What is Dasein?

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.

So, sure, quit while you’re ahead.

Would that I could myself.

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.

But we repeat ourselves…

It means “existing here” and not “existing there”. It means “existing now” and not “existing before” or “existing after”.

Now all we need is a particular context construed from a particular point of view in order to flesh all the out.

You pick it.

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.”

Me:

You:

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

Don’t ever desert us iambiguous :laughing:

Yes, the original & the best.

Just out of curiosity: In what sense? :wink:

Also, just for the hell of it, what is your own take on Dasein and/or dasein? :-k

And don’t forget, this is the philosophy forum. You know, whatever that means. Here for example. :sunglasses:

If you do say so yourself? :wink:

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.

Number 6, yours are interesting points.
I have parsed them into ‘chewable’ bits.

I have given up discussing with you re your “da-sein” which is all over the place.

Number 6 [see above] has presented a reasonable summary of da-sein within Being and Time [BT]. Of course there are more details than that.

It will be more effective for you to present your views re da-sein within that kind of framework [or similar] so that your ideas do not fly everywhere.

Thus for every of your point presented you need to refer to one of those points or a new point within an acceptable framework of BT or your own explained view showing how it agree or deviate from Being and Time.

At present I am trying to go through Being and Time [plus later Heidegger’s articles] with a fine-toothed comb to understand [not necessary agree] the philosophy of Heidegger.

Noted. And with your own comforting and consoling objectivist narrative still intact. Good for you.

His wall of words portrayal of Heidegger’s wall of words Dasein cannot possibly be further removed from my own efforts here to take intellectual contraptions of this sort down out of the scholastic clouds of definitions and deductions; to then situate them out in the world of actual conflicted human interactions. My framework revolves precisely around the existential relationship between the values I’ve held and the life that I’ve actually lived:

Re abortion, here for example:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Now, when you or Number six or some other Heidegger scholar is willing to integrate their own wall of words philosophical assessment of Dasein into an actual flesh and blood context that revolves around a value judgment of their own choosing, come back around.

The only reason that your own ideas don’t “fly everywhere” is because their meaning starts with the assumption that your own definitions and deductions [as a serious philosopher] are by default the only viable stepping stone into the moral future.

Well, if you wish to be thought of as “one of us”.