What is Dasein?

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

Dasein takes the concept of ‘framework’ down to the individual level. Everyone uses their own framework to make judgements and the framework is the result of personal experiences. Ideologies are one part of the personal framework.

I raised the point based what I know and intended to convey.
So I know where you have missed my point and indeed you have missed my point.

And value judgements are based on particular individual experiences - dasein.”
(subject to confirmation by iambiguous)
I have pointed out to iambiguous in another post that individual experiences and values can be made objective based on intersubjective deliberation and consensus. We will have to debate on this point which is related directly to Philosophy of Morality.

In my example re slavery, I was not referring to a small class or group But ALL Nations representing the whole World.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i … tional_law
Yes, once and long time ago, there were different views between Nations regarding the abolishment of “chattel slavery” but at present ALL Nations has agreed to come to consensus on the same point at least on a legal basis.
This is an objective standard of values where all humans must complied with on a legal basis.

Based on this objective standard, there is progress in terms of ‘abolishment of chattel slavery -legally’ from thousands years ago to the present.

Based on the above objective progress, my point is there must be something inherent in the human brain/mind that is driving this trend of progress. Therefore humanity must strive to know and understand its mechanics so that it can be applied and reproduced to generate similar progress in other fields of morality and ethics [values]. I am very optimistic humanity is capable of achieving the above some time in the future.

I understand “iambig” is caught in a dilemma based on his own framework of wrong views and thoughts as I had pointed out to him in the various posts above.

Yes, “benefits” is a value judgement - but as I had stated it can be made objective and modulated with Philosophy of Morality and Ethics so that whatever the ‘benefits’ they are to be optimized net-positively for the well being of humanity. This point need to be deliberated within Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a very complex topic.

You are now.

Wrong again.

You are right… in this instance, in this thread.

Put a hundred men and women who embody the entire political spectrum [from left to right] in the same room and ask them to pin down these “baby steps of continuous improvements”.

They can either be pinned down with some precision [right makes might], or human interactions in any particular community will revolve around one or another rendition/combination of might makes right and/or democracy and the rule of law.

Again, choose a conflictng good and we can explore it scientifically and philosophically and experientially.

I have no idea what this has to do with the distinction between the rigorous exactitude needed to send astronauts to the moon and the utter lack of exactitude that revolves around space travel as a moral/political issue – as a clash of conflicting goods.

Even as a clash of conflicting baby steps.

As I see it, this is basically another intellectual contraption arguing that your “analysis” above is not in turn an intellectual contraption. And it fails to confront the distinction I make here between the either/or and the is/ought world.

From my frame of mind it borders on pedantry.

What I would have asked Russell is this: what are the limitations of philosophy [and the tools at its disposal] with respect to the distinction I am making.

For scientists and engineers, given the exactitude at their disposal in grasping the laws of nature, they either get the astronauts to the Moon or they don’t. But, for the philosophers and the ethicists, what constitutes precision when confronted with space travel as a set of conflicting goods?

Then, from my point of view, your contention here is clearly just an another intellectual construction.

Then back again to all the folks along the political spectrum noting more or less the very same thing. Only insisting it is their own moral narrative and not yours that will prevail. What then? Well, then we have some vague and distant “future” where we learn once and for all who was actually right.

We’ve got to start somewhere, right? What would the “smaller units” look like regarding a discussion of the conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel. What of the gap between alleged ideals and a historical reality that exudes any number of fiercely conflicted political rationalizations.

This in itself strikes me as odd. Politics revolves around the actual historical evolution of human interactions pertaining both to basic needs [political economy] and to any number of conflicting wants and desires.

How on earth can a philosopher ponder objective/ideal interactions out in particular “future worlds” without a more or less comprehensive understanding of the actual historical/cultural/experiential experiences of the species to date?

That makes no sense to me.

Until we are able to determine beyond all doubt that human autonomy does in fact exist [to whatever degree] we won’t really know what is possible.

That’s always the dilemma. I think I think therefore I think I think I am.

But: What does that mean [ontologically/teleologically] given whatever the explanation is for the existence of existence itself?

What I do is to make the assumption that pertaining to human interactions in the is/ought world, any existing human autonomy is embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

My point however revolves around the dilemma we face in speaking of a God, the God, my God from a “logical perspective”.

