Either/neither. My point is always to make the distinction between those who insist that, using the tools of philosophy, this can be actually be resolved and those who suggest instead that they may well never be. Resolved such that all rational/virtuous men and women are obligated to say that it in fact is or that it in fact is not a good thing.
But, to the extent that we both accept this, we would need to explore the manner in which we have come to this conclusion given the components of our respective philosophies. And, in turn, the extent to which we construe our conclusions “here and now” as just “existential contraptions” ever and always subject to change given new experiences, relationships and sources of information.
IOW if Trump becomes a dictator, you can console yourself with the fact that you really don’t know if it is a bad thing or not.
It doesn’t work that way of course. There is no way that I can just “click off” all that went into creating the particular political “I” that I have come to embody over many, many years. All I can do is to probe the extent to which my visceral reactions to Trump today may or may not in fact be just existential contraptions.
On the other hand, folks like Peter K. seem convinced [at least to me] that their own reactions do in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.
That’s what I no longer have access to. Thus when you speak of my being “consoled” here you haven’t a clue as to how all of this really plays out in my head from day to day. But then how on earth could you?
All we can really do here is to grapple with an attempt at communication. Separating those things that we might agree are likely to be true objectively for all of us from those things that are merely the embodiment of enormously complex mental, emotional and psychological components of “I” out in the is/ought world.
This does not work for me, since I don’t care what the objective good or bad might be, I simply wouldn’t like that if it happened.
Okay, then you bump into all of those who don’t care what the objective good may or may not be, but, instead, they simply would like it to happen.
Then what?
I think it is crucial to probe the extent to which our values here may or may not be the embodiment of dasein. Why? Because, in my view, to the extent that we do, is the extent to which we might steer clear of the objectivist moral and political juggernauts and be more inclined towards moderation, negotiation and compromise – democracy and the rule of law.
Unlike, say, in the direction that Trump seems to be taking us?
Also, one might take comfort here in the knowledge that in a wholly determined universe, anything and everything is only as it ever could have been. It is what it is. Period. Not that you could ever actually have not taken comfort in it.
You being you and not me. But yes, that is another way you, Iambiguous, can console yourself. Not that I believe in free will. But you are talking about you here, and certainly not me or the general ‘you’.
If you don’t believe in free will aren’t you saying that this very exchange we are having is unfolding in the only possible way that it ever could have unfolded? “I”, “you”… what’s the difference if that’s true?
For me my simply not wanting it to is enough to dread that it would happen.
On the other hand, if you were down in my hole, you’d recognize that your not wanting it is no less an existential contraption.Had your life being very, very different you might easily have been predisposed instead to want it. And, not wanting it is not the same thing as demonstrating that all other rational men and women are obligated not to want it either.
Well, golly gosh. As said, I really do understand this, as I have said before. However, I would not like what you are calling a fascist takeover, my dislike being a existential contraption or not, does not matter, given my experience.
Exactly! Your life unfolded through a particular sequence of experiences and now you are predisposed to dread it. As though [for whatever reason] an entirely different sequence of experiences might not have predisposed you to embrace it instead.
The point then is this: Given the manner in which “I” here is largely the embodiment of an existential contraption, are philosophers able to concoct an argument such that it would direct folks to the most rational understanding of fascism as a governing body?
Instead, you argue:
I would find it unpleasant, precisely as I said, and contradicting nothing you have said here. Had my life been completely different is irrelevant to my feelings now, having had the life I had. So, I cannot be consoled by this non-existent past of mine. You however can be consoled since you focus on the epistemological issue and yearn for an objectivist position.
Right, and those who wholeheartedly support Trump’s agenda can make the same claim. Fuck the past. Fuck all those existential variables that predisposed me to to think and to feel and to behave as I do now. The only important thing as that I do what I can to crush those opposed to his agenda.
But, sure, if this “works” for you then that need be all that matters. I merely point out that…
It is precisely this sort of precarious uncertainty and ambiguity about these things – about “I” in the is/ought world – that the objectivists are able to jettison by simply believing that how they view these things reflects who they really are in sync with the way things ought to be.
Totally irrelevent. I am not an objectivist. However I do have preferences. Nothing you say here contradicts what I wrote.
Okay, but does this mean I should just take that all in and react no further it?
Believe me, I once nestled luxuriously in this frame of mind myself.
You used to be an objectivist. Now you are a nihilist thinking that it would be comforting to be an objectivist, who seeks to be convinced, if possible, that some form objectivism is true and this can be demonstrated. I am a non-objectivist who has no interest in that.
What difference does it make that here and now you have no interest in it when, in regard to any conflicts you have with others down the road, they have an interest in challenging the manner in which you have come to defend your own value judgments?
What are you going to say to them?
This?
“Look, I just don’t like fascism!”
Could you please read my posts in the future, just try it out, on the assumption that I understand your position. I agree with you on one thread and get a correction where you confirm I agreed with you without realizing it. Here you correct me by saying what I said.
When someone comes after me with that I just reconfigure it into this: “If you read my posts in the manner in which they are meaningful to me you wouldn’t respond as though what actually counts is how they are meaningful to you.”
On the other hand, I have come to expect this sort of thing in exchanges like this.