Dasein/dasein

[iambiguous]

So because all of that there's no difference between one thinker and another? Between one thought and another? You can't use your thinking facilities to discern between a thinker mired in bias and a thinker at least attempting to overcome his bias?

Because all of that, everyone is either "fractured and fragmented" or a Taliban Nazi, nothing in between

We'll need a context of course.

But let me ask you...

Do you believe in God?

And, if not, do you believe it is possible using the tools of philosophy to "think up" a deontological moral conviction? Kant and other philosophers who embraced one or another rendition of objective/universal morality always included one or another rendition of God in the picture.

I wonder why?

Or, using the tools of philosophy in a No God world, what would the argument be to those like Hitler who rationalized the Holocaust? Or to sociopaths who rationalize raping and killing children?

In fact, I posed these extreme behaviors to myself here:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

How about you?

And I'm still waiting for you to note how given an issue like abortion your own value judgments are not just another existential rendition of my assessment in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

[iambiguous]

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt

Heidegger’s phenomenology of Dasein privileges it to study what it means to be. The term “Dasein” is derived from the German word “Da-sein,” which means “to be there.” For Heidegger, Dasein is that mode of being in which existence precedes essence. This means that Dasein is not defined by some abstract concept or idea but rather by its existence. In fact, for Heidegger, Dasein is ontologically unique in that it is the only entity that can interrogate its Being.

And, in interrogating his own, Heidegger was able to make his own existential leap to the Nazis. But only because he was "thrown" adventitiously at birth into a particular world that included things like Nazis. Which is always my main focus in regard to a "sense of self" that others create for us as children and that we recreate and sustain existentially over the years as adults.

This focus on the individual’s experience of Being makes Heidegger’s philosophy so relevant for our times. In an age dominated by technology and mass production, Heidegger’s philosophy encourages us to reflect on the meaning of our own lives. In a world where people are increasingly becoming anonymous cogs in the machine, Heidegger’s philosophy reminds us of our essential humanness.

Again, the irony. Heidegger and the Nazis. Nazi Germany where millions upon millions worshipped and adored Adolph Hitler and fascism. And how many cogs then were involved in rounding up and murdering the Jews? Clearly, one can "reflect on the meaning of their life" and end up practically anywhere along the moral and political spectrum. And that in my view revolves primarily around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Heidegger also believes that Dasein is the only entity that can confront death. Death is not some abstract concept for Heidegger, but rather a definite possibility that we must face in every moment of our lives. In this sense, death is not an end but rather a new beginning. Through death, Dasein can finally realize their full potential as an individual.

Not only confront our own death but to plot out the death of others. Not only to kill them but to take pleasure in it. Dasein and the endless string of mass shootings in America. Another one just today. Five gunned down including an eight year old child. Reflect on the meaning that.

As for death not being the end, just a new beginning? Tell me my own take on dasein doesn't result in countless individual renditions of that. And how does one "finally realize their full potential as an individual" if death results in oblivion?

[Iwannaplato]

I'll go with stooge:

You don't have to say your philosophical opinions are rooted in dasein. Of course they are ya dingus. The philosophical opinions people form are informed by their life experiences.

It would be odd if experience did not affect one's opinions. Then one would need to preface one's opinions with something like 'My opinions are not supported by the evidence of my senses.' How such a person keeps themselves from repeatedly getting burned by their stoves and run over by cars would be interesting. Now Rationalism is a belief system that says we can directly know things, but even Rationalists would not ignore their experiences.

Then what are we to make of the moral and political objectivists among us who, while acknowledging that their own value judgments are rooted existentially in historical, cultural and experiential contexts, are still able to embrace one or another of these...

I don't know who the 'we' is in the above. Whoever that 'we' is leads to different answers and a diversity of answers, given that any member of we would be a person with a different background, different innate tendencies, so different desires/goals/interpretations and thus reactions to the different people you call objectivists, given the wide range of factors involved.

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life, a moral narrative.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity...on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

Sure, this happens. I see stubborness and biases in most posters, even those without or claiming to be without a political or religious worldview they say they are certain of.

I am not sure what the question here for me means 'What are we to make......' Setting aside the we issue I mentioned above, what is it you are really asking when you present, yet again, the above schema?

And perhaps your reponse could be just several sentences to that question could just be a few new sentences without a lot of cut and paste from old posts that I've likely encountered.

[phyllo]

So because all of that there's no difference between one thinker and another? Between one thought and another? You can't use your thinking facilities to discern between a thinker mired in bias and a thinker at least attempting to overcome his bias?

Because all of that, everyone is either "fractured and fragmented" or a Taliban Nazi, nothing in between

Dasein produces a bias. And that bias is used to judge the difference between "one thinker and another" or "one thought and another".

IOW, the means of evaluating is questionable. I think that's one reasonable point that Biggus has with regard to dasein.

[Flannel Jesus]

So because all of that there's no difference between one thinker and another? Between one thought and another? You can't use your thinking facilities to discern between a thinker mired in bias and a thinker at least attempting to overcome his bias?

Because all of that, everyone is either "fractured and fragmented" or a Taliban Nazi, nothing in between

Dasein produces a bias. And that bias is used to judge the difference between "one thinker and another" or "one thought and another".

IOW, the means of evaluating is questionable. I think that's one reasonable point that Biggus has with regard to dasein.

Of course it's a reasonable thought. The problem is for him it stops there. There's no apparent ability to think beyond that. No apparent attempt to try to use any sort of methods to overcome biases. "We're all biased, the end".

[phyllo]

Of course it's a reasonable thought. The problem is for him it stops there. There's no apparent ability to think beyond that. No apparent attempt to try to use any sort of methods to overcome biases. "We're all biased, the end".

Yes, he seems to have thrown out all the methods, leaving him with no way to resolve his problems.

[Flannel Jesus]

Of course it's a reasonable thought. The problem is for him it stops there. There's no apparent ability to think beyond that. No apparent attempt to try to use any sort of methods to overcome biases. "We're all biased, the end".

Yes, he seems to have thrown out all the methods, leaving him with no way to resolve his problems.

I'm also like 80% sure that the way biggy uses the word dasein is also entirely unique to him, and not what Heidegger was talking about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm also like 80% sure that the way biggy uses the word dasein is also entirely unique to him, and not what Heidegger was talking about.

Factually, Iambiguous cannot be said to use the term except as an obfuscating tool. The term Dasein in Iam’s discourse, has perhaps 1% of relatedness to Heidegger’s meaning, and the sense or ‘utility’ if you will of his pioneering existential/philosophical thought.

But we could hash this out until the cow finally jumped over the moon and we’d get nowhere. So, what is the point? I mean, what am I driving at?

Here, in this context, this forum, we see time and again refusals to actually engage in bona fide exchange. If this is so, what then is the purpose? What benefit, let’s ask, accrues to Iambiguous (since he seems the subject here) to post unendingly the same stuff but to get no result, no agreement, nothing returned on the investment? Ah ha! It is just that. It is, then, to externalize a ossified internal frustration and have it rehearsed and played back eternally.

It’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.

If The medium is the message then, I propose, Iambiguous has a veritable, and realized purpose: the opportunity to wallow in the deliciousness of total, frustrating immobility.

As I have pointed out: Iambiguous is stuck. He cannot make any decisions. The left hand snatches what the right hand offers in a neurotic loop! This is like a skit out of Waiting for Godot.

I can’t go on | I’ll go on

Its actually robotic. Man turned into a mechanism of futile indecision tarted up to mimic thoughtful profundity.

“God help us all” as Joseph Mitchell wrote in Joe Gould’s Secret. His subject, trying for a lifetime to write a novel, could only repeat the same opening line, never getting anywhere.

A deeply neurotic condition is what we are dealing with. And what is truly horrifying (“God help us all!”) is the degree of our own relationship to this stultifying neurosis.

In other news …..

Here is a brief outline of what “Dasein” might mean.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The last bit, referring to Joseph Mitchell, is simply to keep faith with dedicated pedantry.

Gotta be me!

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’re on Earth. There’s no cure for that.

Also a Beckett quote. Doesn’t that speak to Dasein as ‘our problem’?

[Flannel Jesus]

What benefit, let’s ask, accrues to Iambiguous (since he seems the subject here) to post unendingly the same stuff but to get no result, no agreement, nothing returned on the investment? Ah ha! It is just that. It is, then, to externalize a ossified internal frustration and have it rehearsed and played back eternally.

It’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.

If The medium is the message then, I propose, Iambiguous has a veritable, and realized purpose: the opportunity to wallow in the deliciousness of total, frustrating immobility.

As I have pointed out: Iambiguous is stuck. He cannot make any decisions. The left hand snatches what the right hand offers in a neurotic loop! This is like a skit out of Waiting for Godot.

Well put. I wish I could bookmark posts on the forum

[Agent Smith]

Dasein is basically

1. Nazism
2. Marxism
3. Pyrrhonism
4. Augstunianism

[Alexis Jacobi]

Note to Satyr: please feel free to quote and post my Writing (with attribution if not too much trouble) wheresoever you deem it needed.

Your servant in The Struggle,

— Alexis Jacobi

[iambiguous]

It would be odd if experience did not affect one's opinions. Then one would need to preface one's opinions with something like 'My opinions are not supported by the evidence of my senses.' How such a person keeps themselves from repeatedly getting burned by their stoves and run over by cars would be interesting. Now Rationalism is a belief system that says we can directly know things, but even Rationalists would not ignore their experiences.

Then what are we to make of the moral and political objectivists among us who, while acknowledging that their own value judgments are rooted existentially in historical, cultural and experiential contexts, are still able to embrace one or another of these...

I don't know who the 'we' is in the above.

"We" being those of us who have an interest in philosophy. Who explore and assess things like identity given what philosophers in the past have delved into regarding it themselves. As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Whoever that 'we' is leads to different answers and a diversity of answers, given that any member of we would be a person with a different background, different innate tendencies, so different desires/goals/interpretations and thus reactions to the different people you call objectivists, given the wide range of factors involved.

Yeah, that's my point. But: given a No God world some philosophers are are still able to anchor their Self [morally and politically] in one or another secular Ism. Deontology. Ideology. Nature. Whereas "I" am considerably more "fractured and fragmented" in the is/ought world. Given all the points I raise in in these...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...threads.

So, given a particular context, I'm curious as to how others who do not believe in God are still able themselves to avoid being fractured and fragmented. Especially those who do recognize that our individual value judgments are basically derived existentially "out in a particular world understood in a particular way".

Also, grappling with the philosophical implications of the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The recognition that there are in fact any number of variables in our lives that we do not either fully understand or control. How the smallest of things can trigger extraordinary changes in our lives.

[Flannel Jesus]

Then what are we to make of the moral and political objectivists among us who, while acknowledging that their own value judgments are rooted existentially in historical, cultural and experiential contexts, are still able to embrace one or another of these...

I don't know who the 'we' is in the above.

"We" being those of us who have an interest in philosophy. Who explore and assess things like identity given what philosophers in the past have delved into regarding it themselves. As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Dang, for someone who loves to bill themselves as 'fractured and fragmented', you sure sound pretty sure that these so-called "objectivists" are the ones who are indoctrinated to accept the reality imposed on them, never questioning it. If anything, your words here sound... dare I say... very objectivist of you.

How about you be just a little bit more fractured and fragmented, it makes more sense here.