Is this an intellectual contraption or not?!!!
The only way in which any of us could fully understand either the optimal or the only rational manner in which to confront those objectivists who believe they are the embodiment of the “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do”, and those subjectivists who are hopelessly “fractured and fragmented”, is to grasp an ontological understanding of existence itself.
Well, that’s not me. Instead, I put myself out in the world and, existentially, attempt to explain how “I” think and feel when confronting conflicting goods given a particular context. And given some measure of autonomy
After all, for all practical purposes [in a No God world],what else is there?
Here I can be a pragmatist in that I recognize my thinking and feeling are derived more from dasein than from what I have come to believe philosophy or science is able to establish as in fact true. About anything from abortion or the rights of animals to human sexuality or genocide.
This part…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…is still always there for me.
How, in a particular context, is this not applicable to you?
Again, in what particular context? Instead:
Same thing. How are our reactions to words like this given a particular set of circumstances brimming with conflicting goods not going to be the embodiment of dasein?
And yet any number of other people dealing with the same set of circumstances use their own tools to come to the same or different conclusions. And the narcissists/sociopaths can argue “fuck all that, what’s in it for me”?
My point is only to suggest that, sans God, there is no argument that mere mortals can make that settles it once and for all. Such that all rational human beings must behave in a particular way here because philosophically they are obligated to.
Or, rather, that the argument may exist, but I have not yet come across it myself.
On the contrary, the onus would be on me if I insisted all rational men and women are obligated to be or to feel fractured and fragmented because that is the only thing rational thinking dictates here.
I have no idea what this means. I merely point out that, given the “human condition”, we live in a world where individual people [biologically] have wants and needs. This is embedded in many, many different historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts. So, given this, it’s only realistic to note that when behaviors come into conflict, people will wonder what the rules of behavior ought to be. Tao facilitate the least dysfunctional interactions. And, then, will they be predicated on might, on right, or on moderation, negotiation and compromise?
And I point out that had your life been very, very different, you may well have been one yourself. And even if historically and culturally the general consensus is that the sexual exploitation and abuse of children is wrong, there are those able to rationalize it because their whole moral perspective [in a No God world] revolves entirely around “what’s in it for me”?
And in fact the way you feel about the abuse of children is precisely the argument that pro-life folks makes in arguing against abortion. What abuse could be worse than shredding babies in a Planned Parenthood clinic? Or discuss and debate the consumption of animal flesh with PETA fanatics. Or the right to bear arms with NRA members. There are any number of folks regarding any number of conflicting goods who insist they too would never be “one of them”; and will “continue to struggle to minimize their acceptance.”
My point again are value judgments of this sort derived more from the manner in I construe the meaning of dasein in my signature thread or more from the manner in which these folks have been able to concoct the “perfect argument”?
Including the relationship between the “self” that you have accumulated existentially and your own value judgments.
Again, we need a context. A discussion regarding our own behaviors with respect to the existential juncture that is identity and value judgments. A discussion in which you can point out in detail how I am guilty as charged of all these practices.
But, by and large, you prefer to keep everything up in the general description clouds of abstractions:
Note to others:
What do you think he is proposing about me here? And let’s make it about something we can tie in to the thread. Something, in other words, that he and believe about the relationship between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave, as that pertains to God and religion, as that pertains to what we anticipate our fate will be on the other side of grave.
But:
As that pertains to the manner in which I construe my self here as “fractured and fragmented” and the manner in which he construes his own “I” differently.