Dasein/dasein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Yo, AJ!

More...

ME:
iambiguous wrote:The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt
So, Aletheia refers to the moment when we reveal ourselves to others and achieve a state of authenticity. Only through Aletheia can we understand each other and forge meaningful relationships. In Aletheia, we are no longer concerned with how we

re perceived, and we choose to live per our thoughts, feelings, and desires.
No, Aletheia/Truth, much like Freedom or Justice, is a word that, on the one hand, you can go to the dictionary and look up, and, on the other hand, get into fierce conflicts regarding when it is used to describe reactions to particular sets of circumstances. Is it the Truth that Jean Carroll was sexually abused and defamed by Donald Trump? Well, a jury has just decided that he did. But run it by the MAGA minions and see how many concur here regarding Aletheia.

So, how might Dasein as construed by Heidegger be applicable to reactions here? As opposed to how I encompass it on this thread.
Heidegger believes that Aletheia is the only way to appropriately understand ourselves and each other. When we rely on Mitsein to guide us through life, we cannot see past our preconceived notions of what it means to be human. Aletheia allows us to distinguish between our abstract idea of authenticity and the unique ways in which each experiences it.
Yes, up in the intellectual clouds, where Aletheia can be broached, examined and assessed philosophically even such things as the Nazi agenda can be "appropriately" understood and rationalized. And how were the majority of Germans back than not embracing the conceived notions of Adolph Hitler? Only he was not content to leave it at his abstract idea of authenticity, was he?

So, in regard to Alethia, what are your own views with respect to race and gender and ethnicity and sexual preferences and Jews and abortion and guns and all of the many, many other "conflicting goods"? How specifically, given a particular context, are they closer to Heidegger's Dasein in Being and Time rather than to my own assessment in my signature threads above?

Let's explore that here.

I'm still hobbled in regard to all of these things by "fractured and fragmented" moral parameters. I suspect that in a No God world there are those all up and down the value judgment spectrum able to embrace one or another ideological/deontological political agenda. I'm not. At least "here and now".

Are you perhaps?
HIM
Satyr wrote:Karen is discussing with texts.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 10:08 pm
You mentioned this "proviso" on the nihilhism thread as well. And I didn't know what in the hell you were talking about there either.

If you agree that you can/could acquire new information and knowledge that does in fact change your mind about "life, liberty and property" in regard to things like buying and selling bazookas, what's that "proviso" again? A condition? A loophole? A Catch 22?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 8:04 pm
But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.
Yes with the proviso (that I assumed was understood) information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just cuz he or his wares are new.
How about abortion then. You believe what you do about it here and now. But there and then, down the road, you read something or hear something or see something or experience something and it prompts you to reject what you now believe.
That's entirely possible. But such information has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge.
Okay be fairly specific again, please. "Something important" in your life like buying and selling guns that you changed your mind regarding after acquiring new information and knowledge; or because someone changed your mind about it as a result of all of the many, many exchanges you have had over the years here.
Let's take abortion: as an atheist and materialist, I supported access to abortion. The failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain led me to deism and hylomorphism. That, to me, is pretty damn specific.
I'm simply asking you instead to note important issues in your life that you changed your mind about.
I just gave you one.
And thus acknowledging that given these changes in the past, important issues that you embrace morally and politically now are subject to change in the future.
I've done that.
Well, you be sure to point out specific examples of my own transgressions here.
I did.
sure, the extent to which I can bring someone around to my own frame of mind is the extent to which we can empathize with each other.
Right.
But there is also the possibility of someone convincing me that there is a route up out of the hole I have dug myself down into.
I don't think that's possible.
In my view, you refuse to recognize that in regard to things like the buying and selling of bazookas, only your own understanding of "life, liberty, and property" is legitimate.
Yes, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any claim on the life, liberty, and property of a person who has done no wrong.
Even though I note the arguments of those who wrap those words around a world where private citizens are not permitted to buy and sell them [and all the other military grade weapons noted above] that is simply not acceptable to you.
To date: none of those arguments holds water. Give me yours: mebbe it'll change my mind.
So, there is no real possibility of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" with them.
If it involves deprivin' anyone of life, liberty, and property without just cause, then, yeah, there is no real possibility of moderation, negotiation and compromise. Now, here, if you were smart about it, you'd ask me what constitutes a just cause to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.
you flat out acknowledge that you are willing to take your God-given convictions about guns all the way to Ruby Ridge if necessary.
Yes, I will defend myself against murderers, slavers, and thieves (includin' those in the State House and We, the People).
Again, given what particular context?
All contexts, any context. Your right to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property is the same across any context yiu care to name.
With abortion "life, liberty and property" can commence with the unborn baby or with the pregnant woman.
It begins with: when does human personhood begin?
No, no, some insist, it must start with the natural rights of unborn babies about to be murdered in the womb.
If what a woman carries is a person, then it becomes a question of how do the natural rights of these two people balance against each other? Whose rights take precedence in the unique situation of one person bein' embedded in another?
No way, others declaim, it must start with the political rights of pregnant women about to be forced to give birth.
Here we have to look at who is responsible for one person bein' inside another.
So, are you willing to negotiate and compromise here in regard to the meaning of the words life, liberty and property or is it "my way or the highway" with you?
I've demonstrated a willingness to explore the subject. Balls in your court.
How are your own moral convictions not the embodiment of my assessment above?
I can change my mind about X, but I don't become a different person becuz I've changed my mind.
I didn't keep a list of names
Then mebbe you ought not crow about those you've shaken or converted.
The arguments that "here and now" are most persuasive to me revolve around determinism as some understand it in regard to the human brain being but more matter.
How is this not a default to determinism?
only a fool would actually imagine that because they choose/"choose"/"choose" to stop sitting on the fence here that's, what, good enough?
Can't see why goin' with what you got is foolish. At the very least, you're out of the crossroads.
You have made your own more or less blind "leap of faith" to Him and just "moved on".
If you'd read that conversation with Harbal, you'd know my move to deism wasn't without good cause (it wasn't blind and it ain't strictly faith).
You're got your Final Solution to the quandary that has baffled philosophers and scientists for centuries.
You understand: many scientists and philosophers have taken firm positions on matters of God, mind, free will, natural rights, materialism, determinism, etc., yeah?
How can the "human condition" not ultimately go back to the Creator of it Himself?
The human condition being? You mean the world we live in? If so: I can only reiterate what I've said about initial conditions set to allow free wills to flourish in a mechanistic universe. It's explanation for what seems to me to be the case: we are free wills, causes, in a universe of events.
I'll assume it's a reference to racoon's, okay?
You have no reason to assume otherwise.
A leap of faith to your God, however, and not one of these...
I default to deism becuz it seems to describe what is in a clean, minimal way those others do not.
I am interested in [as with IC and his Christian God] is the hard evidence that you are able to provide to yourself that your God does in fact exist.
I've done that multiple times. Most recently in that conversation with Harbal. Here's the relevant parts...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.


...it's not particularly hard, but -- as explanation -- it fits.
I am the one who managed to reduce myself down to believing "in my head" that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that there is no foundation on which to create an objective morality and that death = oblivion.

And all I am doing here is noting what, existentially, rooted in dasein, "I" have come to think about all of this.
Yeah, I can see how you might think of yourself as in a self-dug hole.

-----

And, yeah, I snipped a lot out. Pretty much all your assumptions about me, your assumed impact on others, your insistence for context, etc. In one way or another, I've addressed those snipped bits, continue to address those snipped bits in my responses to the un-snipped parts.

-----

I've posted the following several times, in-forum. This seems a good time to post it again.

Interviewing the dead Albert Einstein about free will

by Jon Rappoport

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 08, 2023 10:08 pm
You mentioned this "proviso" on the nihilism thread as well. And I didn't know what in the hell you were talking about there either.

