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 iambiguous » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:37 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Back again to this:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
We need to analyze the above in more details.

There are known unknowns.
We need to take into account the following'
    1. Logically possible and logically impossible.
    2. Empirical possible and empirical impossible
.

We can have known unknowns which are empirical possible, like possible human-liked aliens in a planet billions of light years away - very slim chance but nevertheless still empirically possible.
But there is no way there can be known unknowns which are empirically impossible within an empirical-rational reality. Example 'God exists' which is an empirical impossibility and based on very crude primal reasons and ultimately irrational.


Yes, but isn't this just another intellectual contraption by and large?

On the other hand, it is possible to explore the "unknowns" by attaching an analysis to the actual physical universe that we live in.

For example, consider these two documentaries from the Science Channel:

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... ark-energy

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... ark-matter

Now, you tell me:

1] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why there is something instead of nothing?
2] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why it is this particular something?
3] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding any possible teleological component in the cosmos?
4] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?

Sure, you can attempt to "analyze" all of this "in more detail". But eventually in my view you do reach the parts that we don't even know that we don't even know yet.

Then what?

Prismatic567 wrote:

Whatever you want to claim as real [dasein, absolute "I"] it has to be empirically known by empirical proofs or it is empirically possible but yet unknown [no objective knowledge of it yet].


All I can do here is to note the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

...and then to ask others to note in turn how this assessment -- an admitted existential contraption -- is or is not in sync with their own understanding of "I" out in the is/ought world.

Prismatic567 wrote: I think the whole lot of points above can be reduced to your concern that the "here and now" cannot be 'there and then' in the future.
Note Hume's, one cannot get an "is" [empirical now] from an 'ought' [future from reason].
I believe this is very obvious that whatever is now [even justified knowledge] cannot guarantee it will happen in the future, Hume again, i.e. no certainty the Sun will rise tomorrow morning!


Yes, that cruicial distinction between "cause and effect" and "correlation". But there are things about "I" -- time and place of birth, genetic factors, particular sets of experiences and relationships, access to particular knowledge etc., that would seem to be facts.

In other words, things encompassed in what some call "objective reality". And while we have no way in which to know for certain that in the future these facts about us will remain unchanged, most of us are probably willing to bet that they will stay the same.

My focus is always on "I" in the is/ought world. Not the fact of our behaviors but the manner in which the choices that we do make are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Thus when you note that...

Prismatic567 wrote: Therefore you cannot use the above is/ought dilemma to counter that what I proposed will not happen in the future.
What is of concern is whether what I proposed is feasible or not based on the arguments and evidence I have provided.


...I have no clear understanding as to what "on earth" you are talking about.

My point is that there are behaviors chosen by particular men and women relating to a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. Once the behaviors are chosen they become facts. Or, rather, as close to objective truth as we are now able to fathom given Hume's skepticism above.

And only when you are willing to anchor your "arguments and evidence" in an experience that you have had with others --- one able to illustrate your point --- is it likely to become clearer to me.

As for the rising sun, it either will or it will not rise tomorrow. But who is going to argue that the sun has a moral obligation to rise tomorrow?


Prismatic567 wrote: My proposals [empirically possible] presented here is based on existing proven practices based on evidence, trends, objective principles, and other valid knowledge. I believe it will produce positive results for humanity in the future [when the possible conditions are established].


Back again to this:

...you and I "here and now" of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around [in the future] to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

So it is always relatively safe to speculate about the future. It's like the global warming debate. Most scientists are making dire predictions about the future -- about the there and then. But the folks who profit in sustaining the way things are in the here and now have their own "experts" willing to argue the opposite. Now, 50 to 100 years from now the tale will be told. But where will most of us be then?

And that's before we get to those who care only about what's in it for them now. The moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy for example.

In a world sans God any behaviors can be rationalized.

Prismatic567 wrote: Note the saying,
"If you failed to plan, you planned to fail"
Planning is a critical skill for all humans and humanity, what I have done is planning for the future now so that we can expect positive results in the future. I believe this the one of the intended purpose of philosophy-proper.


Still, the planning here will always revolve around what you have come to construe as "positive results".

So pertaining to issues like...

hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of governemnt, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parential rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.

....what constitutes "positive results"?

How would arguments here not basically become political prejudices encompassed in narratives embodied in dasein revolving around conflicting goods?

Prismatic567 wrote: Are you advising I should not propose such plans at all since what I proposed will not change anything now for you [especially] and everyone.


On the contrary, I ask you to choose a conflicting good and then propose such a plan. And then note how you aim to bring it about given that others will almost certainly object.

Prismatic567 wrote: As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.


Are these or are these not basically "general descriptions" attached vaguely to an imagined context "in their heads"?

Prismatic567 wrote: Nope, the above are extracted from very deep reflection of what is going in reality and they are to guide humans in living optimally in accordance to their circumstances.


Okay, pertaining to Gita ["a 700 verse Hindu scripture in Sanskrit that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata"], one must "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action".

Note then for us particular contexts in which this would be applicable. Note particular interactions in your own life in which this frame of mind became manifested in the behaviors that you chose.

How would something like this...

Prismatic567 wrote: Those who are mindful of the above put them into practice [represented by neural competence] in their daily life as spontaneous and as much as possible. To be spontaneous, one has to practice years of meditation and other necessary exercises. One can psycho-analyze it but that is only temporary.


...be described in terms of your own spontaneous behaviors? What does this mean given the conflicts that we are all familiar with right here between the conservatives and the liberals?

What lesson would they learn from the Bhagavad Gita so as to make these fiercely contentious debates go away?

Prismatic567 wrote: What we need to do is to do one's best and optimize at the present. For those who has concern for humanity, they could contribute whatever they can to create a better world for future generations.


From my frame of mind, given a Godless universe [an assumption], the "best of all possible worlds" is to eschew both "might makes right" and "right makes might" and embrace one of another form of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, an ever evolving political tug of war based on moderation, negotiation and compromise.

At least to the extent that this is applicable to a world owned and operated by those of wealth and power.

There's no getting around political economy. Or, given the historical evolution of human interactions to date, there doesn't appear to be.
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: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:00 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
No matter how much we come to control our sexual impulses there are almost certainly going to be unwanted pregnancies
For example a woman chooses to become pregnant becomes pregnant but then something in her life compels her to change her mind

Thus the conflicting good revolving around the alleged natural rights of the unborn and the political rights of the pregnant woman never really
go away. Now with an omniscient and omnipotent God we get Divine Justice here. Not so with mere mortals. Well aside from the No God folks
who insist that philosophically ethically objectively we can reason ourselves to an optimal justice

There will always be conflict revolving around moral issues where freedom of choice exists


If freedom of choice does exist. In fact one of the unknowns that scientists are struggling to come to grips with is in understanding the extent to which the mindful matter embodied in the human brain either is or is not just one more component of a universe in which everything unfolds only as it ever could have. Given the so-called "immutable laws of matter".

