These are assumptions that, from my own frame of mind, still reflect the gap I note between what you think you know here and now about “empirical possibilities that can happen in the future” and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself in order to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.
My problem is that, sure, maybe what you think here and now is in fact what all rational men and women would need to think in turn…but I am simply unable to grasp it myself.
But how would either one of us then go about persuading others [including philosophers and scientists] that we can in fact demonstrate that our own assumptions are in sync with everything one would need to know about the existence of Existence itself?
That’s the boat we are all afloat in “cosmologically”. I merely speculate on those parts which seem more clearly in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above: interactions in the is/ought world.
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.
Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is “wage-slavery” in the form of one or another sweatshop.
Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.
So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your “progressive” assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?
And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?
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.
So then the question becomes this: The extent to which the latest scientific research and advances shape and mold your own value judgments or the extent to which you shape the latest scientific research and advances to fit your own political prejudices regarding all the issues I raised above.
These issues:
“hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of government, 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, parental rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.”
Note for us where the latest scientific research and advances is taking us with respect to a few of them.
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.
What it is relative to [in my view] is the gap between all that any one particular individual claims to know about Existence and all that any one particular individual would need to know about Existence in order to demonstrate that in fact he or she does know all there is they need to know.
And I’m here to admit that this is almost certainly not even close to being me. And that all of the many objectivists out there who do claim that, through either God or political ideology or philosophy or one or another an understanding Nature, they have figured it all out are almost certainly anchoring “I” psychologically to one or another comforting and consoling “foundation”.
Though I have no illusion that many here will own up to this gap I speak of. After all, I need but think back on all of the years that I was able to rationalize it away myself. And a part of me clearly wishes that somehow I could figure out a way to do it again.
So, for me, it comes down less to who is right and wrong here, and more to who is able to “think” themselves into believing something that is either more or less comforting and consoling. The mystery embedded in human psychology embedded further in the mystery of mindful matter in a universe where it appears that the overwhelming preponderance of matter is entirely mindless.
Sans God in other words.
Do you claim you have covered and understand [not necessary agree with] the necessary range of knowledge but find no rational answers?
No, I note that here and now I can’t even imagine [anymore] how there are those able to convince themselves that they have. That they actually can accomplish this given the gap between “I” and All There Is.
And then I remind myself yet again that I was once one of them. And for many, many years.
But now what? Given what I think I know is true today.
In other words, this…
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.
…is only a philosophical contraption to the extent that you can convince yourself that “in theory” it is possible. Otherwise I basically construe it as the embodiment of the points I raised here:
But then I figure, what the hell, I’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain if I can bump into someone in places like this able to actually provide me with the “comfort and consolation” that comes with thinking like they once did. So, sure, give it your best shot.
Unless, of course, I end up tugging you down into the same fucking hole that I’m in…
Then it all comes down to the extent to which your actual “lived life” [the circumstances in which you interact with others from day to day] offers the sort of distractions that puts the part about “living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion” into perspective.
After all, if the life you live here and now is bursting at the seams with all manner or satisfaction and fulfillment, all this “philosophical” stuff can more readily be shunted aside.
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.
Let’s just say that out in the real world this is often easier said than done. Why? Because out in the real world conflicting moral and political agendas can result in policies/laws that make the lives of actual flesh and blood human beings either heaven or hell.
Just consider the reactions of liberals to conservatives and conservatives to liberals here at the Society, Government, and Economics forum at ILP.
It’s easy enough to argue that one should not become “emotionally attached” to these issues. But it’s a lot harder to actually accomplish this when you see the policies of those you oppose become the law of the land. And then these laws make your own life and the lives of those you love more miserable.
For example, the suffering that can occur when a new law results in tens of thousands of children losing their health insurance can precipatate all manner of strong emotional reactions.
Not easily quelled “philosophically”, “theoretically”, “spiritually”.