If I construe value judgments as [by and large] existential contraptions, why on earth would anyone imagine me using a word like “inevitable”? Only in a wholly determined universe would that be applicable.
There are things that are in fact inevitable about my life when they fall within the parameters of the either/or world. But when the discussion shifts to the is/ought world, that’s when the existential fabrications and contraptions come up to the surface.
You’ve never made an argument showing that must be true, though you have repeatedly expressed confusion about how it is possible.
Why? Because I am viewing these relationships from the perspective of my “I”, not yours or others. I’m looking for an argument able to convince me to reconfigure “me” here into a less fractured and fragmented frame of mind.
And then gone on to simply conclude that I and others who are not in the hole must have a contraption. Perhaps we are not like you and since you would need a contraption to not be in the hole, you assume that we must also. But in any case, if you have an argument that demonstrates that we must be like you, share it.
For those not down in the is/ought hole, there is no contraption. Contraptions like pragmatism, moral nihilism, solipsism, narcissism, moderation-negotiation-compromise. There is only the objective truth: God, ideology, deontology, nature.
And, as with “inevitable”, the word “must” is not in my vocabulary here. How on earth could I share an argument that I am not even convinced exists?
Thus…
Once you acknowledge that your moral narrative and political agenda [in a No God world] are largely subjective/subjunctive fabrications/contraptions rooted in your own particular accumulation of experiences and relationships and access to ideas, then it seems reasonable [to me] to acknowledge that had those components of “I” been very different, you might well be arguing from the other side.
I might be striving for other preferences, yes. But I have these preferences, now at least, and so I strive for them.
Okay, but how does that make my point go away?
Either your political preferences today are rooted in the most essential assessment of right and wrong behavior, or they really are more likely to be just “contraptions” rooted existentially in dasein.
The fractured and fragmented “I” here [mine] assumes the latter. Back then to this:
[b]In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my “self” is, what can “I” do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we “anchor” our identity to so as to make this prefabricated…fabricated…refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.[/b]
If there is no objective font upon which one can embed “I”, then it becomes a frame of mind shaped by historical, cultural and experiential variables instead. And in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. Such that you never really know what new experiences await you.
Being “practical” then would seem to be the only viable option. But that doesn’t make the part about “I” out in the is/ought world any less fractured and fragmented.
Actually you just generalized. It made you fractured and fragmented, or at least you think so. But, I see no argument - convincing or otherwise - that it must make all people feel that way unless they have some contraption.
Again and again and again: I’m not arguing that others “must” “inevitably” do anything. I’m merely trying to understand how those who do not believe in objective morality are able to engage conflicting goods with others and not be fractured and fragmented. Especially when they acknowledge [as you have] that their political “preferences” are basically just existential contraptions. That in fact had their life been very, very different, their preferences might be the otherwise. How, using the tools of philosophy, can this be most rationally addressed with respect to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with?
If you can demonstrate that all rational people should believe that being a non-objectivist necessarily leads to being in a hole, especially the hole you are in, please do the demonstration. Otherwise, I acknowledge that you do not understand how it is the case, but see no reason to accept the generalization. And it is not accurate in my case.
Note to others:
When have I ever suggested that all non-objectivists are either down in the hole with me or they are not thinking these relationships through clearly? “Generalizations” are the last thing I am interested in here. Instead, I want to explore how those mere mortals in a No God world who see no objective moral and political dictums into which they can embed “I”, are able to keep their “self” together in a less deconstructed manner than “I” am.
The irony here being that my argument revolves far more around what I construe to be the limitations of rational thought re human interactions in a world bursting at the seams with conflicting goods.
The Brett Kavenaugh conflagration being just the latest example of political objectivists going at each other tooth and nail.
My argument is only to suggest that opinions about him are rooted more in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy than in anything that philosophers/ethicists/political scientists are able to adduce regarding “the right thing to do” here.
You in particular have simply convinced yourself somehow the manner in which you engage conflicting goods with others reflects the best of all possible understandings of your identity here and now in the best of all possible worlds morally.
No, I don’t do that and I never think anything like the phrase best of all possible worlds morally. And since I am a non-objectivist I don’t evaluate in such terms. I wouldn’t know how to do it.
Okay, then bring this down to earth by noting what you do think when engaging others re conflicting goods. You claim that you alrerady have. Okay, but that still hasn’t sunk in yet. I’m still unclear as to how your “I” is less in pieces than mine. All you can do is to try again using another context.
