Perhaps, but many will go from the cradle to the grave and never once change their minds [significantly] about God. All I can do then is to note why that has not been the case with me.
I lost God in Vietnam. Existentially as it were. And for those who still believe in God, all I can do [realistically] is to ask them to speculate as to why this is a belief that all reasonable men and women might be inclined to embrace.
And then [on this thread] to probe how that belief plays a part in the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave.
A person who learns is changing. But that person is getting better at something. He/she knows more right stuff. He/she is better able to distinguish right and wrong. He/she is better able to evaluate.
That doesn’t happen within your dasein philosophy. Your “daseiner” just changes from one intellectual contraption to another. He/she never improves.How is that possible? Why is it only applicable to identity and value judgements? In every other human endeavor, a person who studies and practices… improves. Tennis, music, reading comprehension, etc …
Indeed, so one might surmise [from this] that as the believer gets older, she is getting better at justifying her belief in God. She is getting better at determining [evaluating] whether a behavior like aborting a human baby is [in the eyes of God] right or wrong.
And my argument is that the moral and political objectivist, embedded in one or another [religious] rendition of this…
[b]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”.
[/b]
…embraces a word like “improve” in order to solidify their conviction that their own value judgments are the right ones. This comforts and consoles them psychologically.
My point though is then this:
What happens when they bump into another who subscribes to the same argument that they use above in choosing particular values/behaviors, only to embrace values and behaviors that are entirely in conflict?
Which of their “improved” frames of mind is now more in sync with what is actually right thing to do? And how do they note the manner in which I probe these conflicts – re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – reflects a less reasonable set of assumptions?
In other words, my point of view revolves around the assumption that, with respect to playing tennis or musical accomplishment and reading comprehension, there are ways to actually test a word like “improvement”.
Similarly, a doctor is able to learn how to improve her skills when it comes to performing an abortion. But how is the ethicist evaluated in turn regarding her skills in judging the morality of doing so?
Now, if the doctor is a devout Christian, she might argue that abortion is a sin against God. She might choose not to abort on this side of the grave because she believes that such a behavior will result in her being sent to Hell on the other side of the grave.
And all she need do of course is to believe this. But what I suspect she is unable to do is to demonstrate why all other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe the same.
I can’t just change my mind about this because it bothers folks like you that of late I haven’t.
It’s not the fact that you don’t change that bothers me … it’s the fact that you claim that you want help with your dilemma, but you dismiss all suggestions without much thought or effort. You don’t consider them. You don’t even temporarily go down some hypothetical path.
Again, that’s you making the assumption that this assertion is true because this is what you have come to believe is true about me.
I don’t believe it is true at all. But then we are both “stuck”.
That’s certainly true.
And please note an example of how you imagine that I might go down some hypothetical path here. I’m not sure what you are getting at.
Or maybe you just get hung up on my polemical bent. Or the part where I use these exchanges to entertain myself while waiting patiently for godot.
Yeah, that’s part of it. But think about this … maybe you don’t really want a solution to your dilemma, maybe you only want entertainment and distraction while you wait.
Well, if you understood the manner in which I construe the extent to which I – “I” – can actually accomplish something like this, you might be considerably less persuaded.
With respect to the relationship between my identity, my values and my capacity to effectuate change pertaining to the political economy that we know today as Trumpworld, it is hard for me to imagine myself any more fractured and fragmented.
But [I suspect] you don’t really get that part at all.
And [in part] because you don’t want to.