Great, another intellectual contraption.
What we need instead is a discussion in which we explore our own moral philosophies, as they relate to our thinking about God and religion, as this relates to what we anticipate our fate to be after we die. In regard to a specific context/issue in which our value judgments are explored both existentially and philosophically.
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.
Bullshit. I do not need to be some kind of omniscient to deal with, including confront, objectivists. That’s nuts. I gotta fucking lie in my bed until I ‘grasp an ontological understanding of existence itself.’???
In other words, you are assuming that the arguments you make to the moral objectivists need be as far as you go. Even though as far as you are able to go encompasses and embodies only that which you think you know about the human condition here on earth. And is almost certainly not even close to all that can be known about it going back to the understanding of existence itself.
Sure, existentially, in any particular context, you can just shrug all that aside and be content with the arguments you do make to the objectivists. Why? Because they work for you. As though that gets you any closer to concluding definitively that neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice camps are thinking abortion through correctly.
Your version of
WE must X before we can live.BEcause let me tell you, I have to deal with objectivists all the time. Government agencies, workplaces, companies, people in these places and without. You may be a bit on the hibernated side, but still, you must also. Unless I moved into the wood and live off land no one gives a shit about, I have to…I have to confront and deal with objectivists and others…to live.
There is your anti-life position that you breach most days including when you post here. You fucking shoot objectivist fish in a barrel.
Once again, this is your own rendition of me. And the fact that I don’t recognize myself at all here is my problem not yours. Indeed, I can almost imagine you getting all worked up as you zero in on me, hammering me like a nail into your own psycho-babble assessment of what is really going on here with me.
And, yet, as I explain over and again, what I am interested in exploring is how you deal with your own objectivists without becoming fractured and fragmented. Given the manner in which “I” do in regard to my own understanding of right and wrong at the existential juncture that encompasses identity, value judgments and political economy.
Again, If you recognize that…
1] your moral and political values are embodied existentially in the trajectory of your experiences out in a particular world understood in a particular way and…
2] philosophers and scientists seem unable to construct [deontologically] an argument that either reconciles or resolves conflicting goods derived largely from dasein and…
3] new experiences in a world of contingency, chance and change are always out there able to reconfigure “I” in the is/ought world…
…then how is your sense of identity here [in not being an objectivist] not a precarious fabrication rooted in a world where there are countless social, political and economic variables you do not either fully understand or control.
You “expose” the objectivists for what they are, but how do you explain to them what you are if you argue that value judgments are just constructed, deconstructed and then reconstructed existentially [from the cradle to the grave] sans God or some other transcending font.
From my frame of mind, it is simply preposterious after all this time for you to argue that “[y]ou want perfection and complete knowledge before life and you resent anyone who decides to do the best they can to pursue their goals and preferences”.
On the contrary, I want to grapple with a frame of mind [my own] that has thought itself into believing that perfection and complete knowledge is precisely the illusion that the objectivists come to embody because it allows them to situate “I” in the “real me in sync with the right thing to do”…and then to nestle down comfortably in the psychological consolation that this provides them all the way to the grave. And then, for some, on into Heaven on the other side.
The rest is just more in the way of you pinning me down here. A way that is ever and always up in the psycho-babble clouds, making absolutely no reference to a context in which you examine in detail why and how the points I raise in my signature threads are not applicable to you. Why? Because you see human interactions in a No God world sans objective morality in such a way that…
…that what? I still have no real sense of how your “I” unfolds in a way that is different from mine even though we both share these same two crucial assumptions about the human condition.