On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.
But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.
Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don’t live in the future.
OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind…
Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, “positive progress” revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition “in the future”.
And we can predict anything about that, right?
And then [as I see it] another “intellectual contraption” expressing yet another “genral description” of human interactions:
- All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
- Loads of examples of the above drives
- The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology
I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.
And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:
I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.
But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:
[b]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?[/b]
Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:
To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other ‘Rights’ of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.
What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.
That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this “analysis” by way of noting it’s relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.
I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more ‘hygienic’ and more healthier.
Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.
Your own.
Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.
There is only the existential “I” coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.