If you agree that you can/could acquire new information and knowledge that does in fact change your mind about "life, liberty and property" in regard to things like buying and selling bazookas, what's that "proviso" again? A condition? A loophole? A Catch 22?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 04, 2023 8:04 pm
But at least we still agree that given new information and knowledge both of us might change our minds about what we do believe.
Yes with the proviso (that I assumed was understood) information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just cuz he or his wares are new.
So, what [to me] you seem to be saying is that new information and knowledge could change your mind theoretically but for all practical purposes it will always be you who decides if the information and knowledge accomplishes this.

Which from my frame of mind, however, is still no less rooted in dasein.

But, okay, note specific new information and knowledge that did in fact succeed in accomplishing this for you in regard to an issue like the buying and selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, etc.

Back to how existentially you might change your mind regarding "important things" in your life.
How about abortion then. You believe what you do about it here and now. But there and then, down the road, you read something or hear something or see something or experience something and it prompts you to reject what you now believe.
henry quirk wrote: That's entirely possible. But such information has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge.
Okay, at least you are agreeing with me that you might be wrong about abortion. That a new experience or a new relationship might convey to you information and knowledge that does in fact change your mind. That, given this, there is nothing in your life now -- God or No God -- that establishes beyond all doubt that what you believe about it is the objective truth.
Okay be fairly specific again, please. "Something important" in your life like buying and selling guns that you changed your mind regarding after acquiring new information and knowledge; or because someone changed your mind about it as a result of all of the many, many exchanges you have had over the years here.
henry quirk wrote: Let's take abortion: as an atheist and materialist, I supported access to abortion. The failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain led me to deism and hylomorphism. That, to me, is pretty damn specific.
Fair enough. Thanks for that. But how does a "failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain" make the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars go away? From my frame of mind, that is too esoteric. After all, in regards to dualism, we don't even know definitively if we have autonomy in reaching conclusions like this.

And, as always, there are the specific experiences in your life that led you to this change of mind. What in particular were yours? Things that happened such that had they not happened you'd still believe women must have access to abortion. For me it was being drafted, meeting left wing soldiers, going to college, the wrenching experience with John and Mary, reading William Barrett's Irrational Man etc. That's what would interest me in regard to your abortion trajectory. An existential sequence.

Also, how is that related to your beliefs about buying and selling bazookas? Or Transgender politics.
And thus acknowledging that given these changes in the past, important issues that you embrace morally and politically now are subject to change in the future.
henry quirk wrote:I've done that.
Yes, we now seem to be more or less on the same page here. We both accept that new experiences and new relationships can convey to us new information and knowledge that result in our changing our minds about "important things" in our lives. That we can never really be entirely certain that our value judgments "here and now" are either the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

On the other hand [for me], in not believing in a God, the God, and in believing that science and philosophy seem unable to establish sets of deontological moral obligations, "I" have concluded that being fractured and fragmented in regard to conflicting goods is a reasonable perspective. Although I'm still fuzzy regarding how your God and your "intuitions" come into play here for you.
But there is also the possibility of someone convincing me that there is a route up out of the hole I have dug myself down into.
henry quirk wrote: I don't think that's possible.
Okay, but given all of the truly dramatic "conversions" I have already experienced in my life -- God and No God -- I'm entirely less convinced of that myself.
henry quirk wrote: How is recognizing an individual, any individual, every individual, as having a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property a my way or the highway proposition? Only way a body could conclude such a thing is if they don't believe an individual, any individual, every individual has a right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.
In my view, you refuse to recognize that in regard to things like the buying and selling of bazookas, only your own understanding of "life, liberty, and property" is legitimate.
henry quirk wrote:Yes, I don't recognize the legitimacy of any claim on the life, liberty, and property of a person who has done no wrong.
Again, I've addressed that over and again above. And below:
Even though I note the arguments of those who wrap those words around a world where private citizens are not permitted to buy and sell them [and all the other military grade weapons noted above] that is simply not acceptable to you.
henry quirk wrote: To date: none of those arguments holds water. Give me yours: mebbe it'll change my mind.
Mine?!! Mine is that value judgments of this sort are embodied existentially out in particular worlds understood in particular ways historically, culturally and experientially. That those on both sides of the gun wars are able to make reasonable arguments...merely by starting out with different sets of assumptions: https://gun-control.procon.org/

Arguments the other side are never really able to just make go away.

And that in a world awash in contingency, chance and change we never really know whether if, around the next corner of our actual lived lives, we might encounter new experiences, friendships or information and knowledge that prompts us to rethink our current "rooted existentially in dasein" political prejudices.
So, there is no real possibility of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" with them.
henry quirk wrote: If it involves deprivin' anyone of life, liberty, and property without just cause, then, yeah, there is no real possibility of moderation, negotiation and compromise. Now, here, if you were smart about it, you'd ask me what constitutes a just cause to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.
Note to others:

Go ahead, see if you can point out how his own rooted existentially in dasein assessment of what constitutes "just cause" will always be the default here for him. He will provide you with his own political prejudices regarding "life, liberty, and property" and simply dismiss those who refuse to accept them in turn. As for the issue and the context, It can be any issue, any context.
With abortion "life, liberty and property" can commence with the unborn baby or with the pregnant woman.
henry quirk wrote: It begins with: when does human personhood begin?
How about this: when you say it does?
No, no, some insist, it must start with the natural rights of unborn babies about to be murdered in the womb.
henry quirk wrote: If what a woman carries is a person, then it becomes a question of how do the natural rights of these two people balance against each other? Whose rights take precedence in the unique situation of one person bein' embedded in another?
How about this: when you say it does?
No way, others declaim, it must start with the political rights of pregnant women about to be forced to give birth.
henry quirk wrote: Here we have to look at who is responsible for one person bein' inside another.
How about this: who you say is responsible?

Again, all of this going back murkily to how you resolve these things "intuitively" and "reasonably". It all "somehow" going back to the Deist God. "In your head" for example. Since you have no capacity [to the best of my knowledge] of actually demonstrating that the "human condition" does in fact owe existence to a God, the God, your God.
How are your own moral convictions not the embodiment of my assessment above?
henry quirk wrote: I can change my mind about X, but I don't become a different person becuz I've changed my mind.
Come on, henry, what is important here is that when you change your mind about something, it can cause you to change your behaviors. And it is our behaviors that precipitate consequences in our interactions with others
henry quirk wrote: Nah. It's about two real people -- you and me -- in the real world debating on how to live and on how we live. Me, as a free will, whole. You, as a broken meat machine. All the fancy talk doesn't change that.
On the contrary, in my view, you fit the profoundly problematic complexities of a real world rooted existentially in dasein, in the Benjamin Button Syndrome, into your "my way or the highway" political dogmas derived "intuitively" from a God who creates this world...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...and then abandons us. Just leaves us here to deal with the ghastly consequences.
Look, over the years going all the way back to MSN and Yahoo "groups", I've encountered those who reacted to me as the objectivists still do. But I didn't keep a list of names. Some came over to "my side" in a PM or an email. I am still in contact with two of them. One from the Ponderer's Guild, another from the Philosophy Forum. Had a few more but for one reason or another they "disappeared". And one going all the way back to Friends of Brainstorm, died a couple of years ago.
henry quirk wrote: Then mebbe you ought not crow about those you've shaken or converted.
Crowing? If you say so, henry.
henry quirk wrote: Yeah, like I said you default to determinism. Just commit and say I'm a determinist (we all understand, of course, given new information and experiences you might come to believe different...lord, but you've told us so enough times) and be done with it. Time to stop fence-sittin', Iam (but then, you're not really fence sittin', are you).
No, henry, my default is always this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Like you and others, I'm grappling to "somehow" grasp the profound mystery that is human consciousness itself. The arguments that "here and now" are most persuasive to me revolve around determinism as some understand it in regard to the human brain being but more matter. You are the one who connects the dots here back to God.
henry quirk wrote: How is this not a default to determinism?
Because I flat out acknowledge that I am no less ignorant regarding how the human condition fits -- how "I" fit -- into the existence of existence itself.

