Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:32 am

I noted this is a good introduction to Heidegger's existentialism.

In this program, world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee and William Barret of New York University examine the basic theory of existentialism as founded by Martin Heidegger, and later propagated by Jean-Paul Sartre. Barret discusses Heidegger’s notions of being, existence as task, cosmic roots, and alienation. Sartre’s concept of absolute human freedom is discussed as having promoted human dignity and individualism in the impersonal modern society.


Heidegger and Existentialism with Bryan Magee (1977)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bo4FMP3vo&t=473s
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bo4FMP3vo&t=473s[/youtube]

One critical point I note from the above discussion, Heidegger's existentialism is mainly descriptive but without any prescriptions and that is why the typical existentialist is informed of the theories and problems associated with existence but are neverthelss lost as how to resolve those problems.

Perhaps one rare practical advice from Heidegger was;
Heidegger was asked how we might recover authenticity, he replied tersely that we should simply aim to spend more time ‘in graveyards’.
http://thephilosophersmail.com/perspect ... heidegger/


What??? perhaps that is why people like Ambiguous [Heidegger is one of his idol?] is so lost.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:53 pm

basic theory of existentialism as founded by Martin Heidegger
Heidegger "founded" existentialism???

That's news.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:34 pm

One critical point I note from the above discussion, Heidegger's existentialism is mainly descriptive but without any prescriptions and that is why the typical existentialist is informed of the theories and problems associated with existence but are neverthelss lost as how to resolve those problems.
What sense would it make to prescribe something to an existentialist?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:15 am

phyllo wrote:
basic theory of existentialism as founded by Martin Heidegger
Heidegger "founded" existentialism???
That's news.
Why the ???

There are many claims as to who was the first who founded 'existentialism-proper'.

In the video it is claimed that Heidegger was the central figure of existentialism, thus the video's 'as founded by Heidegger'.

Someone could have produced a video - existentialism as founded by 'Sartre' or Kierkegaard.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:25 am

Well there is this :
Nevertheless, the extent to which Heidegger should be considered an existentialist is debatable. In Being and Time he presented a method of rooting philosophical explanations in human existence (Dasein) to be analysed in terms of existential categories (existentiale); and this has led many commentators to treat him as an important figure in the existentialist movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Debatable is right, IMHO.

OTOH, Kierkegaard could be considered a founder.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:32 am

phyllo wrote:
One critical point I note from the above discussion, Heidegger's existentialism is mainly descriptive but without any prescriptions and that is why the typical existentialist is informed of the theories and problems associated with existence but are nevertheless lost as how to resolve those problems.
What sense would it make to prescribe something to an existentialist?
Note the problem solving technique of life I have been writing about in other posts.

Existentialism reveals and describes what human existence really entails, i.e. the problems one really face in life.
But it does not prescribe effective solutions to existentialists to adopt and practice to resolve the problems of existence that it reveals and exposes.

Buddhism also has its existentialism elements which reveals the critical problems [dukkah] of life and provide a generic solution to life's problem to tackle whatever the problem, i.e.
    1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha) - descriptive
    2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya) - descriptive
    3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha) - descriptive
    4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga) - descriptive and prescriptive.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:37 am

phyllo wrote:Well there is this :
Nevertheless, the extent to which Heidegger should be considered an existentialist is debatable. In Being and Time he presented a method of rooting philosophical explanations in human existence (Dasein) to be analysed in terms of existential categories (existentiale); and this has led many commentators to treat him as an important figure in the existentialist movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Debatable is right, IMHO.

OTOH, Kierkegaard could be considered a founder.
The video qualified existentialism as founded by Heidegger.

It is not claiming Heidegger is the unqualified founder of existentialism because there are many philosophies and philosophers who were associated with 'existentialism'.

Note Buddhism 500BC ago was into existentialism as a major part of its theories and practices.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:41 pm

Note the problem solving technique of life I have been writing about in other posts.

Existentialism reveals and describes what human existence really entails, i.e. the problems one really face in life.
But it does not prescribe effective solutions to existentialists to adopt and practice to resolve the problems of existence that it reveals and exposes.
The 'doctor' is not living the existentialist's life. He can't know what the existentialist ought to do.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:18 am

phyllo wrote:
Note the problem solving technique of life I have been writing about in other posts.

