What is Dasein?

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.

I understand there are many perspective to what is slavery.
My focus is not on slavery [could be another example] but rather on the progressive trend since the past.

There is an implicit ‘machinery’ that drive this progressive trend and humanity objective is to abstract the principles of this ‘machinery’ or ‘model’ to convince [with sound justifications and personal experiences] the average person to adopt in the future to solve whatever problems they encounter.

I note whatever problems, question and doubts you raised and where I have contributed my views, you will raised more problems, problems and more problems. I think this is typical of philosophical discussions. Note Russell on the Purpose of Philosophy;

Since the issue is Philosophical Problems, problems and problems, I would suggest one adopt a generic Problem Solving Technique to deal with any problem.

Here is one I will suggest;

Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&hilit=4NT

The four noble truths (4NT) can be summarized as follows:
1.The truth of dukkha (Problems)
2.The truth of the origin of dukkha
3.The truth of the cessation of dukkha
4.The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha -8FP*

The Basic Problem Solving Technique

  1. Defining the problem.
  2. Generating alternatives.
  3. Evaluating and selecting alternatives.
  4. Implementing solutions.
  5. Feedback and Control

The 4NT-8FP when transposed as a conventional problem solving technique is as follows;

1. Defining the problem.
NT1 -The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, stress)
NT2 -The truth of the origin of dukkha -12 Nidanas

2. Generating alternatives.
NT3 -The truth of the cessation of dukkha -Reverse 12 Nidanas

3. Evaluating and selecting alternatives.
NT4 -The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha -8FP

4. Implementing solutions.
8FP -Right View, Intention, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Concentration, Mindfulness

F5. Feedback and Control
Right View - Is the problem resolved?
Yes, -seek improvement
No, -Check 1 and repeat process

*8FP = Noble Eightfold Paths
THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH

  1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)
  2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)
  3. Right Speech (Samma vaca)
  4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)
  5. Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)
  6. Right Effort (Samma vayama)
  7. Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)
  8. Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)

How to Use the above Generic Problem Solving Model;
Thus for any of those philosophical problem [or any] you raised on our discussion, you will need to define the problem precisely then put the problem through the whole model from process 1 to 5.

Take for example the problem [gap] you raised, i.e.

On running through the generic model with the above, I think the most likely bottle-necks [before others] would be the following;

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

In order to have the Right Understanding and Right thought one would need to take the Right Action to cover and exhaust if possible the relevant knowledge to understand [not necessary agree] to be in a position to tackle the problem.

In this case one would need to produce a relevant Bibliography for reading and researching to facilitate one to resolve the problem more effectively.

Within Right Action, it may not merely be restricted to reading but one need action to rewire one’s brain. For example, for more wider and complex problems computer from the older days, 1980 and prior will not be effective. We need computer will more modern motherboard, CPU and relevant OS and other softwares.

Try and run through your favorite problem via the above model.
Not all elements of the 8FPs will apply in all cases.

“Progressive trend”?

On could say that the progressive trend is towards greater enslavement, not with chains, but with marketing, media control, financial control and surveillance. That’s enslavement by governments and corporations, rather than individual slave owners.

We are probably less free now than we were 50 years ago.

I used the example of ‘slavery’ in the sense below,

Based on the above sense, there is a progressive trend. Get it?

You are going off point. I understand the above but the above is not the ‘slavery’ I was referring to, i.e. chattel slavery where a person is owned, bought and sold as a de jure form of property.

In any case, whatever the problem, humanity must address them effectively and efficiently using the above generic problem solving techniques.

In the USA today, everyone is “owned” by their debts, contracts, medical and insurance taxes. And those are all traded by corporations. The reigns that bind you are passed from one corporate entity to another.

And that is exactly what “legalized chattel slavery de jure” is.

The “Free Country” is in reality, a Slave Country, Satanically ruled by deceit.

Don’t insult your intelligence while thinking you are smart.

You are not comparing on apples to apples basis.
I was referring to ‘chattel slavery’ hundreds of years ago and the progressive trend to the present where such are eliminated [legally] with a consensus to made chattel slavery’ illegal in all Nations. There is obvious progress in this case.

It is obvious since people are potential beasts many will play a ‘cat and mouse’ game to promote their selfish interests. Whatever the problem, the inherent progressive trend within humanity will make attempts to resolve those problems. Note anti-trusts laws, and other preventive steps to cover various loop holes, etc.

I agree the rogues at present are usually one step ahead of the good people. However I am optimistic given the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, humanity will be above to expedite progress and achieve net-gains in the future.

You have been doing that since you have arrived. Why shouldn’t I be allowed?

And it was pointed out to you that the slavery has merely become more deceptive, not less. The only “progress” has been in making your task masters more isolated from disturbance.

I stated you are not comparing apples with apples and you still cannot get it. :astonished:

If I compare the progress in the control of a specific disease of polio since 1,000 years ago to the present, you will ask ‘what about the potential of flesh eating bacteria’ or more heart attacks, or some other diseases.

You pointed specifically to “chattel slavery”

I have been using exactly what YOU quoted as what you meant.

Once again, in order for you to make yourself appear right, you end up having to refute your own statements. You have to lie in order to try to be seen as holy.

Now you are claiming that you only meant the slavery that involves visible chains, whips. and dungeons, like anyone would care.

Actually it’s very much on point. For every person saying that something is progressive, there is another person saying that it is regressive. One person says things ought to be one way and another person says things ought to be another way.

Why is it so? Because people are the product of different environments and experiences and so they evaluate the situation differently. They have various goals, expectations, priorities, etc. Dasein.

Iambig doesn’t see that it can be demonstrated that one way is right and the other way is wrong.

Which way do things end up going? In the direction that the powerful can force them to go.

If you personally like that direction, then you call it progressive. If not, then you call it regressive. :evilfun:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for this…

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

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

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

What he said.

Well, if for my own reasons of course. :wink:

I did not expect precision at all, which as for humans it is an impossibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My contention is;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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