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 Meno_ » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:05 am

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Dasein really creates a problematic signal to noise ratio if you explain things in extremely vague, abstract language. It's hard enought to know what other people mean. Give examples, connect the abstract to the concrete.


Exactly!

On the other hand, what on earth are we to make of this out in the world of actual conflicting goods?



On the other hand, or this hand, abstraction is the necessary mode to evaluate the differences that later can be applied to conflicting goods.
Without such abstraction, conflicting goods could appear to BE conflicting. Both sides matter, and it is a matter of.conjecture which side predominates.

The apparent dissonance comes from taking sides before the construction is evaluated, which is not possible. But the results (a-priori) may bear them out, nevertheless.

A rush to judgement on an a-posteriori basis may not IN THEM SELVES be adequate as well.

Synthesis may be necessarily contingent at that.point.

I don't feel the need for an apology at this point.

Does such validate a Kantian 'should' agreement on the either/or issue?

The best thing is, the issue has not been validated absolutely, so either position, with or without ground/ or presumed ground. may prove to be determinedly valid.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:35 am, edited 4 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:34 am

But the important point [or, rather, the point I deem to be important] is that objective knowledge is within reach in that if the scientists/engineers do in fact understand the laws of physics objectively, the rocket ship goes up.

Either/or.
You decided to completely ignore my point that the "objective knowledge" comes from looking back with perfect 20/20 hindsight after a successful launch.

Thanks again.

Total narcissist.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:39 am

phyllo wrote:
But the important point [or, rather, the point I deem to be important] is that objective knowledge is within reach in that if the scientists/engineers do in fact understand the laws of physics objectively, the rocket ship goes up.

Either/or.
You decided to completely ignore my point that the "objective knowledge" comes from looking back with perfect 20/20 hindsight after a successful launch.

Thanks again.

Total narcissist.


First, I'll admit that you may well be making an important point here. A point such that if I am ever able to comprehend it as intended, I might learn something that is actually able to nudge me in a different direction with regard to the points I raise on this thread relating to the existential relationship between any particular individual's sense of identity and his or her accumulating value judgments.

But the reason that 20/20 hindsight is able to confirm that particular behaviors were "the right thing to do" is that they look at the rocket ship successfully lifting off from Earth. So, they have demonstrated that what they had calculated before the launch was in sync with Newton's laws of gravity. Now, sure, it may be possible that down the road other scientists and engineers will have grappled with and understood the laws of physics such that far more powerful rocket ships might come into existence.

Who really knows how far we can go with this sort of knowledge? But one thing we can generally count on is that the knowledge will by true for all of us.

One either builds a better, faster, safer rocket ship or one doesn't.

But that still leaves our conflicted political reactions to the question of whether space travel is something that we ought to pursue given the objections that can be raised.

How would 20/20 hindsight be calculated and then evaluated here?

So that we would know for certain whether we ought to launch the rocket or not.

As opposed to whether or not we can in fact launch it successfully.
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:50 am

phyllo wrote:
Note I have always ensure I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity not like Iambigous who is like a loose rocket out of control in space and going no where.
Iambig makes some important points ... which typically get lost because of his posting style.
Kant's own philosophy [Moral and Ethics - e.g. re respecting basic human dignity] would definitely prevent Kant from joining a demented nationalist party like the Nazi Party.
I wonder if that's true. I wonder what he would have done if he was "tested".
We won't ever know.
Kant's philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.

Heidegger's philosophy is open ended and what is 'good' is not precise, thus anything goes including Nazism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:16 am

iambiguous wrote:Here I've got you huffing and puffing, making me the issue. And, generally, when I reduce objectivists down to this, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which my own frame of mind is starting to be seen as a threat by them.

Unless of course I'm wrong. On the other hand I tend to thrive on polemics. So, sure, keep it coming.

I am not an 'objectivist' as repeated 'thousand times.'

At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.
In addition you have that stupid 'intellectual contraption' excuse on every point offered to keep yourself trapped in that hole. Thus I was 'smart' in avoiding the long discussion.

Now I only respond where I think it is to my interest, e.g. since I am reading Heidegger so I exercise my thoughts on that.

