Holy shit, COULD it happen HERE?

Sure, of course. I did not mean some perfect consolation, but that wasn’t clear. I meant that you could remind yourself of this, leaving at least an intellectual asterisk - for all I know this isn’t a bad thing. Of course, this is not going to completely console you.

Perhaps he does, perhaps he would say this. Perhaps on some level he does have a doubt. Another perhaps: if he is right, then perhaps it is good that he is convinced. Going into negotiations with one’s intellect undercutting one’s own desires can be problematical. And yes, I know that going in relentlessly convinced one is right can be a problem also.

Once one has the position that one does not know the right thing to do, this entails also not judging Peter K. even if he seems not to realize this.

Sure. But I was making a point about the distinction. The way you maintain the issue as a lack of access to objective morals, which you would like to have, but right now find no convincing argument, allows some degree of consolation when Trump takes over.

Since I do not yearn for objective morals and respond to things in terms of what I want, I do not have this option of consolation - however ineffective it would be as you accurately point out.

Our ways of reacting to the absence of a convincing argument that set X of morals is objectively corret, entails differences in the way we react to things that happen and other people.

I was being playful in my first response, but covering the ground of a real distinction. Not one that satisfied you goal of getting that perfect objective argument, of course.

We both bump into them. We both bump into those who believe they know the objective good and we both bump into those who think of this in terms of preferences.

That said, I have explained this elsewhere. I move forward as best I can with the tools I have available, often also at the same time reaction with strong emotions to what I like and don’t like, what I can’t stop, etc. I have no perfect control of outcomes at all, and so far I seem to be a creature with limited powers.

You can have objective morals and be inclined towards those processes. They can be considered the good. In fact I am quite sure many liberals,consider that attitude Good, and judge others as bad if they are not coming into the political arena or a negotiation with that attitude. They do not share your doubt that this is just another existential contraption, for all they know, but above, here, you make it seem like objective morals and those tactics are mutually exclusive. That is not the case.

Me personally, I would never limit myself to those tools. I will use any tools - note, that is not the same as ‘any means’ - to get what I want or avoid what I don’t. The list of tools I gave your elsewhere.

I don’t like Trump at all. But you seem to be ruling out some tools as immoral. Trump, being a big business guy, will use a full range of tools. I am not saying he uses they well, but also allow myself to not always go to the table being moderate and looking for compromise. My insurance company refuses to pay for a medical procedure. I will not go to a meeting with them necessarily at all looking for compromise. I may go into it slamming them with their own moral code from their website’s version of the Mission Statement. I might threaten them,s aying I will go to the papers. I might find some connection I had to someone on the Board to pressure the specific bureaucrat in question to do what I want.

If you start convincing people that the best thing is that we aim for moderation and compromise, let me tell you what will happen. People with less power and more empathetic inclinations will be the ones who listen to you most. People with more power and/or less empathy will listen to you less.

Guess what happens when people with less power and more empathy decide that they should be more moderate and more compromise focused and meet the other group who have not listened to you?

Do you want your arguments to have that effect?
Or do you think that magically your argument will make everyone more moderate and compromise-aimed?

Your way of potraying THE tool to be used, functions very similarly to considering that tool the only objectively good way of interacting with others.

When dealing with powerful organizations, for example, though not limited to them, I will certainly use not only the three tools you always mention - right makes might, for example - and then others I have mentioned elsewhere.

I don’t believe in free will and I don’t believe in determinism. I don’t know. I see problems with believing in both and thinking one is correct. I black box it. That’s different.

It amazes me how little even people with dasein noting philosophies like your do not remain agnostic about such things. But in any case, I am agnostic. I see no advantage to trying to convince myself either one must be true. I still face the same day and issues getting up from bed in the morning. Neither one makes my life easier or gives me new tools.

That Trump saved America from Auschwitzforming would suggest that he is NOT a fascist.

But then for a leftie an apple falling to the ground would still be a racist, right?

Did logic ever play a role in leftist politics, or is leftist politics quite simply that which must escape logic to survive?
Probably the latter.

Logic is indeed a somewhat demanding phenomenon, thus it is “fascist” in the eyes of those who feel they have to give up beliefs they don’t want to be without, because of it.

So we have logic vs leftist
Life vs death
Humanity vs inhumanity
Compassion vs sanctimoniousness
Will vs resentment
Human interests vs the media
Individual perspectives vs mob mania

Fascism is also leftist by the way. Mob rule.
I’d say today’s left is far more fascist than Communist , given that working class interests are scorned by the left, and the proletariat voted for Trump.