But, really, how do we wrap our minds around that knowing that this would include the very exchange that we are having?

surreptitious75 wrote: Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible for God can only be one of these not both.


And how exactly would this be demonstrated empirically, materially, phenomenologically?

In other words, the part where any particular "analysis" is able to connect the dots to any particular existing God.

Sooner or later [with propositions like this] we reach the part where words are left to dangle over a world that is largely imagined "in our head".

surreptitious75 wrote: We cannot reason ourselves to optimal justice because that concept is entirely meaningless


Well, to the extent that it remains basically a conceptual fabrication -- think Plato's Republic or Marx's stateless Communist contraption -- the meaning would seem to be derived solely from either agreeing or not agreeing with the definition and the meaning given to the words encompassing the concepts themselves.

Though here Marx's attempt, in being rooted in a so-called "scientific" analysis of the historical, organic evolution of the means of production, might arguably be construed as more persuasive.
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: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:50 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Back again to this:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
We need to analyze the above in more details.

There are known unknowns.
We need to take into account the following'
    1. Logically possible and logically impossible.
    2. Empirical possible and empirical impossible
.

We can have known unknowns which are empirical possible, like possible human-liked aliens in a planet billions of light years away - very slim chance but nevertheless still empirically possible.
But there is no way there can be known unknowns which are empirically impossible within an empirical-rational reality. Example 'God exists' which is an empirical impossibility and based on very crude primal reasons and ultimately irrational.


Yes, but isn't this just another intellectual contraption by and large?
It is intellectual but not a "contraption."
Note all theories and objective knowledge MUST start with the intellectual, e.g. a hypothesis awaiting proofs and justifications.
Don't use 'contraption' unless you can prove my point is 'contrapted' or irrational.

On the other hand, it is possible to explore the "unknowns" by attaching an analysis to the actual physical universe that we live in.

For example, consider these two documentaries from the Science Channel:

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... ark-energy

https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows ... ark-matter
You missed some of my critical points.

It is only possible to explore the "unknown" IF the "unknown" is empirically possible.
It is possible for 'unknown' empirical-based aliens existing somewhere billions of lights years away. So it just a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to prove its empirical existence.
There is no issue with the two links above because they are empirical-Scientifically extrapolated possibilities until evidence are provided.

There cannot be an unknown squared-circle in existence anywhere because it is logically and empirically impossible.

The idea of a God is thought possible, not very logical [pseudo-rational] and it is an empirical impossibility.


Now, you tell me:

1] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why there is something instead of nothing?
2] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why it is this particular something?
3] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding any possible teleological component in the cosmos?
4] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?

Sure, you can attempt to "analyze" all of this "in more detail". But eventually in my view you do reach the parts that we don't even know that we don't even know yet.
I have the answers to all the above questions, analyzed in much details and it is long story.
What is critical is one must always ask 'Is the thing an empirical possibility?"
As for "conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?" this has to be dealt with via the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Kant [not deontic] has the answers which has to be complemented with the core principles of the favorable Eastern Religions.

we don't even know that we don't even know yet

I stated above, we must differentiate what is empirical possible [infinite] from what is empirical impossible [especially] the transcendentally illusory.

Note Meno Paradox which is relevant here;
"How do you know what it is when you do not even know it in the first place?"
If is it empirical impossible do not even try, but understand its psychological basis and the associated pros and cons of believing in an illusory 'empirical impossibility'
Thus, Wittgenstein,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)
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 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:51 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Whatever you want to claim as real [dasein, absolute "I"] it has to be empirically known by empirical proofs or it is empirically possible but yet unknown [no objective knowledge of it yet].


All I can do here is to note the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

...and then to ask others to note in turn how this assessment -- an admitted existential contraption -- is or is not in sync with their own understanding of "I" out in the is/ought world.
I believe the issue relation to "I" can be reasonably understood within the Philosophy of the Self from Western and Eastern Philosophy perspectives.

As of IS/OUGHT which is notably related to Hume, I believe this is very relevant and reasonably resolved within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics perspective.
Another IS/OUGHT issue is, no OUGHT-God from Empirical-IS.
Any other critical perspectives?

Yes, that crucial distinction between "cause and effect" and "correlation". But there are things about "I" -- time and place of birth, genetic factors, particular sets of experiences and relationships, access to particular knowledge etc., that would seem to be facts.

In other words, things encompassed in what some call "objective reality". And while we have no way in which to know for certain that in the future these facts about us will remain unchanged, most of us are probably willing to bet that they will stay the same.

My focus is always on "I" in the is/ought world. Not the fact of our behaviors but the manner in which the choices that we do make are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Back again to this:

...you and I "here and now" of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around [in the future] to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

So it is always relatively safe to speculate about the future. It's like the global warming debate. Most scientists are making dire predictions about the future -- about the there and then. But the folks who profit in sustaining the way things are in the here and now have their own "experts" willing to argue the opposite. Now, 50 to 100 years from now the tale will be told. But where will most of us be then?

And that's before we get to those who care only about what's in it for them now. The moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy for example.

In a world sans God any behaviors can be rationalized.

You seem to be concern where will us will be then? That is an obvious but that should not stop us from contributing what is possibly positive to humanity for the future as so many had done in the past, some even risking their lives.
I have stated a few times, as being a responsible citizen of the world, what I am proposing is towards the future based which obviously at this point we have no choice by start a discussion. That is the only way, can you think of another.
One thing we can add is to expedite the process via various techniques, given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in various fields.


Prismatic567 wrote: Note the saying,
"If you failed to plan, you planned to fail"
Planning is a critical skill for all humans and humanity, what I have done is planning for the future now so that we can expect positive results in the future. I believe this the one of the intended purpose of philosophy-proper.


Still, the planning here will always revolve around what you have come to construe as "positive results".

So pertaining to issues like...

hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of governemnt, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parential rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.

....what constitutes "positive results"?

How would arguments here not basically become political prejudices encompassed in narratives embodied in dasein revolving around conflicting goods?
What is "positive result" will be dealt within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Reducing death from violence from 100,000 to 1,000 within 10 years is obviously 'positive results' to the majority [exceptions are the psychopaths]. There are many evident 'positive' results and the marginal ones can be continually debated to arrive at consensus.
In addition the plan is the increase the average Moral Intelligence [MQ] 10 folds from the current average MQ.

Prismatic567 wrote: Are you advising I should not propose such plans at all since what I proposed will not change anything now for you [especially] and everyone.


On the contrary, I ask you to choose a conflicting good and then propose such a plan. And then note how you aim to bring it about given that others will almost certainly object.

Re conflicting 'good' or 'evil' I had stated these issues can be resolved reasonably within the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics [need details, depth, can be very complex]. There must be real change in the Moral Quotients of the average person supported by effective change in the relevant parts of the brain.
The Eastern Spiritualities has embarked on this based on the 'black-box' approach but in the future humanity would be able to improve based on targeted improvements within the brain.

Prismatic567 wrote: As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.