Existentially, you came to conclude it all comes back to God. Either compelled or not compelled to. I, on the other hand, am no less fractured and fragmented here as well.
only a fool would actually imagine that because they choose/"choose"/"choose" to stop sitting on the fence here that's, what, good enough?
henry quirk wrote: Can't see why goin' with what you got is foolish. At the very least, you're out of the crossroads.
And this has what to do with my point? You can't pin down definitively, empirically, experientially etc., any of the Big Questions regarding existence, God, the human condition, your own life. So -- presto! -- one just decides [autonomously] "decides" [compelled to] "decides" [as a compatibilist] to just believe one thing rather than another!!

You yourself don't even recognize just how insubstantial that is. Or so it seems to me.
You have made your own more or less blind "leap of faith" to Him and just "moved on".
henry quirk wrote: If you'd read that conversation with Harbal, you'd know my move to deism wasn't without good cause (it wasn't blind and it ain't strictly faith).
Come on, henry, beyond a "world of words" or a "leap of faith" what actual evidence do you have that the Deist God does in fact exist? And, instead, not one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
You're got your Final Solution to the quandary that has baffled philosophers and scientists for centuries. You are able to be comforted and consoled that there is a Final Solution -- God -- and then moved on to the further flagrant assumption that God provided you with the capacity to Reason as you do about everything under the Sun. I construe your frame of mind as "my way or the highway" but "somehow" you don't.
henry quirk wrote: You understand: many scientists and philosophers have taken firm positions on matters of God, mind, free will, natural rights, materialism, determinism, etc., yeah?
Do you understand this:

I'm much less interested in the "firm positions" scientists and philosophers take here and far more interested in how exactly they go about demonstrating that what they do believe "in their heads" is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

I flat out admit that my own conjectures here are just personal opinions rooted existentially in dasein. I can demonstrate very, very little of what I believe pertaining to value judgments. So, what can you demonstrate here, henry, about the fundamental relationship between God and the human condition and abortions and guns?
henry quirk wrote: You might wanna read that conversation I had with Harbal again, the one I posted, the one you snipped out and didn't respond substantively to.
How can the "human condition" not ultimately go back to the Creator of it Himself?
On the contrary, I responded to two of the points you made to him. But, really, henry your God either exits or does not. And, if He does, He created the material/phenomenological parameters/conditions that led to our brains being what they are...either autonomous or not. How can the "human condition" not ultimately go back to the Creator of it Himself?
henry quirk wrote: The human condition being? You mean the world we live in?
Well, here we have two entirely differently trajectories:

1] the Big Bang, biological life evolving into human beings on planet Earth, Darwin, the theory of evolution and the scientific community
2] God, creationism and the various religious denominations' rendition of that

So, how about yours?
henry quirk wrote: If so: I can only reiterate what I've said about initial conditions set to allow free wills to flourish in a mechanistic universe. It's explanation for what seems to me to be the case: we are free wills, causes, in a universe of events.
In other words: "this is what I believe is true in my head here and now. So, for me, that makes it true."
A leap of faith to your God, however, and not one of these...
henry quirk wrote: I default to deism becuz it seems to describe what is in a clean, minimal way those others do not.
No, in my view, your life unfolded [re the Benjamin Button Syndrome] such that a complex series of variables [some beyond your fully understanding or controlling] came together so that you became aware for the first time of the Deist God. Then, re dasein, given the manner in which your thinking then and there came to be one thing rather than another, you were able to make that leap of faith to Deism.

And how can a God that creates you and your intuition and your capacity to reason, but then splits the scene be cleaner and more minimal than, say, IC's God. With Christianity there is The Word. A SCRIPTure. And after you shuffle off this mortal coil there is Judgment Day. The fate of your very soul for all the rest of eternity is pinned down. Whereas with Deism it's all muffled and ambiguous.
I am interested in [as with IC and his Christian God] is the hard evidence that you are able to provide to yourself that your God does in fact exist.
henry quirk wrote: I've done that multiple times. Most recently in that conversation with Harbal. Here's the relevant parts...

As I say: it's universal, this sense of self-possession. Any where, any when, every person knows he is his own and knows it would be wrong to be used or murdered or slaved or etc. As I say: even the slaver, as he fixes prices to men, knows he is his own. No one has ever truthfully said I ought be property. Now, considering the wide range of biological, psychological, cultural, sociological, societal, philosophical, religious, etc. differences between men and groups of men, it's reasonable to assume over the long haul of history some men or groups of men would have found it natural to be used as commodity or pack animal or food. But no such men or groups of men exist. There's never been a slaver who said or sez as it it right for me to own others, it wouid be right for another to own me. A man may violate another but he never takes his own violation as acceptable or right. This universal could be simply a brute fact, a peculiarity of human biology/neurology, but as it never varies, never goes away, this seems far-fetched to me. You could conceivably breed man to be eyeless or armless; it does not seem to me you could breed away man's innate intuition of self-possession. So, as self-possession is not a biological trait, but it exists, it must be sumthin' other than a function of biology.

It's universal (everyone lives as though it were true), not material, easily recognizable thru deduction, and immutable. It's part & parcel to free will (causal & creative power), to personhood. That alone makes it objective. But, as I say, it -- the intuition of ownness -- does not seem to me to be a brute fact. Such an immutable, it seems to me, has purpose behind it. Purposefulness/intention, this too is part & parcel to personhood. That is: a Person is responsible for man being a person. Conventionally, this Person is called God.

...it's not particularly hard, but -- as explanation -- it fits.
From my frame of mind, this could not possibly be further removed from the sort of evidence I'm talking about. You make your points in a world of words where yet more words still are used to defend them. At least IC does have a Bible he can turn to when he goes around and around in circles.

Basically, you are telling me that that your conclusions must be true because you made them. And you wouldn't have made them if they weren't true. Spiritual/Intellectual contraptions on steroids. From my frame of mind it "fits" only because you need it to in order to sustain your own rendition of the psychology of objectivism in regard to things like guns.
henry quirk wrote: And, in advance of you goin' on about look what I've reduced you to let me say I have no clue how else to respond to you. My sincere responses don't cut the (your) mustard and are rejected, ignored, dismissed, or used as jumpin' off points for you to post script. My snark is waved about as proof of victory. Some times I take you as you present yourself, existentially fractured and in-stasis; other times I see you as trickster, a conniver. Increasingly I see you as mentally ill or autistic like age.
I am the one who managed to reduce myself down to believing "in my head" that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that there is no foundation on which to create an objective morality and that death = oblivion.

And all I am doing here is noting what, existentially, rooted in dasein, "I" have come to think about all of this.

Though I am often convinced that my arguments so perturb the objectivists among us -- "what if that ever becomes true of me as well?! -- they need to think of me in that way. Stooges I call them. Making me the argument.
henry quirk wrote: Yeah, I can see how you might think of yourself as in a self-dug hole.
So, all I can do is to ask those who do not think as I do how, given particular contexts, they have managed to sustain a sense of personal identity in the is/ought world that is not generally drawn and quartered...tugged/wrenched ambivalently...in different directions.

And, from my frame of mind, you have "in your head" managed to stitch God and intuition and reason together into a font that comforts and consoles you considerably more than my own frame of mind does me. But I am also convinced that you sustain this given the "psychology of objectivism" more so than any hard evidence you can provide to convince others that it is your own rendition of a One True Path rather than these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...that existentially you have come to embrace.

I'll read Jon Rappoport's piece and get back to you on it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 9:54 pm
"So, what [to me] you seem to be saying is that new information and knowledge could change your mind theoretically but for all practical purposes it will always be you who decides if the information and knowledge accomplishes this."