If you want anything related to Heidegger I suggest you reread BT and also the later-Heidegger [a different perspective from BT].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm

Kant's philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.
Kant seems to have lead a sheltered life. He didn't travel, he didn't marry, he didn't have children, he didn't struggle to work, he wasn't involved in warfare, etc.
His understanding of the world came from reading books, letters and what his circle of friends told him.

He wrote a theoretical philosophy/ethics which is not based on any personal experience. Is it a practical philosophy which is applicable in the real world?

Contrast Kant with the existentialist philosophers who had first hand experience with Nazi government and Nazi occupation.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:24 pm

But that still leaves our conflicted political reactions to the question of whether space travel is something that we ought to pursue given the objections that can be raised.
Notice that this is a question posed in the present tense - "ought we pursue it now". If you asked it in past tense - "ought we have pursued it", then you would have some results and criteria for answering the question. For example results like : created jobs, produced valuable technology applicable in other fields, increased understanding of the universe, access to mineral resources on other planets. An objective evaluation of the results is entirely possible.

The rocket question was in the past tense - "did the engineers understand Newton's principles". There was a simple criteria for success - a rocket that goes into space. In fact, that criteria is much too simple because any engineering project has to consider time, cost, reliability and safety in order to evaluate it as success or failure. These factors considerably muddy the water.

If you had asked the present tense question during design and construction - "do the engineers understand Newton's principles", then you would have been faced with the same conflict of opinions and uncertainty which you raise with respect to the "ought" of space travel.

And my point remains that there is a considerable difference in evaluations done looking at the past and looking at the present - the same difference as judging the decisions made in a football game after it is completed and making the decisions during play - what ought you have done versus what ought you to do.

One has to look at is/ought from a similar point of view or else one will find all sorts of differences which are nothing but illusions.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:41 pm

And simply,in other words, relating Kantian categories to Newtonian physics ex post facto , is trying to find a deterministic reductive link, where the corresponding existential intention somehow foretells rocket science.

That type of argument nowadays may be rightly said to be rocket science, but aside from the Chinese there were no signs. that anything like what the world has today would be in the works.

The essence of the argument consists in the relative difference and not the analogy between the two logical systems of arguing.

Relatively speaking. it presents an imminance which could not be transcended.retro-actively.

A note: this explanation is the only way, that I can 'transcend' the particular existential , intentionality, as they appear in various contexts. Otherwise this forum could go on circularly, indefinitely, with reductions into projected ad hominims, or unnoticed empirical , masking as contradiction and hidden tautology.


In regard to the question of the differance; and it is strictly a self edifying project, I must agree, on basis of the slight difference between Kierkegaard's aesthetic and Heidegger"d analytic, that I presume to further my umderdtanding.

Two levels exist : within that gap. (or without for that Matter, (as substance):

1 : the field of imminance
2: the field of transcendence

Transcendental philosophy cannot reduce below the level of metaphore, it can not reduce below toward the clarity of reason, therefore abstraction can not fill the gap between it and myth.

Imminance is the approach as the finctional derivative approaches an absolute, below the categories of aesthetic justification of reason. The Narcissus myth, can not be apprehended other then a pre-supposed allegory, because. (and this is important) the connections between the construction of perception have not to a substantial degree- overlap the conceptual and existential identity of the self.

Narcissus was punished for this presupposition, as was , the bringing of the fire: Prometheus.

The presupposition of Kierkegaard was defensive in placing God over aesthetic perception, but I think that political move, can be likened to the deliberate misunderstanding which Nietzsche was trying so desperately to avoid.

Their forward look could not ignite, or fire off the presumed understanding. The differance was greater then what he projected probabilistically into the future. The same with other 1st rate thinkers mentioned above.

The imminent and relative aesthetics could only be described in terms of metaphore. But metaphore, clarity and myth, were to become too differentially significant: as can be asserted by the coming philosophy of sign theory, of which modernists have trouble with the faire of connecting the dots: even between modern and post modern philosophic transitions of sign , signal, semantics & structure in the acquisition of meaning.

A modern German philosopher,Herbert Marcuse , author of The One Dimensional Man, tried to bypass understanding of reducing the transce dent field to the field of imminance, but his failure is obvious by looking at what happened to the new left during the 60's; such short cut simply, does not work.

