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 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:27 pm

Prismatic567 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.


Again, you speak of "progressive" values/beliefs/behaviors etc., as though this could be calculated with precision.

For example, it is only with precision that engineers can send astronauts to the moon. And progress here [re for example The Right Stuff] can be measured easily enough: They either make it to the moon or they don't.

But once the dicsussion shifts to value judgments -- send astronauts to the moon or use that money to solve problems right here on earth -- conflicted goods take over.

Here and now, both sides have reasonable arguments to make. So, what constitutes progress in resolving it? Sure, perhaps someday in the distant future there will come a time when all problems are solved here on earth and we can send astronauts on missions throughout the solar system.

But that's then [maybe], what about now?

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


I can only react here as I must: Another "general description"/"intellectual contraption" that you have concocted "in your head". As though the "average person" here can be evinced with any precision.

Thus: What would constitute progress for the average person when confronted with the arguments above.

These arguments: https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

And while [historically] some have viewed slavery as a moral issue, others insist that it is an economic issue. Some have even rationalized slavery as in sync with the teachings of the bIble.

And [of course] the narcissists will always only be concerned with that which sustains their own self-interest.

iambiguous wrote: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.


Prismatic567 wrote: 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;

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; ....


And how was Russell not in the same boat himself? How were Russell's moral/political values any less an accumulation of political prejudices? Derived historically, culturally and experientially from dasein.

Thus my point here revolves around a suggestion that in the is/ought world there may well be limitations beyond which the philosophers/ethicists cannot go.

Then it's just a question of how far one takes this. I take it all the way to this:

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

Then of others I ask: How is this not applicable to you when confronting conflicted goods in your own interactions?

In any particular human community, human interactions require a set of prescripted and proscripted behaviors. Who decides this? Based on what criteria?

As for this...

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


...let's focus the beam in on a particular moral/political conflagration and see how far we can take this "out in the world" of actual human social, political and economic" interactions.

You choose the issue, you choose the context. As they pertain to this:

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


My reaction then being this: What on earth does this convey when made applicable to a particular conflict that, say, we come upon time and again here at ILP with respect to a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda?
Last edited by iambiguous on Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:30 pm

phyllo wrote: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:


What he said.

Well, if for my own reasons of course. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:08 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 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.


Again, you speak of "progressive" values/beliefs/behaviors etc., as though this could be calculated with precision.

For example, it is only with precision that engineers can send astronauts to the moon. And progress here [re for example The Right Stuff] can be measured easily enough: They either make it to the moon or they don't.

But once the dicsussion shifts to value judgments -- send astronauts to the moon or use that money to solve problems right here on earth -- conflicted goods take over.

Here and now, both sides have reasonable arguments to make. So, what constitutes progress in resolving it? Sure, perhaps someday in the distant future there will come a time when all problems are solved here on earth and we can send astronauts on missions throughout the solar system.

But that's then [maybe], what about now?
I did not expect precision at all, which as for humans it is an impossibility.

Re "progressive" means 'baby steps' of continuous improvements from one's current state at any moment in time.
Note the current state of Scientific Knowledge did not come about instantly but driven by continuous improvements over the last 500 years and the time Science first emerged. It the same for all fields of knowledge and competence [including morality and slavery].

Within the process of continuous improvements there is no question or demand of absolute precision. Going to the moon do not involve absolute precision but there are provisions for acceptable minute margin of deviations for standards.

Now what is most critical is the progressive trend and the inherent program within the mind that is driving this progressive trend in all fields of knowledge and comptetences. From evidence and observation, the existential of such a potential to progress is quite obvious and can be easily abstracted.

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


I can only react here as I must: Another "general description"/"intellectual contraption" that you have concocted "in your head". As though the "average person" here can be evinced with any precision.

Thus: What would constitute progress for the average person when confronted with the arguments above.

These arguments: https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

And while [historically] some have viewed slavery as a moral issue, others insist that it is an economic issue. Some have even rationalized slavery as in sync with the teachings of the bIble.

And [of course] the narcissists will always only be concerned with that which sustains their own self-interest.
It is not an intellectual contraption.
Note my point above re that 'implicit machinery' of progress which can be abstracted from evidence within human history.
Note how did humanity progress in travelling from Africa to all over the World. Note the advancement of Science and other fields of knowledge. The evidence is real and there must be an implicit machinery within the brain/mind that drove all the above continuous improvements is continuing to do so. This can be easily abstracted from the evidences available.

