What is Dasein?

[Prismatic567]

I believe you have leaped out of a real psychological anchor of theism [flimsy but nevertheless exists] into existentialism but without developing any real psychological anchor to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

Existentialism often revolves around the idea of "authenticity". Many existentialists argue that one lives "inauthentically" through one or another rendition of objectivism. In the is/ought world. Hell is other people not because they can make your life miserable, but because they objectify you. They refuse to interact with you subject to subject. I merely probe the existential parameters of the "subject" -- "I" -- by focusing the beam on the points I raise in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

Sans God, in other words, "authenticity" becomes just one more existential contraption. And, by and large, rooted in dasein.

In other words, from my frame of mind there is no "psychological anchor". At least not for me.

Consequently, your own intellectual contraptions above [and elsewhere] are [from my frame of mind] just another attempt to replace God with one or another secular rendition of a moral/political font.

Why? Because [ironically enough] this affords you the same sort of psychological comfort and consolation that the theists embody through God. It's just that, unlike them, you scratch the part about immortality and salvation.

So, you are able to convince yourself that we do not live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world. But then there's this part:

"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

You can't help but wonder then what Samuel Beckett might have made of this exchange.

I mentioned in the other thread I have just read William Barrett's Irrational Man.

Existentialism often revolves around the idea of "authenticity".

In a way, i.e. the experience of reality by the subject. But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.

You keep thinking and is mistaken I am one of those religious bigots and objectivists which typical continental existentialism and William Barrett are targeting. Nope, Philosophically I am way out of range from their bull's eye.

Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the 'subject' within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.

Note this issue of centering-on-the-subject was introduced long ago since Protagoras 'Man is the Measure of All Things' and very very long ago in the Eastern Philosophies.
Also note Kant's famous Copernican Turn toward the 'subject' for knowledge instead of the external.

While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the 'subject' loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.

If one study and adopt the teachings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, etc. there is nothing in those teachings that show how one can act [the practices] and do to to improve oneself to deal with the theorized despairs of existentialism. What they do is condemnation of the 'other' then talk, talk and talk only but no proposed actions that are effective and can improve one's skills to deal with the theorized problems of life.

In other words, from my frame of mind there is no "psychological anchor". At least not for me.

This is why I propose all humans must develop a psychological anchor, the stronger the better, but at least there must be some sort of anchor.
Note:

Equanimity
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193778

Generic Problem Solving Technique of Life
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

Know Thyself

If one do not develop some sort of anchor, one will be lost and suffers.
Fortunately yours is a philosophical existential crisis and not a spiritual crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_crisis

[iambiguous]

But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.

Come on, let's not forget that historically existentialism in the 20th century was in part a reaction to the horrors of World War II. Folks like Camus, Sartre and deBeauvoir were in ways large and small embedded in the French resistance to Hitler and the Nazis.

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy "out in a particular world" is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir's novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

On the other hand, I suspect your own "to-do" list revolves more around the objectivist credo: "one of us" vs. "one of them"

Me? As I once noted previously here...

I was born and bred into the belly of the working class beast...worked in the shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army...Vietnam. Six plus years of college. 25 plus years of political activism. Marriage. Parental responsibilities. Paying the bills. Intellectual pursuits of all sorts.

I've had ample opportunity to actually "test" the ideas I've bumped into. And then to come up with new philosophical configurations all my own.

How about you? How do you connect the dots here between what you think philosophically and the depth of your own experiences?

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.

What on earth does that mean though? Your own "steady ship" in my view is largely a world of words.

That's why [your protestations to the contrary] you only really feel comfortable in this exchange up on the skyhooks. You come down to earth only long enough to remind me that "in the future" your own "progressive" behaviors will be the norm. Or, if not, the species is doomed.

Or so it seems to me.

Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the 'subject' within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.

From my vantage point the subject [in the is/ought world] revolves around the ideas that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas, in my opinion, your own narrative regarding "I" revolves more around the ideas I raise here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And until you intertwine your conflicted interactions with others in an exchange that is more in alignment with my own abortion trajectory above, we are likely to remain out of sync.

While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the 'subject' loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.

Perhaps, but what the objectivists then do is to anchor "I" here [in the is/ought world] to one or another font/foundation: God, reason, deontology, ideology, nature.

