What is Dasein?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:13 pm

But we repeat ourselves...

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: I believe quitting is a matter of wisdom, i.e. taking the wiser choice.


Okay, quitting.

Note the context. Note that which you are able to demonstrate to others as the embodiment of the "wiser choice". Why yours and not theirs?

Again, we may be able to establish that someone has in fact quit in their attempts to demonstrate to others that we live in either a God or a No god world.

But how do we then demonstrate that in fact we do live in a God or a No God world?

How we establish that in fact others are obligated to embrace our own narrative here if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being?

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


Here we can try to ascertain what the facts are. But only to the best of our ability. After all, even with regard to actual facts in the either/or world, only God is privy to all of them.

Mere mortals, on the other hand, can only speculate as to what is actually unfolding in the middle of the lake.

So, when someone broaches the question, "are we morally obligated to make an attempt at rescue?" there will almost certainly be any number of conflicting narratives.

Yet in a God world, we must take into account the judgment of God here.

While in a No God world who is really to say what our moral obligation is?

You with your assessment of the "wiser choice"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:19 pm

Number 6 wrote: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").



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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:14 am

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?
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:05 pm

Number 6 wrote: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?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:49 pm

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."
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:43 pm

Me:

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.


You:

Number 6 wrote: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: https://youtu.be/nW-bFGzNMXw
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Pneumatic-Coma » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:46 am

Don't ever desert us iambiguous :lol:
(Our object of desire isn't to change current belief systems or complicate already convoluted streams of information; we're not trying to even prove ourselves in anyway. We're just human beings similar to yourself. Not superior, the same. Ancestors of the lost world. The conflicts of beliefs you face in your world, are not only the conflict of self yet life, we cannot compel such conflicts to other's will for any self-benefit. The true goal reached here is there is nothing we can say nor do that can convince anyone else of what they don't know for themselves already. And, when the time calls, and you are ready, the barriers of awareness will expand and such confirmed information will be easily perceived, and known to them! Allow them to seek and find out when they are prepared. All will arrive to light in no time.) Ego sum via veritas et vita;Amesha Spenta;Vohu Mano; Allow all things measurable, microbial and astronomical to remain infinite, unchanged and arrive to light.
User avatar
Pneumatic-Coma
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:10 am
Location: Purgatory

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:41 pm

Yes, the original & the best.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:17 pm

Pneumatic-Coma wrote:Don't ever desert us iambiguous :lol:


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. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:18 pm

Number 6 wrote:Yes, the original & the best.


If you do say so yourself? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:12 am

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.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:05 pm

Number 6 wrote: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.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:13 pm

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. [I believe Sartre said that man is "the 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.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:13 am

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

Number 6 wrote:1. Hiedegger's Dasien ("existence" or "being-there") is a rather interesting concept.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. The idea of Being creating a "historically unfolding clearing" (a unique concept, I would argue) is intriguing.

6. Dasien is always "ahead of itself," it always "runs ahead."

7. 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. [I believe Sartre said that man is "the Being that thinks about being".]

8. 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."

9. 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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:26 am

iambiguous wrote: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.

....

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.
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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:04 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I have given up discussing with you re your "da-sein" which is all over the place.


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

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


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".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Number 6 » Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:07 pm

This may be an inane idea, but we could start from the very beginning and try to arrive at a common understanding of what we mean by "exist" (then "existence," "I exist," and so forth) before ultimately taking a look at Dasein or any other so-called "existential" concept. I know this could easily go awry.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Camus
User avatar
Number 6
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:35 pm
Location: The Village

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:52 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I have given up discussing with you re your "da-sein" which is all over the place.


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

Prismatic567 wrote: 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.


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".
Your points are everywhere and groundless.

Unless you have invented your own framework & system and recognized [not necessary all agree] by the philosophical community, you have no choice by to rely on the existing recognized frameworks & system.

For example, if we rely on the recognized Scientific Framework & System, we have no choice but comply with its principles. For example if you talk of anything scientific, you cannot insist on the principles of mysticism, religion, creationism, and other supernatural views.

Now since you are discussing your views within the concept of da-sein, i.e. Heidegger's and not some others, you will have to comply with Heidegger's Framework and System re Dasein.

If you want to present da-sein as different from Heidegger's Framework, then you will have to argue for your case first, at least refer to Heidegger's view as the base and from there present why it is different from Heidegger.