How is your “I” [in relationship to issues like abortion] not just the culmination of an existential sense of self that evolved over time given a particular sequence of experiences that predisposed you to go in one rather than another direction? And how are your arguments/assumptions revolving around one rendition of the “good” here not matched by the arguments/assumptions of the other side?
And what of the narcissists/sociopaths who argue that in a No God world it is reasonable for morality to revolve around that which they construe to be in their own best interests. The irony here being that this too is embodied in dasein.
Then [in my view] straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:
In other words, you’ve really, really, really thought things through. And that’s enough.
No, I have not evaluated my thinking things through and given it my approval. I am not sure most values come from thinking through, and while I certainly think about my preferences, I do it in practical terms. How can I make the changes I would like to make or prevent consequences that I do not want to happen to me or what I care about. I do evaluate my ability to problem solve. But I have not evaluated my thinking through of my values and decided that I have done this well enough or not well enough etc… That may be something you think you would need to do to feel OK about trying to achieve your preferences. So you have made something up about me here.
Okay, there’s this general description “assessment” here and there’s trying to understand how exactly this all plays out in your head in an actual existential context.
And once you acknowledge that embodying moral values is not only about “thinking things through”, the discussion can shift to more subjunctive reactions: emotional, psychological, instinctual, willful, the subconsious and the unconscious mind.
And over and again I acknowledge in turn that this may well be a more reasonable frame of mind. But I can’t just “will” myself into accepting it. I – “I” – have to be convinced somehow. Though even if I am that is not the same as making it true.
I am not arguing that my frame of mind is more reasonable. I don’t reason my way to not having this hole. I am saying that I don’t believe in objective values and I don’t have a contraption that I need to or should. And I do not comfort myself in some way around this. It seems here like you are saying you would feel better if you could evaluate your efforts, decide you really, really thought things through and could for some reason accept your efforts as enough. You seem to be asserting you would need this to feel comfortable, and then you assume that since I am not in your hole, I must do this. That we must all be the same in this way. I do not see an argument, just the assumption. And it is not correct.
I don’t really know how you put all of these variables together “in you head” so as to interact with others re conflicting goods in a less fractured and fragmented manner. All you seem able to offer me here [yet again] is more “analysis” of this sort.
So, in regard to a value judgment important to you, what is your equivalent of this:
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.
How in particular have ideas and experiences intertwined in your life to predispose you to one point of view rather than another? And what do you imagine philosophers are able to conclude here regarding the least unreasonable assessment?
With reference to myself, I am down in my hole here. Recognizing my value judgments as the embodiment of dasein – “I” tugged by a particular set of experiences in the direction of a particular set of political prejudices; and, then, re John and Mary and William Barrett, splintering into pieces over the years.
After all, how on earth could something like that ever really be demonstrated by mere mortals in a No God world?
Precisely. So it is not a criterion I hold myself to. Though it is not as if I decided not to for some reason. I just don’t. I live my life and make choices based on my preferences, including those influenced by empathy. That’s it. In a sense, like other mammals do. Though I have more tools to be a pragmatist then they do.
Yes, but the objectivists do insist that their own “demonstration” is self-contained. Contained in accepting their own particular moral font of choice: God, political ideology, deontological contraptions, nature.
Folks like Sam Harris even go so far as to argue that science itself “can determine human values.”
On the other hand, your own “preferences” are accepted by you as a “pragmatist”. Once at that point however you are then able not to be bothered by the extent to which others [like me] root them more instead in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
In existential contraptions out in a particular world construed historically, culturally and experiential by any one particular human being ensconced in any one particular set of experiences, relationships and access to ideas.
But: If that argument exists I’m all ears.
No, the onus is on you to show that I have convinced myself of something which let’s me be comfortable as a non-objectivist.
I can’t be inside your head. I can’t know of your experiences. I can’t have lived your life. Only you can try to explain how in confronting others who do not share your values, you manage to keep “I” more contained in a “sense of self” less fractured and fragmented than mine.
Sure, maybe we will be more successful in bridging this gap, maybe not.
That’s really all there is here: explaining to the best of our abilities how and why we have one set of moral and political “preferences” rather than another. And, then, how, “for all practical purposes”, we are able to interact with others who may well not share our own values; or, in fact, may even attack them.
Me, I see your own rendition of pragmatism as just another existential/intellectual contraption that keeps your own “preferences” up out of the hole that I am in.
But, then, that’s really all I do have access to here and now: my own frame of mind.