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 May 22, 2018 6:28 pm

Okay, my friend, against my better judgment, I'll pursue this with you. After all, you are one of the remaining few here willing even to engage my points at all.

Ecmandu wrote:
Have you ever heard of the Clay Mathematics Prize?


I have now.

Ecmandu wrote:You get 1 million dollars just for solving one of these from about 100 years ago...

Those haven't all been solved.

That doesn't mean numbers don't exist.


On the other hand, what does this have to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein [on this thread] pertaining to conflicted human interactions in the is/ought world? And how, with respect to your own conflicted interactions with others, are you not yourself down in the hole that "I" am in?

The thing about numbers mathematically is that they would not only appear to exist, but they would appear to exist objectively for all of us. Thus the existence of this very technology. The tricky part though seems to revolve around those who insist that we invented them versus those who insist that, on the contrary, we only discovered them.

On the other other hand, though, the Science Channel last night noted there were very serious scientists speculating about the existence of a multiverse -- a TOE reality in which universes may well exist in which the laws of physics themselves may well be different.

Indeed, go figure things like this that far out on the metaphysical limb.

Ecmandu wrote:Your entire shtick is that because we haven't solved EVERY moral problem, that morality doesn't exist.


Schtick: a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc., associated with a particular person.

As I noted to Phyllo above, a part of my "routine" here is indeed embedded theatrically in "the polemicist waiting for godot" schtick.

Also, it is embedded in some obscure murky way in this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles


But other, more somber, discomfitting facets revolve around the very real "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". It's less a schtick than a grim [and constant] reminder that I really am down in this fucking hole that I have thought myself into believing.

And this: that, right around the corner, is oblivion.

Besides, I do not argue that morality does not exist. I argue that from my frame of mind here and now it does not appear to exist essentially, objectively, necessarily, universally etc.

That, instead, it appears to be embodied in an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which here and now I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods and political economy.

At least try to grapple with that distinction.

Ecmandu wrote:I've already given the solution to ethics, you blew it off...

Everyone getting everything they want.


So, with respect to such moral and political conflagrations as abortion, homosexuality, gun control, affirmative action, animal rights, the role of government etc., conflicts would be resolved if only everyone gets what they want?

Well, let's just say that here, our understanding of, among other things, the real world, is very, very different.

Ecmandu wrote:So yes, I repeat, you are neither the reasonable or virtuous person you expect everyone to convince.


What can I say...

If there was an Olympic medal for miscontruing my points here, you would be bringing home the gold, the silver and the bronze.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 22, 2018 7:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
With what, Communism? And yet I come back to that because, to the best of my recollection, it is really the only issue in which you bring your own arguments down to earth. It seems to be your own equivalent of Prismatic's chattel slavery. :wink:
I thought that I had brought abortion down to earth ... allowing abortion for a certain number of weeks balances the needs of the woman and the needs of the potential child.

Capital punishment ... given the large number of mistakes by the police and the governments which conduct kangaroo trials, it's safer for everyone not to have capital punishment.

Sure those are my opinions but they are ways of dealing with the issues which allow for mistakes and personal choices.


Yes, they are personal opinions. Political prejudices that, in my view, you have taken a subjective/subjunctive leap to, given the confluence of experiences in your life that predisposed you existentially to go in this direction rather than another.

Just like me.

The only alternative, given the fact that others with very different experiences are able to offer reasons for going in a different direction, is that philosophers/ethicists etc., are in fact able to devise an argument [and a political agenda] in which it can in fact be demonstrated that all reasonable [and virtuous] men and women are obligated -- obligated necessarily -- to share it.

In other words, to be thought of as rational and virtuous people.

Some may still decide not to share it, sure, but there it is able to be so demonstrated.

It's just that to go in that direction exposes the manner in which I construe "I" here as basically an existential contraption. And once someone goes down that road, they may well begin to question their self -- their identity -- in some rather disturbing ways.

To wit:

"My opinion about Communism, abortion, the death penalty and war does not reflect the Real Me in sync with the most rational way in which to understand these things, but is only [or mostly] embedded in the manner in which, given the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of my actual lived life, I have come to think and to feel about these things."

And, let's face it, the consequences of that are, in my view, just too disturbing for most to accept. In other words, from my frame of mind, given how disturbing they are to me.

But, given that this is, in turn, no less my own existential contraption here and now, it's as far as I can go. I can only be persuaded or not persuaded to see things differently.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 22, 2018 7:44 pm

phyllo wrote:
But trust me when I tell you there are other parts as well. Considerably more disconcerting and disturbing parts.
I'm offering you ways of dealing with those parts and you seem uninterested.


But you do not yourself embody these parts in the manner in which I do. So how on earth could you possibly know if these techniques would allow me to deal with them? Besides, I have my own techniques: distractions: movies, music, PBS, the Science Channel, HBO and Showtimes series, crostics, relaxation exercises, poetry etc.

What I need most from folks here are arguments able to convince me that there are ways up out of the hole such that the hole itself is shown to be an unreasonable "intellectual contraption". Ways in which to construe conflicting human interactions such that the impact of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are, as I suggested above, whittled away.


What I am most interested in are arguments, assessments, techniques etc., that might persuade me to whittle dasein down to a more manageable size. Something that might persuade me that there actually is a way up out of the hole. Either on this side of the grave or on the other side of it.


phyllo wrote:Yeah and I keep telling you that you have to go beyond arguments because arguments won't convince you. Arguments are the problem, not the solution. You need to go to a place without words.


Back again to the abortion clinic. You note this to the folks hammering each other with conflicting goods. Sure, they may try your techniques and they might help them. But the babies are still either aborted or they are not. The pregnant women are still either forced to give birth [or be punished] or they are not.

