What is Dasein?

Seriously! “My sense of I crumbled for me… why not everyone else!!”

Let’s get this straight, you reply to posts.

You have a very strong sense of “I”

You’re contradicting yourself to be viable to females.

You go on to say that the context of the draft made you who you are. That’s an infinite number of objective statements there.

Ironically, you deny the subjective, such as draft dodging, the spirit that given the same circumstances, took a different path than you, Jeffrey Dahmer was raised in a perfect home, yet, became who he was by spirit, by genetics. You are a pure nurturist, but not a naturist. That is another major flaw in YOU

Um, it doesn’t qualify according to your own description of what alleviates it. I am sure a number of the methods would help you emotionally, but given the way you describe it, it no longer sounds pressing, nor does it sound like something objectivists, as a rule, would run from.

You may have just made up an excuse not to try anything by saying you could distract yourself from the hole with films and music. To avoid changing you position or for some other reason.
You may have just been being obnoxious to objectivists.
You may be suffering immensely, but when cornered by people pointing out ways out, you decided to hide how little you can alleviate your suffering.

There are other possibilities.

But what I had to work with was your framing yourself in contrast with objectivists as having come down in a hole so uncomfortable and scary, they avoid it PLUS that you can distract yourself and are not in need of help, since you have media.

That does not hold.

That\s all. Perhaps in creating your polemisized self, you ending up using polemics that contradict each other. Perhaps you, in fact, hold ideas about yourself and others that do not really work and you haven\t or can\t look at this.

I don\t know.

But I have only you to work with. Your ideas about objecivists are obviously guesses. But I might as well take at face value your evaulation of what distracts you from your hole, polemisized self or otherwise.

So I no longer take seriously you comparing yourself to objectivists in the convenient for you,insulting for them light you have framed it here.

I doubt it\s a good strategy either, if it is a strategy. And if it actually is your view, you look silly continuing to assert it when the silliness is pointed out.

Back again to this:

1] I’m explaining my frame of mind to you in the manner in which I think I understand it.
2] you are reacting to this from me in the manner in which you think you understand me explaining it.

We may or may not ever bridge the gap here.

Still, as I noted above, it is only a matter of time before a set of circumstances comes crashing down, overwhelming any and all distractions that I may [here and now] have accumulated.

All I can do is to point out the extent to which [b]from my frame of mind here and now[/b] being down in this hole fractures and fragments me; and such that I am no longer able to embody the comfort and the consolation that my objectivists narratives in the past provided me.

In other words, with regard to embracing the sense that a “real me” is in sync with “the right way to live” on this side of the grave; and in regard to immortality and salvation on the other side.

Sure, to the extent that I am not wholly in sync with my own motivations/intentions, that is always possible. But given the extent to which “I” can only grasp this up to a point, isn’t that to be expected? There were so many experiences I had over the years that I was only somewhat in control over or understanding of. Just like you. We do the best we can in connecting these dots.

And that’s before we get to the subconscious and the unconscious mind. Entangled murkily in instinct and id. In those more primodial components of the brain/mind meld.

The parts that often come to the “surface” in dreams perhaps. Indeed, what is one to make of “I” then?

From my frame of mind all of this only serves to make “I” all the more an existential contraption. Profoundly problematic to say the least.

And then last but [perhaps] not least how all of this is to be understood in the context of the hard determinists arguments; or in the context of how “the human condition” is to be understood given that which explains the ontological [teleological?] meaning of Existence itself.

I don’t doubt that this is a component. It is all somehow intertwined in the manner in which I think “I” am intertwined in this frame of mind:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

It’s not for nothing that I finally settled on this for my signature here.

But if you are asking me to explain with any real precision what it all means in encompassing the meaning of my arguments here, well, I’ll almost certainly disappoint you.

You would first have to come closer to understanding “I” in the manner in which I construe it on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

And then take your own “I” out into the world of conflicting goods and political economy and note how your “self” here is very different.

Using whatever “techniques” that worked for you.

But [so far] no one has been able to point out a way in which they have either 1] avoided tumbling down into the hole that I am in or 2] once down there succeeded in yanking themselves up out of it.

At least insofar as they intertwine their sense of identity here in contexts involving conflicting value judgments and/or conflicting goods. Or with respect to oblivion.

Let’s just say that what “holds” for you here doesn’t hold for me.

Not to get too technical here, but, huh?

Again, as it pertains to an actual context we are all likely to be familiar with, only when you are willing to take these points down to earth by discussing the manner in which you and I react to particular strategies deemed to be either silly or not, are we likely to better illustrate the respective components of our arguments.

Maybe a new venue/time could be creayed : Cosmic Psychology 101

Maybe Cosmology, apart from Cosmetology.

Whays the difference?

Andrew Royle
“Heidegger’s Ways Of Being”

Okay, Dasein meets other Daseins. Yet here again the same distinction: between those things able to be established [in our interactions] as in fact true for all of us, and those things not able to be established.

For example, Bob may in fact have murdered Don. But if only he has knowledge of this, others might suspect it, but are not able to demonstrate that in fact he did it. Here God is still required in order to establish all things as either in fact true or in fact false.

On the other hand, though individual Daseins might be in disagreement about particular facts, there are some facts able to be established.

But what of Daseins in dispute over whether Bob was morally justified in murdering Don?

What is Heidegger’s take on that?

To be honest, I fail to see the “profound significance” of Heidegger’s reaction to Descartes.

How has he really refuted him since the argument he makes merely relies on a different set of assumptions regarding the existence of “I”?

Here the arguments become intertwined in certain metaphysical assumptions that are made regarding the nature of Existence itself. Descartes was no less interacting with other human beings. “I” and “we” and “him” and “her” and “they” and “them”, are, for most of us, everywhere.

Sure, “philosophically” we can create a problematic frame of mind here if we choose to. Solipsism. Determinism. Sim worlds. Demonic dreams.

But there they are: people. Other Daseins coming in and out of our life. And the same distinction. There is “in fact” what they do around us and there is our reaction to the facts. Ought they have done something else instead? How “in fact” do we establish that?

Obviously, the workman has a particular [factual] relationship with his tools. But the tools have nothing to say about it. Ought only comes into play here when we note someone hammering a nail with a saw and we suggest that she ought to use a hammer instead.

With other Daseins though, our “entanglements” revolve not only around facts able to be established or not established, but around certain assumptions made with respect to our understanding that if we comprehend the facts embedded in human relationships as they are said to be by the objectivists, then [as rational men and women] we are obligated to behave in particular ways.

That is your weakness here when you did not read Heidegger directly and thus is misled by the misleds [those who miread Heidegger’s philosophy].

Note
Andrew Royle is a dramatherapist, working with the bereaved, in private practice in London.
philosophynow.org/issues/125/He … s_of_Being

dramatherapist :exclamation: :question: From what he wrote, Andrew Royle definitely has misread and misunderstood Heidegger.

The Purpose of BT is the following;

Purpose of This Book
Our aim in the following treatise is to work out The Question of the Meaning of Being and to do so concretely.
Our provisional aim is,
the interpretation of time as the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of being. page 1

Heidegger’s philosophy [I hv written before] is not about ‘Bob may in fact have murdered Don,’ John’s dick entering Mary’s cunt ending with a squabbling over abortion, and the diverse human activities.

Since the Concept of Being is so pervasive, Heidegger narrowed down the idea of Being to the ‘being’ of humans or a person. Heidegger deliberately labelled such a being [human related] as Dasein with intention to ensure his views are not associated with typical human [Bob, Don, John, Mary etc.] activities.
For Heidegger, the being [Dasein] of the human being is the exemplary being and a representative of being-in-general to be interrogated and as a pivot to understand being-in-general.
Heidegger stated he is using the generic concept of Dasein to drill down to understand the Question and Meaning of Being-in-General.
Since the purpose of ‘Dasein’ is supposed to be a generic concept, it cannot be transposed to the individual person[s] and their specific life problems.

Heidegger wrote:

The problem is [within some ambiguites and vagueness] there are some philosophers and specialist Heideggerian who has misunderstood Heidegger and put the ‘typical human’ spin to it. One such philosopher is the very popular Hubert Dreyfus.

Heidegger’s focus is only on generic principles that will support the understanding of The Question and Meaning of Being-In-General.
Heidegger did not get involve in how these principles are to be translated or practiced by the individual person[s] or group in detail, which is off topic to the purpose of his thesis re BT as stated above. This is the limitation on practice had drove him to be a Nazi member.

Even when Heidegger mentioned “I” or “Mineness” is it always related to the undifferentiated “I” [self] and not the isolated I, e.g. in countering Descartes’ isolated “I” [I AM] that is a soul that survives physical death and can be salvaged to heaven. Heidegger viewed such theory as a falsehood that conceal truth and authenticity.

Now, if you want to apply Heidegger’s principles to individual person[s] or group you must at least have understood the principles with BT first before you apply them from your own perspective to the specific activities of life of specific individuals.

The mess you are creating is you are trying to deal with individual human[s] or group problem without first understanding Heidegger’s principles. What is worse is you are using bastardized interpretations to justify your arguments re Bob, Don, John, Mary, Tom, Dick, Harry, etc.

