Does the reconciliation occur only by the ironist's initiation? Meaning, is it necessarily because the ironist acts in the world and rubs against all types of experience, from the depraved to the dignified that the ironist has the capacity to become aware of his historical contingency...and that awareness can make an impression of the non-ironist? But the hard hearted moralist without the ironist's intervention never really experiences anything outside of himself and therefore can never come to this conclusion on his own? (At least that's been my own experience- thinking my absolute values are absolute until I experience something outside of my own syllogisms.)
Refusing on principle to accept an apology were _especially_ important when no direct wrong has been done to one because it is a way of identifying oneself with those who _have_ been wronged, out of a simple sense of solidarity or grasping for the notional purity of victimhood.
Such people can be especially dangerous, e.g. the middle-class 9/11 hijackers radicalised by the plight of their poor 'brothers', the Weather Underground, the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof faction, Stephens Miller and Bannon, because they both have something to prove and, there being no direct wrong to compensate, there is no good scale for the proper amount of compensation. (…though, admittedly, once deaths or enslaved lives are in the picture, the courts will find set amounts just but hearts may well never.)
The solution some propose to the problem of an inchoate and fickle Public is to limit humanity to those on their own team, as per Hoppe's assigning those disagreeing with him in certain important wises the moral status of 'animal' .
(Especially not a good look on a German, I think.)
Is it impossible to be an ironist with a few absolute standards, or (less severely) one well aware of the slippery slope and so on guard against using the 'way of the World' justification too far?
Does the reconciliation occur only by the ironist's initiation? Meaning, is it necessarily because the ironist acts in the world and rubs against all types of experience, from the depraved to the dignified that the ironist has the capacity to become aware of his historical contingency...and that awareness can make an impression of the non-ironist? But the hard hearted moralist without the ironist's intervention never really experiences anything outside of himself and therefore can never come to this conclusion on his own? (At least that's been my own experience- thinking my absolute values are absolute until I experience something outside of my own syllogisms.)
Refusing on principle to accept an apology were _especially_ important when no direct wrong has been done to one because it is a way of identifying oneself with those who _have_ been wronged, out of a simple sense of solidarity or grasping for the notional purity of victimhood.
Such people can be especially dangerous, e.g. the middle-class 9/11 hijackers radicalised by the plight of their poor 'brothers', the Weather Underground, the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof faction, Stephens Miller and Bannon, because they both have something to prove and, there being no direct wrong to compensate, there is no good scale for the proper amount of compensation. (…though, admittedly, once deaths or enslaved lives are in the picture, the courts will find set amounts just but hearts may well never.)
The solution some propose to the problem of an inchoate and fickle Public is to limit humanity to those on their own team, as per Hoppe's assigning those disagreeing with him in certain important wises the moral status of 'animal' .
(Especially not a good look on a German, I think.)
Is it impossible to be an ironist with a few absolute standards, or (less severely) one well aware of the slippery slope and so on guard against using the 'way of the World' justification too far?