Indeed, let's take these techniques to the liberals and the conservatives over at the SGE board. They might help some. Just as engaging in my distractions might help some too.

But that still leaves the part about the role that dasein plays in constructing their individual value judgments; and the extent to which they embrace the authoritarianism embedded in an objectivist frame of mind.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Tue May 22, 2018 9:29 pm

But you do not yourself embody these parts in the manner in which I do.
If everyone was exactly like everyone else, then there would be nothing to learn from other people.
Besides, I have my own techniques: distractions
If that works for you, then fine.

But if you are here writing about the hole all the time, if choice is agony and oblivion is appalling then it sounds like your distractions are not working.

Still, it's your decision.
Back again to the abortion clinic.
No. My statements were directed to you and your "hole" problem.

Did I ever say that I was applying it to abortion issues?

Everything has to be one-size-fits-all?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10727
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Tue May 22, 2018 9:42 pm

It's just that to go in that direction exposes the manner in which I construe "I" here as basically an existential contraption. And once someone goes down that road, they may well begin to question their self -- their identity -- in some rather disturbing ways.

To wit:

"My opinion about Communism, abortion, the death penalty and war does not reflect the Real Me in sync with the most rational way in which to understand these things, but is only [or mostly] embedded in the manner in which, given the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of my actual lived life, I have come to think and to feel about these things."

And, let's face it, the consequences of that are, in my view, just too disturbing for most to accept. In other words, from my frame of mind, given how disturbing they are to me.
Yeah, you find it disturbing and I don't.

Go figure.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10727
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 23, 2018 1:05 am

Iambiguous, you really don't listen.

If the world offered ethics prizes, at a billion dollars each for proofs... they'd be solved!

Now, some guy like you comes along and says that since EVERY ethics prize hasn't been solved, morality is not objective. I've. Already enumerated the three reasons why morality is objective and you called it "too general", it's a meta-proof for a reason!!! Duh!!!

And your tripe about the "I" really?? You respond the people who respond to you.

You are not the person you expect everyone to convince... the opposite, you are just an absurd contradiction deluding itself into believing it's philosophy or psychology.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 23, 2018 6:00 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: I have recommended the cultivation of equanimity and mindfulness meditation which is within the Noble 8 Fold Paths of the 4 Noble Paths. This is the most critical step to establish strong psychological anchorage before attending to any critical matters in life.

The point with mindfulness meditation is one's brain need to have a greater degree of plasticity to ensure easy rewiring. Where Vispassana is concerned it is not very effective for those who are above 55-60 [with exceptions maybe] as it require a reasonable degree of neural plasticity.


And I have recommended that you bring these intellectual contraptions down to earth and note how, in using them, you yourself have established a strong psychological anchorage with respect to critical matters in your own life.

How does this stuff actually work re your own conflicting interactions with others?

In other words, so far, all I have basically been able to establish "substantively" is that you almost certainly don't own any slaves or smoke any cigarettes.

Prismatic567 wrote: I believe in the case of Iambiguous his brain is likely to be heavily ossified and subjected to heavy atrophy. Therefore mindful meditation is not likely to help effectively. As far as Iambiguous is concern I believe we just have to go along with his rigid beliefs and idiosyncrasies.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever come upon a brain that viewed these things quite differently that was not all these things?

That seems to be a crucial factor in the creation of the truly ossified brains. Embodied by, among others, the objectivists among us.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 23, 2018 6:38 pm

phyllo wrote: I have also accused Iambiguous of being ossified. :evilfun:


More to the point, you and others have accused me of burrowing down into my impregnable hole and using it basically as some sort of security blanket.

While [of course] accusing others of not having the "courage" to do the same.

And I have no illusion about bridging the gap here until one of us actually does come upon a new experience [or a new argument] that [for all practical purposes] manages to nudge us in the direction of the other.

I merely note how many times in the past my ossified brain did in fact succeed in becoming an altogether different ossified brain. As I lept from one objectivist frame of mind to the next.

Only now my new "ossified" brain does not permit me to wallow in the comfort and the consolation that all those other ones did.

And certainly not as some of the objectivists here among us own brains do:

1] yes, I am in sync with the real me

2] yes, the real me is in sync with one or another rendition of an objective morality

And then some are able to go even further...

3] yes, the real me is in sync with a religious rendition of objective morality and, on the other side of the grave, I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever

phyllo wrote: However, I would not say that there is no hope and no potential for change. It's never too late. Every day one is reborn into a world full of possibilities.


That's my line of course. The one about human interactions in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change. But while I am willing to acknowledge these factors may well succeed in yanking me up out of the hole, how many objectivists are willing to concede in turn that they may well succeed in dragging them down into it as well.

Not many that I have ever come across.

phyllo wrote: He just has to decide to take the first step.


Here the moral, political, religious, philosophical etc., objectivists will all line up to give you examples of the steps that they took. And only if the steps that you take bring you in sync with the steps that they take here and now are you ever likely to become "healed" or "enlightened" or "saved".

In other words, to be come "one of us".

Of course if you ask the objectivists to shift the discussion from the points that I make to them to the points that they make to each other, all hell breaks loose.

For them the only thing worse than not being an objectivist is in being the wrong objectivist.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 23, 2018 7:20 pm

phyllo wrote:
But you do not yourself embody these parts in the manner in which I do.
If everyone was exactly like everyone else, then there would be nothing to learn from other people.


And yet we all know that, depending on which particular historical, cultural and experiential context that any unique individual is born and raised in, they will be teaching others some very, very different [often very, very conflicting] lessons.

