Ok. Let’s start with the Trump presidency, and how that, which include everything assumed and known about him ,( where what is available are ostensibly distinct to what is known) plays a part.
Here is the first problem we face. My own assessment may or may not follow the guidelines You are following in part, with both belonging to the larger set of our common understanding.
Then, take other’s understanding, until all members of the planet are included in 'everything known about it.
Individually, we may know a limited amount of information about him, and our common sense is a measure of how big the pie of sharing that .
What is this common sense that ostensibly connects our partial senses?
Here is where the boundary between senses and knowledge overlap.
Such overlap determines the partially differentiated sense between knowledge and sensation.
Ok. The point is, the overlap includes no absolutely determined boundaries between individual and common knowledge/sensation. There is no absolute break between them, or how much partially differentiated substantial/formal content vis.belief and knowledge .
This is the first entry point.
Trump is struggling with this very notion of establishing credibility between truth and fake, and there is a parallel here with it, and he is relying on common sense to form a consensus of opinion between the particular man at the voting booth in 2020, and how this common sense effects his choice .
The first entry point one could consider the precept.
The second the action resulting from it.
The Kantian allusion Trump touched upon was the transcendentalky changed objects of reference, whereby he could change constituent opinions across the board, by real and disguised forms of communication.This is why he had to discredit the press, and shift testing validity of the meaning of words from common understanding to changing opinions through changes of what literally constitute : democracy, due process, equal rights, checks and balances-toward relational terminology: rather then fixed ideas in the constitution of how language is represented in themselves.
If he is able to do this, and he has been to a large extent, then opinion change is established relationally, on grassroots levels: literally down to earth.
That Kantianism implies a central position, the changes of. dynamic relationships changed the rules. Variability in axiomatic referentiality is used in simultainity, to reinforce the signals constituents to interpret , shifting centers toward newly formed balances.
This has been done successfully up until now, however gun control, attempts at corporate control , the wall, reversal of foreign policy successes , has back pedaled policy as they remains in a cloud.
The last or the third gateway to this problem of something or nothing is the most difficult because it has to show the effective use, function of the prior two, the phenomenon or the perceptive form of representing Trumpism as political objective, from a structural point of view as consistent with the effect on a third phase.
For this, revert to a more familiar theme, that of abortion.
Abortion has political undertones, as per the value of life, in its most axiomatic or self included form, stretching Your observance to the rights and freedoms of the individual. In fact, the all inclusive Catholic set of values dictates the terms of existential absolutes, of moral predication, whereas Trumpism is clad in the usual political quagmire, based on correctness the sense of sets of variable value judgements revolving around ethical senses of constitution.,ll Constituting , and constituency.
The second gateway of political expediency, is more prone to be represented by constituancy, constituting the opinions of variables of political outlook.
What is central in the prior? It is the question of what determines the quality of the embryo which is considered a complete human being. That question revolves around a phisiologycal constitution, and in essence of is variable by degrees.
That the embryo goes through similar resembling phases as the various phenotypes in the ordinate human development from fish like creatures to human forms, matter of factly presents a particular phase , as when the embryo is more human then it’s prior animal phase of development.
Since You assert a god-less universe, it can be fairly safely said, that an abortion at a certain phase, before it resembles a human form, is not yet a human being, but mostly animal.At this stage, the abortion can be declared morally justified.
Ethically, like logically, the opinion tests mostly on principles of political expediency, and it becomes a matter of relative perspective, to ask the question, if it is a human being. Ethically, politically, religious institutions can be evoked, and thus it becomes a matter less of constitution, then one of constituting by constituancy. It no longer belongs in the first tier of an existential dilemma, that of concerns of basic science in its their reduced form, but with various ethical concerns about rights and freedom to act, in accordance with multitudes of relative perspective and context. Hence it becomes not an ‘existential’ problem, but an essential one, determinitive with questions of belief, for the most part. This way it is not a dynamic inquiry adjacent and formative one with perceptive analysis, but a preceptive opinion based conclusion, devoid of a model of assessment like that in the first one.
The shift from a politically loaded inquiry as that of Trumpism , to a Darwinian analysis , would place the former into a post adaptation position, where the same methodology cannot be used to the latter, literally because the features of Darwinian adaptation are based on very clear adaptive mechanics of structural changes, whereas adaptation in political terms imply adapting mass political designs and aims. …
Philosophically, these designations, are more often then not subject to reified constructions, whereby they can be manipulated. They can not be said to form structural hierarchies corresponding to basic structures, but are predicated on subjective constructions of manipulated reality.
Hence, Trumpism belongs in the third tier, and relationability to existential questions relegate to a minimum level of observation (phenomenal)
If, political correctness and expediency imply an inherent set of dynamics, this could be shown to be based mostly on false derivitives or, falsely guided ones. Some people live in made believe castles in the sky, such as - today’s Trump statement that he is akin to a prophet or something of the Jews, because of taking leading political roles such as moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
There are no factual basis to support such tweets, and transcendental -political objects may not go to conclude a solution , simply, because of the will to overcome any dissent.
Abortion does revolve around morality over standard ethical consideration, and that is why Wade vs. Roe stands on a slippery slope, a slope that regresses the quality of argument into conflation and nonsense.
Is abortion arguable? Yes, but not on a level of politically inclination. .
Is Trumpianism arguable pro or con? Yes but with logic that is constituted of a science of actually derived political terms, more determinative on a sense of power, for it’s own sake (nothing) then on any directly attributable logic.
Since existential arguments offer a priority over the essential questions surrounding those of designating the forms within, such as changes in constituting structural dynamics and replacing them-
(For instance the post dialectical materialism that defines the period after the fall of communism, does or should require an antithetical formation of a new structural unity?) -puts the constitution in the form of a new designation of terms of least or most functional utility of a new type of governance, -is such a question.
Is the renewed Kantian revival, merely a litmus test, or a feedback mechanism into the structural basis of moral questions , generating structural changes within a unified world stage, or is it indicative toward widening of national boundaries, as a work in progress, with min/max applications of internal/ external control?-remains clarification…
The some thing/nothingness of nomenclature designated can spell this out, more objectively (constitutionally) or with less (congressionally), from a dynamic center, is again a product of relative-relationally fed back information/data.
I tried to shift toward the minimum of logos, and a maximum of down to earth examples, to satisfy Your requirements, however the interact, either/&/ or, on a more or less conscious-subconscious state of delivery. So not: the nothingness and lack of material justification and presence of it must play a part. Of, should.
As You may have noticed, I avoided giving You the impression which argues pro or con particular interpretations of nihilism. Such an attempt would entail the adoption of contrariness to either the political or the psychological bias inherence. Long ago I affirmed my conditional relevance and resemblance that is inherent on a neo-Kantian resurgence, albeit toward it’s more complex Leibnitz’ mode of proceeding. That is of differential and integral processes fed back within various modes of representation, as progressive, and ultimately, will resolve It/themselves , introjectively, settling issues with standard paradigmn variations.
The longer I think about it , the more agreeable Peacegirl’s proposal becomes viable.