Okay, pertaining to Gita ["a 700 verse Hindu scripture in Sanskrit that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata"], one must "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action".

Note then for us particular contexts in which this would be applicable. Note particular interactions in your own life in which this frame of mind became manifested in the behaviors that you chose.

Note I mentioned 'flow' somewhere,

In positive psychology, flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.
In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.

Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, the concept has been widely referenced across a variety of fields (and has an especially big recognition in occupational therapy), though the concept has existed for thousands of years under other guises, notably in some Eastern religions.[1] Achieving flow is often colloquially referred to as being in the zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)


Example are, re good fruits - if one is in an activity that has a result, one should not divert one's attention to the potential positive results.
If one is one is competing for an individual sports, say a tennis player, the principle is concentrate on each point of the game and do not think [divert attention] of the prize money and what one can do with that $1 million.
If one has acted and fear arise for some reason, one should not allow fears or any negative emotions to control one's mind and thus ruminate on this to the extent of being paralyzed from doing effective actions to resolve the fear.
Note the mother of all fears - from inevitable mortality.

Prismatic567 wrote: Those who are mindful of the above put them into practice [represented by neural competence] in their daily life as spontaneous and as much as possible. To be spontaneous, one has to practice years of meditation and other necessary exercises. One can psycho-analyze it but that is only temporary.


...be described in terms of your own spontaneous behaviors? What does this mean given the conflicts that we are all familiar with right here between the conservatives and the liberals?

What lesson would they learn from the Bhagavad Gita so as to make these fiercely contentious debates go away?
As we can see the conservatives and the liberals are too attached to their fruits of actions, their ideologies and its promises resulting in their committing a wide range of evils onto each-other and others.
To resolves the problem of the conservatives and the liberals there is a need to rewire their brain [not possible now but in the future] to the extent they will view themselves as human beings working within Team Human synergically for the well-being of all.

Prismatic567 wrote: What we need to do is to do one's best and optimize at the present. For those who has concern for humanity, they could contribute whatever they can to create a better world for future generations.


From my frame of mind, given a Godless universe [an assumption], the "best of all possible worlds" is to eschew both "might makes right" and "right makes might" and embrace one of another form of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, an ever evolving political tug of war based on moderation, negotiation and compromise.

At least to the extent that this is applicable to a world owned and operated by those of wealth and power.

There's no getting around political economy. Or, given the historical evolution of human interactions to date, there doesn't appear to be.
As I had stated before your views above is based on the past, present and near future without any quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place.
You are accepting the status quo.

Meanwhile I am note the existing problems and evil in the World and dig deep into analyzing its root causes of the current problems and make proposals to resolve the problem optimally in time, thus not possible now or next 10 years but beyond 50 years.

Do you claim you have analyzed all of humanity's existing problems deep enough?
I dare say, I have with emphasis on the evils from some religions.

Nb: apologies, with such long replies, there is a tendency of silly mistakes from me, no time to do refine editing.
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 surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:30 am

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
There will always be conflict revolving around moral issues where freedom of choice exists

If freedom of choice does exist. In fact one of the unknowns that scientists are struggling to come to grips with is in understanding the extent to which the
mindful matter embodied in the human brain either is or is not just one more component of a universe in which everything unfolds only as it ever could have

Were the Universe entirely deterministic then freedom of choice could not exist and morality would be objective and absolute as it could not be anything else
However given the fact that morality is subjective or inter subjective then there exists a degree of free will even if the choice in question is only a binary one


surreptitious75 wrote:
Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible for God can only be one of these not both

And how exactly would this be demonstrated empirically or materially or phenomenologically

Were God omniscient he would know how to kill himself but were he omnipotent he would
not be able to. Omniscience and omnipotence are also incompatible with omnibenevolence


surreptitious75 wrote:
We cannot reason ourselves to optimal justice because that concept is entirely meaningless

Well to the extent that it remains basically a conceptual fabrication - think Platos Republic or Marxs stateless Communist contraption - the meaning would
seem to be derived solely from either agreeing or not agreeing with the definition and the meaning given to the words encompassing the concepts themselves

Justice is only perfect in theory not in practice because like all Utopian ideals it does not translate very well to reality. So as desirable as it may
be it can never reach a state of perfection but to make it as perfect as possible is however entirely achievable so this should be the ideal instead

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:41 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Justice is only perfect in theory not in practice because like all Utopian ideals it does not translate very well to reality.
So as desirable as it may be it can never reach a state of perfection but to make it as perfect as possible is however entirely achievable so this should be the ideal instead

The point in bold is the essence of Kant's Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

What is critical is how to ground the 'Perfect' to be used as a fixed goal post to guide ethical practices for a never ending continual improvements toward an unachievable ideal.

Another point is Morality and Ethics is a personal endeavor within the individual's brain.
Justice [linked to Morality and Ethics] belongs rightly to Politics, i.e. the legislature and judiciary.
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 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:04 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: It is intellectual but not a "contraption."
Note all theories and objective knowledge MUST start with the intellectual, e.g. a hypothesis awaiting proofs and justifications.
Don't use 'contraption' unless you can prove my point is 'contrapted' or irrational.


From my perspective, an "intellectual contraption" is an argument/analysis the truthfulness of which is predicated on:

1] the definition and the meaning given to the words that encompass the argument/analysis itself
2] the manner in which the definition and the meaning given to the words come to encompass a set of assumptions that are either more or less detached from whatever the objective/essential/metaphysical/ontological/teleological/epistemological etc., understanding of Existence actually is.

But, okay, call it instead an "intellectual invention" if you will. I prefer the word "contraption" because that connotes to me just how rickety it almost certainly must be compared to all that one really would need to know in order to definitively nail down the relationship between, among other things, God/No God, Existence, human reality and "I".

"Here and now" in other words.

That's why I generally react to them as one or another psychological rendition of the points I raised on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Again, it's not what you know that counts so much as that you know. That you think you know. That's the part where "I" gets to be anchored to one or another rendition of "one of us".

Prismatic567 wrote: It is only possible to explore the "unknown" IF the "unknown" is empirically possible.
It is possible for 'unknown' empirical-based aliens existing somewhere billions of lights years away. So it just a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to prove its empirical existence.
There is no issue with the two links above because they are empirical-Scientifically extrapolated possibilities until evidence are provided.

There cannot be an unknown squared-circle in existence anywhere because it is logically and empirically impossible.

The idea of a God is thought possible, not very logical [pseudo-rational] and it is an empirical impossibility.


In all honesty, I'm not at all clear as to what any of this has to do with my point that your point either does or does not account for all that any mere mortal would need to know about the entirety of Existence in order to assert the things that you do.

Sure, it is gratifying enough that there are folks like you and I who at least make the attempt at grappling with these enormous imponderables. But let's not kid ourselves that infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like us are ever likely to grasp Reality itself.

