Still, as soon as you try to grapple with the implications of this, you are so far out on the metaphysical limb that, for all practical purposes, it becomes meaningless. A universe that simply is what it is. And with absolutely no one or no thing around to know that?
Or is there in fact an argument available to all rational and ethical men and women such that they are obligated to embody it or to be seen as irrational and unethical human beings?
If someone is obligated to embody something lest they be viewed as irrational, then you’ve defined objectivity in terms of popularity. Truth is merely consensus of opinion.
No, in a world where some measure of human autonomy does in fact exist, it still comes down to that which can be demonstratred to be true objectively for all of us. We just don’t know the limits of that. We accept that this exchange exists for all with access to the internet. That can be reasonably demonstrated. But how is it demonstrated that my argument or your argument is closer to the objective truth?
Unless perhaps it can be demonstrated that, say, the exchange is just part of some Sim world in which you and I are merely characters in minds beyond our capacity to even grasp.
Then what?
And, of even greater importance to me, how are those who reject objective morality here able to sustain a “sense of identity” that is not fractured and fragmented?
This is saying a house built upon the sand will wash away, right? Because there is no objective foundation to underpin anything. Well, don’t build a house. Why invest in the temporary?
Many aspects of our existence are squarely embedded in the either/or world. There are many facts about our lives that can be easily established. The fractured and fragmented “I” revolves instead around the part embedded in an is/ought world. A world in which points of view are seen by me as more a manifestation of an existential contraption which become embodied in any particular dasein out in any particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
Well, you’re not even trying to convey the meaning of dasein. You’re speaking in difficult to interpret vernacular and beating around the bush, then tossing me an old thread so I can rummage around and by chance possibly stumble upon the right definition. It’s just not that important to me to know the definition of that word to put all this work into it especially when you won’t reciprocate and put work into a succinct and clear definition to save me all this stabbing in the dark.
What are you after then, the definition of it? The meaning of it?
Yes. I try to define the terms I intend to use so others have an idea of what I’m talking about. It doesn’t mean the terms always mean what I define them to be and they don’t necessarily have to be consistent with the dictionary, but they’re defined in order to help convey what I’m thinking.
For instance: Existence is a relationship, Reality is the interaction between subject and object, Objectivity is the observerless observation, Infinity is the boundless, a Thing is that which is mutually exclusive from anything else. So what is Dasein?
Since I construe dasein [out in the is/ought world] to be an existential contraption derived largely from lives/relationships that can differ in many, many extraordinary ways, it is best in my view to situate that which I construe it to mean “out in the world.”
And then to invite others to try to pin down their own rendition/description of “I” at the intersection of identity, values and political power.
Instead, over and again, I attempt to convey the manner in which I have come to understand it existentially “out in the world” of actual human interactions:
Why do you compel me to read all that? It’s 4 pages and 80 posts and I don’t know in which post the definition resides. What can’t you just tell me what it means?
I compel no one. And it is the OP that I am mainly preoccupied with.
Instead, you appear to want the “25 words or less” version. The meaning and the defintion of dasein.
Like dasein were an actual thing I could take out of my pocket and say, “here, this is dasein”.
What I am interested in is how you and others react to the OP such that the points raised are either more in or more out of sync with your own “I” when confronted with conflicting goods.
And then I attempt to convey what I construe to be the psychology of the objectivist “I” here:
In that thread you said "And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical “hole” such that for all practical purposes, “I” became increasing more fragmented. "
“I” doesn’t exist in any objective sense. It’s an illusion pinned between two eternal darknesses. You’re not going crazy, but becoming sane, but you live in a crazy world sending you mixed signals. Krishnamurti said “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
There are clearly things about yourself “here and now” that are true objectively: your age, your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, your height, your weight…the place where you were born, the experiences you had, the relationships you sustained, the books you read, the films you viewed etc.
And let folks like Krishnamurti bring “general descriptions” of this sort down out of the clouds of abstraction and park them in particular contexts precipitating particular behaviors deemed to be either sick or healthy.
Let them discuss particular social, political and economic permutations that evolve over time historically and culturally.
You’re groping for some objective pedestal to perch yourself upon, but it just isn’t there. There is no handbook, no written law, no rule of thumb to consult and each instant in time is a decision you’ll have to make based on what you want to do.
Quite the contrary. My aim is more to expose the dangers embedded in the moral and political narratives of the objectivists here among us. And, in turn, embedded in narratives of the moral nihilists. In particular, those that own and operate the global economy.