Prismatic567 wrote: 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;

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; ....


And how was Russell not in the same boat himself? How were Russell's moral/political values any less an accumulation of political prejudices? Derived historically, culturally and experientially from dasein.

Thus my point here revolves around a suggestion that in the is/ought world there may well be limitations beyond which the philosophers/ethicists cannot go.
The point is do you agree with Russell's statement, the purpose of philosophy is not to give definite answers but to raise questions?

Then it's just a question of how far one takes this. I take it all the way to this:

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


Then of others I ask: How is this not applicable to you when confronting conflicted goods in your own interactions?

In any particular human community, human interactions require a set of prescripted and proscripted behaviors. Who decides this? Based on what criteria?
Applying the generic Problem Solving Technique, I believe you do not have the right view and right thought to the inherent issue.

My contention is;
1. there are objective values "I" can set and strive to reach.
2. there should not be any regret but one must do one's best and take corrective actions to strive harder to the objective values.
3. You need to have the 'right' view of who is "I" and manage it efficiently.

The problem you posed is too complex.
You need to break it down into smaller units first and combine them later.
But the above is long story.


...let's focus the beam in on a particular moral/political conflagration and see how far we can take this "out in the world" of actual human social, political and economic" interactions.

You choose the issue, you choose the context. As they pertain to this:

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

My reaction then being this: What on earth does this convey when made applicable to a particular conflict that, say, we come upon time and again here at ILP with respect to a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda?
Can you give a specific case of a a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda? I am not into politics.
I would prefer a Statement of Problem, like 'Who am I' and other philosophical questions.
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:23 am

phyllo wrote:
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:
You are conflating the issue.
One has to qualify and avoid subjective opinions.

Note the example I gave above re Science and humans spreading out from Africa to all over the World.
If that African tribe has not traveled one mile further from their village since 600,000 [?] years ago and has remained the same to date, then we can say there is no progress at all in terms of migration and distance traveled. Based on current evidence of humans living all over the World we can conclude the original people and humanity had made progress specifically in terms of migration and distances covered. Surely travelling five kilometer is a progress over one kilometer traveled and so on.

Just for the sake of countering, you many insist it is regressive because humanity is spreading more pollution, killing plants and animals around the world and whatever negatives you can think of. But this is a straw man.

The main point here is confined in terms of migration, there is progress based on evidence.
We can look at other human variables and note there are changes in terms of progress.
From these progress we can abstract there must be an inherent neural program that drive such continuous improvement.
One understand the neural mechanics of this inherent 'progress' element in the future we can manage it to expedite progress in areas that are positive for humanity.
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:56 am

Surely travelling five kilometer is a progress over one kilometer traveled and so on.
There are any number of measures by which traveling 1 km is better than traveling 5 km. You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which "proves you right" in your mind.
Just for the sake of countering, you many insist it is regressive because humanity is spreading more pollution, killing plants and animals around the world and whatever negatives you can think of. But this is a straw man.
It's not a strawman ... it's a critical point.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:12 am

phyllo wrote:
Surely travelling five kilometer is a progress over one kilometer traveled and so on.
There are any number of measures by which traveling 1 km is better than traveling 5 km. You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which "proves you right" in your mind.
It is not what I choose to prove me right.
I introduced the examples of progress to demonstrate certain points and avoid the those that are irrelevant to the point.

There can progress in term of reduction or increment. But we have to take into account the context.

For example, if a student improves his grades from the first month in class from average 10% to 90% by the end of the year. Surely there is a basis for that increment in terms of grades.
Now would you argue and insist there is 'progress' if he were to maintain his grades at 10% all year round? maybe progress in less bullying and no one calling him a nerd or smart alec.

The plus point is the progress shown by the student may be of interest to researcher to find out how did he make such a remarkable progress in 12 months and perhaps there is something worth abstracting for other slow students to learn from.


Just for the sake of countering, you many insist it is regressive because humanity is spreading more pollution, killing plants and animals around the world and whatever negatives you can think of. But this is a straw man.
It's not a strawman ... it's a critical point.
You missed my original point.

Initially I stated as an example, it is obvious there are changes and improvements specifically in terms of chattel slavery [as defined] within the history of mankind since 1000 years ago to the present where such slavery are illegal in all Nation at present. It is illegal by law for Humans to be owned and traded like chattels or goods.

