What is Dasein?

Existentialism often revolves around the idea of “authenticity”. Many existentialists argue that one lives “inauthentically” through one or another rendition of objectivism. In the is/ought world. Hell is other people not because they can make your life miserable, but because they objectify you. They refuse to interact with you subject to subject. I merely probe the existential parameters of the “subject” – “I” – by focusing the beam on the points I raise in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

Sans God, in other words, “authenticity” becomes just one more existential contraption. And, by and large, rooted in dasein.

In other words, from my frame of mind there is no “psychological anchor”. At least not for me.

Consequently, your own intellectual contraptions above [and elsewhere] are [from my frame of mind] just another attempt to replace God with one or another secular rendition of a moral/political font.

Why? Because [ironically enough] this affords you the same sort of psychological comfort and consolation that the theists embody through God. It’s just that, unlike them, you scratch the part about immortality and salvation.

So, you are able to convince yourself that we do not live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world. But then there’s this part:

“They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.”

You can’t help but wonder then what Samuel Beckett might have made of this exchange.

Sure, that’s one way to look at it. But is that the only way to look at it? Unlike you, I suspect the sheer complexity of the interwining variables that encompass the motivation/intention [re genes and memes] of any one particular individual in any one particular context, may well be beyond the capacity here of any one particular “I” to grasp.

All I can do is to note my dilemma above and to ask those convinced that they are not entangled in it themselves, to describe actual contexts in which they were in fact able to demonstrate that their own moral/political narrative reflected the optimal or the only rational frame of mind. Meaning [for some] the optimal or the only virtuous set of behaviors.

What I recognize about myself is this: that if I choose to interact with others, I am going to come upon contexts in which value judgments come into conflict. I will be expected to choose sides. But: to what extent can my choice be more than just a political prejudice rooted in dasein?

Instead, it is back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Pertaining to what particular context? Provide us with one of your own.

Actually, my point here is to note the gap between what I think I know about determinism here and now and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know for sure.

I merely speculate that this is almost certainly true of yourself as well.

Unless, of course, you can encompass the definitive assessment of what is popularly described as “free will”.

I mentioned in the other thread I have just read William Barrett’s Irrational Man.

In a way, i.e. the experience of reality by the subject. But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.

You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.

You keep thinking and is mistaken I am one of those religious bigots and objectivists which typical continental existentialism and William Barrett are targeting. Nope, Philosophically I am way out of range from their bull’s eye.

Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the ‘subject’ within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.

Note this issue of centering-on-the-subject was introduced long ago since Protagoras ‘Man is the Measure of All Things’ and very very long ago in the Eastern Philosophies.
Also note Kant’s famous Copernican Turn toward the ‘subject’ for knowledge instead of the external.

While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the ‘subject’ loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.

If one study and adopt the teachings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. there is nothing in those teachings that show how one can act [the practices] and do to to improve oneself to deal with the theorized despairs of existentialism. What they do is condemnation of the ‘other’ then talk, talk and talk only but no proposed actions that are effective and can improve one’s skills to deal with the theorized problems of life.

This is why I propose all humans must develop a psychological anchor, the stronger the better, but at least there must be some sort of anchor.
Note:
Equanimity
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778

Generic Problem Solving Technique of Life
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

Know Thyself

If one do not develop some sort of anchor, one will be lost and suffers.
Fortunately yours is a philosophical existential crisis and not a spiritual crisis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_crisis

Come on, let’s not forget that historically existentialism in the 20th century was in part a reaction to the horrors of World War II. Folks like Camus, Sartre and deBeauvoir were in ways large and small embedded in the French resistance to Hitler and the Nazis.

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy “out in a particular world” is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir’s novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

On the other hand, I suspect your own “to-do” list revolves more around the objectivist credo: “one of us” vs. “one of them”

Me? As I once noted previously here…

[b]I was born and bred into the belly of the working class beast…worked in the shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army…Vietnam. Six plus years of college. 25 plus years of political activism. Marriage. Parental responsibilities. Paying the bills. Intellectual pursuits of all sorts.

I’ve had ample opportunity to actually “test” the ideas I’ve bumped into. And then to come up with new philosophical configurations all my own.[/b]

How about you? How do you connect the dots here between what you think philosophically and the depth of your own experiences?

What on earth does that mean though? Your own “steady ship” in my view is largely a world of words.

That’s why [your protestations to the contrary] you only really feel comfortable in this exchange up on the skyhooks. You come down to earth only long enough to remind me that “in the future” your own “progressive” behaviors will be the norm. Or, if not, the species is doomed.

Or so it seems to me.

From my vantage point the subject [in the is/ought world] revolves around the ideas that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas, in my opinion, your own narrative regarding “I” revolves more around the ideas I raise here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And until you intertwine your conflicted interactions with others in an exchange that is more in alignment with my own abortion trajectory above, we are likely to remain out of sync.

Perhaps, but what the objectivists then do is to anchor “I” here [in the is/ought world] to one or another font/foundation: God, reason, deontology, ideology, nature.