How epistemologically are we expected to understand this God given the gap that surely must exist between epistemology as mere mortals construe it [on this tiny little rock in the vastness of All There Is] and a knowledge encompassed in the Creator of All There Is itself?

First and foremost [for folks like me] we need something [an argument, an accumulation of definitive evidence] that would encourage us to at least take the issue seriously.

As I had mentioned, a tennis player like Roger Federer did not get there overnight but progress in ‘baby steps’ of continuous improvements from an early age till he won his first grand slam and continued to progress subsequently. I presume you understand what I meant by ‘baby steps’ in this case?

As for the 100 men and women from ‘left’ to ‘right’ obviously they have made ‘baby steps’ in their political careers.
But in this case you have be specific with the Problem Statement.
Example, how did so and so ‘progressed’ from childhood to have a strong ‘right’ wing inclinations?

I suggest you list down the specific problem you want to address and I will lay down the baby steps they have taken in their ‘progress’ for better or for worse.

I missed the above point re space exploration and its pros and cons.

Re space exploration, there may be pros and cons re progress for the average person. But this is secondary. The critical pro is for the human species and humanity.

Human beings are endowed with an inherent drive for continuous progress, and this is one drive that drove humans beings to be progressively present all over the world. This drive for continuous improvements and progress is such in whatever state X, humans [with its inherent potential* drive] are naturally driven to achieve a higher ‘X+1’ state like climbing steps of a ladder. * All humans has this potential but not all people are active, only a % are active, i.e. the explorers and risk takers.

Space exploration is a natural progress from the discovery of our ability with ‘flight’.
The critical pro of space exploration is the establish the potential to ensure the human species can survive in the eventually Earth is inhabitable or destroyed with certainty in time [thousands of years from now].

But what is more critical is for humanity to understand the essence of the evident progress from flight [planes] to space, i.e. that inherent drive from continuous improvements. Once we can master the mechanics of this drive and replicate it, then we can activate this potential to the average person.

We can then apply it to increase the Morality Quotient of the average person or “progress” in terms of replacing religions with alternative fool proofs methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

As I had stated before, there is no exactitude in going to the moon. Because of the empirical laws, there is always a margin for error, say a 0.001% deviation from standard of degrees.

As for philosophy, I have discussed above. There is no need for precision. Humanity is driven to space naturally based on the inherent drive for continuous improvement, i.e. one-up on any existing state and I believe there is a sense within many the Earth will not last, it is just a matter of time, so at least humanity is hoping with hope a hospitable planet can be discovered in time before Earth is destroyed.

The above is not a purely intellectual exercise.
There is so much room for the various issues to be discussed and many of the conclusions can be put into action.
If is just that you are not trying but rather brushing it off as an ‘intellectual contraption’ too quickly.

As I had stated there are no definite answers in philosophy, so there is no situation where one is actually right [unless the obvious].

As for any improvement to those folks along the political spectrum, whatever the problem can be resolved in time, say next 100 years but starting with a feasible model at present.

The conflicting goods embedded in issues like abortion and space travel can be very complex.
I have discussed space travel above re leveraging on survival of the species. If you note the link you provided do not even mentioned this. There are more to say on this, but it is very limited in a forum like this to go into the details.

As for abortion, it is not something people would deliberate plan for or look forward to but rather they are forced by circumstances into it. The variables involved in this issue are many and very complex.
We can attempt to resolve this issue of ‘abortion’ via the Generic Problem Solving Technique. Thus we have to define the problem, break down the problem into smaller units, analyze these problem, identify root causes and find strategies to resolve these root causes. Then we get the first draft to a master plan and continually improve on it via feedback control.

I am confident I can come up with a reasonable rational and feasible master plan [at least in theory first] but expected result can only be achieved within 100 years.

I am not very keen on politics and I view this as a very primal drive. My point is when I deal effectively with the critical philosophical issues, resolving the political issues would be easier.
It is like if I have a PhD is Problem Solving Techniques in general I would not have much of a problem, resolving any problem from wherever, it is just a matter of getting acquainted with the general matters of the subject, i.e. in this case politics.

It would be easier for you to specify what areas you are interested in politics to be resolved.

Personally I would prefer something in philosophy which is general like,
How to Know Thyself? Why the majority do not Know-Themselves?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
I believe if we can understand the above generic concept and master its principles and knowledge, then it would be easier to resolve other issues.

I have noted any number of conflicting goods above. The one of particular importance to me is abortion. Why? Because this was the issue that nudged me into abandoning objectivism myself. How? By forcing me to recognize that “baby steps to progress” can be reasonably construed from both ends of the moral/political continuum – re either the natural right of the unborn to life or the political right of women to choose to terminate that life.

Conflicting goods construed precisely from a point of view – rooted in dasein – deemed either “for the better” or “for the worse”.

To which you note:

Again, I can only imagine you at a Planned Parenthood clinic noting this to the folks inside the facility and to the protesters outside of it. How on earth do you imagine them reacting to it? After all, what are you really saying here pertaining to all of the many, many, many particular sets of circumstances that might bring folks to those clinics?

Indeed, this [in my view] is really where you want all of it to go. You’ve got this general idea “in your head” about how the human species should end up “in the future”. You’ve reasoned out a set of assumptions regarding space travel and if all the baby steps taken by all the folks on all the sides of the issue here and now converge on your own general description of “humanity’s interactions” there and then, the “Morality Quotient” of the average person will have converged in turn.

If only [for now] in your head.

The species will survive. But only on your terms. And [of course] this is precisely the frame of mind that all of the other objectivists [moral, political, philosophical, theological etc.] embrace in turn. You are all entirely in agreement about an optimal future. It’s just that, in the present, you are all hopelessly conflicted regarding how to get there.

But so what, right? As you note:

Whose “feasible model”? Feasible in what sense? Based on what set of assumptions? Reconfigured into what actual set of laws?

Well, from my frame of mind, you are not really responding to the point that I raise. It is as though you are arguing that only when the philosopher-kings have established the ideal human interactions should all the rest of us go about the business of embodying them. The irony here being that, for folks like Plato, this included slavery.

Once the Republic is deduced into existence, it is only a matter of everyone recognizing just how philosophically seamless it all is. A place for everyone and everyone in his or her place. The flesh and blood interactions wholly in sync with a general description of the human condition.

This in other words:

I guess we’re stuck then. I won’t go up there and you won’t come down here. At least not in the manner in which [in our own way] we have come to understand the distinction.

And unless we can figure out a way to meld the two approaches, I suspect we will just go on spinning our wheels.

I have addressed most of the counters you raised above. In summary;

The above in a way summarize our distinct and opposite views.

I believe your views are very pessimistic, i.e. humanity is stuck in a whirlpool and doldrums and there is no possibility of change and progress in the future. You are always stuck in the present state of problems. Not only that somehow you are really good [an expert] in making sure problems are stuck. :frowning:

OTOH, I am very optimistic change and progress are very possible in the future, not because I wish it to be so, but my hopes are based on the empirical and evident streak of trends of positive progress that has been going within the history of mankind based on the following;

  1. All humans has an inherent drive for continuous improvement
  2. Loads of examples of the above drives
  3. The exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology

I believe the exponential expanding trend of knowledge and technology is very obvious and there should be no disputes on this?
Where there are cons in this trend, it is handed and curtailed by progressive morality.

I have given one example of where we have progressed in terms of morality, e.g. moral progress in chattel slavery since 1,000 years ago to the present of the total abolishment of chattel slavery by all Nations in the legal perspective.
The point here is for humanity to abstract the principles of how this improvement-drive get to its result, then humanity can apply it to other aspects of life.

To meld your views and mine, the way out is for you to adopt the Generic Problem Solving Technique for life to break out of the loop.
This is why you need to apply the Right View, Right Thought, Right Actions and the other ‘Rights’ of the Noble Eightfold Paths to shift into the effective paradigm from the current one that paralyze your thinking.

What do you think I should do? Adopt your ‘stuck’ view and recommend all to stick to the current norm of whatever problems that we are stuck with? Nah … =;

I believe my views are more recommendable than yours, at least psychologically more ‘hygienic’ and more healthier.

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman’s books on ‘Learned Optimism’ and ‘Learned helplessness’, then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

Frankly there is nothing to loose in being optimistic, i.e. it is a win-win as the above stated,
I say, “The best thing one can say about an optimist is that she enjoyed the
challenge regardless of the outcome.”

and in addition the chemicals in the body and brain will change to lighten and brighten things up.

