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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
…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?
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: