What is Dasein?

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:10 pm

I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it's a matter of understanding it, except to those who don't but do it anyway and it's kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS'ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don't know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS'ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.

I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven't really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I'm making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it's possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it's own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it's own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn't really explain what Dasein is; I'm still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don't even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don't feel ahead of you, either. It's an odd fluxuating concept from what I've seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.

Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:17 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I guess we're stuck then. I won't go up there and you won't come down here. At least not in the manner in which [in our own way] we have come to understand the distinction.

And unless we can figure out a way to meld the two approaches, I suspect we will just go on spinning our wheels.
The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck. :(


On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

Prismatic567 wrote:OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...


Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, "positive progress" revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition "in the future".

And we can predict anything about that, right?

And then [as I see it] another "intellectual contraption" expressing yet another "genral description" of human interactions:

Prismatic567 wrote:
    1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
    2. Loads of examples of the above drives
    3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology

I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.


And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:

Prismatic567 wrote:I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.


But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:

Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is "wage-slavery" in the form of one or another sweatshop.

Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.

So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your "progressive" assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?

And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?


Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:

Prismatic567 wrote:To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.


What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.

That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this "analysis" by way of noting it's relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.


Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:13 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic wrote:The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck. :(


On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman's books on 'Learned Optimism' and 'Learned helplessness', then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

If given the chance Seligman and I would vote for optimism. Consider the
following:
    • Pessimism encourages depression, therefore is associated with a weak
    immune system.
    • Pessimism feels down—blue, sad, worried or anxious.
    • Pessimism can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because pessimists tend
    not to create or face challenges, they fail more frequently—even when
    success is possible.
Seligman says, “The best thing one can say about a pessimist is that his fears
were founded.”

    • Optimism encourages happiness, therefore is associated with vitality.
    • Optimism feels up—hopeful, confident and cheerful.
I say, “The best thing one can say about an optimist is that she enjoyed the
challenge regardless of the outcome.”

https://solutionsforresilience.com/wp-c ... timism.pdf


I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

I find your response rather odd.

Note the typical saying'
1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.

2. Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.

Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].

Prismatic567 wrote:OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind...


Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, "positive progress" revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition "in the future".

And we can predict anything about that, right?
Note the above point why humanity must take note of the future.
Perhaps as an individual you may not care about the future, but you cannot enforce your views on the whole of humanity which will naturally flow with the trends from the past, i.e. progress optimally.

And then [as I see it] another "intellectual contraption" expressing yet another "genral description" of human interactions:

Prismatic567 wrote:
    1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
    2. Loads of examples of the above drives
    3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology

I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.


And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:

Prismatic567 wrote:I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.


But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:

Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is "wage-slavery" in the form of one or another sweatshop.

Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.

So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your "progressive" assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?

And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?
My example re Morality previously was confined to 'Chattel Slavery' and not to slavery in the broadest sense.

In the above, I was pointing to progress re continuous improvements in all faculties of knowledge, philosophy, technology and whatever.

The essence is 'net-positive progress' and this applies to whatever necessary including politics.



Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:

Prismatic567 wrote:To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other 'Rights' of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.


What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.

That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this "analysis" by way of noting it's relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.
This is why I have given you the case of progress in morality e.g. chattel slavery and there are many others [not mentioned yet].
In terms of progress in spirituality, note the introduction of monotheism from animism and non-theistic Buddhism from theism, etc.
In terms of knowledge, note the advancement of Scientific knowledge and other fields of knowledge.
I can list the progress from the past to the present and what is optimistically possible in the future re the whole spectrum of life but that is too tedious.

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.


Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.
It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.
Btw what do you meant by 'font'?

I have always presented the point of an inherent unavoidable existential dilemma which is very primal and I believe this is the mother of all dilemmas including the one [a subset] your are entangled in.

As I had pointed out, your 'dilemma' arise from an illusion and impossibility you have set for yourself, i.e. "ALL (100%) that is needed to be known .." which paralyze you from progressing forward. If you can move away from this illusion and impossibility, you will probably be able to get out of its ruminating loop.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:39 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic wrote:The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck. :(


On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don't live in the future.

You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman's books on 'Learned Optimism' and 'Learned helplessness', then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.


Again [and again and again and again]: What on earth are you talking about? How are Martin Seligman's Capital Letter Words applicable to conflicting human interactions derived from particular sets of conflicted goods? Here's a guy who argues that “pessimistic labels lead to passivity, whereas optimistic ones lead to attempts to change”. Okay, fine, but what specific change in what specific context based on what specific assumptions? And my own pessimism is rooted philosophically in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of these words:

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

Thus, only when folks like Seligman are willing to take their "general description" abstractions down off the skyhooks, and engage in the sort of discussion that I am aiming for, will the arguments become considerably more substantive.

You claim this:

Prismatic567 wrote: I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.


Yet [in my own opinion] you refuse to demonstrate this in an exchange revolving around a particular context in which particular value judgments come into conflict. Instead you have constructed this far more "progressive" world that may or may not actually unfold "in the future".

In other words, "here and now" it's all in your head.

And then we get to what I argue are basically intellectual contraptions like this:


Prismatic567 wrote: Note the typical saying'
1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.

2. Be Prepared
If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.

Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].


Perhaps you are right about me. But I can only conclude the things that I do based on what I construe to be a reasonable frame of mind. And my dilemma above seems reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of the components of which it consist: dasein and conflicting goods in a world sans God.

Sure, your "optimism" is always going to be more palatable for "humanity". But sooner or later actual rules of behaviors will be legislated. And then enforced. Should they be more in sync with the "liberals" or with the "conservatives", with the "capitalists" or with the "socialists", with the "individualists" or with the "collectivists", with the "big government" folks or with the "small government" folks?

Now, you have that all worked out in your head. Another ideal Republic perhaps. But what of those who share your craving for optimism but insist the Republic must go in an entirely different direction?

The parts that unfold out in the real world that has [time and again] been grimly, grusomely unfolding for thousands of years.

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more 'hygienic' and more healthier.


Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.


Prismatic567 wrote: It is not a matter of 'right' per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.


Note to others:

What "on earth" do you suppose he means by this? In other words, given your own interactions with others. Interactions in which conflicts occured over incompatable value judgments.

Is there a way in a Godless universe for philosophers to prescribe and proscribe behaviors deemed to the optimal or the only rational manner in which to interact?

That's the discussion I can't yank out of him. At least not so far.

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font [foundation] mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential "I" coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human community.
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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:07 pm

The Eternal Warrior wrote:I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it's a matter of understanding it, except to those who don't but do it anyway and it's kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS'ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don't know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS'ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.

I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven't really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I'm making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it's possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it's own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it's own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn't really explain what Dasein is; I'm still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don't even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don't feel ahead of you, either. It's an odd fluxuating concept from what I've seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.

Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?


Note to others:

Should I even bother to read this? :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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 23035
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby telos » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:49 am

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
telos
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:31 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:40 am

iambiguous wrote:I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:
When one has sunk into a hole so deep, it is not easy for them to get out of it.

In such a situation I don't believe anyone can yank you out of that hole.
I believe I have participated and contributed/suggested clues/recommendations and the only one who can get you out is yourself.

Often this 'stuck' thingy is due to a ruminating loop in the brain that keep going on the same groove like a broken record, repeating the same "I can't get out" million of times.
This is the same with those victims with a suicide loop, once they are into it there is no way to stop them committing suicide. If they are prevented in one instance, they will look for other ways to commit suicide.
It is the same with drug addiction and other compulsive disorders.

It is not going to be easy as many cannot go through the "cold turkey" phase. Best of luck to you and I hope you will encounter something that will break that chain/loop you are caught up with and take you off to another tangent.

Note this;
https://www.unstuck.com/advice/how-to-b ... you-stuck/
How to break the habits that get you stuck
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:17 pm

Recently approved post:
telos wrote:If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17027
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users