And while there is enough overlap [re nature and nurture] to make communication possible, when you get down to the actual motivation and intentions of individual folks like "you" and "I" and "her" and "him", there are always going to be factors that become increasing harder to bridge.

Until you are down in the hole with me, you can't possibly imagine just how effectual or ineffectual your techniquies will actually be. Same with me up out of the hole.

The bottom line [mine] is that in the hole "I" here is construed to be largely an existential contraption. And in a way that those not in the hole seem [to me] unable to truly fathom at all.

We're just "stuck" here until those new experiences and arguments finally begin to actually sink in. Through them one of us finally begins to see more clearly what the other seems to be getting at.

But even if they do, there's still the problem [in the is/ought world] of demonstrating that all rational men and women ought to think and to feel the same as "I" do. Or as "we" do.

Besides, I have my own techniques: distractions


phyllo wrote: If that works for you, then fine.

But if you are here writing about the hole all the time, if choice is agony and oblivion is appalling then it sounds like your distractions are not working.


Well, the paradox here [for me] is that, try as I might, I can't escape a world in which conflicting goods [and nihilism] pummel the human species with all manner of actual pain and suffering. And there it is: oblivion.

So I burrow down into things that take me away from all that. And yet -- existentially -- my own particular rendition of dasein is simply awash in both politics and philosophy. My lived life has come to revolve around them. It's a deeply engrained part of "I" that I am unlikely to ever jettison completely.

Besides, there's no getting up out of the hole unless I provoke others into provoking me to challenge it.

Back again to the abortion clinic.


phyllo wrote: No. My statements were directed to you and your "hole" problem.

Did I ever say that I was applying it to abortion issues?


This speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. From my perspective, the "hole" is utterly inseparable from that clash outside the abortion clinic. The only antidote there for me is the distractions.
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 23, 2018 8:07 pm

phyllo wrote:
It's just that to go in that direction exposes the manner in which I construe "I" here as basically an existential contraption. And once someone goes down that road, they may well begin to question their self -- their identity -- in some rather disturbing ways.

To wit:

"My opinion about Communism, abortion, the death penalty and war does not reflect the Real Me in sync with the most rational way in which to understand these things, but is only [or mostly] embedded in the manner in which, given the historical, cultural and experiential parameters of my actual lived life, I have come to think and to feel about these things."

And, let's face it, the consequences of that are, in my view, just too disturbing for most to accept. In other words, from my frame of mind, given how disturbing they are to me.
Yeah, you find it disturbing and I don't.

Go figure.


I suspect this may well be beyond figuring out philosophically -- logically, epistemologically. That, instead, the manner in which it either disturbs or does not disturb someone is embedded existentially in the actual life that they have lived.

Unless, of course, we're both wrong.

Let's run it by Prismatic.

You know, so that he can run it by Ecmandu
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: 26008
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 23, 2018 8:44 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Here the moral, political, religious, philosophical etc., objectivists will all line up to give you examples of the steps that they took. And only if the steps that you take bring you in sync with the steps that they take here and now are you ever likely to become "healed" or "enlightened" or "saved".
I think some objectivists have said here are some processes that have worked for many people and that there may be others. Further moving out of the hole and feeling better does not mean you would necessarily at all be then satisfied with any answers to your question about conflicting goods. Some of the suggestions seem clearly NOT to be ones that answer the question, but might eliminate some of the hole aspects. You have couched the issue as one between facing the epistemological truth, which will lead to discomfort which objectivists avoid. Some of the suggestions are clearly aimed at reducing suffering while at the same time could not possibly answer your question. IOW they will not make you this or that objectivist. They will not make you an objectivist, they might however reduce the suffering in the hole.

In other words, to be come "one of us".
And hence they would not make you 'one of us'. Certainly a Christian might present you with a process that they would think would do both, but others have not.

Further the situation is more complicated than you present it. There are other people here, there is at least one thread in fact, where people are asserting that morals do not exist. There are people like me who do not think there are objective morals, though I feel no urge to claim there are none. And yet I do not experience that as a hole. I did at one time find it very uncomfortable, though it was not a hole. There are other holes that I found much harder to deal with and I hit them much younger than you seem to have found problems with objectivist thinking. This is part of why the smugness in the way you present yourself as the brave one who can face a dark night of the soul surrounded by cowards so irritating.

Of course if you ask the objectivists to shift the discussion from the points that I make to them to the points that they make to each other, all hell breaks loose.

For them the only thing worse than not being an objectivist is in being the wrong objectivist.
Yes, and you think objectivists are worse than you. Just as two Japanese can tell when a third is looking down on them and judging even though every word, carefully chosen, and every act, delicately performed, claims otherwise.

And all hell does not always or even as a general rule break out between objectivists.

Why does your model generally head towards binary conclusions and psychic reading of others made by someone who models his beliefs on dasein-based critiques of objectivism.

What if discomfort is not the root of some of the reactions to what you write?
Why do you think the hole and non-objectivism must go together?
This is part of the reason some people assume you are attached to the hole for reasons you do not say or perhaps do not know.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed May 23, 2018 8:47 pm

It is almost as if...if you gave up being down in the hole, you would be betraying something, even if after you got out of being depressed and uncomfortable you continued searching for a solution to conflicting goods. Who would you be betraying or what would you be betraying if this is the case?
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 23, 2018 9:18 pm

In FACT being in the absolute hole is what idealism is all about. There are no two ways about it, and there the dual logic of argument rests, by fiat. Wether that, or ascend into the confusions of moral relativity.

Biut that has been foreclosed by the will.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu May 24, 2018 4:40 am

Meno_ wrote:In FACT being in the absolute hole is what idealism is all about. There are no two ways about it, and there the dual logic of argument rests, by fiat. Wether that, or ascend into the confusions of moral relativity.

