My point though is that this point in turn must be taken out into the world and explored more substantively in particular contexts.
Language games in regard to what actual set of circumstances? For example, some insist that the Republicans are playing language games with respect to Trump’s attempt tp bribe the Ukrainian government into investigating Hunter Biden in order to dig up [or manufacture] dirt on what he presumed to be his likely Democratic opponent in 2020.
“Nothing really happened”. “Everybody does it”. “They got their money”. Here the language can either be wrapped around the precision of the law or obfuscated in a cynical attempt to sustain the political power of Trump. In sync [more or less] with sustaining the economic interests of those in power. Interests as perceived and understood by many in the Republican Party in a more or less ideological manner. And, in turn, for some, to use this power to sustain a set of value judgments that champion particular narratives and political agendas regarding any number of “social issues” or “value-voter issues”.
What then would the serious philosophers among us, touting their highly technical definitions, make of all this? What can be established as in fact true? What can be established as in fact a violation of the law? What can be established as in fact immoral behavior?
You know my take on it. That arguments and assessments here revolve largely around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a particular world embedded in a particular political economy.
There is no necessarily right or wrong way in which to broach, assess, describe or judge Trump’s behavior here. That can only be a subjective/subjunctive “existential contraption” in which any particular individual embracing [here and now] any particular moral and political prejudices perceives his or her own “self” here as more or less “fractured and fragmented”.
All I can do then is to entertain the arguments of others able to convince themselves that they are not fractured and fragmented at all. That, instead, in regard to the impeachment and removal from office of Trump or in regard to any other set of conflicting goods, they have convinced themselves that the “real me” is in sync objectively with “the right thing to do”.
I merely go further than most by noting those who reject conflicting goods altogether. The narcissists and the sociopaths who presume that in a No God world there are no necessarily good or inherently bad behaviors. There is only what “here and now” is perceived to be in their own best interests. They rationalize any and all means in pursuit of “what’s in it for me?”