What you have been talking about so far re da-sein is all over the place without any specific reference to Heidegger as a reference point.

Btw, have you read Heidegger's Being and Time [BT].
Perhaps if you read the following in BT;

    Part One- Division One - Chapter V
    B. The Everyday Being of the There and the Falling Prey of Da-sein
    38. Falling Prey and Thrownness 164
you may get a semblance and be able to get an idea why and how you have 'fallen prey' into the 'inauthentic' ontic hole you dug yourself.

Any view on this?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:44 pm

Number 6 wrote:This may be an inane idea, but we could start from the very beginning and try to arrive at a common understanding of what we mean by "exist" (then "existence," "I exist," and so forth) before ultimately taking a look at Dasein or any other so-called "existential" concept. I know this could easily go awry.


Sure, and in grappling to pin down the precise definition and meaning of "exist", our own "epistemologists" here can go on post after post after post after post and not once make any actual substantive reference to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein out in the world of conflicted human behaviors revolving around the trajectory I noted above. An intertwining of value judgments rooted in the life that I lived over the years --- the actual experiences that shaped and molded them. That shaped and molded my thinking about them.

Instead, prismatic is really only interested in exchanging intellectual contraptions with you. And then once you accept his technologically sound premises regarding "progressive" behaviors, you may or may not live long enough to experience a "future" in which he is shown to in fact be The Last Objectivist Standing.

Starting with, for example, chattel slavery. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:27 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: Your points are everywhere and groundless.


No, my points are grounded in the actual existential trajectory of my own personal value judgments with regard to abortion; and in how those experiences then reconfigured my thinking about it over the years. And then how in particular my thinking there reconconfigured from an objectivisist frame of mind to one revolving around what I construe to be the components of moral nihilism.

While even here I acknowledge this reflects only what I have come to believe "in my head" "here and now". I have no capacity to demonstrate that others are obligated to think like me if they wish to be construed as rational human beings.

Prismatic567 wrote: Unless you have invented your own framework & system and recognized [not necessary all agree] by the philosophical community, you have no choice by to rely on the existing recognized frameworks & system.


Sure, fall back on this if you must. Only when the epistemologists among us are all in argeement regarding the one and the only optimal "intellectual framework and system" for discussing the distinctiction I make between that which is applicable to all of us objectively in either/or world and that which comes to be embodied subjectively/subjunctively in conflicting moral and political values in the the is/ought world, is such an attempt even to be made.

RM/AO? VO? One of your own Capital Letter Contraptions?

Prismatic567 wrote: Now since you are discussing your views within the concept of da-sein, i.e. Heidegger's and not some others, you will have to comply with Heidegger's Framework and System re Dasein.

If you want to present da-sein as different from Heidegger's Framework, then you will have to argue for your case first, at least refer to Heidegger's view as the base and from there present why it is different from Heidegger.


You really, really, really would like it to be like this, wouldn't you?

Instead, I turn it around. I encompass my own understanding of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I ask the Heidegger scholars to note how this is not in sync with Martin's own eminently more scholastic rendition of Dasein.

Then I challenge them to bring their intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions in conflict. Where I can then note the components of my own intellectual contraption -- identity, values and political power -- by situating them in an actual existential trajectory as I did above re abortion. Where they can then do the same regarding their components.

Prismatic567 wrote: Btw, have you read Heidegger's Being and Time [BT].


Oh, yeah. It was assigned by either Dr. Rene DeBrabander or Dr Walt Fuchs at TSU here in Baltimore many years ago. Didn't finish it though.

Prismatic567 wrote:
    Part One- Division One - Chapter V
    B. The Everyday Being of the There and the Falling Prey of Da-sein
    38. Falling Prey and Thrownness 164
you may get a semblance and be able to get an idea why and how you have 'fallen prey' into the 'inauthentic' ontic hole you dug yourself.

Any view on this?


Note to others:

He's really pinned me to the mat with this, right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:09 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: Your points are everywhere and groundless.


No, my points are grounded in the actual existential trajectory of my own personal value judgments with regard to abortion; and in how those experiences then reconfigured my thinking about it over the years. And then how in particular my thinking there reconconfigured from an objectivisist frame of mind to one revolving around what I construe to be the components of moral nihilism.