What is worse and pitiful is you are creating a hole of a mental torture chamber and lock yourself therein based on false theories.

The correct solution to your predicament is to dig deep and understand the fundamental principles of Heidegger and other wise philosophers first imperatively and then only apply them from the base up. Unfortunately for you this is a mountain of a task since your are imprisoned in some kind of mental straight jacket that trapped you within the hole you have created yourself.

Example, if you want to get involve with anything to do with force, momentum, velocity in practical with a reasonable degree of precision, you must first understand Newton’s Principles thoroughly. How can you plan and execute a strategy to go into space in a rocket with half-baked understanding of Newton’s principles?

The fundamental problems of the situation are still here :

Does the particular philosophy have any practical value?

Who understands the philosophy?

Which actions are required in order to apply the philosophy?

This is why Iambig keeps going on and on about demonstrations.

In the case of a space rocket, it either flies into space or it does not. The value of Newton’s principles is easy to see. The engineers who are able to get it into space are the ones who understand the principles. The required actions are the ones that produce a flight into space.

Compare that to Heidegger’s philosophy.
How is the practical value demonstrated?
Does Prismatic understand the philosophy or do “some philosophers and specialist Heideggerian who has misunderstood Heidegger” actually understand it better than Prismatic. IOW is Prismatic right or someone else? How is that demonstrated?
And then what ought one do to apply Heidegger’s philosophy in someone’s life?
The answers are not at all clear. Certainly they are not on the same level as the space rocket example.

Here is the monkey wrench in the reasoning which I have tried to explain to Iambig but without success :

While the rocket is being designed and constructed, you don’t know if Newton’s principles are valuable, you don’t know which engineers understand the principles and you don’t know which actions to take.

You only know after the launch. You only know by looking backwards. Clarity is in hindsight.

In the present, there is the same uncertainty for ‘is’ (rocket) and ‘ought’(value judgements). The “obligation” on what to think and believe is fuzzy. There are conflicting opinions on which actions to take and how to proceed … conflict during the design and construction.

…and what others are trying to explain to you is the same concept about foresight, except not with the same conceptual variables because they are a bit different.

Dasein really creates a problematic signal to noise ratio if you explain things in extremely vague, abstract language. It’s hard enought to know what other people mean. Give examples, connect the abstract to the concrete.

Note I have always ensure I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity not like Iambigous who is like a loose rocket out of control in space and going no where.

I have read Dreyfus -Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I,

note this from Dreyfus [one of the more popular Heideggerian];

I believe Dreyfus’ weakness is his focus / emphasis on merely on Division I and the above very narrow view but not fully on the whole book. It is very unfortunate Dreyfus has influenced a high proportion of his student from the University of California, Berkeley, and the public from his books into the wrong take which has effected society.

There are many statements and contexts that indicate Heidegger in BT did not intend ‘Dasein’ to represent the individual person and especially his/her specific life issues. This is why Heidegger avoided the term “Mensch” i.e. ‘man’ or human being.

The above has led the Heideggerian community into two major camps.

Heidegger’s philosophy has many useful bits but one must understand the basic grounds thoroughly and note the limitations to avoid pitfalls [falling into holes].
One limitation is, for Heidegger, to be ‘positive’ is to express the ‘good’ [authentic] path and he provided certain fundamental principles but he did not go into sufficient thorough details and fundamentals on ‘what is good’ and how to practice ‘good.’
It due to the above limitation and narrow approach [without much wisdom] that Heidegger ended as an active Nazi member.

Kant’s own philosophy [Moral and Ethics - e.g. re respecting basic human dignity] would definitely prevent Kant from joining a demented nationalist party like the Nazi Party.

Iambig makes some important points … which typically get lost because of his posting style.

I wonder if that’s true. I wonder what he would have done if he was “tested”.
We won’t ever know.

As I noted above, I did read most of BT back in college. Though, admittedly, that was many years ago.

Which is why I challenge those who have read it more recently to bring his points down to earth by situating Dasein out in the world of actual conflicting goods. Something that the author above avoids altogether.

My point is that Dasein in relationship to tools used in a workshop [wholly in sync with that which they are chosen to be used for] may not be akin to Dasein in relationship to moral and political values [wholly out of sync – existentially – with the values of others].

That’s the distinction I wish to explore. In other words, given the manner in which you claim to understand Heidegger’s own understanding of Dasein in BT as more or less out of sync with the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein out in the world of conflicting goods.

Here on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

In the workshop perhaps but what of Dasein and the fascist? How [concretely] are rational men and women obligated to react to fascism?

Clearly.

On the other hand, my point is aimed at exploring the extent to which his point can be discussed intelligently when diverse human activities come to blows.

But, then, there you go, straight back up into the intellectual stratosphere along with all of Will Durant’s other “epistemologists”:

Right, let’s take that to those folks pummelling each other at a protest outside the abortion clinic.

Then we are clearly back to our tug of war. You wish to tug the exchange up into the scholastic clouds and I wish to tug Heidegger’s “philosophical” take on Dasein down to earth.

The “mess that I am creating” revolves precisely around the gap between the world of words that Heidegger’s Dasein seems to nestle in, and a world in which the words that he used – the definitions, the deductions – never quite seem to reach the part where actual flesh and blood human beings are clobbering each other over particular values in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

Imagine for example Martin explaining his concept of Dasein to Adolph.

Here I’ve got you huffing and puffing, making me the issue. And, generally, when I reduce objectivists down to this, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which my own frame of mind is starting to be seen as a threat by them.

Unless of course I’m wrong. On the other hand I tend to thrive on polemics. So, sure, keep it coming.

More to the point [mine] is that, as an objectivist yourself, the only “correct solution” there can ever possibly be is your own.

I merely suggest there are reasons for this rooted more in the “psychology of objectivism” that I explored with other on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And yet over and over again I point to the distinction between using Newton to get up into space and using Newton to resolve the political conflict between those who embrace space exploration and those who do not.

The arguments made here for example:

vittana.org/11-pros-and-cons-of … xploration

universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

But the important point [or, rather, the point I deem to be important] is that objective knowledge is within reach in that if the scientists/engineers do in fact understand the laws of physics objectively, the rocket ship goes up.

Either/or.

Now take this sort of argument to the discussion/debate here: universavvy.com/pros-cons-of-space-exploration

What is the equivalent in this context of the rocket ship going up? Which argument encompasses the optimal or the only rational frame of mind?

Is space exploration something that we ought to pursue? Some make arguments that, yes, it is, while others insist that, no, it is not. And both sides have reasonable points to make. Points that the other side are not really able to make go away.

At least not completely.

Exactly!

On the other hand, what on earth are we to make of this out in the world of actual conflicting goods?

On the other hand, or this hand, abstraction is the necessary mode to evaluate the differences that later can be applied to conflicting goods.
Without such abstraction, conflicting goods could appear to BE conflicting. Both sides matter, and it is a matter of.conjecture which side predominates.

The apparent dissonance comes from taking sides before the construction is evaluated, which is not possible. But the results (a-priori) may bear them out, nevertheless.

A rush to judgement on an a-posteriori basis may not IN THEM SELVES be adequate as well.

Synthesis may be necessarily contingent at that.point.

I don’t feel the need for an apology at this point.

Does such validate a Kantian ‘should’ agreement on the either/or issue?

The best thing is, the issue has not been validated absolutely, so either position, with or without ground/ or presumed ground. may prove to be determinedly valid.

You decided to completely ignore my point that the “objective knowledge” comes from looking back with perfect 20/20 hindsight after a successful launch.

Thanks again.

Total narcissist.

First, I’ll admit that you may well be making an important point here. A point such that if I am ever able to comprehend it as intended, I might learn something that is actually able to nudge me in a different direction with regard to the points I raise on this thread relating to the existential relationship between any particular individual’s sense of identity and his or her accumulating value judgments.

But the reason that 20/20 hindsight is able to confirm that particular behaviors were “the right thing to do” is that they look at the rocket ship successfully lifting off from Earth. So, they have demonstrated that what they had calculated before the launch was in sync with Newton’s laws of gravity. Now, sure, it may be possible that down the road other scientists and engineers will have grappled with and understood the laws of physics such that far more powerful rocket ships might come into existence.

Who really knows how far we can go with this sort of knowledge? But one thing we can generally count on is that the knowledge will by true for all of us.

One either builds a better, faster, safer rocket ship or one doesn’t.

But that still leaves our conflicted political reactions to the question of whether space travel is something that we ought to pursue given the objections that can be raised.

How would 20/20 hindsight be calculated and then evaluated here?

So that we would know for certain whether we ought to launch the rocket or not.

As opposed to whether or not we can in fact launch it successfully.

Kant’s philosophy is watertight re respecting basic-human-dignity and perpetual world peace. There is no information of Kant having done anything immoral. If tested and had Kant committed anything significantly immoral his faults would be very glaring in contravention to the views he proposed.

Heidegger’s philosophy is open ended and what is ‘good’ is not precise, thus anything goes including Nazism.