Again:
I am merely giving you the opportunity to choose another context...one that is of particular interest or importance to you.
Again:
I am merely giving you the opportunity to choose another context...one that is of particular interest or importance to you.
What is the question?iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 10:38 pmAgain:
I am merely giving you the opportunity to choose another context...one that is of particular interest or importance to you.
Premeditated action is not the only or even the most frequent action in nature. The songbird is not singing about its self, for the songbird, its singing is the songbird for the duration of its song.Thinking is not the only way of being of Dasein. Even if every instance of thinking carries with it an “I”, the being that we each ourselves are is not exhausted in the kinds of self-conscious reflection whereby the Cartesian ego is discovered.
In other words, Dasein the intellectual contraption. Occasionally in reference to the either/or world but almost never in reference to the is/ought world.The Features of Dasein
Two features immediately inhere to Dasein: that its being is an issue for it, and that its being is in each and every case “mine” (its).
The mirror test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test1.1a Being as an issue for it
What does it mean to say that Dasein’s being is an issue for it? It is easiest to compare this stance to its opposite: indifference. The being of a lump of granite is a matter of indifference for the lump of granite. We can launch it into the center of the Sun to be vaporized into hydrogen, and this would be just one more thing that has happened to it. Not so with us.
Its essence. The essential issues for it? Don't fire me into the Sun. But the main issue here is the conflict between the reasons someone might want to and the reasons I don't think that they ought to. What is the essential truth here?However, we should not anthropomorphize Dasein any more than the lump of granite. That Dasein’s being is an issue for it, not a matter of indifference, is evinced by its (our) protestations immediately before being fired into the Sun, but it is not fully exhausted by them. Dasein’s being an issue for it is not merely a survival instinct, or an affective preference for life over death. What makes it an issue is the peculiar way in which Dasein is vis-à-vis its “whatness”, that is, its essence.
You are not quoting me here. At least I don't think you are. Doesn't sound like the way I would put it. Please note the post.Thinking is not the only way of being of Dasein. Even if every instance of thinking carries with it an “I”, the being that we each ourselves are is not exhausted in the kinds of self-conscious reflection whereby the Cartesian ego is discovered.
Not sure what you mean by this. Or how to relate it to how "I" construe dasein out in the is/ought world.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:05 amPremeditated action is not the only or even the most frequent action in nature. The songbird is not singing about its self, for the songbird, its singing is the songbird for the duration of its song.
The Cartesian ego is the really daft extreme position on the continuum between reaction and reflection or between experience and being.
I am not sure where good lies on this continuum. In springtime this Dasein here feels biased towards unpremeditated.
That's a quotation from the Epochemagazine which you yourself must, I believe, have quoted, as I had never heard of this source other than through yourself.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:26 pmYou are not quoting me here. At least I don't think you are. Doesn't sound like the way I would put it. Please note the post.Thinking is not the only way of being of Dasein. Even if every instance of thinking carries with it an “I”, the being that we each ourselves are is not exhausted in the kinds of self-conscious reflection whereby the Cartesian ego is discovered.
Not sure what you mean by this. Or how to relate it to how "I" construe dasein out in the is/ought world.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 11:05 amPremeditated action is not the only or even the most frequent action in nature. The songbird is not singing about its self, for the songbird, its singing is the songbird for the duration of its song.
The Cartesian ego is the really daft extreme position on the continuum between reaction and reflection or between experience and being.
I am not sure where good lies on this continuum. In springtime this Dasein here feels biased towards unpremeditated.
Okay, I understand. Thanks. I just wanted to note I didn't say this myself.
I'm still not sure what you mean. And my aim here is more in noting the distinction between premeditation in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. Re the human species. How Heidegger's Dasein is one thing here, my dasein another thing altogether.
I understand Dasein moves from gestalt to gestalt, sometimes abruptly and sometimes gradually. Dasein is a psychological concept. Some psyches are Dionysian gestalts and some are Apollonian gestalts . The psyches we moderns tend to consider good psyches are balanced between those extremes. Most people here are quite firmly Apollonian as online forums are no good for music and dancing, weeping and laughing.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:02 pmOkay, I understand. Thanks. I just wanted to note I didn't say this myself.
I'm still not sure what you mean. And my aim here is more in noting the distinction between premeditation in the either/or world and in the is/ought world. Re the human species. How Heidegger's Dasein is one thing here, my dasein another thing altogether.
Now, let's shift from Dasein to my own dasein here. The landlord has evicted Tom from his house. Say, a medical affliction caused him to lose his job and he could no longer keep up the mortgage payments. The discussion shifts from "what is a house?" to "was it moral or immoral to evict Tom"?1.1b On Essence and Existence
If I were to ask you “what is a house?” we could talk about the necessary and sufficient conditions and properties that form the essence of “houseness”, the “whatness” of a house, and eventually finish. It’s not even necessary that the thing we discuss in this way exist currently. For example, I could ask you “what is a perfect house?” and the subsequent properties and conditions we settle upon and write upon a napkin may not be instantiated anywhere in the world currently. This introduces an order of rank: the “whatness” of things, their essence, can be seen to exist happily prior to the thing’s existence, such that if we were to stumble across a really existing “perfect house” we can then say “That’s it!”
