iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 5:34 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:06 pm
What I mean to say is that I think our *modernity* and our *modern perspectives* are simply not really that
expansive and
free-ranging but rather narrow and to a degree controlled by the politically-correct mood.
What do you think of that statement?
Again, I'd argue that whatever any particular individual thinks is the "politically correct" position to take in regard to Queen Elizabeth's life and death, it is no less rooted existentially in dasein as I explore that in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
Unless of course someone here is able to provide us with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] able to be demonstrated as encompassing the
essential moral, political and spiritual truth.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 2:06 pmI found this interesting:
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.
In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
So if this is (still) true then I'd say that you are spinning in circles. And given the decisions you have made, unless you are proposing that these have been forced on you, will will spin forever.
Which is why I engage the moral and political objectivists here. They don't think this way in regard to their own value judgments.
Okay, I suggest, given a particular moral conflagration and a particular set of circumstances, let's compare and contrast our respective moral and political philosophies.
Only, in the end, in my view, the objectivists go around and around in their own circles.
Given conflicting value judgements revolving around the queen, around monarchy, around democracy, around abortion, around gun control, etc., around and around
they go:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective truth
3] I have access to the objective truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:57 pmThe encompassing and essential moral, political and spiritual truths -- as they pertain the England and the deeply decadent period it is in, will be known and felt when they come to fruition. One usually only learns about the value of things when they have been lost, destroyed or disregarded. Then, within that realization and as a result, one sets about again defining what these are.
Again, the assumption that there are
essential "moral, political and spiritual truths."
And there must be the objectivists up and down the political spectrum all insist. After all, they have already either discovered or invented them.
Your assessment above is to me but one more political
prejudice. A particular subjective narrative rooted more in the story of your life than in a frame of mind that philosophers are able to pin down as that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to share.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 6:57 pmWhat I think you must understand is that the trajectory you describe as your own (the people who reoriented you in Vietnam, etc., and what you did thereafter) is now being confronted in our present. It seems to me that people want to know, need to know, in what these destructive and undermining processes
originated.
Not sure what your point is here. What do you mean by "undermining processes"?
And, in my view, where individual value judgments relating to Queen Elizabeth's life and death "originate" is in the existential trajectory of the lives they live.
Different life, different value judgments.
Okay, Mr. Ethicist, taking that into account, is there a way, using the tools of philosophy, to arrive at the optimal reaction to her life and death?