While even here I acknowledge this reflects only what I have come to believe "in my head" "here and now". I have no capacity to demonstrate that others are obligated to think like me if they wish to be construed as rational human beings.

Prismatic567 wrote: Unless you have invented your own framework & system and recognized [not necessary all agree] by the philosophical community, you have no choice by to rely on the existing recognized frameworks & system.


Sure, fall back on this if you must. Only when the epistemologists among us are all in argeement regarding the one and the only optimal "intellectual framework and system" for discussing the distinctiction I make between that which is applicable to all of us objectively in either/or world and that which comes to be embodied subjectively/subjunctively in conflicting moral and political values in the the is/ought world, is such an attempt even to be made.

RM/AO? VO? One of your own Capital Letter Contraptions?

I am not saying there must be one ideal "intellectual framework and system" to work on.
This is a philosophical forum and the discussion can only be efficient when we start with some kind of rational "intellectual framework and system," e.g. Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, etc. or your own.

So far what you have presented your views are everywhere and groundless, thus cannot qualify as a reasonable Framework and System.
Since you mentioned 'da-sein' most of the time in presenting your view, then it would be more efficient to use Heidegger's thesis as a base and then you explain if you are deviating from Heidegger views.

Prismatic567 wrote: Now since you are discussing your views within the concept of da-sein, i.e. Heidegger's and not some others, you will have to comply with Heidegger's Framework and System re Dasein.

If you want to present da-sein as different from Heidegger's Framework, then you will have to argue for your case first, at least refer to Heidegger's view as the base and from there present why it is different from Heidegger.


You really, really, really would like it to be like this, wouldn't you?

Instead, I turn it around. I encompass my own understanding of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I ask the Heidegger scholars to note how this is not in sync with Martin's own eminently more scholastic rendition of Dasein.

Then I challenge them to bring their intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions in conflict. Where I can then note the components of my own intellectual contraption -- identity, values and political power -- by situating them in an actual existential trajectory as I did above re abortion. Where they can then do the same regarding their components.
That is not the way with your
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529.
First you must present what you understand what Heidegger's view of da-sein is, then you explain why you agree with some of it and how you come up with your different views.

This is why I am taking the trouble to understanding Heidegger more fully.
Based on what I have read of Heidegger's BT [50%] so far [still a long way to go - months] I believe you have misunderstood Heidegger and took the wrong turn and dropped into a whirlpool.

Prismatic567 wrote: Btw, have you read Heidegger's Being and Time [BT].


Oh, yeah. It was assigned by either Dr. Rene DeBrabander or Dr Walt Fuchs at TSU here in Baltimore many years ago. Didn't finish it though.

Prismatic567 wrote:
    Part One- Division One - Chapter V
    B. The Everyday Being of the There and the Falling Prey of Da-sein
    38. Falling Prey and Thrownness 164
you may get a semblance and be able to get an idea why and how you have 'fallen prey' into the 'inauthentic' ontic hole you dug yourself.

Any view on this?


Note to others:

He's really pinned me to the mat with this, right?
For Philosophical sake, I believe this is a rational and fair approach.
You need to understand Heidegger's da-sein in BT and elsewhere thoroughly before you use his concept of da-sein to form your own.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:46 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I am not saying there must be one ideal "intellectual framework and system" to work on.
This is a philosophical forum and the discussion can only be efficient when we start with some kind of rational "intellectual framework and system," e.g. Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, etc. or your own.


My point though revolves around the intersection of rational thought and moral behavior. Out in the world of actual human interactions in conflict.

Are folks like Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, you and I able to construct the optimal or the only rational argument such that human interactions embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially are able to be determined as constituting "progressive" behavior in regards to chattel slavery, abortion, gender roles, separation of church and state, just war or any other well known and much discussed/debated "conflicting goods"?

Now, I'm not arguing that this can't be done. I'm only suggesting that each of us as individuals construct and reconstruct particular arguments embedded in the manner in which my "I" construes the meaning of dasein above.

There either are or are not limitations imposed on the tools of philosophy once the discussion shifts from the either/or world to the is/ought world.

Yet even here I acknowledge that my own narrative is no less an existential contraption. That, in other words, in order for "I" to be fully cognizant of the moral obligation of rational men and women, "I" must have an objective understanding of Existence itself. And to be able to note that re the is/ought world truths can be demonstrated in much the same manner that they can re the either/or world.

