Let’s think about this. Whether the subject is ethics, political economy, God and religion, human sexuality, just war, race, gender, astrology or whatever, what does it mean to “study it”.
It seems there would be two approaches here:
On the one hand, some will argue that they have studied it [whatever] and that only if others reach the same conclusions about it [whatever] as they do can they be said to have truly studied it too.
Or one can acknowledge that given the complexity of all the variables intertwined in any particular set of relationships, and given the extent to which we live in a world awash in contingency, chance and change, we are not likely to have accumulated all of the knowledge necessary to state definitively that how we have come to study and understand it [whatever] reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding.
And that’s before we get to the gap between what we think we know about it [whatever] and all that would need to be known about the very nature of Existence itself, in order to know anything definitively.
Finally, there’s the distinction between the either/or world [of mathematics, the laws of nature, empirical fact and the logical rules of language] and our is/ought reactions to any particular set of facts that we can all agree upon about it.
As it relates philosophically to what I construe to be the most important existential question of all: How ought one to live?
To live, in other words, in a problematic world that is clearly awash in conflicting goods and in political economy.
I merely put my own “spin” regarding dasein on all of this.