In other words, to the extent that we do not have the evidence necessary to account for such things as QM, dark matter, dark energy, the possible existence of a multiverse, an explanation for how everything there is burst into existence out of nothing at all etc., we will no doubt both go to the grave believing what we do, yet unable to demonstrate that what we do belive is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

Instead, we have countless folks here, there and everywhere else with hopelessly conflicting and contradictory accounts of all that one must master in order to be in sync with an Understanding Of Everything.

And the fact that this never, ever seems to change down through the centuries merely confirms to me that the whole point with them is in fact that they know and not what they know.

Now, you tell me:

1] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why there is something instead of nothing?
2] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why it is this particular something?
3] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding any possible teleological component in the cosmos?
4] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?

Sure, you can attempt to "analyze" all of this "in more detail". But eventually in my view you do reach the parts that we don't even know that we don't even know yet.

Prismatic567 wrote: I have the answers to all the above questions, analyzed in much details and it is long story.

What is critical is one must always ask 'Is the thing an empirical possibility?"


A long story that will all be confirmed some day "in the future". And something being an "empirical possibility" if it is in sync with your argument/analysis of What This Means.

Prismatic567 wrote: As for "conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?" this has to be dealt with via the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Kant [not deontic] has the answers which has to be complemented with the core principles of the favorable Eastern Religions.


All I can do here is to request of the Kantians and the advocates of Eastern philosophies/religions to bring their own arguments/analysis/assumptions down to earth.

How are they not entangled in my dilemma above? How are their own value judgments not embodied in the political prejudices of dasein? How are their own value judgments able to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of "conflicting goods"? How are their own moral narratives not entangled in the historical evolution of "political economy"?

They will either go there or they will not.

Prismatic567 wrote: Thus, Wittgenstein,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)


Note to those who embrace this:

How is this relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here? What must we remain silent regarding, given the fact that if we do choose to interact with others, we must do so within one or another social, political and economic framework [rooted in one or another historical and cultural context] such that particular behaviors will either be prescribed or proscribed?

In other words, for all practical purposes, how is what Wittgenstein conveys here even possible?

And is not Wittgenstein's argument itself not embedded in turn in that gap between what he thought he knew and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to judge it as either more or less rational?

More or less rational than what?!

Or it might be argued that this is more indicative of "early Wittgenstein". That the "later Wittgenstein" took a more "practical" approach to language.
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: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:59 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: It is intellectual but not a "contraption."
Note all theories and objective knowledge MUST start with the intellectual, e.g. a hypothesis awaiting proofs and justifications.
Don't use 'contraption' unless you can prove my point is 'contrapted' or irrational.


From my perspective, an "intellectual contraption" is an argument/analysis the truthfulness of which is predicated on:

1] the definition and the meaning given to the words that encompass the argument/analysis itself
2] the manner in which the definition and the meaning given to the words come to encompass a set of assumptions that are either more or less detached from whatever the objective/essential/metaphysical/ontological/teleological/epistemological etc., understanding of Existence actually is.

But, okay, call it instead an "intellectual invention" if you will. I prefer the word "contraption" because that connotes to me just how rickety it almost certainly must be compared to all that one really would need to know in order to definitively nail down the relationship between, among other things, God/No God, Existence, human reality and "I".

"Here and now" in other words.

That's why I generally react to them as one or another psychological rendition of the points I raised on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Again, it's not what you know that counts so much as that you know. That you think you know. That's the part where "I" gets to be anchored to one or another rendition of "one of us".
I would prefer to label it as 'an argument'
- i.e. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. -Google Dict.
- In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. - wiki.

Instead of lumping the whole thing as a contraption [as you have defined] I would prefer you show me where are am wrong with the individual premises or the whole argument.

Prismatic567 wrote: It is only possible to explore the "unknown" IF the "unknown" is empirically possible.
It is possible for 'unknown' empirical-based aliens existing somewhere billions of lights years away. So it just a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to prove its empirical existence.
There is no issue with the two links above because they are empirical-Scientifically extrapolated possibilities until evidence are provided.

There cannot be an unknown squared-circle in existence anywhere because it is logically and empirically impossible.

The idea of a God is thought possible, not very logical [pseudo-rational] and it is an empirical impossibility.


In all honesty, I'm not at all clear as to what any of this has to do with my point that your point either does or does not account for all that any mere mortal would need to know about the entirety of Existence in order to assert the things that you do.

Sure, it is gratifying enough that there are folks like you and I who at least make the attempt at grappling with these enormous imponderables. But let's not kid ourselves that infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like us are ever likely to grasp Reality itself.

In other words, to the extent that we do not have the evidence necessary to account for such things as QM, dark matter, dark energy, the possible existence of a multiverse, an explanation for how everything there is burst into existence out of nothing at all etc., we will no doubt both go to the grave believing what we do, yet unable to demonstrate that what we do belive is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

Instead, we have countless folks here, there and everywhere else with hopelessly conflicting and contradictory accounts of all that one must master in order to be in sync with an Understanding Of Everything.

And the fact that this never, ever seems to change down through the centuries merely confirms to me that the whole point with them is in fact that they know and not what they know.


Your point;
.. does not account for all that any mere mortal would need to know about the entirety of Existence in order to assert the things that you do.

I believe this is a moot point.
I had stated before, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know the fact of the "entirety of Existence".
There is no need for me to know the "entirety of Existence" to assert the things that I did.

As with Science we first establish our conclusion based on the evidence, i.e. the known. If we want to extend [hypothesize and speculate] beyond the known be must leverage [philosophically and rationally] on the known to the possible to be known, i.e. empirical possibility.

The most one can do is to hypothesize and speculate the what is empirically possible and NEVER what is empirically impossible, e.g. God, Soul, the Whole Universe, square circle.
Your expectation of "entirety of Existence" is an empirical impossibility, i.e. moot.
Pls confirm you understand what I meant by "empirical impossibility" else we are talking pass each other.

Prismatic567 wrote: As for "conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?" this has to be dealt with via the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Kant [not deontic] has the answers which has to be complemented with the core principles of the favorable Eastern Religions.


All I can do here is to request of the Kantians and the advocates of Eastern philosophies/religions to bring their own arguments/analysis/assumptions down to earth.

How are they not entangled in my dilemma above? How are their own value judgments not embodied in the political prejudices of dasein? How are their own value judgments able to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of "conflicting goods"? How are their own moral narratives not entangled in the historical evolution of "political economy"?

They will either go there or they will not.
In principles, the Kantians and the advocates of Eastern philosophies/religions are very down to Earth, but unfortunately at present only a minority practice it accordingly.

Note the Buddha introduced a generic Problem Solving Technique that is applicable to ALL problems in life.
Buddha's 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

It is the same with Kant.

How are they not entangled in my dilemma above?

Adopt the generic Problem Solving Technique, you will get to your answer at least in theory.

Prismatic567 wrote: Thus, Wittgenstein,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)


Note to those who embrace this:

How is this relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here? What must we remain silent regarding, given the fact that if we do choose to interact with others, we must do so within one or another social, political and economic framework [rooted in one or another historical and cultural context] such that particular behaviors will either be prescribed or proscribed?

