We appear to be on the same page.
The rather bizarre Orwellian concept of "objectivity" has somehow managed to worm its way into our language. Practically everyone falsely believes (with unjustifiable confidence) that "objectivity" exists and is an unquestionable ideal-high-goal and more so that their own beliefs are "more objective" or "fair and balanced" than their detractors, and beyond that, all their detractors are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.
This premise about "objectivity" detailed above, allows people to pretend great atrocities are justified against "non believers" because "they deserve what they get". Side note: In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration. In other words, if you believe in a black and white world and "philosophy" muddies the waters, then "philosophy" is a "problem" and must be wrong, ex post-facto. This is an example of "affirming the consequent" (a logical fallacy) which basically means you are "closed minded" and only seek serious exploration of ideas that you believe are likely to reinforce your own pre-conceived ideas, technically known as prejudices.
And before you think I'm trying to single out one particular group of people, "godless secular liberal progressives" are just as guilty of this type of thinking as the other more obvious religious and political targets.
The simple fact that people (Trumpies are just one example) are able to very effectively dismiss and deflect all criticism by characterizing their detractors as "biased" proves how pervasive and insidious and anti-intellectual this ideal-high-goal of "objectivity" is. This specific technique is a combination of "false choice" and indirect "ad hominem" attack. In formal logic it is widely recognized as an illegitimate form of argument (logical fallacy). And yet, by all accounts "millions of people" think this qualifies as a plausible line of reasoning.
Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth". And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals" (intersubjective), which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical, but with the key difference being that "a broad consensus" doesn't necessarily categorize detractors as either being disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. It at least leaves the door open to the idea that there may be some legitimate disagreement based on contrary evidence or other logical considerations without an automatic reflexive leap to pure demonization (terrorism is another good example of this).
Yes, the same page it seems to be for us :)
Of course you are a crackpot, just like me - HaHa :D to move out of this confusion, I need some crackpotness. You are invited to be even more crackpot than you already are.
....
While some are arguing or striving for consensus, others are already busily living it. In the multitude of people and their daily actions, it is not possible to find a real consensus, i.e. to pin it down, because it always shows itself in the encounter that is currently being carried out and then disappears again. In other words, one does not talk about finding consensus, but finds it in the present moment. The intention is not clear and precise, but rather unclear and open.
Political, philosophical and intellectual consensus takes a very long time and then when it is there - produced by those you call capable - the world has moved on in the meantime. All those who did not work in political or other designated bodies to reach this consensus have nevertheless contributed to the consensus. They are therefore just as capable or incapable as the designated or selected capable (or incapable) ones. The panel is merely visible, the other many remain invisible to the other many and always make themselves visible solely through the moment of an experienced action between individuals.
For this reason, I consider anecdotes in which individuals describe these anecdotes to be very relevant.
I could slightly modify your formulation and say:
The godless, secular free progressives are just as seducible (ignorant) in this way of thinking as those who are clearly more visible in their religious and political goals.
As soon as you put a value in the placeholder, it applies to all, never to one group, but the negativity of the statement "to blame" does not allow one's own group to be taken as equally "guilty" because of the perceived insult.
But if one were to say that this way of thinking is equally likely for one group or another, not wanting to see oneself as evil, this creates a different resonance, doesn't it?
Crackpots United.
Consensus is certainly dynamic and amorphous and often implicit (and local).
Except perhaps in physics and engineering (above 4 sigma **).
People from all times and places wish to live in a peaceful society where everyone has food and medicine and is free to raise their own families.
What people generally disagree about is exactly HOW this can be accomplished and or sustained.
Yeah, I like to be a united crackpot :D
I would boil down it even more: we disagree not so much about how it could be achieved, but about whether the way to achieve it should be compulsory or voluntary.
And or how much should be compulsory and or voluntary.
POLITICS = POLITIA = POLICE