But that has been foreclosed by the will.
I believe 'realism' is in a bigger 'hole' i.e. the hole of an independent 'reality.'
What the realist do not realize is 'realism' = empirical idealism.
There are many types of 'idealism' and the most realistic view is that of transcendental idealism in complementary with empirical realism.

Iambiguous, like the venus fly trap is trying [evilly] to get others into his 'hole' and condemning others as objectivists. Iambiguous do not realize his views of being in hole is the mother of all objectivity. The 'hole' re "I am in a hole" is an 'object' while "I" is the subject thus falling into his own trap of his detested 'subject versus object' dichotomy.
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 Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 24, 2018 6:53 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Iambiguous, like the venus fly trap is trying [evilly] to get others into his 'hole' and condemning others as objectivists.

Certainly the us vs. them categorizing is an ironic thread running through iambiguous' online behavior. However 1) I can find no reason to consider Venus Fly Traps evil even were I an objectivist and I appreciate them eating flies.

Does Iambiguous want to drag people down into his hole? - let's set aside what Lacan might say here about the question itself. If so, it must be very frustrating. I tend to think people latch onto dynamics not goals, even though we tend to think we are aiming at a goal. IOW it is the relationship as it is experienced now that is attractive or less repulsive, especially if it continues for a long time. Thus the goal is not for him to convert objectivists, but to judge them and taunt them, but also to yearn for them to come to him, perhaps joining him perhaps converting him upward again. This static dynamic that will never resolve in his lifetime is the goal, as it is now.

Iambiguous do not realize his views of being in hole is the mother of all objectivity. The 'hole' re "I am in a hole" is an 'object' while "I" is the subject thus falling into his own trap of his detested 'subject versus object' dichotomy.
Yeah, that's not what he means by objectivism.

And ironically since you are referring to him in this way, he becomes the object of your subject, since you clearly disidentify with him. The irony is here you are being a hypocrite to your own pseudo-Buddhism while at the same time equivocating on words beginning with 'object___'

The interesting thing for me is that Iamb presents an undercurrent post-enlightenment position. It's one of the ways the rational mind can flounder when Enlightenment values and modes of thinking become the rule. I notice it around me in all sorts of discussions of politics and ethics, though very few people present it openly like he does. A shame about acting in the world if one does not know one is right and good. A guilt about having desires and acting on them. Not a religious guilt, but a rational guilt. And look, it ends up, ironically, with a neo-Buddhist withdrawel from the world. An attempt at purity. At least I will have spent my last years with no blood on my hands. I will not have asserted that anyone or anything is bad or good. I left no moral footprint (instead of not leaving a carbon footprint). It is the desperate hope of someone who does not believe in objective morals to NOT do something immoral ever again.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu May 24, 2018 7:11 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Iambiguous, like the venus fly trap is trying [evilly] to get others into his 'hole' and condemning others as objectivists.

Certainly the us vs. them categorizing is an ironic thread running through iambiguous' online behavior. However 1) I can find no reason to consider Venus Fly Traps evil even were I an objectivist and I appreciate them eating flies.

Does Iambiguous want to drag people down into his hole? - let's set aside what Lacan might say here about the question itself. If so, it must be very frustrating. I tend to think people latch onto dynamics not goals, even though we tend to think we are aiming at a goal. IOW it is the relationship as it is experienced now that is attractive or less repulsive, especially if it continues for a long time. Thus the goal is not for him to convert objectivists, but to judge them and taunt them, but also to yearn for them to come to him, perhaps joining him perhaps converting him upward again. This static dynamic that will never resolve in his lifetime is the goal, as it is now.
Throughout many of his posts Iambiguous was 'expecting' [a subliminal dark desire of evilness] those you try to yank him out of the hole would end up in a hole instead.
nb: Evil Act = any act that is net-negative to the well being of own or/and other selves.

Iambiguous do not realize his views of being in hole is the mother of all objectivity. The 'hole' re "I am in a hole" is an 'object' while "I" is the subject thus falling into his own trap of his detested 'subject versus object' dichotomy.
Yeah, that's not what he means by objectivism.

And ironically since you are referring to him in this way, he becomes the object of your subject, since you clearly disidentify with him. The irony is here you are being a hypocrite to your own pseudo-Buddhism while at the same time equivocating on words beginning with 'object___'

The interesting thing for me is that Iamb presents an undercurrent post-enlightenment position. It's one of the ways the rational mind can flounder when Enlightenment values and modes of thinking become the rule. I notice it around me in all sorts of discussions of politics and ethics, though very few people present it openly like he does. A shame about acting in the world if one does not know one is right and good. A guilt about having desires and acting on them. Not a religious guilt, but a rational guilt. And look, it ends up, ironically, with a neo-Buddhist withdrawel from the world. An attempt at purity. At least I will have spent my last years with no blood on my hands. I will not have asserted that anyone or anything is bad or good. I left no moral footprint (instead of not leaving a carbon footprint). It is the desperate hope of someone who does not believe in objective morals to NOT do something immoral ever again.
I think you have not followed Iambiguous' historicity. His is a disdain for objectivists along the line of Heidegger [I am deeply into his views] via William Barrett and other existentialists.

My personal view is 'objectivity' must be complemented with 'subjectivity', as in Ying must complement with Yang re Taoism which reconcile with the Two-Truths of Buddhism.
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 Meno_ » Thu May 24, 2018 7:20 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Meno_ wrote:In FACT being in the absolute hole is what idealism is all about. There are no two ways about it, and there the dual logic of argument rests, by fiat. Wether that, or ascend into the confusions of moral relativity.

