Or, for once Iambiguous could actually consider that it is not beliefs about objective morality that lead to his feeling fragmented and fractured. Consider that his pain comes from something else. Like actually considers this. That it might have to do with his social relationships or lack of, past traumas, habits of dealing with problems that might have worked ok when he was younger but less so now, his particular situation, repeated disappointment and a lack of tools to move forward with what matters to him and so on. Notice that he is as usual putting the onus on others. Let’s see what they think that I don’t. Then he will decide that belief X
is what makes them not fragmented.
Then they will be asked to prove to all rational people that belief X or strategy X is the one all people should have or follow.
Then if they can’t it is a mere contraption.
Rather than him engaging real, honest intropsection. What do his beliefs do to create his fragmentation? Beliefs about what one must do. Beliefs about how one cannot try anyting until one knows that all rational people should. What do fears about potentially changing and being fooled again by a belief system do to him. How has the past affected him. What does his current situation’s various qualities do to him on a feeling level. How does his social life meet or not meet his needs. And so on.
What could he DO rather than think about that might not solve the entire issue, but might help him take small steps towards feeling better and perhaps doing something else later on a more cognitive paradimatic level. What might he be DOING right now or not DOING that leads to him feeling fragmented and fractured. Oddly he just assumes he knows the source of his pain, when pretty much all modern cognitive science suggests we are often wrong about such things.
No. The only possible approach is basically to see what intellectual contraptions other people have, judge them as not sufficient to convince every human on earth, and therefore feel comfortable not doing anything new, since other people are just comforting themselves.
We have the onus for his problems, oddly enough. In practical terms, anyone not in his pain bears the onus in the discussion for justifying to every rational person on earth why they do not have his pain. That is not where the onus lies.
Whereas, in fact, he bears an onus, in his own life, for himself, to challenge his own conclusion that his pain is caused by what he thinks it is and then also that his approach to solving it is an effective one.
He has chosen a path shown via his posting in ILP.
Should every rational person follow that path? Might not this path actually be comforting to him, a comforting intellectual contraption?
I think it is. I think what it does is reassures him that other people, if they are in less pain than him, are merely soothing themselves (read: fooling themselves).
Sure, he’s still in pain, but he is not being fooled and their solutions are not real solutions but just placebos.
He is reassuring himself.
It’s the only comfort he has left. Which would be fine, who couldn’t sympathize. But he presents as someone wanting to have a philosohpical discussion.
And that is NOT what will happen.