Well, isn't it disingenuous to make the preface without actually addressing your objections? If you want to do it separately, go for it. I'm more concerned with accusations of being disingenuous. Wrong I can live with. So at least address the former.







I'd insist on "most", but otherwise I'm fine with that. See? The dialectic moves and resolves itself, and we're all the better for it! Perfect Hegelian synthesis! I love playing the role of antithesis!






Really? I mean, this is an objection? Ok, fair enough, let's address it. We can divide it into thirds as you did. No one made that claim in this thread in the form of those three statements in that sequence. But it's a reconstruction, and a pretty fair one. Vivian explicitly stated the first part, as you note. She also explicitly stated the third part many times over above. The second part was indeed supplied by you, and D0ma too, but you did indeed retract it. Vivien remained silent on it, falling back on her feelings, which is questionable but not invalid. However, nearly all the articles she cited actually stated this part expliictly as well. I won't pull quotes on the ipad, though, since it's a nightmare. I'll happily give word by word justifications via copy/paste tomorrow when I'm at my PC if you still disagree that my reconstruction is representative. Just look at the article I quoted a couple posts above here, which pretty much states things as I just did., That should be sufficient for now. So it's a very fair reconstruction, and a stronger one than explicitly stated anywhere in the thread (though indeed explicitly stated in the articles).

Also, please note, third part is not subjective, it is normative. Don't conflate the two. Subjective claims extend over one's own subjective experiences and are limited to them. Normative claims are not subjective, since they are claims about how other people in the world should conduct themselves, and to that extent they are objective. You can call them external, or transcendent depending on your conceptual scheme of choice, I suppose, though, If you're thinking part 3 is subjective because she falls back on her feelings, which is something she said I believe herself, this is also incorrect. In that case her justification is subjective, and its own claim, but the actual "should" statement which was issued still is Normative and objective. If she wants to cite something like the connotation as a justification for her Normative statement, that then would be a justificatory claim that is objective. Js.

Anyway, I'm pretty fine with the above statement as an effective resolution. I'm interested in your responses to this, but the post above is just loose ends pretty much that I'll get to tomorrow.