One or another intellectual rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

[The Eternal Warrior]

I am irrational and this is somehow rationalized as defined irrational behavior based in emotionality few understand completely based in vast complexity. My irrationality stomps your rationality into the dust because I, and you, and everyone else, thinks erratically. Any semblance of 'rational' thought is but a momentary thing.

[Prismatic567]

But existentialism is all talk, no to-do-list [actual skill development] and many of its elements are very misleading.

Come on, let's not forget that historically existentialism in the 20th century was in part a reaction to the horrors of World War II. Folks like Camus, Sartre and deBeauvoir were in ways large and small embedded in the French resistance to Hitler and the Nazis.

I agree the reactions of the continental existentialists were rational in relation to the issues they raised, e.g. rigid religions, logical positivists, objectivists, Scientism and others, and from there brought attention to the subject which objectivists has ignored.

That is the furthest they go, but they [the continental existentialists] do not introduce any to-do-list and relevant knowledge for the subject to resolve [via skills] what is highlighted by the existentialists themselves.

Note in contrast to the Buddha [existential] introduced a wide range of practices to suit different individuals to develop themselves via rewiring in the brain to deal with the existential issues, especially the mother of all existential problems, i.e. the existential crisis.

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy "out in a particular world" is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir's novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

Yes, flesh out [good but not enough] but that is 'talk' only but no suggested actions to improve the individual psychological states.

On the other hand, I suspect your own "to-do" list revolves more around the objectivist credo: "one of us" vs. "one of them"

You have a short term memory problems? Note reminder, I am not an objectivist.
I have stated elsewhere, my 'to-do' list involves the acquisition of the relevant knowledge [as wide and deep as possible] and complemented with wide range of physical and mental exercises and actions to rewire my brain to stabilize my psychological state, e.g. equanimity.

Me? As I once noted previously here...

I was born and bred into the belly of the working class beast...worked in the shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army...Vietnam. Six plus years of college. 25 plus years of political activism. Marriage. Parental responsibilities. Paying the bills. Intellectual pursuits of all sorts.

I've had ample opportunity to actually "test" the ideas I've bumped into. And then to come up with new philosophical configurations all my own.

How about you? How do you connect the dots here between what you think philosophically and the depth of your own experiences?

What you have done was realizing the shortfall of religion via existentialism which dug a deeper hole for you to fall in and trapped therein.

The actions you listed above [shipyards, the steel mills. And then the army, etc.] do not directly develop the necessary faculties, skills and mental tenacity in the brain to deal with the turbulences from the existential crisis.

The necessary actions entail 'spiritual' knowledge and practices, e.g. breathing exercises, meditation [various], visualizations, mindfulness [specific and at all times], etc. and etc. which are specifically targeted to improve the necessary mental skills to deal with those inherent existential issues.

Then I tap folks like you on the shoulder and ask them to note how this is not applicable to them. With respect to their own interactions in the is/ought world.

You have constructed a very flimsy raft, there is no way I will step into it when I am already on a very steady ship.

What on earth does that mean though? Your own "steady ship" in my view is largely a world of words.

That's why [your protestations to the contrary] you only really feel comfortable in this exchange up on the skyhooks. You come down to earth only long enough to remind me that "in the future" your own "progressive" behaviors will be the norm. Or, if not, the species is doomed.

Or so it seems to me.

"Steady ship" is equivalent to mental stability to deal with the mental turbulences is life especially the inherent unavoidable existential ones.
I recognized which are the necessary neurons to develop for this state and follow a to-do list to improve on it.

Western existentialism started with Kierkegaard who introduced the importance of the 'subject' within in the practice of theism rather than focusing and looking outside to a God, paradise and hell out there.

From my vantage point the subject [in the is/ought world] revolves around the ideas that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas, in my opinion, your own narrative regarding "I" revolves more around the ideas I raise here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And until you intertwine your conflicted interactions with others in an exchange that is more in alignment with my own abortion trajectory above, we are likely to remain out of sync.

The problem is you don't even understand the problem you have fallen into.
Recognize the real issues and root causes of your problem, resolve them and they will naturally be in sync with me.

