Dasein/dasein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 11:46 pm We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
Just for the record...

I didn't post this...you did.
Yes, you did post that. I quoted it directly. You even repeated it verbatim in the very post to which I'm responding. Just search for "We agree that" and you'll easily find it. Anybody else can do the same unless you later edit those posts.
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm And I responded to it as follows...
And I snipped all the huffing and puffing and focussed on what's important, like getting clear on whether we're even talking about the same thing in the first place, because, if we're not, then maybe that's why we disagree. Is that a possibility you've considered?

Here's the exchange as I see it:

Harry: Functionally, what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others.

iambiguous: We agree on that functional definition.

Harry: Well, that's strange, because you assert that certain behaviour (the torture+slaughter of an innocent child) which clearly doesn't meet that definition can be morally justified. Your functional definition seems then to be something more like: "Relative to a given person, behaviour which that person can justify on terms of that person's choosing." Does that seem accurate?

iambiguous: [Avoids a direct answer, and, instead, suggests that:] Torturing+slaughtering an innocent child could be right behaviour for sociopaths and psychopaths, especially if they don't get caught.

My response:

Harry: Are you even fooling yourself here? Anyhow, for the sake of clearing this up, let's stipulate that (1) the torturer+slaughterer is not a psychopath nor sociopath - he's just some otherwise unremarkable, sane guy who deliberately chooses to commit that act simply because he wants to harm for fun regardless of the consequences - and that (2) he later does get caught. Do you now accept that his choice+behaviour are - given our functional definition - objectively wrong?

By the way, we are discussing a real-world issue here. This sort of stuff does happen. Sane people, though, aren't at all "fractured and fragmented" about whether or not it's objectively wrong.
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm Whereas the moral objectivists on both sides of the issue -- God and No God -- insist that all or nothing must prevail. They get it all, the other side gets nothing.
Just to be clear: I do sympathise with your sentiments here. I just think that you've taken those sentiments and drawn too long of a bow with them.
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm Anyway Harry, you are a complete waste of my time.
Stick with your shtuck then, dude. I've tried to engage meaningfully. Since it's of such importance to you, I've even invited you to pick a real-world issue and explain how, in its context, my defence of objective moral truth fails, at which point I'd engage with you on it. I take your response to be, "Offer declined." So be it. Time's expired anyhow.
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm As I am of yours.
Probably, but I've approached this exchange optimistically. All I've gotten in response is '... intellectual clouds ... "serious philosopher" ... pedant ... ' etc etc.

By the way, I'm under no illusion my posts are profound; I've explicitly said I think I'm simply stating the obvious. Nor am I here to pick up or impress chicks. A philosophy forum would be a dumb place to go for that.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 11:46 pm We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
Just for the record...

I didn't post this...you did.
Yes, you did post that. I quoted it directly. You even repeated it verbatim in the very post to which I'm responding. Just search for "We agree that" and you'll easily find it. Anybody else can do the same unless you later edit those posts.
From above:
Harry Baird wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:50 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:32 am Well, hell, the dictionary definition works for me:

Moral: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"
Good, we have an agreed definition. Now, here's my claim: that functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what "right" behaviour means is, roughly, "behaviour that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
Yes, I may have included parts of it in my own posts reacting to it, but you were the one who posted it initially.
iambiguous wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:02 pm And I responded to it as follows...
Again, this is precisely the sort of assessment I'd expect you and those like AJ here to pursue up in the "general description philosophical clouds".

But what I imagine instead is taking those definitions and deductions out into the world of human interactions that come into conflict over things like abortion and guns and human sexuality. Okay, we agree that morality is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others". Okay, but now we are outside of an abortion clinic where flesh and blood human beings on both sides of the issue are in a fierce confrontation over what is unfolding inside the clinic itself.

One side insisting that right behavior in sync with good character entails that the abortion clinic must be shut down. Meanwhile the other side insists that if the state is permitted to force women to give birth great harm and suffering can result with significant negative consequences for the only gender around that is actually able to get pregnant.

Whose "functional definition"? And out in the real world, how will legislating that definition impact the lives of either the unborn or the pregnant women?

My frame of mind here is "fractured and fragmented" in a No God world. As encompassed in the OP here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

And, given that I am drawn and quartered...able to accept the arguments from those on both side...the best of all possible world seems to be embedded in "moderation, negotiation and compromise" -- in Roe v. Wade -- where each side gets something but neither side gets it all.