I merely insist that such demonstrations be brought down out of the scholastic clouds and situated in particular contexts we might all be familiar with.

So, sure give it a go:

Note how "it would be more efficient to use Heidegger's thesis as a base" for doing so.

To wit:

I challenge them to bring their intellectual contraptions out into the world of actual human interactions in conflict. Where I can then note the components of my own intellectual contraption -- identity, values and political power -- by situating them in an actual existential trajectory as I did above re abortion. Where they can then do the same regarding their components.


Prismatic567 wrote:That is not the way with your
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529.
First you must present what you understand what Heidegger's view of da-sein is, then you explain why you agree with some of it and how you come up with your different views.


Let's suppose I don't understand precisely what Heidegger's view is here. Let's suppoose that you [or others] do. Okay, take that view and situate it out in the world of conflicting goods. Illustrate the text by noting the manner in which Heidegger actually did defend one set of behaviors rather than another in the course of noting his own particular conflicting interactions with others.

Or [when push comes to shove] was Martin in turn just one more of Durant's "epistemologists".

Let's explore his take on Dasein as it might be relevant to, say, Adolph Hitler's moral and political agenda.

Again, what disturbs the objectivists regarding my own narrative here is that while they insist fascism either is or is not a rational frame of mind, I speculate that it can only ever be a particular existential contraption rooted in a particular set of political prejudices rooted in a particular set of assumptions regarding the "human condition".

It is always that they know what "the truth" is here, not whatever the truth may or may not be argued to be, that propels the psychology of objectivism.

More than anything they need to keep from tumbling down into the hole that I am in re human morality in a No God world.

No God, no objective morality. So, sure, all along the moral/philosophical/political spectrum it has to be invented.

Human history is veritably bursting at the seams with them, right?!

The point [mine] isn't whether I understand or misunderstand Heidegger's philosophy, but the extent to which that philosophy [correctly understood] can be demonstrated/defended as entirely in sync with the moral obligations of rational human beings.

That's my challenge.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby attano » Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:49 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Dasein here, there and everywhere but never an understanding what it really meant.

Yes... and probably for a reason.
Anyway, after a quick and superficial glance to the other posts, I guess you received no answer on what Heidegger means with Dasein. So... I give it a try.

Prismatic567 wrote:Here is one exposition of what is Dasein?
Let's back up in order to bring Heidegger's central concern into better view. (The ‘way in’ to Being and Time that I am about to present follows Gelven 1989 6–7.)
Consider some philosophical problems that will be familiar from introductory metaphysics classes:

Does the table that I think I see before me exist?
Does God exist?
Does mind, conceived as an entity distinct from body, exist?

These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist?
Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/


No. That’s about Being, not Dasein (“being there”).
The starting point of Being and Time is “the question of Being”, or “the question of the meaning of Being” (which «must be formulated»).
Here Being is not a being, an entity, because «the Being of entities is not itself an entity». Hence:
Being, as that which is asked about, must be exhibited in a way of its own, essentially different from the way in which entities are discovered. Accordingly, what is to be found out by the asking - the meaning of Being - also demands that it be conceived in a way of its own, essentially contrasting with the concepts in which entities acquire their determinate signification.
Being and Time, Int. I, 2


Yet, if you want to know what Being means, you can hardly avoid looking at entities:
In so far as Being constitutes what is asked about, and "Being" means the Being of entities, then entities themselves turn out to be what is interrogated. These are, so to speak, questioned as regards their Being. [...] Being lies in the fact that something is, and in its Being as it is; in Reality; in presence-at-hand; in subsistence; in validity; in being-there; in the 'there is'. ln which entities is the meaning of Being to be discerned?
ibidem


So, after establishing that in order to know what the Being of beings means we have to interrogate a being, the problem is a bout picking a ‘good’ being.
If the question about Being is to be explicitly formulated and carried through in such a manner as to be completely transparent to itself, then any treatment of it in line with the elucidations we have given requires us to explain how Being is to be looked at, how its meaning is to be understood and conceptually grasped; it requires us to prepare the way for choosing the right entity for our example, and to work out the genuine way of access to it
ibidem


And this is how we (Heidegger) get to Dasein:
Looking at something, understanding and conceiving it, choosing, access to it - all these ways of behaving are constitutive for our inquiry, and therefore are modes of Being for those particular entities which we, the inquirers, are ourselves. [...] The very asking of this question is an entity's mode of Being; and as such it gets its essential character from what is inquired about - namely, Being. This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possibilities of its Being, we shall denote by the term "Dasein".
ibidem

That’s clear, isn’t it? If it is possible to summarize this any further, one may say (maybe) that Heidegger uses the term to denote an entity, namely the entity that inquires and specifically the one which might inquire about its Being and ‘get its essential character’ from that. (Note that ‘essential character’ means ‘mode of being’).

