a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:wrong thread


=) No problem here... sorry that happened to you.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8136
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:54 am

This...

https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Why_We_Cant_Agree

...is more or less in alignment with the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein [and conflicting goods] out in the world of human interaction.

Not being able to agree about some things is basically a description of the human condition itself.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:47 pm

Came upon this quote from Salman Rushdie:

Meaning is a shaky edifice we build out of scraps, dogmas, childhood injuries, newspaper articles, chance remarks, old films, small victories, people hated, people loved; perhaps it is because our sense of what is the case is constructed from such inadequate materials that we defend it so fiercely, even to death.

Yes, this also captures the manner in which I try to convey the meaning of dasein. All the variables -- some of which we are barely cognizant of -- coming together over the years to predispose us to one rather than another meaning. A very personal meaning to say the least.

What then are philosophers to make of this? How are they able to pin down the one true objective meaning when that meaning revolves around conflicting values -- around the question "how ought one to live?"
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:49 pm

Uccisore wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
How is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasien in the OP not applicable to you?


This is a rather transparent sort of Kafka trap with 'objectivist' used in place of 'bigot'. If I answer that 1.) it is applicable to me, then you take it to mean you're right about everything, and I'm obligated to go on criticizing horrible objectivists. If I try to explain how it's 2.) not applicable to me, then I'm guilty of being an 'objectivist', which to you is a dirty, dirty intellectual bad guy who thinks the rules don't apply to him.


What on earth does this actually have to do with the points that I raise? Consider:

I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventitiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perspective of a 20th century United States citizen?

How is this not applicable to everyone? How is this not applicable to you? Depending on when we are born historically, where we are born culturally, and the actual accumulation of personal experiences that we encounter, how will the manner in which any particular individual's moral and political values not be profoundly implicated in this?

How do your own transcend it?

Instead, the role of philosophy [in my view] is this: After acknowledging these profoundly existential/problematic components of any particular individual's indoctrination as a child, what, using the tools of philosophy, can we then go on to establish is within the framework of a rational and virtuous behavior?

In other words, what isn't "bullshit"? And don't the moral and political objectivists insist that what isn't bullshit is what they value? what they embrace as the "ideal"?

Again, you choose the value judgment and we can explore our respective assessments regarding the "conflicting goods" in the philosophy forum.

Or, with respect to extreme behaviors in which there is an overwhelming consensus regarding right and wrong, good and evil, you can address my point regarding the extreme narcissist who roots morality [in a world sans God] in that which he or she construes to be in their own self-interest.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:59 pm

"Heidegger and ethics: from Dasein as being-in-the-world to Dasein as ethical"
Eric Robert Panicco
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/view ... ool_theses

Note: I choose this merely because in Googling "Dasein and ethics" this was the first scholastic account I came upon.

The aim of this thesis is to show that we can understand Dasein as ethical. In order to do this we first need a reason to think Dasein might be ethical. Heidegger certainly never gives anything resembling a positive account of ethics. It is extremely rare for him to even bring up ethics. So then, why should we think that his characterization of Dasein should be ethical? As an initial answer, our interest stems from Dasein as fundamentally engaged in the world.


Yes, it's been a long time since I have construced myself as a "serious philosopher". Instead, of late, my focus has always been on connecting the dots between those who do think of themselves as taking philosophy seriously and the extent to which someone of this sort implicates philosophy in human interactions out in a particular world that come to clash over conflicting goods.

Sure, there are any number of aspects embedded in human interactions in which that is not the focus at all. Instead "I" here goes about the business of connecting dots between those facets of human interaction that appear to be true for all of us. The stuff that revolves around going through the day knowing that if you do this, that will be the result. It will be that result for anyone who does it. That's the nature of the either/or world. And to the extent that folks like Heidegger can offer us new insights into this re "the human condition", fine.

I've no doubt that there are any number of "technical issues" here to consider. Techincal issues revolving around perception and conception; revolving in turn around that which is deemed to be rational in sync with that which we either can or cannot know.

