Jakob wrote: Gigantic it is.
I try to work with all the things I know are going on, from Bilderbergs scheming to the thoughts and feelings of common persons.
I try to see where everything goes.
Yeah, we all do that. But we all do that from the perspective of one particular individual having had [in the course of living his or her life] a unique set of experiences and relationships and access to information and knowledge.
So, to the extent that someone basically ignores this and concocts one or another grand scheme [or philosophy of life] to explain where he thinks that things are going, is the extent to which in my view he embodies what I call the psychology of objectivism.
Then it's just a matter of which particular set of political prejudices he comes to champion. And the extent to which he excoriates all those who refuse to become "one of us".
Thus, it comes down to the extent to which you believe that others are obligated to think like you do because how you think is thought by you to be the optimal point of view or [even] the only rational point of view.
But, at this juncture, we would have to bring this discussion down to earth. Given a particular moral or political issue, what would constitute human interactions going where they ought to go? What is the actual embodiment of reason and virtue given a particular context.
Jakob wrote: What I describe isn't so much a plan, as something I see happening.
Okay, you see something happening in this caste system that others do not see. But how is their point of view not in turn just another existential contraption embedded in their own set of political prejudices embedded in their own life's trajectory?
What can philosophers pin down as that which all rational and virtuous men and women
are obligated to believe?
Jakob wrote: It is clear to me after watching the left rally against a perfectly moderate and decent president as if he were a tyrant that there is a serious and profoundly impacting disease running through the leftist mindset, which I would think must lead to social degradation and a long term impotence in terms of, well, self-valuing logic.
Moderate and decent in regard to what policy? What makes any president moderate and decent in regard to this policy? And how is the right-wing mindset not in turn configured existentially? What makes them the exception here other than that you construe yourself as more in sync with their point of view?
And, again, in regard to a particular set of conflicting goods, what on earth does it mean to speak of "social degradation and a long term impotence in terms of, well, self-valuing logic."
Pick a context, a set of conflicting behaviors rooted in a set of conflicting value judgments and flesh out what this means to you.