But that has been foreclosed by the will.
I believe 'realism' is in a bigger 'hole' i.e. the hole of an independent 'reality.'
What the realist do not realize is 'realism' = empirical idealism.
There are many types of 'idealism' and the most realistic view is that of transcendental idealism in complementary with empirical realism.

Iambiguous, like the venus fly trap is trying [evilly] to get others into his 'hole' and condemning others as objectivists. Iambiguous do not realize his views of being in hole is the mother of all objectivity. The 'hole' re "I am in a hole" is an 'object' while "I" is the subject thus falling into his own trap of his detested 'subject versus object' dichotomy.



That is the problem that be and the pre occupation of various forums that St.James and others concerned ourselves with, I.e.that of the problem of set theory, of limits with the infinite set, and the paradoxical infinite set that. contains all sets including Its self .

Now being a life long Kantian, my initial solution has a synthetic middle which diffuses the problem of inclusion or exclusion, (and in my case , preclusion) by virtue simply of categorically truism.
Not by defining reality as an excluded transcendental reality, by virtue of how reality cuts or is transcended by an ideal world, or how modern philosophy tends to reduce the way that reality, which is used in contextual schema, but how logically reality preconceives the various contexts including their totality.

So I am unfortunately in a position of being in the middle of an argument of a no win win type.
The man in the middle is indefinable except categorically

The reason I landed there is beyond my total
comprehension , but it has to do with the implausabilituy of reducing both: a phenomenological and eidectic method to contravert meaning so that a negation may entail a total qualitative and quantitative re presentation.
There is always a diferance. a remainder between an absolute and a relative set.

I am expressing basic set theory in terms of the language of philosophy , a language inadequate for a total signification. of meaning.
The idea that there is always a gap . an exclusion of partial sets, is simply not what absolute idealism is meant. to Be (for an idealist or conceived.)

For this reason, separating absolutes on real basis , -idealism into a realism of objective ideals from the claim for absolutely real ideals, does not work.(For me)

$chematic points of view( and the use of 'point of view'generally, in a reduced phenomenological sense) of the existentially present, being the starting point, may presuppose a total contradiction.( of values)
And with that, the fly trap analogy works.
But which it is is relative to the type , as here is the full appreciation of how the paradox works, that which occupied both Cantor and Russel -were so concerned with.

The reason I am elaborating, is because both Russell and Eyer's arguments lands them into infinite regress.
They work , but they are anchored in limited and pragmatic realities, and it can be said of realities . as well, that there are different realities.

The closer a multi functional reality becomes useful, the less credible an absolute idealism becomes.

This schema in terms of absolute contradiction is preferable and Kant becomes a better solution.
Here I point to a regress in Kant as well, for in the naturalistic fallacy in in the use of the categorical imperative -why the ' should" instead of the 'is' the' because 'becomes another should.

Hegel-Kant-Hobbes are a linear progression to the problem of universals, and the problem consists of the inability to reduce one end to the other end because the idea is not a one dimensional progression of interwoven conceptual links . The sum of partial sums will differ toward a minimum, but it always remains.

Now I am sure that the above is full of holes, but the general framework is fairly consistent with the idea..

Here I should not make a call, and yet the trap is obvious and yet, it becomes paradoxical on a closer look.

I know that on a previous occasion You implied that Lambigious will never go there, -a fair middle- and absolute idealism is only very minimally motivational position to get out of nihilistic stasis, but thinking categorically , it is as problematic
Idealism needs no compromise, and it's appeal is mostly due to a reactive point of view to the existential problem that. conflicting values throw one into the world.

This is true with certainty because modernity diminishes traditional values, that any such values mark as useless. Man is more alone now, then at any other time in human history.
You are right in the relative sense of realitive absolute, but minimize the sense of a real absolute , not merely transcendental , but preconsceptual.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu May 24, 2018 4:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Meno_ » Thu May 24, 2018 7:24 am

Again i am not and can not be in an adversarial position in any case, it would be a logical inauthentic formulation on my part.

Lambiguous's position can not be argued to get him out of the whole, he is in an existential position, that he can only extricate himself by the intentionality of using his own will , to power over the binding situation , of one he may see unfit.


Again . my overview should not give any impression of a belabored point, I was trying to make sense to myself of the points raised, partly to refresh the train of thought that did logically flow.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Thu May 24, 2018 4:12 pm

This speaks volumes regarding the gap between us. From my perspective, the "hole" is utterly inseparable from that clash outside the abortion clinic. The only antidote there for me is the distractions.
That's because you and I have very different ideas about what a solution to the hole would produce.

You expect it to resolve all conflicts, eliminate uncertainty and produce a "real self" which is static over time.