The only thing we know for sure is there is nothing we know for sure.
Yes, but “here and now” there are still distinctions to be made [in the either/or world] between those relationships able to be demonstrated as true for all of us and individaul reactions to those relationships which appear [to me] to be considersably more subjective.
I think the desire to delineate the world into dualities (right and wrong) is a way of manifesting the self. So clinging to objectivity is resisting death of the self. The only way to exist is to carve yourself out of obscurity and form clear distinctions between this and that. I am here and everything else is over there. When the lines get fuzzy, then you get fragmented. I think it’s mighty perceptive of you to notice it.
Again, the problem I have with points like this is how abstract they are. Bring this assessment down to earth and note its relevance when confronting behaviors in conflict over value judgments.
Point us to a particular context that is embedded in your own life; or to one in which a great deal of news has been generated of late.
I think so. In the sense that “I” here is composed of any number of vast and varied existential variables that comprise any particular individual’s life. And to others these assessments can certainly seem strange and complicated. After all, what do we [can we] really know about the sense of “reality” construed by others?
Without the ability to read minds, we can only guess what others see.
That’s true up to a point. But there is still the capacity to demonstrate that what you believe is true “in your head” is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
It’s just that different individuals will draw the line here in different places. Is it true objectively that human life begins at conception? Or do we become actual human beings further on down the line? How can this be determined once and for all? And, once determined, how ought rational men and women configure their moral and political narratives in regard to abortion?
And how is that then not an “existential contraption” more or less?[/i]
I don’t know, but why does it matter? The concept of a contraption is a contraption because contraption is a synonym for concept.
It matters because the extent to which you come to recognize that your value judgments are derived more from a particular sequence of experiences than from any deontological assessment, is the extent to which you are less likely to embrace objectivism.
Instead, you are more likely to embrace moderation, negotiation and compromise in your political interactions with others.
Then it’s just a matter of whether or not you take this as far as “I” do. Tumbling all the way down into a hole like mine.
Again, bringing this down to earth. Bob is on trial for murdering Bill. A mountain of evidence [including fingerprints and DNA] is able to convince a jury that he is guilty. They [or the judge] then sentence him to death. What then are the facts [using either deduction or induction] that is able to establish in turn that executing him is just or moral or “the right thing to do”?
What’s your own argument here? And how do you see it as either embedded or not embedded in the components of my own moral philosophy. A philosophy that revolves around the assumption that both moral narratives and political agendas revolve around arguments that revolves around “existential contraptions”.
In a No God world.
Morality is veiled “might makes right”. Rather than retype it, I’ll refer you to my post to Karpel viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190&start=100#p2711863
Well, it is certainly true that when push comes to shove what counts is the extent to which you are able to enforce “rules of behavior” more to your own liking. But that doesn’t make your own “liking” here any less an existential contraption to me.
KT is hell bent on insisting that his own rendition of “pragmatism” is not an existential contraption. But I certainly see it as one. He lived a particular life predisposing him to a particular set of values; but he refuses to let the implications of that disturb him as much as they disturb me. In other words, “fracture and fragment” his own particular “I” when confronting conflicting goods.
And to speak of grasping these relationships “epistemologically” speaks volumes regarding the gap between us.
Still, I have to admit that there may well be an epistemological foundation allowing us to assess them wholly.
Or we can just argue that in a wholly determined universe this exchange itself is inherently embedded in the ontological [and teleological?] “fabric of reality”.
As for your rendition of Vos Savant’s rendition of the Monty Hall problem, what on earth does that have to do with the gap between what we think we know about the universe and all that would need to be known about it in order to encompass it objectively?
Would all astrophysicists weigh in on this in the precise manner in which you do?
I must be missing something here in grasping your point. You may be “calling things as you see them”, but what you see is likely to be only a teeny, tiny sliver of all that can be seen going back to an ontological understanding of the existence of existence itself.
…how are deductions pertaining to the either/or world the same or different from deductions pertaining to the is/ought world.
There is no difference and the ought is either/or because ought is discerned through relativity. You ought to do that, else this will happen.
Still, you have to admit this point will be easier to understand if you take it out into the world that we live in and embed it in a context in which deductions are made regarding facts able to be established and then made regarding our reactions to those facts such that some insist they indicate we ought to behave one way while others insist they indicate we ought to behave in another way.