There are profound relevant, down to earth examples of how this huge failure came about, but a structural analysis precludes any existentially reduced examples, since such, will change upon the analytic interpretation of them.

Aesthetic reduction , then will need to give primacy to eidectic reduction, and as such, produce a faux neo -aesthetic, which has the affect of immediate and total nihilization of structural
integrity.

Dali'd use of delusional, hyperbolic return to the myth (Narcissus); bypasses all of the metaphoric content that Nietzche took so much pain to bring across aphorismically.

Same with Jesus's Parables, most being lost on reason.

The Antichrist had some compensatory things to allude to, but the level of explanation appeared contradictory.

The immanence of contradictory visage, created the decisively abstract hyper realization of Dali, and the figurative representation suffered an imminent fall from gods grace into the middle ages' obsessipnal representation of saving grace through a dialectic of imminent revelation through the transcendence of the essemtialism. Maritain, a French Catholic modern philosopher tried to bring this across.

The false ideal-idolatry must have been present for Kierkegaard, and the faux body as well to modern French
philosophers , namely : Guattari and .........Deleuze

Extreme search for Dasein can reveal the basis for Heidegger"s difference, albeit sleight , from that of Kierkegaard.

For Dasein, for all practical purposes, the Self, through time can be substituted, and imminance is the shortening duration of the self through the effects of science. How does the impression of this immanence becoming an essential part of the self? Through repetition , eternal recurrence.
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:42 am, edited 5 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:17 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Kant's philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.

Heidegger's philosophy is open ended and what is 'good' is not precise, thus anything goes including Nazism.


More to the point [mine] imagine if Kant and Heidegger were able to discuss and debate their respective philosophies with regard to those human-all-too-human interactions revolving around lying or embracing one or another political agenda.

What of the distinction between Dasein philosophically and the manner in which I construe the meaning of "I", conflicting goods and political economy then? In other words, out in a particular world in which value judgments become dangerously out of sync?

Heidegger would take his own existential leap to fascism because, first of all, he was "thrown" into a world where it was there to be considered. What world was Kant thrown into? How were his own life and values shaped and molded by the "time and place" in which the bulk of his own personal experiences unfolded?

As for Heidegger's more "open ended approach" to "good" and "bad", how open-ended? How philosophically would he go about defending one moral/political narrative/agenda over another?

Or is philosophy basically of little importance here?
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
I am not an 'objectivist' as repeated 'thousand times.'


Here [of course] you make the assuption that only your own definition and meaning of "objectivist" is relevant.

Whereas I am more inclined to suggest that the meaning I ascribe to it revolves more around the manner in which I note [existentially] its actual use out in the world of conflicting assessments.

An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.

So, you are an objectivist in that sense [to me] or you are willing to acknowledge that your own assessments are true only to the extent that others are willing to embrace all of the assumptions upon which they are predicated.

But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger's philosopbhically assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.

Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger's philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.

Or, again, so it seems to me.

Prismatic567 wrote:At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.


In other words, if only I would think like you do about all of this, I wouldn't be down in the hole at all. Trust me, I get that part.

And if you really wish to help me up out of it, you will note how your own experiences with others [in which values came into conflict] did not involve your own "I" being down in the hole that I am in.
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:33 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.



In other words, if only I would think like you do about all of this, I wouldn't be down in the hole at all. Trust me, I get that part.
I don't think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.

A common sentiment around here.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:27 am

phyllo wrote:
Kant's philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.
Kant seems to have lead a sheltered life. He didn't travel, he didn't marry, he didn't have children, he didn't struggle to work, he wasn't involved in warfare, etc.
His understanding of the world came from reading books, letters and what his circle of friends told him.

He wrote a theoretical philosophy/ethics which is not based on any personal experience. Is it a practical philosophy which is applicable in the real world?

Contrast Kant with the existentialist philosophers who had first hand experience with Nazi government and Nazi occupation.
Note many scientists first came up with theories based on empirical evidence and other theories and are subsequently proven with testing. This can happen with Philosophical theories.

The question to ask is whether the Philosophical theories proposed are solid and sound.

Kant's theory on moral and ethics is very sound and practical.
If Kant had done any significant immoral acts, such acts would stick out and go against his theory on moral and ethics.

Heidegger's philosophy is very open ended and he did not emphasize on morality and ethics. Therefore Heidegger's philosophy [up to the point he resigned as a Nazi member] is not sound as far as morality and ethics [a major element of philosophy] are concern.
Even if Heidegger had not joined the Nazi Party, his philosophical views [highly absent of morality] with a sense of grandeur complex, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions , is not sound when considered within philosophy as a whole.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:54 am

phyllo wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.

In other words, if only I would think like you do about all of this, I wouldn't be down in the hole at all. Trust me, I get that part.
I don't think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.

A common sentiment around here.
Correct.

I have thrown in suggestions [not insistence] after sensing Iambiguous needed help to get out of his self-dug hole.

There was no serious philosophical theories to discuss as far as Iambiguous' thread is concerned. Whatever philosophical points Iambiguous introduced are half-baked, i.e. own twisted versions of Dasein, objectivists, etc.
What is pitiful is when one ends up with conclusions [resulting in mental tortures] from misinterpreted and wrong premises.

As I had stated, before one can use an existing term, e.g. "Dasein," one must at least understand [not necessary agree] what was the original meaning and use of Dasein used by Heidegger.
Same if one were to use the term 'objectivist' 'realist' 'idealist' etc. plus to explain if there are various meanings.

What is unique with Iambiguous' approach is his self-preservation discussion-killer, i.e. ALL suggestions and views to him are ultimately merely 'intellectual contraption.'
What is deceptive is Iambiguous' only pull out that card after many hours of discussion. If it is known from the start he has such a card in his pocket, it would be better not to start at all or just throw in time-saving scanty views.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:30 am

iambiguous wrote:But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger's philosopbhically assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.

Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger's philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.

Or, again, so it seems to me.

It is seem to you.

Forget about using the term 'objectivist' on me.
If you want to, then explain how my views fit into this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
or this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

What I am suggesting it you must understand [not necessary agree] what is Dasein from BT itself and not based on your own interpretations and subjective thoughts.
I am not insisting you agree with my assessment of what Heidegger's Dasein is. I am only offering my views based on references from BT. You should do the same, otherwise you must avoid using the term Dasein [commonly associated with Heidegger].

The point is from the perspective of Heidegger's Dasein in BT he specifically stated clearly he had no intention to bring it down to Earth. Note this in BT's "Purpose of This Book;"

    Our aim in the following treatise is to work out The Question of the Meaning of Being and to do so concretely.
    Our provisional aim is
    the interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of being. pg 1

In contrast note Kant's theoretical Critique of Pure Reason and his transition to the practical with his Critique of Practical Reason.

Heidegger did not extent his theory into the practical like what Kant did.

Obviously we can link Heidegger theory into practice but that would be a long story. In addition, the other person must be quite well verse in Heidegger's theory before venturing into the linkage.
I believe I have discussed this in some ways but all you do is whatever is proposed is merely intellectual contraption, including my suggestion that one must develop one's problem solving techniques and skills since all issues raised are problems.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:29 pm

phyllo wrote:
Kant's philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.
Kant seems to have lead a sheltered life. He didn't travel, he didn't marry, he didn't have children, he didn't struggle to work, he wasn't involved in warfare, etc.
His understanding of the world came from reading books, letters and what his circle of friends told him.

He wrote a theoretical philosophy/ethics which is not based on any personal experience. Is it a practical philosophy which is applicable in the real world?

Contrast Kant with the existentialist philosophers who had first hand experience with Nazi government and Nazi occupation.



Well put.

Really well put.
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:54 pm

And yet he was one of the most influential philosophers in history.

Addition: Its intriguing to speculate whether Kant's narcissism and the general narcissism of the self(Dasein) concise with the current fascination with 'collusion'. Here is a down to earth 'factual dilemma' hard to argue with.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:58 am

iambiguous wrote:An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.
Which makes you an objectivist. 1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position. 2) It is implicit in your long posting history that objectivists add to the problems already present in reality. This is made clear via mocking and sarcasm - more open in your mundane ironists thread. The winking to the gallery or to yourself is not the behavior of a doubter. You are certain yours is the objective position. You cannot assert this directly, at least not when called out, because that would be problematic. Your stance is objectivist.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:03 pm

phyllo wrote:
But that still leaves our conflicted political reactions to the question of whether space travel is something that we ought to pursue given the objections that can be raised.
Notice that this is a question posed in the present tense - "ought we pursue it now". If you asked it in past tense - "ought we have pursued it", then you would have some results and criteria for answering the question. For example results like : created jobs, produced valuable technology applicable in other fields, increased understanding of the universe, access to mineral resources on other planets. An objective evaluation of the results is entirely possible.


Yes, going into the future we will have different sets of facts that shift the discussion. But even if all of the above is accomplished by pursuing space travel, it doesn't make the objections of those opposed go away. There is still the possibility, for example, that, objectively, our space program will alert a far more advanced civilization of our existence. Prompting an invasion that wipes us out. And there is still the objective fact that, despite these accomplishments, thousands upon thousands of human beings right here on earth will die from starvation every single day. What might all of those billions of dollars accomplish in bringing those numbers down?

They're not called conflicting goods for nothing.

Though sure there may be an objective solution out there such that the pros and the cons come into sync optimally around the most rational frame of mind.

Just as with an issue like abortion there there may an optimal policy such that no baby is ever aborted and no woman is ever forced to give birth.

phyllo wrote: The rocket question was in the past tense - "did the engineers understand Newton's principles". There was a simple criteria for success - a rocket that goes into space. In fact, that criteria is much too simple because any engineering project has to consider time, cost, reliability and safety in order to evaluate it as success or failure. These factors considerably muddy the water.

If you had asked the present tense question during design and construction - "do the engineers understand Newton's principles", then you would have been faced with the same conflict of opinions and uncertainty which you raise with respect to the "ought" of space travel.


Again, you may be raising an important point here that I keep missing. But past, present or future generations, the rocket ship that is most in sync with all that can be known objectively about the laws of gravity, would be the most powerful, efficient and safe.

phyllo wrote: And my point remains that there is a considerable difference in evaluations done looking at the past and looking at the present - the same difference as judging the decisions made in a football game after it is completed and making the decisions during play - what ought you have done versus what ought you to do.


Yes, a shifting set of facts, sure. New helmets can be designed to create less brain injuries in those who play football. New rules can be adopted in turn.

But the controversy remains: https://www.piedmont.org/living-better/ ... g-football

And then there are those who argue that football itself is an ugly, brutal, savage sport that should not be tolerated in a civilized nation. Then all the value-laden arguments revolving around sports itself.

Or the arguments that swirl around youth sports pro and con: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... y-physical

Lots and lots of objective facts can be agglomerated by both sides. Before, during or after the game. But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?

And the point I raise on this thread revolves around the extent to which any particular individual's opinions are embedded more in the manner in which I construe the measure of "I" here as an existential contraption; or the extent to which, instead, this individual, using the tools of science and philosophy, can ascertain the most reasonable frame of mind.

phyllo wrote: One has to look at is/ought from a similar point of view or else one will find all sorts of differences which are nothing but illusions.


Right, differences argued among the sides of many, many moral conflicts that have rent the species over the centuries, can be distinguished as either illusions or not illusions.

And, if you want to know which is which, just ask the objectivists.
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:44 pm

phyllo wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.



In other words, if only I would think like you do about all of this, I wouldn't be down in the hole at all. Trust me, I get that part.
I don't think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.

A common sentiment around here.


What I want to get out of these exchanges?

Haven't I been abundantly clear in that regard?

I am down in this debilitating hole with respect to "I" out in the world of conflicting moral and political values. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

The objectivists on the other hand seem able to sustain a comforting and consoling psychological bent by convincing themselves that they are in sync with a sense of self that reflects more the "real me" in sync in turn [re God, ideology, Reason, Nature etc.] with a world in which there are obligatory distinctions to be made by all rational men and women between right and wrong behaviors.

You become "one of us" or "one of them". Which I then root in what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism" here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

All I can then do is to note the extent to which others construe the meaning of an "objectivist" differently. And note the manner in which they have come to understand "I" out in a world where their own values/behaviors have come into conflict with 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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:I don't think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.

A common sentiment around here.
Correct.

I have thrown in suggestions [not insistence] after sensing Iambiguous needed help to get out of his self-dug hole.


Yes, here we are clearly stuck.

You insist that only when I grasp -- epistemologically, technically -- the manner in which Heidegger conveyed the meaning of Dasein philosophically in BT, am I then able to join you in a discussion regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially out in a particular context, out in a particular world here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas I am far more interested in the manner in which you make a distinction between Dasein and dasein insofar as you are able to convince me that you understand my point regarding the nature of the hole that "I" am in.

And that only seems possible [to me] when you are able to convey [descriptively] the manner in which you are not down in that hole yourself [here and now] when your own values/behaviors come into conflict with others.

In my view, this is really what you are all about here:

Prismatic567 wrote: There was no serious philosophical theories to discuss as far as Iambiguous' thread is concerned. Whatever philosophical points Iambiguous introduced are half-baked, i.e. own twisted versions of Dasein, objectivists, etc.
What is pitiful is when one ends up with conclusions [resulting in mental tortures] from misinterpreted and wrong premises.


Huffing and puffing. Making me the issue. Only not as a polemicist. Instead, you appear more [to me here] as genuinely contemptuous of all those who, in the end, don't see things your way.

But that can only be my own subjective/subjunctive reaction in and of itself.

Most crucially of all, in my view, is this need on your part to yank the exchange back up into the stratosphere of "serious philosophical theory".

Prismatic567 wrote: What is unique with Iambiguous' approach is his self-preservation discussion-killer, i.e. ALL suggestions and views to him are ultimately merely 'intellectual contraption.'


In discussing Dasein there are any number of objective facts that can be demonstrated when the arguments revolve around the Heidegger's workman and his tools.

Or when the arguments revolve around what the Nazis either did or did not do with respect to the Final Solution to the "Jewish problem" back then.

But what is the nature of Dasein when the arguments shift to either choosing or not choosing to beome a Nazi? When the arguments shift to either demonstrating that genicide is necessarily moral or immoral in a No God world?

My quandary is embedded in the assumption that in a No God world, any and all human behaviors can be rationalized as either good or bad depending on which particular set of assumptions you make about the "human condidtion".

I don't have access to the comfort and the consolation embodied in the "real me" in sync with one's moral obligation as a rational human being.

Instead, "I" here -- my "I" -- is fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I have come to think myself into believing that this...

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.

...is a reasonable frame of mind out in the is/ought world.
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: 26533
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:45 pm

What I want to get out of these exchanges?

Haven't I been abundantly clear in that regard?
You ask for help but you don't take any.

You ask for answers but you don't accept the answers as given. Instead you insist that the answers must be formulated in one specific way. (As if you already know the answer.)

What you want seems to be diversion - to write and write and write - until the end.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:52 pm

But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?
I'm sure that I have written at least a dozen posts about the ridiculous, stupid and useless concept of 'optimal'.

And here you are bringing it up again.

Okay, worry about 'optimal' if it makes you unhappy.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:56 pm

phyllo wrote:
But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?
I'm sure that I have written at least a dozen posts about the ridiculous, stupid and useless concept of 'optimal'.

And here you are bringing it up again.

Okay, worry about 'optimal' if it makes you unhappy.




That is the pseudo ideal I have been writing about, without any down to earth examples, if anyone cared to notice. But then sorrily, my language soared above Olympic heights.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:01 pm

Meno_ wrote:
phyllo wrote:
But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?
I'm sure that I have written at least a dozen posts about the ridiculous, stupid and useless concept of 'optimal'.


And here you are bringing it up again.

Okay, worry about 'optimal' if it makes you unhappy.




That is the pseudo ideal I have been writing about, without any down to earth examples, if anyone cared to notice. But then sorrily, my language soared above Olympic heights.



But ironically, a pseudo ideal is perfectly legitimate in an era of collusion! In order to retain a nihilistic point of view ! That is what a neo clacissism consists of.(or its derivative-retro romanticism)
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:10 pm

The 'optimal' is beyond human ability. Even if you have the 'optimal' you can't know that it is the 'optimal'. It's impossible to identify.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]