Dasein/dasein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Agent Smith »

"What's this?"

"Remember the Hulk action figure I bought you on 13/5/1998? Sorry, I can't seem to forget dates."

"Yeah, and ... ?"

"I bought you another Hulk, but this one's different. It's battery operated, It does these cool Hulk poses, you know like when he's super angry and all!"

"Really? Thanks a million Anna. You just made my day! Oh I can't wait to play with it."
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
When we face death

In his work with terminal cancer patients, Yalom noticed that the confrontation with death, instead of driving them to despair, helped people to transform and re-order life’s priorities, choosing not to do what they really didn’t wish to. For example, they were able to communicate more deeply with loved ones, had a keen appreciation of nature, the changing seasons and the beauty of the world, felt less fear of other people, were less worried about rejection or being judged, and possessed a greater willingness to take risks.
Yes, there are likely to be any number of people who are able to face their own existential death in such a manner. And you may well be one of them. Depending in large part on the extent to which you are able to think yourself into believing that there is something --- anything? -- beyond the grave.

On the other hand, I don't suspect that I will be able to myself. Either I will still be confronting all of the things that make life worth living and succumb to despair, or my life will devolve into a cesspool of physical suffering and I will choose death myself in order to end it.

Still, what remains most crucial here is the part embedded in dasein. There are so many different lives that we can live in accumulating so many different sets of experiences, involving so many different sets of options, that there are certainly going to be many instances in which a "failure to communicate" one's own frame of mind to others about death will never be bridged.

Also, the fact that philosophers are no more capable of acquiring wisdom here than others.

Or are you not convinced of that?
Heidegger writes about this transformation and how this anticipation of death “reveals to Dasein its lostness in the they-self, and brings it face to face with the possibility of being itself, […] in an impassioned freedom towards death, a freedom which has been released from the illusions of the “they”.
And then the part back then where millions of Germans lost themselves in the "they-self" that was embraced by the Nazis. And, as a result of that, how many Jews came face to face "with the possibility of being itself" in embracing "an impassioned freedom towards death" in the gas chambers?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
In summing up, it becomes clear that death, as the “impossibility of further possibility,” can shift our awareness to life as the “possibility of possibilities” (as described by Kierkegaard).
What could possibly be clearer? Now all we need do [as philosophers] is to think that through thoroughly and factor it into our actual existential deaths. Then we can reconvene and exchange our own subjective assessments regarding the most rational manner in which mere mortals in Martin Heidegger's No God world can go about living the most authentic lives on this side of the grave.

And thus avoiding this:
Through our denying, repressing and building strong unconscious defenses around these realizations, we lose the experience of authenticity towards death: through the “fact that each of us has our own, and only our own, death to die, [we] avoid the fact that each of us has our own, and only our own, life to live”
Now, admittedly, when it comes to living authentically "here and now" on this side of the grave, we seem unable to actually pin down what that entails in terms of behaviors either prescribed or proscribed. Instead, down through the ages, both morally and politically, living rational, authentic, coherent, astute, intelligent, etc., lives precipitate all manner of fierce conflicts.

But then those who insist that, philosophically, in a world sans God, objective/authentic lives are still within reach. Why? Because, in fact, they have already discovered what living this life entails.

Then the part where some include "or else".







Then the arguments that "I" make.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Death is intimately woven into our lives. We are dying from the moment we are born, which Heidegger (1962) sums up as: “Death is a way to be which Dasein takes over as soon as it is”.
You tell me:

In regard to death and dying, is this or is this not "a general description intellectual contraption"?

Yes, we can all read these words. And we all have a general understanding of what they mean. Aside from Dasein, most don't have to got to a dictionary and look the words up. And, even in regard to Dasein, there might well be a general consensus regarding how Heidegger links the word to death philosophically.

On the other end, what do those words mean to you in regard to your actual existential death? And, if they mean something very different to me, how would we go about, using the tools of philosophy, in arriving at the most rational understanding of them?
The lifelong deliberation of our mortality enriches our existence rather than pulling us into a spiral of morbid despair.
Same thing. What happens when any particular individual's lifelong deliberation on their own mortality results in their behaving in such a manner that it actually puts in jeopardy life itself for others. As, for example, in regard to religious conflicts or clashes between political ideologies.