And that it is very important, because:
If we are to formulate our question [the meaning of Being] explicitly and transparently, we must first give a proper explication of an entity (Dasein), with regard to its Being.
ibidem


And in case you feel you might use some clarification, fear not, the man is going to do that:
Dasein is an entity which does not just occur among other entities. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it. But in that case, this is a constitutive state of Dasein's Being, and this implies that Dasein, in its Being, has a relationship towards that Being - a relationship which itself is one of Being. And this means further that there is some way in which Dasein understands itself in its Being, and that to some degree it does so explicitly. It is peculiar to this entity that with and through its Being, this Being is disclosed to it. Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein's Being. Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.
Being and Time, Int. I, 4


If you enjoyed this, you can have a lot more if you read Being and Time, which is available online (and where the quotes come from).

If Heidegger was a ‘confirmed atheist’ would depend hugely on your definition for that - and on your definition of God.

Finally, I guess you could be a young man, so allow me a word of advice: don’t do this to yourself.
«Va', va', povero untorello. Non sarai tu quello che spianti Milano.»
User avatar
attano
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:38 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:28 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist?
Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

attano wrote:No. That’s about Being, not Dasein (“being there”).


What does it mean "to exist"...

Or, rather, how on earth can this be wholly/fully grasped until an ontological understanding of Existence itself is within reach? And only then can we grapple with discovering the extent to which there is [or is not] a teleological component to Existence. Which most folks call God.

The bottom line here is that [to the best of my own knowledge] we are not privy to the extent to which the human brain/mind is even capable of answering such questions as, "why does something exist rather than nothing at all?" or, "why does this something exist rather than another something?"

Cue, among other things, Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns".

Then there are the quandaries embedded in solipsism, cartesan demons and sim worlds.

Or the enigmatic nature of human choice in a wholly determined universe.

What's crucial for me though regarding Dasein/dasein is that whatever it means for any particular "I" to exist, it exists here and not there, now and not then.

And, going back to the biological birth of any particular "I", what does it mean to have been born "here and now" rather than "there and then"? How are historical, cultural and experiential memes relevant in understanding that particular value judgments "I" comes to embody on a particular [and profoundly unique] existential sojourn from the cradle to the grave?

What can be communicated to others regarding "I" that reflects an objective description of what is in fact true? True for all of us. And what is instead rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

And, most important of all, how are the technical arguments derived here by "serious philosophers" intertwined in actual human interactions that do come into conflict over value judgments?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27756
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: What is Dasein?

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:20 am

iambiguous wrote:The point [mine] isn't whether I understand or misunderstand Heidegger's philosophy, but the extent to which that philosophy [correctly understood] can be demonstrated/defended as entirely in sync with the moral obligations of rational human beings.

That's my challenge.
Just came in to read a few posts.
I was away doing some serious readings and research on Heidegger's Being and Time.
I have just finished reading one round of the complete book with a fine-tooth comb but that is just a preliminary rough understanding of the book. Looks like I need to read the book more than 5 times or more together with references to various secondary sources and the writings of the later-Heidegger.

Since you are using the term 'Dasein' or 'dasein' you need to understand Heidegger's Being and Time [BT] fully and thoroughly otherwise you are very intellectually dishonest on this issue.

If you have understood Heidegger's BT you would not have presented your philosophy in terms of Dasein in such a bastardized manner, sick and perverted way you do.

Within the framework of BT, you are living the inauthentic existence of the ontic world which in your case is so messy that it is concealing the true essence of dasein and preventing it from termporalizing temporality ontologically to realize existence's true potentials and possibilities of positiveness.

I am not going to waste time discussing with you on this. You have to read Heidegger's Being and Time and understand it fully and thoroughly especially on those very nuanced elements related to 'death'.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]