Dasein/dasein

[Immanuel Can]

Wow.

This thread went quiet.

I thought it was quite a reasonable question...

[iambiguous]

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Feature 2. Care

The second feature is “care or concern”. We not only find ourselves in the world, but we care about it as Being-in-the-world. Heidegger uses the word “care” as a technical term which has to do with our engagement with the world for various purposes.

Of course, in regard to "care or concern" as they pertain to my own existential rendition of dasein, each of us as individuals comes to care about those things that unfold in our lives as they do and not as they might otherwise have given very different experiences. And, as a result of this, what some care about others could not care less regarding. Then the endless squabbles over what we ought to care about in a rational world. Or in the best of all possible worlds.

For example, there's what Vladimir Putin cares about in Ukraine. And not just "technically".

Things are meaningful by themselves; meaning is not an add-on to existence, but rather the definition of existence. In other words, we are embedded in meaning, and there is no exit from making sense of one’s life.

So, what do these words mean to you? Technically or otherwise. Given the manner in which you care about what is unfolding now in Ukraine.

To be a Dasein is to always be doing something and pointing towards something, to be a being that is constantly engaged in doing tasks that we care about. Therefore, the essence of Dasein is its existence. We are instantly turned into the structures of everydayness and being-in the-world.

Something perhaps along the lines of Sartre's "existence is prior to essence"? No Gods around to ground one's individual existence in. Doing and pointing in your own particular world understood in your own particular way?

What is important is that Dasein is its possibilities, it needs some context within which to work these out. In our case, as the beings that are being analysed, that context is the kind of world we find ourselves in.

Heidegger concludes that “care” is the primordial state of Being as Dasein strives towards authenticity.

So, anyone here then interested, given a particular set of circumstances in which we might care about very different things in very different ways, in exploring Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein?

With respect to what, philosophically, it means to us to "strive towards authenticity"?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

[iambiguous]

What is this "my own dasein" of which you speak?

I explore that in my signature threads at ILP:

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

If interested in pursuing it further, note a particular context that is of interest to you, and we can dig a little deeper.

[Atla]

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened? Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

“We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

The main theme of Eastern philosophy is usually the deconstruction of this "dasein" or "I"/"self"/"Eastern ego". So we realize that we are mostly who and what we define ourselves to be. Most people define themselves as either an entity in the head the "I", or as the entire human being. We can also define ourselves as the entire world, or maybe as nothing beyond a persistent illusion. Or maybe as the raw self-awareness in the human head from which the "I" is born (except for a few people that lack self-awareness and therefore any dasein).

So this Heideggerian dasein seems to skip this deconstruction, and just assume that we are the "I" in the head? Ultimately such a dasein doesn't mean anything. But we can ask what being in the world means to us personally.

[Immanuel Can]

What is this "my own dasein" of which you speak?

I explore that in my signature threads at ILP:

For the moment, I just want a definition, not an "exploration." But thanks for the support materials; and if I find your definition unclear, and decide I want more than a definition, I'll consult there.

The definition of "dasein" for you is....?

[iambiguous]

What is this "my own dasein" of which you speak?

I explore that in my signature threads at ILP:

For the moment, I just want a definition, not an "exploration." But thanks for the support materials; and if I find your definition unclear, and decide I want more than a definition, I'll consult there.

The definition of "dasein" for you is....?

Right. Define and deduce dasein into existence.

Instead, I situate the manner in which I have come to understand my own identity out in the world of actual human interaction. And, in particular, the distinction I make between the components of my self that are rooted objectively in the either/or world -- my age, my location, my demographic parameters, my physical health, my day to day activities -- and those elements that are more reflective existentially of personal opinions revolving around moral and political prejudices that are considerably more subjective.

Again, back to the points raised here regarding "I" as that pertains to dasein as I understand it given my actual "lived life".:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.

Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.

And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became intertwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."

The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.

This frame of mind compared to all of the technical jargon Heidegger uses to deduce his own capital letter Dasein into existence.

In other words, my interest revolves more around the manner in which some construe Heidegger's own existential leap of faith to Nazis and fascism.

