Your ‘objectivism’ is a straw man in this case.
I agree within the history of mankind, there have been and there are thousands and hundred of arguments – hopelessly conflicting and contradictory arguments in many respects – many are true within their respective perspectives.
Note Kant’s antinomy - ‘the equally rational but contradictory results of thoughts.’
The point is when one venture to explore knowledge there is a necessity to embrace its divergence. But the problem with the direction of divergence is it is forcing one into an infinite regression and thus inducing frustration, e.g. 2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256-512-1024-2048-4096-> …68,719,476,736 … and the forms goes on infinitely. I had the same problem when I started and worried where it this going to end, which one will realize it is an impossibility.
Then I turned inward to the convergence of all knowledge, i.e. its substance or essence. But this also face a problem of infinite regression on the opposite side, thus another cause of worry due to conflicting goods and evil. This is where theists resolve their worry with a final cause, i.e. God.
The solution to the above dilemma is complementarity [I used this very often].
To enable complementarity has has to explore as far as possible in each opposite direction and understand how they interact in affecting oneself and the collective.
What is most critical is to develop the base critical requirement, i.e. a state of equanimity so that one is not shaken easily by conflicts one is sensitive to.
As I had stated understanding the theory [knowing] is one thing but it has to be complemented with doing and acting [actual rewiring of the brain].
From what I gather you are very low in term of the venture and understanding of the necessary knowledge and not much in terms of doing, acting and practicing the necessary to promote a state of complementariness within your psyche.
It is not easy is exploring as much knowledge as possible and also doing/practicing what is learned. Such take a lot of time and brain power in reflecting then practicing what is learned.
Not everyone have the capacity or the time to do such necessary extensive researching and practicing the necessary. The alternative to this requirement in the event of limitation is thus to anchor oneself with the cultivation of equanimity to deal with conflicting goods or evils.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778
Here you are rejecting this suggestion outright.
The cultivation of equanimity takes time.
If one do not have the time, then one has to understand its usefulness and force it upon oneself logically, rationally and psycho-analytically and hope it works.
E.g. in NLP -neurolinguistic programming can induce happiness from outward to inward as a short-cut by consciously reproducing the genuine smile [“Duchenne smile,”] of happiness.
If the above is not possible due to various reason, then the drug option [prozac, other tranquilizers, weeds, etc.] is the only way and bearing in mind its inevitable side effects.
Another “world of words” defining and defending itself up in the scholastic clouds.
In my own opinion of course. After all, who am I to actually demonstrate that my own intellectual contraption here isn’t just another “philosophical” rendition.
All I can do here is to situate my own value judgments [in a No God world] in an “assessment” that does in fact come down to earth.
This one:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.Will you or will you not provide me with a similar trajectory? Such that I might more clearly understand the existential evolution of your own thinking here.
The above issue is very complex, wide and deep thus a lot of coverage, time and effort are needed.
Since I have gone through the necessary generic phases, personally I would have no issue resolving the above if I am in those conditions.
I would recommend the solution is to adopt the approaches I have listed above, i.e. explore as much necessary knowledge as possible [e.g. all you need to know of the “I” its existential elements] with the complementarity of divergence-convergence in mind and mindful there are no definite answers in philosophy. In addition one must engage in the necessary practices, i.e. action and doing.
Then depending on whether you are faced with constraints or not, take the relevant optimal path and as a last resort, take the necessary drugs or just give up if there are no other options.