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.
In contrast to the earlier philosophers [Greeks and other] the problem with the later philosophers is, to differentiate and get recognition they come up with new labels and in a way complicate matters.
I agree there is need to bring in new concepts and reframe philosophical problems but I think Heidegger’s fundamental theme is too fanciful.
Dasein = “being there” or “presence” (German: da “there”; sein “being”), and is often translated into English with the word “existence”.
Human existence is leverage upon two main forces, i.e. Nature or Nurture.
Nature re humans is driven by its collective history [from 4 billion years to the present] embedded in the DNA.
Nurture is also influenced by nature collectively and the environmental conditions.
The centrifugal pull you refer to above is actually the centrifugal pull of the ‘nature’ elements of embedded instincts, emotions and other deeper neural impulses.
The centripetal pull is influenced by parts of the later brain faculties, i.e. reason, intellect, social, and others.
One example of the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is the sexual drive which can extend to lust and manifest as evil but this lust can modulated by the centripetal moral and rational drive.
One objective view of the above is the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is driven by neurons evolved from billions of years and thus comprised with many [millions] strands and very strong neuron.
The centripetal pull of humans evolved in a later phase i.e. appx. 6 million years and thus less powerful than the centrifugal pull. However the centripetal pull has the benefit of intelligence, rationality, critical thinking and morality to inhibit the strong impulses of the centrifugal primal forces.
The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the ‘higher’ faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.
Existentialism is another disease that needs to be “cured”?
But you have an unsoothing narrative, at least on the surface it is unsoothing. For a nihilist there should be no ‘agony of choice in the face of uncertainty’. In fact there isn’t uncertainty, there is ‘no way of knowing’. Nothing to wrestle with. If I am uncertain whether it is good to have an abortion, then there can be agony. I think it is ethical, but I am uncertain. But if I think there is no handhold at all, no way to judge, or in fact no ultimate right choice, I can do what I want. A nihilist is actually rather certain that one cannot know AND/OR there is no right choice. Hence no agony. Now there might be some agony over determining consquences, practical issues, but no ethical uncertainty. It is a category error to a nihilist since it implies probabilities.
De Beauvoir, despite her theoretical nihilism, did resist the Nazis and Sartre judge Camus rather harshly. She argues that she resisted since the Nazis were claiming to have some objective justification. But that’s just BS, because she did not resist other groups that also claimed that, because she did not consider them evil.
But wouldn’t it be fallacious to think that one can modulate such impulses or even that one should, naturally? If the case could even be made?
There need not be misunderstanding on this issue , for there are levels and levels of universalization of the complex issues dealing with this, ranging all the way from simple , archaic to involved and esoteric, and the comingling is probably the basis for differentiating the adherence of the Dasein forming structural division with lingual-positivist analysis, some psychologists talking it to the extreme level of cutting off all nexus by virtue of what they call: ‘rationalization’
In language of philosophy, Husserl and Sartre disagreed over a structural problem that Nietzche foresaw.
Transendentalism was the view that issues remain regardless of whether a third or middle way can be found according to Husserl. The contexts within which one finds ones self inbregards to the conflict of values is reducible , into more elemental logical systems , it need not reduce into the familiar good/bad universal. This is what the positivists are saying with their propositional tie ins.
Are propositions resembling so that they cohere into structural unity, in spite of having to assume certain missing points which may or may not at one point closed the the argument?
Sartre disagrees with this transandence. Into meaning. He sets men free to justify their values upon which their own understanding will be sufficient, they are all self thought and responsibility to themself is justification enough to overcome their sense of doubt over the choices between values they make.
The glue is for Sartre is the extension of responsibility into the social sphere. They are responsible for each other.
Its not a question of the lingual structural problem with philosophy , but the historical movement that raises the bar from the self toward the other. Positivism also does points. to this thinking and also passes on the central concept of the Thing-In-Itself toward the Other.
That Nietzsche set the stage , in my mind, at this time, is of no doubt, but he left open the structural details . He did little else than to open the floodgates to those who come after him, to overcome the gap, the abyss , that Hegel and Kant left.
Existential nihilization is the position where Nietzsche left it, both the so called eidectic and phenomenal reductions have been proved inadequate to move Existence forward , but that does not mean that the implementation of those tools will be left abandoned.
Some accusation toward the language of philosophy losing figurative basis may have some relevance , but meaning,language meta language. have traditionally been the mother load of ideas , and applications and tie ins come up, contextually, wirhout which philosophical movements can be said to be meaningless.
Not ‘cure’ as in ‘eliminating’ such an philosophy.
Existentialism does serves its purposes in finding [diagnose] where the disease is about and talk about it, but not in great depth into the proximate causes, plus it does not prescribe effective solutions to deal with the existential problems it expose.
Therefore existentialism must understand and express its limitations.
The problem with continental existentialists is, while exposing the flaws of their so-called ‘objectivists,’ they do not provide effective solutions plus many think too highly of their version of existentialism and stick to it dogmatically to their own detriment, e.g. Iambiguous.
Animals are basically instinctual and act instantaneously and spontaneously without thinking. If they are on heat, a male animal will just rush to f…k any female within sight or smell.
On the other hand, humans [majority, there are exceptions] on “heat” do not rush to f…k any female on sight because they are modulating their sexual drives.
DNA wise all humans do have a ‘modulating’ function but of different strengths depending on conditions.
Yes, there is a hierarchy [levels and levels] of impulses within the human brain. Most of these impulses [sex, hunger, anger, various emotions] can be modulated by the majority.
But there is one fundamental drive, i.e. the existential drive that is not easy to be modulated by all to an effective standard because it pulsate very subliminally beyond the conscious mind.
So my point is, humans should understand the mechanics of the existential problems [as exposed by existentialism and others] and establish effective techniques to modulate these existential impulses effectively.
Continental existentialism only exposes and describe the existential problems but do not provide effective solutions for the individual[s] to deal with the exposed problems.
It’s unclear to me why any existentialist ought to take your advice. It goes against some fundamental concepts of existentialism. You’re proposing a one size fits all solution which was available and rejected as inadequate. I don’t see anything new on the table.
It is a general rule [human nature, instinct, rational] for any known problems to be resolved with solutions.
Iambigous is a good example, i.e. being extricated from his comfort zone of theism* into the frantic states of existentialism without a solution to deal with the exposed problems.
What I proposed is a generic Problem Solving Technique for any existential problem.
You said that a solution was to “modulate the lower primal impulses”.
This can be rejected as being inauthentic, ineffective or outright undesirable. Take your pick.
Where is such a point within existentialism? Reference?
or it is your personal view?
which imply if you feel any sexual desire, you can express and relieve it any where [publicly] or how [to the extreme most of perversion] your like?
Prismatic,
There are interwoven themes of liberation surrounding freedom to be for Sartre.
On the literary aide of Sartre, he wrote a novel about Jean Genet , a professed homosexual 50 years ago. It was titled “Saint Genet” . So that being the case, may or may not invalidate modulation., as a personal choice.
Note;
Complexity of Existentialist Morality
philosophy.livejournal.com/1697034.html
I believe Existential Morality is along the same lines as the above.
In promotion of freedom and authencity, it would appear that existentialism do not promote a free for all concept.
From what I read of the above, one must have freedom but such freedom must be conditioned to achieve within the optimality of time and circumstances of the present.
E.g. in the above, one is free to practice homosexuality but definitely not performing sexual acts of homosexuality in say a public square or anywhere public.