Dasein and ethics. That's my own main interest. Not yours? No problem. But I'd steer clear of my posts then. Either bring your own definitions and deductions down out of the "technical" didactic clouds in discussions regarding morality and human identity or just move on to others more comfortable "up there" on the skyhooks.

[Immanuel Can]

I explore that in my signature threads at ILP:

For the moment, I just want a definition, not an "exploration." But thanks for the support materials; and if I find your definition unclear, and decide I want more than a definition, I'll consult there.

The definition of "dasein" for you is....?

Right. Define and deduce dasein into existence.

Definitions don't "bring things into existence." Nobody thinks that.

I'm simply asking you what you mean by "dasein." Everybody else who has used the term has also been able to define it; so it follows that you can, too -- assuming you actually know what you mean when you use it, of course.

I situate the manner

You're here repeating the style of speaking of the jargon-lords of academia. Their purpose is always to write so as to obscure their literal meaning, rather than to make it plain -- usually because their literal meaning is actually silly, or because it's downright ghastly, and they don't want us to know wha they mean at all.

Orwell compares them to squids, squirting out ink in order to escape. That's a nice metaphor.

But let's reject their mendacity, okay? And unfortunately for such strategies, I can read, and even decode such elaborate attempts to obfuscate. I have the vocabulary and the grasp of syntax to decipher jargon-speech, so it fails to impress me. And I can point out here that there is no coherence to the phrase "situate the manner." The words do not go together, and together they do not make sense. The predication is not appropriate to the noun-subject. And anyone can see that, if I stop and point it out.

Let's make sense to each other, okay? No jargon phrases. They are not helpful in producing clear thought.

Now, define "dasein" as you wish to use it. Or, if you cannot, just say you cannot. I will accept either.

1] I was raised...I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This is what you mean by "dasein"? In that case you seem to mean "environmental determinism," the idea that you can only be what you were "raised" to be by the cirucmstances around you.

Is that what you meant? If so, we can pin that down to something very specific and clear.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Well, stop using technical and academic language, then. Personally, I'm quite happy to avoid it.

So no academic jargon, then? Okay. I like that.

However, you'd be hard pressed to find a more academic and jargony term than "dasein." It's not only highly technical and context-dependent, it's not even English. Instead, just say what you mean, in English, in plain speech, as in, "I am a product of my circumstances." We'll all get that.

Orwell pointed out that people who choose a jargon word when a plain one is possible are almost always deceiving...if not others, deliberately, then themselves, by accident -- because they imagine they have closed their minds on a concept when they have only buzzed past one, and don't even really know what they, themselves mean.

I figure you must mean something. So let's hear what it is, in plain speech.

[Atla]

I explore that in my signature threads at ILP:

For the moment, I just want a definition, not an "exploration." But thanks for the support materials; and if I find your definition unclear, and decide I want more than a definition, I'll consult there.

The definition of "dasein" for you is....?

Right. Define and deduce dasein into existence.

Instead, I situate the manner in which I have come to understand my own identity out in the world of actual human interaction. And, in particular, the distinction I make between the components of my self that are rooted objectively in the either/or world -- my age, my location, my demographic parameters, my physical health, my day to day activities -- and those elements that are more reflective existentially of personal opinions revolving around moral and political prejudices that are considerably more subjective.

Again, back to the points raised here regarding "I" as that pertains to dasein as I understand it given my actual "lived life".:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.

Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.

And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became intertwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."

The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.

This frame of mind compared to all of the technical jargon Heidegger uses to deduce his own capital letter Dasein into existence.

In other words, my interest revolves more around the manner in which some construe Heidegger's own existential leap of faith to Nazis and fascism.

Dasein and ethics. That's my own main interest. Not yours? No problem. But I'd steer clear of my posts then. Either bring your own definitions and deductions down out of the "technical" didactic clouds in discussions regarding morality and human identity or just move on to others more comfortable "up there" on the skyhooks.

Must dasein have to do with all this "valuing"? Is it because the Kantian school thinks that existence is inherently "valuative"?

[iambiguous]

Definitions don't "bring things into existence." Nobody thinks that.

I'm simply asking you what you mean by "dasein." Everybody else who has used the term has also been able to define it; so it follows that you can, too -- assuming you actually know what you mean when you use it, of course.