Existentialism reveals and describes what human existence really entails, i.e. the problems one really face in life.
But it does not prescribe effective solutions to existentialists to adopt and practice to resolve the problems of existence that it reveals and exposes.
The 'doctor' is not living the existentialist's life. He can't know what the existentialist ought to do.
Thus there is a limitation of that 'doctor' i.e. not a holistic philosopher.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:39 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I noted this is a good introduction to Heidegger's existentialism.

In this program, world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee and William Barret of New York University examine the basic theory of existentialism as founded by Martin Heidegger, and later propagated by Jean-Paul Sartre. Barret discusses Heidegger’s notions of being, existence as task, cosmic roots, and alienation. Sartre’s concept of absolute human freedom is discussed as having promoted human dignity and individualism in the impersonal modern society.


Heidegger and Existentialism with Bryan Magee (1977)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bo4FMP3vo&t=473s
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bo4FMP3vo&t=473s[/youtube]

One critical point I note from the above discussion, Heidegger's existentialism is mainly descriptive but without any prescriptions and that is why the typical existentialist is informed of the theories and problems associated with existence but are neverthelss lost as how to resolve those problems.

Perhaps one rare practical advice from Heidegger was;
Heidegger was asked how we might recover authenticity, he replied tersely that we should simply aim to spend more time ‘in graveyards’.
http://thephilosophersmail.com/perspect ... heidegger/


What??? perhaps that is why people like Ambiguous [Heidegger is one of his idol?] is so lost.


Hmm...

Another post bursting at the seams with the sort of thing that "serious philosophers" revel in: nothing much.

What did Heidegger mean?

How can we accumulate just the right words in just the right order so as to finally pin that down.

Okay, fine. And when you accomplish this bring your conclusions down out of the academic clouds and situate them in a context that most here will be familiar with.

Now, sure, back in my own objectivist days, I did idolize particular "heroes" of mine.

But that makes no sense to me now. Eventually, everyone gets swallowed up in an essentially absurd and meaningless life that crumbles down and then tumbles into the abyss.

Heidegger it would seem is no longer grappling with "how ought one to live?" And who among us here can demonstrate that the answers he came up with on this side of the graveyard reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind?

In our is/ought interactions in a No God world.

But that's just me. My own existential pursuit here. I leave all that "technical" stuff now to others.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:09 pm

Since Barrett was so important in Iambig's personal journey, one would think that he would have more to say in this thread. :-k
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:14 pm

phyllo wrote:Since Barrett was so important in Iambig's personal journey, one would think that he would have more to say in this thread. :-k


Pick a context, behaviors in conflict and a moral narrative and we can discuss our respective assessments of Barrett, Heidegger and any other philosopher deemed applicable.

No, seriously. :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: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:24 pm

Pick a context, behaviors in conflict and a moral narrative and we can discuss our respective assessments of Barrett, Heidegger and any other philosopher deemed applicable.

No, seriously. :wink:
What happened to Boris?

Discuss.
Jules Henry:

Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms, and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he 'think'. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the the class and says, 'Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?' A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator.

Henry remarks:

Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:52 pm

phyllo wrote:
Pick a context, behaviors in conflict and a moral narrative and we can discuss our respective assessments of Barrett, Heidegger and any other philosopher deemed applicable.

No, seriously. :wink:
What happened to Boris?

Discuss.
Jules Henry:

Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms, and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he 'think'. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the the class and says, 'Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?' A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator.

Henry remarks:

Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures.



Well, there are clearly "rival goods" embedded here historically and culturally in human interactions. The individual or the collective? Competition or cooperation? "I" or "we"? "One of us" or "one of them"?

Me, I'm still entangled in my dilemma. I note that both sides seem able to make reasonable arguments either embracing or rejecting the class's reaction to Boris. And that these arguments appear to be largely embodied in dasein. And that "out in the world" what counts [for all practical purposes] is who has the actual power to enforce one political agenda rather than another.

Is there a way then for "serious philosophers" to accumulate both logical asssessments and empirical evidence such that the optimal or the only rational reaction is reached? An obligatory reaction?

Can Prismatic provide us with the most "progressive" "Middle-Way" reaction "here and now" or do we have to wait until we are all almost certainly dead and gone "in the future"?
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: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:13 pm

"phyllo: Jules Henry:

Boris had trouble reducing 12/16 to the lowest terms, and could only get as far as 6/8. The teacher asked him quietly if that was as far as he could reduce it. She suggested he 'think'. Much heaving up and down and waving of hands by the other children, all frantic to correct him. Boris pretty unhappy, probably mentally paralyzed. The teacher quiet, patient, ignores the others and concentrates with look and voice on Boris. After a minute or two she turns to the the class and says, 'Well, who can tell Boris what the number is?' A forest of hands appears, and the teacher calls on Peggy. Peggy says that four may be divided into the numerator and the denominator.

