My point is that equanimity itself is the goal. Not what the objectivist believes but that the objectivist believes it. That’s why in a room filled with hundreds and hundreds of hopelessly conflicted and contradictory moral/political narratives, each and every agenda will be defended as the one true rendition of what you happen to call “progressive” behavior.
Yes, and my point is that in order not to be perturbed and confused the objectivist [often exhibiting an authoritarian personality] becomes the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
See how it works? You look at particular trends in the world and you ask yourself, “do they coincide with my understanding of ‘progressive’ behavior?” You fit the world into your own existential narrative. One basically predicated on a particular set of political prejudices that I deem largely embedded/embodied in dasein. You decide what constitutes “positive” or “negative” trends. And while there are clearly facts that can be ascertained regarding such behaviors as chattel slavery and smoking, where is the moral narrative here that can be established as in fact true for all of us? Even for those [still today] who profit from slavery or, for any number of personal reasons [here and now], choose to smoke.
Well, if all the objectivists can do here and now is point to trends that they deem to be in sync with their own idealism, they either live long enough to see the rest of the world come into sync with it or they don’t.
I merely used Heidegger and Barrett to nudge me in a different direction. My own understaning of dasein is encompassed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
All I can then do in forums like this is ask others how, in the is/ought world, this rendition of “I” is not in sync with their own. But only out in a particular world in which conflicting behaviors seem to abound in particular contexts that most of us will be familiar with.
In other words, I’m considerably less interested in resolving whether or not my own rendition of “dasein” above would meet with the approval of those who claim to understand what Heidegger or Barrett meant by it.
Instead, I note the manner in which I have come to understand it above and ask folks like you to react to that.
But only existentially, and not as one of Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.
There are many ways to address the above questions and issues. I have addressed the above question re the “self”. I have already make some suggestions re ‘Know Thyself’ and taking the trouble to know everything that is discussed re the self, i.e. philosophy, neuroscience, biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and whatever that is relevant to the historicity of your own self [dasein - own being] and self [dasein -general being].
But before you proceed in the above quest, the most critical is to establish a reasonable state of generic equanimity - as I have stated many times- to anchor your psyche in the midst of the inevitable turbulence of life.
Yes, you have done so. Just as all the other objectivists I have encountered over the years claimed the same. But trust me: Unless you embrace their “suggestions”, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of actually being right. Why? Because they already beat you to it. This: “taking the trouble to know everything that is discussed re the self”.
That is when I propose this – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 – as one possible interpretation. The psychology of objectivism.
I know, I know: Not you.
A “reasonable state”. In other words yours not theirs. And that this reasonable state of general equanimity is the foundation upon which your own particular “I” was able to obtain and then sustain “comfort and consolation”, well, that’s just icing on the cake.
Again, I’ve been there. For years and years I too was up out of the hole I am in now, confident in turn that there really was an optimal frame of mind here. There must be because at the time “I” embodied it.
As you do now.
And this whole exchange is basically an exercise revolving around you pulling be up out of the hole I am in before I pull you down into it.
I believe quitting is a matter of wisdom, i.e. taking the wiser choice.
It is like seeing a drowning person in the middle of a deep lake.
If one assess the drowning person is struggling like mad, it would be very stupid to try to save him/her due to the likelihood s/he will grip so hard and pull the life-saver down as well.
Dasein should be understood as something far more profound than mere “existence.” It means “being-there” - that is to say, in-relationship with another Being or Beings. Without relationship, authentic Being cannot be (I know this sounds terribly pretentious and unnecessarily esoteric, but Existentialism is a so-called “technical philosophy”).
I believe the most effective way to understand Dasein is to put and view it within the overall picture of philosophy within the dichotomy of
Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-realism.
From the above,
Philosophical Realism = for a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme, i.e. the self.
Thus the Philosophical Anti-Realism oppose Philosophical Realism and thus have the view,
for a given object is the view that this object exists in reality interdependently of our conceptual scheme, i.e. the self.
Thus if one understand what is Philosophical Realism about -which is very simple to understand because it so obvious - then turn it over 180 degree and that would be Philosophical anti-realism which is the basis for Dasein.
So basically Dasein is the beingness of the self that exists interdependent with its reality.
In Being and Time Heidegger explain the above using his own terminologies and expositions.
Sir: Your suggestion is an excellent one, and the correct method. Unfortunately, I broke with Existentialism some years ago, and have no real interest in discussing it (nor have I kept up with the current thinking). Sorry. PS: “ILP Legend” - elected or appointed?
Forget the “current thinking” among existentialists.
With respect to dasein, my point is that conflicted human behaviors revolving around conflicting goods seem clearly embedded historically, culturally and experientially.
[experientially in the sense that as individuals we all have unique sets of experiences, relationships, interactions and access to information and knowledge]
Thus If you were born on a 12th century Russian farm or in an 18th century English castle or on a 20th century Communist commune, the manner in which “I” then will construe “human reality” is likely to be remarkably different.
From, for example, the manner in which you construe human reality here and now today.
So, using the tools of philosophy, how close can we come to articulating a human reality that all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to embody in their interactions with others.
Here you can note an interaction from your own life, or you can point to a conflict that all of us are likely to be familiar with.
As for being an “ILP legend”, you’re new here. Veterans know this is something that is automatically attributed to any member who reaches [I believe] 5,000 posts?
As far as Existentialism as a viable philosophy is concerned, I agree with Nietzsche: If there is the mere possibility of impulses or instincts within us which we are not aware of (cannot be aware of), then we cannot speak of “free will.”