While Kierkegaard still kept one foot with God [at least some psychological anchor albeit fictitious], the problem with the subsequent Continental existentialists was they cut the 'subject' loose without making any attempt to develop an anchor to stabilize the subject and thus throwing all those [moths] who adopt their philosophy [Continental existentialism] into a limbo, lost or got burnt.

Perhaps, but what the objectivists then do is to anchor "I" here [in the is/ought world] to one or another font/foundation: God, reason, deontology, ideology, nature.

One or another intellectual rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

The above is your invention.

What is critical is for one to understand the nature of one existential problems then act to secure and anchor the "I" to deal with the rising existential turbulences.

[iambiguous]

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy "out in a particular world" is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir's novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

Yes, flesh out [good but not enough] but that is 'talk' only but no suggested actions to improve the individual psychological states.

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

On the other hand, I suspect your own "to-do" list revolves more around the objectivist credo: "one of us" vs. "one of them"

You have a short term memory problems? Note reminder, I am not an objectivist.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

I have stated elsewhere, my 'to-do' list involves the acquisition of the relevant knowledge [as wide and deep as possible] and complemented with wide range of physical and mental exercises and actions to rewire my brain to stabilize my psychological state, e.g. equanimity.

Okay, do that. And as you go about the business of living your life let me know when you actually come upon a context in which others challenge your values. Or when you come upon someone "in the news" who embodies values not deemed "progressive".

That's the discussion I've been waiting for.

Instead, over and again you come back to one or another rendition of this:

The necessary actions entail 'spiritual' knowledge and practices, e.g. breathing exercises, meditation [various], visualizations, mindfulness [specific and at all times], etc. and etc. which are specifically targeted to improve the necessary mental skills to deal with those inherent existential issues.

Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn't sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.

All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down "in the future", the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.

[Prismatic567]

In fact, in my opinion, the best account of existentialism as a substantive philosophy "out in a particular world" is conveyed in Simone de Beauvoir's novel The Blood Of Others. Basically it is an attempt to flesh out the moral ambiguities embedded in a world that she interpreted philosophically in The Ethics Of Amibiguity.

Yes, flesh out [good but not enough] but that is 'talk' only but no suggested actions to improve the individual psychological states.

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

I don't deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.

On the other hand, I suspect your own "to-do" list revolves more around the objectivist credo: "one of us" vs. "one of them"

You have a short term memory problems? Note reminder, I am not an objectivist.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Perhaps you can explain in this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193807

I have stated elsewhere, my 'to-do' list involves the acquisition of the relevant knowledge [as wide and deep as possible] and complemented with wide range of physical and mental exercises and actions to rewire my brain to stabilize my psychological state, e.g. equanimity.

Okay, do that. And as you go about the business of living your life let me know when you actually come upon a context in which others challenge your values. Or when you come upon someone "in the news" who embodies values not deemed "progressive".

That's the discussion I've been waiting for.

Btw, people are challenging my views all the time, note Phyllo, and others.
I have no big issue on this.
Everyone is free to express their views and where it challenges my views and if I am interested I will respond accordingly. No big issue.
One big issue I have is when people [like Snark, JSS, Aminius] throw irrelevant one-liners without supporting justifications and are off topic.

Instead, over and again you come back to one or another rendition of this:

The necessary actions entail 'spiritual' knowledge and practices, e.g. breathing exercises, meditation [various], visualizations, mindfulness [specific and at all times], etc. and etc. which are specifically targeted to improve the necessary mental skills to deal with those inherent existential issues.

Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn't sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.

All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down "in the future", the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I think the most effective suggestion is they start cultivating a state of equanimity and perform some self psycho-analysis exercises.

One of my problem is this;
I do have the expectation religions especially theistic should be got rid off immediately, NOW! so that there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.
Because I have a sufficient state of equanimity, I understand my expectations are not realistic at present but only in the future >50, >75 years or >. I modulate my emotions [may be triggered naturally] do not go haywire because my expectations are not met.
While I discuss how to get rid of religions [with fool proof replacements] in the future, I have no problem accepting people who are religious and will even recommend someone to take up religion if that is the most appropriate thing for them to do NOW.

If you note the above carefully, what is critical as a base is a state of equanimity of an effective degree to deal with the related issue plus all the necessary knowledge of knowing and doing.

