What is Dasein?

So the mass killings of the USSR, the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge were just the “community standard”?

Or maybe the noble efforts of the leadership trying to build an ideal society?

What can one say about it?

Again and again and again: take what you construe to be the “foundations” of Heidegger’s Dasein out into the world of conflicting goods [precipitating conflicting behaviors] and juxtapose it with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Instead, it’s straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

What “on earth” does this means with respect to an experience that you have had in which a value judgment of your own was challenged by another?

All I can do here is make an attempt to grasp how and why you are not down in that hole.

In other words, for all practical purposes.

And then when I try to bring Buddha down to earth here…

…I get this:

Note to others:

What crucial point about the Buddha here do I keep missing?

From my frame of mind, Prismatic’s take on Heidegger and Buddha and 4NTs and 8FPs, is analogous to Phyllo’s take on Communism. If I truly understood them the way that he does then I would share his assessment/argument about them.

And then – presto! – I would be up out of the hole.

Well, sure, if you wish to convince yourself that I am “comfortable” being down in a hole that revolves around a moral narrative that revolves around a belief that human interactions in the is/ought world revolve around an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends for all of eternity in oblivion for “I”, then, well, okay, I doubt I will ever convince you otherwise.

But that still doesn’t apprise me of how you are not down in it yourself when your own value judgments come into conflict with others.

Either regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, the meaning of conflicting goods or the meaning of political economy. Out in a particular context that we might all be familiar with.

You yourself either are able to sustain some level of comfort and consolation embodying the “real me” in sync with one or another moral narrative/political agenda or you’re not.

Instead, we get something stuffed down into the murky middle:

Okay, then describe an actual context for us and note how for all practicl purposes this actually works. Give us some examples of how you moved on. Sure, folks can take a “leap of faith” to one or another “political prejudice” and think themselves into believing this need be as far as they go.

But how is this not also embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And what happens when you come upon those who reject your own leap of faith in favor of one of their own? Or when they do embrace one or another objective morality? How are you not confronted with either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromised behaviors.

Again, illustrate your text here. Show us how your frame of mind allows you to “thrive” in the midst of a world where moral conflagrations are still everywhere.

Instead [as always] it’s back up into the realm of the “general description”.

What on earth am I to make of this?

Note to others:

If this makes sense to you please cite some examples relating to your own life or the lives of others that you know. Examples which clearly note how one can “thrive” socially, politically and economically while escaping the hole I’m in and the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein insofar as you acquire your value judgments.

In other words, inside an existential contraption as opposed to being derived from a philosophical examination of conflicting goods.

I believe you will NEVER get out of your own self-created HOLE.

Your case is like this guy and others of the likes. The damage is already embedded deep in the brain and no amount of offering of help will save him from the street ‘hole’. If any solution, it will only be temporary and they will fall back into the HOLE in time.

I am not expecting you to understand me.
What I am accusing you is you lack intellectual integrity by relying on reference to Heidegger and the Buddha without understanding the substance of the matter.

This always reminds me of a child resisting his parents … “I’m not going to be like you” and “you can’t make me do anything”. :laughing:

My point revolves more around those things in which we can all agree it is reasonable to believe that they are true.

Is it reasonable to believe that Prince Harry is still a bachelor? Well, we can look up the meaning of the word and then decide, based on what we think we know is true, whether he still is or is not.

Suppose one person says it is reasonable to believe that he is still a bachelor while another insists it is reasonable to believe that he is not. Is there a way for us to determine which point of view is in fact the reasonable one?

Yeah, I think so.

On the other hand, suppose someone argues that it is reasonable to believe that a man is better off being a bachelor, while another argues it is reasonable to believe that a man is better off not being a bachelor.

Would this discussion revolve more around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods, or around a philosophical assessment of that which constitutes a rational frame of mind here.

And then the political economy component comes into play when a man decides to marry another man, and resides in a political jurisdiction that forbids it.

Here we can argue that it is reasonable to believe that the man is not lawfully married. But what of the discussion in which it is argued that this political jurisdiction ought to allow him to marry another man?

What might be the “common understanding” in regard to this?

Okay, cite an example of a preference that you just pulled out of your ass.

How exactly would that work? Out of the blue, with absolutely no context whatsoever, something just spontaneously pops into your head and that becomes the basis for your preference?

We can offer arguments to support our own set of assumptions. But so can those who embrace the oppositie point of view. Those who choose the oppositie behaviors.

Just go here – procon.org/ – and peruse all of the available issues. Arguments pro and con that are not just pulled out of someone’s ass.