Philosophically, we appear to reside in two very different worlds here.
I’m considerably less intrigued with what Nietzsche expounded here as a “general description” of human interactions, and considerably more intrigued with how relevant it might be when those interactions come into conflict – as that pertains to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
In the is/ought world.
And if these “impulses and instincts” do in fact exist such that “we cannot speak of ‘free will’”, then it would seem that everything that Nietzsche said back then and everything that we are saying here and now is only as it ever could have been.
And, indeed, some will take comfort in this and others will not.
And just out of curiosity…Number 6…is that a reference to this: youtu.be/nW-bFGzNMXw
I’m certainly not selling hard determinism here. I should have been clearer. I am speaking of influences or instincts which could potentially impact our behavior. Let’s say that George is walking down the street, minding his own business like he always does, and he encounters a dog that is unleashed. The dog, whose name is Skippy by the way, approaches George in all innocence and barks at him playfully (which is a dog’s prerogative I’m told). Suddenly, George produces a pistol and instantaneously puts a round right through the hapless creature’s head with the intention of killing it, which he does. Now, say our good friend George had been attacked by a dog as a child. Is it not possible that had George not had this traumatic experience as a child he might have acted differently? If we recognize this possibility, can we honestly consider George’s act to be one of pure free will? No, we cannot. Mind you, I’m not saying that George is not responsible for poor old Skippy’s death, which he most certainly is (nor am I advocating the killing of dogs willy-nilly). Please note: I’m not posing this question with an eye towards ethics, morality or law.
But I do pose the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above as revolving around ethics, morality and the law.
In judging George’s action there are facts that can be demonstrated/established. Objective truths embedded in his life predisposing him to shoot the dog.
Mitigating circumstances they might be called if it were ever to become a matter of the law.
Dasein as I understand it is largely moot here. There are facts about “I” which are not really open to dispute. Where was “I” born"? When was “I” born? What are “I’s” genetic/biological components? Who were part of “I’s” family? “I’s” community? What was “I” indoctrinated to believe about particular moral and political issues as a child? What was “I” indoctrinated to believe about God and religion as a child. These are facts that may or may not be conclusively established. Facts that objectively are true for all of us. Why? Because they are in fact true.
It’s just that even in the either/or world only an omniscient God would have access to all of the facts. Facts going all the way back to an understanding of existence itself.
But human interactions with dogs varies down through the ages. And they produce conflicting cultural/individual narratives. For some dogs are part of their diet, for others they are raised to fight other dogs; or, for others still, they are trained to be performers or drug detectors or killers.
The dasein part [as I understand it] revolves around our personal reactions to these behaviors — behaviors construed to be either moral or immoral. As then construed to be bahaviors that ought or ought not to be proscribed.
In other words, philosophers/ethicists do not appear [to me] to have at their disposal the tools necessary to resolve these conflicting narratives/values/behaviors.
How are rational men and women obligated to treat dogs?
And the crucial factor embedded in the determinism debate revolves around establishing the extent to which all human behaviors are only ever as they could have been.
No less so in human beings than as in dogs. As in termites. It’s just that our own species has acquired the illusion that “I” chooses these things with at least some measure of actual autonomy.
Hiedegger’s Dasien (“existence” or “being-there”) is a rather interesting concept. There is no such thing as detached reflection for Heidegger, to his credit. His is a world of flesh and bone, and it is through angst that the totality of human existence is revealed to us. Rejecting abstract and theoretical approaches, i.e., the traditional metaphysics of presence, to investigate the "questions of being (Seinsfrage), Heidegger is quite correct in grounding Dasien in concrete human situations (hence, Dasien’s “average everydayness”) - the proper starting point when considering the nature of Being (i.e., Being-for-itself). Rather than focusing on the foreground, and bypassing the (traditional) subject-object model, Heidegger looks to the background conditions against which entities appear intelligible to us (“disclosedness”). It is Dasien’s “pre-ontological understanding” which makes this possible. That is to say Dasien (somehow) has a prior understanding of Being (I smell Metaphysics). This a priori (I’m unsure as to the applicability of the term) knowledge, embedded (or grounded) in everyday activities, opens a “clearing” before which entities show up. The idea of Being creating a “historically unfolding clearing” (a unique concept, I would argue) is intriguing. Dasien is always “ahead of itself,” it always “runs ahead.” Heidegger posits three existentials (which I take to be the main characteristics of Being). The first, or starting point, is throwness (an excellent concept). That is to say a Being’s “facticity” - the fact that it exists; Being is not self-generating (causa sui). Being is “at issue” with itself (I would argue that facticity “haunts” Being). As Sartre puts it: “I am responsible for everything except my own responsibility.” Next, is projection: Dasien always (necessarily) takes a position on its life through concrete action. Finally, Dasien is “discourse.” As such, its articulates (i.e., addresses or discusses) entities. Being that thinks about being".] Heidegger argues that the “resolute confrontation of death” (the culmination of our possibilities) is necessary for “authentic existence.” I agree that Dasien is Being-toward-death (that is, future directed). Being is “authentic” when it accepts its responsibility for its life as a totality; not simply a sum of choices, but as the “happening” of a life. That is to say, a life “stretched out between life and death.” In other words, “Becoming.” I agree that Being is not “fixed.” It follows then, that inauthenticity (a natural tendency) is Being’s flight before itself in the face of its own finitude. Heidegger argues that this tendency results from our existence as “they” (das Man), i.e., participants in the “historically constituted happening of a people” or Volk. I’m not quite sure where I stand on this point in the light of certain historical events.
