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.
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.
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.
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.
And yet he was one of the most influential philosophers in history.
Addition: Its intriguing to speculate whether Kant’s narcissism and the general narcissism of the self(Dasein) concise with the current fascination with ‘collusion’. Here is a down to earth ‘factual dilemma’ hard to argue with.
Which makes you an objectivist. 1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position. 2) It is implicit in your long posting history that objectivists add to the problems already present in reality. This is made clear via mocking and sarcasm - more open in your mundane ironists thread. The winking to the gallery or to yourself is not the behavior of a doubter. You are certain yours is the objective position. You cannot assert this directly, at least not when called out, because that would be problematic. Your stance is objectivist.
Yes, going into the future we will have different sets of facts that shift the discussion. But even if all of the above is accomplished by pursuing space travel, it doesn’t make the objections of those opposed go away. There is still the possibility, for example, that, objectively, our space program will alert a far more advanced civilization of our existence. Prompting an invasion that wipes us out. And there is still the objective fact that, despite these accomplishments, thousands upon thousands of human beings right here on earth will die from starvation every single day. What might all of those billions of dollars accomplish in bringing those numbers down?
They’re not called conflicting goods for nothing.
Though sure there may be an objective solution out there such that the pros and the cons come into sync optimally around the most rational frame of mind.
Just as with an issue like abortion there there may an optimal policy such that no baby is ever aborted and no woman is ever forced to give birth.
Again, you may be raising an important point here that I keep missing. But past, present or future generations, the rocket ship that is most in sync with all that can be known objectively about the laws of gravity, would be the most powerful, efficient and safe.
Yes, a shifting set of facts, sure. New helmets can be designed to create less brain injuries in those who play football. New rules can be adopted in turn.
And then there are those who argue that football itself is an ugly, brutal, savage sport that should not be tolerated in a civilized nation. Then all the value-laden arguments revolving around sports itself.
Lots and lots of objective facts can be agglomerated by both sides. Before, during or after the game. But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?
And the point I raise on this thread revolves around the extent to which any particular individual’s opinions are embedded more in the manner in which I construe the measure of “I” here as an existential contraption; or the extent to which, instead, this individual, using the tools of science and philosophy, can ascertain the most reasonable frame of mind.
Right, differences argued among the sides of many, many moral conflicts that have rent the species over the centuries, can be distinguished as either illusions or not illusions.
And, if you want to know which is which, just ask the objectivists.
I am down in this debilitating hole with respect to “I” out in the world of conflicting moral and political values. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
The objectivists on the other hand seem able to sustain a comforting and consoling psychological bent by convincing themselves that they are in sync with a sense of self that reflects more the “real me” in sync in turn [re God, ideology, Reason, Nature etc.] with a world in which there are obligatory distinctions to be made by all rational men and women between right and wrong behaviors.
You become “one of us” or “one of them”. Which I then root in what I construe to be the “psychology of objectivism” here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
All I can then do is to note the extent to which others construe the meaning of an “objectivist” differently. And note the manner in which they have come to understand “I” out in a world where their own values/behaviors have come into conflict with others.
You insist that only when I grasp – epistemologically, technically – the manner in which Heidegger conveyed the meaning of Dasein philosophically in BT, am I then able to join you in a discussion regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially out in a particular context, out in a particular world here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Whereas I am far more interested in the manner in which you make a distinction between Dasein and dasein insofar as you are able to convince me that you understand my point regarding the nature of the hole that “I” am in.
And that only seems possible [to me] when you are able to convey [descriptively] the manner in which you are not down in that hole yourself [here and now] when your own values/behaviors come into conflict with others.
In my view, this is really what you are all about here:
Huffing and puffing. Making me the issue. Only not as a polemicist. Instead, you appear more [to me here] as genuinely contemptuous of all those who, in the end, don’t see things your way.
But that can only be my own subjective/subjunctive reaction in and of itself.
Most crucially of all, in my view, is this need on your part to yank the exchange back up into the stratosphere of “serious philosophical theory”.
In discussing Dasein there are any number of objective facts that can be demonstrated when the arguments revolve around the Heidegger’s workman and his tools.
Or when the arguments revolve around what the Nazis either did or did not do with respect to the Final Solution to the “Jewish problem” back then.
But what is the nature of Dasein when the arguments shift to either choosing or not choosing to beome a Nazi? When the arguments shift to either demonstrating that genicide is necessarily moral or immoral in a No God world?