Whereas the moral objectivists on both sides of the issue -- God and No God -- insist that all or nothing must prevail. They get it all, the other side gets nothing.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amAnd I snipped all the huffing and puffing and focussed on what's important, like getting clear on whether we're even talking about the same thing in the first place, because, if we're not, then maybe that's why we disagree. Is that a possibility you've considered?
Aside from the comment pertaining to AJ, what here do you construe as me "huffing and puffing"?

No, in my view, the main problem between us is that you have noted [more than once] that you are not really interested in exploring our respective moral philosophies as they are applicable "out in the world" of actual conflicting human interactions. Those "contexts" I clamor for. In other words, okay, one has thought morality/ethics through and through philosophically. They have come up with the definitions that they deem are most important in order to deduce certain things about human morality.

That is where I come in here. Prompting them to take those definitions and deductions into an exchange like the one that henry and I are having here...discussing and debating things like abortion, gun control and transgender politics. Given our respective moral philosophies.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amHere's the exchange as I see it:

Harry: Functionally, what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others.

iambiguous: We agree on that functional definition.

Harry: Well, that's strange, because you assert that certain behaviour (the torture+slaughter of an innocent child) which clearly doesn't meet that definition can be morally justified. Your functional definition seems then to be something more like: "Relative to a given person, behaviour which that person can justify on terms of that person's choosing." Does that seem accurate?
Again, I explained my reaction to these extreme behaviors above:
This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

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

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

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

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

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

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?
If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"

Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.

Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amAre you even fooling yourself here? Anyhow, for the sake of clearing this up, let's stipulate that (1) the torturer+slaughterer is not a psychopath nor sociopath - he's just some otherwise unremarkable, sane guy who deliberately chooses to commit that act simply because he wants to harm for fun regardless of the consequences - and that (2) he later does get caught. Do you now accept that his choice+behaviour are - given our functional definition - objectively wrong?
Okay, but he could be either one of them. Or he could be neither but still chooses to abuse children and is never caught. Then what?

But given your scenario above there is still no way in my view for philosophers/ethicists to establish deontologically that child abuse is inherently/necessarily immoral. Not in a No God world. Though, sure, if you want to use the "does it disgust you?" argument it can be deemed immoral for those that certain behaviors do disgust. But in regard to the issues henry and I are discussing what disgusts some people relishes others. I merely root that existentially/subjectively in dasein rather than essentially/objectively in deontology.
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 amBy the way, we are discussing a real-world issue here. This sort of stuff does happen. Sane people, though, aren't at all "fractured and fragmented" about whether or not it's objectively wrong.
Yes, and so do flagrant instances of racism, sexism, heterosexism, thievery, fraud, assault, murder. Even mass murder going all the way up to Hitler. But, from my frame of mind, in a No God world many people are able to rationalize choosing these behaviors. And for any number of personal reasons that make sense to them.

Again, it's not for nothing that over and again the religious folks among us come back to just how crucial God is here. Even philosophers like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a "transcending" entity that will ultimately judge we mere mortals.

You on the other hand...?

Do you believe in a God/the God? Have you found a spiritual path you can anchor your morality to objectively? Or does you own philosophy really revolve around how you "just know that certain behaviors are immoral because you personally find them repugnant.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm Yes, I may have included parts of [Harry's proposed functional definition --HB] in my own posts reacting to it, but you were the one who posted it initially.
That's beside the point. The point is that you agreed to it, which is what I quoted you to acknowledge.

Do you now take back your agreement?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm Okay, but [a torturer+slaughterer of an innocent child --HB] could be either one of them [a psychopath or a sociopath --HB].
Again, that's beside the point. Built in to the question - not that it changes the answer, but just to satisfy you at this point - is that he's not. Here again the question is, in full, phrased so as to make those conditions explicit:

Given a rough functional definition of "right" behavior as "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", is it objectively wrong for a person who is not a psychopath or a sociopath - and who is otherwise unremarkable and sane - and who subsequently gets caught for it, to torture and slaughter an innocent child for fun?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm [T]he main problem between us is that you have noted [more than once] that you are not really interested in exploring our respective moral philosophies as they are applicable "out in the world" of actual conflicting human interactions. Those "contexts" I clamor for.
I offered you a solution to this problem, which I repeated not just once but twice. You didn't take it up. There's not much I can do about that. *Shrugs*
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm [D]oes you own philosophy really revolve around how you "just know that certain behaviors are immoral because you personally find them repugnant.
No. I've shared with you the functional definition of (im)moral behaviour with which I work. You've even agreed with it. It can be applied independently of any personal repugnance a person might or might not feel for any such behaviour.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Iwannaplato »

Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 am Probably, but I've approached this exchange optimistically. All I've gotten in response is '... intellectual clouds ... "serious philosopher" ... pedant ... ' etc etc.
You seem to have the situation sussed, but just for confirmation...what you are experiencing is very common with Iambiguous. He often goes ad hom and/or insulting, first generally, then aimed at individuals. One ends up getting his pejoratives aimed at one. Further he cannot track discussions well. So, just as you are experiencing above, he will not quite respond, say things happened that did not and says things did not happen that did. Given how his responses are often not quite on point on many points, the job of pointing these things out creates the need for longer and longer posts. And just when you think you've found a way to explain what fallacies or convenient evasions he is using, you'll find yourself faced with copy and paste chunks of text he has posted thousands of times before and probably already several times to you.

If you stop interacting with him because of these patterns, he declares victory and 'reads your mind' as far as you 'not being to face the fear' caused by his 'powerful arguments and insights'.

Welcome to the at least once trying to communicate with Iambiguous club.

And this happens with people whose philosophical positions I agree with and with those whose philosophical positions I do not agree with.

We're a diverse lot going back more than a decade.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am
Wiggle wiggle little piggle

(I'm saying it so iambiguous doesn't have to)

Also, shameless!

Also please why won't someone talk to me?!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:54 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am
Wiggle wiggle little piggle

(I'm saying it so iambiguous doesn't have to)

Also, shameless!

Also please why won't someone talk to me?!
I'm upset you didn't notice my huffing and puffing.

Calling someone a serious philosopher or being up in the clouds is not enough to qualify as huffing and puffing.

So, I worked hard to meet the criteria.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm Yes, I may have included parts of [Harry's proposed functional definition --HB] in my own posts reacting to it, but you were the one who posted it initially.
That's beside the point. The point is that you agreed to it, which is what I quoted you to acknowledge.

Do you now take back your agreement?
First of all, it certainly seemed to me that you were insisting that I posted this...
We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".
No, I pointed out, you posted it. As for me agreeing with it...
But what I imagine instead is taking those definitions and deductions out into the world of human interactions that come into conflict over things like abortion and guns and human sexuality. Okay, we agree that morality is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". We agree that "functionally, in terms of that definition - and regardless of the specific moral framework - what right behavior means is, roughly, behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others". Okay, but now we are outside of an abortion clinic where flesh and blood human beings on both sides of the issue are in a fierce confrontation over what is unfolding inside the clinic itself.

One side insisting that right behavior in sync with good character entails that the abortion clinic must be shut down. Meanwhile the other side insists that if the state is permitted to force women to give birth great harm and suffering can result with significant negative consequences for the only gender around that is actually able to get pregnant.

Whose "functional definition"? And out in the real world, how will legislating that definition impact the lives of either the unborn or the pregnant women?

My frame of mind here is "fractured and fragmented" in a No God world. As encompassed in the OP here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

And, given that I am drawn and quartered...able to accept the arguments from those on both side...the best of all possible world seems to be embedded in "moderation, negotiation and compromise" -- in Roe v. Wade -- where each side gets something but neither side gets it all.

Whereas the moral objectivists on both sides of the issue -- God and No God -- insist that all or nothing must prevail. They get it all, the other side gets nothing.

Same with the gun issue and with contexts revolving around human sexuality. Some are repulsed by one set of behaviors that the other side rejoices in.

Now, over on the Christianity thread, the moral objectivists like IC and his ilk not only insist that there is but one rational and virtuous resolution here, but they quote from the Scriptures to nail it down. Some adding that if others don't follow those moral Commandments, they will burn in Hell for all of eternity.
Note to others:

Would you agree that I am agreeing with him here? I certainly do not think that is the case.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm Okay, but [a torturer+slaughterer of an innocent child --HB] could be either one of them [a psychopath or a sociopath --HB].
From my frame of mind, you were suggesting we merely assume that someone who abuses children was not a psychopath or a sociopath. I was noting that in fact many of them are. The psychopath because of a brain affliction that renders the abuse "beyond his control" and the sociopath because in a No God world his life has unfolded such that he derives actual pleasure or fulfilment from the abuse.

So...you point out to them that because child abuse is repugnant to you that makes it objectively immoral? That inherently/necessarily it ought to be repugnant to them too?

Then back to the anti-abortion folks arguing that because aborting unborn babies is repugnant to them, that makes it objectively immoral and thus the pro-choice folks are obligated [philosophically, deontologically] to find it repugnant as well?

Same with embracing the buying and selling of henry's weapons of mass destruction and his belief that transgender men and women are mentally ill? Because this is what he believes "in his head" "here and now" that makes it morally objective? Only the behaviors he finds repugnant count?
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 amAgain, that's beside the point. Built in to the question - not that it changes the answer, but just to satisfy you at this point - is that he's not. Here again the question is, in full, phrased so as to make those conditions explicit:

Given a rough functional definition of "right" behavior as "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", is it objectively wrong for a person who is not a psychopath or a sociopath - and who is otherwise unremarkable and sane - and who subsequently gets caught for it, to torture and slaughter an innocent child for fun?
Okay, the abuser of children is not a psychopath or a sociopath. And, above, I responded to that as well:
This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

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

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

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.
Adding...
If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"

Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.

Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 am Are you even fooling yourself here? Anyhow, for the sake of clearing this up, let's stipulate that (1) the torturer+slaughterer is not a psychopath nor sociopath - he's just some otherwise unremarkable, sane guy who deliberately chooses to commit that act simply because he wants to harm for fun regardless of the consequences - and that (2) he later does get caught. Do you now accept that his choice+behaviour are - given our functional definition - objectively wrong?
Okay, but he could be either one of them. Or he could be neither but still chooses to abuse children and is never caught. Then what?

But given your scenario above there is still no way in my view for philosophers/ethicists to establish deontologically that child abuse is inherently/necessarily immoral. Not in a No God world. Though, sure, if you want to use the "does it disgust you?" argument it can be deemed immoral for those that certain behaviors do disgust. But in regard to the issues henry and I are discussing what disgusts some people relishes others. I merely root that existentially/subjectively in dasein rather than essentially/objectively in deontology.
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 amBy the way, we are discussing a real-world issue here. This sort of stuff does happen. Sane people, though, aren't at all "fractured and fragmented" about whether or not it's objectively wrong.
Yes, and so do flagrant instances of racism, sexism, heterosexism, thievery, fraud, assault, murder. Even mass murder going all the way up to Hitler. But, from my frame of mind, in a No God world many people are able to rationalize choosing these behaviors. And for any number of personal reasons that make sense to them.
Again, it's not for nothing that over and again the religious folks among us come back to just how crucial God is here. Even philosophers like Plato and Descartes and Kant recognized the need for a "transcending" entity that will ultimately judge we mere mortals.

You on the other hand...?
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm [T]he main problem between us is that you have noted [more than once] that you are not really interested in exploring our respective moral philosophies as they are applicable "out in the world" of actual conflicting human interactions. Those "contexts" I clamor for.
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 amI offered you a solution to this problem, which I repeated not just once but twice. You didn't take it up. There's not much I can do about that. *Shrugs*
Okay, let's go back to you completely ignoring most of the points I raised then:
iambiguous wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:10 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 11:53 am
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.
Really? All of them? You agree that the manner in which henry defines the meaning of "life, liberty and property" transcends the historical era in which he lives? the culture he was born into? all of the uniquely personal experiences he had in being indoctrinated as a child and in accumulating as an adult?

His God-given intuitive mind is so sharp that he is able to figure out -- divinely? deontologically? -- the optimal, the "logical" manner in which to defend the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction?

Slow clap there too?

And, if so, what do you make of all these folks...

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

...insisting that, on the contrary, it's the manner in which they grasp the meaning of life, liberty and property that reflects the One True Path.

Slow boos for them?
And I did take up your offer. And I did respond to your "solution". It's just that my own reaction did not come around to agreeing with your own "up in the clouds" frame of mind above. At least regarding how I construed it.
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:39 pm [D]oes you own philosophy really revolve around how you "just know that certain behaviors are immoral because you personally find them repugnant.
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 amNo. I've shared with you the functional definition of (im)moral behaviour with which I work. You've even agreed with it. It can be applied independently of any personal repugnance a person might or might not feel for any such behaviour.
Clearly, we are in two very different exchanges here. Let's just leave it up to others to decide which rendition comes closest to a more reasonable frame of mind.

Given a No God world. That's why I asked you above if, like henry, your own moral philosophy includes a religious or spiritual font.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am
Harry Baird wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 7:12 am Probably, but I've approached this exchange optimistically. All I've gotten in response is '... intellectual clouds ... "serious philosopher" ... pedant ... ' etc etc.
You seem to have the situation sussed, but just for confirmation...what you are experiencing is very common with Iambiguous. He often goes ad hom and/or insulting, first generally, then aimed at individuals. One ends up getting his pejoratives aimed at one. Further he cannot track discussions well. So, just as you are experiencing above, he will not quite respond, say things happened that did not and says things did not happen that did. Given how his responses are often not quite on point on many points, the job of pointing these things out creates the need for longer and longer posts. And just when you think you've found a way to explain what fallacies or convenient evasions he is using, you'll find yourself faced with copy and paste chunks of text he has posted thousands of times before and probably already several times to you.

If you stop interacting with him because of these patterns, he declares victory and 'reads your mind' as far as you 'not being to face the fear' caused by his 'powerful arguments and insights'.

Welcome to the at least once trying to communicate with Iambiguous club.
Moreno aka karpel tunnel aka iwannaplato in full blown Stooge mode.

Making it all about me.

Again.

And, again, all I can suggest is that in regard in "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and politicql economy, he choose an issue and a set of circumstance in order to explore our own respective moral philosophies.



That way as the exchange unfolds he can note specific instances of all the accusations he levels at me.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:27 pm Moreno aka karpel tunnel aka iwannaplato in full blown Stooge mode.
Stooge, yes, and here I was aiming low for huffing and puffing.
Making it all about me.
This is confused. I wrote a post about you as a heads up, possibly unnecessary, given what that other poster has already noticed. Of course that post is about you. I am not making 'it' about you. It was about you.
Again.
Yes, I didn't recognize this guy's name. He seemed to have noticed how much you made it all about him, using your usual suspects of pejoratives. But perhaps he's not sure. It's easy for people to wonder if they are somehow responsible for the poor behavior of the person they are interacting with. So, to head off the amount of time he might unpleasantly think it might be just him, I, yes, again, to a new person, pointed out your patterns.

So, of course, again.
And, again, all I can suggest is that in regard in "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and politicql economy, he choose an issue and a set of circumstance in order to explore our own respective moral philosophies.
But that's not what the thread is about, actually. It's about dasein/DAsein. And in the linked thread in another forum, no less, you ask and then conclude....
How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.
And yet when people in a variety of forums say very similar things about you, to you and to others, never do you seriously consider that they might be on to something. You say you can't know. And yet you walk and quack like someone who knows others must be wrong.
That way as the exchange unfolds he can note specific instances of all the accusations he levels at me.
That's been done endlessly by many, many people. And despite the fact that you say you cannot know, never, not once, have you taken seriously people's criticisms, even when they quote you to yourself. Even when the criticisms come from people you claim to respect.

You are fragmented about all sorts of things, morals, free will, as two regular examples.

But not in the least are you torn about other people's explanations of their experience of your participation in philosophy forums. Despite your own claim that you don't think you can know what you are like.

Why that absence of being fragmented about your own behavior???

Rhetorical questions all.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:54 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:48 am
Wiggle wiggle little piggle

(I'm saying it so iambiguous doesn't have to)

Also, shameless!

Also please why won't someone talk to me?!
This one is now a moderator over at ILP. I figure it is only a matter of time before he comes up with one or another "rationalization" to ban me there.

To witless...

Peacegirl:
iambiguous, I've asked you before and I'm asking you again to please create a new thread that compares different ideas on the free will/determinism debate. I am sure that my thread will die because there seems to be no interest, but that is better to me than having you take advantage of a thread that was meant to share a discovery. I know you don't care but I am asking you kindly to lay off. I hope Flannel Jesus recognizes how unfair this is to me.


Flannel Jesus:
Well, it's borderline spam that he takes this text that he's written and pastes it across multiple forums without it being a discussion with another person, BUT I don't mind that the spam is here at ILP since it's at least relevant to a philosophy forum and written by a member.

I don't want to ban it entirely but since it's spam that is negatively impacting another poster because of a thread derailing, I think it's reasonable enough to have these posts be relegated to another thread.