And then the part I always come back to: "what are you?" in a particular context out in a particular world historically and culturally and personally? And then the part where what you think you are, you are able to demonstrate to others such that they would agree that this is what you are. Why? Because, in fact, that is what you are.However, if I were to ask you “What are you?” there is a sense in which any answer you give will be unsatisfactory. Answering “I am a person” points us to the question of what you mean by that, and from there a myriad of possible answers come up: a featherless biped, a political animal, a rational animal, a Homo sapiens, so on and so forth. However, each of these definitional characterizations need to be actively taken up by you, receiving your blessing in a choice that precedes them all.
At this point in your reasoning you can switch from Heidegger to Sartre and say it's bad faith to identify yourself as "a libertarian" or " a Marxist". You are what you do not what others label you. Labels are convenient in daily life but aren't relevant to theories of existence. God could label you the moment you die as at that moment you cease to do anything. But as long as you and I live we have the responsibility to create ourselves moment by moment.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 4:50 pm What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly
Now, let's shift from Dasein to my own dasein here. The landlord has evicted Tom from his house. Say, a medical affliction caused him to lose his job and he could no longer keep up the mortgage payments. The discussion shifts from "what is a house?" to "was it moral or immoral to evict Tom"?1.1b On Essence and Existence
If I were to ask you “what is a house?” we could talk about the necessary and sufficient conditions and properties that form the essence of “houseness”, the “whatness” of a house, and eventually finish. It’s not even necessary that the thing we discuss in this way exist currently. For example, I could ask you “what is a perfect house?” and the subsequent properties and conditions we settle upon and write upon a napkin may not be instantiated anywhere in the world currently. This introduces an order of rank: the “whatness” of things, their essence, can be seen to exist happily prior to the thing’s existence, such that if we were to stumble across a really existing “perfect house” we can then say “That’s it!”
How would you situate the manner in which Heidegger construes Dasein in the second discussion? We all know what it means for one Being to evict another Being from his home. And it's not a question of legality because where Tom lives it is perfectly legal to evict him.
No, instead, it's a question of morality...of ethics. How here does the philosopher weigh in? As a Kantian? Is possible deontologically to reason our way to a moral obligation here?
And then the part I always come back to: "what are you?" in a particular context out in a particular world historically and culturally and personally? And then the part where what you think you are, you are able to demonstrate to others such that they would agree that this is what you are. Why? Because, in fact, that is what you are.However, if I were to ask you “What are you?” there is a sense in which any answer you give will be unsatisfactory. Answering “I am a person” points us to the question of what you mean by that, and from there a myriad of possible answers come up: a featherless biped, a political animal, a rational animal, a Homo sapiens, so on and so forth. However, each of these definitional characterizations need to be actively taken up by you, receiving your blessing in a choice that precedes them all.
But then the part where you say "I am a libertarian" and someone else says "I am a Marxist"; and then given a particular set of circumstances you are able to demonstrate to others that they ought to be what you are too. Why? Because in fact who you are here is in fact what all other rational people ought to be.
https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Back to differentiating a house from an eviction. Is it "bad faith" to evict Tom from his home? A libertarian starts with the assumption that it's the landlord's private property and even though it was beyond Tom's control to keep up the mortage payments, he has the "natural right" to evict him.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:20 pmAt this point in your reasoning you can switch from Heidegger to Sartre and say it's bad faith to identify yourself as "a libertarian" or " a Marxist". You are what you do not what others label you. Labels are convenient in daily life but aren't relevant to theories of existence. God could label you the moment you die as at that moment you cease to do anything. But as long as you and I live we have the responsibility to create ourselves moment by moment.
So, is your "notion of fairness" rooted in God? And, if so, where does this God come down when confronting "bad faith" in regard to Tom's travail?
If God means anything to an existentialist the existentialist must mean the version of God that is indescribable except by negatives. I understand that with the advent of the OT prophets understanding of God underwent an important change from good as a function of what you do, morphing into good as your serious and active intention. It's the nature of specific intentions, aka ideologies, that is being fought over now. There are more than the two competing ideologies you mention, there's also the medieval nationalism of Putin who identifies power with physical geography.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:41 pmBack to differentiating a house from an eviction. Is it "bad faith" to evict Tom from his home? A libertarian starts with the assumption that it's the landlord's private property and even though it was beyond Tom's control to keep up the mortage payments, he has the "natural right" to evict him.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:20 pmAt this point in your reasoning you can switch from Heidegger to Sartre and say it's bad faith to identify yourself as "a libertarian" or " a Marxist". You are what you do not what others label you. Labels are convenient in daily life but aren't relevant to theories of existence. God could label you the moment you die as at that moment you cease to do anything. But as long as you and I live we have the responsibility to create ourselves moment by moment.
And the assumptions that the Marxist starts with? Considerably different, right? So, using the tools of philosophy, how would the ethicist decide which frame of mind was the most rational?
As for bringing God into the picture...what God? whose God? God the capitalist or God the socialist?
So, is your "notion of fairness" rooted in God? And, if so, where does this God come down when confronting "bad faith" in regard to Tom's travail?
After all, for most Libertarians, the healthcare of citizens revolves around "I" and the medical industrial complex. For most Marxists, it revolves around "we" and the state. Until the state withers away. But when it does the emphasis is still placed on the selfless "we" more than on the selfish "I".
"Bad faith" here?