Iambiguous said,
“My point however is that even to the extent this is not true, there are so many thousands upon thousands of variables that go into the making of “I” from the cradle to the grave, there is no realistic possibility that any one individual can pin them all down and configure them into a rational explanation as to why they believe this and not that.”
Yes, but from a cradle to a grave, more and more reification enter, and the deterministic sphere overcomes gradually with the players of appearent freedoms driven by free will.
That makes sense, because, finally the two spheres almost completely encompass each other.
My point is that determinism is no longer an either or situation, since WW2, when ( and this is the philosophic dynamic behind it, 3 political situations struggled to achieve a solution: social communism, national socialism, and capitalism.
The reduction into logical exclusion, is pairing the communist and socialist framework to defeat the synthetic-national socialism.
That exclusion, absolutely trying to exclude one from the other- reduced socialism and capitalism from an absolute interior national from international perimeters.
The ideal of inferiority of nationalism presented the pure dialectic toward materially relevant conflict between capital and the modes of producing the social antithesis of it.
The search for meaning then, took center stage, utilizing the ideas which would dominate modern philosophy, replacing dialectical European significance, and transferred it to the Victor-the Anglo Saxon apology, which has very little elements of doubt.
It was a transcription of political philosophy toward the question of which process is most significant.
The signifiers became the two surviving competitors, the communist international, and the so called western democratic nations.
Utility and pragmatic function against social dialectical materialism remains arch rivals.