Iambiguous, it has been requested that you not put your personal journal of determinism and free will readings in this thread. Please create a new thread for your personal journal, and use this thread for having discussions with the human beings who are here.


Need more proof of me spamming?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34285
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=34247
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34306
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34271
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35199
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=39982
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=34260
viewtopic.php?t=40136

Now, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" personal opinion, these two [along with others here] are disturbed not with the manner in which I post, but with the points I raise in the posts themselves. My arguments threaten their own rendition of both "serious philosophy" and their conviction that in regard to moral and political value judgments [even in a No God world] philosophers can at least come within the general vicinity of an objective morality.

It's the "fractured and fragmented" self that most perturbs them. After all, what if, like me, their own Self begins to crumble?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:42 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:27 pm Moreno aka karpel tunnel aka iwannaplato in full blown Stooge mode.
Stooge, yes, and here I was aiming low for huffing and puffing.
Making it all about me.
This is confused. I wrote a post about you as a heads up, possibly unnecessary, given what that other poster has already noticed. Of course that post is about you. I am not making 'it' about you. It was about you.
Again.
Yes, I didn't recognize this guy's name. He seemed to have noticed how much you made it all about him, using your usual suspects of pejoratives. But perhaps he's not sure. It's easy for people to wonder if they are somehow responsible for the poor behavior of the person they are interacting with. So, to head off the amount of time he might unpleasantly think it might be just him, I, yes, again, to a new person, pointed out your patterns.

So, of course, again.
And, again, all I can suggest is that in regard in "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and politicql economy, he choose an issue and a set of circumstance in order to explore our own respective moral philosophies.
But that's not what the thread is about, actually. It's about dasein/DAsein. And in the linked thread in another forum, no less, you ask and then conclude....
How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?

No, I don't think so.
And yet when people in a variety of forums say very similar things about you, to you and to others, never do you seriously consider that they might be on to something. You say you can't know. And yet you walk and quack like someone who knows others must be wrong.
That way as the exchange unfolds he can note specific instances of all the accusations he levels at me.
That's been done endlessly by many, many people. And despite the fact that you say you cannot know, never, not once, have you taken seriously people's criticisms, even when they quote you to yourself. Even when the criticisms come from people you claim to respect.

You are fragmented about all sorts of things, morals, free will, as two regular examples.

But not in the least are you torn about other people's explanations of their experience of your participation in philosophy forums. Despite your own claim that you don't think you can know what you are like.

Why that absence of being fragmented about your own behavior???

Rhetorical questions all.
And, again, all I can suggest is that in regard in "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and politicql economy, he choose an issue and a set of circumstance in order to explore our own respective moral philosophies.



That way as the exchange unfolds he can note specific instances of all the accusations he levels at me.

He claims that has already been done. Okay, let him link us to an exchange I had with someone such that as the exchange unfolded, we encountered over and again...

"See what I mean? This is exactly my point related to how he..."

Or we can start anew.

He chooses the issue and the circumstances. We agree to keep the exchange entirely civil, focusing only on the components of our respective moral philosophies.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Dasein and World: Heidegger’s Reconceiving of the Transcendental After Husserl
Niall Keane
Heidegger’s Critique of Husserl

Like Husserl before him, the more traditionally phenomenological Heidegger of the middle and late 1920s was interested in recovering human being and world from pernicious forms of naturalism and absolute idealism.
Naturalism is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."

"Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects. It lays emphasis on the mental or spiritual components of experience, and renounces the notion of material existence."

"Phenomenology is a philosophy of experience. For phenomenology the ultimate source of all meaning and value is the lived experience of human beings. All philosophical systems, scientific theories, or aesthetic judgments have the status of abstractions from the ebb and flow of the lived world."


Okay, in regard to human interactions that come into conflict because "I" believe this and "you" believe that and "someone else" believes something other than what either one of us do, how are those definitions applicable?

Jack believes that in regard to someone convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, capital punishment is always right. Jane believes that it is always wrong. Mike believes that in some cases it is wrong but in other cases it is right.

So, in regard to the rationality and the morality of capital punishment, how would you go about "recover[ing] human being and world from pernicious forms of naturalism and absolute idealism"?