I think that a solution allows you to accept the existence of conflict, uncertainty and a dynamic self. IOW, it produces the ability to live without being disturbed by these ideas.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10727
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 24, 2018 4:35 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Throughout many of his posts Iambiguous was 'expecting' [a subliminal dark desire of evilness] those you try to yank him out of the hole would end up in a hole instead.
Just for the record, I think much of the time I am not trying to pull him out of the hole, but trying to tease out what he is really up to. I have asked why, given that he has no idea what the good is, if there is a good, he would chose to try to make people suffer. Still, I have no problem with Venus Fly Traps.
nb: Evil Act = any act that is net-negative to the well being of own or/and other selves.
OK, I got the impression somewhere, likely me mixing up people or reading poorly, but I thought to were Buddhist or held with Buddhist ontology, where there would generally be no evil in any Western sense and further pointing fingers that this or that is evil in specific at a specific person or his or her acts, would be seen as problematic. And of course it is a great example of reinforcing the subject object split.
I think you have not followed Iambiguous' historicity. His is a disdain for objectivists along the line of Heidegger [I am deeply into his views] via William Barrett and other existentialists.
For him objectivists believe there are objective morals. IOW there is no solution to all instances of conflicting goods or any. We cannot determine objectively if abortion is good or bad, though we can make up laws and our own subjective judgments. In fact I would go so far as to say he conflates universal and objective morals since he often conflates practical reconciliation which is possible and might happen over time with abortion, say, with epistemological issues around objectively determining what is good or evil. But in any case it is about morals. So, any issue related to the subject object split is not relevent to his objectivism. It is not about objects. It is not about the fact that there is no objective knowledge. It has to do with morals, period. And as far as Heidigger I believe you have pointed out his idiosyncractic use of dasein, which is not really how H intended it. He is not a Heidiggerean or, really, he would not be in a hole. He took some words and was inspired to his position in part by him, it seems, which most people, other than fanatic devotees, do to varying degrees with H and every other philosopher.

My personal view is 'objectivity' must be complemented with 'subjectivity', as in Ying must complement with Yang re Taoism which reconcile with the Two-Truths of Buddhism.
And to me this continues to indicate you do not understand what he means when he labels someone an objectivist. If a scientist tells Iambiguous that experiments repeatedly show that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen Iamb will not label him an objectivist. He is also not advocating that everyone be subjective. In fact he thinks that people often speak as if they are being objective when in fact they are being subjective, often based on collective subjective ideas.

In fact his basic point about conflicting goods and his criticism of what he means by objectivism is PERFECTLY compatible with many forms of Buddhism, whereas your comparing him to a Venus Fly Trap in the context of evilly trapping people does not fit well at all with Buddhism.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri May 25, 2018 7:18 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:In fact his basic point about conflicting goods and his criticism of what he means by objectivism is PERFECTLY compatible with many forms of Buddhism, whereas your comparing him to a Venus Fly Trap in the context of evilly trapping people does not fit well at all with Buddhism.
I believe Iambiguous may not be conscious of it, but my analogy is not far off from inferring his subconscious intent.

Note this post of Iambiguous
posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=2699223;

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Don't waste your time responding.

Note to others:
Sometimes I seem able to challenge him to intelligently explore further the gap between his frame of mind about God, religion and morality and my frame of mind.
We basically respect each other's intelligence and do what we can to articulate our conflicted points of view.

Though other times, however, I seem to reduce him down to "retorts" like this.

Here I speculate that my own arguments are nudging him closer to the hole that I'm in. And that exasperates him because he has so much more to lose.

Or, sure, it's nothing like that at all.


If the above is some sort of an evilly 'Venus Fly Trap' then what it is?

Note the above is not the only post, but there are many other posts like the above in varying presentation.
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 Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 25, 2018 9:46 am

One thing that Prismatic and Iambiguous share is their implicit and sometimes open claim to be braver than their opponents: theists in the case of Prismatic, Objectivists – which would include most theists, but is not limited to them – in the case of Iambiguous.

Prismatic (Spectrum perhaps) has faced death and theists are not capable of it. Iambiguous has faced the inability to truly 1) know what the objective good is and 2) how to convince people effectively to give up their side of conflicting goods disputes and objectivists are made too uncomfortable by this, so they run or attack him or try to help him join their cult.

Two brave men, the former likely much younger, having faced the harsh truths, locked in struggle with more cowardly humans, unable to deal with their knowledge.

There are a lot of ways to question this fundamental position they share.

The first is to point out that dasein-based models AND modern science should make one wary of hard positions about what one is doing, why one is doing it and one’s own ability to KNOW what the motivations of other people are.

‘The difficult thing is not to reject belief in order to shock the believing other, but to be a non-believer without the need for another subject supposed to believe on my behalf.’ Zizek.

Note this is just an example, I am not claiming I know that Prismatic and Iamb get off on the dynamic. Get off on the dynamic of ‘being the one who can face harsh truths that others cannot’ and hence the attraction of continuing the dynamic, rather than, say, finding ways to move in the world that one values. I also think it would be an oversimplification in both cases, even if it were true. I suspect it is a factor and that in both cases the dynamic itself is in part protecting them both from facing certain fears, whatever those may be.

You will not find Buddhists who actually have meditated a long time with discipline going on and on about the bad Muslims, nor will you find them speaking about subject/object splits and advanced Buddhist abstractions based on more meditation and states-reached than they have. Only early stage, adolescent practitioners will focus on all these terms as if they know what they hell they are talking about in more than some abstract Westerner, feels right in my neocortex’s imagination way Prismatic has. So one can wonder what the hell Prismatic is avoiding facing when he runs around spouting Buddhist truths, as if he has achieved the meditative states which ground this knowledge, and judging publically the motivations of people who believe differently from him. There are reasons Buddhist communities of all kinds and Buddhist masters of all kinds advice novices to avoid such behavior and it is hardly brave to engage in this what is a best cart before the horse behavior.

And most post Heidiggerians, will not simply lock onto the conflicting goods, problems with contingency stuck point, but will face the fear of acting in the world without a deity’s or science’s permission to. Iamb wants permission to act in the world, in the sureness that it is towards the Good, something he, at this point, does not believe is a valid concept. He does not believe in a deity. He does not believe there is an objective Good or one could not know it if there was one. YET he is waiting before acting in the world ever again, for permission from that non-existent deity or perhaps somehow from science (if it can manage to convince him it knows ‘ought’ along with ‘is’. This is hardly a brave stasis.