Now, the working class has become the great demon of the left…

Marx… whaaaat a character. …

Its an example of how the good willed proposals of meaning have been not properly understood, by a bunch of mobbish intellectuals vested in their own limited interpretations, unaware of their values having been exceeded by the folks like Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle.

Other monstrous misunderstandings in the cases of Nietzche etc. al.

But what IF the mob consists of the neuveau riche of the international oligarchy? Literally?

Lefties can certainly be fascists, but I thought the current big demon of the Left was a billionaire with wealthy parents.

Anyone who does good is a thorn in the eye of the leftist.

The left itself is composed of Mark Zuckerberg and such vaguely humanoid billionaires along with anyone who believes what they tell them.
It is not Trumps billion that is hated by the left, but his stark, heroic and compassionate humanity; all this is what makes the leftist angry.

I dont know why the reduction of suffering in the Middle East, for example, is so unpalatable to the left, but it has made me lose all remaining faith in anyone on the left. The monstrous cruelty of them all, just completely inhuman.

Fuck leftism, fuck fascism, fuck genocidal maniacs, thank the gods for Donald Trump, who stopped these monstrous demons in their tracks.

Just out of curiosity: What the fuck are you doing here? Following me around? :wink:

Or, in responding to you, does this demonstrate further that it is I who am following you around?

Anyway, here we go again: An objectivist objectifying a “leftist”.

As though being “leftist” is a thing you can take out of your pocket: “look everybody, I have a leftist here”!

And somehow that all fits in with the argument that, with respect to values, an actual ontology is within the reach of all rational and virtuous men [real men] and women.

These two statements don’t go well together and further you seem to have conceded the point about the proletariat. No mention of how the right has viewed and used the proletariat. And the left is hardly in love with Zuckerberg as a whole. And I don’t see the right disliking him much. Only the conspiracy theorist end of the right is critical of him. And note: I do not use conspiracy theorist as a pejorative term, I would be classed as one myself. But it is disingenuous to class him as simply loved by the Left. He is a corporate billionaire. And I won’t accuse you of anti-semitism for attacking him.

And then this idea that anyone who does good is hated by the left. As if there was no arguments about what is good.

Yeah, it’s his kindness. There are no disagreements about his policies or how he interacts with people. The Left sees kindness and they hate it. I personally see most of the Left and Right as fucked, but you are just saying random shit.

Have you seriously not noted that most of the right has hated Trump all the way along?

K: learn a little history… Fascism is a right wing ideology… Hitler hated
communists and communism and sent to concentration camps “leftist” and “communist”…

as far as the "far left being more “fascist” then Communist, I don’t suppose
you could give us an example of this, especally since you don’t seem
to have any understanding at all, what fascism is…

Kropotkin

The more you come to grasp human interaction [in the is/ought world] as “I” do, the more your reaction to such things as Trump’s policies becomes entangled in both the head and the heart. In other words, however much you try to disentangle it, you’re still drawn and quartered “in the moment”. Also, I have no way in which to determine if my own frame of mind here and now is in fact a reasonable perspective. Let alone the most reasonable.

All I know is that if you are able to convince yourself that the “real me” is in sync with “the right thing to do”, this can console and comfort you. I don’t know how this “works” for Peter here and now. I only know how it once worked for me there and then.

And judging Peter is the last thing I would do. I am only curious to explore how his own particular “I” reacts to conflicting goods in such a way that he is not down in the hole that “I” am in.

Here things always get particularly tricky. It is one thing to discuss/debate objective morality [re fascism] in the philosophy forum. After all, it is easier here to yank the exchange up into the realm of “technicalites”: definitions and deductions. One set of words dealing with the consequences of defining another set of words in a particular [conflicting] way.

But over in the SGE forum, the discussions often revolve more around the actual existential consequences of, say, separating children from parents in executing a particular immigration policy from the Oval Office. Here the subjunctive frame of mind kicks into gear and you can find yourself dealing with what can become very powerful emotional and psychological reactions. Then it becomes the extent to which the objectivist “intellectual” can “fit” them into one or another moral and political dogma.

Perhaps, but to the extent that you can live with your “self” without enduring “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” can, for some, be consolation enough.

Okay, again, if this “works” for you [for all practical purposes] who am I to suggests that it ought not to work for you?

