From my frame of mind, “we” is anyone who has come to conclude that human interactions revolving around conflicting goods is embedded in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblvion [for “I”] in a No God world.
Albert Camus being one of the best of them.
On the other hand, unless you do choose suicide, you choose instead to remain among the living. And to the extent that involves interacting socially, politically and economically with others in any particular human communities, you engage your own rendition of that boulder day after day after day. I merely deem such interactions in the is/ought world as revolving in turn around dasein and political economy.
Thus, pertaining to the OP, there does not appear [to me] to be an optimal one-size-fits-all examination and assessment of the conflicting arguments being exchanged regarding the philosophy forum’s policies.
That’s basically the boulder being rolled up and down the posts here.
On the other hand, imagine a philosophy forum in, say, Heaven. There God is the moderator and the administrator. No questioning His rules, right?
Camus was writing about that absurd and meaningless world and yet he found personal meaning and happiness there - without God and with oblivion.
When have I ever argued this is not possible? I merely suggest instead that what you construe to be meaningful behaviors generating happiness may well come into conflict with those who insist this interferes with the behaviors that they wish to pursue instead. That, in other words, these narratives are deemed by me to be existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
The point about God is simple: If He does in fact exist, there would exist in turn a transcending font [said by most to be omnisicent and omnipotent] able to resolve these conflicting goods such that the behaviors of mere mortals can be judged on this side of the grave to be or not to be sins. Sin enough [as most Scriptures warn us] and there are consequences on the other side of the grave. For all of eternity as it were.
So what the hell is wrong with those philosophies beyond “I’m not convinced”? Why aren’t you convinced?
I note my reasons. I note the extent to which my own quandary here is rooted in my dilemma.
Come on: What else is there but me noting the arguments of others and assessing the extent to which they have convinced me that there is in fact a way up out of the hole that I’ve dug myself into.
And you and your ilk can always be gratified – comforted and consoled – that you are not down in this hole with me and my ilk.
Well, not yet anyway.