Both these men hide in the neocortex, one having sided with Buddhists who instead of finding ways to integrate the limbic system, for example, teach one to disidentify with it AND to not allow the natural flow of the limbic system into expression. Their practices specifically disconnect the limbic system from the vocal apparatus and from the bodies movements in general. Such people with such goals, should be very wary about judging how much fear they themselves can face, since they are actively suppressing and disengaging from their emotions.

There's that scene in Heat, Deniro in the hotel room with the man who betrayed his gang. He is going to kill the guy. He is pointing his gun in the guy's face. The guy is not looking at him and is not particularly afraid. Look at me, Deniro says a number of times. He knows that by a simple not looking the man is not facing his fear, a mere physical posture. The guy finally looks up at Deniro's face, realizes he is going to die and Deniro kills him. There are all sorts of ways to not really feel one's fears. Neither of these two brave philosophers has a good way to judge their own abilities in relation to others on this front, though I suspect Iamb has faced a lot more fears than the boyish - even if he is not as young as he comes off - Prismatic.

Iamb might agree on this, but think that on this specific issue of the problem of dealing with conflicting goods, etc., he has faced a fear that objectivists have not, however brave they may be in other areas. But even this is speculation. And there are plenty of holes to go around and face. I doubt either one of you know what a religious person going through a dark night of the soul experiences, since the very practices that person engages in intensify the connections between the limbic system and the neocortex. They haven't been hard at work cutting off the connections or suppressing the mammalian brain, nor have the projected their emotions onto other groups, to give them the role of their own limbic expression. Even if it is a wrong turn to accept the whole brain, you who would disidentify should be wary of thinking you can somehow meansure how much discomfort or fear others have faced in compaison with you. Let alone what the religious person who thinks it is likely they will go to hell will face.

This does not mean you need to give up your rational critiques or search for answers, it is the framing of the dynamic and the simple assumptions this is based on I find pretty hubristic.

Who knows how much fear the theist they are feeling superior to is actually facing. And besides, modern science has a number of other theories about why theists believe and Prismatic’s smug hypothesis is mere speculation.

Iamb will not act in the world, except to the degree he runs his threads. Talk about not leaving his comfort zone. Yes, there may be other factors, but even via the internet there is the opportunity to do what comes after noting one’s thrownness, the problems of determining objective morals, and stepping into life without God or permission from science for one’s choices.

Cognitive science should make one somewhat cautious about certainty about one’s own motives for engaging in the dynamics one does and even certainty about what one believes - if one 1) puts current scientific consensus on a pedastal as both you and 2) one intentionally enacts one's distaste for the limbic system, as both do. And that's not even getting to how cautious one should be about the motivations of others if one has just science to go on as THE EXPERT. And since these two render unto science that which is science’s and even base their smugness on it and it’s clear distinction, for them, from what other people base their beliefs on, it would behoove them to notice the humility about their own bravery that comes with modern science in relation to self-knowledge. And since both have tremendous distaste for the limbic system – despite Damasio, for example – the likelihood that they are even more cut off from what they are really up to than many of the enemies – who do not share that same distaste for the limbic system or may to lesser degrees, humility might be more consistant.

Or more honesty about the rage and smugness that's there. The good, rational neocortex man who wants to make the world a better place stance in both cases is very hard to buy.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 25, 2018 8:40 pm

I think what's most important about iambiguous' absurdity, is that without any doubt whatsoever, iambiguous has (like everyone) a really strong opinion of what would be bad to occur to him personally. It's much stronger than his repeated contradiction of "Dasein".

He knows for a fact what he doesn't want to happen to him, and he knows for a fact that everyone else is the same. He's trying to control bad occurring in his own psyche by claiming nobody is too good for something that has happened to be bestowed upon him - he's trying to be a puffed up bad-ass, but he's not, and neither is anyone else.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7045
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat May 26, 2018 6:48 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You will not find Buddhists who actually have meditated a long time with discipline going on and on about the bad Muslims, nor will you find them speaking about subject/object splits and advanced Buddhist abstractions based on more meditation and states-reached than they have. Only early stage, adolescent practitioners will focus on all these terms as if they know what they hell they are talking about in more than some abstract Westerner, feels right in my neocortex’s imagination way Prismatic has. So one can wonder what the hell Prismatic is avoiding facing when he runs around spouting Buddhist truths, as if he has achieved the meditative states which ground this knowledge, and judging publically the motivations of people who believe differently from him. There are reasons Buddhist communities of all kinds and Buddhist masters of all kinds advice novices to avoid such behavior and it is hardly brave to engage in this what is a best cart before the horse behavior.
Where did I claim I am a Buddhist?

My approach is eclectic and I pick on generic truths regardless of where they come from.

I agree the Dalai Lama is a very wise Buddhist but he is not an all rounder.
The Dalai Lama is VERY stupid when it comes to the subject of Islam.

The Dalai Lama has said there is no such thing as a “Muslim terrorist” as anyone who partakes in violent activities is not a “genuine” Muslim.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 17001.html


How can the Dalai Lama claimed the above when he has not studied the Quran and Islam seriously. He is merely relying on fallacious logic of hasty generalization, i.e.

    All religions are peaceful
    Islam is a religion
    Islam is a peaceful religion.

I am not too sure whether he is really that stupid on Islam or pretending for being politically correct.

Point is I have never come across any Buddhist scholar or expert claiming they are also an expert on Islam and insisting Islam is a religion of peace.

I think you have a problem when you failed to see this 500 pound gorilla in the room.
    Image
Perhaps you will only wake up when you or your relatives are stab or killed by Islamists while sitting in a cafe somewhere.
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 Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 26, 2018 4:48 pm

iambiguous wrote:Again, Mary loved John. John loved Marry. They both loved me and I loved them in turn.

