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 »

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.
henry quirk wrote: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.
In my view, just another wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of actually addressing my point.
Basically, you are saying that "only if the new information and knowledge is already wholly in sync with my own objectivist assessment of life, liberty and property" does it count. Meanwhile, you can't relate to us a single instance where in regard to the issue of guns, new information and knowledge did radically change your mind. Whereas over and over and over again in regard to many important issues, new information and knowledge garnered from new experiences and relationships resulted in me changing my mind.

This is as far as you will go here with guns:
(Have) you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns?
henry quirk wrote: 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.
That is an example of you changing your mind about guns?!!! You were exposed to them as a kid so you were around those who were no doubt behind the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment. The part that revolves around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" rather than "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."?

Then your circumstances changed later in life and you became more committed to guns. The dasein part.

No, henry, I'm talking about new information and knowledge embedded in new sets of circumstances that prompted you to go from one end of the political spectrum to the other end. You were neutral about guns as a kid but "things changed" and you embraced a more pro-gun commitment. Then, say, things changed again and you went over to the other side. That sort "mind changing" example. Like me once being a staunch conservative Christian, then "things changed" and I became a staunch left-wing atheist then "things changed" again and I abandoned moral objectivism altogether...left or right, God or No God.
henry quirk wrote: God: was an atheist, am now a deist (I've explained, very recently, why).
Okay, but with God and religion, it's all about existential leaps of faith. No one is able to actually demonstrate that God either does or does not exist.

And then the part where subjectively/subjunctively a certain sequence of uniquely personal experiences had to unfold existentially in your life prompting you change your mind. The part I root in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The part you now root in your God-given intuitive capacity to "just know" it ultimately revolves around Deism.
henry quirk wrote: Abortion: I favored the option for women with few restrictions; now, I incline to see it highly restricted (I've explained, very recently, why).
Okay, this is more in line with what I am talking about.

But, once again, given a particular trajectory of uniquely personal experiences, you moved further to the right. But had your life unfolded [for any number of reasons] in another direction you might have once favored more restrictions and then favored less restrictions today. And who is to say [in a free will world] that given newer experiences precipitating new information and knowledge still you might change your mind in a far more dramatic manner.

Also, I'm still puzzled as to how you are unable to accept that given my point here...

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 are unable to grasp how ridiculous moral objectivism is.
bazookas and grenades and all the rest
henry quirk wrote: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.
Or, to paraphrase Shane, "A bazooka is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A bazooka is as good or as bad as the man using it."

And "in your head" if private citizens were permitted to own grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs, all of the points I raised above about this are moot and we should just take our chances that in owning them they are all innocent until proven guilty. As for those like the mass murderers on the list above...they did do harm to others. Just not using bazookas.
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.
henry quirk wrote: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?
Sigh...

Back again to "taking into account my own God-given intuitive capacity to rationally grasp what life, liberty and property encompass philosophically and otherwise" I and not any of these...

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

...guys am the only one fully qualified to distinguish between reasonable, consistent and coherent positions and unreasonable, inconsistent and incoherent positions.
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?
henry quirk wrote: 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.
Note to others:

Please attempt to explain how this pertains to the point I'm making above. How is his point in regard to abortion "consistent and coherent" other than because only his own understanding of life, liberty and property are acceptable?

As for his position regarding my position: "it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it"?!!!

Talk about "bugfuck Crazy"!!!!
henry quirk wrote: 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.
First of all, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be arguing above that up to 12 weeks, it could be reasonably argued that abortion is okay because the unborn are still in a "clump of cells" phase and not yet a bona fide human person. In any event above you noted that you once "favored the option for women [to abort] with few restrictions"

And, again I am not arguing that a woman can't be politically equal to a man in a world where only women can be forced to give birth. Instead, I am only noting that "here and now" rooted existentially in dasein, "I" believe that this can be construed as a reasonable frame of mind. But at the same time "here and now" "I" believe the argument that human life begins at the point of conception is also a reasonable frame of mind.

Thus being "fractured and fragmented".
henry quirk in Stooge mode wrote: 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?!').
Well, because, obviously, you are making it all about me here, henry. And in a bigfuck Crazy manner if I do say so myself.
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.
henry quirk wrote: 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.
All you are showing me here, henry, is how, once again, I've got you all "worked up" about me. You're practically in hardcore declamatory Satyr mode. And, again, I suspect that revolves around the fact that like him you are intelligent enough to grasp what is at stake for you if I do manage to deconstruct your Real Me Self and convince you that "I" in the is/ought world is basically rooted existentially in dasein. If I do come closer to putting more and more philosophical cracks in your objectivist rants.
henry quirk wrote: Let's review...

You said: "In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangeable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions."
Did I actually post that or is this you imagining what I would post?

Also, given particular contexts.
henry quirk wrote: 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.
This is so far removed from how I construe my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective motivations and intentions it would be a complete waste of my time to note what I have been posting over and again in our exchanges for months now.

Though, sure, you certainly entitled to note the same thing about me.

My point is not so much to defend my assessment and conclusions but to note how assessments and conclusions of this sort [mine, yours, others] are rooted more in dasein than in deontology or ideology or religion or "my way or the highway" assessments of nature. It's the psychology of objectivism that most intrigues me.

Instead, it's straight back up into the general description intellectual/"logical"/didactic clouds you go:
henry quirk wrote: 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(?)
No particular context this time because for you every context is applicable because every context is accessed and then assessed based solely on how you define the meaning of the words life, liberty and property.

In other words, how is this...
henry quirk wrote: 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."
...not the case with you?

Then back up you go...
henry quirk wrote: 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.
And, again, when you do bring your "world of words" down out of the abstract, theoretical clouds it's only to insist that only the manner in which you define the meaning of words like life, liberty and property are permitted.
henry quirk wrote: [/b]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.[/b]
Well, according to Pew "61% of Americans say abortion should be legal
henry quirk wrote: 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).
I noted it only to suggest that we react to polls existentially in turn. Re dasein. And what do the poll numbers really matter if theologically/philosophically/scientifically it cannot be established that abortion [at anytime during the pregnancy] either is objectively moral or immoral? Why don't you take a poll here to determine if being fractured and fragmented morally in a No God world is...logical?
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.
henry quirk wrote: So: let's put it to a vote. Let The People decide.
Again, this is all irrelevant to me given the points I raise in signature threads above. People vote given the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein.
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.
henry quirk wrote: 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.
Of course only one of these responsible adults can get pregnant. And only one of these responsible adults might be forced by the governemnt to give birth. Which one do you suppose that was...John or Mary?
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.
henry quirk wrote: That's the hard materialist position I relayed up thread...the one you agreed with.
Over and over and over again...

What I agree with is that those on both sides of the issue are able to make reasonable arguments for or against personhood. And that [once] as a hardcore Marxist feminist, I believed a woman should be permitted to abort the zygote, embryo or fetus at any time during the pregnancy. Then I encountered the arguments that John was making [and the arguments made in Woody Allen's Another Woman film] and recognized that they were reasonable as well. Then after reading William Barrett's Irrational Man and encountering his "rival good" argument I found my Real Me objectivist Self beginning to crumple.
...life, liberty and property are and can only be construed as you construe them...naturally.
henry quirk wrote: Please, offer up some reasonable alternate interpretations of life, liberty, and property...yours or someone else's.
In one ear and out the other. It's not the alternative interpretations of them that matters to me nearly as much as how individually out in a particular world historically, culturally and personally we come to acquire moral and political prejudices given the existential trajectory of our actual lived lives.

