What is Dasein?

That’s your translation. But my translation of your translation is more along the lines of…

“If you did listen to what they said, then you would agree with what they said.”

Indeed, from my own experiences over the years, that is the first rule of “objectivist club”.

As I noted above, they are either able to convince me that their own particular self-help method is worth trying or they are not.

Just as I ask them to bring their own particular objectivist narrative out into the world of conflicting behaviors; and then to note how they are not down in the hole that I am in. They are either convinced this is worth trying or they are not.

Where the lines are drawn in the “how ought I to live?” world are always going to be problematic.

After all, look what is at stake: psychological equillibrium and emotional equanimity. Comfort and consolation.

No, I have to be convinced that how others think is more constructive. Sure, if you reconfigured your argument and finally convinced me that how you think about Communism is the way I [and all other rational men and women] ought to think about it then, with regard to that particular set of conflicting goods, I’m up out of the hole. And it may well work for all the others too.

But what [in my view] you won’t acknolwedge is the extent to which you really do insist that those who don’t react to Communism as you do are just plain wrong.

What [I surmise] disturbs folks like you and folks who embrace Communism wholeheartedly, is a frame of mind [mine] that suggests there may well be no way in which to resolve this one way or the other. That, using components of both socialism and capitalism, the best of all possible worlds might be reflected instead in moderation, negotiation and compromise. Which, for example, in the welfare state, it is. For all practical purposes.

Clearly then if it can be asserted that I am the problem here then this certainly lets you off the hook. You can embrace your tirade against Communism while blaming those who don’t think the same way about it as not really making any effort to.

That is the psychology of objectivism!

Not until I am convinced to. But given all the moral narratives and political agendas I have abandoned over the years, I sure tried some of them that worked. Until they stopped working.

Why don’t you note in turn all of the arguments from others that you came to subscribe to – techniques and methodologies that changed your thinking and your behaviors over the years.

Diseases are embedded in human biology. A doctor is either able to demonstrate that she had a disease in which she was able to cure herself or she can’t.

But how do doctors who refuse to do abortions on moral grounds demonstrate to doctors that do perform them that they ought not to?

Not when they refuse by and large to take their own moral narratives out into the world of actual conflicting goods.

The components of moral nihilism revolve around the seeming fact that philosophers are not able to devise arguments that do in fact resolve conflagrations that have plagued the species going back now thousands of years.

Or, if particular objectivists argue that they have, then let them bring the components of their own assessments “down to earth”.

Of course you and others will insist that in fact you and they already have. But I am either convinced of this or I’m not. I merely acknowledge that just because I am not does not mean that this settles it.

My point is quite the opposite. That because doctors are educated sufficiently to grasp human biology with considerable sophistication there are facts and procedures that can be demonstrated to be true objectively for all of us.

No rational doctor would insist that going down through the nose is the most effective way in which to abort a baby.

But which medical professionals are able to demonstrate when, from the point of conception to the actual birth, this new life is in fact a human baby? A baby that ought not to be killed?

Which philosophers are?

From my way of thinking this clearly is an important distinction to make. Either a woman is pregnant or she is not. Either she wants the baby or she does not. Either she chooses an abortion or she does not.

But ought she to choose an abortion? Is that the right or the wrong thing to do for those who wish to construe themselves as rational and virtuous human beings?

It’s like you never read anything about the history of science. LOL

There seems no other way to explain statements like that. :-k

Enjoy your hole … You’re going to be there for a long time.

Iambiguous, I just posted this in another thread and thought it would be pertinent to your treatment of concepts:

If everyone in the universe agreed that morality was fake, they would all be wrong; making the statement proves morality. You deemed it good to offer the statement, thus morality is not fake.

What this also implies is that morality is objective.

Often times your arguments, and I truly mean this, are the equivalent of “someone doesn’t like bell peppers and someone does like bell peppers, prove to me what is objectively imperative”

For example, in terms of abortion, some people only want to be hands on parents for the offspring they give birth to, and getting pregnant, realize they can’t be the parent they are compelled by their nature to be. Others trust adoption agencies. Personally, not to negate adopted lives, i side with the rationale of parents who want to be hands on, it shows accountability. I’ve personally heard people argue that if you haven’t already bought your child a house, you shouldn’t have them. Where people get heated in these discussions is about status, babies being status, nasty, nasty people… when confronted with elegant logic, they shrivel in the crap they truly are, babies for status.

I’ll add to this …

Everyone on earth on some level KNOWS that if the world was a better place, they wouldn’t have been born. We all share this predicament. People writhe in agony not wanting to face or admit it.

What do I do with it? “Fuck it! Send everyone to heaven forever, otherwise my life was a waste”

The game of being good is the hardest one to play, and not being in it, is a waste of life.

As I posted before… omnistates that we typically think of are not possible, but that doesn’t mean anything to us, the only omnistate everyone cares about is omnibenevolence

All the above is nothing but your intellectual contraption.

You don’t have to be good.

You’re thrown into this life at this time and place.

What does Heidegger say about what kind of control you have over your life? Can you change your life through “your own efforts”?

Are you nothing more than a large number of bouncing atoms interacting “mechanically” with other bouncing atoms and therefore essentially no different from a rock?

Good by definition embodies and manifests the desirable. By definition, everyone has to be good.
If nobody was good, only the undesirable gets manifested. The reason I state it is true by definition is because the undesirable is by definition what nobody wants.

That says that there is one defined ‘good’ and that the multiple actions and states of living can be reduced to that one ‘good’. But that’s too simple.

For example, someone desires to be physically powerful. If he uses that physical power against others, then he may be called evil.

But he is unlikely to use that physical power against all people. In fact, he may use it to help some people and hurt other people. Therefore some may consider him good.

And physical power is not manifested at all times. So when he is not using it, is he good or bad?

When “summed up” is he good or bad?

Is ‘good’ what you think of yourself or what others think of you? Who evaluates?

If someone has the power to do it, they would put us all into our own individually hallucinated realities based upon our desire, while making it impossible to hurt other beings, besides how we may desire to hurt ourselves.

Sure, medical science has had its own learning curve down through the centuries. There may well have once been doctors who argued for the nose as the starting point regarding any rational abortion procedure.

You got me.

Reduced to a retort? Again? I’ll chalk it all up to a particularly shitty mood that you are in. Again.

And, no, I don’t enjoy being in the hole at all. For example, even my reaction to Trumpworld is brutally sucked down into it.

On the other hand, forever is more or less right around the corner now.

I’m guessing it will be oblivion.

And how on earth might one go about actually demonstrating this? Such that everyone in the entire universe deemed both rational and virtuous would concur?

True enough. Some people do like them, some people don’t. Then what?

Or suppose someone came along and insisted that all rational men and women are obligated to like them. Then what?

Or suppose someone came along and argued that all men and women were morally obligated to eat them. Then what?

Okay, so how would philosophers go about establishing what all rational moms and dads are obligated to want…are obligated to do?

Personally. That’s my point.

In other words, to what extent do your value judgments today revolve around a particular set of experiences, relationships, sources of information and knowledge etc., accumulated out in a particular world. Yours.

Or, instead, to what extent can philosophers account for all of the unimaginably vast and varied experiences, relationships, sets of ideas etc., that millions upon millions of individuals may have come to embody in order demonstrate the optimal or the only rational assessment available to those who wish to be deemed here as virtuous human beings.

Are you still here? :wink:

Really, is this a serious philosophical question?

And where is the the most serious philosophical answer to be found?

To be found somewhere in the arguments here perhaps: google.com/search?ei=y1fvWo … Ix5dDnqtrM

And how on earth would I even begin to defend the points I raise about dasein as the optimal frame of mind?

My first theorem about objective morality is true by definition. To make the statement “there is no morality” requires moral impetus, namely, that you thought it good to make the statement. Now, I’ve been raising the point for years, that self contradiction is an ornament males use to attract females in the species. It is not surprising that lots of males have very intricate ornaments of self contradiction; the reason being, if you can contradict YOURSELF and still be ALIVE, it appears to the brain that such a being has supernatural powers, that they are God.

Not only can I account for what is the proof that morality is objective, I can even calculate for people who use ornaments of self refutation (denying the argument).

Part of the reason abortion is such a testy subject for people emotionally is because, when you pick a crowd, you’re implying with infallible logic that they shouldn’t have been born; even touching upon this subject gets people very emotionally intense.

I’ll remove that tension between each other by stating matter of factly, that if this world was a better place, NONE of us would have been born. I’m not discriminating here to that regard for the living. That is an existential burden we all share, the only way to combat it is to solve for realities where everyone gets everything they want without hurting anyone.

You asked: what’s my moral that all people can agree upon? Just that: everyone getting everything they want without hurting anyone.

That is as axiomatic as: it takes a moral being to state morality is false, fake.

Okay, then I will rephrase it. You said your piece and I said my piece. I’m not interested in going over the same ground. There is nothing more that needs to be posted.

If you won’t or can’t take any action to get out, then you might as well enjoy the hole. It’s not entirely without its positive points.

Summed up in song as : “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.”

Seems to be part of the investigation of life, so it’s a philosophical question.

There are answers in various places.

There are some of them. That wasn’t hard.