I can only note that it does not work for “me” out in the world of conflicting goods. Here and now. And yet other very, very intelligent men and women are able to arrive at the conclusion that one or another rendition of humanism enables what they construe to be rational men and women to embrace one or another moral/political agenda. Concluding that, among other things, fascism is immoral.

That’s certainly true. You are convinced that right makes might is a viable philosophy, but you are willing to concede that democracy and the rule of law is preferable either to the brute facticity embedded in might makes right or to a political juggernaut like the Nazis who gain power [democratically or not] and then use the political power of the state to dismantle democracy and the rule of law.

Out in the “real world” [historically] these transitions are always going to be enormously complex and convoluted.

On the other hand, there are others who are not in the least reluctant to employ “any means”. Why? Because for them the “kingdom of ends” revolves entirely around self-gratification. They range from the nihilists who own and operate the global economy [where “policy” revolves around wealth and power] to the individual sociopaths who channel a No God world into “what’s in it for me?”

Yeah, the “real world”. Which is why folks like Marx and Engels and Smith along with Freud and Jung and Reich are still so vital in understanding why mere mortals interact as they do. It all gets entangled in the profoundly problematic evolution of genes and memes in a world veritably seething in contingency, chance and change.

I don’t see a way around that. On the other hand, has anyone here actually found one?

Which [from my frame of mind] is really just a way of saying that you know that you don’t know how to resolve or reconcile this definitively but you act as though you do know.

Back again to what “I” think "I’ know about human autonomy and all that “I” would need to be know about the ontological nature of existence itself in order to know this.

We don’t really even have a clue as to where to insert the “human condition” itself into, say, the multiverse?

Please cite a mention by me that indicates I am not an agnostic in regards to questions this big.

“You” [to “me”] just seem to be less fractured and fragmented than “I” am [re fascism] out in the is/ought world. I’ll either come to understand why or I won’t.

Or:

"Did logic ever play a role in rightist politics, or is rightist politics quite simply that which must escape logic to survive? "

Now all we need do is to focus in on an actual issue that leftists and rightists are at odds regarding and note the extent to which logic does in fact play a role in determining which policies all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embody in the behaviors that they choose.

You pick one.

Here’s a good place to start: amazon.com/Fascism-Big-Busi … dpSrc=srch

You know, for some of us.

I can certainly feel uncertain about the choices made and choices I need to make. It just doesn’t involve objective morals. I am not omnicient, life is complicated, mistakes can have disastrous results.

Again, this
‘works’

  1. define ‘works’ 2) does whatever you do ‘work’ 3) do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find ‘works’ and ‘exists’

Let’s take this one small step at a time. Define works. And we can move from there.

To me adding in the struggle to find objective morals, and trying to resolve the world’s conflicting goods to the burdens I already have would work less well and include some kind of confused hubris about my powers, let alone the liklihood of achieving that. So I experience my NOT doing that as working better than if I did.

Then back again to the extent to which your own “I” here is construed by you to be [more or less] an existential contraption.

With someone like Mr. Reasonable, for example, I attempt to make this distinction by differentiating the choices he makes when buying and selling stocks, as opposed to the choice he made to pursue this behavior in the face of arguments by others that capitalism is either inherently immoral or, historically, will “dialectically and materially” give way to socialism culminating in Communism. A so-called “scientific” assessment of political economy down through the ages.

In other words, there are choices that we make in which we are able to calculate if they were in fact mistakes. Or certainly if they led to disaster.

But how do we determine if in fact morally we ought to have chosen other behaviors instead?

How is that not profoundly [problematically] embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Well, you want to pursue some objective. To, for example, make a lot of money. So you choose to play the stock market. That either works for you in attaining your goal or it doesn’t.

Someone on the radical left confronts you one day and tries to convince you that capitalism itself is wrong. It exploits and dehumanizes people. It must be overthrown.

Does her argument work on you? Well, here too it either does or it doesn’t. But suppose we take the argument to the philosophers, the ethicists, the political scientists. Suppose we ask them to use the tools at their disposal in order to determine if it ought to work on all reasonable and virtuous men and women.

What then?

And defining a word is one thing, noting how the meaning that you give to a word can be employed out in the world of actual human interactions, another thing altogether. Or so it seems to me. What is its use value, its exchange value when confronting conflicting goods?