The experiences, relationships and information and knowledge that encompass our lived lives. And all of the ways in which had [for hundreds and hundreds of reasons in a free will world] our lives might have unfolded differently triggering experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge that completely changed our value judgments. And recognizing that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change we never really know what the future has in store for us.

That's why things like Gods and ideologies and deontological philosophical contraptions are invented and passed down from generation to generation: to sustain the psychology of objectivism that millions cling to in order to sustain the comfort and the consolation of being "one of us".
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri May 26, 2023 10:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

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.
On the contrary, I get precisely the results that I expected from those up in the intellectual clouds pummeling us [often pedantically] with one or another "my way or the highway" objectivist dogma. That I manage to get them so worked up about me is no surprise either.

And why do they get so worked up? Well, my speculation here revolves by and large around extrapolating from my many, many, many past experiences with the particularly fierce fulminating fanatics among them.

They get worked up because, in my opinion, they are in fact intelligent enough to grasp that the manner in which they do react to me is occasionally so far over the top it reveals their very real concern that my points are in fact chipping away at their own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism".

I mean, come on, think about it. How are they any different from all of the other One True Pathers:

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

God or no God the list goes on and on and on and on of those who are all convinced that there really is the optimal [if not the only] rational manner in which to understand the human condition.

Please, a part of them must be able [from time to time] to stop and think that through: "Could it really be that my own moral narrative and political agenda is in fact the One True Path?

And they get particularly raucous in regard to me because unlike all the others who at least agree with them that there is indeed the best of all possible worlds [their own], I'm chipping away at objective morality itself. I'm exposing them to a "fractured and fragmented" identity in a No God is/ought world. And though few will admit it, it's sinking in. And, in my view, it's the fact that they do get so vehement, so vociferous in their reactions to me that merely confirms it.

Or they are reduced to noting truly ridiculous observations like this:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:43 pmIt’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.
I dare him to note a context where we can explore this existentially. And if he so wishes a civil and respectful exchange.
Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:33 pmIambiguous, 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'.
Okay, note a particular moral issue that is of interest to you. Note a set of circumstances in which we often come across it "in the news". One most here will be familiar with. Then we can explore our own respective views regarding moral and political convictions at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting good and political economy.

No, instead, you come back with this:
Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:33 pmI 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.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

Come on, Harry, blow apart my conceits by exposing them in the exchange itself.

You know you want to.



Okay, admittedly, I am pretty much the polemicist here. I thoroughly enjoy provocative exchanges. In a way I still do not really fathom, it revolves around this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

That and my hope that someday someone really might be able to convince me that the philosophical hole I've dug myself down into...

1] human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless in a No God world
2] No God and there is no secular equivalent for establishing objective morality
3] No God and death = oblivion

...is not a reasonable understanding of the human condition [and my own existence in it] at all.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 2:13 am Okay, note a particular moral issue that is of interest to you. Note a set of circumstances in which we often come across it "in the news".
Oh dear.

Having your shtuck pointed out to you results only in... the usual shtuck.

One might even say that you are: "Absolutely shameless!" :roll:
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

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

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

ME:
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 2:13 am
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.
On the contrary, I get precisely the results that I expected from those up in the intellectual clouds pummeling us [often pedantically] with one or another "my way or the highway" objectivist dogma. That I manage to get them so worked up about me is no surprise either.

And why do they get so worked up? Well, my speculation here revolves by and large around extrapolating from my many, many, many past experiences with the particularly fierce fulminating fanatics among them.

They get worked up because, in my opinion, they are in fact intelligent enough to grasp that the manner in which they do react to me is occasionally so far over the top it reveals their very real concern that my points are in fact chipping away at their own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism".

I mean, come on, think about it. How are they any different from all of the other One True Pathers:

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

God or no God the list goes on and on and on and on of those who are all convinced that there really is the optimal [if not the only] rational manner in which to understand the human condition.

Please, a part of them must be able [from time to time] to stop and think that through: "Could it really be that my own moral narrative and political agenda is in fact the One True Path?

And they get particularly raucous in regard to me because unlike all the others who at least agree with them that there is indeed the best of all possible worlds [their own], I'm chipping away at objective morality itself. I'm exposing them to a "fractured and fragmented" identity in a No God is/ought world. And though few will admit it, it's sinking in. And, in my view, it's the fact that they do get so vehement, so vociferous in their reactions to me that merely confirms it.

Or they are reduced to noting truly ridiculous observations like this:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:43 pmIt’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.
I dare him to note a context where we can explore this existentially. And if he so wishes a civil and respectful exchange.
Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:33 pmIambiguous, 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'.
Okay, note a particular moral issue that is of interest to you. Note a set of circumstances in which we often come across it "in the news". One most here will be familiar with. Then we can explore our own respective views regarding moral and political convictions at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting good and political economy.

No, instead, you come back with this:
Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 21, 2023 8:33 pmI 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.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

Come on, Harry, blow apart my conceits by exposing them in the exchange itself.

You know you want to.



Okay, admittedly, I am pretty much the polemicist here. I thoroughly enjoy provocative exchanges. In a way I still do not really fathom, it revolves around this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

That and my hope that someday someone really might be able to convince me that the philosophical hole I've dug myself down into...

1] human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless in a No God world
2] No God and there is no secular equivalent for establishing objective morality
3] No God and death = oblivion

...is not a reasonable understanding of the human condition [and my own existence in it] at all.
THEM:
Harry Baird wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 8:08 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 2:13 am Okay, note a particular moral issue that is of interest to you. Note a set of circumstances in which we often come across it "in the news".
Oh dear.

Having your shtuck pointed out to you results only in... the usual shtuck.

One might even say that you are: "Absolutely shameless!" :roll:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 1:41 pm Uniambiguously shtuck …
Again, this is basically all that one can expect in exchanges over at ILP. It's now The Corner on steroids. Even Satyr seems to recognize the futility of going there to exchange philosophy. Even if only "up in the intellectual clouds" "my way or the highway" philosophy.

It's just regrettable that a forum created from Philosophy Now magazine can produce so many substanceless posts as well.

By contrast, on this thread, henry is a breath of fresh air. :wink:
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Iwannaplato »

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 have managed to stretch my way out of very painful sciatica. It hurts, and it takes a day or two, but then it's been gone. And if you sit a lot for work or in front of a computer, this can keep the damn thing coming back. If you haven't tried stretching (or osteopathy) let me know, and I can pm some stretches. it takes some real effot and suffering, just to be clear.
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 22, 2023 11:51 pm
"Basically, you are saying that "only if the new information and knowledge is already wholly in sync with my own objectivist assessment of life, liberty and property" does it count."

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. 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.

My words, your interpretation: don't jibe.

"your circumstances changed later in life and you became more committed to guns"

I assessed my circumstance, reviewed my options, made a choice.

"No one is able to actually demonstrate that God either does or does not exist."

Not remotely relevant to your question ('have new experiences and information changed your mind, Henry?').

"who is to say [in a free will world] that given newer experiences precipitating new information and knowledge still you might change your mind in a far more dramatic manner."

Entirely possible. As I say: new experiences and information have moved me and may move me again, 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.

