Speaking of things said repeatedly, I might remind you that I am not asking you [or anyone else] to “resolve” the quandary embedded in conflicting goods for me. Instead, I note how, when I am confronted with them, I – “I” – become fractured and fragmented.
How are others then either more or less so themselves? Or, instead, how do they demonstrate to me that they are in sync with “the real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”?
Out in the world that we live in. In a particular context.
How then are others [objectivists or not] less so? How do they not see the “self” here as more rather than less an existential contraption embodying particular political prejudices that they were predisposed toward to given the trajectory of their actual lived lives.
I’m not telling them how to think, I’m explaining to them [re my abortion trajectory] the manner in which I have come to think about conflicting goods precipitating a considerably more deconstructed frame of mind.
Why one set of “goals” rather than another? And how are these goals less the embodiment of dasein and more a reasoned exploration into ethics given the tools of philosophy?
They will take their moral philosophy there or they won’t. And, if they insist that they already have, we can then squabble over whether we are talking about the same thing.
Yes, I tend more than you in our exchange the express hostility openly.
I don’t have any problem with that. I merely explore the extent to which it strikes me as a polemical bent [which I often pursue myself] or a hostility based on the assumption that they really do believe that, with respect to the existential juncture revolving around identity, value judgments and political power, my own argument is genuinely worthy of hostility.
That’s when I ask them [re my abortion trajectory] to bring their own arguments out into the world and embed them in a context most here will be familiar with.
You can’t seem to understand the issue about revision in science, and that I am not saying that IS and OUGHT realms are the same. That one could, but you don’t, feel in a hole, given science’s revising around the self, minds, brains, time, determinism. Not the specific current conclusions, but that they have changed over time and have a good chance of changing again.
My point about revision in science is that each revision gets us closer and closer to the objective truth [if there is one] or it doesn’t. The assumption being that there is an objective truth to be arrived at. But how does someone demonstrate that each revision in their moral argument regarding abortion gets us closer and closer to the whole objective truth here too [if there is one]?
And then in exploring how the is/ought world would not be the same in a wholly determined universe.
YOu come back to abortion, as if I am saying IS and OUGHT are the same in all ways, rather than the specific way I mention. I give up.
I come back to abortion awaiting your own existential trajectory. A description of how a particular accumulation of experiences and a particular accumulation of philosophical ideas, resulted in your own “I” here that appears [to me] considerably less fractured and fragmented than mine.
People get angry at you because they either cannot face a lack of objective morals or those of us who can face that, for whatever motivations you hint at above. It has nothing to do wi[th] the way your communicate or your own behavior.
Again, what on earth does this mean? We need to take these assumptions out into the world of actual conflicting goods. How do we arrive at particular sets of motivation and intention?