The same for all of the other moral and political conflagrations that cleave some be bringing them together or cleave others by tearing them apart.

From my frame of mind, this has less to do with hubris and more to do with recognizing the limitations of philosophy out in the is/ought world. One in which it is assumed that there is no God.

This thread merely focuses in on those limitations with respect to the discussion/debate revolving around fascism as a governing body. It can work for some in the sense that it accomplishes what they construe to be the right thing to do. Either/or.

But what of question, “is fascism a rational, virtuous or even noble pursuit?”

And how existentially does any particular individual come to one rather than another assessment of this?

What if we do live in a world in which mere mortals are basically daseins ever clamoring down through the ages over conflicting goods?

Would that disturb some? Would it take big chunks out of their own comfort and consolation?

And, if so, how would they react to someone like me?

Worse, what if they actually came to think just like me about these things…these relationships?

Trust me: It really, really, really sucks. An essentially meaningless world on this side of the grave, and oblivion on the other side of it.

Of course many react to me as they do! I only wish that I could be one of them.

I believe I said a couple of times that I understand the Is/ought distinction and also asked you not to keep explaining it to me.

Notice above how I asked for a definition of works and then asked two yes/no questions. You did define works in relation to is type issues. I don’t see answers to the other two questions.

And your answer to question 1 does not help me understand what you mean when you assess me by saying
it works for you.

You manage to sum up my approach/life, with this clear statement, but cannot seem to define it or answer it in relation to you. Or question 3.

Your practical example of what it means to ‘work’ for me or you, doesn’t fit the generalized way you assess whether it is working for someone.

Let’s stay on this. I don’t need to know, again, that you believed X when you were younger. I don’t need to know is/ought distinctions or what would happen if objectivists suddenly understood you.

  1. What do you mean when you sum up my approach/life by saying ‘it works for you’?
  2. Does what you are doing work for you?
  3. Do you have any reason to believe that what you are trying to find will ‘work’?

First of all, while this thread is now basically an exchange between the two us, any number of others may well be following it. So, I am making my argument to them as well.

Why is that important to me?

Because only by bumping into an assessment that nudges me up out of the hole I’m in [re fascism and other conflicted value judgments] am I likely to benefit from these discussions.

That’s really all I have left to cling to as the clock ticking toward oblivion gets louder and louder and louder.

Secondly, all I can do on this thread is to grope to understand your own “I” in relationship to something like fascism; and to note in turn how you have somehow managed to configure a “sense of self” here that appears considerbly less fractured and fragmented than my own.

All the while acknowledging as I do that this critical distinction is not something the moral and political objectivists are likely to factor into the behaviors that they choose.

Instead, they derive their own comfort and consolation the old fashioned way: through the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”.

In other words, the tried and true existential font down through the ages historically. Sometimes God, sometimes not.

Okay…

2] “does whatever you do ‘work’”?

Obviously:

a] What am I doing? Why am I doing it?
b] Can I calculate/measure whether I have in fact accomplished the task I set out for myself? Did the behaviors I choose work?

Example:

I choose to come into ILP because I calculate that if I note the hole that I am in, others may well be willing to share with me the reasons that they are not in that hole themselves. Did that work? Yes. Over the years many here have offered up alternative narratives/agendas.

But: Have I in fact come upon an assessment able to yank me up out of the hole that “I” am in? No, not yet. So, in regard to that, the behavior that I chose [to come here] did not work.

And, in part, because “here and now” I am still convinced that this…

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

…is a reasonable understanding of human is/ought interactions in a No God world. Perhaps even the most reasonable.

3] “do you have any reason to believe what you are trying to find ‘works’ and ‘exists’”?

Back again to #2.

Something can be calculated to work if everyone can agree on what it is that constitutes “working”? Does the technology/methodolgy employed by penal institutions to execute prisoners work? Well, yes or no, right?

Do the arguments employed by those on either side of the political spectrum work to establish the most rational policy here…or a policy said to embody the “best of all possible worlds”?

You tell me.

Then maybe we are just “stuck” here. How can I make it any clearer then to note the historical facts that everyone can agree on regarding fascism, and the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no philosophers, ethicists or political scientists have yet been able to establish definitively that fascism works better than all other governing bodies.

Does it? How would this be demonstrated? And how would the anti-fascists demonstrate that it reflects instead the worst of all possible governing bodies?