At times, such deliberations can indeed enrich our lives. But, at other times, bring us little but despair. That's all rooted existentially in my own rendition of dasein.

Then back up into the philosophical clouds...
Though the ontological mode of existence doesn’t seem to be a state that we can will ourselves into indefinitely, there will be moments when our receptiveness to these experiences, and willingness to tolerate the existential anxiety and guilt, can guide us into phases of authentic being.
Given any particular context, your rendition of an authentic life or mine? Ours or theirs? Being authentic philosophically or existentially?
Befriending our finitude therefore becomes the challenge, allowing death to remind us that existence cannot be postponed. The message is simple, and Irvin Yalom sums it up nicely in his personal mantra:

“Although the physicality of death destroys us, the idea of death saves us.”
Of course, for many who are unable to believe in God, that brings them to another quandary:

They know they have but one life to live. So, yes, by all means live it to the fullest. But for any number of individuals that revolves around behaviors that actually risk death itself. Racecar drivers, mercenaries, thrill seekers, daredevils.

The idea of death then? Or, instead, is it something considerably more problematic...more in sync with my own understanding of dasein.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
There are many ways to approach the study of philosophy. One way is through its history. Another might be through its branches or schools. Yet, another could be by examining one philosopher’s work.
My way of studying it?

I started with my own day to day interactions with others. I asked myself, "why do I choose the behaviors that I do? Why these particular behaviors and not the behaviors that others choose? What are the variables in my life that predisposed me -- predispose me still -- to choose behaviors that others might insist are not the 'right behaviors'"?

Then, as I recall, one day in Dr. Gordon Pond's Philosophy 101 course at Essex Community College, I read an excerpt from Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. And, as I recall, I came upon this idea that we are "thrown adventitiously" at birth out into a particular world historically and in a particular place culturally.

That's when it dawned on me that, surely, the historical era into which I was born, along with the culture and the community and the family that raised me were instrumental in creating a sense of reality in connecting the dots between "inside my head" and "out in the world".

Okay, but what about others? What about other philosophers who spent their lives thinking up ways to connect all of the dots into a frame of mind that might be deemed the most rational and the most virtuous manner in which to choose one's behaviors.

After all...

"The term philosophy comes from two Greek words, philos, which means friend or lover, and sophia, which means wisdom."

I want to focus on a specific philosopher for this article: Martin Heidegger.

In “Being and Time,” he explores the idea of Dasein — being-there as an entity that is always in a world with meaning around it. This means that anything can happen at any time. Making thinking about our Being-in-the-world all the more difficult because we never know what will come next. When you think about it, Heideggerian Dasein has no control over their own life because they are being thrown around by circumstances and going from one moment to the next.
Yes, but what particular world is one thrown in? And just how much of a difference does it make if the world you were thrown into at birth is vastly different from the one that others are thrown into? Surely, as human beings, there are any number of objective factors that bind us together as a species. Those things that we all must procure in order to survive in and of itself. Those things we all need merely to subsist.

On the other hand, what can philosophers tell us about all the other things? For example, the things that existentially we come to want. Also, those things that precipitate conflicts regarding both ends and means.

Dasein that revolves around the assessments explored on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Given a particular context.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Gary Childress »

I just want to know if "Dasein" is designed or has a design that ought to be implemented. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't need to know all the specifics, my only frame of reference is the world around me and it doesn't seem to be in all that good of shape right now.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
“Everyday Dasein… is dispersed in a world which it already is familiar with — a world which, as a matter of fact, it keeps discovering bit by bit” [“Being and Time,”]
On the other hand, each of us as individuals are discovering bit by bit what can be very, very different worlds from day to day to day. There are always going to be the parts we share in common as human beings and the parts that precipitate uniquely personal understandings of the worlds around us. The parts able to be communicated in unison and the parts where communication breaks down over and over again.
In this statement, Heidegger emphasizes that we as humans are in a state of flux, discovering new things about the world around us. This also means that our understanding of the world is changing, making it hard to pin down any specific meaning.