Again here is what I mean by it...

Instead, I situate the manner in which I have come to understand my own identity out in the world of actual human interaction. And, in particular, the distinction I make between the components of my self that are rooted objectively in the either/or world -- my age, my location, my demographic parameters, my physical health, my day to day activities -- and those elements that are more reflective existentially of personal opinions revolving around moral and political prejudices that are considerably more subjective.

Encompassed more substantively in the OP of these threads:

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

Now, if all of that is utterly insignificant to you unless I define it, then it looks like we are stuck.

Or you can note a particular context and we can explore our differences here through a discussion of that. Me by way of the meaning I ascribe to dasein above and you by way of...what exactly?

I situate the manner

You're here repeating the style of speaking of the jargon-lords of academia. Their purpose is always to write so as to obscure their literal meaning, rather than to make it plain -- usually because their literal meaning is actually silly, or because it's downright ghastly, and they don't want us to know wha they mean at all.

Orwell compares them to squids, squirting out ink in order to escape. That's a nice metaphor.

But let's reject their mendacity, okay? And unfortunately for such strategies, I can read, and even decode such elaborate attempts to obfuscate. I have the vocabulary and the grasp of syntax to decipher jargon-speech, so it fails to impress me. And I can point out here that there is no coherence to the phrase "situate the manner." The words do not go together, and together they do not make sense. The predication is not appropriate to the noun-subject. And anyone can see that, if I stop and point it out.

This is just [largely] academic claptrap to me. Words defending yet more words still without a single reference to any actual "human all too human" situations where we can explore the manner in which we connect the dots existentially between identity, value judgments and political economy. More didactic -- pedantic? -- "philosophical" patter.

It's as though what was most important to you is that others can admire how you sound like a "serious philosopher" is supposed to sound. While the words are scarcely connected at all to the lives that we actually live.

If I do say so myself.

1] I was raised...I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This is what you mean by "dasein"? In that case you seem to mean "environmental determinism," the idea that you can only be what you were "raised" to be by the cirucmstances around you.

Is that what you meant? If so, we can pin that down to something very specific and clear.

Again, suppose we were engaged in a discussion regarding the morality of abortion. The conversation gets around to how and why we came to think and to feel what we do. Now, from my frame of mind, there are two main routes here. On the one hand, we can claim that we spent long, long hours as philosophers and ethicists trying to assess the most rational and virtuous manner in which to think about it. Or [as with me] we can focus in on the manner in which our thoughts and feelings revolve more around the manner in which "I" construe moral and political value judgments as the existential embodiment of dasein. Re the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

We are clearly on different paths here.

This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.

Then, incredibly, from my frame of mind, you respond with...

Well, stop using technical and academic language, then. Personally, I'm quite happy to avoid it.

So no academic jargon, then? Okay. I like that.

I can only allow others here to make up their own mind about which of us is more intent on going the didactic, scholastic, academic, analytic route in discussing "I" at the existential intersection of personal identity and value judgments.

[Immanuel Can]

Definitions don't "bring things into existence." Nobody thinks that.

I'm simply asking you what you mean by "dasein." Everybody else who has used the term has also been able to define it; so it follows that you can, too -- assuming you actually know what you mean when you use it, of course.

Again here is what I mean by it...:
"I situate the manner..."

Does not mean anything.

I have come to understand my own identity

How?

out in the world of actual human interaction.

So you mean social determinism? You're a product of the "human interactions" you've had?

And, in particular,

This, grammatically, continues from "situation the manner," which still means nothing.

the distinction I make between the components of my self

What "components" does an indivisible concept like "self" have?

that are rooted objectively

"Rooted"? That's a metaphor, but it's not clear what it is supposed to be a metaphor of, in this case.

in the either/or world

What is this "either/or" world? What makes it different from the real world, and how did you find it?

-- my age, my location,

Environmental determinism?

my demographic parameters,

Eh?

my physical health,

Physiological determinism?

my day to day activities

Eh? How do you get those?