Yes. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.

"Which from my frame of mind, however, is still no less rooted in dasein."

Well, of course that's how you see it. Incidentally, I'll snip out all further mention of dasein and related garbage...I know your position...I don't have to read it again, and I sure as hell won't keep commenting on, responding to, it.

"But, okay, note specific new information and knowledge that did in fact succeed in accomplishing this for you in regard to an issue like the buying and selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, etc."

Done. This kinda stuff, I'm also snippin' out. It's the question(s) I've answered already. I'm tired of answerin' only to have you ask again. I'm done with it.

"Thanks for that."

Spare me. Within five posts you won't even remember I posted it.

"But how does a "failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain" make the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars go away? "

❓

You asked (again) for an example of my changin' my mind. I (again) gave you one. I never said diddly about it makin' conflict disappear. Quit movin' the damn goal posts.

"I'm still fuzzy regarding how your God and your "intuitions" come into play here for you."

Go read the conversation I had with Harbal again. My thinkin' on the subject is summarized there.

"when you say it does?"

Covered already several times. Here it is again (the last time, with you)...

If we go strictly with a materialist position -- man is nuthin' but matter, mind is nuthin' but brain product -- then we need only look at ourselves for an answer. By the end of week 12, all the significant structures the materialist sez are solely responsible for me bein' me and you bein' you are in place in what Mary carries. If my, your, material composition and complexity is all there is to my, your, bein' a person, we must conclude what Mary carries at the end of week 12 is a person. This is logic at work.

A sensible 'policy', then might be to allow unrestricted abortion in the first three months, and, after the first three months, only allow abortion in the cases of rape or medical emergency.

You'll note: this is not my position or solution, but I can live with it (in the spirit of 'negotiation' & 'compromise').

"who you say is responsible?"

Not the baby (or meat lump).

"when you change your mind about something, it can cause you to change your behaviors."

If I change my mind (becuz I assess the info/experience, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns) I may change my behavior. You may see this as a fine distinction to make. I, however, believe what you posted and what I posted are worlds apart. You are a receptacle. I am an 'apprehender'. We're not the same.

"And this has what to do with my point?"

Everything. *Supposedly you just can't make up your mind. You've self-crippled. I suggest takin' even the wrong path is superior to stasis. But, you do you.

In anticipation of this question, or sumthin' similar, from you...

"Isn't that what you did, Henry? Didn't you just choose a path that might be wrong?

...I retort...

"One word, Ma’am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say." -Puddleglum

"what actual evidence do you have that the Deist God does in fact exist?"

I've offered what works for me. It doesn't work for you: okay. Not doin' that stuff any more, with you. Enough is enough.

"how about yours?"

Already laid out my 'trajectory'. No more, not again.

"this could not possibly be further removed from the sort of evidence I'm talking about"

It's what I got. It makes sense to me. It doesn't work for you: okay. Questions: am I supposed to care? I know you're -- supposedly -- desperate for answers. Am I obligated to 'save' you?

"I'll read Jon Rappoport's piece and get back to you on it."

Meh. Whatever. You won't get it.




*jury's still out on exactly 'what' you are: existentially broken, cross-roads squatter; finaglin' conniver; mentally ill/autistic...I don't suppose I'll ever know

-----

Yep, I -- as I say up-post -- snipped out all the repetitions (and assessments and moralizing, etc). I won't abandon the 'conversation' but I ain't repeatin' myself endlessly, and I ain't payin' no more mind to your 'over & over & over'-isms.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
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
What is eigentlichkeit?

Eigentlichkeit is a German word that can be translated to “authenticity.” It refers to the state in which we are most ourselves and most connected to the world around us. Inauthentic behavior is when we act in a not accurate way to ourselves. We often fall into inauthenticity when we try to please others or are afraid of how others will react to us.
You know what's coming...

Given a particular set of circumstances in which people will argue regarding behaviors deemed either to be authentic or inauthentic -- moral or immoral, rational or irrational -- how, given Heidegger's understanding of Dasein in Being and Time, would one go about making the distinction. As opposed to my own contention that philosophically there is no deontological distinction that can be made.

Any takers?
Heidegger believed that authenticity was the key to a meaningful life. We live by our thoughts, feelings, and desires when we are authentic. We no longer concern ourselves with what others think of us, and we choose to live authentically instead of falling into patterns of behavior that are not true to ourselves.
Really, how ridiculous is that? Are we or are we not indoctrinated as children to think, feel, say and do the very same things that those in our family or community or culture or historical era think, feel, say or do? As adults are we or are we not often around others who share many of our own beliefs and value judgments? To speak of being yourself and of no longer being concerned with what those around you think of that? What on Earth does that have to do with the lives most of us actually live?

Also, it assumes that to the extent that we do have different beliefs and values and do choose to behave other than as those around us, this means that we are correct, and others are not. Authentic behaviors that, subjectively, are rooted existentially in dasein as I understand it, need be as far as it goes.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: So, what [to me] you seem to be saying is that new information and knowledge could change your mind theoretically but for all practical purposes it will always be you who decides if the information and knowledge accomplishes this.
henry quirk wrote: Yes. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.
Yes, but in the manner in which I construe to be the embodiment of dasein above. But which you construe to ever and always be rational as a result of your God-given "intuitive" "I just know" grasp of these things. Though, again, "theoretically", you might come upon new information and knowledge that changes your mind even about that. But "for all practical purposes" given that [one suspects] you will take your rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices with you all the way to the grave, well, forget about it.
Which from my frame of mind, however, is still no less rooted in dasein.
henry quirk wrote: Well, of course that's how you see it. Incidentally, I'll snip out all further mention of dasein and related garbage...I know your position...I don't have to read it again, and I sure as hell won't keep commenting on, responding to, it.
Fine, Mr. Wiggle, as you wish.

Still, if, someday, you actually do grow a pair philosophically, I'll note one more time this part:
Look, henry, if you can actually convince yourself that no matter the historical era and culture you were born into, no matter your childhood indoctrination or the uniquely personal experiences and relationships you had over the years, no matter that you happened to read, hear and view these things rather than those things, you'd still think about abortion, guns and transgender men and women as you do today, I won't attempt further to suggest just how ludicrous that is.
To wit:
But, okay, note specific new information and knowledge that did in fact succeed in accomplishing this for you in regard to an issue like the buying and selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, etc.
henry quirk wrote: Done. This kinda stuff, I'm also snippin' out. It's the question(s) I've answered already. I'm tired of answerin' only to have you ask again. I'm done with it.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, henry. Your example pertained to materialism and religion and God. Not to an issue like abortion or guns or human sexuality. See below.

Again, in my view, you can't really admit that new information and knowledge obtained through new experiences or relationships resulted in you changing your mind about "something important" like guns in the past because in acknowledging that you are admitting you may well be wrong about them now as well. No, objectivists of your ilk will rarely go there in regard to their thinking. Why? Because "there" is bursting at the seams with all the points I make in my signature threads above regarding dasein. And the more they are applicable to you in turn the closer you get to being "fractured and fragmented".
How about abortion then. You believe what you do about it here and now. But there and then, down the road, you read something or hear something or see something or experience something and it prompts you to reject what you now believe.
henry quirk wrote: That's entirely possible. But such information has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge.
Okay, at least you are agreeing with me that you might be wrong about abortion. That a new experience or a new relationship might convey to you information and knowledge that does in fact change your mind. That, given this, there is nothing in your life now -- God or No God -- that establishes beyond all doubt that what you believe about it is the objective truth.
henry quirk wrote: Let's take abortion: as an atheist and materialist, I supported access to abortion. The failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain led me to deism and hylomorphism. That, to me, is pretty damn specific.
But how does a failure of materialism to explain how mind is a product of brain make the conflicting goods embedded in the abortion wars go away? From my frame of mind, that is too esoteric. After all, in regard to dualism, we don't even know definitively if we have autonomy in reaching conclusions like this.

And, as always, there are the specific experiences in your life that led you to this change of mind. What in particular were yours? Things that happened such that had they not happened you'd still believe women must have access to abortion. For me it was being drafted, meeting left wing soldiers, going to college, the wrenching experience with John and Mary, reading William Barrett's Irrational Man etc. That's what would interest me in regard to your abortion trajectory. An existential sequence.

Also, how is that related to your beliefs about buying and selling bazookas? Or Transgender politics.
henry quirk wrote: ❓
:!:
henry quirk wrote: You asked (again) for an example of my changin' my mind. I (again) gave you one. I never said diddly about it makin' conflict disappear. Quit movin' the damn goal posts.
Fine, I'll leave it to others here to decide if I'm moving more than you are wiggling.
henry quirk wrote: If it involves deprivin' anyone of life, liberty, and property without just cause, then, yeah, there is no real possibility of moderation, negotiation and compromise. Now, here, if you were smart about it, you'd ask me what constitutes a just cause to deprive someone of life, liberty, and property.
Note to others:

Go ahead, see if you can point out how his own rooted existentially in dasein assessment of what constitutes "just cause" will always be the default here for him. He will provide you with his own political prejudices regarding "life, liberty, and property" and simply dismiss those who refuse to accept them in turn. As for the issue and the context, It can be any issue, any context.
With abortion "life, liberty and property" can commence with the unborn baby or with the pregnant woman.
henry quirk wrote: It begins with: when does human personhood begin?
How about this: when you say it does?
henry quirk wrote:Covered already several times. Here it is again (the last time, with you)...
henry quirk wrote: If we go strictly with a materialist position -- man is nuthin' but matter, mind is nuthin' but brain product -- then we need only look at ourselves for an answer. By the end of week 12, all the significant structures the materialist sez are solely responsible for me bein' me and you bein' you are in place in what Mary carries. If my, your, material composition and complexity is all there is to my, your, bein' a person, we must conclude what Mary carries at the end of week 12 is a person. This is logic at work.
Actually, henry, I agree with this myself. On the other hand, those on the other side of the political spectrum have their own "before not a human person, after a human person" assessments. They might not ascribe their own conclusions to God-given intuitive "logic" like you do, but they will be in the general vicinity of what is construed by many to be rational thought.

Now, in the OP of this thread -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121 -- I examine my own thinking about abortion here as a moral issue. Again, please note how the points I raise there are not applicable to you.
henry quirk wrote: A sensible 'policy', then might be to allow unrestricted abortion in the first three months, and, after the first three months, only allow abortion in the cases of rape or medical emergency.
Or, given the rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices of others, that might be deemed anything but sensible. And here of course we will be hearing from those on both ends of the God/No God moral and political spectrum, won't we?
henry quirk wrote: You'll note: this is not my position or solution, but I can live with it (in the spirit of 'negotiation' & 'compromise').
Indeed, as some note, that was the beauty of Roe v. Wade here in America. A "demcocracy and the rule of law" approach to a moral conflagration. At least until the buttinsky Catholics on the Supreme Court injected their God into it all.
henry quirk wrote: Here we have to look at who is responsible for one person bein' inside another.
How about this: who you say is responsible?

Again, all of this going back murkily to how you resolve these things "intuitively" and "reasonably". It all "somehow" going back to the Deist God. "In your head" for example. Since you have no capacity [to the best of my knowledge] of actually demonstrating that the "human condition" does in fact owe existence to a God, the God, your God.
henry quirk wrote: Not the baby (or meat lump).
Okay, so the state, the government has the God-given intuitive right to force the woman to give birth? After the first trimester in your own "best of all possible communities"?
henry quirk wrote: I can change my mind about X, but I don't become a different person becuz I've changed my mind.
Come on, henry, what is important here is that when you change your mind about something, it can cause you to change your behaviors. And it is our behaviors that precipitate consequences in our interactions with others.
henry quirk wrote: If I change my mind (becuz I assess the info/experience, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns) I may change my behavior. You may see this as a fine distinction to make. I, however, believe what you posted and what I posted are worlds apart. You are a receptacle. I am an 'apprehender'. We're not the same.
On the contrary. If we change our mind about something it can result in us changing our behaviors in turn. And if our behaviors change in our interactions with others that can precipitate [at times] dramatic consequences. The human condition in a nutshell. Human history itself for example.

Then whatever on Earth you are trying to say above.
...only a fool would actually imagine that because they choose/"choose"/"choose" to stop sitting on the fence here that's, what, good enough?
henry quirk wrote: Can't see why goin' with what you got is foolish. At the very least, you're out of the crossroads.
And this has what to do with my point? You can't pin down definitively, empirically, experientially etc., any of the Big Questions regarding existence, God, the human condition, your own life. So -- presto! -- one just decides [autonomously] "decides" [compelled to] "decides" [as a compatibilist] to just believe one thing rather than another!!

You yourself don't even recognize just how insubstantial that is. Or so it seems to me.
henry quirk wrote: Everything. *Supposedly you just can't make up your mind. You've self-crippled. I suggest takin' even the wrong path is superior to stasis. But, you do you.
Stasis?

Again, the only reason you can make up your mind, henry, is becasue existentially you took a leap of faith to the Deist God instead of one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...One True Paths and then with absolutely no definitive demonstrable proof of His existence, you came to believe "in your head" that He created the universe -- the multiverse? -- and provided you with the "intuitive" capacity to "just know" that what you post here reflects the optimal truth.

Philosophically and otherwise.

Then whatever on Earth this...
henry quirk wrote: In anticipation of this question, or sumthin' similar, from you...

"Isn't that what you did, Henry? Didn't you just choose a path that might be wrong?

...I retort...

"One word, Ma’am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say." -Puddleglum
...is supposed to mean.

The great philosopher C. S. Lewis!!!

Pick one:

8) :lol: :roll: :wink:

On the other hand...

“I seemed to hear God saying, 'Put down your gun and we'll talk.'” C. S. Lewis
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 8:42 pm
Dasein/dasein

"But which you construe to ever and always be rational as a result of your God-given "intuitive" "I just know" grasp of these things."

Let's review...

You wanted to know if new information & experiences could change my mind.

I said 'yes with the proviso information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new' and 'I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns'.

My words, your interpretation: they don't match.

"those on the other side of the political spectrum have their own "before not a human person, after a human person" assessments."

There are folks in-forum who say a baby is not a person till it's born and takes its first breath. Others say personhood is only a legal/social status, one that must be bestowed. Neither position is 'reasonable'. Both include possibilities their proponents refuse to consider. Let's you and I consider those possibilities and those embedded in your (and Mary's) position below (insofar as you, or she, have one).

"please note how the points I raise there are not applicable to you."

"I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion"

It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy that demonstrably threatens the woman's life. It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy a woman did not, in word or action, consent to. Abortion for any other reason is murder (an unjust, immoral, killing).

"Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights."

Mary had sex of her own volition with John. They consented to the probable consequence. She reneged. She enabled the murder of her kid. So, let's take a head count: Mary wanted Junior murdered, John consented to the murder, you were too spineless to object to the murder, a doctor and at least one nurse committed the murder...that's four of you, right offa the top of my head. So, yes, it's a tragedy, just not as you think it is.

"In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions."

So: the (a)morality that dictates man (any man, every man) is meat, and it's A-OK to kill him, slave him, rape him, that, to you, is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, the morality that sez a man is a person with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. The first, as it is, without interpretation, sanctions a man, any man, every man, being used as a commodity. The second, as it stands, without interpretation, denies such sanction. And, to you, these radically different views of, and approaches to, man, they're interchangeable. Both are valid. You'd have a hard time pickin' one over the other.

