My points above are not assumptions per se [fixed for the purpse] but rather they are empirical possibilities that can happen in the future based on past trends.
And [it seems] that my own arguments [revolving around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] are only effectively challenged when one accepts that “in the future” your “quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place” is in fact confirmed to be prescient.
Yet what would that world begin look like with respect to one of the issues that I noted above?
It not prescient, but rather my forecasts are based on real existing trends from past years and the current trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in many fields of advance knowledge. [there is a need to go into details to understand its full range].
One good example of moral progress is there is no consensus to ban slavery [literally] and made it illegal in ALL Nations in contrast to what happened 100 years ago and prior. Something is obviously changing and happening in the brains of those who were able to bring such banning of slavery as Laws.
I believe with the Human Genomic Project, the Human Connectome [Brain mapping] Project and other advances, humanity will be able to understand what is going on inside the brain and find ways to progress expeditiously and optimally in a fool proof basis.
I don’t know about you but I am optimistic because I make it a point to follow up with the latest research & advances in Science and Technology as much as possible.
Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, the same conflicting arguments have been made about these very same issues. And now we have all of the new conflicting arguments that revolve around interacting with others in our “postmodern” world. A whole new set “one of us” vs. “one of them” conflagrations.
Do you claim you have analyzed all of humanity’s existing problems deep enough?
But my point is that folks on both sides [on all sides] of these issues claim to have accomplished just that. They have all gone “deep enough” to insist that their own frame of mind “here and now” reflects either the optimal or the only rational understanding of any particular one of these conflicted value judgments.
Just ask them.
I can’t agree with the above.
Around 90% of the 7+ billion are theists and the majority have not gone ‘deep enough’ except to rely of ‘only God knows everything’. This is very superficial and God is illusory.
Instead, I note right from the start that my own conjectures here are little more [to me] then just another “existential contraption” grappling to understand the lived relationship between “I”, conflicting value judgments and the role that wealth and power plays in enforcing any particular narrative/political agenda within any particular community of human beings out in any particular world historically, culturally, experientially.
And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, I may well [yet again] become involved in a new experience or a new relationship or come upon a new argument [here for example] that [yet again] reconfigures my frame of mind reconfiguring my behaviors.
But how “on earth” can I possibly know that any particular combination of these variables results in my having finally come to understand the meaning [or the purpose?] of Existence itself?
In other words, I still clearly recognize the enormous gap that must exist between
- what I think I know here and now and
- all that would need to be known in order to grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself.
Or to grasp the extent to which the is/ought world can be in sync with the either/or world. Or the extent to which human autonomy itself is even a factor in all of this. Let alone the place that God/No God fits in.
I merely point out that this is all likely to be applicable to you too.
I believe the ‘enormous gap’ is very relative.
In addition what is the fixed upper limit based on to calculate the difference, i.e. Gap.
Nevertheless, this ‘enormous gap’ [as perceived] can be narrowed by researching and reflecting on the necessary knowledge as much as possible.
Personally [as I have done] it is possible to understand [pending not necessary agree] and grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself and its associated existential problems.
Do you claim you have covered and understand [not necessary agree with] the necessary range of knowledge but find no rational answers?
I believe it is possible to find, understand and grasp the answers to ‘all’ the problematic questions relative to you which you have raised for yourself, at least in theory.
Perhaps you have not covered enough grounds of knowledge, reflect deeply to understand [not necessary agree with] their essential elements and principles.
Note those who pursue to deep deeper and deeper often change their philosophical views, example, rationalist Kant to empirical-rationalist Kant, early-Wittgenstein and later-Wittgenstein, early and later [the Turn] Heidegger, and others?
Theory is theory, but how to live up to the good ones is another set of more difficult issues.
The point is, in practice there will always be conflicting ‘goods’ but as the Gita advised, one should not be psychologically [emotionally] attached to any of them.