Really, come on, what on earth does this mean? Relating to what particular context construed from what particular conflicting moral and political points of view? That part is veritably bursting at the seams in The Blood Of Others.
Yet it barely shows up at all in your own didactic/scholastic “analysis”.
Or, rather, so it seems to me.
The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.
Or, perhaps, the problem with existentialists is that they root “real action” in the “ethics of ambiguity”.
The talk exchanged by the characters in her novel always revolved around actual choices – actual behaviors that precipitated actual consequences.
After all, there really was a French Resistance to the Nazis.
Something that you avoid at all cost. Why? Because actual human interactions here and now [rather than in the future] beget actual conflciting goods that are able to be defended in conflicting moral and political narratives embedded in conflicting assumptions about human interactions.
On the other hand, I suspect your own “to-do” list revolves more around the objectivist credo: “one of us” vs. “one of them”
Btw, people are challenging my views all the time, note Phyllo, and others.
I have no big issue on this.
Okay, link me to such a discussion. I can only react to it by comparing and contrasting it to the manner in which I construe folks challenging each others values.
Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn’t sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.
All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down “in the future”, the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I think the most effective suggestion is they start cultivating a state of equanimity and perform some self psycho-analysis exercises.
And again: That is what both sides are likely to agree with! And then they will assure us that if one does this, they will see things as they really are. As they do. But if they don’t see things as they do, then clearly they are doing something wrong.
Which is then encompassed in an intellectual contraption like this:
I do have the expectation religions especially theistic should be got rid off immediately, NOW! so that there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.
Because I have a sufficient state of equanimity, I understand my expectations are not realistic at present but only in the future >50, >75 years or >. I modulate my emotions [may be triggered naturally] do not go haywire because my expectations are not met.
While I discuss how to get rid of religions [with fool proof replacements] in the future, I have no problem accepting people who are religious and will even recommend someone to take up religion if that is the most appropriate thing for them to do NOW.If you note the above carefully, what is critical as a base is a state of equanimity of an effective degree to deal with the related issue plus all the necessary knowledge of knowing and doing.
Yeah, right. It’s all as simple as that. In your head, for example.