"Indeed, as some note, that was the beauty of Roe v. Wade here in America. A "demcocracy and the rule of law" approach to a moral conflagration."

R v W was a bad court ruling. There was nuthin' democratic about it. Let's be truly democratic and let The People decide. Let's have a national vote on it. One man-one vote.

"Okay, so the state, the government has the God-given intuitive right to force the woman to give birth?"

The State has, potentially, the power to force women to give birth or to abort. The State, more accurately, the folks who comprise it, have no right to do either.

So: the persons responsible, by way of a consensual act, for one person (baby) being inside another (mother) are the consenting parties, the man (father) and the woman (mother). They created a person. They're responsible for him.

"Again, the only reason you can make up your mind, henry, is becasue existentially you took a leap of faith to the Deist God instead of one of these...One True Paths and then with absolutely no definitive demonstrable proof of His existence, you came to believe "in your head" that He created the universe -- the multiverse? -- and provided you with the "intuitive" capacity to "just know" that what you post here reflects the optimal truth.

No, I can make up mind about these matters becuz I recognize every person around me has, as I do, as you do, a natural right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. I can make up my mind becuz the universality of natural rights lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, meat which, in turn lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, a meaningless event.

"Pick one:"

Okay: 👍

-----

nihilism

"when these items and conveyances become newsworthy in the manner in which guns often are, you can bring them to our attention"

It doesn't matter if it's newsworthy. What matters: if a person has done no wrong with his property, you have no claim to it. What matters: if 99 do wrong with their property, and the 100th does not, you have no claim to the 100th's.

"If someone does not share his own "general description intellectual contraption" assessment of life, liberty and property they are perforce flat out wrong and immoral."

Anyone who sez a person, any person, every person, does not have a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property is wrong, wrong-headed, immoral.

"Over and again, I note the arguments of those who are opposed to the buying and selling of grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines and chemical and biological weapons in their community."

Yes, these folks believe they can take property away from other folks becuz of what those others might do with their property. They believe themselves justified to take property they feel might hurt them. Like I said: guilty till proven innocent.

"transgenders you argue that they have a "natural right" to wear dresses and self-mutilate"

They have a right to do with themselves, and only themselves, as they like. What they, and you, object to is the 'and only themselves' part.

-----

I cut out so much of the same garbage from both of your posts it seemed advisable to merge what was left (the truly recyclable stuff).
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
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
...Heidegger argues that inauthenticity is a state of being lost and removed from the world around us. When we are caught up trying to please others or worrying about how we are perceived, we lose sight of who we are. In this sense, our authenticity is covered by concerns about how others view us — what Heidegger refers to as the “They.”
And then when I come along and note that a state "of being lost and removed from particular worlds" historically and culturally and experientially must also be taken into account, I am accused by some of not really grasping Dasein the philosophical/intellectual contraption in Being and Time.

Okay, but my main interest in that revolves precisely around how the conclusions that Heidegger comes to regarding Dasein in his philosophy tome are in fact applicable to different people out in particular worlds. Dasein and the Nazis. Dasein and the Jews. Authenticity and inauthenticity given interactions between them back in Heidegger's time.

What, to go there is to misconstrue the true nature of philosophical discourse?

In our own way, existentially, and given vast and varied circumstantial contexts, we all choose to please others and/or are concerned with how others perceive us. But: given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 -- we might choose to please others or be perceived by them in many dissimilar and conflicting ways. How then given Heidegger's Dasein is that any different?
Heidegger’s sentence, “The language is the dwelling of the being and Dasein is its pastor,” suggests that human beings can’t understand themselves or their environments without language.

Humans create language to express themselves and communicate with others. Language allows us to develop a sense of community and dwelling
Please. Language revolves around the biological evolution of life on Earth into the human species. We are genetically predisposed to both create complex languages and to utilize them in communicating any number of things. But: Are there limitations here? What language is invented to communicate things that are true for all of us? And what language instead becomes considerably more problematic such that a "failure to communicate" is often more the rule than the exception?

How about this: we'll need a context.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: So, what [to me] you seem to be saying is that new information and knowledge could change your mind theoretically but for all practical purposes it will always be you who decides if the information and knowledge accomplishes this.
henry quirk wrote: Yes. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.
Yes, but in the manner in which I construe to be the embodiment of dasein above. But which you construe to ever and always be rational as a result of your God-given "intuitive" "I just know" grasp of these things. Though, again, "theoretically", you might come upon new information and knowledge that changes your mind even about that. But "for all practical purposes" given that [one suspects] you will take your rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices with you all the way to the grave, well, forget about it.
henry quirk wrote: Let's review...

You wanted to know if new information & experiences could change my mind.

I said 'yes with the proviso information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new' and 'I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns'.

My words, your interpretation: they don't match.
Again, all you are doing, in my view, is wiggling out of noting whether or not in the past, based on your own criteria above, you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns. Are you at least able to acknowledge that such information may well be out there waiting for you? Or, as the objectivist that I suspect you are, is there less than a snowball's chance in hell of you ever changing your mind about your clearly dogmatic "my way or the highway" assumptions about them.

Including bazookas and grenades and all the rest.

Then back to this...
Look, henry, if you can actually convince yourself that no matter the historical era and culture you were born into, no matter your childhood indoctrination or the uniquely personal experiences and relationships you had over the years, no matter that you happened to read, hear and view these things rather than those things, you'd still think about abortion, guns and transgender men and women as you do today, I won't attempt further to suggest just how ludicrous that is.
You'll either grasp just how ridiculous this is or you won't. Though again with all you have invested in your own "one of us" mentality, I doubt that you will. You're basically just another rendition of Satyr to me.

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.
Again, in my view, you can't really admit that new information and knowledge obtained through new experiences or relationships resulted in you changing your mind about "something important" like guns in the past because in acknowledging that you are admitting you may well be wrong about them now as well. No, objectivists of your ilk will rarely go there in regard to their thinking. Why? Because "there" is bursting at the seams with all the points I make in my signature threads above regarding dasein. And the more they are applicable to you in turn the closer you get to being "fractured and fragmented".
henry quirk wrote: If we go strictly with a materialist position -- man is nuthin' but matter, mind is nuthin' but brain product -- then we need only look at ourselves for an answer. By the end of week 12, all the significant structures the materialist sez are solely responsible for me bein' me and you bein' you are in place in what Mary carries. If my, your, material composition and complexity is all there is to my, your, bein' a person, we must conclude what Mary carries at the end of week 12 is a person. This is logic at work.
Actually, henry, I agree with this myself. On the other hand, those on the other side of the political spectrum have their own "before not a human person, after a human person" assessments. They might not ascribe their own conclusions to God-given intuitive "logic" like you do, but they will be in the general vicinity of what is construed by many to be rational thought.

Now, in the OP of this thread -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121 -- I examine my own thinking about abortion here as a moral issue.
henry quirk wrote: There are folks in-forum who say a baby is not a person till it's born and takes its first breath. Others say personhood is only a legal/social status, one that must be bestowed. Neither position is 'reasonable'. Both include possibilities their proponents refuse to consider. Let's you and I consider those possibilities and those embedded in your (and Mary's) position below (insofar as you, or she, have one).


That's my point, henry. Different people say different things. Some bring their answers back to God. Others to philosophy/ethics/deontology. Others to science. Thus, many, many conflicting assessments of what is reasonable/"reasonable". I bring my own answer back to dasein. Existentially. This "here and now" seems reasonable to me. And so, being fractured and fragmented also seems reasonable to me. And all I can do is to probe the arguments of those like you who are not drawn and quartered regarding conflicting goods.

This part:
please note how the points I raise there are not applicable to you.
iambiguous wrote: I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion
henry quirk wrote: It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy that demonstrably threatens the woman's life. It's morally permissible to end a pregnancy a woman did not, in word or action, consent to. Abortion for any other reason is murder (an unjust, immoral, killing).
See, there you go again. Going back to your God-given intuitive capacity to embrace a rational assessment of abortion as a moral issue this is what you believe "in your head". And in believing it "in your head" that makes it true. You offer no other substantive evidence able to obligate others to think as you do. Surely, you are intelligent enough to grasp the circular logic that you have wound yourself up in

And that's here and now. There and then down the road after coming upon new information and knowledge that meets your own criteria above...might you then change your mind? Yes, theoretically but no for all practical purposes?
iambiguous wrote: Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.
henry quirk wrote: Mary had sex of her own volition with John. They consented to the probable consequence. She reneged. She enabled the murder of her kid. So, let's take a head count: Mary wanted Junior murdered, John consented to the murder, you were too spineless to object to the murder, a doctor and at least one nurse committed the murder...that's four of you, right offa the top of my head. So, yes, it's a tragedy, just not as you think it is.
Note to others:

Classic quirk!!

He fiercely asserts these things as though anyone who does not construe Mary and John and the abortion and me in precisely the same manner as he does above is perforce, necessarily, axiomatically wrong!!!

He takes us inside his "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" mind here so that we can note how "worked up" he is getting. He spews out his declamatory "guilty as charged" verdict as though to dare someone to suggest it isn't the God's honest truth. His God anyway.
In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.

That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.
Then straight back up into the general description intellectual contraption clouds he goes...
henry quirk wrote: So: the (a)morality that dictates man (any man, every man) is meat, and it's A-OK to kill him, slave him, rape him, that, to you, is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, the morality that sez a man is a person with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. The first, as it is, without interpretation, sanctions a man, any man, every man, being used as a commodity. The second, as it stands, without interpretation, denies such sanction. And, to you, these radically different views of, and approaches to, man, they're interchangeable. Both are valid. You'd have a hard time pickin' one over the other.
Everything he notes "up there" is entirely predicated on the assumption that only his own God-given intuitive assessment of "life liberty and property" counts in any discussion he has with any of us here.

Just as with IC where everything is predicated on the assumption that the Christian God resides in Heaven. Or Satyr's assumption that everything is predicated solely on his own understanding of genes and memes. Then around and around they go wallowing in the comfort and the consolation of really being able to belive they are on the One True Path.

And no way in hell are they going to allow me to upend that!!!

Just as no way in hell are they going to admit that all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...are thinking the same thing about them. How can henry or Satyr be on the One True Path when they are?!!!
henry quirk wrote: You'll note: this is not my position or solution, but I can live with it (in the spirit of 'negotiation' & 'compromise').
Indeed, as some note, that was the beauty of Roe v. Wade here in America. A "democracy and the rule of law" approach to a moral conflagration. At least until the buttinsky Catholics on the Supreme Court injected their God into it all.
henry quirk wrote: R v W was a bad court ruling. There was nuthin' democratic about it. Let's be truly democratic and let The People decide. Let's have a national vote on it. One man-one vote.
Well, according to Pew "61% of Americans say abortion should be legal"

And according to gallup...

"The latest findings, from an October 3-20 poll, finds 57% prefer that such [gun] laws be more strict, 10% less strict and 32% the same as they have been."

On the other hand...

"After rising sharply to 66% in June 2022, the percentage wanting stricter laws has fallen nine points."

Now, in America voters elect presidents and members of Congress. Then together they put judges on the Supreme Court. Sometimes the conservatives prevail, sometimes the liberals.

But Roe v. Wade seems more or less in sync with your own thinking. Yes, abortion would be permitted but only under certain sets of circumstances.

Only now the Catholics and their God [not yours] are prevailing and in state after state abortion is being criminalized.
henry quirk wrote: Here we have to look at who is responsible for one person bein' inside another.
How about this: who you say is responsible?
Again, all of this going back murkily to how you resolve these things "intuitively" and "reasonably". It all "somehow" going back to the Deist God. "In your head" for example. Since you have no capacity [to the best of my knowledge] of actually demonstrating that the "human condition" does in fact owe existence to a God, the God, your God.
henry quirk wrote: Not the baby (or meat lump).
Okay, so the state, the government has the God-given intuitive right to force the woman to give birth? After the first trimester in your own "best of all possible communities"?
henry quirk wrote: The State has, potentially, the power to force women to give birth or to abort. The State, more accurately, the folks who comprise it, have no right to do either.
And [sigh] you demonstrate this by, once again, invoking your God-given intuitive grasp of government and the state.
henry quirk wrote: So: the persons responsible, by way of a consensual act, for one person (baby) being inside another (mother) are the consenting parties, the man (father) and the woman (mother). They created a person. They're responsible for him.
Again, they consented to practice safe sex. The contraceptive was defective and Mary got pregnant. Now, if I understand you, if Mary had shredded the "clump of cells" in her body [up to 12 weeks?] she wasn't killing an actual person. Afterwards she was. And this is true because you believe that it is "in your head". And you believe this not because existentially re dasein you were predisposed to embrace this particular political prejudice but because, based on a leap of faith to God, you believe He planted in your head an intuitive capacity to "just know" what you do regarding the morality of abortion.
henry quirk wrote: Can't see why goin' with what you got is foolish. At the very least, you're out of the crossroads.
And this has what to do with my point? You can't pin down definitively, empirically, experientially etc., any of the Big Questions regarding existence, God, the human condition, your own life. So -- presto! -- one just decides [autonomously] "decides" [compelled to] "decides" [as a compatibilist] to just believe one thing rather than another!!

You yourself don't even recognize just how insubstantial that is. Or so it seems to me.
henry quirk wrote: Everything. Supposedly you just can't make up your mind. You've self-crippled. I suggest takin' even the wrong path is superior to stasis. But, you do you.
Stasis?

Again, the only reason you can make up your mind, henry, is becasue existentially you took a leap of faith to the Deist God instead of one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...One True Paths and then with absolutely no definitive demonstrable proof of His existence, you came to believe "in your head" that He created the universe -- the multiverse? -- and provided you with the "intuitive" capacity to "just know" that what you post here reflects the optimal truth.

Philosophically and otherwise.
Yep, straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds where [spiritually and philosophically] life, liberty and property are and can only be construed as you construe them...naturally.
henry quirk wrote: No, I can make up mind about these matters becuz I recognize every person around me has, as I do, as you do, a natural right to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property. I can make up my mind becuz the universality of natural rights lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, meat which, in turn lends itself to man being sumthin' other than, more than, a meaningless event.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Sat May 20, 2023 9:48 pm
"Are you at least able to acknowledge that such information may well be out there waiting for you?"

Yes...with the proviso: information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. Not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. That new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.

"(Have) you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns?"

I've answered this. Here, I'll do it again...

Guns: as a kid, I was exposed to them, taught how to use them (revolvers, rifles, and shotguns). I was taught a firearm is a tool. I was, however, neutral toward them. I could take 'em or leave 'em. I was never forced to use them; I was never denied access. As an young adult living alone in New Orleans I found it prudent to arm myself. Now, at 60, I have no reason to doubt their utility.

God: was an atheist, am now a deist (I've explained, very recently, why).

Abortion: I favored the option for women with few restrictions; now, I incline to see it highly restricted (I've explained, very recently, why).

What other weighty issue do you want me to talk about?

"bazookas and grenades and all the rest"

Like firearms, I was neutral on military-grade weapons (never a fan of the military, though). Like firearms, I see them as tools. I can see no legit reason why agents of The State ought to have them and citizens should not (if you have a reason why citizens should not, offer it). Of course, I believe any person, citizen or not, is innocent till proven guilty.