Despite this inherent difficulty, Heidegger believes that we can still find meaning in our lives.
"Contingency, chance and change" as I like to put it. But no less experienced by all more or less the same in regard to some things but very distinctly in regard to other things. And this needs to be recognized whenever conflicts in communication crop up. What are there things we can always agree on and things that often do lead to contention. What is it about the "human condition" that might explain this?

As for finding meaning, how is it even possible that meaning itself is not involved in almost everything we do? What does it means to subsist from day to day? What does it mean to live in a family? What does it means to work as a plumber? What does it mean to find a new friend? What was it mean to have a heart attack?

Are we going to get into heated disagreements in discussing these things and all of the other things that basically mean the same thing to all of us?
We all have an innate tendency to make sense of our surroundings, but sometimes these meanings are unclear. This is especially true when we look at the life of a human being through the lens of time. We can see that there is no true meaning in the continuous passage of time; each moment is fleeting and new. Yet, we also experience a sense of continuity in our lives as we reflect on past moments and remember them as part of who we are.
My surroundings, or your surroundings? Our surroundings or their surroundings? And how does our own understanding of the surroundings that encompass our lives come to be what they are if not existentially? After all, would that not explain in part why individuals who were born and raised in the same communities are, dispute possessing an "innate tendency to make sense of our surroundings" still able to come into dispute over any number of things pertaining to the "rules of behavior" in the community.

And the part where in smaller, "technologically primitive" cultures in the past and in some parts of the modern world still such disputes were considerably less likely?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
This tension between meaninglessness and meaning is what Heidegger calls “Dasein.” Dasein is the term he uses for human beings because it is capable of experiencing this tension. Other beings do not have the same capacity to reflect on their existence, nor do they share the same sense of continuity. For this reason, Dasein is privileged for the study of what it means to be.
You know what is coming:

Given what particular context?

Meaning and the lack thereof in regard to what actual set of circumstances? Here my own rendition of dasein makes that important distinction between meaning that can be conveyed and shared objectively and meaning that ultimately comes down to just personal opinions. What does it mean to those in this community to submit posts to the forums here? Are we going to squabble over what "for all practical purposes" that entails?

No, my dasein takes aim at conflicting goods and the conflicting moral and political value judgments they invariably precipitate. The content of the posts. The tension -- sometimes declamatory and scathing -- that surfaces when others refuse to share the meaning we impart to words that those on the opposite end of the political spectrum react to.
To understand Dasein, we must first explore its two poles: being-in-the-world and being-the-world. Understanding this distinction between these two poles is the fundamental characteristic that sets Dasein apart from all other beings.
Again: pertaining to what particular situation?

Instead, it all stays up in the intellectual clouds:
Being-in-the-world is Dasein’s state of existing in a world around it; its “home.” This sense of home can be experienced in many ways, whether through relationships with others or objects. But, even when we are entirely alone, there is still something about being in this world that brings us comfort.
Brings some comfort and utterly distresses others. Or terrifies them. Or enrages them. Or hopelessly confuses them. And what does that depend on, if not the manner in which I construe the nature of dasein as embodied existentially in each of us having experienced what can be very, very different lives.
This could be explained by how Heidegger describes Dasein as “Being-with” (Mitsein). Mitsein refers to the relationship between an individual and its surrounding environment. He believes that, like you or me, others are also entities that exist in the world and that our interactions with them are what make up our lives.
Exactly. An individual out in a particular world. Interacting with others who either share that world or come from another very different one.

So, what is the task of philosophers if not to take that into consideration and try to make the least unreasonable distinctions between what is true for all of us and what is not.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
On the other hand, Being-the-world is Dasein’s state of existing as the world around it. This means that Dasein is always interpreting its surroundings and giving them meaning. Heidegger believes that there is no objective view of the world; everything we see is filtered through our perspective.
Come on, could Heidegger actually have failed to grasp how so much here revolves entirely around which particular world you are "thrown" into historically and culturally and personally?

Didn't he realize that obviously...
If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, your value judgments might be different?


And thus, the Being that you are in the world you were thrown into completely "beyond your control" would be, in many crucial respects, very, very different?