Henry remarks:

Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures. [/quote][/quote]

K: and this leads us back to a simple point, which is "what is the point of education?"
are we trying to teach "math"? are we trying to teach competetion? are we trying to
reduce children to nothing more then working bots? are we teaching "wisdom"?
or are we teaching children how to become "human"? the role of education
for over 300 years was not to teach working skills, but to teach one how to
be an educated human being..... specific skill like math and reading, was not
to enable a student to get a job or to have a specific skill to have a career,
but to become a better human being....part of the modern failure is we can't
decide what we want things like education or punishment to do?
is punishment to punish or is it to rehabilitate someone to return to society?
we haven't decided and that has lead to the failure of our large scale massive
judicial system.... just as it has lead to the failure of our education system.....
what is education for? now, one might say, education is to teach children,
but to teach children for what end? to be better human beings? to be better
worker bee's? to be able to discover who we are and what is our possibilites?

if school is to teach children how to connect socially? then technology
has destroyed that task because kids are doing such unsocial things as
video games which doesn't require interactions and facebook and
texting each other every 30 seconds... my daughter who is 33,
she doesn't go anywhere without her phone...and she is constantly
texting or facebooking someone..... how is that teaching being
social?

so we are left with the question, what is the point of education?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6680
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:13 pm

apologies, double post...

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6680
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:13 pm

Is there a way then for "serious philosophers" to accumulate both logical asssessments and empirical evidence such that the optimal or the only rational reaction is reached? An obligatory reaction?
The "serious philosophers" ought to recognize the scope of the conflict and work to keep it within limits. At it's simplest, it's a case of correcting a student who makes a math mistake. Surely, it's relatively simple to agree that math mistakes, student mistakes in general, ought to be corrected. We want to minimize the "trauma" to the student. But a little trauma may be unavoidable in the process of education.

Are you going to say that even this is beyond the capability of philosophy?

The problem is that the simple "conflict" has been framed as a conflict between "competition" and "cooperation". That that has blown it up into what appears to be unsolvable.

And there is no limit to the potential escalations. What if Boris is black and Peggy is white? Then correcting Boris amounts to systemic racism. Right?

What's necessary is to remain focused on the core problem. That seems doable with "the tools of philosophy" in the case Boris. A complete understanding of life, the universe and everything is not required.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:27 pm

If Boris recognizes that correcting his math mistakes is not a personal attack on him, his identity or his ego, then a lot of "trauma" evaporates.

This is something that "serious philosophy" ought to teach Boris.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:28 am

iambiguous wrote:Can Prismatic provide us with the most "progressive" "Middle-Way" reaction "here and now" or do we have to wait until we are all almost certainly dead and gone "in the future"?
You missed my points.
I have never implied we should focus "in the future" only.

My approach is using the generic Problem Solving Technique for Life in the following;
    1. Deal with the problem "here and now" optimally within all known constraints.
    2. Plan for the future to prevent, reduce or eliminate the problem.

In a given scenario like Boris above, we can construct 1000 & 1 problems.

In the above case Henry narrowed it down primarily to the Problem of Competition.
The state of Boris's mental state, Peggy's ego, methods of education is secondary.

So the MAIN philosophical issue in the given Boris scenario is the Pros and Cons of Competition as defined by Henry. Note the following examples,


There are tons of articles on the Pros and Cons of Competition out there with a wide variety of views.

Note Russell's

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; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.


In this particular case of Boris, I will not give any particular answer for the 'here and now' or the future because there are so many alternative perspectives to the Pro and Cons of Competition.
Rather I will explore all possibilities and take the optimal path -The Middle Way as conditioned by the existing constraints.
Definitely it will not be an either/or answer but rather we must evoke the concept of complementarity to blend 'competition' and 'no-competition' to achieve optimality within the defined constraints.

However re existentialism, what I propose is for anyone entangled with the issue is to maintain a state of composure immediately and not be emotionally effected by opposing views. In the near future one should strive to cultivate a state of equanimity and stabilize it as soon as possible and learn the generic problem solving technique of life to deal with ANY problems one encountered in life.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:09 pm

phyllo wrote:
Is there a way then for "serious philosophers" to accumulate both logical asssessments and empirical evidence such that the optimal or the only rational reaction is reached? An obligatory reaction?
The "serious philosophers" ought to recognize the scope of the conflict and work to keep it within limits. At it's simplest, it's a case of correcting a student who makes a math mistake. Surely, it's relatively simple to agree that math mistakes, student mistakes in general, ought to be corrected. We want to minimize the "trauma" to the student. But a little trauma may be unavoidable in the process of education.


