Noted. And with your own comforting and consoling objectivist narrative still intact. Good for you.
His wall of words portrayal of Heidegger’s wall of words Dasein cannot possibly be further removed from my own efforts here to take intellectual contraptions of this sort down out of the scholastic clouds of definitions and deductions; to then situate them out in the world of actual conflicted human interactions. My framework revolves precisely around the existential relationship between the values I’ve held and the life that I’ve actually lived:
Re abortion, here for example:
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.
Now, when you or Number six or some other Heidegger scholar is willing to integrate their own wall of words philosophical assessment of Dasein into an actual flesh and blood context that revolves around a value judgment of their own choosing, come back around.
The only reason that your own ideas don’t “fly everywhere” is because their meaning starts with the assumption that your own definitions and deductions [as a serious philosopher] are by default the only viable stepping stone into the moral future.
Well, if you wish to be thought of as “one of us”.