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:
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.
I am not an ‘objectivist’ as repeated ‘thousand times.’
At first I thought you were asking for help on how to get out of a hole, that is why I offered loads of suggestions only to find out your intention was to deceive others into your self-torture chamber. Obviously I felt deceived on the time wasted and regretted my putting in the effort to help.
In addition you have that stupid ‘intellectual contraption’ excuse on every point offered to keep yourself trapped in that hole. Thus I was ‘smart’ in avoiding the long discussion.
Now I only respond where I think it is to my interest, e.g. since I am reading Heidegger so I exercise my thoughts on that.
If you want anything related to Heidegger I suggest you reread BT and also the later-Heidegger [a different perspective from BT].
Kant seems to have lead a sheltered life. He didn’t travel, he didn’t marry, he didn’t have children, he didn’t struggle to work, he wasn’t involved in warfare, etc.
His understanding of the world came from reading books, letters and what his circle of friends told him.
He wrote a theoretical philosophy/ethics which is not based on any personal experience. Is it a practical philosophy which is applicable in the real world?
Contrast Kant with the existentialist philosophers who had first hand experience with Nazi government and Nazi occupation.
Notice that this is a question posed in the present tense - “ought we pursue it now”. If you asked it in past tense - “ought we have pursued it”, then you would have some results and criteria for answering the question. For example results like : created jobs, produced valuable technology applicable in other fields, increased understanding of the universe, access to mineral resources on other planets. An objective evaluation of the results is entirely possible.
The rocket question was in the past tense - “did the engineers understand Newton’s principles”. There was a simple criteria for success - a rocket that goes into space. In fact, that criteria is much too simple because any engineering project has to consider time, cost, reliability and safety in order to evaluate it as success or failure. These factors considerably muddy the water.
If you had asked the present tense question during design and construction - “do the engineers understand Newton’s principles”, then you would have been faced with the same conflict of opinions and uncertainty which you raise with respect to the “ought” of space travel.
And my point remains that there is a considerable difference in evaluations done looking at the past and looking at the present - the same difference as judging the decisions made in a football game after it is completed and making the decisions during play - what ought you have done versus what ought you to do.
One has to look at is/ought from a similar point of view or else one will find all sorts of differences which are nothing but illusions.
And simply,in other words, relating Kantian categories to Newtonian physics ex post facto , is trying to find a deterministic reductive link, where the corresponding existential intention somehow foretells rocket science.
That type of argument nowadays may be rightly said to be rocket science, but aside from the Chinese there were no signs. that anything like what the world has today would be in the works.
The essence of the argument consists in the relative difference and not the analogy between the two logical systems of arguing.
Relatively speaking. it presents an imminance which could not be transcended.retro-actively.
A note: this explanation is the only way, that I can ‘transcend’ the particular existential , intentionality, as they appear in various contexts. Otherwise this forum could go on circularly, indefinitely, with reductions into projected ad hominims, or unnoticed empirical , masking as contradiction and hidden tautology.
In regard to the question of the differance; and it is strictly a self edifying project, I must agree, on basis of the slight difference between Kierkegaard’s aesthetic and Heidegger"d analytic, that I presume to further my umderdtanding.
Two levels exist : within that gap. (or without for that Matter, (as substance):
1 : the field of imminance
2: the field of transcendence
Transcendental philosophy cannot reduce below the level of metaphore, it can not reduce below toward the clarity of reason, therefore abstraction can not fill the gap between it and myth.
Imminance is the approach as the finctional derivative approaches an absolute, below the categories of aesthetic justification of reason. The Narcissus myth, can not be apprehended other then a pre-supposed allegory, because. (and this is important) the connections between the construction of perception have not to a substantial degree- overlap the conceptual and existential identity of the self.
Narcissus was punished for this presupposition, as was , the bringing of the fire: Prometheus.
The presupposition of Kierkegaard was defensive in placing God over aesthetic perception, but I think that political move, can be likened to the deliberate misunderstanding which Nietzsche was trying so desperately to avoid.
Their forward look could not ignite, or fire off the presumed understanding. The differance was greater then what he projected probabilistically into the future. The same with other 1st rate thinkers mentioned above.
The imminent and relative aesthetics could only be described in terms of metaphore. But metaphore, clarity and myth, were to become too differentially significant: as can be asserted by the coming philosophy of sign theory, of which modernists have trouble with the faire of connecting the dots: even between modern and post modern philosophic transitions of sign , signal, semantics & structure in the acquisition of meaning.
A modern German philosopher,Herbert Marcuse , author of The One Dimensional Man, tried to bypass understanding of reducing the transce dent field to the field of imminance, but his failure is obvious by looking at what happened to the new left during the 60’s; such short cut simply, does not work.
There are profound relevant, down to earth examples of how this huge failure came about, but a structural analysis precludes any existentially reduced examples, since such, will change upon the analytic interpretation of them.
Aesthetic reduction , then will need to give primacy to eidectic reduction, and as such, produce a faux neo -aesthetic, which has the affect of immediate and total nihilization of structural
integrity.
Dali’d use of delusional, hyperbolic return to the myth (Narcissus); bypasses all of the metaphoric content that Nietzche took so much pain to bring across aphorismically.
Same with Jesus’s Parables, most being lost on reason.
The Antichrist had some compensatory things to allude to, but the level of explanation appeared contradictory.
The immanence of contradictory visage, created the decisively abstract hyper realization of Dali, and the figurative representation suffered an imminent fall from gods grace into the middle ages’ obsessipnal representation of saving grace through a dialectic of imminent revelation through the transcendence of the essemtialism. Maritain, a French Catholic modern philosopher tried to bring this across.
The false ideal-idolatry must have been present for Kierkegaard, and the faux body as well to modern French
philosophers , namely : Guattari and …Deleuze
Extreme search for Dasein can reveal the basis for Heidegger"s difference, albeit sleight , from that of Kierkegaard.
For Dasein, for all practical purposes, the Self, through time can be substituted, and imminance is the shortening duration of the self through the effects of science. How does the impression of this immanence becoming an essential part of the self? Through repetition , eternal recurrence.
More to the point [mine] imagine if Kant and Heidegger were able to discuss and debate their respective philosophies with regard to those human-all-too-human interactions revolving around lying or embracing one or another political agenda.
What of the distinction between Dasein philosophically and the manner in which I construe the meaning of “I”, conflicting goods and political economy then? In other words, out in a particular world in which value judgments become dangerously out of sync?
Heidegger would take his own existential leap to fascism because, first of all, he was “thrown” into a world where it was there to be considered. What world was Kant thrown into? How were his own life and values shaped and molded by the “time and place” in which the bulk of his own personal experiences unfolded?
As for Heidegger’s more “open ended approach” to “good” and “bad”, how open-ended? How philosophically would he go about defending one moral/political narrative/agenda over another?
Or is philosophy basically of little importance here?
Here [of course] you make the assuption that only your own definition and meaning of “objectivist” is relevant.
Whereas I am more inclined to suggest that the meaning I ascribe to it revolves more around the manner in which I note [existentially] its actual use out in the world of conflicting assessments.
An objectivist – my objectivist – seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.
So, you are an objectivist in that sense [to me] or you are willing to acknowledge that your own assessments are true only to the extent that others are willing to embrace all of the assumptions upon which they are predicated.
But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger’s philosopbhically assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.
Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger’s philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.
Or, again, so it seems to me.
In other words, if only I would think like you do about all of this, I wouldn’t be down in the hole at all. Trust me, I get that part.
And if you really wish to help me up out of it, you will note how your own experiences with others [in which values came into conflict] did not involve your own “I” being down in the hole that I am in.
I don’t think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.
A common sentiment around here.
Note many scientists first came up with theories based on empirical evidence and other theories and are subsequently proven with testing. This can happen with Philosophical theories.
The question to ask is whether the Philosophical theories proposed are solid and sound.
Kant’s theory on moral and ethics is very sound and practical.
If Kant had done any significant immoral acts, such acts would stick out and go against his theory on moral and ethics.
Heidegger’s philosophy is very open ended and he did not emphasize on morality and ethics. Therefore Heidegger’s philosophy [up to the point he resigned as a Nazi member] is not sound as far as morality and ethics [a major element of philosophy] are concern.
Even if Heidegger had not joined the Nazi Party, his philosophical views [highly absent of morality] with a sense of grandeur complex, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions , is not sound when considered within philosophy as a whole.
Correct.
I have thrown in suggestions [not insistence] after sensing Iambiguous needed help to get out of his self-dug hole.
There was no serious philosophical theories to discuss as far as Iambiguous’ thread is concerned. Whatever philosophical points Iambiguous introduced are half-baked, i.e. own twisted versions of Dasein, objectivists, etc.
What is pitiful is when one ends up with conclusions [resulting in mental tortures] from misinterpreted and wrong premises.
As I had stated, before one can use an existing term, e.g. “Dasein,” one must at least understand [not necessary agree] what was the original meaning and use of Dasein used by Heidegger.
Same if one were to use the term ‘objectivist’ ‘realist’ ‘idealist’ etc. plus to explain if there are various meanings.
What is unique with Iambiguous’ approach is his self-preservation discussion-killer, i.e. ALL suggestions and views to him are ultimately merely ‘intellectual contraption.’
What is deceptive is Iambiguous’ only pull out that card after many hours of discussion. If it is known from the start he has such a card in his pocket, it would be better not to start at all or just throw in time-saving scanty views.
It is seem to you.
Forget about using the term ‘objectivist’ on me.
If you want to, then explain how my views fit into this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy
or this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand
What I am suggesting it you must understand [not necessary agree] what is Dasein from BT itself and not based on your own interpretations and subjective thoughts.
I am not insisting you agree with my assessment of what Heidegger’s Dasein is. I am only offering my views based on references from BT. You should do the same, otherwise you must avoid using the term Dasein [commonly associated with Heidegger].
The point is from the perspective of Heidegger’s Dasein in BT he specifically stated clearly he had no intention to bring it down to Earth. Note this in BT’s “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. pg 1
In contrast note Kant’s theoretical Critique of Pure Reason and his transition to the practical with his Critique of Practical Reason.
Heidegger did not extent his theory into the practical like what Kant did.
Obviously we can link Heidegger theory into practice but that would be a long story. In addition, the other person must be quite well verse in Heidegger’s theory before venturing into the linkage.
I believe I have discussed this in some ways but all you do is whatever is proposed is merely intellectual contraption, including my suggestion that one must develop one’s problem solving techniques and skills since all issues raised are problems.