"I'm still puzzled as to how you are unable to accept that given my point here...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 are unable to grasp how ridiculous moral objectivism is."

My moral objectivism: a man, any man, every man is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I maintain all folks, any where or when, understand at least part of this (even you) and live as though it were (is) true. No one in the history of the world has ever lived believing themselves to rightfully be a commodity for the use of others. I've challenged anyone and everyone to prove me wrong. To date: no one has. The challenge stands.

Now, how does my moral objectivism relate to your lil laundry list (abortion, guns, and trannies)?

Abortion: as I say, I moved from few restrictions to greatly restricted. Why? As my own understanding of natural rights deepened, I had to consider the possibility what a woman carries isn't a human meat lump but is a person. Even before I began to wrestle with the failures of materialism, I was confronted by the hard materialist position that man is just the sum of his material parts (which, as I say, logically, reasonably, sets the cut off point for abortion at the end of the first trimester). Could my view shift again? Sure. Sumthin' definitive from materialists, something that's not 'promissory', an evidence, for example, mind is nuthin' more than a product of brain, would move me. At the very least such a thing would have me adopt the hard materialist three month cut off. And if someone were to actually demonstrate that someone, past or present, reasonably, sanely, believed it proper he should be a commodity for others, that his life, liberty, and property were there for the taking and that it was right these should be taken by anyone with a mind to, this would have me disavow moral realism as a whole.

Guns: this to me is a matter of property. Every person has an inviolate right to his, and no other's, property. This, of course, is not the same as sayin' one must own property. No one is obligated to own a gun. So, if my mind were to be changed on the subject of firearms, it could happen in two ways. I could have a bad experience with a firearm that might move me to frown on owning one. In such a case, I might get rid of my shotgun, and choose not to associate with folks who parade their guns. I, however, couldn't demand others give up the weapons becuz I'd become a pussy about mine. The second way where I would change my mind about guns is really about my changing my mind about the inviolateness of property (and life & liberty). As I say: if someone were to actually demonstrate that that someone, past or present, reasonably, sanely, believed it proper he should be a commodity for others, that his life, liberty, and property were there for the taking and that it was right these should be taken by anyone with a mind to, this would have me disavow moral realism as a whole.

Trannies: if, as I say, a man, any man, every man, is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then anyone with a fetish -- from the fellow who wears frilly undies beneath his lumberjackin' clothes to the gal who has her body surgically mutilated so as to appear male -- can, as he likes indulge that fetish. Each nutjob belongs to himself; his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property are his and his alone to do with as he chooses. Of course my mind may change. I may be confronted with sumthin' indisputable, sumthin' that blows natural rights up. Morality, my morality, would be horse manure, and I could raise no significant objection, beyond personal distaste, when a society decided to embrace trannies as havin' actually changed their sexes or when a society decides the lot are to be exterminated. This is the logical endpoint of your nihilism, by the way. If man is meat, if he has no natural rights, then he is literally a commodity to be accepted, rejected, used, or discarded as those with the Big Stick choose (the Big Stick bein' anything from the most guns to 'the majority' of The People). Now, of course, those with 'might', the Big Stick, can throw their weight around even if man is a free will with natural rights. The difference is: in your world of determinism, materialism, and amorality no one has a legitimate objection against anything, becuz everything is permitted, while in my world (the real world) of free will, hylomorphism, and moral realism, it's simply wrong for anyone to prey upon anyone. Objections to theft, rape, slavery, murder aren't simply expressions of personal distaste in my world, while in your world such objections can only be expressions of personal distaste.

Anyway...

Yes my mind can change. I could become an amoral schmuck just like you. Just show me definitively that mind is only brain product; show me definitively that at least some people have or do believe it proper they ought to be used as property, and you'll have converted me.

"A bazooka is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A bazooka is as good or as bad as the man using it."

Exactly right.

"And "in your head" if private citizens were permitted to own grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs, all of the points I raised above about this are moot and we should just take our chances that in owning them they are all innocent until proven guilty. As for those like the mass murderers on the list above...they did do harm to others. Just not using bazookas."

If man is a free will, with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then yes, you'll have to take your chances. To deprive one of property becuz you fear what he might do is immoral.

If, however, we live in your morally vacant world, then all things are permitted. You can shoot me with your revolver becuz my owning a shotgun scared you and there can be no moral objection (becuz there is no morality). Mass murder becomes a meaningless phrase. There can be no unjust killings in your world. A woman raped may be outraged at her use as a jizz jar, but she can't claim the rape was wrong. What, in your morally empty world, can undergird such a claim? And the estimated 40 million people enslaved today, none of them may like it but: too bad, so sad. None can lay claim to themselves. How can they? In your sterile, soulless, world of meat machinery, and fallin' dominos, the use of one or many by those with might is not immoral, it just 'is'.

"How is his point in regard to abortion "consistent and coherent" other than because only his own understanding of life, liberty and property are acceptable?"

It's consistent and coherent becuz everyone, including you, understands his life, liberty, and property are his own and no one else's. As I say: even the slaver, as he uses others, would never agree himself to be similarly used. You, for example, may give up your revolver becuz you're told to by the finer clay, but at no point would you say 'this gun isn't mine'. You're willingness to knuckle under moves you to divest yourself of the gun, not your realization 'this isn't mine'.

But, if you can offer alternate definitions of life, liberty, and property that don't include this deep-in-the-bone possession I crow about, put 'em on the table, let's see how they stand.

"As for his position regarding my position: "it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it"?!!! Talk about "bugfuck Crazy"!!!!"

Let's review...

You say: "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"

Further, you say: "Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments prooffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".

And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of copnception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes."

How are you not saying: it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it.

Show me how any of this is reasonable, how it's not bugfuck Crazy.

"First of all, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be arguing above that up to 12 weeks, it could be reasonably argued that abortion is okay because the unborn are still in a "clump of cells" phase and not yet a bona fide human person."

That's not my position. That's the position of a materialist...and you agreed with it.

Let's review...

I said: 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.

You said: "Actually, henry, I agree with this myself."

I also said: 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').

"In any event above you noted that you once "favored the option for women [to abort] with few restrictions"

Yes. I explained why my view changed too. Shall I explain it again?

"I am only noting that "here and now" rooted existentially in dasein, "I" believe that this can be construed as a reasonable frame of mind. But at the same time "here and now" "I" believe the argument that human life begins at the point of conception is also a reasonable frame of mind."

There is nuthin' remotely reasonably about sayin' "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"

#1 can't be a meaningful statement for a nihilist. 'innocent human being' implies at least two moral standards the nihilist rejects. #2 is meaningless for a nihilist. Rights -- legal or moral, artificial or natural -- imply a standard the nihilist rejects.

You can't say I recognize innocence but say there is no innocence; you can't talk of human beings as though they were sumthin' more than meat then say he's only meat; you can't lobby for a right when what you really mean is privilege.

There's nuthin' remotely reasonable about sayin' "in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes." In the amoral, determined world you imagine it to be what is equality? Why is it to be sought for? Gender? in your world, gender is whatever the meat machine sez it is, in the moment. For the nihilist: gender equality is meaningless.

So: you're not really a nihilist, are you? You believe in innocence, in rights, in equality. You own a gun. You have a moral standard that denies nihilism. You place a value on your life, liberty, and property that nihilism sez doesn't exist. Your problem, then, is in accepting that others, the woman, the baby, have the same right to life, liberty, and property you do.

Don't feel bad about it. Every nihilist is in the same pickle (living as though natural rights are real while denying same...just as every determinist/materialist lives as though they were free wills and sumthin' more than matter). But don't turn away, iam: you're at a pivotal place. You're close to coming over to my side of things, close to embracing truth.

"Well, because, obviously, you are making it all about me here, henry."

Even a casual review of any of your posts will net many examples of you declarin' "'I'm fractured' and 'there you go, making this all about me'. I infer you having no stance becuz, well, that old debbil dasein can have you changing views at the drop of a hat (so, how can you really stand behind anything you post?).

"Did I actually post that or is this you imagining what I would post?"

Are these your words?

"In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politcially 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."

"My point is not so much to defend my assessment and conclusions"

And yet that's all you do: defend your stance of a non-stance wherein you assert the validity of your (non)stance.

"No particular context this time because for you every context is applicable because every context is accessed and then assessed based solely on how you define the meaning of the words life, liberty and property."

You seem to have forgotten what's at stake. Your view (morality is an opinion that can change at the drop of a hat; man is a meat machine) vs my view (morality is real; man is a free will). Whichever is true does apply to all circumstances. If man is just meat, as you claim, then this 'is' all the time, everywhere. If man is a free will with a moral claim to himself, then this 'is' all the time, everywhere.

Again: I see life, liberty, and property as all people do, anywhere or when. I'm waitin' on you to offer some alternate view of life, liberty, and property, sumthin' to back your assertion that I stand alone in when I speak of life, liberty, and property.

"only the manner in which you define the meaning of words like life, liberty and property are permitted."

Then offer alternatives.

"What I agree with is that those on both sides of the issue are able to make reasonable arguments for or against personhood."

No, that's not what you said. Here it is again...

I said: 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.

You said: "Actually, henry, I agree with this myself."

You agree with the materialist position. Go, check your own post up thread.

"It's not the alternative interpretations of them that matters to me"

In other words: you have no alternate definitions or understanding for life, liberty, and property that conflict with mine...becuz no such definitions or understandings exist.

-----

Have you, iam, gone toe to toe with Peter Holmes? Now, there's a fulminating objectivist!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601
Last edited by henry quirk on Tue May 23, 2023 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 2:29 pm
"I can pm some stretches."

Please do... 👍
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

Conclusion...
Dasein is the term that Heidegger uses to refer to human existence. ...He suggests that Dasein creates and maintains the language that allows us to understand ourselves and our environments. Dasein plays a critical role in shaping how we interact with the world around us.
Is it even possible to encompass human existence in an intellectual/philosophical contraption further removed existentially from the lives that we actually live as individuals? It sounds more like something you would encounter from an astrologer. In other words, it can mean practically anything to anyone.

Whose language? Being created in what set of circumstances? Understood in what manner down through the ages and in communities that might differ from each other in many crucial ways.

Instead, it would appear the task of philosophers should be to acknowledge this. And then to ask themselves, "okay, given all of the many, many diverse ways in which human social, political and economic interactions have unfolded, how do we go about, using the tools of philosophy, of encompassing what might be understood as the least irrational behaviors? What might be deemed the least dysfunctional prescriptions and proscriptions in regard to "rules of behavior" in the community?

And, if objective morality is not possible in a No God world, should not the "best of all possible" worlds revolve around moderation, negotiation and compromise?

Instead, ironically enough, for those like Heidegger -- a Nazi! -- it all basically stays up in what I construe to be the least controversial and most didactic -- pedantic? -- clouds:
Heidegger’s concept of authenticity and inauthenticity offers us a new way of understanding ourselves and the world around us. 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. In this sense, we can only be authentic if we stop worrying about what others think and instead live according to our thoughts and feelings.
On the contrary, the manner in which I encompass dasein in my signature threads above seems far more relevant in discussing particular situations that actual flesh and blood human beings might find themselves in. And that is because, again, if the above really does express Heidegger's assumptions regarding an authentic human existence, it would seem to rationalize virtually anything any particular individual might "think up" as encompassing "Who I Really Am".

As though our thoughts and feelings have little or nothing to do with the world we are thrown into at birth historically and culturally. Or with our indoctrination as children. Or with the Benjamin Button Syndrome reflected in acquiring and accumulating value judgments.

After all, won't all of these folks...

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

...insist that they themselves embrace the most authentic way of life?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

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. 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.
To which I responded...
Basically, you are saying that "only if the new information and knowledge is already wholly in sync with my own objectivist assessment of life, liberty and property" does it count. Meanwhile, you can't relate to us a single instance where in regard to the issue of guns, new information and knowledge did radically change your mind. Whereas over and over and over again in regard to many important issues, new information and knowledge garnered from new experiences and relationships resulted in me changing my mind.

This is as far as you will go here with guns:
(Have) you have ever changed your mind regarding an important issue like guns?
henry quirk wrote: 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.
That is an example of you changing your mind about guns?!!! You were exposed to them as a kid so you were around those who were no doubt behind the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment. The part that revolves around "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" rather than "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."?

Then your circumstances changed later in life and you became more committed to guns. The dasein part.

No, henry, I'm talking about new information and knowledge embedded in new sets of circumstances that prompted you to go from one end of the political spectrum to the other end. You were neutral about guns as a kid but "things changed" and you embraced a more pro-gun commitment. Then, say, things changed again and you went over to the other side. That sort "mind changing" example. Like me once being a staunch conservative Christian, then "things changed" and I became a staunch left-wing atheist then "things changed" again and I abandoned moral objectivism altogether...left or right, God or No God.[/b]
Then God and religion...
henry quirk wrote: God: was an atheist, am now a deist (I've explained, very recently, why).
Okay, but with God and religion, it's all about existential leaps of faith. No one is able to actually demonstrate that God either does or does not exist.

And then the part where subjectively/subjunctively a certain sequence of uniquely personal experiences had to unfold existentially in your life prompting you change your mind. The part I root in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. The part you now root in your God-given intuitive capacity to "just know" it ultimately revolves around Deism.
henry quirk wrote: Not remotely relevant to your question ('have new experiences and information changed your mind, Henry?').
Note to others:

Pick one:
1] wiggle
2] wiggle, wiggle
3] wiggke, wiggle, wiggle
henry quirk wrote: Abortion: I favored the option for women with few restrictions; now, I incline to see it highly restricted (I've explained, very recently, why).
Okay, this is more in line with what I am talking about.

But, once again, given a particular trajectory of uniquely personal experiences, you moved further to the right. But had your life unfolded [for any number of reasons] in another direction you might have once favored more restrictions and then favored less restrictions today. And who is to say [in a free will world] that given newer experiences precipitating new information and knowledge still you might change your mind in a far more dramatic manner.
henry quirk wrote: Entirely possible. As I say: new experiences and information have moved me and may move me again, 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.
Okay, prompting me once again to remind others of this:
Basically, you are saying that "only if the new information and knowledge is already wholly in sync with my own objectivist assessment of life, liberty and property" does it count.
I'm still puzzled as to how you are unable to accept that given my point here...