Didn't he ever sit back and ask himself, "well, given this, is there a way for anything approaching an objective morality to be 'thought up' by philosophers?" And wasn't Being-A-Nazi merely a historical fluke for him?
This distinction between being-in-the-world and being-the-world is essential because it shows how Dasein constantly interacts with its environment and gives it meaning. It also explains why Dasein is capable of the tension between meaninglessness and meaning.
More to the point [mine] it clearly leads one to grasp that down through time historically and across the globe culturally and in terms of our at times vastly different individual experiences, tensions revolving around moral and political and spiritual value judgments are basically built right into the human condition itself?

Explaining in part why so many become objectivists in the first place. To subsume that tension in the ubiquitous "one of us" [the good guys] vs. "one of them" [the bad guys].

The psychology of objectivism.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iam, you should be the last person speculating on what objectivist psychology might be. You can't even correctly diagnose who is and is not an objectivist.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:49 pm Iam, you should be the last person speculating on what objectivist psychology might be. You can't even correctly diagnose who is and is not an objectivist.
Come on, I've frequently noted my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective assessment of a moral objectivist:

Someone convinced they are in sync with their own Real Me, their own core Self -- their own Soul as some call it -- in sync further with the Right Thing To Do given any particular set of "conflicting goods".

My subjective assumptions regarding the psychological parameters of objectivism are explored in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Now, given a set of circumstances of your own choosing, note for us the parameters of your own moral philosophy. As that pertains to your own assessment of acquiring a human identity out in the is/ought world.

And, again, if you would like the exchange to be intelligent and civil, I can accommodate you there. Or if, instead, you prefer a more polemical, huffing and puffing joust between us, I can go there as well.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I'm sorry but none of those words really responds to what I said. I've seen you call people objectivists left and right, but I haven't once seen you *correct* in your labelling. As someone who is so consistently incorrect about who to label an objectivist, you seem like the last person who could say anything meaningfully true about the psychology of objectivists.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:43 pm I'm sorry but none of those words really responds to what I said. I've seen you call people objectivists left and right, but I haven't once seen you *correct* in your labelling. As someone who is so consistently incorrect about who to label an objectivist, you seem like the last person who could say anything meaningfully true about the psychology of objectivists.
Again:

Now, given a set of circumstances of your own choosing, note for us the parameters of your own moral philosophy. As that pertains to your own assessment of acquiring a human identity out in the is/ought world.

Let's take this down out of the intellectual contraption clouds.

How do you distinguish between someone being "*correct* in their labelling" a moral objectivist and someone being correct.

Or incorrect.

Given free will of course.

Just make it about something concrete in which folks come into conflict regarding rational and irrational behavior, moral and immoral behavior.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Well, for example, you told me I'm an objectivist and you're worried I'm going to ban you from ILP, and yet I don't identify in any way with any standard definition of objectivism and I have no desire to ban you from ILP.

You've called phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists as well, and neither of them identify as objectivists, nor with any of the features you seem to think objectivists have.

Seems like you miss pretty often with this label. That's how I "distinguish" that you're incorrect.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Apr 25, 2023 5:32 pm Well, for example, you told me I'm an objectivist and you're worried I'm going to ban you from ILP, and yet I don't identify in any way with any standard definition of objectivism and I have no desire to ban you from ILP.

You've called phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists as well, and neither of them identify as objectivists, nor with any of the features you seem to think objectivists have.

Seems like you miss pretty often with this label. That's how I "distinguish" that you're incorrect.
No, I would only call you or phyllo or iwannaplato an objectivist if you one of you believe that...

...you are someone "who is in sync with their own Real Me, their own core Self -- their own Soul as some call it -- in sync further with the Right Thing To Do given any particular set of 'conflicting goods'."

Are you?

Okay, in regard to an issue like abortion or gun control or the role of government or transgender rights, etc., what are the parameters of your moral philosophy?

Do you believe that your own values here and now are derived deontologically from the most rational philosophical assessment?

Do you recognize how one's sense of self in the is/ought world is rooted existentially in the particular life that one has lived out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. Or, again, do you believe that using the tools of philosophy the "wisest" behaviors can be grasped and acted out.

How were your own values shaped existentially more or less than philosophically?

And note specifically what I posted in regard to banning you at ILP. I do believe that some who are particularly infuriated/perturbed by my "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy would, if they could, ban me there or here. As Satyr did at Know Thyself and Postmodern Beatnik did at the Philosophy Forum.
Post Reply