I understand the fundamental grounds of all religions [theistic religions] is psychological and thus must be dealt with psychologically. If they do not take the psychological approach the problem will always be there. However, based on current trend the masses will be convinced they can resolve the existential dilemma psychologically as what the Eastern spiritualities has done.

[iambiguous]

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

I don't deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

Really, come on, what on earth does this mean? Relating to what particular context construed from what particular conflicting moral and political points of view? That part is veritably bursting at the seams in The Blood Of Others.

Yet it barely shows up at all in your own didactic/scholastic "analysis".

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.

Or, perhaps, the problem with existentialists is that they root "real action" in the "ethics of ambiguity".

The talk exchanged by the characters in her novel always revolved around actual choices -- actual behaviors that precipitated actual consequences.

After all, there really was a French Resistance to the Nazis.

Something that you avoid at all cost. Why? Because actual human interactions here and now [rather than in the future] beget actual conflciting goods that are able to be defended in conflicting moral and political narratives embedded in conflicting assumptions about human interactions.

On the other hand, I suspect your own "to-do" list revolves more around the objectivist credo: "one of us" vs. "one of them"

Btw, people are challenging my views all the time, note Phyllo, and others.
I have no big issue on this.

Okay, link me to such a discussion. I can only react to it by comparing and contrasting it to the manner in which I construe folks challenging each others values.

Then we are back to the abortion clinic. You are relating this to the folks on both sides of the conflagration. For some reason though it just doesn't sink in. On the other hand, they are stuck in the present where the actual existential parameters of this particular conflicted good are still very much around.

All I can do for them is to note this. And then to suggest that until your own progressive Middle-Way behaviors are finally pinned down "in the future", the best of all possible worlds may still be moderation, negotiation and compromise.

I think the most effective suggestion is they start cultivating a state of equanimity and perform some self psycho-analysis exercises.

And again: That is what both sides are likely to agree with! And then they will assure us that if one does this, they will see things as they really are. As they do. But if they don't see things as they do, then clearly they are doing something wrong.

Which is then encompassed in an intellectual contraption like this:

I do have the expectation religions especially theistic should be got rid off immediately, NOW! so that there will be no more theistic-based evils and violence.
Because I have a sufficient state of equanimity, I understand my expectations are not realistic at present but only in the future >50, >75 years or >. I modulate my emotions [may be triggered naturally] do not go haywire because my expectations are not met.
While I discuss how to get rid of religions [with fool proof replacements] in the future, I have no problem accepting people who are religious and will even recommend someone to take up religion if that is the most appropriate thing for them to do NOW.

If you note the above carefully, what is critical as a base is a state of equanimity of an effective degree to deal with the related issue plus all the necessary knowledge of knowing and doing.

Yeah, right. It's all as simple as that. In your head, for example.

[Prismatic567]

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

I don't deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

Really, come on, what on earth does this mean? Relating to what particular context construed from what particular conflicting moral and political points of view? That part is veritably bursting at the seams in The Blood Of Others.

Yet it barely shows up at all in your own didactic/scholastic "analysis".

Or, rather, so it seems to me.

As I had stated I don't prefer to deal with particulars [specific problems] as that could be infinite.
What I have been proposing is a universal model of 'how to solve any existential problem that arise' i.e. the generic problem solving technique.
Point is you have to understand this model and plan to put it into action.

The problem with existentialists in general is they do talk but do not show any direction and propose real actions to deal with the problem.

Or, perhaps, the problem with existentialists is that they root "real action" in the "ethics of ambiguity".

The talk exchanged by the characters in her novel always revolved around actual choices -- actual behaviors that precipitated actual consequences.

After all, there really was a French Resistance to the Nazis.

Something that you avoid at all cost. Why? Because actual human interactions here and now [rather than in the future] beget actual conflicting goods that are able to be defended in conflicting moral and political narratives embedded in conflicting assumptions about human interactions.

That is not the kind of action I was expecting. No one was waiting for existentialists to ask them to resist the Nazis. Any average person with a good moral compass will naturally resist and fight the Nazis.

Inspiring people to be resistance to an ideology or go to war is not the optimal solution.
In relation to existentialism, what I was implying is a course of action that will stabilize a person psychological stability, self-esteem and other qualities so that they can tackle whatever problem that arise in their life.
In this case, if a person has to go to a justified war, that person will fight with mental stability rather than in a panic state.

