I do not believe in God. I do not believe that philosophers in a No God world are able to devise moral narratives/political agendas that, either universally or on a case by case basis, obligate rational men and women to choose particular sets of behaviors.
Instead, our “preferences” are [to me] embedded existentially in a particular sequence of experiences that predispose us to be more or less pro or more or less con any particular behaviors embedded in any particular context rife with conflicting goods.
The “hole” that I am in starts with three assumptions:
1] that had I lived my life differently, I may well have accumulated different preferences
2] that any one preference is no less able to be rationalized than any another
3] that ultimately what counts is who has the political power to enforce one set of values/behaviors over the others
And, thus, that philosophers appear unable to make these assumptions go away by in fact coming up with an argument able to be demonstrated as obligating rational men and women to behave in “the right way” in sync with “who they really are.”
They may choose not to behave that way, but it is able to be demonstrated that all rational people ought to behave in that way.
Then it’s just a matter of taking these abstractions out into the world of actual conflicting goods.
In a No God world.
To me, these are “existential contraptions” only in order to contrast them with the seemingly “essential truths” objectivists argue for: God, ideology, deontology, nature.
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.
I got that. And now we know that you do not assume that my not being in the hole is based on an argument or contraption. I do not have an argument to get you out of your hole and I am not in a state of not being in that hole due to convincing myself of something. There is no contraption that keeps me out of the hole.
Now, whether or not your own rendition of pragmatism here is a “contraption” is in the mind of the beholder. To me – for all practical purposes – it is. Once you think yourself into believing that there are no objective moral narratives/political agendas, you need to come up with an argument that allows you to feel less rather than more fractured and fragmented.
To feel less, you need to pull back from the manner in which I construe “I” here as an existential contraption. But that capacity in my view is just another manifestation of dasein.
Though here again we can only take these assumptions out into world of actual conflicting goods. Try our best to describe what unfolds “in our head” when our values are challeged or attacked by others. Or when others attempt even to stop our behaviors.
Here and now I have thought myself into believing that…
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.
Oh look, here is one of those examples. Here you are telling me I have this contraption. This is one of the types of statements where it seems like you can simply assume I have a contraption that gets me out of your hole. Perhaps you can see how I drew the wrong conclusion, even if you never meant it the way I took it.
What I want is to take an abstract exchange of this sort out into the world of actual conflicting goods that most here will be familiar with. That is the “example” that most intrigues me.
I acknowledge that my “hole” is just another intellectual/existential contraption. But I try to make others understand [re my abortion trajectory] how my thinking here came to evolve over time, given a particular set of experiences coming into contact with a partiuclar set of ideas.
Some objectivists, others not. Calling them “contraptions” is just something that makes sense to me given how they come to be and then evolve existentially.
Rather than essentially…derived from one or another set of assumptions embedded in religion or ideology or philosophy or assessments of nature.
In other words…
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?
For you not having objective morals and being awa[re] that your position is based on dasein/inborn nature puts you in a hole. It doesn’t do that to me.
Exactly! Now, why is that? Given that we both make the assumption that moral values “for all practical purposes” are derived from one or another rendition of humanism.
Then [for me] it comes down to how much weight you put on the manner in which I construe the existential intersection that encompasses/embodies identity, value judgments and political economy.
All we can really do [here] is [to the best of our ability] describe what unfolds “in our head” when we do come into conflict with others. And how that translates into choosing one set of behaviors rather than another.
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.
Oh, I can root them in those things also. Of course my preferences are influenced by what I have experienced and my genetics. I am very influenced by what I have gone through.
Then we get stuck. We can only try to communicate to others how that “works” for us out in the world with others. Here and now.
How ought “I” to be factored in given the extent to which 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.
…seems reasonable.
But I would never argue that others ought think about it in the manner in which I do today. I am, instead, far more interested in understanding how and why it seems less reasonable to them.
And, then, with folks like Phyllo, the manner in which they configure God and religion into it.
…you are making my pragmatism into something it is not.
What I am doing is trying to understand how, since we are both pragmatists, you feel less fractured and fragmented then I am. Given that how I understand the “self” here puts considersbly more weight on the part where “I” is deemed to be largely an existential contraption in a world awash in conflicting goods.
I’m not able to feel less deconstructed, so how are those who eschew objective morality [like me] able not to feel that way?
Here I presume that in order to feel less broken psychologically you have thought yourself into a frame of mind [philosophically] that accomplished that. One that I am unable to think myself into accepting myself.
You say that your own rendition of pragmatism does not bring you solace. Okay, you believe that. But I don’t know how one cannot feel something akin to solace given the extent to which one can distance himself from the manner in which I see these arguments as embedded in the components of my moral philosophy here and now.
You say…
I have preferences, I am practical in relation to them. My pragmatism does not justify them or make me feel ok. It is what I, and you for that matter, do. We try to figure out how to avoid X, get Y, etc. Objectivists are pragmatists, and then they also have additional stuff. All creatures are pragmatists. It has nothing to do with my not being in your hole.
You do what you do. And that’s enough. Well, it’s not enough for me. Once I managed to convince myself of the extent to which “I” here is largely an existential fabrication/contraption from the cradle to the grave, everything that I do comes under the sort of scrutiny that you and other non-objectivists are able to avoid.