Then Mary got pregnant. Within a few months that loves was basically in tatters.

How then would one go about yanking the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above up out of this.

More to the point: When you are intertwined in a particular conflict revolving around conflicting goods, how, for all practical purposes, do you yank yourself up out of the hole?


The hole has several facets. There is the philosophical topic you focus on. There are the emotions that the word hole is shorthand for. These need not be solved simultaneously, even if some frustration may remain around getting the answer to the philosophical issue.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:He does not like being in his hole but is not willing to take practical research validated steps to move out from the hole. He is also cut off it seems from any person to potentially love - even though people do develop great affection over the internet and Skype is probably an option even if he is bedridden. Certainly contact over the internet is possible, given the number of posts we are looking at.


All I can do here is to note that which I pointed out to Phyllo above:

Here, of course, you have no idea what particular options are available to me. There's that ever widening gap between what I'd like to do and what I am actually able to. Besides, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of folks out there all clamoring to insist that you should do what they do.
Sure, the decision to take approach X to getting out of the emotional hole may be one of trial and error, or research into scientific journals or by following your own sense of what suites your personality better than the others. This last leading potentially to trial and error.


Indeed, I have accumulated any number of distractions that serve me quite well: music, film, PBS, the Science Channel, my "signature" threads here at ILP, my virtual exchanges with folks online. I sure as shit don't wallow in that hole! It's just always there when I bump into conflicting goods.
Well, then it does not sound like a hole. You have presented it as something unpleasant, something that other people avoid with great effort and are unable even to admit their own fears around falling into the hole.

Now you are presenting it as something you can distract yourself form via music and film.

To me that is hardly a hole, in the emotional sense, and likely something with a degree of suffereing many people are facing. Why do I conclude that? Because in the holes I have faced - and surely you as a veteran have faced, I would guess - those things I would call holes and think that people go into denial over and run from and lie about, are not remotely soothed by film and music, though I certainly tried. Fears of death or not existing through time or the immanent painful death of loved one, realizations that what I thought I was doing and valued I did not. Memories of traumatic events when they surface with a vengeance over time and not just in flashes. Fears of being damned or made wrong or fundamentally repulsive at a core level. Facing actions I truly regret while at the same time not being certain I will not repeat them. When hit with these kinds of holes - which are often intermingled - your list of distractions do not distract me, in fact they can almost feel worse. I have the same feelings, and their is irritating noise or images on top of it.

Now if you want to call that a hole, fine. It's a vague metaphor. But when you are making it seem like that kind of existential crisis hole is something all objectivists run from, I truly doubt that.

But now I get a better handle on why you might not feel any urge to climb out. You ain't that deep down, you have whatever obstacles you hint at above, and you have your own forms of self-medication.

Okay, if you don't believe in objective morals [and presumably God] how then do you make that crucial distinction between your value judgments as the embodiment of dasein and the extent to which the tools of philosophy enable you to be more rather than less convinced that one rather than another behavior is the right thing to do? As a "social mammal". Walk us through a particular reaction "in your head" when you bump into another with conflicting value judgments. And note how that is then translated into a working solution given a particular context.
[/quote]

It's still framed, above, with objective morals. I do not think there is a right thing to do. There may be more effective approaches given my goals, but it is not right in any moral sense.

I was in a training where there was a consultant. Another participant reacted with open anger when we had to redo a values analysis - ironically in this context. The online instructions were not clear, most of us came to the wrong way of numbering responses. I was curious and didn't mind redoing it. He was more irritated, at first willing, then picked up the judgment of the consultant team about his emotional reaction and actually stomped out of the room.

During the discussion of this, I came to his defense - I should add I did this even though he was critical of my accepting the task. The consultants had values about emotional expression that collided with ours. I felt empathy for his reaction, and expressed it this way. I argued that ideas about the damaging effects of emotions are not convincing to me. They argued that his way of responding was counterproductive. I argued. Well, it doesn't really matter but there was some back and forth. He felt supported by me. The situation could have had negative effects for us financially, that is they had some power.

I pushed for having that particular situation and perhaps vaguely also society move in a direction I prefer. I was moved to act by my empathy and understanding of his reaction and my rejection of their beliefs/preferences.

I don't know if the world I would create - if I were unbelievably convincing - would be objectively good or better than the way things are. I reacted, I think, out of yes, ideas, but also near physical reactions to judgments about emotions and emotional expression. I see culture and not always being pitted against culture, but also against bodies. IOW I do not think all reactions and preferences are simple memes. It feels to me like human bodies have preferences.

But I do not know how universal these are. I do not know if it is better, in some objective way, for the human race to die out, and anything making us uncomfortable is just peachy.

I move towards what my empathy and desire say is supportive to that which I love. And move against things I think are damaging to what I care about. Generally my main tools are to undermine arguments for things I do not like and against things I do like. IOW they tend to be skeptical arguments.

I make my best guesses. As far as what moves things in the direction I prefer.

In the specific case I think it opened some space for us to not have to stifle ourselves in the presence of authority. A tiny local victory for my preferences.

Realized that you may see my description as me claiming to have solved conflicting goods. Nah, I do not have that kind of power. This is how one can live even if one does not have objective morals. And one has no reason not to. If there are no objective morals or one cannot know what they are, THERE IS NO REASON NOT to make things more like one likes and one thinks is supportive to the things one loves. There is no reason to withdraw and not act. One can, of course, if that is what one wants to do, but then one might as well be clear to oneself and others that this is what one wants, not some noble waiting for permission to participate - even if it is only online participation.

And notice that sure, people who believe in objective morals have conflicts. So do people who do not have objective morals.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sun May 27, 2018 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users