Yeah, right. It's all as simple as that. In your head, for example.

Something is very wrong here.
It is very unfortunate for you that yours is a lost cause, i.e. every points discussed end up 'in your head', i.e. an intellectual 'contraption'.

What I have proposed is definitely in my head -that is the best I can do in a discussion - but what I had discussed is always accompanied by a proposed course of action.
The proper thing for you to do [in this philosophical] is to analyze and critique my proposals whether they are applicable or feasible for the future.
In addition you seriously have to take action to rewire what is in your head.

It is as if you have a medical problem your spouse take you to a doctor.
The doctor prescribed medicines and recommend strongly you must do certain exercises.
Now your response to the doctor is 'in your head' and you threw away the medicine and refuse to do the exercises recommended.

The right course of action is you should do your own research and investigate the medical problem you have and understand the problem as much as possible from all databases on the issue and all views.
Then when you visit the doctor you will have a thorough understanding of the problem and then you make the decision to do or not to do [seek other opinions] what the doctor recommended.

[Prismatic567]

Iambiguous,

You should reflect whether you have something like Munchausen Syndrome related to some psychological trauma.

Factitious disorder imposed on self, also known as Munchausen syndrome, is a factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.

Munchausen syndrome fits within the subclass of factitious disorder with predominantly physical signs and symptoms, but patients also have a history of recurrent hospitalization, travelling, and dramatic, extremely improbable tales of their past experiences.[2] The condition derives its name from Baron Munchausen.

Your strategy in the related discussion is, whatever views from from the other side always end up with 'in your head' thus your intention is to keep the problem [whatever that is] you have in suspension and unresolved forever so to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.

Maybe ... that is the main issue?

[phyllo]

Any average person with a good moral compass will naturally resist and fight the Nazis.

That's not a given.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Any average person with a good moral compass will naturally resist and fight the Nazis.

This sentence pretty much confirms that prismatic is a moral objectivist, or in Iambiguous' terms and objectivist. This is not an insult, to me at least, but I think Prismatic and Iambiguous we can consider the matter determined.

[Jakob]

Heidegger linked 'to exist' as 'dasein'

Actually Heidegger says Dasein is to exist with a purpose. Hence Being and Time. The purpose is the center of the existence. One "is there" (ist da) in terms of what one is heading for, which of course alludes to a lot of cycle-theory.
This connects to his philosophy of the 4 quadrants.

IF Heidegger is a confirmed atheist, why are you arguing against my OP, God is an Impossibilty. Are you a theists or agnostic?

Believe it or not, Heidegger is a theist.

[Prismatic567]

Heidegger linked 'to exist' as 'dasein'

Actually Heidegger says Dasein is to exist with a purpose. Hence Being and Time. The purpose is the center of the existence. One "is there" (ist da) in terms of what one is heading for, which of course alludes to a lot of cycle-theory.
This connects to his philosophy of the 4 quadrants.

I can agree existence with a purpose, but not a teleological or ontological one from God.

IF Heidegger is a confirmed atheist, why are you arguing against my OP, God is an Impossibilty. Are you a theists or agnostic?

Believe it or not, Heidegger is a theist.

This point is contentious,

Note this comment;

In other words: science is leaving humanity (Dasein) behind, and ultimately human destiny is incompatible with the ends of science. If a god exists, it is not known to philosophy, and certainly philosophy’s offspring (science) doesn’t care to ask about it. At all.

You could say Heidegger’s an atheist, but it’s more cleanly expressed in the old Zork-style computer gaming phrase: “I see no god here.” If that means “agnostic” to you, okay. But agnostic doesn’t begin to cover it.

Other more traditionally-minded figures want to turn Heidegger into an out-and-out theist (Caputo, for example, who attempted to say the same of Derrida), if not a Christian, but the answer to all that is no.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Heidegger-an-atheist

Note Heidegger's view on religion, i.e. no man is without religion as long as s/he has faith in something including Scientific theories.

[iambiguous]

Again:

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

I don't deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir's approach to the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". Though I clearly understand the psychological comfort and consolation embedded in the intellectual contraption that propels you seamlessly into the future. After all, a facsimile once propelled me seamlessly into the future too.

