What is Dasein?

Aw, I’m an annoying optimist…always hopeful and thankful.

Why on earth would I imagine that Barrett would construe the practical implications of “rival goods” in the same manner that I do?

And my intent [re dasein] is to grapple with the is/ought world given the assumption [mine] that we live in a No God world. How on earth do mere mortals arrive at the most or the only rational moral and political narrative/agenda when confronted with these rival goods?

How do you do it? Provide for us an existential trajectory that intertwines the experiences you had in your life and the knowledge/information/ideas you had access to such that you are not in the hole I’m in. In regard to a value judgment all your own.

How would Buddha – “the one who is awake” – have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.

What does being “awake” mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provide here – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics – to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.

In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others…where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the “wrong” way.

BTW, I have responed to this point any number of times above. I keep waiting for you to bring your own understanding of Heidegger’s understanding of Dasein out into the world of actual conflicted behaviors derived from actual conflicted goods.

How about the points I raised above regarding the workman using a hammer on a nail and a Nazi soldier using a bullet on a Jew?

That aspect of Dasein. Differentiate the ontic from the ontological here.

Instead it’s just more of the same intellectual contraptions:

I challenge you [or anyone else] to bring this particular “world of words” out into the actual flesh and blood world of human interactions in conflict over conflicting goods.

Note to others:

Wouldn’t you deem this to be basically an “intellectual contraption” as it relates to your own conflicted behaviors with others?

If not, please explain why.

But what if, after having done that, the conclusions reached by those who defend Communism as a reasonable [optimal] solution to the problems that plague the human species persist in arguing that those who defend capitalism are the ones being unreasonable?

A philosopher can either provide us with an argument here that resolves this in one or another deontological assessment or she can’t.

And all I ask of the “real me” moral objectivists is that we bring general descriptions such as this down to earth.

But sooner or later these assumptions and arguments are going to be intertwined in one or another political agenda where actual flesh and blood human interactions precipitate consequences that revolve around rewards or punishments.

How [b]then[/b] do we get around either subscribing to might makes right, right makes might or moderation negotiation and compromise?

Again, choose a set of conflicting goods and lets examine more substantively our respective moral narratives.

And, instead of providing a context pertaining to your own interactions with others, we get this:

[quote=“phyllo”]
Consider gratitude journaling or gratitude meditation. It really works.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude_journal
[/quote [/quote]
Okay, that seems reasonable to me. But what does it really have to do with the relationship between the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, as that relates to the hole I am in when confronting conflicting goods?

Would counting their blessings and having a grateful outlook have worked when John and Mary confronted her unwanted pregnancy?

Will the liberals and conservatives pummeling each other over one or another moral and political conflagration here at ILP, cease and desist after counting their blessings and embracing a more grateful outlook?

I know: Let’s ask Wendy. :wink:

You asked me what it means to use intellectual contraptions as tools. I gave you an example - gratitude journaling. A person changes his/her attitude and thinking by focusing on some particular aspects in life for which he/she is grateful. It has a measurable impact on the quality of life.

It works in any/every context. I personally use it.

If Mary and John were unhappy/depressed/frustrated/stressed about the abortion, then gratitude journaling would make them feel better about it and about themselves.

Same goes for the liberals and conservatives. And they could end up being more civil in their interactions.

Are you going to try it?

Probably not.

But, in a philosophy forum, the focus would seem to be less on how optimistic or pessimistic an idea makes you feel, and more on how reasonable or unreasonable it is to think it.

As I noted on this thread [or another] when Nietzsche focused his own philosophical narrative on the “human all too human” consequences of living in a No God world, any number of rather optimistic religious folks might have succumbed to a more pessimistic frame of mind. After all, that’s what having to abandon immortality, salvation and divine justice will do to some.

Yes, my own take on the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy can at times be brutally pessimistic.

But is it unreasonable to think like this?

Sure, maybe.

But all I can do here is to engage the more optimistic folks in an exchange that permits us to examine why “for all practical purposes” we feel either one way or the other.

It’s just that folks like prismatic actually seem able to convince themselves that in doing so this makes me “evil”!!

Or is he just being optimistic? :wink:

Anyway, on the bright side of pessimism there’s this: moral nihilists are not anchored to one or another objectivist dogma. Therefore, the actual existential options available to them would seem to increase rather dramatically.

Sure, you say that now.

In the next post, you will be saying that nobody has any options because everything is determined from the beginning of time. #-o

As usual you are clueless in the above.
The above contain the basis for positive actions to be taken.

The quote from Heidegger above is telling you why you are wrong in going the direction [too involved in the ontic rather than the ontological] you are doing at present.

The above is merely an intellectual contraption.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUY_66IdfM[/youtube]

Awe. I feel as though I’ll truly know Dasein when this entire thread is thrown into the final Re: Post.

But in context above, where the gratitude meditation was brought in by Phyllo, it had to do with the practical issue of choosing thoughts that work for you. You asked for how this could work for him, he mentioned the journals. Now it might have made you happier if he had said specifically what it did for him, but there is research that shows that doing this works and that one can consciously change thoughts over time.

How is this relevant to your topic?

Well, you refer to where you are as a hole. That metaphor tends to mean, between humans, a place with negative aspects, unpleasant ones. So you have been bringing in emotions through that. You have also talked about how objectivists- that is anyone who disagrees with you, whether they are objectivists or not - are afraid when heading to your hole via your powerful rhetoric. In this context, showing that there is a way out of the hole, one that neither contradicts your non-objectivism nor contradicts objectivism in general, is relevant to the context you have presented the issue.

IOW you can either try to show that this way of getting out of the hole does not work OR you should, it seems to me, never again mention the hole and that you’d want to get out of it AS IF the only way out is to have your dilemma of contrasting goods solved. You don’t need to give up the issue of conflicting goods and that conundrum, but you can stop presenting the issue in the context of the hold, other people’s fears, your bravery for staying in the hole and facing it and so on.

If you try the gratitude journal for a significant amount of time - or any of a bunch of other approaches, including ones by non-objectivist buddhists, say - and you still find yourself in an emotional hole, you could ask for more help with that, but it is a separate issue.

The whole brave nihilist in the hole where others fear to tread self-presentation game is a farce you can drop. One does not have to be in the hole, even if one does not solve that conundrum, though you could keep it up for intellectual reasons, never fear.

I agree this may well be the case. But it is all no less situated in a particular set of experiences that each individual will in turn come to interpret/embody in his or her own unique way.

And then I come back to this:

…what does [gratitude journaling] really have to do with the relationship between the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, as that relates to the hole I am in when confronting conflicting goods?

Cite examples from your own life here.

Perhaps. But I suspect the baby would still be dead. And I suspect the relationship would still have imploded because of this. But, sure, who really knows how things might have been different had they employed this tool.

How about this:

You take this suggestion to the Society, Government, and Economics board. You try to convice Peter Kropotkin and Uccisore [who is back] to give it a go. Then, after a few weeks, we calibrate any differences in their exchanges with others.

No, probably not. But how on earth would I even begin to explain that to you? How would I manage to convey all of the countless existential variables over the years that have come together to predispose me here and now to suspect that it would not be an effective tool for me. Given the points that I raise regarding dasein on this thread.

On the other hand, when you are able to note the manner in which this tool has succeeded in keeping you out of the hole I’m in…

What we need here is someone sufficiently perceptive enough to determine whether you misconstrue me more or less than I misconstrue you.

The thing about determinism is that it seems clearly to be in the realm of what we call an “antinomy”: “a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.”

Right?

What’s particularly strange here for me is that this seems to be an issue that transcends dasein…and yet is still not able to be pinned down as either this or that.

Again, this falls into the gap between those things that we think we know here and now and all that would need to be known in order to pin down Existence itself ontologically.

Cue Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”.

Or, with God – or with something analogous in nature – teleologically?

It just seems reasonable to me that moral nihilists [narcissists, sociopaths, global capitalists etc.] would have more options available to them because they don’t have to calculate each behavior as either the right thing or the wrong thing to do.

They simply ask themselves, “is this what I want here and now”? And then, in acknowledging that others may well not share in or tolerate their answers, calculating the odds of getting caught and punished.

The thing about determinism is that it’s not useful when making decisions. It’s one of those things that seems useful when looking back but only to rationalize actions.

Superficially that seems to be true but is it true? A moral nihilist will reject options which are based on objective morality or inherent morality. For example, someone who believes that “man is inherently honorable”, can choose an action which relies on that belief. A moral nihilist would not choose it.
If one has “faith in God” then that opens up all sorts of possibilities, some of which are completely unsupported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Very risky actions or “unrewarding” actions become valid options.

Intuitively, I think the non-nihilist has more choices or he has a richer set of choices even it there are fewer in number.

Of course, I can’t demonstrate it. :smiley:

One can propose it.
They can choose whether or not they want to try it.

But neither of them thinks that he has a problem. Right? Why would they be receptive to it?

OTOH, you seem to be asking for help. Aren’t you?

It’s not that difficult to explain or understand. You won’t try it for several possible reasons …

  • you don’t think that it will work for you, in spite of the fact that scientific studies have shown it to be effective.

  • you don’t really want to change your thinking. You derive some security, comfort, pleasure or satisfaction from your current thinking.

  • it’s too much effort for you.

It keeps me out of the hole because it shows me that I have control over my thoughts and my life. When I have adopted a poor intellectual contraption then I can drop it and pick up another one. I’m not helpless. I’m not trapped.

It has to do with value judgments, indications of emotional states indicated by the word ‘hole’. You want out of a hole, here’s a way out backed by science. This doesn’t mean it has solved the conflicting goods conundrum, but you could pursue answers to that SIMULTANEOUSLY with coming out of the hole. It might be an intellectual issue, but no longer the emotionally charged one.

I haven’t kept a gratitude journal, but I have shifted focus away from mental issues and fears onto other things and this minimized the emotional holes, if not solving the conundrums. Ship of Thebes type persistence of self through time really bothered me, especially when I was younger. Instead of feeding the hole - in trying to find some way that my self must necessarily continue through time despite material replacement- I engaged with life. The issue is still there, though I am not longer a materialist, which I consider a meaningless term. I cannot demonstrate to others that there must be a persistent self, however once I put an emphasis on engaging with life, rather than mulling over something I could not solve then and which scared me, I was no longer in a hole.

If you want there to not be a hole, you might try some form of engaging with life. Mine focused more on desires and trying to find a way to do things I wanted to do. The gratitude journal is a reframing and focusing on specific aspects of life that lead to a sense of well being. Both are relational - as my desires involved other people and positive relations.

You might find that the conundrum can be come at in new ways when you are not in the hole. You might find that it is still a conundrum but you are not in the hole and life is better. You might even find, as I did, that the obsession with the conundrum is an avoidance. This does not mean it is unimportant, but your motivation for focusing on it this way, may well be about or in large part about something else.

Well, of course we don’t know what fictional people would have experienced. It amazes me what you think down to earth talk is.

Maybe you like the hole. Or maybe the conundrum gives an excuse not to engage with life, and this is appealing for all the reasons addictions are appealing.

That’s your thing. The thing of others is that there was never any possibilty that you either could or would not choose these words to encompass it.

My thing is that I do not seem to have the capacity to resolve these enigmatic human interactions definitively.

The mystery is still mind as matter…matter as mind. And how to explain the two intertwined in whatever the nature of existence itself is.

The idea that somehow a “compatibility” exists here has never been something I have ever really been able to fully grasp.

If you invent or build a mechanical contraption to execute prisoners and it functions properly then all of the components in the contraption interact as so many dominos toppling over onto each other from beginning to end. The contraption itself is “mindless”.

Now, the individual who invented this contraption and the individual who constructed it are said to be “mindful”. They are argued to have autonomously chosen a sequence of behaviors that the contraption itself is completely oblivious to. But if the immutable laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility of their choosing any other sequence of behaviors, how are they really any different from the contraption itself? Other then in speculating that the mind is capable of believing that it “freely chose” to behave as it did. The illusion of autonomy.

How are we not just one more of nature’s contraptions?

How superficial is it to those who own and operate the global economy? To those who have the political and economic power to sustain the following global demographics: globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats

How superficial is it to those who are thumped by the sociopaths and the narcissists day after day after day?

They interact with others only insofar as it sustains the interest of…

1] me
2] myself
3] I

Moral nihilists are not unlike the rest of us. Their individual motivations and intentions are often extremely complex. Rooted partly in a calculated consideration of good and bad behaviors, and partly in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above.

And, as always, I’m less interested in what others claim to believe and more in what they can demonstrate to me as that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe.

Otherwise, claiming to believe something like “morality is inherently objective” is as far as they need go.

Again, bring this down to earth. Suggest a context in which both the nihilist and the non-nihilist entertain possible behavioral choices. If the nihilist is not bound by one or another moral obligation embedded in one or another theistic/atheistic political agenda, how could she not but have more options available to her?

I may simply be misunderstanding you here.

When “others” are able to tell me what I will write before I write it, then I will be impressed. I bet that they can’t even say what they themselves will write before they write it.

I’'m not saying that we are not “nature’s contraptions”. I’m saying whether we are or we are not, is irrelevant to living.

Let’s just agree that you didn’t understand my point.

Every approach to life is going to put some options on the table and also to take some options off the table.

It’s not clear what the option count would be when comparing a nihilist to a non-nihilist. It’s not clear that more options are necessarily better. Quality of options seems to be an important factor.

Then we understand the meaning of an intellectual contraption differently.

From my perspective an intellectual contraption is basically a bunch of words defining and defending another bunch of words in a “general description” of human interactions out in the is/ought world. As that pertains [on this thread] to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

The words don’t really make any reference to a context in which the meaning can be explored more substantively.

Let’s imagine a context then in which a moral nihilist calculates his behaviors. As opposed to someone who has convinced herself that in any particular context there is a right way in which to behave and a wrong way. If one wishes to be thought of as a rational and virtuous human being.

You choose the context.

It seems reasonable to me that the moral nihilists can rationalize any number of behaviors not available to the moral objectivists. The behaviors only have to secure and then sustain whatever happens to be construed as in the moral nihilists best interests “here and now”.

But, sure, I’ll be the first to admit I may well be thinking this through incorrectly. And that an effective argument from someone may well nudge me in another direction in turn. But even if it does that doesn’t necessarily mean it is either the optimal or the only rational frame of mind. How on earth might that be demonstrated?

To a determinist there should be no difference in terms of options. This should not even need to be pointed out. How the individual thinks about what she is compelled to choose might vary between the two, but each was going to do precisely what each did, all the epiphenomenal static notwithstanding.