It all basically revolves around this:
1] In the “here and now” I – “I” – am entangled in a dilemma that pulls and tugs me in conflicting directions. There does not appear to be a way [for me] to choose behaviors as anything other than existential leaps to one or another political prejudice. In other words, I don’t have access to this:
- there is a “real me” that transcends contingency, chance and change
- this “real me” is in sync with one or another understanding of “virtue”, “truth”, “justice”
- “virtue”, “truth”, “justice” as embedded in one or another rendition of God, deontology, political ideology, nature
But: How to convey this grimly fragmented “frame of mind” to those convinced that they do have access to it? Especially given the further conjecture that the access they embrace is more reflective of a psychological defense mechanism [comfort and consolation…a foundation] than a quest for truth and wisdom.
2] In the “there and then” I – “I” – tumbles down into oblivion — into nothing at all for all of eternity.
Now, how on earth am I ever going to have access to possible alternative “frames of mind” other than by coming into places like this and exposing my own?
I just don’t get the part that you don’t seem to get.
Nobody seems to be “down to earth” enough to satisfy you.
When someone provides details, then you either ask for more details or you don’t understand what he is saying.
All I can ask of folks [like Jordan Peterson and those who endorse him on this thread] is that, with respect to their own particular value judgments, they provide me with a rendition of my abortion trajectory.
That’s detailed enough for me. Or, rather, detailed enough to get the discussion started. What on earth does it mean to speak of “self-valuing logic between humans.”
With respect to conflicting goods.
You don’t end up any wiser that the end when the discussion is over. You’re no closer to answering the question “how ought one to live?”. It’s a fruitless discussion. Right?
True. So far. Of late. But I recognize all the years when I was able to convince myself that I did know how one ought to live. As an objectivist.
Also, let’s just say that we think about “I” here in a world of contingency, chance and change, in very different ways. I suspect that when I use the expression “existential contraption” it precipitates thoughts and feelings “in my head” very much at odd with your own.
I merely speculate further that many objectivists react to me as they do [with open hostility, even scorn] because they recognize the implications of having to accept the possibility that I’ll yank them down before they yank me up.
But I don’t rule out either direction.