I will refer to Kant to start with;
Kant[/b] in CPR"]
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397For here we have to do with a natural and inevitable Illusion, which rests on Subjective Principles, and foists them upon us as Objective; B354
the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism. A642 B670
The above is a central theme of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and he explained such a point many times over in the later section of his book.
Humans in general [DNA wise] are ‘infected’ with an existential dilemma that invoke a subliminal crisis that lead them a Natural and Inevitable Illusion which is nonetheless irresistible, Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them and,
“after long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.”
This is what happened to all the German and other Philosophers who came after Kant in trying to expound his philosophy but ending up being seduced by that illusion which unceasingly mocks and torments them.
This seduction is how it happened with Schelling [Self], Hegel [Absolute], Schopenhauer [Will] … Heidegger [Being -Dassein] Wittgenstein [Earlier objectivity]…
They could not grasp and thus were seduced into the reification of ‘that’ in some form but they are all ‘natural irresistable’ illusions of the transcendental kind.
But after a while some do manage to see through the veil and realized there is something fishy with this view. This is why Heidegger had his “The Turn” or “die Kehre,” Wittgenstein from Earlier objectivity to Later subjectivity. From what I read of Heidegger, even with his “Turning” he was still caught with the reified [illusion] which Kant was very aware '[/b], which unceasingly mocks and torments him."
In your case you reduce such to;
“As this revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world.”
But what is all this about? and in what perspective will it make sense to the “I.”
Now when the “I” is brought up, it is also vulnerable to be seduced into a natural irresistible illusion. So we need an effective philosophy of “I” so as not be caught in that illusion of an reified objectified “I.”
Or, in particular:
[b]I tend to eschew the exploration of Dasein with a capital D. Once you capitalize it, it becomes this scholastic Thing that Heidegger set out to describe [to encompass, to capture] as a “serious philosopher” in a tome. It becomes an intellectual contraption stuffed into an Analysis of Being and Time.
But as I had read, Heidegger has some realization of the limited idea of ‘Dasein’ and turned to something else, perhaps [d]asein, but he was still caught with the reified [illusion] which Kant was very aware '[/b], i.e. which unceasingly mocks and torments him."
Or so it seems to me.
I am only interested in the individual dasein. A particular man or woman who is thrown adventitiously at birth into a particular world. And, in being thrown there and not here, in being thrown then and not now, how is that a factor in exploring the values of individuals?[/b]
So you realize there are shortfalls with the idea of Dasein, but when you refer to inclining towards “individual dasein” your actually letting go of your original anchor of Dasein [eye of hurricane] and throwing yourself to the turbulence of the hurricane. So it seem you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
This is why when you move away from Dasein [eye of hurricane] you need to jump into another more steady ‘eye of hurricane’ and avoid being caught in its turbulence. But unfortunately it seems you are caught in a turbulence of some sort.
As opposed to the frame of mind embedded/embodied in one or another rendition of that which I construe to be objectivism.
These folks seem to argue that if you read the right scripture or follow the right philosopher or embrace the right political ideology or subscribe to the right understanding of nature, or deduce the right definitions, then and only then are you able to divide the world self-righteously into “one of us” and “one of them”.
“We” being those who embrace a set of behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace in turn; “they” being those who do not.
Then I merely note the extent to which I have come to conclude that objectivism of this sort is more a psychological contraption rooted in the arguments that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
At least you you are aware of the limitations and its fundamental evil [us versus them*] but you are moving off without an “anchor” to ride the stormy ocean of life and that is the problem.
I would not call that ‘objectivism’ but rather reifism, i.e. making something objective out of messed up subjectivity.
Thus, I am not really interested in exploring the extent to which my “dasein” is not in sync with Heidegger’s “Dasein”.
Instead, I wish to explore human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments given the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
The existential relationship between them out in a particular context unfolding in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. A world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
Since Heidegger had doubts and thus his own “turn” from Dasein, so it rational not to follow with his ‘Dasein.’
But then as I had stated you are jumping into the stormy ocean without a life-jacket or rather in a ship without strong anchor.
In other words, how are your own conflicts with others not entangled in my “dilemma”?
This one:
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.A frame of mind that “here and now” I have managed to think/talk myself into believing is a reasonable understanding of that aspect of the human condition most crucial to me: “how ought one to live?”
Rather than what is out there a 'Being" [illusory God, Dasein, etc.] the right focus should be on the ‘self’ within the turbulence of reality.
However this ‘self’ must not be seduced to the same irresistable illusion of a ‘permanent’ self but rather a dynamic self emerging amidst dynamic reality.
You introduced an element of psychology somewhere but it is not deep enough. I dug into the psychological elements and proposed one of the reinforcement of one’s anchor can only done by psychological change represented by actual neural rewiring and reinforcement.