Sure, it can be argued that the function of philosophy is [technically, analytically] to examine the language that we use in our interactions. In other words, to examine the extent to which our utterances are either in accord with or not in accord with the logical rules language. Or in examining the extent to which we either can or cannot [epistemologically] know something.
The philosopher then becomes akin to the scientist, exploring the extent to which something either is or is not true…either is or is not factual…either is or is not verifiable…either is or is not falsifiable.
And of course my point here is to suggest a distinction that revolves around the limitations of philosophy. A “professional philosopher” might eschew examining your relationship with the woman because he/she concludes that this is not something that philosophy ought to concern itself with.
And I agree. In a world sans God, value judgments like these are embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy; as this has evolved historically, culturally and experientially.
But that doesn’t change the fact that you want to be involved with someone who will not be involved with you unless you make that existential leap to her own point of view regarding what you do to earn a living.
And it doesn’t change the fact that those aspects of human interactions most likely to “make the news” are the ones that revolve precisely around that which philosophers may well be [in the end] impotent regarding.
So, with respect to those instances in which your values do come into conflict with others, what is the role of philosophy?
And how are the values that you do hold [and defend here] not by and large the embodiment of dasein, in a world of conflicting goods, and in a world such that what really counts is the extent to which you have the capacity [power] to enforce your own subjective narrative/agenda?
In fact, we may well basically be on the same page here. In other words, I agree: these are more [far more] political than philosophical problems.
But: what of those who insist that their moral and political values are not embedded in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
From my frame of mind, some objectivists here want it both ways. They want to argue that philosophers are unable to propose deontological solutions, but at the same time their own values are still said to reflect the only “natural” or “ideal” manner in which a reasonable man or woman ought to behave. And that in turn their own sense of identity is not an existential contraption at all but reflective of who they really are.
Still, within the domain of philosophy are the ethicists. And then, either through God or through Reason…either through philosophical realism or political idealism…any number of them have crossed that line and proposed one or another narrative/agenda implicating actual flesh and blood human interactions out in a particular world.
Is that foolish of them? Or are they just being pragmatic regarding that question which most preoccupies us: How ought one to live in a world where value judgments are ever and always coming into conflict.