"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 are unable to grasp how ridiculous moral objectivism is."
Again, in my view, all you can do here is to go straight back up into general description "philosophical" clouds...
henry quirk wrote: My moral objectivism: a man, any man, every man is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I maintain all folks, any where or when, understand at least part of this (even you) and live as though it were (is) true. No one in the history of the world has ever lived believing themselves to rightfully be a commodity for the use of others. I've challenged anyone and everyone to prove me wrong. To date: no one has. The challenge stands.
The challenge will always stand, henry, because what you are essentially arguing is that in regard to conflicting goods -- abortion or guns of human sexuality -- none of that history or culture are personal experience stuff matters because by default you always commence with your own God-given intuitive understanding of life, liberty and property.

Just as these folks...

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

...do.

To wit:
henry quirk wrote:Abortion: as I say, I moved from few restrictions to greatly restricted. Why? As my own understanding of natural rights deepened, I had to consider the possibility what a woman carries isn't a human meat lump but is a person. Even before I began to wrestle with the failures of materialism, I was confronted by the hard materialist position that man is just the sum of his material parts (which, as I say, logically, reasonably, sets the cut off point for abortion at the end of the first trimester). Could my view shift again? Sure. Sumthin' definitive from materialists, something that's not 'promissory', an evidence, for example, mind is nuthin' more than a product of brain, would move me. At the very least such a thing would have me adopt the hard materialist three month cut off. And if someone were to actually demonstrate that someone, past or present, reasonably, sanely, believed it proper he should be a commodity for others, that his life, liberty, and property were there for the taking and that it was right these should be taken by anyone with a mind to, this would have me disavow moral realism as a whole.

Guns: this to me is a matter of property. Every person has an inviolate right to his, and no other's, property. This, of course, is not the same as sayin' one must own property. No one is obligated to own a gun. So, if my mind were to be changed on the subject of firearms, it could happen in two ways. I could have a bad experience with a firearm that might move me to frown on owning one. In such a case, I might get rid of my shotgun, and choose not to associate with folks who parade their guns. I, however, couldn't demand others give up the weapons becuz I'd become a pussy about mine. The second way where I would change my mind about guns is really about my changing my mind about the inviolateness of property (and life & liberty). As I say: if someone were to actually demonstrate that that someone, past or present, reasonably, sanely, believed it proper he should be a commodity for others, that his life, liberty, and property were there for the taking and that it was right these should be taken by anyone with a mind to, this would have me disavow moral realism as a whole.

Trannies: if, as I say, a man, any man, every man, is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then anyone with a fetish -- from the fellow who wears frilly undies beneath his lumberjackin' clothes to the gal who has her body surgically mutilated so as to appear male -- can, as he likes indulge that fetish. Each nutjob belongs to himself; his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property are his and his alone to do with as he chooses. Of course my mind may change. I may be confronted with sumthin' indisputable, sumthin' that blows natural rights up. Morality, my morality, would be horse manure, and I could raise no significant objection, beyond personal distaste, when a society decided to embrace trannies as havin' actually changed their sexes or when a society decides the lot are to be exterminated. This is the logical endpoint of your nihilism, by the way. If man is meat, if he has no natural rights, then he is literally a commodity to be accepted, rejected, used, or discarded as those with the Big Stick choose (the Big Stick bein' anything from the most guns to 'the majority' of The People). Now, of course, those with 'might', the Big Stick, can throw their weight around even if man is a free will with natural rights. The difference is: in your world of determinism, materialism, and amorality no one has a legitimate objection against anything, becuz everything is permitted, while in my world (the real world) of free will, hylomorphism, and moral realism, it's simply wrong for anyone to prey upon anyone. Objections to theft, rape, slavery, murder aren't simply expressions of personal distaste in my world, while in your world such objections can only be expressions of personal distaste.
On and on and on you go informing us of your own particular moral and political prejudices...subjective/subjunctive assumptions rooted existentially in dasein. Convictions that you acquired as you did because existentially your life unfolded uniquely as it did rather than [given any number of reasons] along some other trajectory.

Indeed, that's why those of your ilk [from Plato to Descartes to Kant] needed/need an objectivist font in order to take that into account. The part where morality is grappled with as shadows on the cave wall or objectively -- formally, religiously, deontologically, ideologically, naturally -- given a rationally, logically, epistemologically sound assessment that only "serious philosophers" can come up with.

Again, for you, your subjective assumptions above are necessarily subsumed in your own assessment of life, liberty and property.

So, with those who disagree with you, you can always fall back on how they foolishly fail to grasp them -- define them? -- as you do.
henry the Stooge quirk wrote:Yes my mind can change. I could become an amoral schmuck just like you. Just show me definitively that mind is only brain product; show me definitively that at least some people have or do believe it proper they ought to be used as property, and you'll have converted me.
Huh? My frame of mind is such that I cannot even convert myself to the optimal manner in which to grasp these things. Indeed, it's not what I can actually show you and others here [in a No God world] given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", but what, rooted existentially in dasein, "I" think about them "here and now" in a profoundly problematic manner.

You're the one who insists that because you believe what you do about abortion and guns and transgenders that makes it true necessarily because it is in sync with your God-given intuitive understanding of the human condition itself.
henry quirk wrote: 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.
Or, to paraphase Shane, "A bazooka is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A bazooka is as good or as bad as the man using it."
henry quirk wrote: Exactly right.
Okay, henry, I think I get it. As long as the "good guys" have more bazookas than the "bad guys", it's the best of all possible communities to live. Ditto for all of the other weapons of mass destruction. If someone can afford them and they are wholly in sync with your own God-given intuitive understanding of life, liberty and property, fuck the consequences. Why? Because as long as the "good guys" have more of them, the "good guys" will always prevail in the end.
And "in your head" if private citizens were permitted to own grenades, bazookas, artillery pieces, RPGs, IEDs, claymore mines, chemical and biological weapons and dirty bombs, all of the points I raised above about this are moot and we should just take our chances that in owning them they are all innocent until proven guilty. As for those like the mass murderers on the list above...they did do harm to others. Just not using bazookas.
And "up, up, up" he goes!!!
henry quirk wrote: If man is a free will, with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then yes, you'll have to take your chances. To deprive one of property becuz you fear what he might do is immoral.
henry quirk wrote: If, however, we live in your morally vacant world, then all things are permitted.
Note to others:

I recognize the sheer futility of explaining this to henry, but, perhaps some of you might grasp my own distinction here more intelligently.

I don't have any capacity to demonstrate that we do in fact live in a morally vacant world. I merely presume that in a No God world there does not appear to be a scientific, philosophical, deontological, natural, etc., way in which to demonstrate an objective morality. And that very, very dangerous consequences can accumulate re either the sociopathic, "show me the money" moral nihilists or from the "my way or the highway" moral objectivists.

As for this...
henry quirk wrote: You can shoot me with your revolver becuz my owning a shotgun scared you and there can be no moral objection (becuz there is no morality). Mass murder becomes a meaningless phrase. There can be no unjust killings in your world. A woman raped may be outraged at her use as a jizz jar, but she can't claim the rape was wrong. What, in your morally empty world, can undergird such a claim? And the estimated 40 million people enslaved today, none of them may like it but: too bad, so sad. None can lay claim to themselves. How can they? In your sterile, soulless, world of meat machinery, and fallin' dominos, the use of one or many by those with might is not immoral, it just 'is'.
Yes, there are moral nihilists -- sociopaths, psychopaths -- among us who are able to rationalize [and have in fact already rationalized] behavior of this sort. And given this, I ask philosophers/ethicists to propose an argument that is able to demonstrate how in a No God world these behaviors are inherently/necessarily wrong.

On the other hand, look at all of the terrible pain and suffering that has unfolded over the course of human history as a result of the moral objectivists. Both God [crusaders, jihadists] and No God [Communists, fascists].

Then those like you who argue that if private citizens were permitted to buy and sell weapons of mass destruction that's okay because there would be more Shanes and Starretts in the world than Rykers and Wilsons.
henry quirk wrote: 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.
Note to others:

Please attempt to explain how this pertains to the point I'm making above.
How is his point in regard to abortion "consistent and coherent" other than because only his own understanding of life, liberty and property are acceptable"
And "up, up, up" you go!
henry quirk wrote: It's consistent and coherent becuz everyone, including you, understands his life, liberty, and property are his own and no one else's. As I say: even the slaver, as he uses others, would never agree himself to be similarly used. You, for example, may give up your revolver becuz you're told to by the finer clay, but at no point would you say 'this gun isn't mine'. You're willingness to knuckle under moves you to divest yourself of the gun, not your realization 'this isn't mine'.
Always and ever by default: your own God-given intuitive understanding of lfe, liberty and property. At least come down out of the clouds long enough to admit this.

Then [of course] this part:
henry quirk wrote: But, if you can offer alternate definitions of life, liberty, and property that don't include this deep-in-the-bone possession I crow about, put 'em on the table, let's see how they stand.
My definitions are no less fractured and fragmented then my value judgments themselves. It's you along with these...

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

...guys who insist that only those on the One True Path have access to the One True Path definition.

Although I suspect that few of them would include the buying and selling weapons of mass destruction as applicable to their own definition of "natural rights"?
As for his position regarding my position: "it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it"?!!! Talk about "bugfuck Crazy"!!!!
henry quirk wrote: Let's review...

You say:
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: Further, you say:
Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments proffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".
And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of conception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.
henry quirk wrote: How are you not saying: it's A-OK to kill a baby becuz gender equality demands it.

Show me how any of this is reasonable, how it's not bugfuck Crazy.
Sigh...

Again, I am saying that this argument seems reasonable to me "here and now" in a No God world where only women are able to become pregnant. And thus, if, for any number of reasons, they become pregnant and the state forces them to give birth or be arrested and tried for first degree murder. How can they sustain political eqality with men who can never be forced to give birth because they can never be pregnant? Given all the consequences that a nine month pregnancy and giving birth can bring about in one's life? But I'm also saying that aborting the unborn is the killing of a human baby. Both sides thus, in my view, make rational arguments merely by starting out with different biological and political assumptions.

Note to others:

That sound you hear is my point going in one of henry's ears and out the other.
First of all, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be arguing above that up to 12 weeks, it could be reasonably argued that abortion is okay because the unborn are still in a "clump of cells" phase and not yet a bona fide human person.

And, again I am not arguing that a woman can't be politically equal to a man in a world where only women can be forced to give birth. Instead, I am only noting that "here and now" rooted existentially in dasein, "I" believe that this can be construed as a reasonable frame of mind. But at the same time "here and now" "I" believe the argument that human life begins at the point of conception is also a reasonable frame of mind.
henry quirk wrote: That's not my position. That's the position of a materialist...and you agreed with it.

Let's review...

I said: 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.
It's "logic" if you accept the assumptions of your own rendition of the materialist. But what if you don't? What if, instead, you accept the assumptions of those who say "personhood" begins at the point of conception [as I do] or when there's a beating heart or when the fetus achieves "viability" and can survive outside the womb. Or even those who argue that a new born baby itself is not really a person.

Again, it's always got to be your own God-given intuitive "logic" that becomes the default perspective in any discussion with others. But you can't/don't/won't even admit that to yourself, in my view. You really are convinced that if you believe something is true "in your head" that makes it true.

I've encountered nothing in our exchange to date that indicate otherwise.

And, yes, I said...
Actually, henry, I agree with this myself.
But I also believe that if women are forced by the state to give birth they can kiss political equality with men goodbye in a world where only their own lives are roundly disrupted for nine months plus.
henry quirk wrote: I also said: 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').
Great. Only admit to yourself as well that others come to conflicting assessments here. But: they don't have access to a God-given intuitive moral font like you do. Abort the baby for some and they are going straight to Hell. While, for others, abortions are performed on them as just another form of birth control.
In any event above you noted that you once "favored the option for women [to abort] with few restrictions.
henry quirk wrote: Yes. I explained why my view changed too. Shall I explain it again?
Nope. What I'd like you to explain is how your own assessment of "compromise" here is not rooted existentially in dasein but in something that takes you considerably closer to moral objectivism.

Your God, right?
And, again I am not arguing that a woman can't be politically equal to a man in a world where only women can be forced to give birth. Instead, I am only noting that "here and now" rooted existentially in dasein, "I" believe that this can be construed as a reasonable frame of mind. But at the same time "here and now" "I" believe the argument that human life begins at the point of conception is also a reasonable frame of mind.
henry quirk wrote: There is nuthin' remotely reasonably about sayin' "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"
That's because, unlike me, you are not fractured and fragment in the is/ought world. And that's because unlike me, you do have access to a God-given intuitive "logic" that configures the is/ought world into just another manifestation of the either/or world.

Just like these...

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

...guys.
henry quirk wrote: #1 can't be a meaningful statement for a nihilist. 'innocent human being' implies at least two moral standards the nihilist rejects. #2 is meaningless for a nihilist. Rights -- legal or moral, artificial or natural -- imply a standard the nihilist rejects.

You can't say I recognize innocence but say there is no innocence; you can't talk of human beings as though they were sumthin' more than meat then say he's only meat; you can't lobby for a right when what you really mean is privilege.

There's nuthin' remotely reasonable about sayin' "in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes." In the amoral, determined world you imagine it to be what is equality? Why is it to be sought for? Gender? in your world, gender is whatever the meat machine sez it is, in the moment. For the nihilist: gender equality is meaningless.
On the contrary, as a moral nihilist "I" start with the assumption that in a No God world my value judgments are rooted existentially in dasein. And that over the course of my life in regard to abortion the trajectory that I note in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- led "for all ptactical purposes" to the fractured and fragmented moral conclusions I note in the OP of this -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121 -- thread.

You, on the other hand, are not drawn and quartered in the is/ought world becasue you have access to a God, the God, your God. And He provided you with the "intuitive" capacity to grasp such things as "life, liberty and property" in the only truly "logical" manner.

We think about value judgments from a completely different frame of mind, henry. Only you not only have to deal with my "rooted existentially in dasein" perspective but with all of those here...

