I was merely asking what was meant. I’m not making an argument, other than that wallowing in despair serves no purpose that I can think of. I think it is perfectly understandable though.
With every thought dasein is reborn. It’s symbiotic. The thoughts we have now are predicated in part on the thoughts we once had. And those thoughts are predicated on the manner in which we viewed our “self” then. And that is predicated in large part on our historical era, our culture and our own unique individual experiences. And then a new thought can reconfigure dasein yet again going on into the future.
And sometimes when we experience a completely new thing…or experience a circumstantial landslide…“I” can change dramatically.
I agree. But the thoughts we had drummed into our heads as children, by sheer repitition, can stay with us throughout our lives. And thoughts associated with significant events in our lives can as well. It varies from individual to individual of course, but some thoughts are far more continuous than are others.
We can think thoughts based on what we think we know is true that either is not true or cannot be confirmed as true. That is always a facet of human interaction that is exasperating. We believe something that others do not. And try as we might we can’t reconcile the differences.
This is the case when discussing Camus’s take on nihilism. Or in discussing moral, political or aesthetic values. Or in discussing personal tastes.
And mind and matter are always routinely symbiotic. We simply do not understand fully this profoundly problematic relationship. And perhaps we never will.
But I agree the extent to which the mind of man can create thoughts that create Gods and doctrinaire ideologies and all manner of additional absolutist and authoritarian monsters, is indeed a tragedy.
If, of course, I understand your own thoughts here.
Really? Can you cite specific examples of ‘in-fact-truth’?
Some parts of reality can affirmed as more objectively ‘true’ (more in terms of quality), whereas other parts are more obviously subjective. We don’t confirm ‘truth’ as much as we agree with it. Our only means of confirmation would be the same by which the ‘truth’ was posited, meaning we agree or disagree with the respective ‘truth’ and its justification altogether. “Confirmation” of a ‘truth’, in this respect, is essentially recognition that someone else’s perception of a thing is somehow similar to your own.
It is “in fact” true that this technology does exist—and thus enabling us to have our exchange. And while a distinction can be made between confirming this to be the case and merely agreeing that it is, I am more inclined toward confirmation. Though as Hume speculated, high corrolation over time is not the same thing…necessarily…as causation.
Confirmation doesn’t implicate ‘truth’. False judgments can be confirmed as true. However, so long as you and I agree that something is “true” or “exists”, we may confirm that as ‘fact’ between us (but only between us).
I’d want to agree with your working definitions, or concepts, before I could confirm or deny your position. Though, even if I did agree with your concepts, that is not to assume your perspective is a suitable standard for the rest of humanity. “Confirmation” implies some standard for ‘truth’ – that standard cannot be reasonably confirmed as it is nebulous, but it can be agreed upon. If there is no real, universal standard for ‘truth’, there is no universal measure to determine what is true “in fact.”
I just don’t see the existence of this technology and this exchange as merely something between us. It’s more than that to me. What precisely I cannot say of course but I still believe it [intuitively?] to be the case. Just as I see the relationship between me and my mother as more than just a “fact” we happen to agree on. There are just too many other people who share in this confirmation and too many ways in which, if someone else wanted to confirm it, he or she easily could.
Let’s consider the the reality of abortion.
That abortions exist “in reality” and take place “in reality” can be be confirmed objectively in many, many ways. And thus abortion is in fact a true human experience.
Unless we want to argue solipsism or believe what we think we believe is merely part of some hidden matrix or a manifestation of a dream some cosmic entity is having.
Sooner or later though we have to dismiss things like this and acknowledge abortions do in fact occur. They exist across space [culture] and time [history] as universally understood experiences. Though there may be any number of minds that have no knolwedge whatsoever that this is true.
But, with respect to the morality of abortion, we are no where near a universal consensus regarding what is in fact true. This is the distinction I am making.
Somethings can, or should be, assumed ‘true’, though they may well be false judgments. The reason for this is a simple matter of practicality. We live and strive by practical means. It may be true that anything/everything can be doubted and dismissed, sure – but that doubt becomes less practical than acceptance of a possible false ‘truth’ if it works to our advantage.
In this context, “truth” is not a reflection of objective reality. It is an extension of usefulness and practicality in our subjective relationships with ‘reality.’ I could be laying in a hospital bed, in a coma, dreaming this exchange of ours; but I think it in my best interest to assume it is truly taking place objectively. In my opinion, this is one of the more bitter realizations a thinker must face at some point. Something may not be universally or absolutely “true”, but it is considered “true” insofar as it works and is communicable (and thus agreeable/disagreeable).
I don’t believe in any conventional truth regarding ‘God’, for instance, but I believe in the ‘truth’ of religious practicality – keeping the masses moral.
I’m not sure if my response here is what you expected or wanted, but I think your last retort is almost spot on. We have reason to believe we are being deceived in many ways, but we must move beyond mere skepticism in order to properly address a seemingly objective issue. Well done.
Yes, this is more or less the manner in which I understand these relationships. Not everything overlaps of course but that is to be expected given the enormous complexities involved in grasping things like this.
Unless of course we not in contradiction and there are solutions. That may well be the problem itself. Let’s focus in on a particular context and examine this more…substantively?
I should have translated the whole bit. There was a context, it was about pretty bodies annihilating something at the beach.
The contradiction he indicated was that of visual pleasure against physical pleasure, for example.
Thence, no solution and no problem.
You’re inquiring after the context of the context of the lost substance and I pick up the book once again in the hope of elucidation and receive a page, whereupon is printed a schematic of a being suspended between lucidity and absurdity, and united with itself in health and free play. But let me give it another bell.
“Philosophy is worthy of he who is worthy of philosophy. Philosophy is more true as man is more great.”
Few of us here are as good at this as you. Noting things that sound as though they are important points but not attached to anything that we can deem relevant to the lives that we actually live. The part I call a “context”.
That was a bit abusive. But I had invested some emotion in the idea that you were actually playing along in a poetic process.
When you had reduced it back to your crude & vacuous nihilism I was very contemptuous.
