Agreed. The question is how you can derive responsibility from a metaphysics that sees the individual as an illusion, the self as a fiction or an emergent property.
https://twitter.com/AriLamm/status/1441421403669028865
As I see it, there are two paths. One is to double down on individualist metaphysics and say there really is an essential self out there, an individual soul, without which Lockeian right to property would make no sense. The other path is the pragmatic one.
In the pragmatic one, individuality and freedom are useful but false or at least unprovable beliefs. I see utilitarianism as a species of pragmatism. Don't focus on questions of essence, just maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
If metaphysical questions lead to more harm than pain, than we should reject them. Who needs the headache and the heartache.
One such pragmatic thinker is Nietzsche. If your science isn't "joyful" what are you even doing?
https://twitter.com/ZoharAtkins/status/1384562206491217927
Another pragmatist is Rorty. Rorty's project is to give a non-foundationalist defense of liberalism
https://twitter.com/ZoharAtkins/status/1430897432699629572
But of course, defining liberalism as anti-foundationalist makes an enemy of all the foundationalists out there. And what about pluralism??
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
