Yes, but isn’t this just another intellectual contraption by and large?
On the other hand, it is possible to explore the “unknowns” by attaching an analysis to the actual physical universe that we live in.
For example, consider these two documentaries from the Science Channel:
sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … ark-energy
sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … ark-matter
Now, you tell me:
1] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why there is something instead of nothing?
2] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why it is this particular something?
3] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding any possible teleological component in the cosmos?
4] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?
Sure, you can attempt to “analyze” all of this “in more detail”. But eventually in my view you do reach the parts that we don’t even know that we don’t even know yet.
Then what?
Whatever you want to claim as real [dasein, absolute “I”] it has to be empirically known by empirical proofs or it is empirically possible but yet unknown [no objective knowledge of it yet].
All I can do here is to note the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread…
…and then to ask others to note in turn how this assessment – an admitted existential contraption – is or is not in sync with their own understanding of “I” out in the is/ought world.
I think the whole lot of points above can be reduced to your concern that the “here and now” cannot be ‘there and then’ in the future.
Note Hume’s, one cannot get an “is” [empirical now] from an ‘ought’ [future from reason].
I believe this is very obvious that whatever is now [even justified knowledge] cannot guarantee it will happen in the future, Hume again, i.e. no certainty the Sun will rise tomorrow morning!
Yes, that cruicial distinction between “cause and effect” and “correlation”. But there are things about “I” – time and place of birth, genetic factors, particular sets of experiences and relationships, access to particular knowledge etc., that would seem to be facts.
In other words, things encompassed in what some call “objective reality”. And while we have no way in which to know for certain that in the future these facts about us will remain unchanged, most of us are probably willing to bet that they will stay the same.
My focus is always on “I” in the is/ought world. Not the fact of our behaviors but the manner in which the choices that we do make are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Thus when you note that…
Therefore you cannot use the above is/ought dilemma to counter that what I proposed will not happen in the future.
What is of concern is whether what I proposed is feasible or not based on the arguments and evidence I have provided.
…I have no clear understanding as to what “on earth” you are talking about.
My point is that there are behaviors chosen by particular men and women relating to a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. Once the behaviors are chosen they become facts. Or, rather, as close to objective truth as we are now able to fathom given Hume’s skepticism above.
And only when you are willing to anchor your “arguments and evidence” in an experience that you have had with others — one able to illustrate your point — is it likely to become clearer to me.
As for the rising sun, it either will or it will not rise tomorrow. But who is going to argue that the sun has a moral obligation to rise tomorrow?
My proposals [empirically possible] presented here is based on existing proven practices based on evidence, trends, objective principles, and other valid knowledge. I believe it will produce positive results for humanity in the future [when the possible conditions are established].
Back again to this:
…you and I “here and now” of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around [in the future] to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.
So it is always relatively safe to speculate about the future. It’s like the global warming debate. Most scientists are making dire predictions about the future – about the there and then. But the folks who profit in sustaining the way things are in the here and now have their own “experts” willing to argue the opposite. Now, 50 to 100 years from now the tale will be told. But where will most of us be then?
And that’s before we get to those who care only about what’s in it for them now. The moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy for example.
In a world sans God any behaviors can be rationalized.
Note the saying,
“If you failed to plan, you planned to fail”
Planning is a critical skill for all humans and humanity, what I have done is planning for the future now so that we can expect positive results in the future. I believe this the one of the intended purpose of philosophy-proper.
Still, the planning here will always revolve around what you have come to construe as “positive results”.
So pertaining to issues like…
hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of governemnt, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parential rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.
…what constitutes “positive results”?
How would arguments here not basically become political prejudices encompassed in narratives embodied in dasein revolving around conflicting goods?
Are you advising I should not propose such plans at all since what I proposed will not change anything now for you [especially] and everyone.
On the contrary, I ask you to choose a conflicting good and then propose such a plan. And then note how you aim to bring it about given that others will almost certainly object.
As the Gita stated, “Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action”
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated “Fight without Fighting.”
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.
Are these or are these not basically “general descriptions” attached vaguely to an imagined context “in their heads”?
Nope, the above are extracted from very deep reflection of what is going in reality and they are to guide humans in living optimally in accordance to their circumstances.
Okay, pertaining to Gita [“a 700 verse Hindu scripture in Sanskrit that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata”], one must “Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action”.
Note then for us particular contexts in which this would be applicable. Note particular interactions in your own life in which this frame of mind became manifested in the behaviors that you chose.
How would something like this…
Those who are mindful of the above put them into practice [represented by neural competence] in their daily life as spontaneous and as much as possible. To be spontaneous, one has to practice years of meditation and other necessary exercises. One can psycho-analyze it but that is only temporary.
…be described in terms of your own spontaneous behaviors? What does this mean given the conflicts that we are all familiar with right here between the conservatives and the liberals?
What lesson would they learn from the Bhagavad Gita so as to make these fiercely contentious debates go away?
What we need to do is to do one’s best and optimize at the present. For those who has concern for humanity, they could contribute whatever they can to create a better world for future generations.
From my frame of mind, given a Godless universe [an assumption], the “best of all possible worlds” is to eschew both “might makes right” and “right makes might” and embrace one of another form of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, an ever evolving political tug of war based on moderation, negotiation and compromise.
At least to the extent that this is applicable to a world owned and operated by those of wealth and power.
There’s no getting around political economy. Or, given the historical evolution of human interactions to date, there doesn’t appear to be.