See? I answered, and I answered with more detail than any of your stories ('Mary wanted to abort, John wanted to keep it, I couldn't decide who was right [they were both reasonable] so I broke into a million bits').

Now, you'll ignore what I've posted (again) and say I won't answer becuz I'm protecting my soft belly.

"Different people say different things. Some bring their answers back to God. Others to philosophy/ethics/deontology. Others to science. Thus, many, many conflicting assessments of what is reasonable/"reasonable"."

And my point is a great many of those positions are not reasonable (not consistent or coherent). I offered to examine three (or four) such positions. You seem unwilling. Perhaps such an examination might threaten your stasis?

"You offer no other substantive evidence able to obligate others to think as you do."

I've offered a logical argument as a hard materialist would, and I've offered my own as a moral realist/natural rights libertarian. Both are consistent and coherent (reasonable) while yours -- it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it -- is not consistent or coherent (it's not reasonable). In fact: your position is absolutely bugfuck Crazy.

Let's compare positions, you and me. Let's see how my 'a baby is person so it's morally wrong to kill it unjustly' stacks up against your 'it doesn't matter what the baby is, a woman cannot be equal until she can off the baby with impunity' stance.

Let's pull both positions out of isolation and see what each says about people as people. Let's examine the ramifications of both.

I promise you: your stance will be revealed as the barren, insane thing it is.

Consider yourself challenged (I'm not holdin' my breath that you'll take up that challenge...you'll default to [in whiny voice] 'Henry, I'm fraaactured! I have no staaance!' and 'Why are you making this all about meeeeee?!').

"He fiercely asserts these things as though anyone who does not construe Mary and John and the abortion and me in precisely the same manner as he does above is perforce, necessarily, axiomatically wrong!!!"

You 'are' wrong, all of you. Your positions are not reasonable, I've told you why. I'll show you again if you take up my challenge.

"Then straight back up into the general description intellectual contraption clouds he goes..."

Let's review...

You said: "In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions."

You believe this...

"And that is so because we do not interact socially, politically or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances. That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads."

...somehow proves your first statement (as though different perspectives are equal, as though all views as equal [becuz no one can be proven superior to another]). If you believe this, then: why do you own a revolver? Presumably to defend yourself. But, if all perspectives are equal, if 'moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions' then why is your desire to self-defend superior to a potential assailant's desire to harm your or rob you? To own that revolver makes you a hypocrite.

Anyway...

I asked: So: the (a)morality that dictates man (any man, every man) is meat, and it's A-OK to kill him, slave him, rape him, that, to you, is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, the morality that sez a man is a person with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property(?) The first, as it is, without interpretation, sanctions a man, any man, every man, being used as a commodity. The second, as it stands, without interpretation, denies such sanction. And, to you, these radically different views of, and approaches to, man, they're interchangeable(?) Both are valid(?) You'd have a hard time pickin' one over the other(?)

Your response: "Everything he notes "up there" is entirely predicated on the assumption that only his own God-given intuitive assessment of "life liberty and property" counts in any discussion he has with any of us here."

Do you believe this to be an adequate response? If you'd said ' yes, I'd have, I'm having, a hard time picking between those two' (what I'd expect from a truly broken nihilistic shell of a man) or, if you'd said 'obviously, Henry, I'd prefer the philosophy that respects persons even though that's just my personal preference and not an endorsement of your fulminating objectivism' (what I'd get from most folks in-forum) then we could move forward. Instead, you go off on two people not in this supposed conversation and express your faux-incredulity...again.

You may self-correct (answer the questions) >HERE<.

"Well, according to Pew "61% of Americans say abortion should be legal"

And restricted to thereabouts the first trimester, as I recall.

So: what do you say to my idea of a national vote on the subject? Can't get more democratic than that (and you just love democracy, don't you).

"The latest findings, from an October 3-20 poll, finds 57% prefer that such [gun] laws be more strict, 10% less strict and 32% the same as they have been. After rising sharply to 66% in June 2022, the percentage wanting stricter laws has fallen nine points."

So: let's put it to a vote. Let The People decide.

"And [sigh] you demonstrate this by, once again, invoking your God-given intuitive grasp of government and the state."

No, I just read the Constitution. You know, the binder on the democracy you love so much.

As aside: do you believe the baby (or meat lump) is responsible for it bein' inside another person? Science says otherwise.

"The contraceptive was defective and Mary got pregnant."

You understand no contraceptive is 100% guaranteed to work (science again). Is it wrong to assume responsible adults would be aware of this? Is it wrong to assume them agreeing to accept the consequences of their chosen actions? Mebbe it is.

"Now, if I understand you, if Mary had shredded the "clump of cells" in her body [up to 12 weeks?] she wasn't killing an actual person."

That's the hard materialist position I relayed up thread...the one you agreed with.

"Afterwards she was."

That's what a hard materialist can say...and you agreed with it.

"And this is true because you believe that it is "in your head"."

No. The hard materialist position is not mine and it's derived logically, based on the available evidence. Go, read the exchange up thread.

"life, liberty and property are and can only be construed as you construe them...naturally."

Please, offer up some reasonable alternate interpretations of life, liberty, and property...yours or someone else's.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:43 pm 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.
Iambiguous, AJ called it here as I had already come to see it by that point in the thread.

A while back, in another thread, you gave me what I now see is your usual shtick (in which you are stuck. Your shtuck, then): censuring me for supposedly being 'evasive' in failing to '[ground my] own moral objectivism in a discussion that revolves around a particular "conflicting good" given a particular context'.

I didn't buy into your shtuck back then because, as I pointed out to you, I had made it clear from the start that, indeed, I wasn't interested in that discussion - not because I was "evading" anything, but because I'd discussed my ethical grounding enough already.

If I had been interested in calling your bluff and blowing apart your conceit that nobody engages with you in this way because they all know that you'll end up proving to them that they have no objective basis for their ethical beliefs - as opposed to the truth, which is that most people quickly see how pointless it is to engage with you in your shtuck - then I'd like to think that I would have gone about it along the lines that hq has excellently modelled.

You really ought to give his contributions more consideration than you have been doing. I know that you won't take that advice, but it costs me nothing to offer it...
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:33 pm
Hey, Harry: how goes it?
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 11:47 pm Hey, Harry: how goes it?
Hey, hq. Well, I haven't succumbed to the belief that I'm but a collection of atoms marching helplessly to the orders of the laws of physics, whose mind is a mere illusion, or at least ineffectual, beholden to the engine of matter off which it inexplicably steams, an inevitable outcome of the necessary, ancient workings of selections of randomness, in an equally random reality, devoid of divinity and morality, in which death is the inevitable conclusion and snuffing out of my insignificant and ultimately irrelevant flicker of pointless existence...

...so, I guess I'm getting along alright, thanks. You?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by henry quirk »

Harry Baird wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 12:20 am
"Well, I haven't succumbed to the belief that I'm but a collection of atoms marching helplessly to the orders of the laws of physics, whose mind is a mere illusion, or at least ineffectual, beholden to the engine of matter off which it inexplicably steams, an inevitable outcome of the necessary, ancient workings of selections of randomness, in an equally random reality, devoid of divinity and morality, in which death is the inevitable conclusion and snuffing out of my insignificant and ultimately irrelevant flicker of pointless existence..."

👍

"...so, I guess I'm getting along alright, thanks. You?"

Oh, aside from continuing to believe adamantly I am a free will with a natural, inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, I'm sufferin' with a pretty significant case of sciatica (or some-such). I'm woozy with ibuprofen.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 22, 2023 1:06 am Oh, aside from continuing to believe adamantly I am a free will with a natural, inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, I'm sufferin' with a pretty significant case of sciatica (or some-such). I'm woozy with ibuprofen.
I hope you're healed up and pain-free ASAP, and that in the meantime, the wooze don't give you no blues. Stay adamant.
Post Reply