-- and those elements that are more

Dangling comparative: "more" doesn't have a specific grammatical referent here.

reflective existentially

Umm...you mean you...nope, I can't get a clear idea out of this phrase at all.

of personal opinions

Yours? Or other peoples? How are these formed?

revolving around

Opinions that "revolve around"? That makes no sense.

moral and political prejudices

Whose? Yours? Somebody else's?

that are considerably more

Dangling comparative again: "more than" what?

subjective.

Whose "subjectivity"?

There is not a single clear sentence or idea in that welter or jargon you've just offered me in place of an explanation. There's not a single idea that anybody can decode accurately from that pile of empty verbiage. And anybody who can read English can see it.

Orwell's advice: speak plainly. Speak truth. Say what you mean.

Me by way of the meaning I ascribe to dasein above and you by way of...what exactly?

I don't understand the syntax of this sentence. Please use a subject, a predicate and a complete sentence.

I situate the manner

You're here repeating the style of speaking of the jargon-lords of academia. Their purpose is always to write so as to obscure their literal meaning, rather than to make it plain -- usually because their literal meaning is actually silly, or because it's downright ghastly, and they don't want us to know wha they mean at all.

Orwell compares them to squids, squirting out ink in order to escape. That's a nice metaphor.

But let's reject their mendacity, okay? And unfortunately for such strategies, I can read, and even decode such elaborate attempts to obfuscate. I have the vocabulary and the grasp of syntax to decipher jargon-speech, so it fails to impress me. And I can point out here that there is no coherence to the phrase "situate the manner." The words do not go together, and together they do not make sense. The predication is not appropriate to the noun-subject. And anyone can see that, if I stop and point it out.

This is just [largely] academic claptrap to me.

That's funny, because it's you, not me, that's generating it. I'm speaking plainly: it's you who's "situating the manner" of everything.

This is what you mean by "dasein"? In that case you seem to mean "environmental determinism," the idea that you can only be what you were "raised" to be by the cirucmstances around you.

Is that what you meant? If so, we can pin that down to something very specific and clear.

Again, suppose we were engaged in a discussion regarding the morality of abortion.

We aren't.

That's on a different thread.

Or [as with me] we can focus in on the manner in which our thoughts and feelings revolve more around the manner in which "I" construe moral and political value judgments as the existential embodiment of dasein.

This also has no meaning. "Dasein" as you use it, has no content you've specified so far. It's utterly impossible for anybody to understand you, therefore. You may as well have written, "...political value judgments as in the existential embodiment of ."

Well, stop using technical and academic language, then. Personally, I'm quite happy to avoid it.

So no academic jargon, then? Okay. I like that.

I can only allow others here to make up their own mind about which of us is more intent on going the didactic, scholastic, academic, analytic route in discussing "I" at the existential intersection of personal identity and value judgments.

Ooh boy, that's funny!

You claim to be plain, when you use a phrase like "discussing 'I' at the existential intersection fo personal identity and value judgment." Classic.

Yes, yes...everybody wiil have to decide who's speaking plainly.

Let them decide, then. At least you've entertained me. Take it as a win.

[Atla]

Heidegger was a snowflake, I think he managed to say in hundreds of pages, and a language he invented, that: "my existence feels like X, that's my da-sein, let's see how my values are derived from it". He was a good Kantian so he was obsessed with "valuing" and with smug self-importance.

Looks like a platitude meant to impress people, maybe the Nazis. Actually we don't even have to derive our values from X. But then again I may be totally off here, I don't speak Heideggerish.

[Immanuel Can]

Heidegger was a snowflake, I think he managed to say in hundreds of pages, and a language he invented, that: "my existence feels like X, that's my da-sein, let's see how my values are derived from it". He was a good Kantian so he was obsessed with "valuing" and with smug self-importance.

Looks like a platitude meant to impress people, maybe the Nazis. Actually we don't even have to derive our values from X. But then again I may be totally off here, I don't speak Heideggerish.

Well, it's certainly interesting when somebody can't define their own use of a word that already has at least seven definitions, and arguably more.

I've come to the belief that iam is just depending on that word to suck up every bit of residual illogic from any statement he makes, and turn it into a wonderment, a mind-exploding generalization that ultimately means nothing in specific at all. And I'm sure that must work, after some fashion; but really, only on the illogical and illiterate.

