No, I’m pointing out the limits of logic when confronted with conflicting goods that are derived by and large from subjective/subjunctive assessments of the world around us. But even here only as this relates to value judgments.
Reasonable arguments can be made to defend abortion. Reasonable arguments can be made to defend the right of the unborn to live.
What then is the logical thing to do here?
And is it possible for men and women to derive conclusions here that entirely obviate the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?
If so, I’d like to hear some. I’d like to hear yours. But – when push comes to shove and the rubber meets the road – you “don’t know”. It’s “beyond your control”. It’s “not your decision to make”.
I’m just trying to grasp how that might play out in your head if you were ever confronted with an actual context in which an abortion was in fact being considered and you were confronted with conflicting value judgments?
As I was above with John and Mary.
Me, I am entangled in my dilemma. How, then, are individual objectivists that I come across not entangled in it. Or less entangled.
All I can do here is to ask, right?
Because those who embrace a pro-life frame of mind insist that one only “improves” their assessment/evaluation of abortion when they come to think as they do. The same regarding the pro-choice folks.
But to assess whether one is pregnant and then chooses either to abort the baby or to give birth, is [in most cases] able to be ascertained objectively. We don’t need God to tell is if someone is pregnant, or if someone does choose to give birth to the baby.
It only gets tricky here if someone is pregnant, induces an abortion to kill the baby, but tells no one about it. Here there is an objective truth but sans God it is a truth known only by the woman herself.
So, if abortion is illegal where she lives, she gets away with it. But, with God, there is no such escape, right? Why on earth do you suppose we need to invent Gods here?
Ignore particular contexts for the moment. You’re saying that there is no way to improve in any sense when it comes to identity and value judgements.
Sure, if you ignore actual existential contexts, actual abortions, you can construct an argument regarding the relationship between identity and value judgments that is, well, flawless. You merely insist that the manner in which you define the meaning of the words in the argument is the starting point for any discussion. And then you make sure that the words are defended only by more words still.
You know, like Satyr does here:
[b]"Judgment is the appreciation of the ideal, in relation to the real, or within the world.
It determines orientation and the path chosen.
Consequences, follow this choice and are the costs/benefits exposing the judgment’s quality.
Consequence is the outcome of the application of a judgment. If survived it forces an adjustment, unless it is protected from its own errors, in which case the costs are postponed, until they accumulate into an unavoidable reckoning." [/b]
And then when I ask him to defend this particular point as it might be applicable to a particular abortion, he…demurs? He merely eschews God altogether by reconfiguring Him into Nature.
Up until the bus hits you, you were either able to demonstrate to others that your skills had improved or you were not. But again this is often rooted in subjective frames of mind. A professional musician may be able to tell if you had improved whereas one with no background or education in music may not.
The musician is the one who is in a position to judge your ability. A scientist is able to judge the merit of a scientific theory or experiment and not some dimwit in the street. What’s astonishing about that?
Okay, but what musician [or scientist] is able to establish definitively that the music of Philip Glass is better than the music of Justin Bieber. That all rational men and women are obligated to prefer Glass over Bieber.
Or Mozart over Glass?
Objectivists of Ayn Rand’s ilk will actually attempt to establish “intellectually” how folk music or jazz are inferior to the sort of stuff that they listen to.
Again, I’m just trying to suggest that there are limits to logic when the discussion shifts from those things that can be assessed reasonably, to those things that are considerably more a matter of “taste”.
No, I am suggesting that with respect to a belief in God [on this thread] there are conflicting arguments regarding that which constitutes wise behaviors on this side of the grave and that which constitutes a wise assessment of one’s fate on the other side of the grave.
Then I ask folks like you to assess this as it relates to your own behaviors.
I’m talking about the nature of wisdom and you go off on a tangent about God.
Huh? This thread was created in order to discuss the existential relationship between that which is construed to be “wise behaviors” on this side of the grave, and that which [through one’s belief in one or another God/religion] is construed to be “wise” as this pertains to one’s assessment of immortality and salvation.
How on earth can one believe in God and not make that attempt to connect the dots between before and after one dies?
What it comes down to is : You’re saying that it’s impossible to be wise. Not it those exact words but you’re meaning is clear.
No, I’m suggesting that with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of language etc., wisdom seems to be embedded objectively in the world of either/or. That there are things able to be reasonably demonstrated as true for all of us.
Here the only problematic component is the extent to which it can be determined [demonstrated] that a God, the God, my God is behind all of it.
But, regarding the existential nature of identity, values and political power – the relationship between them out in any particular world – what can be determined [demonstrated] to be true objectively for all of us?
To understand whether someone is just bullshitting us you would need to be privy to his intention and motivation. You would have to either be inside his head at the time or know him well enough to tell that he is just bullshitting us.
No. That’s complete nonsense.
Bullshit: “talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.”
How [in any particular context] would this not revolve around the bullshitter’s motivation and intention? And how would we be able to grasp this unless we were privy to his motivation and intention?
Or if we know him well enough to reasonably ascertain that he is just bullshitting us?