As for “I” in all of this, I was raised in a truly reactionary community. I was a racist, a sexist, a homophobe. The folks I lived around constituted precisely the sort of white working class demographic that flock to Trump today. I don’t recall the word fascism coming up in my neighborhood but I suspect I would have embraced it.

Then the Army. Then Vietnam. Then Mac and John and Steve and all the folks that reconfigured “I” from a right wing fanatic into a radical leftist. Then John and Mary and Barrett and “rival goods”. Then existentialism, deconstruction, semiotics. Then nihilsm.

Then the fucking hole.

OK, fair enough. Now I know what’s happening.

Then I should probably bow out. I will not produce a solution to conflicted value judgments, not in the sense of a method to resolve which right.

OK

Is ought, you mean?

Ah, objective morals, monad self.

OK

OK. I can get that, i guess. It was challenging when I started to feel distance from the left. I identified with them. I don’t really now. For most of my life this did not mean I thought in terms of objective morals. But still I identified, felt aligned with them. Preferred how they interacted with children - me being one for a while - and the world they seemed to want to create. Don’t get me wrong, I still tend to prefer to hang out with lefties. There is more of a home there, but perhaps one difference between you and me is I always felt alienated by every group: religious, philosophical, political, cultural. And that included the left. I never thought there was a simple relation to the USSR. I didn’t think Reagan was wrong about the evil empire, though I thought he was evil also. Or really, you could translate that into preferences, but I found little to like about soviet relations to its own peoples and the left’s dismissal of Reagan there seemed anti-right rather than noticing the object of the remark.

I can remember sitting in a theater watching a movie where a cia agent/diplomat character tells a liberal trying to find his child that it was easy for him to judge US foreign policy while at the same time not really paying attention to it and accepting benefits from it. That there was something facile about the fathers position. I felt sympathy for that judgment, though I disagreed with the policy in question. The entire mainly ivy league audience hissed at the CIA agent. I thought then and think now that these mainly very priviledged people liked the idea of hissing, but in the end were happy and snug in policies they claim to hate on occasion. I’ll bet most of them went for Bush 2’s start of Gulf War 2.

I found that all groups had strong taboos and social punishments and seemed unable to quesiton their sources, whether the Nation, the Times, or whatever WF Buckley read.

I hated the way the Left was happy to indoctrinate children. I certainly noticed that the right did this too.

I found it odd that the Left had trouble criticizing hilariously poor systems of belief like the psychiatric/pharma worldview.

In the left’s hatred of religion, I saw all sorts of baby bathwater smugness, the same certainties I could find in the scientific community, based on very little and very little understanding of the phenomena they poo pooed.

Very little actual experiential curiosity. A lot of hearsay certainty by all major groups. My respect went down on all sides.

There were a variety of norms to choose from or around me and in various ways they all made me feel like a weirdo. I might have agreed about many policies with one, but tempermentally I did not fit in. My sense of psychological health. My sense of humor. The depth of my emotions. I just kept encountering limited norms. I don’t think most people want to notice what they really feel - I know how that phrase will hit you but there are degrees of cluelessness around introspection - or through what process they came to their opinions. IOW ceongnitive dissonence, potential hypocrisy, ‘negative’ emotions, confusion, anomolies are regularly denied by most people, as far as I can tell. And then do not feel the urge to explore that.

So, my alienation from categories and groups has been there a long time and this goes way back into childhood. Nothing like childhood trauma to make you curious about the anomolies around experts. I noticed at a very early age that there was a systematic cluelessness and pardigmantic idiocy amongst supposedly scientific experts. Not individual errors or areas that need improvment, but systematic problems. That made me come at all kinds of expert ‘knowledge’ with skepticism.

It is frustrating. I would love to be able to go to an association or church and just hang with my fellow Xs. But it has been this way for a long time.

I have during that time met people who also notice anomolies, don’t fit categories well, and have a vague tribe who I do not get to spend enough time with. And then there is my wife. Took a lot of really messed up relationships to find someone who I can tell all my reactions to. Who knows she has her own cellar with beasts and monsters in it, can sit with contradictions in herself for a long time, better than me.

My focus has then been for a long time unification in myself and finding people who I do not experience I must actively hide much from. Always a matter of degree, but I have found people where there is such a degree of acceptance between us that it is qualitatively different.

And while I try to find the truth, whatever that means, in traditional ways, I am very experientially based. Dewey, apprentice, exploratory. I don’t expect so much change to come through reading or dialogue, though it can sort of aim some of the experiential work.