In other words, for all practical purposes, how is what Wittgenstein conveys here even possible?

And is not Wittgenstein's argument itself not embedded in turn in that gap between what he thought he knew and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to judge it as either more or less rational?

More or less rational than what?!

Or it might be argued that this is more indicative of "early Wittgenstein". That the "later Wittgenstein" took a more "practical" approach to language.
For example, your
expectation of the "entirety of Existence" to be a 'known.'
This is beyond the limit of language and I had asserted it is moot.
Thus the necessary 'silence'.
So one will have to approach whatever the problem from another direction.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." (Tractatus 7)
was related the Early Wittgenstein and it more relevant for the later-Wittgenstein where this is expounded further in his 'On Certainty'.
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 » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:11 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated before your views above is based on the past, present and near future without any quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place.
You are accepting the status quo.

Meanwhile I am note the existing problems and evil in the World and dig deep into analyzing its root causes of the current problems and make proposals to resolve the problem optimally in time, thus not possible now or next 10 years but beyond 50 years.


The points you raise on this post seem to revolve around a set of assumptions that [in my view] do not adequately rebut the objections that I have made in this exchange. And [it seems] that my own arguments [revolving around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] are only effectively challenged when one accepts that "in the future" your "quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place" is in fact confirmed to be prescient.

Yet what would that world begin look like with respect to one of the issues that I noted above?

Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, the same conflicting arguments have been made about these very same issues. And now we have all of the new conflicting arguments that revolve around interacting with others in our "postmodern" world. A whole new set "one of us" vs. "one of them" conflagrations.

Prismatic567 wrote: Do you claim you have analyzed all of humanity's existing problems deep enough?


But my point is that folks on both sides [on all sides] of these issues claim to have accomplished just that. They have all gone "deep enough" to insist that their own frame of mind "here and now" reflects either the optimal or the only rational understanding of any particular one of these conflicted value judgments.

Just ask them.

Instead, I note right from the start that my own conjectures here are little more [to me] then just another "existential contraption" grappling to understand the lived relationship between "I", conflicting value judgments and the role that wealth and power plays in enforcing any particular narrative/political agenda within any particular community of human beings out in any particular world historically, culturally, experientially.

And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, I may well [yet again] become involved in a new experience or a new relationship or come upon a new argument [here for example] that [yet again] reconfigures my frame of mind reconfiguring my behaviors.

But how "on earth" can I possibly know that any particular combination of these variables results in my having finally come to understand the meaning [or the purpose?] of Existence itself? In other words, I still clearly recognize the enormous gap that must exist between what I think I know here and now and all that would need to be known in order to grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself.

Or to grasp the extent to which the is/ought world can be in sync with the either/or world. Or the extent to which human autonomy itself is even a factor in all of this. Let alone the place that God/No God fits in.

I merely point out that this is all likely to be applicable to you 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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:20 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: As I had stated before your views above is based on the past, present and near future without any quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place.
You are accepting the status quo.

Meanwhile I am note the existing problems and evil in the World and dig deep into analyzing its root causes of the current problems and make proposals to resolve the problem optimally in time, thus not possible now or next 10 years but beyond 50 years.


The points you raise on this post seem to revolve around a set of assumptions that [in my view] do not adequately rebut the objections that I have made in this exchange.
My points above are not assumptions per se [fixed for the purpse] but rather they are empirical possibilities that can happen in the future based on past trends.

And [it seems] that my own arguments [revolving around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] are only effectively challenged when one accepts that "in the future" your "quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place" is in fact confirmed to be prescient.

Yet what would that world begin look like with respect to one of the issues that I noted above?

It not prescient, but rather my forecasts are based on real existing trends from past years and the current trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in many fields of advance knowledge. [there is a need to go into details to understand its full range].

One good example of moral progress is there is no consensus to ban slavery [literally] and made it illegal in ALL Nations in contrast to what happened 100 years ago and prior. Something is obviously changing and happening in the brains of those who were able to bring such banning of slavery as Laws.

I believe with the Human Genomic Project, the Human Connectome [Brain mapping] Project and other advances, humanity will be able to understand what is going on inside the brain and find ways to progress expeditiously and optimally in a fool proof basis.
I don't know about you but I am optimistic because I make it a point to follow up with the latest research & advances in Science and Technology as much as possible.

Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, the same conflicting arguments have been made about these very same issues. And now we have all of the new conflicting arguments that revolve around interacting with others in our "postmodern" world. A whole new set "one of us" vs. "one of them" conflagrations.


Prismatic567 wrote: Do you claim you have analyzed all of humanity's existing problems deep enough?


But my point is that folks on both sides [on all sides] of these issues claim to have accomplished just that. They have all gone "deep enough" to insist that their own frame of mind "here and now" reflects either the optimal or the only rational understanding of any particular one of these conflicted value judgments.

Just ask them.
I can't agree with the above.
Around 90% of the 7+ billion are theists and the majority have not gone 'deep enough' except to rely of 'only God knows everything'. This is very superficial and God is illusory.

Instead, I note right from the start that my own conjectures here are little more [to me] then just another "existential contraption" grappling to understand the lived relationship between "I", conflicting value judgments and the role that wealth and power plays in enforcing any particular narrative/political agenda within any particular community of human beings out in any particular world historically, culturally, experientially.

And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, I may well [yet again] become involved in a new experience or a new relationship or come upon a new argument [here for example] that [yet again] reconfigures my frame of mind reconfiguring my behaviors.

But how "on earth" can I possibly know that any particular combination of these variables results in my having finally come to understand the meaning [or the purpose?] of Existence itself?
In other words, I still clearly recognize the enormous gap that must exist between
    1. what I think I know here and now and
    2. all that would need to be known in order to grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself.

Or to grasp the extent to which the is/ought world can be in sync with the either/or world. Or the extent to which human autonomy itself is even a factor in all of this. Let alone the place that God/No God fits in.

I merely point out that this is all likely to be applicable to you too.
I believe the 'enormous gap' is very relative.
In addition what is the fixed upper limit based on to calculate the difference, i.e. Gap.
Nevertheless, this 'enormous gap' [as perceived] can be narrowed by researching and reflecting on the necessary knowledge as much as possible.
Personally [as I have done] it is possible to understand [pending not necessary agree] and grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself and its associated existential problems.

Do you claim you have covered and understand [not necessary agree with] the necessary range of knowledge but find no rational answers?
I believe it is possible to find, understand and grasp the answers to 'all' the problematic questions relative to you which you have raised for yourself, at least in theory.
Perhaps you have not covered enough grounds of knowledge, reflect deeply to understand [not necessary agree with] their essential elements and principles.

Note those who pursue to deep deeper and deeper often change their philosophical views, example, rationalist Kant to empirical-rationalist Kant, early-Wittgenstein and later-Wittgenstein, early and later [the Turn] Heidegger, and others?