I really have nothing to agree or disagree on in particular in response to the posts in this thread. There either is or is not a practical approach to the concept of Dasein. I suppose it’s a matter of understanding it, except to those who don’t but do it anyway and it’s kind of beat-around-the-bush but right-to-the-point style of just BS’ing, fluffing, like some people do on tests in school when they don’t know the answer, but with purpose beyond just BS’ing. It could be claimed to be paradoxical due to these dichotomies, like so many other concepts and theories, but it is different all the same.

I mostly have felt the slight urge to respond to this thread for a while now, but haven’t really had anything to contribute. Suddenly, today, I had the slight urge, but something to contribute. I feel that I’m making progress in this concept, except no progress whatsoever at the same time, but in a good way instead of a bad way even though it could be viewed as a bad way instead of a good way; or to some, vice versa. I wonder if it’s possible to share concepts with those who approach it for different reasons or if it, like other groups who think around a concept, has it’s own inner turmoils about the different reasonings behind different perception-bearers approach to the concept, kind of like it’s own little bickering and war and politics, but, of course, nothing at all similar to what we know those concepts to be. But, then of course, this still doesn’t really explain what Dasein is; I’m still an amateur in it and barely making progress or learning much about what it entails. I don’t even feel left behind the rest of you, though, oddly enough. But then again, I don’t feel ahead of you, either. It’s an odd fluxuating concept from what I’ve seen, if it can even be labeled by those concepts of odd or fluxuating or even a concept.

Is it a theory or has it been proven yet? If the theory of Dasein has been proven, or even if it has not, is it still dasein?

On the contrary, there is very little probability that my frame of mind reflects the optimal [let alone the only] rational frame of mind about these things. I merely argue it is embedded by and large in the manner in which I have have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And even here only in the is/ought world.

But it is no less an existential contraption than yours. And it is basically the extent to which you do not believe that your own value judgments are in turn just existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy that I am curious to explore how [from your frame of mind] you construe yourself as not being entangled in my dilemma above.

Here and now, in other words. Why? Because we interact with others in the here and the now. Sure, we may well be more or less optimistic about the future. But we don’t live in the future.

Of course you are. After all, from my vantage point, “positive progress” revolves almost entirely around your own tautological assessment of conflicting human interactions. And as an idealist it appears. And then to boot all of this will only come to fruition “in the future”.

And we can predict anything about that, right?

And then [as I see it] another “intellectual contraption” expressing yet another “genral description” of human interactions:

And then, to back this up, you focus the beam on the one and the only example you seem able to fall back on:

But where is your reaction to the points that I brought up above:

[b]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?[/b]

Then [from my frame of mind] back up into the clouds:

What is this other than a Capital Letter Intellectual Contraption? In other words, in your head, everything is Crystal Clear.

That is why I suggest [time and again] that you intertwine/integrate this “analysis” by way of noting it’s relevence [here and now] to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with.

Of course they are. You basically follow the objectivist script. And this revolves around insisting that, above all else, what matters is that we all agree that there is an optimal frame of mind. And an optimal assessment of human behaviors. You offer your agenda, others offer theirs. But make no mistake about it: only one of them can be right.

Your own.

Then I come along noting the dilemma I am entangled in. Entangled because in a world sans God there does not appear to be an essential/objective/transcending font mere mortals can all turn to in order to resolve conflicting goods.

There is only the existential “I” coming to embody a particular set of political prejudices out in a particular world historically and culturally. Human interactions such that what ultimately counts is who has the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors out in any one particular human cummunity.

You missed this point which I think is very pertinent to get out that ruminated loop;

To get on the Right View, I would suggest you first read up on Martin Seligman’s books on ‘Learned Optimism’ and ‘Learned helplessness’, then to others.

Pessimism can have very unhealthy effects on the individual.

I am not entangled in your dilemma because I have the tools to get out of it, e.g. the Generic Problem Solving Technique I had presented.

I find your response rather odd.

Note the typical saying’

  1. If you failed to plan, you have planned to fail.
    The above planning [is always for the future] in an inherent drive within humanity and this is why humanity have come this far rather than being the dodo.

  2. Be Prepared
    If humanity had not anticipated the future [given humans has this capacity], humanity could have been wiped out by some epidemic flu, ebola, etc.

