Okay, neither of us think it’s inherently a flaw. Although it may well actually be one. If one or another objectivist is able to clearly establish that their moral narrative and/or political agenda does in fact reflect the optimal point of view, then those who refuse to share it would be flawed.
Right?
What I am still unclear about, however, are the components of your argument here. While I make my own abundantly clear as you point out.
What I then pursue is a discussion with objectivists in which our respective points of view are embedded in a particular context relating to clearly conflicted behaviors revolving around clearly conflicted goods. How here are arguments said to be flawed? How here is that established?
Beyond, for example, insisting that Communism is flawed because your points of view establish that. And yet [it seems] they establish this only because they are your points of view. Based in part on your own particular set of experiences.
Like any defense of Communism is inherently flawed.
But I don’t claim that. I note the historical connection between theological and secular dogmas and authoritarian/autocratic political contraptions. But I also note the dire consequences embedded in the “show me the money” political contraptions of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy in turn.
And only in harping on objectivism is there any possibility of encountering arguments [from them] that may well yank me up out of the hole that I am in. My “judgments” here are always recognized by me to be “existential contraptions”.
As I point out time and again, once you make the decision to interact with others socially, political and economically, you are going to encounter situations where values come into conflict. Now, you can construe these conflicts as “our side is right and their side is wrong”, or as “we’re right from our side, they’re right from theirs”.
But: I recognize that my own subjective/subjunctive decisions here are just political leaps of faith embedded in dasein.
Which is why I champion democracy and the rule of law: moderation, negotiation and compromise. Rather than might makes right or right makes might agendas. I just recognize in turn the role played by political economy out in the real world.
Now, how would you describe yours?
My point was that even when the discussion revolves around actual flesh and blood human interactions, many objectivists that I have come across refuse to bring the discussion down to earth. Instead they are more comfortable up in the scholastic clouds where the battles revolve more around definitions and the analytic technicalities of Durant’s epistemologists.
Now, if you do want to discuss the practical differences between them then chose a context that most here will be familiar with and let’s pursue it.