You would think it relatively simple wouldn't you? And yet there are any number of folks who embrace one or another rendition of the rugged individual surviving by his or her own wits in a dog eat dog world.

Boris either rises to the top or he doesn't. In the end, it's his own responsibilty. And he is never too young to learn this.

Here, I like to come back to this: https://youtu.be/v1qtv7uKUlY

Now, ideally, this is how we are supposed to approach competition: through cooperation.

You tell me though: what does that have to do with the real world of sports competition in America? And of competition on, say, Wall Street. Or in the courtroom.

My point is that your point or their point is embedded in dasein out in a particular world unfolding in a particular historical and cultural context.

That, in other words, philosophers don't seem able to consider both agendas [and many more besides] in order to come up with the optimal or only rational assesment. One in which, if one wishes to be thought of as a virtuous human being, one is obligated to embrace.

And, sure, in a racist culture the color of his skin matters. Or, in other contexts, gender, ethnicity, religious affliation or sexual orientation. All of these become embedded in "conflict" to make it all that much more complex and vexing.

And I would never argue that this is all "unsolvable", only that I have not come upon an argument of late that nudges me back in a direction [that I once embraced myself] able to demonstrate that it might be.

phyllo wrote: What's necessary is to remain focused on the core problem. That seems doable with "the tools of philosophy" in the case Boris. A complete understanding of life, the universe and everything is not required.


Right, and that's never embedded in particular political prejudices embedded in particular ontological prejudices regarding the optimal narrative embedded in one or another rendition of the philosopher-king: right makes might.

I'm only arging that moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] may well encompass the "best of all possible worlds".
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: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby phyllo » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:38 pm

You would think it relatively simple wouldn't you? And yet there are any number of folks who embrace one or another rendition of the rugged individual surviving by his or her own wits in a dog eat dog world.

Boris either rises to the top or he doesn't. In the end, it's his own responsibilty. And he is never too young to learn this.

Here, I like to come back to this: https://youtu.be/v1qtv7uKUlY

Now, ideally, this is how we are supposed to approach competition: through cooperation.
It's not about competition or cooperation. You're completely being drawn into that particular narrative. You're not even questioning it. Where is your critical thinking? #-o
I'm only arging that moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] may well encompass the "best of all possible worlds".
You're also arguing that sometimes 2+2=5. If Ingsoc or some other organization or some individual says so. To avoid the evil of competition, you give up on truth.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10725
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:33 am

phyllo wrote:It's not about competition or cooperation. You're completely being drawn into that particular narrative. You're not even questioning it. Where is your critical thinking? #-o


Note:

Henry remarks:

Boris's failure made it possible for Peggy to succeed; his misery is the occasion for her rejoicing. This is a standard condition of the contemporary American elementary school. To a Zuni, Hopi or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief, for competition, the wringing of success from somebody's failure, is a form of torture foreign to those non-competitive cultures.


In the scenario you presented above, there are many aspects one can deal with but note "Henry remarks" where the context of 'competition' is highlighted. Thus without you specifying, to topic I had discussed along the line of 'competition'.

If you want to emphasize on other contexts [which are many], you should have said so.
Example we could discuss the effectiveness of teaching methods which do not allow Peggy to answer to embarrass [or whatever] Boris. Perhaps Boris should have been diagnosed with learning disability and put in a separate special class. As I had stated there are so areas which we can discuss in the scenario you presented.
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: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:31 pm

phyllo wrote: It's not about competition or cooperation. You're completely being drawn into that particular narrative. You're not even questioning it. Where is your critical thinking? #-o


From my frame of mind, we all have our own individual narratives regarding what it means to either cooperate with others or to compete against them. These are derived in part from the particular historical and cultural contexts into which we are thrown at birth. Then, given a particular set of experiences, relationships and access to information/knowledge, this narrative evolves over time from the cradle to the grave. Thus for any number of reasons we may find ourselves questioning what we think is true in the is/ought world.

So, as a "critical thinker", are you able to discern the optimal narrative? Might a bunch of critical thinkers get together to ponder the fate of either Boris or the kids in the video and come up with a frame of mind that reasonable men and women are obligated to share?