My hypothesis is there must be neural changes going on in the brains of those human involved that enable such improvements in the laws on such slavery. I postulated there is an inherent drive within the human brain/mind that drive such specific improvements and progress.
Thus it would be beneficial for humanity to understand the mechanics of this process and hopefully can apply such principles to expedite the progress or apply to other areas of human behavior for positive results.

Note at least my optimism will stir me to explore and if there are benefits, fine, if none, at least I have tried. In your case you are indifferent and blind to whatever potential progress there is, thus will not explore to find possibilities for further progress.
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:17 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which "proves you right" in your mind.
It is not what I choose to prove me right.
I introduced the examples of progress to demonstrate certain points and avoid the those that are irrelevant to the [MY] point.

:lol:
#-o

I think that is the very definition of "tunnel vision".
:icon-rolleyes:
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:37 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
phyllo wrote:You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which "proves you right" in your mind.
It is not what I choose to prove me right.
I introduced the examples of progress to demonstrate certain points and avoid the those that are irrelevant to the [MY] point.

:lol:
#-o

I think that is the very definition of "tunnel vision".
:icon-rolleyes:
How can you be so intellectually stupid.
In all these posts, except for the quoted, we introduced 'our' points.
To maintain intellectually credibility we have to support the points we made.
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 MagsJ » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:25 pm

Please stick to discussing the topic and not each other.. or not at all: James/Phyllo.

...as you were. :D
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17446
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:17 pm

Please stick to discussing the topic and not each other.. or not at all: James/Phyllo.
I am discussing the topic. I'm explaining dasein to him.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
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

Free will allows us as moral beings to consider different positions on moral issues
But were morality objective and free will non existent that would not be possible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
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

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

Given that I do not actually think God exists then he is indeed hypothetical. However those who do think that he exists routinely claim that he is omniscient and omnipotence so those are attributes they have given him not me. All I am doing is just showing how from a logical perspective they are not mutually compatible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:25 pm

There can progress in term of reduction or increment. But we have to take into account the context.

For example, if a student improves his grades from the first month in class from average 10% to 90% by the end of the year. Surely there is a basis for that increment in terms of grades.
Now would you argue and insist there is 'progress' if he were to maintain his grades at 10% all year round? maybe progress in less bullying and no one calling him a nerd or smart alec.
It's possible to measure stuff like that and Iambig doesn't deny it.

What he is saying is that as soon as you call it progress, you are saying that the measured change ought to be in a particular direction and that's a value judgement. And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein. One person can call an increase in a grade "progress" and another can call it "regress".

For example, if the class is some sort of indoctrination/brainwashing, then it's possible to say that a higher grade is not "good". It's also possible to say that it is "good". How the situation is evaluated depends on the individuals making the statements.
The plus point is the progress shown by the student may be of interest to researcher to find out how did he make such a remarkable progress in 12 months and perhaps there is something worth abstracting for other slow students to learn from.
That's what happened with marketing and advertising in the 20th century ... "researchers" learned how to very effectively get people to think in certain ways and to get them to buy stuff. The "slow students" are those who do not readily accept the corporate and government messages. But was that a "good" thing?
You missed my original point.

Initially I stated as an example, it is obvious there are changes and improvements specifically in terms of chattel slavery [as defined] within the history of mankind since 1000 years ago to the present where such slavery are illegal in all Nation at present. It is illegal by law for Humans to be owned and traded like chattels or goods.
I didn't miss the point. I gave you examples of the way dasein works. There are people who think that there ought to be slavery, that some people are better off as slaves, that treating slaves violently is appropriate. Okay, you're not one of them and the people who agree with you are in positions of power, therefore you call antislavery laws "progress". If the world changes and supporters of slavery gain power, then they will implement slavery and call that "progress".

Note at least my optimism will stir me to explore and if there are benefits, fine, if none, at least I have tried. In your case you are indifferent and blind to whatever potential progress there is, thus will not explore to find possibilities for further progress.
Again, labeling something as "benefits" is a value judgement.

I'm not indifferent. I simply understand what Iambig is saying.

Heck, I even understand why he has a dilemma and why he can't get out of it. I've spent years trying to pull him out of it. O:)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:27 pm

phyllo wrote:
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

Because people are the product of different environments and experiences and so they evaluate the situation differently

Because they have different ideologies or world views which allows them to see things from a particular perspective
From a more general perspective everyone has free will though it is more restrictive within the framework of an ideology
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:16 pm

Dasein takes the concept of 'framework' down to the individual level. Everyone uses their own framework to make judgements and the framework is the result of personal experiences. Ideologies are one part of the personal framework.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:38 am

phyllo wrote:
There can progress in term of reduction or increment. But we have to take into account the context.

