What is Dasein?

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.

With what, Communism? And yet I come back to that because, to the best of my recollection, it is really the only issue in which you bring your own arguments down to earth. It seems to be your own equivalent of Prismatic’s chattel slavery. :wink:

True enough. I could only speculate that if a child of yours announced at the dinner table that she had become a Communist, you would be appalled.

Apparently not.

Same with my daughter. In no way shape or form did I try to steer her into embracing the manner in which [at the time] I was hammering Marxism into existentialism into nihilism.

In any event, her whole world was revolving more and more around art.

On the other hand, I can well imagine any number of objectivists going the route the father chose in The Book of Daniel, the novel by E.L. Doctorow.

Well, I like to think of myself as a complex human being. And, as such, my motivations and intentions are not easily pinned down. Playing “the game” is part of it, sure. But trust me when I tell you there are other parts as well. Considerably more disconcerting and disturbing parts.

Still, that gap between these words flowing out of your mind and then flowing into mine. And that [for me] has dasein written all over it.

And this [to me] is just another “general description” such that any particular individual will react to it only from within whatever particular existential contraption his or her own “I” has been concocted.

What I am most interested in are arguments, assessments, techniques etc., that might persuade me to whittle dasein down to a more manageable size. Something that might persuade me that there actually is a way up out of the hole. Either on this side of the grave or on the other side of it.

I thought that I had brought abortion down to earth … allowing abortion for a certain number of weeks balances the needs of the woman and the needs of the potential child.

Capital punishment … given the large number of mistakes by the police and the governments which conduct kangaroo trials, it’s safer for everyone not to have capital punishment.

Sure those are my opinions but they are ways of dealing with the issues which allow for mistakes and personal choices.

I never read the book or saw the movie. Before my time.

The American Vietnam war soul searching has always seemed very trivial to me. My personal dasein has produced a less abstract attitude towards war. My great-grandparents, my grandparents and my parents either fought in the wars (WW1 and WW2) or were directly effected by it. The same is true for my wife.

I see the absurdity of war but also the sad necessity.

I’m offering you ways of dealing with those parts and you seem uninterested.

Yeah and I keep telling you that you have to go beyond arguments because arguments won’t convince you. Arguments are the problem, not the solution. You need to go to a place without words.

If you try something like mindful meditation, then your dependence on words and arguments will decrease.

I have recommended the cultivation of equanimity and mindfulness meditation which is within the Noble 8 Fold Paths of the 4 Noble Paths. This is the most critical step to establish strong psychological anchorage before attending to any critical matters in life.

The point with mindfulness meditation is one’s brain need to have a greater degree of plasticity to ensure easy rewiring. Where Vispassana is concerned it is not very effective for those who are above 55-60 [with exceptions maybe] as it require a reasonable degree of neural plasticity.

I believe in the case of Iambiguous his brain is likely to be heavily ossified and subjected to heavy atrophy. Therefore mindful meditation is not likely to help effectively. As far as Iambiguous is concern I believe we just have to go along with his rigid beliefs and idiosyncrasies.

I’m suggesting MBSR which has been shown to be effective for older adults. For example:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28686822

I have also accused Iambiguous of being ossified. :evilfun:
However, I would not say that there is no hope and no potential for change. It’s never too late. Every day one is reborn into a world full of possibilities.

He just has to decide to take the first step.