Sure, maybe. All I can do though is to react to that which they do come up with. As, for example, I reacted to your own speculations above. Now, please react to mine.

I'm only arging that moderation, negotiation and compromise [democracy and the rule of law] may well encompass the "best of all possible worlds".


phyllo wrote: You're also arguing that sometimes 2+2=5. If Ingsoc or some other organization or some individual says so. To avoid the evil of competition, you give up on truth.


Basically, I react to that like this:

Given the context with Boris and the autistic kids above, our reactions will either be the right one [4] or the wrong one [5]. And those who give the wrong answers are those who don't share the one true reaction.

You, being a "critical thinker", are in sync with the right reaction and thus have access to the right answers.
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: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:01 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
There are tons of articles on the Pros and Cons of Competition out there with a wide variety of views.


That's my point. Thus, after perusing these pros and cons in the links above, to what extent can philosophers derive the optimal frame of mind? Or, instead, as I surmise, is that more likely to be rooted existentially in particular historical and cultural contexts that evolve over time into any number of conflicting social, political and economic narratives/agendas?

What does the "real world" -- the actual historical interactions of flesh and blood human beings -- seem to suggest here?

Prismatic567 wrote:Note Russell's

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; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.


What questions? Pertaining to what particular contexts? Predicated on what particular assumptions precipitating what particular political prejudices pertaining to cooperation and competition embodied in human interactions?

Prismatic567 wrote:In this particular case of Boris, I will not give any particular answer for the 'here and now' or the future because there are so many alternative perspectives to the Pro and Cons of Competition.
Rather I will explore all possibilities and take the optimal path -The Middle Way as conditioned by the existing constraints.


Typical. You will take this path but you have absolutely nothing substantive to say about how those who do take this path are able to actually describe a set of "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors here.

We need but recognize "the Middle Way as conditioned by the existing constraints."

Axiomatically as it were.


Prismatic567 wrote:Definitely it will not be an either/or answer but rather we must evoke the concept of complementarity to blend 'competition' and 'no-competition' to achieve optimality within the defined constraints.


Okay, let's imagine that you were at the back of the classroom witnessing Boris's travail.

Afterward, you walk up to the teacher and you duly note this.

Now, let's all try to imagine her reaction...

I suspect her reaction to that will be more or less in sync with my own reaction to this:

Prismatic567 wrote:However re existentialism, what I propose is for anyone entangled with the issue is to maintain a state of composure immediately and not be emotionally effected by opposing views. In the near future one should strive to cultivate a state of equanimity and stabilize it as soon as possible and learn the generic problem solving technique of life to deal with ANY problems one encountered in life.


We simply do not think about these "human all too human" interactions in the same way.
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: 25960
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Heidegger and Existentialism - William Barrett

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:50 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Definitely it will not be an either/or answer but rather we must evoke the concept of complementarity to blend 'competition' and 'no-competition' to achieve optimality within the defined constraints.


Okay, let's imagine that you were at the back of the classroom witnessing Boris's travail.

Afterward, you walk up to the teacher and you duly note this.

Now, let's all try to imagine her reaction...
If I am in that classroom, if there is no serious critical threat, I will not do anything but take my observation as an empirical evidence of what has happened.
Where it is a mental problem, issue or sickness there is no way one can introduce an immediate solution to any observed scenario because the underlying cause is too complicated with neurons mis-connecting all over the brain.

It may be a lost cause for Boris, Peggy and the teacher, however I will take the above events [and the same elsewhere] as a research topic to prevent such situations [whatever is negative] happening to anyone in the future.

I suspect her reaction to that will be more or less in sync with my own reaction to this:

Prismatic567 wrote:However re existentialism, what I propose is for anyone entangled with the issue is to maintain a state of composure immediately and not be emotionally effected by opposing views. In the near future one should strive to cultivate a state of equanimity and stabilize it as soon as possible and learn the generic problem solving technique of life to deal with ANY problems one encountered in life.


We simply do not think about these "human all too human" interactions in the same way.
I suspect yours is also a lost cause. It would be more effective to direct one attention to prevent people with the same mental thinking like your sort with very 'dogmatic' views in the future.

E.g. if a person is a hardcore smoking addict, it is very difficult for such a person to kick off their habit. If it is not a critical thing, we just like the very hard core addict be. That is why & how I and others have accepted some close kins who are hardcore addict cigarette smokers who cannot give up smoking despite having terminal illness and warning/advice by doctors.
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

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron