Let him cite a single post able to demonstrate that I am against objective morality.
Instead, over and again, I have noted that objective morality may well exist. If only because a God, the God may well exists. My point is that given the components of my own moral philosophy, “I” [here and now] do not believe that it exists.
If others, however, do, let them note this by encompassing their moral values in a description of an actual context in which conflicting goods have prevailed now for as many years as, say, philosophers themselves have been around?
What single righteous behavior has been demonstrated to be obligatory for all rational men and women. Just one.
Then where does he go? Ever and always back up into the clouds:
The closest he’ll come to the real world is this sort of thing…
What particular abortion, theft or adultery in what particular set of circumstances? Viewed from what particular frame of mind embodying what particular set of moral and political prejudices?
Again, let him choose a context and we can explore his accusations more specifically.
Or, sure, we can all note how he wiggles out of it this time.
Okay, did or did not the objectivists down through the ages [from Jesus Christ and Muhammad to Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin] manage to convince themselves that they embodied all three?
In other words, we’ll need a context. A set of circumstances and a point of view regarding how one either is or is not obligated as a rational human being to earn self-respect, integrity and honesty about one’s “self”.
Why don’t we start here with the components of “I” in a particular context. You can pick it.
And how do we determine to what degree they embodied these values?
Note to Other
The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative. Power of the Nil.
We are all poor - Marxism We are all sinners - Abrahamism
Yes…let’s democratically vote what ‘truth’ is.
There is no objectivity…all is subjective.
This is projection:
Objectivist:
Anyone who shows certainty that his opinion is superior to that of another. There is no way to objectively determine which subjective viewpoint is superior - if it ain’t absolute it is like everything else.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism corrupted, just like everything else.
The correct demeanour is uniform skepticism - Marxist distribution of error - to the level of being trapped in procrastination and uncertainty, where the only way out is communal agreement, or an egotistical declaration of will.
If you do not show the correct level of humility - in the form of a disclaimer - then you are an evil Objectivist.
To bring about the future, desired Utopia - Marxism/Abrahamism - we must level man down to uniform dust.
Ha!!
Hey Brian…this is what you are.
You are just more sly, cynical and clever - you self-deceive more convincingly. The Ego and His Own.…Ha!!!
A less stern Stirner.
Modern day Diogenes…self-pleasuring himself in the Agora, to be seen, to ‘make a point’ of his exclusivity; to spit ni the eye of authority - da paulice!!!
Selectively skeptical; selectively stringent; selectively aware - self-deceiving. Best lies are those that sample reality, not those that contradict it.
Forever innocent, victim of otherness…whatever be thy name oh lord of otherness.
How about the impeachment and the removal from office of Donald Trump.
Has he been impeached and removed from office as of today? No, in fact, in the either/or world that we all live in, he is still in office. On the other hand, is that a “universal truth”? Technically as it were?
Now this part:
Should he be removed from office?
Is there an “only correct” answer here as well? And how might any particular individual’s answer, as a value judgment, be construed in turn as either an objective truth or a universal truth?
How is this…
The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative.
Power of the Nil
Intent, imbecile…nothing can be measured without triangulation.
Subject/Object/Motive
What is the goal? The destination.
There is no blanket value-judgment, except in the simple minds of the world.
Trump’s impeachment- as if I could give a fuck what happens to that Zionist - should be evaluated in relation to the desired goal.
Yours is universal parity, no?
I do not believe in this, because I’ve never seen it.
Can you show me an example of absolute parity to be inspired?
I’ve been doing this to minds of his ilk now for years, but: it still manages to amuse me. In other words, bringing them to this. Fit to be tied. Huffing and puffing, sputtering, babbling, stammering…beside themselves with exasperation.
Brian…this is the kind of mind you identify with.
I would pity you…but you are innocent, no?
Nothing that happened, happens or will happen to you is of your making.
It’s all part of universal order.