For example, if a student improves his grades from the first month in class from average 10% to 90% by the end of the year. Surely there is a basis for that increment in terms of grades.
Now would you argue and insist there is 'progress' if he were to maintain his grades at 10% all year round? maybe progress in less bullying and no one calling him a nerd or smart alec.
It's possible to measure stuff like that and Iambig doesn't deny it.

What he is saying is that as soon as you call it progress, you are saying that the measured change ought to be in a particular direction and that's a value judgement. And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein. One person can call an increase in a grade "progress" and another can call it "regress".

For example, if the class is some sort of indoctrination/brainwashing, then it's possible to say that a higher grade is not "good". It's also possible to say that it is "good". How the situation is evaluated depends on the individuals making the statements.
The plus point is the progress shown by the student may be of interest to researcher to find out how did he make such a remarkable progress in 12 months and perhaps there is something worth abstracting for other slow students to learn from.
That's what happened with marketing and advertising in the 20th century ... "researchers" learned how to very effectively get people to think in certain ways and to get them to buy stuff. The "slow students" are those who do not readily accept the corporate and government messages. But was that a "good" thing?

You missed my original point.
Initially I stated as an example, it is obvious there are changes and improvements specifically in terms of chattel slavery [as defined] within the history of mankind since 1000 years ago to the present where such slavery are illegal in all Nation at present. It is illegal by law for Humans to be owned and traded like chattels or goods.
I didn't miss the point. I gave you examples of the way dasein works. There are people who think that there ought to be slavery, that some people are better off as slaves, that treating slaves violently is appropriate. Okay, you're not one of them and the people who agree with you are in positions of power, therefore you call antislavery laws "progress". If the world changes and supporters of slavery gain power, then they will implement slavery and call that "progress".
I raised the point based what I know and intended to convey.
So I know where you have missed my point and indeed you have missed my point.

"And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein."
(subject to confirmation by iambiguous)
I have pointed out to iambiguous in another post that individual experiences and values can be made objective based on intersubjective deliberation and consensus. We will have to debate on this point which is related directly to Philosophy of Morality.

In my example re slavery, I was not referring to a small class or group But ALL Nations representing the whole World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... tional_law
Yes, once and long time ago, there were different views between Nations regarding the abolishment of "chattel slavery" but at present ALL Nations has agreed to come to consensus on the same point at least on a legal basis.
This is an objective standard of values where all humans must complied with on a legal basis.

Based on this objective standard, there is progress in terms of 'abolishment of chattel slavery -legally' from thousands years ago to the present.

Based on the above objective progress, my point is there must be something inherent in the human brain/mind that is driving this trend of progress. Therefore humanity must strive to know and understand its mechanics so that it can be applied and reproduced to generate similar progress in other fields of morality and ethics [values]. I am very optimistic humanity is capable of achieving the above some time in the future.


Note at least my optimism will stir me to explore and if there are benefits, fine, if none, at least I have tried. In your case you are indifferent and blind to whatever potential progress there is, thus will not explore to find possibilities for further progress.
Again, labeling something as "benefits" is a value judgement.

I'm not indifferent. I simply understand what Iambig is saying.

Heck, I even understand why he has a dilemma and why he can't get out of it. I've spent years trying to pull him out of it. O:)

I understand "iambig" is caught in a dilemma based on his own framework of wrong views and thoughts as I had pointed out to him in the various posts above.

Yes, "benefits" is a value judgement - but as I had stated it can be made objective and modulated with Philosophy of Morality and Ethics so that whatever the 'benefits' they are to be optimized net-positively for the well being of humanity. This point need to be deliberated within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a very complex topic.
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 MagsJ » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:15 pm

phyllo wrote:
Please stick to discussing the topic and not each other.. or not at all: James/Phyllo.
I am discussing the topic. I'm explaining dasein to him.
You are now.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17446
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:07 pm

You are now.
Wrong again.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:29 pm

phyllo wrote:
You are now.
Wrong again.

You are right.. in this instance, in this thread.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17446
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:30 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Re "progressive" means 'baby steps' of continuous improvements from one's current state at any moment in time.
Note the current state of Scientific Knowledge did not come about instantly but driven by continuous improvements over the last 500 years and the time Science first emerged. It the same for all fields of knowledge and competence [including morality and slavery].


Put a hundred men and women who embody the entire political spectrum [from left to right] in the same room and ask them to pin down these "baby steps of continuous improvements".

They can either be pinned down with some precision [right makes might], or human interactions in any particular community will revolve around one or another rendition/combination of might makes right and/or democracy and the rule of law.

Again, choose a conflictng good and we can explore it scientifically and philosophically and experientially.

Prismatic567 wrote:Within the process of continuous improvements there is no question or demand of absolute precision. Going to the moon do not involve absolute precision but there are provisions for acceptable minute margin of deviations for standards.

Now what is most critical is the progressive trend and the inherent program within the mind that is driving this progressive trend in all fields of knowledge and comptetences. From evidence and observation, the existential of such a potential to progress is quite obvious and can be easily abstracted.


I have no idea what this has to do with the distinction between the rigorous exactitude needed to send astronauts to the moon and the utter lack of exactitude that revolves around space travel as a moral/political issue -- as a clash of conflicting goods.

Even as a clash of conflicting baby steps.

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


I can only react here as I must: Another "general description"/"intellectual contraption" that you have concocted "in your head". As though the "average person" here can be evinced with any precision.

Thus: What would constitute progress for the average person when confronted with the arguments above.

These arguments: https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

And while [historically] some have viewed slavery as a moral issue, others insist that it is an economic issue. Some have even rationalized slavery as in sync with the teachings of the bIble.

And [of course] the narcissists will always only be concerned with that which sustains their own self-interest.


Prismatic567 wrote:It is not an intellectual contraption.
Note my point above re that 'implicit machinery' of progress which can be abstracted from evidence within human history.
Note how did humanity progress in travelling from Africa to all over the World. Note the advancement of Science and other fields of knowledge. The evidence is real and there must be an implicit machinery within the brain/mind that drove all the above continuous improvements is continuing to do so. This can be easily abstracted from the evidences available.


As I see it, this is basically another intellectual contraption arguing that your "analysis" above is not in turn an intellectual contraption. And it fails to confront the distinction I make here between the either/or and the is/ought world.

From my frame of mind it borders on pedantry.

Prismatic567 wrote: The point is do you agree with Russell's statement, the purpose of philosophy is not to give definite answers but to raise questions?


What I would have asked Russell is this: what are the limitations of philosophy [and the tools at its disposal] with respect to the distinction I am making.

For scientists and engineers, given the exactitude at their disposal in grasping the laws of nature, they either get the astronauts to the Moon or they don't. But, for the philosophers and the ethicists, what constitutes precision when confronted with space travel as a set of conflicting goods?

In any particular human community, human interactions require a set of prescripted and proscripted behaviors. Who decides this? Based on what criteria?


Prismatic567 wrote:Applying the generic Problem Solving Technique, I believe you do not have the right view and right thought to the inherent issue.

My contention is;
1. there are objective values "I" can set and strive to reach.
2. there should not be any regret but one must do one's best and take corrective actions to strive harder to the objective values.
3. You need to have the 'right' view of who is "I" and manage it efficiently.


Then, from my point of view, your contention here is clearly just an another intellectual construction.

Then back again to all the folks along the political spectrum noting more or less the very same thing. Only insisting it is their own moral narrative and not yours that will prevail. What then? Well, then we have some vague and distant "future" where we learn once and for all who was actually right.

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem you posed is too complex.
You need to break it down into smaller units first and combine them later.
But the above is long story.


We've got to start somewhere, right? What would the "smaller units" look like regarding a discussion of the conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel. What of the gap between alleged ideals and a historical reality that exudes any number of fiercely conflicted political rationalizations.

...let's focus the beam in on a particular moral/political conflagration and see how far we can take this "out in the world" of actual human social, political and economic" interactions.

You choose the issue, you choose the context. As they pertain to this:

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

My reaction then being this: What on earth does this convey when made applicable to a particular conflict that, say, we come upon time and again here at ILP with respect to a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda?


Prismatic567 wrote:Can you give a specific case of a a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda? I am not into politics.
I would prefer a Statement of Problem, like 'Who am I' and other philosophical questions.


This in itself strikes me as odd. Politics revolves around the actual historical evolution of human interactions pertaining both to basic needs [political economy] and to any number of conflicting wants and desires.

How on earth can a philosopher ponder objective/ideal interactions out in particular "future worlds" without a more or less comprehensive understanding of the actual historical/cultural/experiential experiences of the species to date?

