My point however is that on this side of the grave there are clearly folks who are more aware of this than others. The struggle to sustain basic needs obviates discussions of all the things we dwell on here.
Genes from the evolution of life on earth, memes from the manner in which historically and culturally our own species is able to become self-aware of this. And then to grapple with the extent to which our interactions [in the is/ought world] are more or less determined by them. The less they are the more we can discuss possible limitations built into our autonomy.
From my point of view, these limitations revolve around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. That’s why I ever and always come back to this:
[b]…pick a particular context in which moral and political values come into conflict and let’s explore the implications of it “out in the world”. A world in which actual social, political and economic interactions unfold.
Existentially as it were.[/b]
The objectivists either will or [as often as not] will not.
For example, what on earth does this mean:
Will to power wills will to power. VO only wills power. If you truly don’t see the distinction, then I live in a much bigger world than you do. You may not care. That’s fine. But, like you, many others for many millenia have been convincing people that there is only one power standard, one objective, one birth and death. An actual end.