Heidegger's Dasein and my dasein given that particular context.
And he did so in much the same way as the later Heidegger attempts to recover human being and world from calculative thinking and its assumption that the observable and measurable world is the one true reality.
Again, regarding those aspects of the observable and measurable world that revolve around something being either true or false in the either/or world, objective reality abounds. For example in Texas, capital punishment has been the law of the land since 1976. In Maryland [my home state] it has been illegal since 2013.
In the early 1923-24 Marburg lecture course, Introduction to Phenomenological Research, Heidegger addresses and endorses fully Husserl’s critique of naturalism, by which he means scientific naturalism, wherein philosophical issues are best explained by, or at least must be consistent with, findings in natural science.

In other words, in regard to the phenomenon we call a "state execution", there are no "supernatural or spiritual" elements that I am aware of. No state justifies execution by way of one or another quote from a Bible or religious scripture. Though some may well connect their own convictions to their religious beliefs.

Then you tell me how this..
In a very nuanced analysis of Husserl’s phenomenological critique and how it should and should not be understood, he nonetheless asserts that Husserl’s “care about already known knowledge” is an epistemically driven and consciousness focused deficient form of existential-ontological care, leading to the loss of the historical and existentially experienced world. This, Heidegger claims, is carried out in the name of the higher “treasure trove of valid truths”.
...might be applicable to the capital punishment debate.
Consequently, while naturalism is ostensibly blind to the phenomenological accomplishments of transcendental consciousness, incapable of seeing the blindness inherent in taking consciousness to be an entity in the world, Husserl’s transcendental method, and its commitment to intuitive self-givenness, is itself constitutionally incapable of reflecting on this non-derivative form of existentially situated care in our belonging to the world.
Or does the whole point here revolve around eschewing "supernatural and spiritual" elements in exploring human interactions belonging to a particular world. The one in Texas and the one in Maryland?

As for "intuitive self-givenness" my own assessment of phenomenology pertaining to human interactions still revolves "for all practical purposes" around my own rendition of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Flannel Jesus »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:48 pm
Now, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" personal opinion, these two [along with others here] are disturbed not with the manner in which I post, but with the points I raise in the posts themselves.
Ah yes, I'm sure most people here will agree with you that that's why I asked you specifically to stop spamming the thread with the same little write ups you paste in other parts of the internet, and why I explicitly said you CAN continue posting in her thread, as long as it's not that spam. That's almost certainly the best explanation for those things.

Wiggle wiggle little piggle
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

:lol:

No, seriously.
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Harry Baird »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm As for me agreeing with [Harry's proposed functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour --HB]...

[Snip repeat quoted content --HB]

Would [others --HB] agree that I am agreeing with him here? I certainly do not think that is the case.
OK, so, after your first writing that we agree on it, you now take back your agreement with the functional definition that I proposed for (morally) "right" behaviour: roughly, "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others".

Which functional definition, then, do you propose instead?
iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm So...you point out to them that because child abuse is repugnant to you that makes it objectively immoral?
I've told you that behaviour can be assessed against a moral standard regardless of whether or not I or anybody else feels repugnance for that behaviour.

Can you please, then, stop misrepresenting me on this?

I largely disagree with your claims re psychopaths and sociopaths, but, to avoid losing focus, I'll defer further comment on that until we've hashed out a functional definition of (morally) "right" behaviour.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm
Harry Baird wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:54 amAgain, that's beside the point. Built in to the question - not that it changes the answer, but just to satisfy you at this point - is that he's not. Here again the question is, in full, phrased so as to make those conditions explicit:

Given a rough functional definition of "right" behavior as "behavior that conduces to the avoidance of negative experiences - harm and suffering - in others", is it objectively wrong for a person who is not a psychopath or a sociopath - and who is otherwise unremarkable and sane - and who subsequently gets caught for it, to torture and slaughter an innocent child for fun?
Okay, the abuser of children is not a psychopath or a sociopath. And, above, I responded to that as well:

[Snip repeat quoted content --HB]
None of that responds directly to my question, to which I'd added conditions re psychopathy, sociopathy, and getting caught so as to deal with your prior objections.

Can you please respond directly to the above-quoted question with a straightforward yes or no?
iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm And I did take up your offer.
It's quite clear to me that you didn't, but I'll leave it up to "others" to decide for themselves whether or not they share my assessment.
iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:16 pm I asked you above if, like henry, your own moral philosophy includes a religious or spiritual font.
At this point, I'm simply trying to establish that at least some objective moral truths exist. That can be established regardless of whether or not God exists.
Post Reply