That makes no sense to me.
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: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:54 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
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

Free will allows us as moral beings to consider different positions on moral issues
But were morality objective and free will non existent that would not be possible


Until we are able to determine beyond all doubt that human autonomy does in fact exist [to whatever degree] we won't really know what is possible.

That's always the dilemma. I think I think therefore I think I think I am.

But: What does that mean [ontologically/teleologically] given whatever the explanation is for the existence of existence itself?

What I do is to make the assumption that pertaining to human interactions in the is/ought world, any existing human autonomy is embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
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: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:07 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
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

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

Given that I do not actually think God exists then he is indeed hypothetical. However those who do think that he exists routinely claim that he is omniscient and omnipotence so those are attributes they have given him not me. All I am doing is just showing how from a logical perspective they are not mutually compatible


My point however revolves around the dilemma we face in speaking of a God, the God, my God from a "logical perspective".

How epistemologically are we expected to understand this God given the gap that surely must exist between epistemology as mere mortals construe it [on this tiny little rock in the vastness of All There Is] and a knowledge encompassed in the Creator of All There Is itself?

First and foremost [for folks like me] we need something [an argument, an accumulation of definitive evidence] that would encourage us to at least take the issue seriously.
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: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:47 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Re "progressive" means 'baby steps' of continuous improvements from one's current state at any moment in time.
Note the current state of Scientific Knowledge did not come about instantly but driven by continuous improvements over the last 500 years and the time Science first emerged. It the same for all fields of knowledge and competence [including morality and slavery].


Put a hundred men and women who embody the entire political spectrum [from left to right] in the same room and ask them to pin down these "baby steps of continuous improvements".

They can either be pinned down with some precision [right makes might], or human interactions in any particular community will revolve around one or another rendition/combination of might makes right and/or democracy and the rule of law.

Again, choose a conflicting good and we can explore it scientifically and philosophically and experientially.
As I had mentioned, a tennis player like Roger Federer did not get there overnight but progress in 'baby steps' of continuous improvements from an early age till he won his first grand slam and continued to progress subsequently. I presume you understand what I meant by 'baby steps' in this case?

As for the 100 men and women from 'left' to 'right' obviously they have made 'baby steps' in their political careers.
But in this case you have be specific with the Problem Statement.
Example, how did so and so 'progressed' from childhood to have a strong 'right' wing inclinations?

I suggest you list down the specific problem you want to address and I will lay down the baby steps they have taken in their 'progress' for better or for worse.


I can only react here as I must: Another "general description"/"intellectual contraption" that you have concocted "in your head". As though the "average person" here can be evinced with any precision.

Thus: What would constitute progress for the average person when confronted with the arguments above.

These arguments: https://universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

I missed the above point re space exploration and its pros and cons.

Re space exploration, there may be pros and cons re progress for the average person. But this is secondary. The critical pro is for the human species and humanity.

Human beings are endowed with an inherent drive for continuous progress, and this is one drive that drove humans beings to be progressively present all over the world. This drive for continuous improvements and progress is such in whatever state X, humans [with its inherent potential* drive] are naturally driven to achieve a higher 'X+1' state like climbing steps of a ladder. * All humans has this potential but not all people are active, only a % are active, i.e. the explorers and risk takers.

Space exploration is a natural progress from the discovery of our ability with 'flight'.
The critical pro of space exploration is the establish the potential to ensure the human species can survive in the eventually Earth is inhabitable or destroyed with certainty in time [thousands of years from now].

But what is more critical is for humanity to understand the essence of the evident progress from flight [planes] to space, i.e. that inherent drive from continuous improvements. Once we can master the mechanics of this drive and replicate it, then we can activate this potential to the average person.

We can then apply it to increase the Morality Quotient of the average person or "progress" in terms of replacing religions with alternative fool proofs methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Prismatic567 wrote: The point is do you agree with Russell's statement, the purpose of philosophy is not to give definite answers but to raise questions?


What I would have asked Russell is this: what are the limitations of philosophy [and the tools at its disposal] with respect to the distinction I am making.

For scientists and engineers, given the exactitude at their disposal in grasping the laws of nature, they either get the astronauts to the Moon or they don't. But, for the philosophers and the ethicists, what constitutes precision when confronted with space travel as a set of conflicting goods?
As I had stated before, there is no exactitude in going to the moon. Because of the empirical laws, there is always a margin for error, say a 0.001% deviation from standard of degrees.

As for philosophy, I have discussed above. There is no need for precision. Humanity is driven to space naturally based on the inherent drive for continuous improvement, i.e. one-up on any existing state and I believe there is a sense within many the Earth will not last, it is just a matter of time, so at least humanity is hoping with hope a hospitable planet can be discovered in time before Earth is destroyed.

In any particular human community, human interactions require a set of prescripted and proscripted behaviors. Who decides this? Based on what criteria?


Prismatic567 wrote:Applying the generic Problem Solving Technique, I believe you do not have the right view and right thought to the inherent issue.

My contention is;
1. there are objective values "I" can set and strive to reach.
2. there should not be any regret but one must do one's best and take corrective actions to strive harder to the objective values.
3. You need to have the 'right' view of who is "I" and manage it efficiently.


Then, from my point of view, your contention here is clearly just an another intellectual construction.
The above is not a purely intellectual exercise.
There is so much room for the various issues to be discussed and many of the conclusions can be put into action.
If is just that you are not trying but rather brushing it off as an 'intellectual contraption' too quickly.

Then back again to all the folks along the political spectrum noting more or less the very same thing. Only insisting it is their own moral narrative and not yours that will prevail. What then? Well, then we have some vague and distant "future" where we learn once and for all who was actually right.
As I had stated there are no definite answers in philosophy, so there is no situation where one is actually right [unless the obvious].

As for any improvement to those folks along the political spectrum, whatever the problem can be resolved in time, say next 100 years but starting with a feasible model at present.

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem you posed is too complex.
You need to break it down into smaller units first and combine them later.
But the above is long story.


We've got to start somewhere, right? What would the "smaller units" look like regarding a discussion of the conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel. What of the gap between alleged ideals and a historical reality that exudes any number of fiercely conflicted political rationalizations.

The conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel can be very complex.
I have discussed space travel above re leveraging on survival of the species. If you note the link you provided do not even mentioned this. There are more to say on this, but it is very limited in a forum like this to go into the details.

As for abortion, it is not something people would deliberate plan for or look forward to but rather they are forced by circumstances into it. The variables involved in this issue are many and very complex.
We can attempt to resolve this issue of 'abortion' via the Generic Problem Solving Technique. Thus we have to define the problem, break down the problem into smaller units, analyze these problem, identify root causes and find strategies to resolve these root causes. Then we get the first draft to a master plan and continually improve on it via feedback control.

I am confident I can come up with a reasonable rational and feasible master plan [at least in theory first] but expected result can only be achieved within 100 years.

Prismatic567 wrote:Can you give a specific case of a a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda? I am not into politics.
I would prefer a Statement of Problem, like 'Who am I' and other philosophical questions.


This in itself strikes me as odd. Politics revolves around the actual historical evolution of human interactions pertaining both to basic needs [political economy] and to any number of conflicting wants and desires.

How on earth can a philosopher ponder objective/ideal interactions out in particular "future worlds" without a more or less comprehensive understanding of the actual historical/cultural/experiential experiences of the species to date?

That makes no sense to me.
I am not very keen on politics and I view this as a very primal drive. My point is when I deal effectively with the critical philosophical issues, resolving the political issues would be easier.
It is like if I have a PhD is Problem Solving Techniques in general I would not have much of a problem, resolving any problem from wherever, it is just a matter of getting acquainted with the general matters of the subject, i.e. in this case politics.

It would be easier for you to specify what areas you are interested in politics to be resolved.

Personally I would prefer something in philosophy which is general like,
How to Know Thyself? Why the majority do not Know-Themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
I believe if we can understand the above generic concept and master its principles and knowledge, then it would be easier to resolve other issues.
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 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:09 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:As for the 100 men and women from 'left' to 'right' obviously they have made 'baby steps' in their political careers.
But in this case you have be specific with the Problem Statement.
Example, how did so and so 'progressed' from childhood to have a strong 'right' wing inclinations?

I suggest you list down the specific problem you want to address and I will lay down the baby steps they have taken in their 'progress' for better or for worse.


I have noted any number of conflicting goods above. The one of particular importance to me is abortion. Why? Because this was the issue that nudged me into abandoning objectivism myself. How? By forcing me to recognize that "baby steps to progress" can be reasonably construed from both ends of the moral/political continuum -- re either the natural right of the unborn to life or the political right of women to choose to terminate that life.

Conflicting goods construed precisely from a point of view -- rooted in dasein -- deemed either "for the better" or "for the worse".

To which you note:

Prismatic567 wrote:As for abortion, it is not something people would deliberate plan for or look forward to but rather they are forced by circumstances into it. The variables involved in this issue are many and very complex.
We can attempt to resolve this issue of 'abortion' via the Generic Problem Solving Technique. Thus we have to define the problem, break down the problem into smaller units, analyze these problem, identify root causes and find strategies to resolve these root causes. Then we get the first draft to a master plan and continually improve on it via feedback control.

I am confident I can come up with a reasonable rational and feasible master plan [at least in theory first] but expected result can only be achieved within 100 years.


Again, I can only imagine you at a Planned Parenthood clinic noting this to the folks inside the facility and to the protesters outside of it. How on earth do you imagine them reacting to it? After all, what are you really saying here pertaining to all of the many, many, many particular sets of circumstances that might bring folks to those clinics?

Prismatic567 wrote:Re space exploration, there may be pros and cons re progress for the average person. But this is secondary. The critical pro is for the human species and humanity.


Indeed, this [in my view] is really where you want all of it to go. You've got this general idea "in your head" about how the human species should end up "in the future". You've reasoned out a set of assumptions regarding space travel and if all the baby steps taken by all the folks on all the sides of the issue here and now converge on your own general description of "humanity's interactions" there and then, the "Morality Quotient" of the average person will have converged in turn.

If only [for now] in your head.

The species will survive. But only on your terms. And [of course] this is precisely the frame of mind that all of the other objectivists [moral, political, philosophical, theological etc.] embrace in turn. You are all entirely in agreement about an optimal future. It's just that, in the present, you are all hopelessly conflicted regarding how to get there.

But so what, right? As you note:

Prismatic567 wrote:As for any improvement to those folks along the political spectrum, whatever the problem can be resolved in time, say next 100 years but starting with a feasible model at present.


Whose "feasible model"? Feasible in what sense? Based on what set of assumptions? Reconfigured into what actual set of laws?

Prismatic567 wrote: Can you give a specific case of a a liberal or a conservative narrative/agenda? I am not into politics.
I would prefer a Statement of Problem, like 'Who am I' and other philosophical questions.


This in itself strikes me as odd. Politics revolves around the actual historical evolution of human interactions pertaining both to basic needs [political economy] and to any number of conflicting wants and desires.

How on earth can a philosopher ponder objective/ideal interactions out in particular "future worlds" without a more or less comprehensive understanding of the actual historical/cultural/experiential experiences of the species to date?

That makes no sense to me.


Prismatic567 wrote: I am not very keen on politics and I view this as a very primal drive. My point is when I deal effectively with the critical philosophical issues, resolving the political issues would be easier.
It is like if I have a PhD is Problem Solving Techniques in general I would not have much of a problem, resolving any problem from wherever, it is just a matter of getting acquainted with the general matters of the subject, i.e. in this case politics.


Well, from my frame of mind, you are not really responding to the point that I raise. It is as though you are arguing that only when the philosopher-kings have established the ideal human interactions should all the rest of us go about the business of embodying them. The irony here being that, for folks like Plato, this included slavery.

Once the Republic is deduced into existence, it is only a matter of everyone recognizing just how philosophically seamless it all is. A place for everyone and everyone in his or her place. The flesh and blood interactions wholly in sync with a general description of the human condition.

This in other words:

Prismatic567 wrote:Personally I would prefer something in philosophy which is general like,
How to Know Thyself? Why the majority do not Know-Themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
I believe if we can understand the above generic concept and master its principles and knowledge, then it would be easier to resolve other issues.


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

And unless we can figure out a way to meld the two approaches, I suspect we will just go on spinning our wheels.
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: 26598
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:32 am

I have addressed most of the counters you raised above. In summary;

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.
The point here is for humanity to abstract the principles of how this improvement-drive get to its result, then humanity can apply it to other aspects of life.

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

What do you think I should do? Adopt your 'stuck' view and recommend all to stick to the current norm of whatever problems that we are stuck with? Nah ... =;

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

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

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

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

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

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


Frankly there is nothing to loose in being optimistic, i.e. it is a win-win as the above stated,
I say, “The best thing one can say about an optimist is that she enjoyed the
challenge regardless of the outcome.”


and in addition the chemicals in the body and brain will change to lighten and brighten things up.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users