And my point on this thread focuses more on the manner in which individual men and women come to acquire their own set of values. In other words, the extent to which that is or is not rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

This just reflects the manner in which you twist my conjectures into some sort of obtuse monstrosity that goes nowhere near the actual interactions of conflicted human beings.

Which some construe to be the best of all possible worlds. The moral narrative regarding abortion can be enforced by one or another state, by one or another community consensus or by a political tug of war in which the rule of law prevails.

As for the “‘normal’ people out-voting the bat-shit crazies”, choose a particular conflicting good and let’s try to pin down the manner in which you differentiate them.

No, when you get down to it. And, when you do, this is what my frame of mind here gets twisted into. I become, what, another Satyr insisting that my own take on “human nature” transcends all others?

And, of course, this is something that only you get to decide.

Over and over and over again, I seem able to reduce you down to arguing that I am arguing something that I am not arguing at all.

I don’t dismiss all of the points raised by others as existing only in their heads. I ask them to connect the dots between what they do believe is true in their heads here and now to an argument in which an attempt is made to convince others that they too ought to believe it is true. Why? Because it can be demonstrated in turn that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe that it is true.

Then it is just a matter of choosing a particular set of behaviors in a particular context and attempting to differentiate that which does appear to be true for all of us and that which seems more invested in particular subjective/subjunctive opinions.

And they don’t call them “personal opinions” for nothing.

I think somehow there may be a sort of process going on maybe extra-per(pre)ceptive which in some subliminal way can connect such dots , even supposing this on a strictly hypothetical basis., supposing opinions are basically sensory based operations.

My point had nothing to do with God or natural disasters. But you ask “But who accuses these “natural disasters” of being immoral?”. And you bring in God for no particular reason except perhaps to avoid dealing with the point.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether the dots have been connected or not.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether something has been demonstrated or not.

You set yourself up as the judge on whether a particular context has been set up and presented and whether it is being discussed substantively.

And astonishingly, nobody manages to meet your expectations. Your reasons amount to little more than that “you are not convinced”.

You do that over and over.

Is it surprising that I don’t want to answer your question and go down the same road yet again? It’s all been covered.

Is there something that can be discussed without getting your standard responses?

He won’t go there.

I’ll put this ignored post again.

If everything is right, then this is an objective statement of morality about all beings.

If some people are more right than others, than this too, is an objective statement of morality about all beings.

If everyone is wrong, than this too is a statement of objectivity about moral beings (from which do you measure it)

So that leaves the only three options solving as “morality is objective” regardless of what anyone says or thinks.

To use your own language iambiguous, you are neither the reasonable nor virtuous person you expect everyone to persuade.

And, I suspect, that is because we construe the meaning of “self” here in very different ways. In regard to such things as acquiring and then accumulating value judgments and in ascribing meaning to my life, “I” for me, in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change, is an existential contraption ever and always subject to the uncertainties embedded in new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge. We just never really know for certain what is waiting for us around the next corner.

But this rather precarious and problematic “self” can be rather disturbing for some. It certainly is to me. But unlike others I am no longer able to think myself into believing that a foundation can be grasped such that the “real me” is able to acquire and then sustain the psychological comfort clearly derived “objectively” from one or another set of religious, political or moral assumptions.

Not only can rational men and women answer the question, “how ought one to live?”, but they are even able to convince themselves that it is their moral obligation to choose behaviors wholly in sync with what [philosophically or otherwise] can be known.

Then it’s just a matter of choosing between the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of historical dogmas that have already been invented. Or, sure, make up an entirely new one.

Like yours, right?

And then back to this:

Let’s suppose for a moment that there really is that one precise manner in which to understand the “substance” that Heidegger and the Buddha meant to convey to the world.

And let’s suppose that you are one of the few who understand it.

So, which of them reflects the most rational understanding of human interactions? Interactions in particular embedded in conflicts revolving around wholly out of sync moral narratives and political agendas.

Choose a context, a set of conflicting behaviors and flesh out the points that you are convinced that they were making.

But, no, you won’t go there. Not until I am willing to convince you that I truly do understand [intellectually, philosophically] their arguments and assessments in the right way.

And, of course, that means starting with their definitions.

And, if you’re lucky [with some], you might never get around to bringing them down to earth.

Okay, you’re raising a child and one day she comes home and insists that she wants to be a Communist. It appears that in her day to day interactions with peers, she has come to accumulate new experiences, new relationships and new ideas that have convinced her that capitalism is the root of all evil in the world.

You are appalled. Of course you try to convince her that the manner in which you have come to understand Communism is the one truly rational frame of mind.

But she won’t budge. She says, “I’m not going to be like you”…“You can’t make me do anything”.

So, who is laughing now? :wink:

But here’s the thing…

Both of you can still nestle in the soothing assumption that how you construe Communism is in fact The Right Way.

So, at least you can be take comfort in that.

An option [here and now] that is simply not available to folks like me.

Now this is pure philosophy! :wink:

Seriously, though, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above – as an existential contraption – how might we understand the point you are raising here more…substantively.

You choose the context.

:laughing: You’re obsessed.

:laughing: That’s what you think.

:laughing: Again, you think that’s how I would react.

:laughing: I am.

Here’s another tidbit for you. I never told my kids what to think or believe about God. As far as I know, they’re atheists. Sure, they went to church (occasionally) because they had to understand what was going on in the family and in society around them. They know the stories about Jesus. My oldest got the RC sacraments because it was important to grandma and grandpa.
But I don’t insist that they believe anything about it.

If I taught them anything, it’s that you have to think about and evaluate everything that you hear and read. Don’t blindly trust anyone … including your own father.

I could turn out to be a blithering idiot. Who knows? :laughing:

But my point always revolves around making that crucial distinction between our reactions to those killed given what we are able to garner objectively about the either/or world, and our reactions given the considerably more problematic components of the is/ought world.

And here God is often invoked. If God is in the picture then those who believe in Him are able to think themselves into believing that if their moral reaction to the killing is in Sync with God, then this allows them to insist in turn that others are either “one of us” or “one of them”.

Obviously: I and only I am able to react to what others tells me. I am either convinced that the manner in which they connect the dots is more reasonable then the manner in which I do or I am not.

That’s my whole point here with regards to the is/ought world! In the either/or world there often is just one way in which the dots can be connected. The components of this computer are either in sync with access to the internet or they are not. If the computer and my internet provider are functioning properly then they are and, if not, then they are not.

And that is rather easily demonstrated substantively. After all, here I am.

But suppose the discussion/debate shifts to the arguments that surround “net neutrality”. How should all of the dots be connected here? How is that demonstrated substantively?

Instead, we get this: vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

Both sides are able to make reasonable arguments given the initial set of assumptions provided.

You tell me: What is the optimal or the only truly rational argument that can be made here using the tools of philosophy?

This clearly revolves around my attempts to convince others that, given the extent to which being down in my hole is a truly grim, glum place to be, I am genuinely in search of arguments that might succeed in yanking me up out of it.

And, then, given the extent to which oblivion appalls me, are those of a religious bent able to convince me that immortality and salvation are not just all in their head.

Sure, if you are convinced this all just some sort of game that I am playing [as, say, a polemicist waiting for godot] you can think yourself into believing anything you want about me. And how on earth would I ever convince you otherwise? That’s just the nature of the human condition. We can never truly be inside the head of another. We can never truly be certain about what to believe regarding his or her motivations and intentions. I merely speculate that this is in turn profoundly problematic regarding our own efforts to.

Right, like you don’t have a set of your own.

Note to others:

Why do you suppose I don’t waste my time responding to “general descriptions” of this sort?

Please challenge him to pick a context and to note the manner in which his “argument” above might be made applicable to human interactions that result in conflicts revolving around moral and political narratives/agendas out of sync.

And then to note the manner in which I construe the meaning [and the measure] of dasein above is not applicable to him.

I’d ask him myself but he might actually agree to do so coming from one of you. :wink:

I’m pretty sure that you admitted to being just that on a couple of occasions.

I’m too lazy to search for the actual quotes.

The game is a distraction while you are waiting.

One can say several things about this : Don’t dwell on the future. Only the present exists. Accept the things that can’t be changed. Will whatever happens.

I could suggest some techniques for dealing with it but I doubt that you would be interested.

In case anyone else is interested, MBSR(Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction) is an effective system. (Improves quality of life, reduces anxiety and depression, etc)

Have you ever heard of the Clay Mathematics Prize?

You get 1 million dollars just for solving one of these from about 100 years ago…

Those haven’t all been solved.

That doesn’t mean numbers don’t exist.

Your entire shtick is that because we haven’t solved EVERY moral problem, that morality doesn’t exist.

I’ve already given the solution to ethics, you blew it off…

Everyone getting everything they want.

So yes, I repeat, you are neither the reasonable or virtuous person you expect everyone to convince.