My quandary is embedded in the assumption that in a No God world, any and all human behaviors can be rationalized as either good or bad depending on which particular set of assumptions you make about the “human condidtion”.
I don’t have access to the comfort and the consolation embodied in the “real me” in sync with one’s moral obligation as a rational human being.
Instead, “I” here – my “I” – is fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I have come to think myself into believing that this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…is a reasonable frame of mind out in the is/ought world.
You ask for answers but you don’t accept the answers as given. Instead you insist that the answers must be formulated in one specific way. (As if you already know the answer.)
What you want seems to be diversion - to write and write and write - until the end.
That is the pseudo ideal I have been writing about, without any down to earth examples, if anyone cared to notice. But then sorrily, my language soared above Olympic heights.
But ironically, a pseudo ideal is perfectly legitimate in an era of collusion! In order to retain a nihilistic point of view ! That is what a neo clacissism consists of.(or its derivative-retro romanticism)
Your problem is you keep using the term ‘dasein’ commonly attributed to Heidegger’s BT without understanding its original “meaning” and intention.
What I pose to you is this, if you want to use the term ‘dasein’ then read up BT again and understand precisely [not necessary agree] its original meaning in BT. If not, DO NOT use the term ‘dasein’ at all!
I believe the problems you kept repeating is a big mess.
I suggest you redefine represent your own problem without the use of the term ‘dasein’.
Example, if you are depress, in a hole, had AIDs, etc. just say that before you ask for suggestions.
If you agree or disagree with abortion, start a thread and just state it clearly.
If you are in two minds about an issue, just start a thread say ‘How to resolve dilemmas in life?’
If you are prone to ruminations and worry, just be specific on this problem before giving your own solutions or seek solutions from others.
If you are generally unhappy, just raise a thread ‘How to be happy?’
There is no need to bring in very specific terms, jargons & neologisms, especially like Dasein, thrownness, facticity, rival goods [Barrett’s] at all which confuse your personal issues.
In other words [mine] if you construct a theoretical moral framework it is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that you are able to convince yourself and others that the definition and meaning given to the words used in constructing it reflect the optimal in rational thought. And the argument is epistemologically sound to the extent that, tautologically, the logic goes around and around internally in circles. Categorically and imperatively as it were.
And, then, in living your life from day to day, you never really put yourself in a situation in which your theoretical assumptions are put to the test re conflicting goods in your interactions with others.
Or are there in fact specific contexts known to exist in which Kant defended one set of behaviors over another?
Also, to what extent did others probe his personal values to gauge just how in sync they were with the times historically or culturally or experientially? In the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above. Or, instead, did they basically revolve around the intellectual assumptions that he made in defining his ethical framework into existence?
So, while capturing theoretically, technically the very essence of human being as Dasein, actual individuals can answer the question “how ought one to live?” as a Christian or an atheist or a Communist or a Nazi or a liberal or a conservative or an individualist or a collectivist or, well, anything that happens to pop into their heads given the actual confluence of experiences and relationships and ideas that came to encompass [and predispose] their lived lives.
Which of course takes us to the point that I raise about “I” here being basically an existential contraption in the is/ought world.
Here mere mortals need one or another “transcending font” to resolve one or another moral/political conflagration.
My point is that, for particular individuals, things can seem to be one way or another when in fact a truth can be demonstrated such that there is only one reasonable manner in which to think about it.
For example, someone might say, “it seems to me that football is a more violent sport than baseball”. Now, is there in fact a way in which to demonstrate that this is true?
By, say, actually watching the games? Comparing the number of players on the sidelines/bench due to injuries? Following the players after they leave the sport?
But, what if someone says, “it seems to me that basesball is a better sport than football”.
How might that be demonstrated in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that football is a more violent sport?
Violence can occur in baseball – a hit batter, sliding into homeplate, a confrontation on the field over an umpire’s call – but who would argue that it actually exceeds the violence on a football feild?
Or, given the inherent violence involved in tackle football, suppose someone argues that “it seems to me that it is immoral for parents to allow their kids to play the game?” How might this be resolved with any degree of finality?
But I repeat myself:
[b]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 philosophical 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 [u]seems[/u] to me.
[/b]Also, I can only note again that I am less interested in the intellectual contraptions around which Heidegger embeds Dasein, and more interested in the manner in which these intellectual contraptions are relevant to actual human interactions in which value judgments come into conflict.
Conflicts that can range from jay walking to genocide.
Now, I don’t seem to budge here and neither do you. We’re stuck.