One or another intellectual rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

I am irrational and this is somehow rationalized as defined irrational behavior based in emotionality few understand completely based in vast complexity. My irrationality stomps your rationality into the dust because I, and you, and everyone else, thinks erratically. Any semblance of ‘rational’ thought is but a momentary thing.

I agree the reactions of the continental existentialists were rational in relation to the issues they raised, e.g. rigid religions, logical positivists, objectivists, Scientism and others, and from there brought attention to the subject which objectivists has ignored.

That is the furthest they go, but they [the continental existentialists] do not introduce any to-do-list and relevant knowledge for the subject to resolve [via skills] what is highlighted by the existentialists themselves.

Note in contrast to the Buddha [existential] introduced a wide range of practices to suit different individuals to develop themselves via rewiring in the brain to deal with the existential issues, especially the mother of all existential problems, i.e. the existential crisis.

Yes, flesh out [good but not enough] but that is ‘talk’ only but no suggested actions to improve the individual psychological states.

You have a short term memory problems? Note reminder, I am not an objectivist.
I have stated elsewhere, my ‘to-do’ list involves the acquisition of the relevant knowledge [as wide and deep as possible] and complemented with wide range of physical and mental exercises and actions to rewire my brain to stabilize my psychological state, e.g. equanimity.

What you have done was realizing the shortfall of religion via existentialism which dug a deeper hole for you to fall in and trapped therein.

The actions you listed above [shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army, etc.] do not directly develop the necessary faculties, skills and mental tenacity in the brain to deal with the turbulences from the existential crisis.

The necessary actions entail ‘spiritual’ knowledge and practices, e.g. breathing exercises, meditation [various], visualizations, mindfulness [specific and at all times], etc. and etc. which are specifically targeted to improve the necessary mental skills to deal with those inherent existential issues.

“Steady ship” is equivalent to mental stability to deal with the mental turbulences is life especially the inherent unavoidable existential ones.
I recognized which are the necessary neurons to develop for this state and follow a to-do list to improve on it.

The problem is you don’t even understand the problem you have fallen into.
Recognize the real issues and root causes of your problem, resolve them and they will naturally be in sync with me.

The above is your invention.

What is critical is for one to understand the nature of one existential problems then act to secure and anchor the “I” to deal with the rising existential turbulences.

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don’t seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just “talk”.

Only her “talk” was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Okay, do that. And as you go about the business of living your life let me know when you actually come upon a context in which others challenge your values. Or when you come upon someone “in the news” who embodies values not deemed “progressive”.

That’s the discussion I’ve been waiting for.

Instead, over and again you come back to one or another rendition of this:

Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn’t sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.

All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down “in the future”, the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I don’t deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.

Perhaps you can explain in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193807

Btw, people are challenging my views all the time, note Phyllo, and others.
I have no big issue on this.
Everyone is free to express their views and where it challenges my views and if I am interested I will respond accordingly. No big issue.
One big issue I have is when people [like Snark, JSS, Aminius] throw irrelevant one-liners without supporting justifications and are off topic.

I think the most effective suggestion is they start cultivating a state of equanimity and perform some self psycho-analysis exercises.

One of my problem is this;
I do have the expectation religions especially theistic should be got rid off immediately, NOW! so that there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.
Because I have a sufficient state of equanimity, I understand my expectations are not realistic at present but only in the future >50, >75 years or >. I modulate my emotions [may be triggered naturally] do not go haywire because my expectations are not met.
While I discuss how to get rid of religions [with fool proof replacements] in the future, I have no problem accepting people who are religious and will even recommend someone to take up religion if that is the most appropriate thing for them to do NOW.

If you note the above carefully, what is critical as a base is a state of equanimity of an effective degree to deal with the related issue plus all the necessary knowledge of knowing and doing.

I understand the fundamental grounds of all religions [theistic religions] is psychological and thus must be dealt with psychologically. If they do not take the psychological approach the problem will always be there. However, based on current trend the masses will be convinced they can resolve the existential dilemma psychologically as what the Eastern spiritualities has done.

Really, come on, what on earth does this mean? Relating to what particular context construed from what particular conflicting moral and political points of view? That part is veritably bursting at the seams in The Blood Of Others.

Yet it barely shows up at all in your own didactic/scholastic “analysis”.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Or, perhaps, the problem with existentialists is that they root “real action” in the “ethics of ambiguity”.

The talk exchanged by the characters in her novel always revolved around actual choices – actual behaviors that precipitated actual consequences.

After all, there really was a French Resistance to the Nazis.

Something that you avoid at all cost. Why? Because actual human interactions here and now [rather than in the future] beget actual conflciting goods that are able to be defended in conflicting moral and political narratives embedded in conflicting assumptions about human interactions.

Okay, link me to such a discussion. I can only react to it by comparing and contrasting it to the manner in which I construe folks challenging each others values.

And again: That is what both sides are likely to agree with! And then they will assure us that if one does this, they will see things as they really are. As they do. But if they don’t see things as they do, then clearly they are doing something wrong.

Which is then encompassed in an intellectual contraption like this:

Yeah, right. It’s all as simple as that. In your head, for example.