Thus even if we [the individual] will not live in the far future, the individual must collectively plan for the far future and the near future in the most optimal path.
If everyone were to accept your theory, humanity will be doomed.
I agree not everyone will be able to adopt and practice what I proposed but at least a percentile and hopefully a large number will do so for humanity sake.
Thus even if you personally is not inclined for various reason, you should not try to stop others from hopping onto the continuous improvement for net-positive progress bandwagon [examples re morality, knowledge, etc. given below].

Note the above point why humanity must take note of the future.
Perhaps as an individual you may not care about the future, but you cannot enforce your views on the whole of humanity which will naturally flow with the trends from the past, i.e. progress optimally.

My example re Morality previously was confined to ‘Chattel Slavery’ and not to slavery in the broadest sense.

In the above, I was pointing to progress re continuous improvements in all faculties of knowledge, philosophy, technology and whatever.

The essence is ‘net-positive progress’ and this applies to whatever necessary including politics.

This is why I have given you the case of progress in morality e.g. chattel slavery and there are many others [not mentioned yet].
In terms of progress in spirituality, note the introduction of monotheism from animism and non-theistic Buddhism from theism, etc.
In terms of knowledge, note the advancement of Scientific knowledge and other fields of knowledge.
I can list the progress from the past to the present and what is optimistically possible in the future re the whole spectrum of life but that is too tedious.

It is not a matter of ‘right’ per se but a matter of fact which is what is constant is change and there will be continuous improvement of net-positive progress as evident from observation of past facts.
There are of course failures but humanity has always attempt to improve on these failures in the best they can.

Btw what do you meant by ‘font’?

I have always presented the point of an inherent unavoidable existential dilemma which is very primal and I believe this is the mother of all dilemmas including the one [a subset] your are entangled in.

As I had pointed out, your ‘dilemma’ arise from an illusion and impossibility you have set for yourself, i.e. “ALL (100%) that is needed to be known …” which paralyze you from progressing forward. If you can move away from this illusion and impossibility, you will probably be able to get out of its ruminating loop.

Again [and again and again and again]: What on earth are you talking about? How are Martin Seligman’s Capital Letter Words applicable to conflicting human interactions derived from particular sets of conflicted goods? Here’s a guy who argues that “pessimistic labels lead to passivity, whereas optimistic ones lead to attempts to change”. Okay, fine, but what specific change in what specific context based on what specific assumptions? And my own pessimism is rooted philosophically in the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of these words:

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.

Thus, only when folks like Seligman are willing to take their “general description” abstractions down off the skyhooks, and engage in the sort of discussion that I am aiming for, will the arguments become considerably more substantive.

You claim this:

Yet [in my own opinion] you refuse to demonstrate this in an exchange revolving around a particular context in which particular value judgments come into conflict. Instead you have constructed this far more “progressive” world that may or may not actually unfold “in the future”.

In other words, “here and now” it’s all in your head.

And then we get to what I argue are basically intellectual contraptions like this:

Perhaps you are right about me. But I can only conclude the things that I do based on what I construe to be a reasonable frame of mind. And my dilemma above seems reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of the components of which it consist: dasein and conflicting goods in a world sans God.

Sure, your “optimism” is always going to be more palatable for “humanity”. But sooner or later actual rules of behaviors will be legislated. And then enforced. Should they be more in sync with the “liberals” or with the “conservatives”, with the “capitalists” or with the “socialists”, with the “individualists” or with the “collectivists”, with the “big government” folks or with the “small government” folks?

Now, you have that all worked out in your head. Another ideal Republic perhaps. But what of those who share your craving for optimism but insist the Republic must go in an entirely different direction?

The parts that unfold out in the real world that has [time and again] been grimly, grusomely unfolding for thousands of years.

Note to others:

What “on earth” do you suppose he means by this? In other words, given your own interactions with others. Interactions in which conflicts occured over incompatable value judgments.

Is there a way in a Godless universe for philosophers to prescribe and proscribe behaviors deemed to the optimal or the only rational manner in which to interact?

That’s the discussion I can’t yank out of him. At least not so far.

I am ever in search of a frame of mind that might actually be able to yank me up out of the hole that I have dug for myself:

Note to others:

Should I even bother to read this? :wink: