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?
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.
Again, as I noted above, …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?
Only when we bring the metaphor out into the world and discuss it “in context” are we likely to make this particular “general description” of yours any clearer. Re my “abortion trajectory” above [applicable to me regarding all other conflicting goods], I’ve explained the manner in which I perceive myself as being down in a hole.
How then do you perceive yourself otherwise? Out in the is/ought world embedded in your own conflicted interactions with others.
As I noted to Phyllo above:
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.
Sure, if it works for others, fine. And I certainly believe that it could. I just don’t think that “here and now” it would work for me. And, after all, there have been dozens and dozens of such “self-help” devices show up on the best seller lists over the years. They work for some and not for others. But each of us as individuals “in the moment” are going to make an assessment as to whether they think it might work for them.
And how would that not clearly be an existential contraption rooted in dasein?
Man, if you think that I am boasting because I believe we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all eternity in oblivion then I have no illusions about changing your mind.
The important point for you being that you manage to escape tumbling down into the hole yourself.
But until you are willing to bring your “general descriptions” above down to earth, I doubt that I will ever truly understand what unfolds “in your head” when you yourself are faced with an existential crisis revolving around the question most near and dear to me in these discussions: How ought one to live?
I don’t think you are boasting about your belief, I think you are boasting that in comparison with objectivists you feel your fear, while they run away. YOu may not be conscious of how you are a) claiming to be psychic there and b) complimenting your own bravery…but there it is.
I don’t care if there are objective morals or not. There are other holes that have caused a great deal of pain, but that one does not. You see the world in binary terms. If someone disagrees with you about something they are an objectivist.
Seriously, you cannot understand things repeated to you in a variety of different forms. I care about people and this motivates my actions. Empathy affects the way I behave and make decisions. But I do not think there are objective values nor do I assert there are not.
Look at the abstract ‘general description’ of the issue you make ‘How ought one to live?’ some abstract universal person out of context. Waht is your favorite issue? Abortion. I really doubt as the aging vet you are now, you are frozen, not knowing whether to get an abortion or suggest it to your girlfriend or daughter. It is just a nice abstract conundrum to throw at enemies. Chosen because it is one of the gnarliest. A weapon.
You have no idea what I have faced or experienced or how hard it is to live in a world where one is not up in one’s head trying to find some abstract ‘ought to’, but is on the ground every day feeling a lot of empathy. When I was a kid I decided that if there was a god, then that God would need to explain certain things. If God could not to my satisfaction, I would oppose God. And this came out of my anger at the way existence tortured and killed those I loved.
Get that? I don’t care what the objective morals are, if there are objective morals. I am constituted to dislike certain things. So even if I should meet a God who said, sure it’s a good thing, since I am God, for people to be tortured forever, I would not accept that. Not because I think I have objective morals that trump gods, but because that is what i am.
You word it precisely, perfectly correctly. You have a cowardly existential crisis ‘in your head’.
In your head. IN YOUR HEAD
All the while accusing others of being abstract.
And notice what you said, and then I will have no hope of convincing you.
What possible justification, either from empathy or morals would lead you to want to drag someone else into your heady abstract crisis? i mean, even if you are right. Or, perhaps especially if you are right.
Why hope for that with me or others?
Yes, I am sure that many people have trouble getting your mentalized position. I don’t have any trouble getting it.
My trouble is with your lack of empathy in what you do here and the lack of introspective insight you have about what you are doing. The death in life you carry out here while patting yourself on the back. Do I think this is objectively immoral? Nah, I simply hate it.
Does this mean I think you are objectively immoral? Nope and I don’t care. Maybe you are, but I don’t know that.
See if you have the ability to imagine the crisis that leads one to accept oneself and ones desires and caring and love in this world, as it is, and not stay up in my head blabbing on and on about an epistemological issue as you do. And you have the nerve to call others epistemologists.
Your like some guy getting frustrated trying to pick up a pen with his toes and failing over and over. Get up, use your hand, and do something loving. If you are not loving, then please continue being up in your head and impotent.
My point though is still the same. Even if they agree to try it and share their results with us…
…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?
How would this particular technique be relevant here? They will either go there or they won’t.
They would either be able to demonstrate to me how gratitude journals facilitated them in staying out of the hole or they wouldn’t. But even then one way or another does this necessarily establish it as an antidote — something to keep all rational and virtuous men and women from falling down into the hole?
And I’m asking less for help from them than for a narrative that might allow me to yank myself up out of it.
Really? So how come on thread after thread and post after post so many of us here seem unable to effectively explain that which seems reasonable to us?
Clearly, if I would just nod my head and embrace the points you raise regarding gratitude journaling, everything explained would be easily understood.
And, of course, the same with you finally grasping the existential nature of the hole I’m in.
Okay, but where are scientific studies that make a compelling connection between that and 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?
Obviously, we will have to agree to disagree about this. On the other hand, what could possibly be more comforting than to construe human moral and political interactions in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that, for “I”, ends for all eternity in oblivion.
Good for you then. You believe it. And that’s all it takes. And for many, many years I once took comfort in believing it too. I just can’t anymore.
Actually, value judgments and emotional states that I construe as being rooted existentially in dasein: An “I” embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially; a world awash in contingency, chance and chance.
Bring your science out into a particular world. Speculate as to how it might reflect on a particular set of conflicting goods.
How exactly do you use science to keep youself out of the hole? Because short of “solving the conflicting goods conundrum”, we’re still stuck with either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise. And please note for me a moral or political conflagration of late that is not emotionally charged. Emotions like thoughts are something we all come into the world equipped to embody. But how ought we to think, how ought we to feel about, say, aborting a human baby?
For that matter, how ought we to think, how ought we to feel about calling a human fetus a baby at all? What does science tell us is in fact true objectively here?
Note to others:
Once again I try to yank this sort of rumination out into the world that we live in. How, in his interactions with others in which conflicts arise as a result of conflicting vlaue judgments, is he not down in the hole that I am in?
How are individuals “engaging in life” not embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein out in the is/ought world? How would keeping a gratitude journal actually keep you out of the hole that I am in? Has anyone here accomplished this? Then let’s discuss it more substantively.
How about you, Phyllo?
As some here know, these are not fictional people at all. They were once close friends mine. Their relationship with each other and [over time] their relationship with me disintegrated over this dead baby. I bring it up over and again because this very real down to earth context was crucial, instrumental in the disintegration of my own objectivist frame of mind.
But that’s all embedded in the mystery [so far] of mind as matter itself. The immutable laws of matter are applicable to all matter or they are not. And mind is just another manifestation of matter in nature or it is not.
Dualism is in fact something that philosophers have struggled with now for millenia. Right?
Or think of dreams. I fall asleep and I have these [at times] extraordinary dream sequences. So, was I able to articulate what that sequence would be before I fell asleep?
Are you able to describe the dreams that you will have tonight?
It’s all simply mind-boggling because we can’t pin it down yet in any definitive manner. Or maybe it actually has been. But what counts is still whether or not you and I are privy to it. And the extent to which the explanation is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe.
Whatever – ontologically, teleologically – that means.
What seems relevant to me is the extent to which what we choose to think and feel and do is within our capacity not to have chosen instead. If living is really beyond our control as autonomous beings, that puts a whole other spin on, among other things, this exchange that we are having.
Okay, but I can’t help but be intrigued by the manner in which you construe the existential realtionship between that tiny percentage of folks who do own and operate the global economy and the vast majority of folks who have virtually no say at in how it all unfolds.
Of course if we do live in a wholly determined universe this relationship is basically set in stone.
True, but if you are determined to opt only for that which you construe to be the right behavior, this seems more restrictive than the choices afforded those who calculate everything from day to day to day based on what “here and now” they feel will sustain only that which they desire for themselves. Deontology seems to broach and then sustain a one size fits all moral obligation for those who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.
But it still all comes down to the extent to which any of us really do have what is construed to be a “freedom of choice”.
Still, admittedly, the deeper I go into “grasping” this the more uncertain I seem to become about what really is rational here.
To the determinist what should or should be would seem to be wholly subsumed in only whatever could have been.
But, with respect to mind as matter and matter as mind, what on earth does that mean relating to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein out in a world of conflicting goods embedded historically in one or another manifestation of political economy?
On the other hand, in discussing this [assuming some level of autonomy] how would we situate the meaning that we give to the words we use out in the world of conflicted human behaviors?
Two doctors can discuss abortion as a medical procedure in an intellectual contraption. They use words to define and defend other words in what may well be just a sequence of descriptions about abortion in general.
But if need be they can bring folks to any actual abortion they are performing and connect the dots between the words they use and the stuff that they are doing to a particular human fetus in a particular woman saddled with an unwanted pregnancy.
But what of an exchange between ethicists regarding the morality of aborting [killing] what many construe to be a wholly innocent human being? Sure, they too can go on and on discussing ethics technically, using the jargon of, among others, the epistemologists.
But sooner or later the technical talk will be embedded in an actual abortion in an actual existential context or it won’t be.
And, when it is, how is an argument formed such that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace it in much the same manner that all rational doctors are obligated to embrace the physical description of an abortion performing effectively as a medical procedure.
There’s a crucial distinction I see here that many whom I construe to be moral objectivists seemingly do not.
That’s the part I’d like to discuss here and now. As it pertains to the meaning I convey regarding dasein.
I should clarify. It’s not that I don’t care what the objective morals are, if they are. It’s that that does not even necessarily solve the problem. It’s harder than that. God tells me what is good. What if I don’t like it? Science tells me what to do. What if my gut keeps saying, no, that is horrible? You seem to be yearning to not have responsibility for your choices. You seem to yearn for a God or other absolute source of truth to tell you what to do. That seems very empty to me, but I do sympathize, it is not easy having to accept who you are.
It’s a straight recognition that as soon as a person thinks, he is using a map to interact with the external world. He has some choices about which map to use. He can change maps. Some maps work better than others in particular situations.
That’s the unique personal way that you “construe the meaning of dasein”. If other people don’t see things that way, then they don’t have your problem.
But try to explain it to you. I just tried to explain why determinism is useless as a philosophical approach to life and you didn’t get anything that I said.
I have tried to introduce many ideas which I think would be helpful to you, but to no avail.
An aspect of your hole is that you have no control over being in it and you can’t pull yourself out of it. A gratitude journal would demonstrate to you that you can change your thinking, that you are not trapped in the hole, that you have some control.
Of course, you keep ‘proving’ that you are trapped by refusing to try any way of getting out.
I have tried to discuss it “substantively” in this thread.
I don’t rule this out. It is a possible motivation given the extent to which I will never fully grasp my own intentions. After all, are not the components of my own psychology not also embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein? How could I ever possibly unravel the thousands upon thousands of experiences that I have had in order to determine how and why I am “here and now” predisposed to think, feel and act as I do.
Of course that is also applicable to everyone else in turn.
And [as always] I readily admit that we may well not live in an essentially absurd and meaning world in which “I” topples over into the abyss for all of eternity.
But “I” can only be convinced of this or not.
Okay, but when you choose to interact with others you will find that most folks in fact do. And they will judge your own behaviors accordingly.
I see the either/or world as one in which something either can be demonstrated as true for all of us or it cannot. Providing of course we don’t go so far out on the metaphysical limb – the quantum limb? – that nothing can ever really be demonstrated definitively.
In the is/ought world however my own rendition of dasein construes human interactions as a clash between existential contraptions. Subjective/subjunctive “vantage points” revolving around particular sets of political prejudices out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
So, what do you do? Provide us with yet another – even more protracted – “general description”:
Yes, this…
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.
…is in my head. But the words are also anchored to a set of actual experiences such that I am able to describe the evolution of this particular value judgment of mine.
I merely suggest that this “existential trajectory” is applicable to all other conflicting goods as well.
You will either appraoch your own value judgments in this manner or you won’t.
You claim that you are “constituted” to like or dislike certain things. Okay, so how did you acquire this “constitution” in a way that is very much different from the manner in which I construe my own likes and dislikes? Rooted in dasein above. And what happens when you bump into others who are “constituted” to like what you dislike and dislike what you like. You tell them you don’t care about objective morality…that you are what you are. And then they tell you that they do care about it…and that you ought to be the way they are.
Let’s call this, say, the real world.
Again: you will either bring this accusation down out of the clouds and explore it with me pertaining to a particular context or you won’t.
Note the manner in which, relating to an experience that you had involving conflicting goods, my description of dasein is clearly not a description of you.
Do you hate it because all reasonable and virtuous men and women are – philosophically? – obligated to hate it, or is your reaction here embedded more in that “constituted” self you carry around with you in order to rationalize the choices that you make?
From my frame of mind, your frame of mind is just another rendition of dasein. Dasein “constituted” as it were.
Okay, bring this particular epistemological contraption “out into the world”. As it pertains to an experience from your own life. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to convey here about being “constituted” so as to “accept oneself and ones desires and caring and love in this world”.
I’ll leave this to others to deconstruct. And then to reconstruct the point they imagine you are trying to convey here by noting examples of doing something “loving” out in their own particular world.
The point though is that while the problem may well persist at least the objectivists are able to demonstrate to others that, if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous human beings, there are in fact right and wrong behaviors in which to choose.
Either derived from an extant God or an extant Reason.
And the point out in the real world is that if you choose to act contrary to the objective truth there may well be negative consequences imposed on you. You get punished.
And since it has been clearly demonstrated that what you did is objectively immoral, how hollow might your protestations be construed?
Your responsibility then is to acknowledge this and either choose or not choose to be a contrarian.
[b]Two doctors can discuss abortion as a medical procedure in an intellectual contraption. They use words to define and defend other words in what may well be just a sequence of descriptions about abortion in general.
But if need be they can bring folks to any actual abortion they are performing and connect the dots between the words they use and the stuff that they are doing to a particular human fetus in a particular woman saddled with an unwanted pregnancy.
But what of an exchange between ethicists regarding the morality of aborting [killing] what many construe to be a wholly innocent human being? Sure, they too can go on and on discussing ethics technically, using the jargon of, among others, the epistemologists.
But sooner or later the technical talk will be embedded in an actual abortion in an actual existential context or it won’t be.
And, when it is, how is an argument formed such that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace it in much the same manner that all rational doctors are obligated to embrace the physical description of an abortion performing effectively as a medical procedure.[/b]
The maps that the doctors use revolve around what either can or cannot be known about human biology – as that relates to sexuality, pregnancy and abortion.
Some maps here are clearly more accurate than others.
But when the discussion shifts to moral calculations involving sexual relationships and dealing with the consequences of them, the maps take us in many different and often conflicting directions.
