What is Dasein?

I was not referring to parts of the brain but the individual neurons and its potential connectivity.

The human brain contains appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse]. It is just like there are 100 billion people on Earth with each person carrying up to 10,000 smart phones connecting with each other.

Note the possible combination between two neurons. So just imagine the number of possible and potential combinations in terms of connections for the whole brain.

At present the average human has only very minimal connections in relation to the whole potential [actually is infinite].
Einstein supposedly is among the top who has an IQ of 250, just imagine the realizable knowledge potential when the average human has an IQ of 250 and possibly >250 in future years.

It is not only IQ but it is possible for the average human to increase all other quotients, e.g moral, wisdom, spiritual, emotional, etc. by 100%, 200% in future years by tapping on the trend of expanded and expanding range of knowledge and competences.

Let me reiterate:

I’m not arguing that this is not true, only that you have failed to demonstrate to me how you have successfully closed the gap between what you claim in this thesis and all that any particular mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself to be able to make such claims.

Also, what is most crucial “here and now” is that you believe this yourself. Why? Because it is what you believe to be true “in your head” that motivates your behaviors. And it is what you do that precipitates consequences for others.

And an argument like this…

…doesn’t change that at all. There is the evidence that you present here and there is all the evidence that would be needed in order demonstrate beyond all doubt the extant relationship between God/No God and the ontological/teleological description of Reality itself.

How is this not true?

You claim that your confidence here comes from…

Sure, of the either/or world, science has made astounding progress over the millennia. But what of the is/ought world? Again, we don’t even know for certain yet if there is any human autonomy involved at all here. It could all just be as it only ever could have been. Including this exchange.

Back again to this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

No matter how much we come to control our sexual impulses there are almost certainly going to be unwanted pregnancies. For example, a woman chooses to become pregnant, becomes pregnant, but then something in her life compels her to change her mind. Or she chooses a contraceptive device that just doesn’t work.

Thus the conflicting good revolving around the alleged “natural rights” of the unborn and the “political rights” of the pregnant woman never really go away. Now, with an omniscient and omnipotent God we get Divine Justice here. Not so with mere mortals. Well, aside from the No God folks who insist that “philosophically”, “ethically”, “objectively”, we can reason ourselves to an optimal justice. Or root it in the one and only correct understanding of Nature.

In the future. That’s always a safe place in which to defend your point of view. That way nothing has to be demonstrated now. Instead, it’s what you think the future will be like “in your head”. The “turbulence” [or lack thereof] then becomes in sync with that.

Are these or are these not basically “general descriptions” attached vaguely to an imagined context “in their heads”?

Same here. “Progress” as an intellectual contraption. Only when you take assumptions of this sort out into the world and note the manner in which they become applicable to your own interactions with others, will they become clearer to folks like me.

And yet you and I “here and now” of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

On the other hand, for the God folks, what they have come to believe about their fate on the other side – immortality, salvation, divine justice – may or may not unfold. But “here and now” they believe that it will and it is that comfort and consolation “in the present” that you and I don’t have.

I react to this in much the same manner in which I react to Ierrellus’s “ecological morality”. Being a responsible citizen is in sync with human interactions that you would embrace as embodying the right thing to do.

Only, from my frame of mind, “I” here is less an essential philosophical truth than an existential contraption rooted out in a particular world rooted in dasein.

The same with “empathy and compassion”. In what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors revolving around what particular conflicting goods?

We need to analyze the above in more details.

There are known unknowns.
We need to take into account the following’

  1. Logically possible and logically impossible.
  2. Empirical possible and empirical impossible.

We can have known unknowns which are empirical possible, like possible human-liked aliens in a planet billions of light years away - very slim chance but nevertheless still empirically possible.
But there is no way there can be known unknowns which are empirically impossible within an empirical-rational reality. Example ‘God exists’ which is an empirical impossibility and based on very crude primal reasons and ultimately irrational.

Whatever you want to claim as real [dasein, absolute “I”] it has to be empirically known by empirical proofs or it is empirically possible but yet unknown [no objective knowledge of it yet].

I think the whole lot of points above can be reduced to your concern that the “here and now” cannot be ‘there and then’ in the future.
Note Hume’s, one cannot get an “is” [empirical now] from an ‘ought’ [future from reason].
I believe this is very obvious that whatever is now [even justified knowledge] cannot guarantee it will happen in the future, Hume again, i.e. no certainty the Sun will rise tomorrow morning!

Therefore you cannot use the above is/ought dilemma to counter that what I proposed will not happen in the future.
What is of concern is whether what I proposed is feasible or not based on the arguments and evidence I have provided.

Note Einstein’s

It took 100 years for Einstein’s prediction in 1916 to be proven in 2016.
Point here is Einstein’s hypothesis is extended from the empirical possible.

My proposals [empirically possible] presented here is based on existing proven practices based on evidence, trends, objective principles, and other valid knowledge. I believe it will produce positive results for humanity in the future [when the possible conditions are established].

Note the saying,
“If you failed to plan, you planned to fail”
Planning is a critical skill for all humans and humanity, what I have done is planning for the future now so that we can expect positive results in the future. I believe this the one of the intended purpose of philosophy-proper.

Are you advising I should not propose such plans at all since what I proposed will not change anything now for you [especially] and everyone.

I believe your response would be wiser to critique the principles, processes, system on why my proposals is not feasible and will not work as expected in the future.

Nope, the above are extracted from very deep reflection of what is going in reality and they are to guide humans in living optimally in accordance to their circumstances.

Those who are mindful of the above put them into practice [represented by neural competence] in their daily life as spontaneous and as much as possible. To be spontaneous, one has to practice years of meditation and other necessary exercises. One can psycho-analyze it but that is only temporary.

Your concern is the “here and now” and whatever proposals for the future [especially the longer term] is not going to work for you.
The normal advice is “Never Cry Over Spilt Milk” i.e. we are what we have been in the past and there is nothing we can do to change the past that has effected our lives and psychological state.
What we need to do is to do one’s best and optimize at the present. For those who has concern for humanity, they could contribute whatever they can to create a better world for future generations.

There will always be conflict revolving around moral issues where freedom of choice exists

Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible for God can only be one of these not both

We cannot reason ourselves to optimal justice because that concept is entirely meaningless

Yes, but isn’t this just another intellectual contraption by and large?

On the other hand, it is possible to explore the “unknowns” by attaching an analysis to the actual physical universe that we live in.

For example, consider these two documentaries from the Science Channel:

sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … ark-energy

sciencechannel.com/tv-shows … ark-matter

Now, you tell me:

1] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why there is something instead of nothing?
2] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding why it is this particular something?
3] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding any possible teleological component in the cosmos?
4] what are the ramifications of all this for understanding conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?

Sure, you can attempt to “analyze” all of this “in more detail”. But eventually in my view you do reach the parts that we don’t even know that we don’t even know yet.

Then what?

All I can do here is to note the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

…and then to ask others to note in turn how this assessment – an admitted existential contraption – is or is not in sync with their own understanding of “I” out in the is/ought world.

Yes, that cruicial distinction between “cause and effect” and “correlation”. But there are things about “I” – time and place of birth, genetic factors, particular sets of experiences and relationships, access to particular knowledge etc., that would seem to be facts.

In other words, things encompassed in what some call “objective reality”. And while we have no way in which to know for certain that in the future these facts about us will remain unchanged, most of us are probably willing to bet that they will stay the same.

My focus is always on “I” in the is/ought world. Not the fact of our behaviors but the manner in which the choices that we do make are rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Thus when you note that…

…I have no clear understanding as to what “on earth” you are talking about.

My point is that there are behaviors chosen by particular men and women relating to a particular context in which value judgments come into conflict. Once the behaviors are chosen they become facts. Or, rather, as close to objective truth as we are now able to fathom given Hume’s skepticism above.

