What is Dasein?

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.

There are any number of measures by which traveling 1 km is better than traveling 5 km. You have tunnel vision. You only see the measure which “proves you right” in your mind.

It’s not a strawman … it’s a critical point.

It is not what I choose to prove me right.
I introduced the examples of progress to demonstrate certain points and avoid the those that are irrelevant to the point.

There can progress in term of reduction or increment. But we have to take into account the context.

For example, if a student improves his grades from the first month in class from average 10% to 90% by the end of the year. Surely there is a basis for that increment in terms of grades.
Now would you argue and insist there is ‘progress’ if he were to maintain his grades at 10% all year round? maybe progress in less bullying and no one calling him a nerd or smart alec.

The plus point is the progress shown by the student may be of interest to researcher to find out how did he make such a remarkable progress in 12 months and perhaps there is something worth abstracting for other slow students to learn from.

You missed my original point.

Initially I stated as an example, it is obvious there are changes and improvements specifically in terms of chattel slavery [as defined] within the history of mankind since 1000 years ago to the present where such slavery are illegal in all Nation at present. It is illegal by law for Humans to be owned and traded like chattels or goods.

My hypothesis is there must be neural changes going on in the brains of those human involved that enable such improvements in the laws on such slavery. I postulated there is an inherent drive within the human brain/mind that drive such specific improvements and progress.
Thus it would be beneficial for humanity to understand the mechanics of this process and hopefully can apply such principles to expedite the progress or apply to other areas of human behavior for positive results.

Note at least my optimism will stir me to explore and if there are benefits, fine, if none, at least I have tried. In your case you are indifferent and blind to whatever potential progress there is, thus will not explore to find possibilities for further progress.

:laughing:
#-o

I think that is the very definition of “tunnel vision”.
:icon-rolleyes:

How can you be so intellectually stupid.
In all these posts, except for the quoted, we introduced ‘our’ points.
To maintain intellectually credibility we have to support the points we made.

Please stick to discussing the topic and not each other… or not at all: James/Phyllo.

…as you were. :smiley:

I am discussing the topic. I’m explaining dasein to him.

Free will allows us as moral beings to consider different positions on moral issues
But were morality objective and free will non existent that would not be possible

Given that I do not actually think God exists then he is indeed hypothetical. However those who do think that he exists routinely claim that he is omniscient and omnipotence so those are attributes they have given him not me. All I am doing is just showing how from a logical perspective they are not mutually compatible

It’s possible to measure stuff like that and Iambig doesn’t deny it.

What he is saying is that as soon as you call it progress, you are saying that the measured change ought to be in a particular direction and that’s a value judgement. And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein. One person can call an increase in a grade “progress” and another can call it “regress”.

For example, if the class is some sort of indoctrination/brainwashing, then it’s possible to say that a higher grade is not “good”. It’s also possible to say that it is “good”. How the situation is evaluated depends on the individuals making the statements.

That’s what happened with marketing and advertising in the 20th century … “researchers” learned how to very effectively get people to think in certain ways and to get them to buy stuff. The “slow students” are those who do not readily accept the corporate and government messages. But was that a “good” thing?

I didn’t miss the point. I gave you examples of the way dasein works. There are people who think that there ought to be slavery, that some people are better off as slaves, that treating slaves violently is appropriate. Okay, you’re not one of them and the people who agree with you are in positions of power, therefore you call antislavery laws “progress”. If the world changes and supporters of slavery gain power, then they will implement slavery and call that “progress”.

Again, labeling something as “benefits” is a value judgement.

I’m not indifferent. I simply understand what Iambig is saying.

Heck, I even understand why he has a dilemma and why he can’t get out of it. I’ve spent years trying to pull him out of it. O:)

Because they have different ideologies or world views which allows them to see things from a particular perspective
From a more general perspective everyone has free will though it is more restrictive within the framework of an ideology