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

...who share your conviction regarding the existence of the One True Path pertinent to the abortion wars but insist that it's not your path, it's theirs.
henry quirk wrote: So: you're not really a nihilist, are you? You believe in innocence, in rights, in equality. You own a gun. You have a moral standard that denies nihilism. You place a value on your life, liberty, and property that nihilism sez doesn't exist. Your problem, then, is in accepting that others, the woman, the baby, have the same right to life, liberty, and property you do.
Note to others:

See how his God-given mind works here? His assumption that the only manner in which to grasp nihilism is as he does? Part and parcel of all the rest of his arguments being but [to me] just another run-of-the-mill rendition/manifestation of the "psychology of objectivism". As predictable as Satyr and AJ and all the rest of them here.
henry quirk wrote: Are these your words?
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, politcally 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.
My point is not so much to defend my assessment and conclusions...
henry quirk wrote: And yet that's all you do: defend your stance of a non-stance wherein you assert the validity of your (non)stance.
No, what I do is to note how, given a particular moral issue discussed in a particular set of circumstances...contexts where we are confronted with conflicting sets of value judgments...my own moral narrative revolves around being fractured and fragmented. Why? Because I recognize that both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for and against things like abortion and gun control. As opposed to all of the times in the past where -- God or No God -- I convinced myself [or others convinced me] that one side's arguments were inherently/necessarily more rational and virtuous than the other sides.

Also, because I recognize how different people acquire different sets of value judgments simply because they were indoctrinated as children [for years] to see the world differently. Or because given all of the many, many different sets of circumstances we might encounter as adults we can accumulate many different sets of experiences that do predispose us to one set of prejudices rather than another.

My "stance" is just that...an existential framework derived from any number of variables either beyond my fully understanding or controlling. The same with you. Only you won't accept that, in my view, because it puts at risk the comfort and consolation you derive from your self-righteous "my way or the highway" dogmas regarding life, liberty and property.
henry quirk wrote: 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(?)
No particular context this time because for you every context is applicable because every context is accessed and then assessed based solely on how you define the meaning of the words life, liberty and property.

In other words, how is this...
henry quirk wrote: 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.
...not the case with you?
henry quirk wrote: You seem to have forgotten what's at stake. Your view (morality is an opinion that can change at the drop of a hat; man is a meat machine) vs my view (morality is real; man is a free will). Whichever is true does apply to all circumstances. If man is just meat, as you claim, then this 'is' all the time, everywhere. If man is a free will with a moral claim to himself, then this 'is' all the time, everywhere.
On the contrary, in my view, what you won't consider at all [with so much invested in your God-given intuitive Real Me Self] is how much you have at stake if your own "I" begins to crumble in regard to those "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" moral and political dogmas you lug around with you from thread to thread.

Meanwhile, I know that my own arguments here are subject to dramatic change because of all the arguments I once made in the past that collapsed. The only difference is that now I don't believe I can just switch over to another objectivist font. But even then, I can never really be sure. And it's the nagging uncertainty that those of your ilk subsume in the psychology of objectivism. It's just that some need God and religion to shore themselves up and others don't. But either way they heap scorn on those who don't think exactly as they do. Those like Satyr are just examples of how extreme they can be.

And, of course, those like Adolph Hitler.

Then straight back up into the didactic clouds...
henry quirk wrote: Again: I see life, liberty, and property as all people do, anywhere or when. I'm waitin' on you to offer some alternate view of life, liberty, and property, sumthin' to back your assertion that I stand alone in when I speak of life, liberty, and property.
No, no, no, henry, it's these...

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

...folks who will come at you with their own alternative dogmas. I'm the one they all agree is most troubling because I'm not after what they believe so much as exposing how existentially they came to believe it as the embodiment of dasein.

That's the threat "I" pose.
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 26, 2023 10:19 pm
"you are essentially arguing...none of that history or culture are personal experience stuff matters"

It doesn't. What I argue for is as real as fire, and, like fire, is utterly independent of history, culture, or personal experience.

The challenge stands becuz a man is a freewill with an inviolate moral claim on his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I know it. You know it. Everyone in-forum knows it. Everyone on the planet knows it. No one can dispute it.

"My frame of mind is such that I cannot even convert myself to the optimal manner in which to grasp these things."

What you mean to say: I am lost. My head is muddled. I don't know where I am or where I'm going.

That's your lot.

"it's not what I can actually show you and others"

You have nuthin' to show. Your hands are empty...which why you keep them clinched into fists.

"You're the one who insists that because you believe what you do about abortion and guns and transgenders that makes it true necessarily because it is in sync with your God-given intuitive understanding of the human condition itself."

No. All I insist, quite rightfully, is: you, iam, are a free will. I insist you have an inalienable, natural right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I insist you know this down deep in your bones.

That's the sum of it.

"I don't have any capacity to demonstrate that we do in fact live in a morally vacant world."

Becuz we do not, as fact, live in a morally vacant world.

"It's "logic" if you accept the assumptions of your own rendition of the materialist."

No. It's logical if you accept the actual, unvarnished assumptions of materialism.

"I also believe that if women are forced by the state to give birth they can kiss political equality with men goodbye in a world where only their own lives are roundly disrupted for nine months plus."

In a morally vacant world: none of that matters. It can't matter. Mary, in an amoral world, has no claim to herself. She is meat. She can do as she likes with the baby (er, 'meat lump') inside or outside her. And any Tom, Dick, or Harriette who comes along can do with Mary as they like.

But, as I say: we don't live in a morally vacant world. Mary does have a inviolate claim to herself. It's wrong for Tom, Dick, or Harriette to treat her as a commodity. And, the baby inside or outside of Mary, he too has an inviolate claim to himself. It's wrong for Mary, for the sake of her convenience, to off him.

As I say: I know it. You know it. Everyone in-forum knows it. Everyone on the planet knows it. No one can dispute it.

-----

-Teaching Moment-

The slaver doesn't sit his potential property down and explain how it's reasonable he, the slaver, should own and use the other. There is no reasonable, rational, coherent, consistent, moral argument to make for slavery. So, the slaver just applies the leash, by force or thru lies.

The murderer doesn't sit his potential victim down and explain how it's reasonable he, the murderer, should kill the other. There is no reasonable, rational, coherent, consistent, moral argument to make for murder. So, the murderer just kills him directly, or thru misdirection.

The thief doesn't sit his target down and explain how it's reasonable he, the thief, should have the other's property. There is no reasonable, rational, coherent, consistent, moral argument to make for theft. So, the thief just takes it straight away or thru falsehood.

The rapist doesn't sit the object of his attention down and explain how it's reasonable he, the rapist, should use the other. There is no reasonable, rational, coherent, consistent, moral argument to make for rape. So, the rapist just uses, with violence or thru subterfuge.

The slaver, the murderer, the thief, the rapist, not a one would agree, not a one argues, that becuz he slaves, murders, thieves, rapes it would be right if he were slaved, murdered, robbed, or raped. Each understands he is his own.

-End Teaching Moment-

-----

"I'm the one they all agree is most troubling because I'm not after what they believe so much as exposing how existentially they came to believe it as the embodiment of dasein. That's the threat "I" pose."

From a nursing textbook on talking to the delusional (by way of the Divermedic): “You know that isn’t true. Let’s stay focused on what is real.”
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:35 pm
Image
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: My moral objectivism: a man, any man, every man is a free will with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I maintain all folks, any where or when, understand at least part of this (even you) and live as though it were (is) true. No one in the history of the world has ever lived believing themselves to rightfully be a commodity for the use of others. I've challenged anyone and everyone to prove me wrong. To date: no one has. The challenge stands.
The challenge will always stand, henry, because what you are essentially arguing is that in regard to conflicting goods -- abortion or guns of human sexuality -- none of that history or culture are personal experience stuff matters because by default you always commence with your own God-given intuitive understanding of life, liberty and property.

Just as these folks...