And only when you are willing to anchor your “arguments and evidence” in an experience that you have had with others — one able to illustrate your point — is it likely to become clearer to me.

As for the rising sun, it either will or it will not rise tomorrow. But who is going to argue that the sun has a moral obligation to rise tomorrow?

Back again to this:

…you and I “here and now” of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around [in the future] to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

So it is always relatively safe to speculate about the future. It’s like the global warming debate. Most scientists are making dire predictions about the future – about the there and then. But the folks who profit in sustaining the way things are in the here and now have their own “experts” willing to argue the opposite. Now, 50 to 100 years from now the tale will be told. But where will most of us be then?

And that’s before we get to those who care only about what’s in it for them now. The moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy for example.

In a world sans God any behaviors can be rationalized.

Still, the planning here will always revolve around what you have come to construe as “positive results”.

So pertaining to issues like…

hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of governemnt, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parential rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.

…what constitutes “positive results”?

How would arguments here not basically become political prejudices encompassed in narratives embodied in dasein revolving around conflicting goods?

On the contrary, I ask you to choose a conflicting good and then propose such a plan. And then note how you aim to bring it about given that others will almost certainly object.

Okay, pertaining to Gita [“a 700 verse Hindu scripture in Sanskrit that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata”], one must “Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action”.

Note then for us particular contexts in which this would be applicable. Note particular interactions in your own life in which this frame of mind became manifested in the behaviors that you chose.

How would something like this…

…be described in terms of your own spontaneous behaviors? What does this mean given the conflicts that we are all familiar with right here between the conservatives and the liberals?

What lesson would they learn from the Bhagavad Gita so as to make these fiercely contentious debates go away?

From my frame of mind, given a Godless universe [an assumption], the “best of all possible worlds” is to eschew both “might makes right” and “right makes might” and embrace one of another form of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, an ever evolving political tug of war based on moderation, negotiation and compromise.

At least to the extent that this is applicable to a world owned and operated by those of wealth and power.

There’s no getting around political economy. Or, given the historical evolution of human interactions to date, there doesn’t appear to be.

If freedom of choice does exist. In fact one of the unknowns that scientists are struggling to come to grips with is in understanding the extent to which the mindful matter embodied in the human brain either is or is not just one more component of a universe in which everything unfolds only as it ever could have. Given the so-called “immutable laws of matter”.

But, really, how do we wrap our minds around that knowing that this would include the very exchange that we are having?

And how exactly would this be demonstrated empirically, materially, phenomenologically?

In other words, the part where any particular “analysis” is able to connect the dots to any particular existing God.

Sooner or later [with propositions like this] we reach the part where words are left to dangle over a world that is largely imagined “in our head”.

Well, to the extent that it remains basically a conceptual fabrication – think Plato’s Republic or Marx’s stateless Communist contraption – the meaning would seem to be derived solely from either agreeing or not agreeing with the definition and the meaning given to the words encompassing the concepts themselves.

Though here Marx’s attempt, in being rooted in a so-called “scientific” analysis of the historical, organic evolution of the means of production, might arguably be construed as more persuasive.

It is intellectual but not a “contraption.”
Note all theories and objective knowledge MUST start with the intellectual, e.g. a hypothesis awaiting proofs and justifications.
Don’t use ‘contraption’ unless you can prove my point is ‘contrapted’ or irrational.

You missed some of my critical points.

It is only possible to explore the “unknown” IF the “unknown” is empirically possible.
It is possible for ‘unknown’ empirical-based aliens existing somewhere billions of lights years away. So it just a matter of bringing the empirical evidence to prove its empirical existence.
There is no issue with the two links above because they are empirical-Scientifically extrapolated possibilities until evidence are provided.

There cannot be an unknown squared-circle in existence anywhere because it is logically and empirically impossible.

The idea of a God is thought possible, not very logical [pseudo-rational] and it is an empirical impossibility.

I have the answers to all the above questions, analyzed in much details and it is long story.
What is critical is one must always ask 'Is the thing an empirical possibility?"
As for “conflicting value judgments out in the is/ought world?” this has to be dealt with via the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Kant [not deontic] has the answers which has to be complemented with the core principles of the favorable Eastern Religions.

I stated above, we must differentiate what is empirical possible [infinite] from what is empirical impossible [especially] the transcendentally illusory.

Note Meno Paradox which is relevant here;
“How do you know what it is when you do not even know it in the first place?”
If is it empirical impossible do not even try, but understand its psychological basis and the associated pros and cons of believing in an illusory ‘empirical impossibility’
Thus, Wittgenstein,
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” (Tractatus 7)

I believe the issue relation to “I” can be reasonably understood within the Philosophy of the Self from Western and Eastern Philosophy perspectives.

As of IS/OUGHT which is notably related to Hume, I believe this is very relevant and reasonably resolved within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics perspective.
Another IS/OUGHT issue is, no OUGHT-God from Empirical-IS.
Any other critical perspectives?

You seem to be concern where will us will be then? That is an obvious but that should not stop us from contributing what is possibly positive to humanity for the future as so many had done in the past, some even risking their lives.
I have stated a few times, as being a responsible citizen of the world, what I am proposing is towards the future based which obviously at this point we have no choice by start a discussion. That is the only way, can you think of another.
One thing we can add is to expedite the process via various techniques, given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in various fields.

What is “positive result” will be dealt within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. Reducing death from violence from 100,000 to 1,000 within 10 years is obviously ‘positive results’ to the majority [exceptions are the psychopaths]. There are many evident ‘positive’ results and the marginal ones can be continually debated to arrive at consensus.
In addition the plan is the increase the average Moral Intelligence [MQ] 10 folds from the current average MQ.

Re conflicting ‘good’ or ‘evil’ I had stated these issues can be resolved reasonably within the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics [need details, depth, can be very complex]. There must be real change in the Moral Quotients of the average person supported by effective change in the relevant parts of the brain.
The Eastern Spiritualities has embarked on this based on the ‘black-box’ approach but in the future humanity would be able to improve based on targeted improvements within the brain.

Note I mentioned ‘flow’ somewhere,

Example are, re good fruits - if one is in an activity that has a result, one should not divert one’s attention to the potential positive results.
If one is one is competing for an individual sports, say a tennis player, the principle is concentrate on each point of the game and do not think [divert attention] of the prize money and what one can do with that $1 million.
If one has acted and fear arise for some reason, one should not allow fears or any negative emotions to control one’s mind and thus ruminate on this to the extent of being paralyzed from doing effective actions to resolve the fear.
Note the mother of all fears - from inevitable mortality.

As we can see the conservatives and the liberals are too attached to their fruits of actions, their ideologies and its promises resulting in their committing a wide range of evils onto each-other and others.
To resolves the problem of the conservatives and the liberals there is a need to rewire their brain [not possible now but in the future] to the extent they will view themselves as human beings working within Team Human synergically for the well-being of all.

As I had stated before your views above is based on the past, present and near future without any quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place.
You are accepting the status quo.

Meanwhile I am note the existing problems and evil in the World and dig deep into analyzing its root causes of the current problems and make proposals to resolve the problem optimally in time, thus not possible now or next 10 years but beyond 50 years.

Do you claim you have analyzed all of humanity’s existing problems deep enough?
I dare say, I have with emphasis on the evils from some religions.

Nb: apologies, with such long replies, there is a tendency of silly mistakes from me, no time to do refine editing.

The point in bold is the essence of Kant’s Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

What is critical is how to ground the ‘Perfect’ to be used as a fixed goal post to guide ethical practices for a never ending continual improvements toward an unachievable ideal.

Another point is Morality and Ethics is a personal endeavor within the individual’s brain.
Justice [linked to Morality and Ethics] belongs rightly to Politics, i.e. the legislature and judiciary.

From my perspective, an “intellectual contraption” is an argument/analysis the truthfulness of which is predicated on:

1] the definition and the meaning given to the words that encompass the argument/analysis itself
2] the manner in which the definition and the meaning given to the words come to encompass a set of assumptions that are either more or less detached from whatever the objective/essential/metaphysical/ontological/teleological/epistemological etc., understanding of Existence actually is.

But, okay, call it instead an “intellectual invention” if you will. I prefer the word “contraption” because that connotes to me just how rickety it almost certainly must be compared to all that one really would need to know in order to definitively nail down [b]the[/b] relationship between, among other things, God/No God, Existence, human reality and “I”.

“Here and now” in other words.

That’s why I generally react to them as one or another psychological rendition of the points I raised on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Again, it’s not what you know that counts so much as that you know. That you think you know. That’s the part where “I” gets to be anchored to one or another rendition of “one of us”.

In all honesty, I’m not at all clear as to what any of this has to do with my point that your point either does or does not account for all that any mere mortal would need to know about the entirety of Existence in order to assert the things that you do.

Sure, it is gratifying enough that there are folks like you and I who at least make the attempt at grappling with these enormous imponderables. But let’s not kid ourselves that infinitesimally tiny specks of existence like us are ever likely to grasp Reality itself.

In other words, to the extent that we do not have the evidence necessary to account for such things as QM, dark matter, dark energy, the possible existence of a multiverse, an explanation for how everything there is burst into existence out of nothing at all etc., we will no doubt both go to the grave believing what we do, yet unable to demonstrate that what we do belive is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

Instead, we have countless folks here, there and everywhere else with hopelessly conflicting and contradictory accounts of all that one must master in order to be in sync with an Understanding Of Everything.

And the fact that this never, ever seems to change down through the centuries merely confirms to me that the whole point with them is in fact that they know and not what they know.

A long story that will all be confirmed some day “in the future”. And something being an “empirical possibility” if it is in sync with your argument/analysis of What This Means.

All I can do here is to request of the Kantians and the advocates of Eastern philosophies/religions to bring their own arguments/analysis/assumptions down to earth.

How are they not entangled in my dilemma above? How are their own value judgments not embodied in the political prejudices of dasein? How are their own value judgments able to transcend the manner in which I construe the meaning of “conflicting goods”? How are their own moral narratives not entangled in the historical evolution of “political economy”?

They will either go there or they will not.

Note to those who embrace this:

How is this relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here? What must we remain silent regarding, given the fact that if we do choose to interact with others, we must do so within one or another social, political and economic framework [rooted in one or another historical and cultural context] such that particular behaviors will either be prescribed or proscribed?

In other words, for all practical purposes, how is what Wittgenstein conveys here even possible?

And is not Wittgenstein’s argument itself not embedded in turn in that gap between what he thought he knew and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to judge it as either more or less rational?

More or less rational than what?!

Or it might be argued that this is more indicative of “early Wittgenstein”. That the “later Wittgenstein” took a more “practical” approach to language.

I would prefer to label it as ‘an argument’

  • i.e. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. -Google Dict.
  • In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion. - wiki.

Instead of lumping the whole thing as a contraption [as you have defined] I would prefer you show me where are am wrong with the individual premises or the whole argument.

Your point;
… does not account for all that any mere mortal would need to know about the entirety of Existence in order to assert the things that you do.

I believe this is a moot point.
I had stated before, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know the fact of the “entirety of Existence”.
There is no need for me to know the “entirety of Existence” to assert the things that I did.

As with Science we first establish our conclusion based on the evidence, i.e. the known. If we want to extend [hypothesize and speculate] beyond the known be must leverage [philosophically and rationally] on the known to the possible to be known, i.e. empirical possibility.

The most one can do is to hypothesize and speculate the what is empirically possible and NEVER what is empirically impossible, e.g. God, Soul, the Whole Universe, square circle.
Your expectation of “entirety of Existence” is an empirical impossibility, i.e. moot.
Pls confirm you understand what I meant by “empirical impossibility” else we are talking pass each other.

In principles, the Kantians and the advocates of Eastern philosophies/religions are very down to Earth, but unfortunately at present only a minority practice it accordingly.

Note the Buddha introduced a generic Problem Solving Technique that is applicable to ALL problems in life.
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

It is the same with Kant.

Adopt the generic Problem Solving Technique, you will get to your answer at least in theory.

For example, your
expectation of the “entirety of Existence” to be a ‘known.’
This is beyond the limit of language and I had asserted it is moot.
Thus the necessary ‘silence’.
So one will have to approach whatever the problem from another direction.

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” (Tractatus 7)
was related the Early Wittgenstein and it more relevant for the later-Wittgenstein where this is expounded further in his ‘On Certainty’.

The points you raise on this post seem to revolve around a set of assumptions that [in my view] do not adequately rebut the objections that I have made in this exchange. And [it seems] that my own arguments [revolving around dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] are only effectively challenged when one accepts that “in the future” your “quantum leap in term of human intelligence [IQ], spiritual intelligence, moral intelligence, wisdom intelligence and other relevant intelligence to make the world a more peaceful place” is in fact confirmed to be prescient.

Yet what would that world begin look like with respect to one of the issues that I noted above?

Going all the way back to the pre-Socratics, the same conflicting arguments have been made about these very same issues. And now we have all of the new conflicting arguments that revolve around interacting with others in our “postmodern” world. A whole new set “one of us” vs. “one of them” conflagrations.

But my point is that folks on both sides [on all sides] of these issues claim to have accomplished just that. They have all gone “deep enough” to insist that their own frame of mind “here and now” reflects either the optimal or the only rational understanding of any particular one of these conflicted value judgments.

Just ask them.

Instead, I note right from the start that my own conjectures here are little more [to me] then just another “existential contraption” grappling to understand the lived relationship between “I”, conflicting value judgments and the role that wealth and power plays in enforcing any particular narrative/political agenda within any particular community of human beings out in any particular world historically, culturally, experientially.

And that in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, I may well [yet again] become involved in a new experience or a new relationship or come upon a new argument [here for example] that [yet again] reconfigures my frame of mind reconfiguring my behaviors.

But how “on earth” can I possibly know that any particular combination of these variables results in my having finally come to understand the meaning [or the purpose?] of Existence itself? In other words, I still clearly recognize the enormous gap that must exist between what I think I know here and now and all that would need to be known in order to grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself.

Or to grasp the extent to which the is/ought world can be in sync with the either/or world. Or the extent to which human autonomy itself is even a factor in all of this. Let alone the place that God/No God fits in.

I merely point out that this is all likely to be applicable to you too.

My points above are not assumptions per se [fixed for the purpse] but rather they are empirical possibilities that can happen in the future based on past trends.

It not prescient, but rather my forecasts are based on real existing trends from past years and the current trend of exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in many fields of advance knowledge. [there is a need to go into details to understand its full range].

One good example of moral progress is there is no consensus to ban slavery [literally] and made it illegal in ALL Nations in contrast to what happened 100 years ago and prior. Something is obviously changing and happening in the brains of those who were able to bring such banning of slavery as Laws.

I believe with the Human Genomic Project, the Human Connectome [Brain mapping] Project and other advances, humanity will be able to understand what is going on inside the brain and find ways to progress expeditiously and optimally in a fool proof basis.
I don’t know about you but I am optimistic because I make it a point to follow up with the latest research & advances in Science and Technology as much as possible.

I can’t agree with the above.
Around 90% of the 7+ billion are theists and the majority have not gone ‘deep enough’ except to rely of ‘only God knows everything’. This is very superficial and God is illusory.

I believe the ‘enormous gap’ is very relative.
In addition what is the fixed upper limit based on to calculate the difference, i.e. Gap.
Nevertheless, this ‘enormous gap’ [as perceived] can be narrowed by researching and reflecting on the necessary knowledge as much as possible.
Personally [as I have done] it is possible to understand [pending not necessary agree] and grasp an essential, objective understanding of Existence itself and its associated existential problems.

Do you claim you have covered and understand [not necessary agree with] the necessary range of knowledge but find no rational answers?
I believe it is possible to find, understand and grasp the answers to ‘all’ the problematic questions relative to you which you have raised for yourself, at least in theory.
Perhaps you have not covered enough grounds of knowledge, reflect deeply to understand [not necessary agree with] their essential elements and principles.

Note those who pursue to deep deeper and deeper often change their philosophical views, example, rationalist Kant to empirical-rationalist Kant, early-Wittgenstein and later-Wittgenstein, early and later [the Turn] Heidegger, and others?

Theory is theory, but how to live up to the good ones is another set of more difficult issues.

The point is, in practice there will always be conflicting ‘goods’ but as the Gita advised, one should not be psychologically [emotionally] attached to any of them.

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? Is this debate not in turn embedded in that ubiquitous gap between what any particular individuals [like you and I] think they know about the relationship between morality and human autonomy and all that would need to be known about Existence itself in order to know?

Until an understanding of Existence itself is grasped such that it can be demonstrated to be applicable to all of us, each of us as individuals is only taking a leap of faith to a particular assessment predicated on a particular set of assumptions.

Here and now, I really don’t see any reasonable manner in which to avoid the part that revolves around all the unknown unknowns. All those things that we don’t even know we don’t know.

I readily acknowledge this with respect to the main components of my own “intellectual contraption” here. And, on this thread in particular, the part about dasein.

My dasein revolves largely around human interactions in the is/ought world. But, in a wholly determined universe, isn’t that just an illusion?

The difficulty I have here is that you are talking about an entity that has not actually been demonstrated to in fact exist. At least not to me. 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”. He exists entirely in a world of words. As you imagine a God, the God being or not being omniscient/omnipotent.

Compare that to a context in which we are discussing someone like Adolph Hitler. We might disagree regarding his own knowledge and power, but the man did in fact exist historically so there is always the possibility that we can accumulate a set of more or less demonstrable facts about him.

Yes, and what I do here is to suggest that the manner in which I broach and assess dasein on this thread – viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 – is applicable to the manner in which any particular one of us have come to understand justice out in the particular world in which we interact with others.

How, in other words, are they not entangled in my dilemma above as this pertains to a particular context in which conflicting goods tend to revolve around very, very different moral/political/deontological renditions of justice?

The objectivist renditions in particular.

That is always my main focus in these threads. On those folks who seem far more compelled to insist [b]that[/b] they know; rather than on whatever it is that they claim [b]to[/b] know.

[b]This[/b] is the part which seems [to me] embedded far more in human psychology than in theology or philosophy or political discourse. The part, in other words, embedded in the points that I raise on this thread – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Das Daseiendes steht gründlich zum Ende der Welt wann die Welt richtig besteht, sonst Alles gibt’s nur wann es 's gibt.

“Dasein is the thing in itself”

Which reference?
Note Kant had demonstrated the thing-in-itself is an illusion, i.e. never real.

I am aware Schopenhauer claimed the thing-in-itself is real and exists as WILL, but I don’t think Heidegger made such a glaring claim.

You did it again.

You are not aware of very much. Certainly not of the faculty, in some people, that allows them to think on their own behalf.
In any case you insect, don’t quote me again.

These are assumptions that, from my own frame of mind, still reflect the gap I note between what you think you know here and now about “empirical possibilities that can happen in the future” and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself in order to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

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.

Yes, time and time again the moral objectivists tend to come around to slavery in order to prove that moral progress is possible. But, laws or no laws, slavery is still rationalized around the globe. As is “wage-slavery” in the form of one or another sweatshop.

Historically, slavery withered as capitalism came to prevail. Why? Because capitalism is a form of exploitation that did not actually involve owning people. After all, when you own them then you are responsible for feeding and sheltering and caring for them. Now you can exploit their labor; but other than that they are on their own.

So, is the withering away of capitalism also part of your “progressive” assumptions about the future? What of the conflicting goods here?

And what about all those other issues I noted above? Issues in which there are any number of arguments that can be raised either pro or con particular behaviors? Issues in which there does not appear to be any historical consensus?

So then the question becomes this: The extent to which the latest scientific research and advances shape and mold your own value judgments or the extent to which you shape the latest scientific research and advances to fit your own political prejudices regarding all the issues I raised above.

These issues:

“hunting, abortion, social justice, the role of government, animal rights, affirmative action, gun control, human sexuality, healthcare, the separation of church and state, stem cell research, cloning, conscription, capital punishment, corporal punishment birth control, parental rights, gender roles, just wars, taxation etc. etc. etc.”

Note for us where the latest scientific research and advances is taking us with respect to a few of them.

What it is relative to [in my view] is the gap between all that any one particular individual claims to know about Existence and all that any one particular individual would need to know about Existence in order to demonstrate that in fact he or she does know all there is they need to know.

And I’m here to admit that this is almost certainly not even close to being me. And that all of the many objectivists out there who do claim that, through either God or political ideology or philosophy or one or another an understanding Nature, they have figured it all out are almost certainly anchoring “I” psychologically to one or another comforting and consoling “foundation”.

Though I have no illusion that many here will own up to this gap I speak of. After all, I need but think back on all of the years that I was able to rationalize it away myself. And a part of me clearly wishes that somehow I could figure out a way to do it again.

So, for me, it comes down less to who is right and wrong here, and more to who is able to “think” themselves into believing something that is either more or less comforting and consoling. The mystery embedded in human psychology embedded further in the mystery of mindful matter in a universe where it appears that the overwhelming preponderance of matter is entirely mindless.

Sans God in other words.

No, I note that here and now I can’t even imagine [anymore] how there are those able to convince themselves that they have. That they actually can accomplish this given the gap between “I” and All There Is.

And then I remind myself yet again that I was once one of them. And for many, many years.

But now what? Given what I think I know is true today.

In other words, this…

…is only a philosophical contraption to the extent that you can convince yourself that “in theory” it is possible. Otherwise I basically construe it as the embodiment of the points I raised here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

But then I figure, what the hell, I’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain if I can bump into someone in places like this able to actually provide me with the “comfort and consolation” that comes with thinking like they once did. So, sure, give it your best shot.

Unless, of course, I end up tugging you down into the same fucking hole that I’m in…

Then it all comes down to the extent to which your actual “lived life” [the circumstances in which you interact with others from day to day] offers the sort of distractions that puts the part about “living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion” into perspective.

After all, if the life you live here and now is bursting at the seams with all manner or satisfaction and fulfillment, all this “philosophical” stuff can more readily be shunted aside.

Let’s just say that out in the real world this is often easier said than done. Why? Because out in the real world conflicting moral and political agendas can result in policies/laws that make the lives of actual flesh and blood human beings either heaven or hell.

Just consider the reactions of liberals to conservatives and conservatives to liberals here at the Society, Government, and Economics forum at ILP.

It’s easy enough to argue that one should not become “emotionally attached” to these issues. But it’s a lot harder to actually accomplish this when you see the policies of those you oppose become the law of the land. And then these laws make your own life and the lives of those you love more miserable.

For example, the suffering that can occur when a new law results in tens of thousands of children losing their health insurance can precipatate all manner of strong emotional reactions.

Not easily quelled “philosophically”, “theoretically”, “spiritually”.

This is merely a discussion, I presume you are inviting views as this OP I raised. I was only participating. Btw, you are the ‘intruder’ into this OP that I had raised.
If you don’t want me to respond, there no issue I can avoid your posts easily. I suggest you don’t posts in the threads I raised. There is no need to use those dehumanizing words and goading other to do the same.