Dewey did the same thing with the word "experiencing." To reproduce his tactic, all you do is that you take an incoherent concept, and keep it from being identified as incoherent by claiming it's "ongoing," or "in process," or "unfinished," or "yet-to-be-fulfilled" indefinitely. Iam's just hiding the illogic by pulling out the word "dasein" whenever reason is close to making him ground or specify one of his claims.

It's a tactic, but it's a monotonously vacuous one. The reason that he doesn't want to define his use of "dasein" is that he wants to keep it undefinable so he can use it for everything, and never be accountable for any claim associated with it.

But my patience for twaddle is just about exhausted, so if he doesn't come across with something intelligible, i think I'm done with him.

[iambiguous]

Definitions don't "bring things into existence." Nobody thinks that.

I'm simply asking you what you mean by "dasein." Everybody else who has used the term has also been able to define it; so it follows that you can, too -- assuming you actually know what you mean when you use it, of course.

Again here is what I mean by it...:
"I situate the manner..."

Does not mean anything.

In other words, though it means something to me, that doesn't count because all that does count here is that it doesn't mean anything to you.

Trust me: in you being a Christian objectivist, I get that part.

I have come to understand my own identity

How?

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

out in the world of actual human interaction.

So you mean social determinism? You're a product of the "human interactions" you've had?

No, my past experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge have predisposed me existentially toward one frame of mind rather than another. On the other hand, new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge might result in my changing my mind, but...

...but, in a No God world [merely a subjective assumption rooted existentially in dasein] there does not appear to be way a establish what all rational and virtuous men and women ought to think, feel, say, or do in regard to conflicting goods out in the is/ought world.

And, in particular,

This, grammatically, continues from "situation the manner," which still means nothing.

Which still means something to me but that doesn't count because only what things mean or do not mean to do does here. I'll try to memorize that.

the distinction I make between the components of my self

What "components" does an indivisible concept like "self" have?

"Indivisible concepts like 'self'". Yep, that is something I would expect from you.

that are rooted objectively

"Rooted"? That's a metaphor, but it's not clear what it is supposed to be a metaphor of, in this case.

Rooted in, derived from. Metaphors? On the contrary, there are objective facts about myself -- my age, my parents, my communities, my height, my place of birth, the school I went to, and on and on and on, that reflect objective truths about me. Demographic, empirical, factual truths. Same for you.

in the either/or world

What is this "either/or" world? What makes it different from the real world, and how did you find it?

The either/or world is the equivalent of the objective facts about me. The things I noted above. Unless, of course, what I think of as objective facts about myself are only illusory components of a sim world, dream world, Matrix world etc..

of personal opinions

Yours? Or other peoples? How are these formed?

I've attempted to explain this over and again to you. You still don't "get" the points I make in differentiating I in the either/or world and "i" in the is/ought world. But then you do have your Christian God to provide you with a far more "comforting and consoling" manner in which to nestle in your Self.

revolving around

Opinions that "revolve around"? That makes no sense.

Right, like our moral and political and spiritual value judgments do not revolve in large part around the particular world [historically, culturally, experientially] into which we are "thrown" adventitiously at birth.

There is not a single clear sentence or idea in that welter or jargon you've just offered me in place of an explanation. There's not a single idea that anybody can decode accurately from that pile of empty verbiage. And anybody who can read English can see it.

Sigh...

All I can do here [once again] is leave it to others to make sense of these declamatory "accusations" from you.

What I would suggest is that we focus in on a particular context revolving around our own set of assumptions regarding the manner in which we come to acquire and then sustain a "sense of self". In particular, relating to "I" in the is/ought world where frames of mind are more likely to come into conflict.

We can take this...

Orwell's advice: speak plainly. Speak truth. Say what you mean.

And flesh it out in regard to my own understanding of dasein and your own understanding of a human identity that -- ultimately? -- comes back to...the Christian God?

Given a particular set of circumstances that most here will be familiar with.

Or [as with me] we can focus in on the manner in which our thoughts and feelings revolve more around the manner in which "I" construe moral and political value judgments as the existential embodiment of dasein.

This also has no meaning. "Dasein" as you use it, has no content you've specified so far.

It's utterly impossible for anybody to understand you, therefore. You may as well have written, "...political value judgments as in the existential embodiment of ."

That's precisely why I keep attempting to yank you down out of what I construe to be your own "security blanket" intellectual/philosophical clouds and explore dasein existentially. The manner in which I have come to embody my own moral and political value judgments given the points "I" bring up on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- and the manner in which you bring yours back to the Christian God.

From my frame of mind, speaking "plainly" to you involves exchanges that basically just revolve around dueling definitions and deductions. Whereas to me in regard to human identity in the is/ought world, it is far more about our failures to communicate. And precisely because what seems "plainly" true to one person here seems to others [like Skepdick] to be "stupid" and "idiotic".

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, though it means something to me, that doesn't count because all that does count here is that it doesn't mean anything to you.

Not just me. It means nothing to anyone but you. And speech that only means something to one person is what babies practice. We call it "babble."

No, my past experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge have predisposed me existentially toward one frame of mind rather than another. On the other hand, new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge might result in my changing my mind, but...

The word for that is either social or environmental Determinism. Just say that, and we'll understand you.

The either/or world is the equivalent of the objective facts about me.

So you just mean "the world." Just say that.

There is not a single clear sentence or idea in that welter or jargon you've just offered me in place of an explanation. There's not a single idea that anybody can decode accurately from that pile of empty verbiage. And anybody who can read English can see it.

Sigh...

You're not that dumb.

Stop "sighing," and start using language precisely. You're capable of it; you're just not doing it.

[iambiguous]

In other words, though it means something to me, that doesn't count because all that does count here is that it doesn't mean anything to you.

Not just me. It means nothing to anyone but you. And speech that only means something to one person is what babies practice. We call it "babble."

That of late I reduce you down to making our exchange about me rather than the points I raise speaks volumes.

No, my past experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge have predisposed me existentially toward one frame of mind rather than another. On the other hand, new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge might result in my changing my mind, but...

The word for that is either social or environmental Determinism. Just say that, and we'll understand you.

No, determinism [to me] suggests a fated or destined existence. As for example would be the case if everything we think, feel, say and do was embodied literally/wholly in the only possible reality in the only possible world. Here, of course, I assume that is not the case. I assume that we do have some measure of autonomy. And that, as a result of this, while an accumulation of past experiences can predispose us to particular moral and political prejudices, we still have the capacity to take that into account and dig deeper into the totality of what motivates us in the present and down the road.

As I noted on my ILP signature thread...

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of [the points I raise regarding dasein]. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

The either/or world is the equivalent of the objective facts about me.

So you just mean "the world." Just say that.

No. When doctors who perform abortions discuss it as a medical procedure "the world" revolves around the objective parameters of human biology and medicine. When ethicists and all the rest of us discuss the morality of performing abortions what then are the objective parameters of "the world"? In fact, doctors who perform abortions can be religionists or atheists, liberals or conservatives, male or female, gay or straight, Arabs or Jews, Ukrainians or Russians. The medical procedures are the same. But legislators establishing laws that either allow or forbid abortions in particular jurisdictions...what objective truths can they fall back on?

There is not a single clear sentence or idea in that welter or jargon you've just offered me in place of an explanation. There's not a single idea that anybody can decode accurately from that pile of empty verbiage. And anybody who can read English can see it.

Sigh...

All I can do here [once again] is leave it to others to make sense of these declamatory "accusations" from you.

What I would suggest is that we focus in on a particular context revolving around our own set of assumptions regarding the manner in which we come to acquire and then sustain a "sense of self". In particular, relating to "I" in the is/ought world where frames of mind are more likely to come into conflict.

You're not that dumb.

Stop "sighing," and start using language precisely. You're capable of it; you're just not doing it

Again, my whole point here is that, given the arguments I make regarding "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power, precision is not something that philosophers, ethicists and political scientists seem able to provide in defending either moral narratives or political agendas that come into conflict with others.

And, in order to explore this more substantively, we need to focus our own moral philosophies in on a particular set of circumstances. A context I react to as a moral nihilist and you as a moral objectivist. Your objectivism derived from the Christian God.