As I had stated I don’t prefer to deal with particulars [specific problems] as that could be infinite.
What I have been proposing is a universal model of ‘how to solve any existential problem that arise’ i.e. the generic problem solving technique.
Point is you have to understand this model and plan to put it into action.

That is not the kind of action I was expecting. No one was waiting for existentialists to ask them to resist the Nazis. Any average person with a good moral compass will naturally resist and fight the Nazis.

Inspiring people to be resistance to an ideology or go to war is not the optimal solution.
In relation to existentialism, what I was implying is a course of action that will stabilize a person psychological stability, self-esteem and other qualities so that they can tackle whatever problem that arise in their life.
In this case, if a person has to go to a justified war, that person will fight with mental stability rather than in a panic state.

Something is very wrong here.
It is very unfortunate for you that yours is a lost cause, i.e. every points discussed end up ‘in your head’, i.e. an intellectual ‘contraption’.

What I have proposed is definitely in my head -that is the best I can do in a discussion - but what I had discussed is always accompanied by a proposed course of action.
The proper thing for you to do [in this philosophical] is to analyze and critique my proposals whether they are applicable or feasible for the future.
In addition you seriously have to take action to rewire what is in your head.

It is as if you have a medical problem your spouse take you to a doctor.
The doctor prescribed medicines and recommend strongly you must do certain exercises.
Now your response to the doctor is ‘in your head’ and you threw away the medicine and refuse to do the exercises recommended.

The right course of action is you should do your own research and investigate the medical problem you have and understand the problem as much as possible from all databases on the issue and all views.
Then when you visit the doctor you will have a thorough understanding of the problem and then you make the decision to do or not to do [seek other opinions] what the doctor recommended.

Iambiguous,

You should reflect whether you have something like Munchausen Syndrome related to some psychological trauma.

Your strategy in the related discussion is, whatever views from from the other side always end up with ‘in your head’ thus your intention is to keep the problem [whatever that is] you have in suspension and unresolved forever so to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.

Maybe … that is the main issue?

That’s not a given.

This sentence pretty much confirms that prismatic is a moral objectivist, or in Iambiguous’ terms and objectivist. This is not an insult, to me at least, but I think Prismatic and Iambiguous we can consider the matter determined.

Actually Heidegger says Dasein is to exist with a purpose. Hence Being and Time. The purpose is the center of the existence. One “is there” (ist da) in terms of what one is heading for, which of course alludes to a lot of cycle-theory.
This connects to his philosophy of the 4 quadrants.

Believe it or not, Heidegger is a theist.

I can agree existence with a purpose, but not a teleological or ontological one from God.

This point is contentious,

Note this comment;

Note Heidegger’s view on religion, i.e. no man is without religion as long as s/he has faith in something including Scientific theories.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WDmRAASuKc[/youtube]

Again:

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir’s approach to the “agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”. Though I clearly understand the psychological comfort and consolation embedded in the intellectual contraption that propels you seamlessly into the future. After all, a facsimile once propelled me seamlessly into the future too.

So, in that respect, as with the folks able to believe in God, you win. I have access to none of those soothing, seamless narratives now.

Just a reminder that, as I noted on page 1 of this thread…

[b]I tend to eschew the exploration of Dasein with a capital D. Once you capitalize it, it becomes this scholastic Thing that Heidegger set out to describe [to encompass, to capture] as a “serious philosopher” in a tome. It becomes an intellectual contraption stuffed into an Analysis of Being and Time.

Or so it seems to me.

I am only interested in the individual dasein. A particular man or woman who is thrown adventitiously at birth into a particular world. And, in being thrown there and not here, in being thrown then and not now, how is that a factor in exploring the values of individuals?[/b]

Just as I have my own rendition of dasein, you apparently have your own rendition of theism. Please explain to us how and why Heidegger was a theist.

The only way I can imagine it is in suggesting that Hitler’s narrative in Mein Kampf might be construed as a secular Scripture. A religious narrative in a No God world.

It is a crazy thought to believe in your above views. “agony of choice” in life - that mental pain is similar to a masochist’s preference for physical pain in a sexual encounter. I believe your belief and indulgence is a kind of perversion.

It is very unfortunate you have not noticed the normal and essential trend of humanity to have concern regarding past historical and existing problems and concern for how these problem will effect humanity [or at least yourself as an individual].

It is from the above trend of progressiveness that humanity is able to produce all the net-positive effects for the good of humanity to face further potential threats to the preservation of the human species.

Why are you going to full out nihilism?

If I may interject , that leaving Nihilism or staying with it is like the conflicting values theory. The centrifugal pull into the Dasein is stronger then the centripetal , socially dubious, politically unfounded , psychologically suspect one . This pull inside into the transcendental certainty of some model self is safer then the relative objectionable parts and pieces from which every one has to reassemble some kind of unity. Its a matter of which pull draws stronger , in, or out. If the choice is sustained too long by indecision , the consequences are not hard to imagine or, predict, except the few who can sustain such duality in some form and/or fashion.

Man is not free as has been suggested in mid 20 th. century, he is bound, not unlike Prometheus, in an eternal repetitive cycle , and he is beginning to know and feel, where in the great turning of the wheel of life, he should position himself. If he does not, his supposed freedom will be an illusion.