But for Heidegger to explore the nature of Dasein and "rarely even bring up ethics"....?

I'm sorry but for folks like me, that seems nothing short of preposterous. Unless, of course, he always intended to bring the "technical" facets of his philosophy out into the world that he lived in. In order to examine them in the context of the particular conflicting goods that were swirling about him in Nazi Germany.

What of Dasein and "the final solution"?

After all, when most Daseins become "fundamentally engaged in the world" around them, they quickly become immersed in "rules of behavior" that garner either rewards or punishments. Indeed, any newspaper or newscast reveals just how being fundamentally engaged with others precipitates all manner of turbulent headlines and editorials.

And this is where my own rendition of Dasein comes in. The existential dasein. The existential "I".
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:21 am

Back to the beginning. I realized a place we may be talking past each other where I can be clearer.

Contraptions

Two otters approach a river.
Otter A looks both ways, just a quick check for predators, then enters the water.
Otter B looks both ways, back up into the bushes, looks both ways again, then spins in a circle before entering the water.

Why the difference?

Otter A has instinctive caution in open spaces, but beyond that nothing.
Otter B has been attacked several times before entering water by predators. Not only does this make Otter B more nervous than Otter A, but Otter B also, early after the second attack he went through, spun in a circle before entering the water. He has not been attacked since that time. He associates spinning around with making himself safe. (to see how this can happen in animials and also then humans see the experiment described here...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-pigeons-get ... us-5746904
)

I think it might be useful to call Otter B's ritual/activity a contraption, as a metaphor.
I think it would not be useful to call Otter A's behavior a contraption.

This does not mean that Otter A's process is correct. Perhaps otters like B will survive and those like otter A will be selected out. Or perhaps Otter B type otters are nicer and God loves them more and one day it will be shown that God wants otters to have that ritual.

I black box all value judgments about the two behaviors.

However, I think in one case we have an extra behavior which has been arrived at through the combination of Otter B's innate tendencies - perhaps towards caution or something else - and dasein.

Of course, Otter A's behavior is also a result of the same thing, however there is nothing extra. There is no, for example, behavior caused by conceiving and understanding of pragmatism in Otter A's behavior. He has less contraptions - barring other exceptions - than Otter B.

So when I encounter you in a discussion and I lack an interest in, say, working out whether determinism is the case, this does not mean I have a contraption you do not have. THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.

But it also could be the case that your temperment + dasein has led you to believe that seeking the answer is necessary. And I think we can agree that seeking the answer to the issue of determinism/free will is an extra activity. It goes beyond the basic activities we need to engage in.

Now, I do not know if you are like Otter B on this issue and I am like Otter A.

But it seems completely off the table that you might have EXTRA CONTRAPTIONS that make it seem obvious that one would try to figure out determinism/free will, and that one must try to find the solution to conflicting goods.

I suspect that latter is based on a contraption coming out of the very moralistic memes that most of us in the West have been exposed to via the Abrahamic religions. That one must know the good. And if one doesn't then, even if one doubts it exists, still do all one can to find it.

Obviously I could be wrong about this.

I am not making an issue here of trying to prove my point that you have the extra contraption that shapes your focus, a focus I do not have.

I am trying to create a frame where you would see how this is possible AND that this is the basis of my saying 'No, I lack a contraption on that issue.'

When I say this you respond as if I have said 'My approach is better and your should have it.' Or 'I am free from the influence of dasein and innate temperment.'

Nope.

The extreme example of a schizophrenic who thinks he must get permission from a door before opening it or the OCD suffering who thinks he must wash his hands 20 times after dinner or he will suffer something terrible are examples where most of us would think it

at least possible

that extra contraptions are involved

and that someone not doing these things could say 'I lack a contraption that says I must ask the door permission before opening it and I lack a contraption that I have to clean my hands more than once after dinner'

is not saying they are free of dasein or innate tempermental tendencies. (or free from determinism for that matter)

You have tended to drop, recently, adding in that my contraption is one that gives me comfort. And I appreciate that. It's a ridiculous assumption, since perhaps your engaging in these issues is giving you comfort. But more fundamentallly, it is a mere assumption, based on yourself as the norm.

If you have a different focus than I do, you have that because you need some delusion that gives you comfort because I am suffering this issue.

That is making a universal judgment based on your own temperment and psychology, which are in turn based on your genetics AND your dasein, which are very specific.

Just mull that over in the spirit of charitable reading.

I am going to stay away from you for a while, because I think I have done the best I can without me changing quite a bit in approaching you. I wish you had someone in your corporeal life who could read over your shoulder and give their take.

I certainly have extra contraptions. I see those a combination of dasein and my inborn temperment - not that it is easy to separate out which is the cause in many instances. I am married. In any marriage that works when it works I would guess, but certainly in mine, the fact that we have different extra contraptions and then different lacks of contraptions allows us to respond to each other when these contraptions get hold of us, the negative ones that is. Extra contraptions can be great. I mean, I have worked in the theater and had to develop all kinds of contraptions to make me a decent actor. I chose to learn those, to have them. Some make us feel bad. Some make us feel bad but are useful - as far as I can tell. Like, yes, eating a lot of food after an argument can feel sort of good and facing the feelings that came up can feel bad, but the contraption that I might appreciate not comfort eating the food - a response that is itself a contraption based on dasein and temperment. And I have appreciated such contraptions, some of them leading to the dissovling of the pattern that was not helping me and in th e long run made for more pain, and then itself.

In your world there are just contraptions and there is no way to know which is right.
In my world I feel better overall without extras in many areas and I think I can tell the difference which ones for me, I do not want. Not infallibly. LOL. It is a human skill.

I think that when you focus on what everyone should have as contraptions, you close a door on figuring out which ones you want for yourself, which make your life feel better. When you try to figure out what will make the poeple in Huntsville love eachother, you haven't even started to find out how to feel OK about yourself. I could be wrong, but I smell a lot of guilt in your incredulity that someone would nto focus on finding the perfect argument that all rational people will listen to and end conflicting goods. That seems like a cross to bear and that seems to me to come from Xiantity, however much you are not a theist.

That cross is a contraption.

Unless you are doing something else here, and it is all a front for being a gadfly to fuck with the objectivists. Well, OK.

I used to think that was the case. That really your approach was rage based, sticking it to them.

If that is the case - and I don't assume it is either/or or that you would know it - then it's all fine and dandy, because then on some level you are having a grand time.

But if the OCD guy comes to you and says you have a contraption that means you don't spend half your day cleaning your hands and you have this contraption to comfort you...

you iambiguous may think - sure, I have a contraption.

Me, I find no gain in hallucinating that I have a contraption in that discussion of the OCD guy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:47 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
So when I encounter you in a discussion and I lack an interest in, say, working out whether determinism is the case, this does not mean I have a contraption you do not have. THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.


It depends on the manner in which you construe the meaning of "contraption" here.

For example: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... ontraption

From my frame of mind, "I" is an existential contraption in that it is pieced together from day to day based on the accumulation of hundreds and thousands of unique and personal experiences, relationships and access to ideas that you made contact with. It is contrived -- constructed, deconstructed, reconstructed -- out of all of these variables in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

It is also deemed an intellectual contraption by me because many piece together a sense of self out of the meaning that they impart to a particular collection of words they use to descibe themselves.

Now, some will argue that the human brain is one of nature's own contraptions. It is extremely complicated and put together in a way that we have barely scratched the surface in exploring.

Also, a contraption able to actually invent the word "contraption" and then squabble over what it is said to really mean.

All the while [some insist] having no actual capacity to do so freely. I "chose" to use the word contraption the way I do here because I was never able not to.

On the other hand, the manner in which I do "choose" to use it here...what does that have to do with the behaviors of otters?

What do otters know of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

I'm at a loss to understand your point about them.

You act as though I were trying to reconfigue the word "contraption" into this...thing. As though I can take it out of my pocket and say, "look everyone, a contraption".

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The extreme example of a schizophrenic who thinks he must get permission from a door before opening it or the OCD suffering who thinks he must wash his hands 20 times after dinner or he will suffer something terrible are examples where most of us would think it


Schizophrenia might be thought of as one of the mental illness "contraptions" the brain is able engender in any particular mind. A classic example of how the brain itself takes charge of "I" and chemically, neurologically compels it to think and feel and say and do any number of things it would never have chosen before the illness took root.

Unless of course even a disease free mind itself is doing only what nature compels it to do.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:In your world there are just contraptions and there is no way to know which is right.


No, in my world, "I" struggle to understand the extent to which I can ever really be certain of any of this. There are relationships that appear to true objectively for all of us. Relationships that appear to be entirely correlated year in and year out such that most of us speak of them as inhabiting the "either/or" world.

What I then ponder is whether in a determined universe even the is/ought world is just another manifestation of the either/or world.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I think that when you focus on what everyone should have as contraptions, you close a door on figuring out which ones you want for yourself, which make your life feel better. When you try to figure out what will make the poeple in Huntsville love eachother, you haven't even started to find out how to feel OK about yourself. I could be wrong, but I smell a lot of guilt in your incredulity that someone would nto focus on finding the perfect argument that all rational people will listen to and end conflicting goods. That seems like a cross to bear and that seems to me to come from Xiantity, however much you are not a theist.


So, is this or is this not just psycho-babble? Have you "captured" me here? Maybe.

But my concern with the people at Huntsville is the same as my concern with the people here: the extent to which they are themselves able to make that crucial distinction between what they believe is true or think they know "in their head" and what they are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe and know.

There are "the facts" about any particular execution. There is the fact of the execution itself. But what are the facts when the discussion shifts to capital punishment as a value judgment.

That is when I tumble down into my hole. Why? Because given how I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, it makes sense to.

But: How I have come to understand them is no less an existential contraption. I have no way myself in which to demonstrate that others ought to share my point of view.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I used to think that was the case. That really your approach was rage based, sticking it to them.


As near as I can figure myself out here [re motivation and intention] it somehow 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

But how would I even begin to go back over the course of my actual lived life and piece together all of the thousands upon thousands of existential variables that predisposed me here and now to note that?

It's like that scene from sex, lies and videotape...

Ann: I just wanna ask a few questions, like why do you tape women talkin' about sex? Why do you do that? Can you tell me why?
Graham: I don't find turning the tables very interesting.
Ann: Well, I do. Tell me why, Graham.
Graham: Why? What? What? What do you want me to tell you? Why? Ann, you don't even know who I am. You don't have the slightest idea who I am. Am I supposed to recount all the points in my life leading up to this moment and just hope that it's coherent, that it makes some sort of sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. You know, I was there. I don't have the slightest idea why I am who I am, and I'm supposed to be able to explain it to you?


I'm basically Graham here.

And I suspect that any number of folks react to my frame of mind here as they do because they suspect that I seem to be suggesting that they are too.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:33 am

I hope you have noticed that Faust is now saying similar things to what I have been saying about the way you engage in dialogue: that you shift the context of statements and do not actually (in many cases) respond to points made. And that after shifting the context, you then say that what we said 'failed', where this failure has nothing to do with our intentions or the context.

Phyllo has had similar reactions.

If you have the goal to gain some sense of 'how to live life' or how to resolve conflicting goods or any other issue via dialogue, you might want to notice that other people you claim to respect have similar reactions to your ability to actually read and listen to the people you are having a dialogue with.

You can tell each of us individually that 'really' we are afraid of your probing or we are objectivists or we are using psychobabble or we are serious philosophers or what we are saying are mere contraptions...

but perhaps noticing the pattern with you as the locus, you might want to consider that you are contributing to the reduced liklihood of finding solutions to your questions or learning something else, or being a worthwhile discussion partner.

Perhaps those are not actually your goals. Being a gadfly, trying to irritate people, having a pastime that is a distraction from pain...as a few other possibilities off the top of my head, are also human endeavors. If they or something other than having a real dialogue are your goals, well, steady ahead. Perhaps I am naive for taking your expressed goals as your real goals.

Steve Colbert with his lovely conservative character expresses conservative goals while actually, obviously, doing something else and having other goals.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:59 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I hope you have noticed that Faust is now saying similar things to what I have been saying about the way you engage in dialogue: that you shift the context of statements and do not actually (in many cases) respond to points made. And that after shifting the context, you then say that what we said 'failed', where this failure has nothing to do with our intentions or the context.

Phyllo has had similar reactions.

If you have the goal to gain some sense of 'how to live life' or how to resolve conflicting goods or any other issue via dialogue, you might want to notice that other people you claim to respect have similar reactions to your ability to actually read and listen to the people you are having a dialogue with.

You can tell each of us individually that 'really' we are afraid of your probing or we are objectivists or we are using psychobabble or we are serious philosophers or what we are saying are mere contraptions...

but perhaps noticing the pattern with you as the locus, you might want to consider that you are contributing to the reduced liklihood of finding solutions to your questions or learning something else, or being a worthwhile discussion partner.

Perhaps those are not actually your goals. Being a gadfly, trying to irritate people, having a pastime that is a distraction from pain...as a few other possibilities off the top of my head, are also human endeavors. If they or something other than having a real dialogue are your goals, well, steady ahead. Perhaps I am naive for taking your expressed goals as your real goals.

Steve Colbert with his lovely conservative character expresses conservative goals while actually, obviously, doing something else and having other goals.


Note to others:

What on earth does any of this have to do with the points I raised above?!!

Instead, I become the point. He "exposes" me. The pulls back the curtain and reveals what I am really all about here. Over and over and over again.

In other words, revealing far more what he is really all about in reacting to me.

You know, whatever that is. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:10 am

iambiguous wrote:
Note to others:

What on earth does any of this have to do with the points I raised above?!!
It has nothing to do with those points. It has to do with you. I think that is very clear. I always cite portions of your posts when I respond to them. Here I am obviously reacting to you and what you do here and the pattern of reactions to you from a number of people, including those you claim to respect.

I did read your 'response' to my earlier post with the otters. I saw no effort at all to try to understand the distinction between the two otters' behavior or why I react to your position the way I do. It was quite a bit of effort on my part to see if the communication around contraption could be better between us. I was trying to bridge the way we use the term 'contraption' and react to it. And you avoided actually dealing with the core example or asking for clarification. IOW no effort to show you understood me, to counter the specific points I raised or to interact with the ideas. As per usual you used it as a stimulus to restate your opinions.

IOW: You did not 'raise any points', you simply restated your position.

So, why did I focus on you, then.....?

Online discussion forums tend to be limited communities, but still, like any group that meets with some focus - book clubs, hiking groups, whatever - a person's behavior in the group may become the focus of conversation between that person and one or more others.

In individual posts, reacting to each of us, you claim that our reactions are really about us. You dismiss any criticism either as because we are afraid of the horror of your hole or as not answering your core questions, as if we were trying to do the latter. Once there is a pattern, sometimes people reevaluate. Hey, I have heard this same kind of criticism from a number of people. Perhaps there is some truth in what each of them says.

You don't seem to be a person who reevaluates. I have responded to other people in a similar way that I respond to you here. IOW posted focused on their patterns of communication. In every other case this lead to some kind of exchange where I noticed the other person reevaluate some of their patterns. They didn't necessarily agree, but they made clear attempts to understand and by the end did understand what I meant. Generally the reaction included the intention to consider the idea if not agreeing that their was something to it. This included pms.

Your responses are either winking to the gallery or flat denial or repeating yourself.