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

...do.
Also...
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 are unable to grasp how ridiculous moral objectivism is.
Also...
If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?
henry quirk wrote: It doesn't. What I argue for is as real as fire, and, like fire, is utterly independent of history, culture, or personal experience.
Note to others:

What to make of a mind this shallow...this far removed from how, over the centuries historically and across the globe culturally, value judgments have been shaped and molded in countlessly different and conflicted ways. Instead, what is utterly independent from the actual trajectory of human interaction going all the way back to the caves here, is henry insisting that a God he took a "leap of faith" to planted in him an intuitive grasp of life, liberty and property such that in discussing anything pertaining to moral or political conflicts there is absolutely no other way any of us are permitted to think about them other than as he does.

The classic objectivist.

Then [of course] he confirms it again with this:
henry quirk wrote: The challenge stands becuz a man is a freewill with an inviolate moral claim on his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I know it. You know it. Everyone in-forum knows it. Everyone on the planet knows it. No one can dispute it.
Look, if he's not embarrassed to reduce his own value judgments down to this particular "my way or the highway" intellectual contraption, I'm not embarrassed to suggest that he ought to be.
henry quirk wrote: Yes my mind can change. I could become an amoral schmuck just like you. Just show me definitively that mind is only brain product; show me definitively that at least some people have or do believe it proper they ought to be used as property, and you'll have converted me.
My frame of mind is such that I cannot even convert myself to the optimal manner in which to grasp these things.
henry quirk wrote: What you mean to say: I am lost. My head is muddled. I don't know where I am or where I'm going.
And what you always say is that "if you don't agree entirely with my own God-given ahistorical and acultural assessment of life, liberty and property then you are lost, you are muddled, you don't know where you are going." Heads he wins, tails you lose.

Incidentally, henry, that's what these folk...

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

...are saying about you.

And, again, one of the benefits of roundly rejecting an arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian assessment of life, liberty and property as you do is that it liberates me...I'm not anchored as you are to a dogmatic orthodoxy that binds my every option to never, ever stepping off the One True Path.
Indeed, it's not what I can actually show you and others here [in a No God world] given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", but what, rooted existentially in dasein, "I" think about them "here and now" in a profoundly problematic manner.
henry quirk wrote: You have nuthin' to show. Your hands are empty...which why you keep them clinched into fists.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle it is again then.
You're the one who insists that because you believe what you do about abortion and guns and transgenders that makes it true necessarily because it is in sync with your God-given intuitive understanding of the human condition itself.
Guess what's coming?!!!
henry quirk wrote: No. All I insist, quite rightfully, is: you, iam, are a free will. I insist you have an inalienable, natural right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. I insist you know this down deep in your bones.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle it is again then.
henry quirk wrote: If man is a free will, with a natural, inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then yes, you'll have to take your chances. To deprive one of property becuz you fear what he might do is immoral.
henry quirk wrote: If, however, we live in your morally vacant world, then all things are permitted.
Note to others:

I recognize the sheer futility of explaining this to henry, but, perhaps some of you might grasp my own distinction here more intelligently.


I don't have any capacity to demonstrate that we do in fact live in a morally vacant world. I merely presume that in a No God world there does not appear to be a scientific, philosophical, deontological, natural, etc., way in which to demonstrate an objective morality. And that very, very dangerous consequences can accumulate re either the sociopathic, "show me the money" moral nihilists or from the "my way or the highway" moral objectivists.
henry quirk wrote: Becuz we do not, as fact, live in a morally vacant world.
No, but, from time to time, we do live in a world where those like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin and Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un and others...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... nstitution

...have seized power and went over to the other end of the political spectrum: my morality or else.

And, as I noted above:
On the other hand, look at all of the terrible pain and suffering that has unfolded over the course of human history as a result of the moral objectivists. Both God [crusaders, jihadists] and No God [Communists, fascists].

Then those like you who argue that if private citizens were permitted to buy and sell weapons of mass destruction that's okay because there would be more Shanes and Starretts in the world than Rykers and Wilsons.
henry quirk wrote: Let's review...

I said: 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.
It's "logic" if you accept the assumptions of your own rendition of the materialist. But what if you don't? What if, instead, you accept the assumptions of those who say "personhood" begins at the point of conception [as I do] or when there's a beating heart or when the fetus achieves "viability" and can survive outside the womb. Or even those who argue that a new born baby itself is not really a person.

Again, it's always got to be your own God-given intuitive "logic" that becomes the default perspective in any discussion with others. But you can't/don't/won't even admit that to yourself, in my view. You really are convinced that if you believe something is true "in your head" that makes it true.

I've encountered nothing in our exchange to date that indicate otherwise.
henry quirk wrote: No. It's logical if you accept the actual, unvarnished assumptions of materialism.
But that's my point. In regard to issues like abortion and guns each side has their own set of assumptions:

https://abortion.procon.org/
https://gun-control.procon.org/

And their arguments are reasonable or logical or epistemologically sound depending on the extent to which the other side either can or cannot make them go away. Indeed, that's why many construe "democracy and the rule of law" as the best of all possible worlds. Since neither side can come up with the one and the only most rational legislation, "moderation, negotiation and compromise" tends to prevail.
I also believe that if women are forced by the state to give birth they can kiss political equality with men goodbye in a world where only their own lives are roundly disrupted for nine months plus.
henry quirk wrote: In a morally vacant world: none of that matters. It can't matter. Mary, in an amoral world, has no claim to herself. She is meat. She can do as she likes with the baby (er, 'meat lump') inside or outside her. And any Tom, Dick, or Harriette who comes along can do with Mary as they like.
That's your own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective spin on it. What you refer to as a "morally vacant" or an "amoral" world basically revolves around the assumption you make that those who refuse to share your God-given intuitive "logic" regarding the morality of abortion are inherently, necessarily wrong. Why? Because you and only you get to define the meaning of life, liberty and property.

Mary should have avoided all sexual encounters until, what, she was married and had intercourse only in order to procreate?

Then this ridiculous [but entirely typical] "assessment":
henry quirk wrote: But, as I say: we don't live in a morally vacant world. Mary does have a inviolate claim to herself. It's wrong for Tom, Dick, or Harriette to treat her as a commodity. And, the baby inside or outside of Mary, he too has an inviolate claim to himself. It's wrong for Mary, for the sake of her convenience, to off him.

As I say: I know it. You know it. Everyone in-forum knows it. Everyone on the planet knows it. No one can dispute it.
Note to Satyr:

Did you pass this along to him?
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun May 28, 2023 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 12:36 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:35 pm
Image
Just out of curiosity, please note the points that henry made above that you believe are worthy of a slow applause.

Only, as I recall, you are not interested in exploring human morality other than up in the intellectual clouds with those like AJ.

At least with henry we do go back and forth exchanging our own assumptions regarding the moral parameters of such issues as abortion and guns.

How about you?
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 am Just out of curiosity, please note the points that henry made above that you believe are worthy of a slow applause.
All of them.
iambiguous wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 5:57 am Only, as I recall, you are not interested in exploring human morality other than up in the intellectual clouds with those like AJ.

At least with henry we do go back and forth exchanging our own assumptions regarding the moral parameters of such issues as abortion and guns.

How about you?
Special invitation; limited time offer; hurry, hurry; buy now:

If you think that one even exists, then pick an issue and explain how you think it falsifies my case for objective moral truth.
Post Reply