furthering philosophy?
Instead, my point is that “how it seems to you” is embodied existentially in dasein. And to the extent some folks recognize this and try to “make a decision” they construe to be the most rational or virtuous [using the tools of philosophy], they are still entangled in the conflicting goods.
What are your own views on abortion? And when you bump into others who argue that your views are wrong [because they are not the same as their views] how is “how it seems to you” not entangled in my dilemma?
You say things like this:
It means I value self-assertion insofar as it’s self-aware–i.e., aware of the “fact” that it’s an assertion. What this means pertaining to my interactions with others I will leave, in part, to your imagination: what do you think happens when one asserts oneself as high-minded for such a self-aware self-assertion? But I won’t just leave it to your imagination, as this correspondence is itself an interaction of mine with another…
Note to others:
How is this relevant to the points that I raise? What do I keep missing?
Or is it – the Grand Scheme itself – meant merely to be ironic?
What does “merely ironic” mean when irony both means what it says and its opposite?
It means that one notes the existence of a Grand Scheme but their tongue is firmly in cheek.
In other words, they are really mocking the idea of any Grand Scheme relating to value judgments.
And I certainly do not construe my own arguments here as anything other than an existential contraption/fabrication — a subjective analysis rooted in “I” rooted in the manner in which I have come [here and now] to construe the meaning of all my accumulated experiences and relationships and sources of information/knowledge.