I don't expect much from you, anymore. But holding the mirror up to you entails my making the mirror. And the kind of patterns of denial, distraction and narcissism I see in you, are patterns I encounter irl. It is useful for me to notice and point them out. As I said elsewhere, not to you, there is a part of me that is still surprised, after all this time, that people behave the way you do. That naivte needs to be whittled away.

Think of yourself as an opportunity for me to really get that people can behave like you do, while at least presenting as having no idea themselves. And obviously dasein is involved here to a high degree in the why of the way you are and your unwillingness to even for a moment consider that someone else's criticism of your behavior might have merit.

I love the irony of you saying I did not respond to your latest post. You seem to think, as a rule, that restating your position is a response. I am not sure you can interact with other people's ideas and/or have an interest in doing so, which makes your participation in a philosophy forum...hm...strange.

And it really is funny watching you over and over, even in recent posts, criticize people for not solving your philosophical problems when their focus is on something else and the threads are not even yours.

It's a kind of narcissism which assumes that everything either satisfies your desires or fails to. That other people might have their own goals and contexts and interest seems unthinkalbe to you. I am sure you know this at the abstract level, that we have these things, but in every specific context, you are oblivious.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:08 am

And then Faust's last response to you in the problem of abstraction thread. Where he points out that it is a thread he started so the fact that it is not satisfying your needs is not his problem. Narcissism. And then that what you are asking near the end has already been explained. Poor reading or a lack of interest in reading what people actually write.

Now you can comment that I am 'revealing you' and imply to the gallery that 'we all know' what my real motives are. Or you could consider what I and others are writing.

When you wink to the gallery as if there is an obvious intepretation, you undermine all of what you are saying about dasein, since dasein leads to humans acting in an incredibly wide range of ways given their backgrounds, cultures, innate tendencies, personalities.

The 'oh, we all know what his actual motivations must be' winking to the gallery is both hypocritical - given what you repeat over and over here about how different we all are - and cowardly. Since you avoid openly making what would be a silly claim to knowledge.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:08 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Online discussion forums tend to be limited communities, but still, like any group that meets with some focus - book clubs, hiking groups, whatever - a person's behavior in the group may become the focus of conversation between that person and one or more others.


My "behavior" here revolves first and foremost around my quotes, film and music threads.

Mostly for all of the virtual friends I have bumped into over the years online,

Beyond that is my interest in probing the question "how ought one to live" in a No God world seeminly devoid of objective morality.

And then my interest in the bigger questions like determinism and why there is something instead of nothing.

So: If the manner in which I communicate my points here is not someone's cup of tea, they can simply move on to others.

Then stuff like this:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: In individual posts, reacting to each of us, you claim that our reactions are really about us. You dismiss any criticism either as because we are afraid of the horror of your hole or as not answering your core questions, as if we were trying to do the latter. Once there is a pattern, sometimes people reevaluate. Hey, I have heard this same kind of criticism from a number of people. Perhaps there is some truth in what each of them says.


Which particular posts relatings to which particular contexts? Cite actual examples of this so that we can bring these accusations down to earth. But let the examples revolve around the points that I make in the OP here.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: I don't expect much from you, anymore. But holding the mirror up to you entails my making the mirror. And the kind of patterns of denial, distraction and narcissism I see in you, are patterns I encounter irl. It is useful for me to notice and point them out. As I said elsewhere, not to you, there is a part of me that is still surprised, after all this time, that people behave the way you do. That naivte needs to be whittled away.


This is the part where I suggest that as a philosopher, you'll make a great psychiatrist.

My advice is that you give up on me and move on to psycho-analyzing others.

Perhaps even charge them.

And trust me: this sort of thing tells us far more about you anyway.

Among other things, it sounds like a personal problem. :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:02 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Online discussion forums tend to be limited communities, but still, like any group that meets with some focus - book clubs, hiking groups, whatever - a person's behavior in the group may become the focus of conversation between that person and one or more others.


