Look, either you and I and Faust will at least make an attempt to bring “assessments” of this sort out into the world of human interactions or I’m left with stringing my own words together while we connect the dots between them and technical “statements” about “universal truth”.
…But if we don’t even know what ‘it’ is how could we possibly explore it contextually out in the world of human activities.
First note a context. A context in which human interactions come into conflict over the assessment of particular things and relationships deemed to be or not to be true by different people for different reasons. For example, a context revolving around gun control. Then encompass what “it” means to you then and there.
And I will react to it.
In other words, anything other than example like this:
A: I don’t think alskdjflaölös is coherent.
Iamb: give us some concrete examples of alskdjflaölös.
A: huh?
Iamb: I think alskdjflaölös means Y. And why is no one applying it to concrete real world examples?[pause]
Iamb: I don’t believe my definition of alskdjflaölös is right. But I want people to talk about alskdjflaölös in the world of conflicting goods.
A, B, C…etc.: huh?
Come on, at least try something a bit more realistic, okay?
On this thread, others will either take the “statements” they make regarding “universal truth” and ground them in particular sets of circumstances or they won’t.
Well, if Faust thinks the phrase makes no sense, he can’t. There are a few people who don’t think the phrase makes sense. Zero Sum does think it makes sense and he gave an example. For what it’s worth.
What does not make sense about philosophers taking their intellectual assessments of – technical statements about – “universal truth” and noting how they do in fact have both a use value and an exchange value in interacting with others in particular contexts. Otherwise [to me] you seem to be saying that philosophers have their own “thing” here and it’s not really relevant to human interactions at all. “Universal truth” becomes this epistemological contraption that serious philosophers are more intent on grappling with “technically”.
I’m suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.
Notice your use of the passive: it needs…
All I mean is that in order for them to be of interest to philosophers of my ilk, technical assessments of “universal truth” either can or cannot be made relevant to the point Durant makes…
He wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him…He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology.
Though clearly this has a meaning for me that will not resonate at all for others. The part I attribute to dasein.
Yes, that’s what I want. So, if he or you or others want/need something else, then by all means steer clear of me here.