Better one from me, than one from nature.
Right?
In a wholly determined universe [as I understand it], things are only able to be predicted if there is a God; or if there is a teleological component to nature in a No God world that [obviously] has not been pinned down by mere mortals; a predictive component embedded in the laws of nature that is embedded in turn in a definitive understanding of existence itself.
On the other hand, that slew of repeating sentences is predicated solely on the assumption that mere mortals here on planet Earth do possess some measure of free well. Then the distinction I make is between that which is able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us [in the either/or world] and “personal opinions” rooted in dasein in regard to acquiring, assessing and then judging the moral and political values of others [in the is/ought world].
Here, however, I require the discussion to be illustrated. By being embedded descriptively in an examination of the relationship between conflicting goods out in a particular world [ours for example] pertaining to a particular context. Which I always allow the objectivists among us to choose.
I’ve already addressed this with you on the universal truth thread:
To which you responded…
This is like a poem you repeat. Doesn’t matter what the other says. You just repeat the same, over and over.
As for the Marxist utopia, I have long since abandoned that rendition of objectivism. I merely note the extent to which Marxism is a vital component in regard to the role that political economy plays in our lives.