Somehow you don’t have a very good working short-term memory.
I believe the analytical/intellectual must be complemented with the practical.
I have presented loads of practical views in addition to the intellectual.
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
Note the viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
This is not a theoretical model merely to be discussed, one has to carry out the relevant process to rewire one’s brain for the purpose.
I suggested you give up the impossible idea ‘All to be known re existence’.
I believed I have discussed the issue of abortion. I believe this issue even if you do not agree with whatever should be taken as ‘spilt milk’ thus why bother about the past, just focus on the present and plan for the future. Just accept no fallible humans can be absolutely perfect. We already have 7+ billion i.e. much more enough to ensure the reproduction of the next generation and preservation of the species.
As for my own conflicting good;
For the good of humanity, I believe all religions has potential for evils and some are committing terrible evil acts thus preferably should be weaned off now if possible but nevertheless I accept it cannot be done at present for various critical reasons, so I believe we have to accept religion for what they are at the present.
To understand this dilemma I have gone at length to dig up whatever [fact] is relevant to understand the issue and do what is necessary, i.e. critique the problem.
I am well equipped [theory and practice] not to be emotionally bothered by such a dilemma.
From my own frame of mind, this reflects yet again the numbingly scholastic didacticism embedded in the so-called analytic contributions of the “serious philosopher”.
Again, what Will Durant called the “epistemologists”:
“In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company…he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him…He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist.”
I don’t fit in with Durant’s point.
It is most likely he was referring to academic philosophy, which someone has condemned as ‘incestuous’.
As I mentioned above, Philosophy-proper must essentially both be theoretical and practical.
It doesn’t surprise me then that you don’t follow “politics”. Of course my problem may well be worse. I do follow politics. Only to come back time and time again to this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
In other words, unlike the objectivists, my own “I” here is busted. And then right around the corner is oblivion.
My only option then being to find a narrative that might yank me up out of it. But your narrative in my view is really not all that far removed from the narratives of the folks you are going after. Again, what counts seems less who is right than that one of you must be.
And that ever and always brings me back to one or another rendition of this:
[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]
Somehow with the above points you are describing yourself. You are defending your own self-defeating and non-progressive position in a very efficient manner.
Note your problem is centered on point 1.
As I had suggested you must exhaust as much as possible what is to be known of the “I”.
Then one must do the necessary exercises [practical] to modulate the impulses of the empirical “I” from the depth of the psyche. So the ‘knowing’ must be complemented with the ‘doing’.
You don’t realize you are the one who is entrapped by your intellectual contraption literally, i.e. the yearning to know ‘All there is’ which hinder your path to move forward and progress in some ways.
Btw, I believe we are going in circles. The only one who can yank yourself out of your own self-dug hole is yourself.