Theory is theory, but how to live up to the good ones is another set of more difficult issues.

The point is, in practice there will always be conflicting 'goods' but as the Gita advised, one should not be psychologically [emotionally] attached to any of them.
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 Dec 25, 2017 8:22 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:If freedom of choice does exist. In fact one of the unknowns that scientists are struggling to come to grips with is in understanding the extent to which the mindful matter embodied in the human brain either is or is not just one more component of a universe in which everything unfolds only as it ever could have


Were the Universe entirely deterministic then freedom of choice could not exist and morality would be objective and absolute as it could not be anything else
However given the fact that morality is subjective or inter subjective then there exists a degree of free will even if the choice in question is only a binary one


You are asserting here that human morality is the subjective/intersubjective embodiment of some degree of free will. But how would we go about ascertaining beyond all doubt that this is in fact true? Is this debate not in turn embedded in that ubiquitous gap between what any particular individuals [like you and I] think they know about the relationship between morality and human autonomy and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know?

Until an understanding of Existence itself is grasped such that it can be demonstrated to be applicable to all of us, each of us as individuals is only taking a leap of faith to a particular assessment predicated on a particular set of assumptions.

Here and now, I really don't see any reasonable manner in which to avoid the part that revolves around all the unknown unknowns. All those things that we don't even know we don't know.

I readily acknowledge this with respect to the main components of my own "intellectual contraption" here. And, on this thread in particular, the part about dasein.

My dasein revolves largely around human interactions in the is/ought world. But, in a wholly determined universe, isn't that just an illusion?

surreptitious75 wrote:
Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible for God can only be one of these not both

And how exactly would this be demonstrated empirically or materially or phenomenologically


surreptitious75 wrote: Were God omniscient he would know how to kill himself but were he omnipotent he would
not be able to. Omniscience and omnipotence are also incompatible with omnibenevolence


The difficulty I have here is that you are talking about an entity that has not actually been demonstrated to in fact exist. At least not to me. I have no way in which to determine if the manner in which you speak of omniscience and omnipotence here is applicable to any actual extant God.

Instead, He is just a hypothetical creation "in your head". He exists entirely in a world of words. As you imagine a God, the God being or not being omniscient/omnipotent.

Compare that to a context in which we are discussing someone like Adolph Hitler. We might disagree regarding his own knowledge and power, but the man did in fact exist historically so there is always the possibility that we can accumulate a set of more or less demonstrable facts about him.

surreptitious75 wrote: Justice is only perfect in theory not in practice because like all Utopian ideals it does not translate very well to reality. So as desirable as it may be it can never reach a state of perfection but to make it as perfect as possible is however entirely achievable so this should be the ideal instead


Yes, and what I do here is to suggest that the manner in which I broach and assess dasein on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 -- is applicable to the manner in which any particular one of us have come to understand justice out in the particular world in which we interact with others.

How, in other words, are they not entangled in my dilemma above as this pertains to a particular context in which conflicting goods tend to revolve around very, very different moral/political/deontological renditions of justice?

The objectivist renditions in particular.

That is always my main focus in these threads. On those folks who seem far more compelled to insist that they know; rather than on whatever it is that they claim to know.

This is the part which seems [to me] embedded far more in human psychology than in theology or philosophy or political discourse. The part, in other words, embedded in the points that I raise on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
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: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:46 am

Das Daseiendes steht gründlich zum Ende der Welt wann die Welt richtig besteht, sonst Alles gibt's nur wann es 's gibt.

"Dasein is the thing in itself"
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7517
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:19 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Das Daseiendes steht gründlich zum Ende der Welt wann die Welt richtig besteht, sonst Alles gibt's nur wann es 's gibt.

"Dasein is the thing in itself"
Which reference?
Note Kant had demonstrated the thing-in-itself is an illusion, i.e. never real.

I am aware Schopenhauer claimed the thing-in-itself is real and exists as WILL, but I don't think Heidegger made such a glaring claim.
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 Fixed Cross » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:19 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Das Daseiendes steht gründlich zum Ende der Welt wann die Welt richtig besteht, sonst Alles gibt's nur wann es 's gibt.

"Dasein is the thing in itself"
Which reference?
Note Kant had demonstrated the thing-in-itself is an illusion, i.e. never real.

I am aware Schopenhauer claimed the thing-in-itself is real and exists as WILL, but I don't think Heidegger made such a glaring claim.

You did it again.

You are not aware of very much. Certainly not of the faculty, in some people, that allows them to think on their own behalf.
In any case you insect, don't quote me again.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7517
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:28 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
The points you raise on this post seem to revolve around a set of assumptions that [in my view] do not adequately rebut the objections that I have made in this exchange.
My points above are not assumptions per se [fixed for the purpse] but rather they are empirical possibilities that can happen in the future based on past trends.


These are assumptions that, from my own frame of mind, still reflect the gap I note between what you think you know here and now about "empirical possibilities that can happen in the future" and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself in order to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

My problem is that, sure, maybe what you think here and now is in fact what all rational men and women would need to think in turn...but I am simply unable to grasp it myself.

But how would either one of us then go about persuading others [including philosophers and scientists] that we can in fact demonstrate that our own assumptions are in sync with everything one would need to know about the existence of Existence itself?

That's the boat we are all afloat in "cosmologically". I merely speculate on those parts which seem more clearly in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above: interactions in the is/ought world.

And [it seems] that my own arguments [revolving around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] are only effectively challenged when one accepts that "in the future" your "quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place" is in fact confirmed to be prescient.

Yet what would that world begin look like with respect to one of the issues that I noted above?

Prismatic567 wrote: It not prescient, but rather my forecasts are based on real existing trends from past years and the current trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in many fields of advance knowledge. [there is a need to go into details to understand its full range].

One good example of moral progress is there is no consensus to ban slavery [literally] and made it illegal in ALL Nations in contrast to what happened 100 years ago and prior. Something is obviously changing and happening in the brains of those who were able to bring such banning of slavery as Laws.


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?

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe with the Human Genomic Project, the Human Connectome [Brain mapping] Project and other advances, humanity will be able to understand what is going on inside the brain and find ways to progress expeditiously and optimally in a fool proof basis.
I don't know about you but I am optimistic because I make it a point to follow up with the latest research & advances in Science and Technology as much as possible.


So then the question becomes this: The extent to which the latest scientific research and advances shape and mold your own value judgments or the extent to which you shape the latest scientific research and advances to fit your own political prejudices regarding all the issues I raised above.

These issues:

"hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of government, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parental rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc."

Note for us where the latest scientific research and advances is taking us with respect to a few of them.

In other words, I still clearly recognize the enormous gap that must exist between
    1. what I think I know here and now and
    2. all that would need to be known in order to grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself.

Or to grasp the extent to which the is/ought world can be in sync with the either/or world. Or the extent to which human autonomy itself is even a factor in all of this. Let alone the place that God/No God fits in.