My "behavior" here revolves first and foremost around my quotes, film and music threads.
Irrelevent. Are you really saying that my points about your behavior don't matter since most of your posts are in threads where other people do not participate?

Mostly for all of the virtual friends I have bumped into over the years online,

Beyond that is my interest in probing the question "how ought one to live" in a No God world seeminly devoid of objective morality.

And then my interest in the bigger questions like determinism and why there is something instead of nothing.

So: If the manner in which I communicate my points here is not someone's cup of tea, they can simply move on to others.

It's cute wording: 'they can simply...'

IOW you are not interested in how your behavior affects other people, even though you want to know how one ought to live.

But further, I said why I point out your behavioral patterns. They are fascinating. And the lengths you go to never acknowledge anything is also fascinating.

I could simply stop. But then, I don't want to.


Then stuff like this:

Which particular posts relatings to which particular contexts? Cite actual examples of this so that we can bring these accusations down to earth. But let the examples revolve around the points that I make in the OP here.
I've done that time and again. The implication here is that I just make general critiques, when I have time and again, with careful citation of instances where you are doing these things.

This is the part where I suggest that as a philosopher, you'll make a great psychiatrist.
Psychologist thank you. Not much of a fan of psychiatry. And sure, I do this in relation to you as you do in relation to me and others. But, unlike the roleo of a psychologist, I point out behavioral patterns in your interactions with others that either contradict your own philosophy and supposed goals, or end up functioning like trolling. Obviously your behavior does not matter to you despite your supposed interest in finding out how one ought to live. It's not therapy, it's a kind of single case research. And I am happy, right now, to have you as a test subject. Never seen anything like this.


And trust me: this sort of thing tells us far more about you anyway.
Among other things, it sounds like a personal problem. :wink:
[/quote]I'd say ' it sounds like that to you' but I don't even believe that. But nice implied objectivism. We all know what this means. LOL
The man who suggests that dasein can lead to a range of beliefs and motivations in a single person, always implies that there is only one motivation for each behavior, like mine here, when he is in conflict with someone. And this interpretation is one that either insults others or makes himself look good. Coincidentally, of course.

From the OP....
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

But of course when it comes to dealing with someone critical of you, their criticism can only come from one motivation, because when push comes to shove, you don't really believe your ideas around dasein. Or you can't be honest with yourself and others.

And as usual, the man who wants to know how one ought to live is not the slightest bit interested in how he is living, how it affects other people and what he might be doing interpersonally that is reducing effective communication, misrepresenting others and judging them incorrectly.

If you don't like it, don't read it, he says.
.
I certainly will stop reading it the day I understand what you are doing. I may stop for other reasons, if the repetition gets too boring. But so far, you still manage to pull out new and interesting ways to not acknowledge anything, to distract and complain and to find ways to make it seem like you are responding when you are not.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 02, 2019 6:11 pm

Either make this about the manner in which the OP is applicable to you -- with respect to "I" at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power -- or move on to others.

I get enough of the "accusations" and the "retorts" you dump on me above from the Kids.

You may well grasp my "behavioral patterns" here better than I do myself. But how does that make the points I raise in the OP any less applicable to you?

That's basically my aim here. To take those points and to situate them "out in the world" that we live in. Lives that often result in conflicts over value judgments.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 02, 2019 10:36 pm

Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise..... shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 02, 2019 11:40 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Iambiguous-
Same old stuff. I am going to cut off the lines we have gotten into since I keep meeting the same patterns. So, reset from zero. We will meet again in new spots and from here on out I will use the shorthand set out below. Should you actually respond and appear to have read what I wrote, I will then respond normally. Otherwise..... shorthand
SAOAR: Shifting away onus and responsibility.
NIST: Narcissistic Illogical Shift of Topic. Treating something as a failed solution to your core problems and/or bringing up your core topic as if it is a response when it is a change of topic.
RR: Redundant Request. That is requests for things already done which led nowhere.
SCMR: Self-congratulatory mind reading claims


Okay, it's settled then. We move on to others.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30161
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users