What on earth are you talking about here?!
Subjective facts? No, my aim is to make a distinction between objective facts [truths] in regard to the conflicting goods swirling around the Second Amendment above, and subjective opinions in regard to what those facts tell us about moral narratives and political agendas that aim to either prescribe or proscribe actual human behaviors out in the world we live and interact in.
The manner in which we differentiate coherent from incoherent assessments in that discussion.
As that relates to the manner in which Faust claims to understand objective truth and then differentiates that from universal truth.
Instead, as he does, you keep it all up on the intellectual contraption skyhooks.
Next up: Ducks!!!
I’m sorry, but…huh?!!
There is either a duck in the house or there is not. If the house is searched and one is found is that or is that not an objective truth? Note the manner in which you understand the meaning objective/universal truth technically and tell us.
So, the duck is found and Jane says, “let’s have him for dinner.”
But John is aghast. “It’s immoral to eat animals!”
How then does the understanding of objective/universal truth then shift to accommodate this new context?
Really, imagine human interaction in which things and relationships are discussed and someone argues that it makes no sense to define the meaning of words? I must not be understanding you. In any event, my point is to distinguish between the meanings that we give to words in particular contexts [in the either/or world] that are able to be demonstrated as true for all of us – the meaning of duck, house, see, show, eat, etc. – and our reaction to those words when the discussion shifts and they are used in confronting conflicting goods.
“Is it okay to eat the duck in the house we see after you showed it to us?”
The duck is in the house. That’s real, that is something that does exist.
I therefore state that, “the duck is in the house.” So, philosophically, let’s make a gigantic distinction between the two?
Meanwhile I want to focus more on the actual existential distinction between those who want to eat the duck and those who refuse to let them. Defined or not, where is the objective truth here?
Everyone can agree that the duck is in the house if it is able to be established that in fact the duck is in the house. Stating that it’s true the duck is in the house doesn’t change that. If you are instead making an entirely different point, sure, I might [technically] still be missing it. But what is going to generate the greater use value and exchange value for philosophers, your point or mine?
When, for example, the discussion shifts [as it does this time of the year] between eating or not eating the turkey in the house? Quibble all you want about the empirical truth of the matter contra the epistemological truth embedded in stating what is true. But my emphasis will always be on the fact that however someone defines or claims to understand objective truth in the either/or world things change dramatically when we shift to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.
But then we know where Faust and his ilk will take the exchange:
Again, provide us with a context here such that a discussion of objective truth is able to pin down things that are in fact true for all of us versus things that someone claims to be true based on what she thinks she understands about a situation in her head.
You have told me how you solve it. As a pragmatist. Only my own pragmatism is embedded far more in the assumption I make here:
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.
In recognizing that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas may well reconfigure my own sense of self in the is/ought world, I am not able to make the part about being fractured and fragmented go away. You seem able to take your own existential leap and feel satisfied enough with this that the part about contingency, chance and change simply doesn’t reach the point where you feel the same sort of splintered “I”.
No, I offered the Faust the opportunity to take his scholastic assessment of objective/universal truth out into the world of actual conflicting goods. Re the issue of gun control. The focus that is of most importance to me.
Given what context?
He [and you] will either take your accumulating abstractions here out into the world that we live and interact in or you won’t.
Or we can just agree to disagree about who has accomplished or not accomplished what in that regard.
Now, let’s see how long we can go before you shift the focus from my idiotic demands to me being the fucking idiot period.