I merely point out that this is all likely to be applicable to you too.


Prismatic567 wrote: I believe the 'enormous gap' is very relative.


What it is relative to [in my view] is the gap between all that any one particular individual claims to know about Existence and all that any one particular individual would need to know about Existence in order to demonstrate that in fact he or she does know all there is they need to know.

And I'm here to admit that this is almost certainly not even close to being me. And that all of the many objectivists out there who do claim that, through either God or political ideology or philosophy or one or another an understanding Nature, they have figured it all out are almost certainly anchoring "I" psychologically to one or another comforting and consoling "foundation".

Though I have no illusion that many here will own up to this gap I speak of. After all, I need but think back on all of the years that I was able to rationalize it away myself. And a part of me clearly wishes that somehow I could figure out a way to do it again.

So, for me, it comes down less to who is right and wrong here, and more to who is able to "think" themselves into believing something that is either more or less comforting and consoling. The mystery embedded in human psychology embedded further in the mystery of mindful matter in a universe where it appears that the overwhelming preponderance of matter is entirely mindless.

Sans God in other words.

Prismatic567 wrote: Do you claim you have covered and understand [not necessary agree with] the necessary range of knowledge but find no rational answers?


No, I note that here and now I can't even imagine [anymore] how there are those able to convince themselves that they have. That they actually can accomplish this given the gap between "I" and All There Is.

And then I remind myself yet again that I was once one of them. And for many, many years.

But now what? Given what I think I know is true today.

In other words, this...

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe it is possible to find, understand and grasp the answers to 'all' the problematic questions relative to you which you have raised for yourself, at least in theory.


...is only a philosophical contraption to the extent that you can convince yourself that "in theory" it is possible. Otherwise I basically construe it as the embodiment of the points I raised here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

But then I figure, what the hell, I've got nothing to lose and everything to gain if I can bump into someone in places like this able to actually provide me with the "comfort and consolation" that comes with thinking like they once did. So, sure, give it your best shot.

Unless, of course, I end up tugging you down into the same fucking hole that I'm in....

Then it all comes down to the extent to which your actual "lived life" [the circumstances in which you interact with others from day to day] offers the sort of distractions that puts the part about "living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion" into perspective.

After all, if the life you live here and now is bursting at the seams with all manner or satisfaction and fulfillment, all this "philosophical" stuff can more readily be shunted aside.

Prismatic567 wrote: The point is, in practice there will always be conflicting 'goods' but as the Gita advised, one should not be psychologically [emotionally] attached to any of them.


Let's just say that out in the real world this is often easier said than done. Why? Because out in the real world conflicting moral and political agendas can result in policies/laws that make the lives of actual flesh and blood human beings either heaven or hell.

Just consider the reactions of liberals to conservatives and conservatives to liberals here at the Society, Government, and Economics forum at ILP.

It's easy enough to argue that one should not become "emotionally attached" to these issues. But it's a lot harder to actually accomplish this when you see the policies of those you oppose become the law of the land. And then these laws make your own life and the lives of those you love more miserable.

For example, the suffering that can occur when a new law results in tens of thousands of children losing their health insurance can precipatate all manner of strong emotional reactions.

Not easily quelled "philosophically", "theoretically", "spiritually".
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: 25552
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:34 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Das Daseiendes steht gründlich zum Ende der Welt wann die Welt richtig besteht, sonst Alles gibt's nur wann es 's gibt.

"Dasein is the thing in itself"
Which reference?
Note Kant had demonstrated the thing-in-itself is an illusion, i.e. never real.

I am aware Schopenhauer claimed the thing-in-itself is real and exists as WILL, but I don't think Heidegger made such a glaring claim.

You did it again.

You are not aware of very much. Certainly not of the faculty, in some people, that allows them to think on their own behalf.
In any case you insect, don't quote me again.
This is merely a discussion, I presume you are inviting views as this OP I raised. I was only participating. Btw, you are the 'intruder' into this OP that I had raised.
If you don't want me to respond, there no issue I can avoid your posts easily. I suggest you don't posts in the threads I raised. There is no need to use those dehumanizing words and goading other to do the same.
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 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:26 am

Prismatic567 wrote:It not prescient, but rather my forecasts are based on real existing trends from past years and the current trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in many fields of advance knowledge. [there is a need to go into details to understand its full range].

One good example of moral progress is there is no consensus to ban slavery [literally] and made it illegal in ALL Nations in contrast to what happened 100 years ago and prior. Something is obviously changing and happening in the brains of those who were able to bring such banning of slavery as Laws.


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?
I understand there are many perspective to what is slavery.
My focus is not on slavery [could be another example] but rather on the progressive trend since the past.

There is an implicit 'machinery' that drive this progressive trend and humanity objective is to abstract the principles of this 'machinery' or 'model' to convince [with sound justifications and personal experiences] the average person to adopt in the future to solve whatever problems they encounter.


iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
The points you raise on this post seem to revolve around a set of assumptions that [in my view] do not adequately rebut the objections that I have made in this exchange.
My points above are not assumptions per se [fixed for the purpse] but rather they are empirical possibilities that can happen in the future based on past trends.


These are assumptions that, from my own frame of mind, still reflect the gap I note between
    1. what you think you know here and now about "empirical possibilities that can happen in the future" and
    2. all that any mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself

in order to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

My problem is that, sure, maybe what you think here and now is in fact what all rational men and women would need to think in turn...but I am simply unable to grasp it myself.

But how would either one of us then go about persuading others [including philosophers and scientists] that we can in fact demonstrate that our own assumptions are in sync with everything one would need to know about the existence of Existence itself?

That's the boat we are all afloat in "cosmologically". I merely speculate on those parts which seem more clearly in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above: interactions in the is/ought world.


I note whatever problems, question and doubts you raised and where I have contributed my views, you will raised more problems, problems and more problems. I think this is typical of philosophical discussions. Note Russell on the Purpose of Philosophy;

Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; ....


Since the issue is Philosophical Problems, problems and problems, I would suggest one adopt a generic Problem Solving Technique to deal with any problem.

Here is one I will suggest;

Buddha's 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&hilit=4NT

The four noble truths (4NT) can be summarized as follows:
    1.The truth of dukkha (Problems)
    2.The truth of the origin of dukkha
    3.The truth of the cessation of dukkha
    4.The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha -8FP*



The Basic Problem Solving Technique
    1. Defining the problem.
    2. Generating alternatives.
    3. Evaluating and selecting alternatives.
    4. Implementing solutions.
    5. Feedback and Control

The 4NT-8FP when transposed as a conventional problem solving technique is as follows;

    1. Defining the problem.
    NT1 -The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
    NT2 -The truth of the origin of dukkha -12 Nidanas

    2. Generating alternatives.
    NT3 -The truth of the cessation of dukkha -Reverse 12 Nidanas

    3. Evaluating and selecting alternatives.
    NT4 -The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha -8FP

    4. Implementing solutions.
    8FP -Right View, Intention, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Concentration, Mindfulness

    F5. Feedback and Control
    Right View - Is the problem resolved?
    Yes, -seek improvement
    No, -Check 1 and repeat process

*8FP = Noble Eightfold Paths
    THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH
    1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)
    2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)
    3. Right Speech (Samma vaca)
    4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)
    5. Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)
    6. Right Effort (Samma vayama)
    7. Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)
    8. Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)

How to Use the above Generic Problem Solving Model;
Thus for any of those philosophical problem [or any] you raised on our discussion, you will need to define the problem precisely then put the problem through the whole model from process 1 to 5.

Take for example the problem [gap] you raised, i.e.

These are assumptions that, from my own frame of mind, still reflect the gap I note between
    1. what you think you know here and now about "empirical possibilities that can happen in the future" and
    2. all that any mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself

in order to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.


On running through the generic model with the above, I think the most likely bottle-necks [before others] would be the following;

    1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)
    2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)
    4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)

In order to have the Right Understanding and Right thought one would need to take the Right Action to cover and exhaust if possible the relevant knowledge to understand [not necessary agree] to be in a position to tackle the problem.

In this case one would need to produce a relevant Bibliography for reading and researching to facilitate one to resolve the problem more effectively.

Within Right Action, it may not merely be restricted to reading but one need action to rewire one's brain. For example, for more wider and complex problems computer from the older days, 1980 and prior will not be effective. We need computer will more modern motherboard, CPU and relevant OS and other softwares.

Try and run through your favorite problem via the above model.
Not all elements of the 8FPs will apply in all cases.
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 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:02 pm

I understand there are many perspective to what is slavery.
My focus is not on slavery [could be another example] but rather on the progressive trend since the past.

There is an implicit 'machinery' that drive this progressive trend and humanity objective is to abstract the principles of this 'machinery' or 'model' to convince [with sound justifications and personal experiences] the average person to adopt in the future to solve whatever problems they encounter.
"Progressive trend"?

On could say that the progressive trend is towards greater enslavement, not with chains, but with marketing, media control, financial control and surveillance. That's enslavement by governments and corporations, rather than individual slave owners.

We are probably less free now than we were 50 years ago.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:02 am

phyllo wrote:
I understand there are many perspective to what is slavery.
My focus is not on slavery [could be another example] but rather on the progressive trend since the past.

There is an implicit 'machinery' that drive this progressive trend and humanity objective is to abstract the principles of this 'machinery' or 'model' to convince [with sound justifications and personal experiences] the average person to adopt in the future to solve whatever problems they encounter.
"Progressive trend"?

On could say that the progressive trend is towards greater enslavement, not with chains, but with marketing, media control, financial control and surveillance. That's enslavement by governments and corporations, rather than individual slave owners.

We are probably less free now than we were 50 years ago.
I used the example of 'slavery' in the sense below,

wiki wrote:Slavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1]
A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery.


Based on the above sense, there is a progressive trend. Get it?

On could say that the progressive trend is towards greater enslavement, not with chains, but with marketing, media control, financial control and surveillance. That's enslavement by governments and corporations, rather than individual slave owners.

We are probably less free now than we were 50 years ago.
You are going off point. I understand the above but the above is not the 'slavery' I was referring to, i.e. chattel slavery where a person is owned, bought and sold as a de jure form of property.

In any case, whatever the problem, humanity must address them effectively and efficiently using the above generic problem solving techniques.
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 James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:10 am

In the USA today, everyone is "owned" by their debts, contracts, medical and insurance taxes. And those are all traded by corporations. The reigns that bind you are passed from one corporate entity to another.

And that is exactly what "legalized chattel slavery de jure" is.

The "Free Country" is in reality, a Slave Country, Satanically ruled by deceit.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:02 am

James S Saint wrote:In the USA today, everyone is "owned" by their debts, contracts, medical and insurance taxes. And those are all traded by corporations. The reigns that bind you are passed from one corporate entity to another.

And that is exactly what "legalized chattel slavery de jure" is.

The "Free Country" is in reality, a Slave Country, Satanically ruled by deceit.
Don't insult your intelligence while thinking you are smart.

You are not comparing on apples to apples basis.
I was referring to 'chattel slavery' hundreds of years ago and the progressive trend to the present where such are eliminated [legally] with a consensus to made chattel slavery' illegal in all Nations. There is obvious progress in this case.

It is obvious since people are potential beasts many will play a 'cat and mouse' game to promote their selfish interests. Whatever the problem, the inherent progressive trend within humanity will make attempts to resolve those problems. Note anti-trusts laws, and other preventive steps to cover various loop holes, etc.

I agree the rogues at present are usually one step ahead of the good people. However I am optimistic given the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be above to expedite progress and achieve net-gains in the future.
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 James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Don't insult your intelligence while thinking you are smart.

You have been doing that since you have arrived. Why shouldn't I be allowed?

Prismatic567 wrote:I was referring to 'chattel slavery' hundreds of years ago and the progressive trend to the present where such are eliminated [legally] with a consensus to made chattel slavery' illegal in all Nations. There is obvious progress in this case.

And it was pointed out to you that the slavery has merely become more deceptive, not less. The only "progress" has been in making your task masters more isolated from disturbance.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:34 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Don't insult your intelligence while thinking you are smart.

You have been doing that since you have arrived. Why shouldn't I be allowed?

Prismatic567 wrote:I was referring to 'chattel slavery' hundreds of years ago and the progressive trend to the present where such are eliminated [legally] with a consensus to made chattel slavery' illegal in all Nations. There is obvious progress in this case.

And it was pointed out to you that the slavery has merely become more deceptive, not less. The only "progress" has been in making your task masters more isolated from disturbance.
I stated you are not comparing apples with apples and you still cannot get it. :o

If I compare the progress in the control of a specific disease of polio since 1,000 years ago to the present, you will ask 'what about the potential of flesh eating bacteria' or more heart attacks, or some other diseases.
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 James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:43 am

You pointed specifically to "chattel slavery"
Prismatic567 wrote:wiki wrote:
Slavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1]
A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery.

I have been using exactly what YOU quoted as what you meant.

Once again, in order for you to make yourself appear right, you end up having to refute your own statements. You have to lie in order to try to be seen as holy.

Now you are claiming that you only meant the slavery that involves visible chains, whips. and dungeons, like anyone would care.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:02 pm

You are going off point.
Actually it's very much on point. For every person saying that something is progressive, there is another person saying that it is regressive. One person says things ought to be one way and another person says things ought to be another way.

Why is it so? Because people are the product of different environments and experiences and so they evaluate the situation differently. They have various goals, expectations, priorities, etc. Dasein.

Iambig doesn't see that it can be demonstrated that one way is right and the other way is wrong.

Which way do things end up going? In the direction that the powerful can force them to go.

If you personally like that direction, then you call it progressive. If not, then you call it regressive. :evilfun:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10701
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Peter Kropotkin