I follow anomolies, things that do not fit what experts tell us is the good and the real. I see no mainstream paradigm that adequately explains what I can repeatedly experience, not all of it.

And all the various major belief systems out there tell me, in one way or other, to not have the feelings I have. I decided to test whether they were right, treat their judgments of the limbic system as falsifiable. I think they are wrong. Though this is more lived than asserted. I stopped trying not to feel what I feel in all the ways everyone from the scientific community to the various religions to pharmapsychiatry to the new age to the business world to folk beliefs to ‘common sense’ say that one must. It is amazing how much these seemingly different groups have overlapping, often nearly the same judgments of the limbic system. Going in precisely the opposite direction to all their objectivisms about emotions, I find myself less crazy, quite grounded, not violent, able to be rational and more able to make the life I want, at least around those parts I can affect. IOW their judgements do not seem to be grounded in reality and the people I am intimate with have, over a long period of time decided not to accept these actually not supported by research judgments to lock emotions down.

I can imagine this sounding like an objectivism, but I see it as a decision not to listen to all these ‘truths’ about how I am suppose to judge, lock down, eliminate, suppress as a rule my emotions.

I mention my history since it is relevant regarding fragmentation and fracturedness.

So while I certainly look at the world and am horrified and do wish to make nudges in directions I prefer and this includes nudges coming from empathy about all the horrors out there, my efforts are not trying to prove this or that is the objective good, though that might be a tactic in some interaction.

If I can’t treat those I love well, I doubt I will save the planet.

I don’t think that is the case. I can’t figure out what works for me via everyone. Shit most people thought slavery was working.

I thought when you said ‘it works for you’ referring to me, you meant somethign more personal. You can’t have meant that everyone thinks it works. Nearly everyone is quite ignorant of what I do, think, feel and how I approach making things better. When I returned the question, I mean, t does what you do work for you?

Everyone has not yet agreed about anything. Not even scientific conclusions.

I gotta make choices when I wake up in the morning. I can’t wait for everyone, especially since I don’t respect many of everyone.

Sure, I get that. I am asking if your approach to life is working for you. The seeking to find a way to resolve conflicting goods via rational argument. That in combination with distraction. And then if it seems like it will work, maybe some day. Looking at it as a choice. You respond with the world’s experts not being able to prove or disprove the bestness of fascism.

It seems like you are evaluating how you approach life by looking at the arguments of experts about huge political systems. To me these are in different categories. Which does not mean that your concerns about the inability of experts to resolve such HUGE issues should not be important to you. It just seems like trying to figure out what to eat for dinner tonight based on Confuscism vs. Mormonism. And not cooking anything while the debate goes on. Let’s say there is a solution. That one day the types of people who get drawn to the right and the type of people who get drawn to the left finally together somehow come to agree on THE GOOD. That sounds like generations away if ever. Vietnam puts you at the youngest possible 18 in 1975. So 1957, so now youngest possible 61. Likely your body has been through some shit, even if, say you got no Agent Orange, direct traditional wounds or severe PTSD. Working class possibly threw some problematic dietary routines at you for a while. It seems not unfair to say that the chances of these broad categories coming to unity, in your lifetime are small. Not because of a decade here or there, but orders of magnitude away from that. Philosophers have been trying for thousands of years and I would say, aren’t, in the main, trying so much for objective morals. Some may argue within morals, more or less leaving alone as an axiom that there are, and others more focused on pragmatic approaches to heuristics. Objectivists, in the main, are not trained in philosophy, so they likely lack the tools to examine their own arguments very well. It would be a bit of a miracle if it happened in your lifetime.

To me that response you make above to is it working and will it work seems so abstract. If you were Bernie Sanders, before his campaign collapsed via Hillary and DP back room shit…no even then, even before it fell apart, it’s so abstract.

Ah,this will come off as me saying you should be doing something else. But it was as if I asked a person what he was up to and if it was working and the answer was a quote from Hegel commenting on a particular war.

But you want someone to give you the tool that will convince everyone how to choose objectively between two moral positions on any issue.

I do not possess that tool, nor do I have a direction to nudge you in where I even remotely intuit the answer might lie. Stanford Phil Encyc has this article…

plato.stanford.edu/entries/mora … gy/#NatFac

I’ll leave it here.

Karpel Tunnel wrote

Hate only comes from the Washinton, DC. right, right America at large loves Trump.