So, in that respect, as with the folks able to believe in God, you win. I have access to none of those soothing, seamless narratives now.

[iambiguous]

Actually Heidegger says Dasein is to exist with a purpose. Hence Being and Time. The purpose is the center of the existence. One "is there" (ist da) in terms of what one is heading for, which of course alludes to a lot of cycle-theory.
This connects to his philosophy of the 4 quadrants.

Just a reminder that, as I noted on page 1 of this thread...

I tend to eschew the exploration of Dasein with a capital D. Once you capitalize it, it becomes this scholastic Thing that Heidegger set out to describe [to encompass, to capture] as a "serious philosopher" in a tome. It becomes an intellectual contraption stuffed into an Analysis of Being and Time.

Or so it seems to me.

I am only interested in the individual dasein. A particular man or woman who is thrown adventitiously at birth into a particular world. And, in being thrown there and not here, in being thrown then and not now, how is that a factor in exploring the values of individuals?

Believe it or not, Heidegger is a theist.

Just as I have my own rendition of dasein, you apparently have your own rendition of theism. Please explain to us how and why Heidegger was a theist.

The only way I can imagine it is in suggesting that Hitler's narrative in Mein Kampf might be construed as a secular Scripture. A religious narrative in a No God world.

[Prismatic567]

Again:

From my frame of mind, however, when you speak of progressive Middle-Way behaviors in the future, you don't seem to recognize the extent to which that too is all just "talk".

Only her "talk" was embedded in the actual experiences of those she wrote about.

I don't deny what I have been proposing is all talk.
However the difference is what I proposed for the future is about a course of action to take to deal with the anticipated problems.

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir's approach to the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". Though I clearly understand the psychological comfort and consolation embedded in the intellectual contraption that propels you seamlessly into the future. After all, a facsimile once propelled me seamlessly into the future too.

So, in that respect, as with the folks able to believe in God, you win. I have access to none of those soothing, seamless narratives now.

It is a crazy thought to believe in your above views. "agony of choice" in life - that mental pain is similar to a masochist's preference for physical pain in a sexual encounter. I believe your belief and indulgence is a kind of perversion.

It is very unfortunate you have not noticed the normal and essential trend of humanity to have concern regarding past historical and existing problems and concern for how these problem will effect humanity [or at least yourself as an individual].

It is from the above trend of progressiveness that humanity is able to produce all the net-positive effects for the good of humanity to face further potential threats to the preservation of the human species.

[phyllo]

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir's approach to the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty".

Why are you going to full out nihilism?

[Meno_]

If I may interject , that leaving Nihilism or staying with it is like the conflicting values theory. The centrifugal pull into the Dasein is stronger then the centripetal , socially dubious, politically unfounded , psychologically suspect one . This pull inside into the transcendental certainty of some model self is safer then the relative objectionable parts and pieces from which every one has to reassemble some kind of unity. Its a matter of which pull draws stronger , in, or out. If the choice is sustained too long by indecision , the consequences are not hard to imagine or, predict, except the few who can sustain such duality in some form and/or fashion.

Man is not free as has been suggested in mid 20 th. century, he is bound, not unlike Prometheus, in an eternal repetitive cycle , and he is beginning to know and feel, where in the great turning of the wheel of life, he should position himself. If he does not, his supposed freedom will be an illusion.

[Prismatic567]

If I may interject , that leaving Nihilism or staying with it is like the conflicting values theory. The centrifugal pull into the Dasein is stronger then the centripetal , socially dubious, politically unfounded , psychologically suspect one . This pull inside into the transcendental certainty of some model self is safer then the relative objectionable parts and pieces from which every one has to reassemble some kind of unity. Its a matter of which pull draws stronger , in, or out. If the choice is sustained too long by indecision , the consequences are not hard to imagine or, predict, except the few who can sustain such duality in some form and/or fashion.

Man is not free as has been suggested in mid 20 th. century, he is bound, not unlike Prometheus, in an eternal repetitive cycle , and he is beginning to know and feel, where in the great turning of the wheel of life, he should position himself. If he does not, his supposed freedom will be an illusion.

In contrast to the earlier philosophers [Greeks and other] the problem with the later philosophers is, to differentiate and get recognition they come up with new labels and in a way complicate matters.
I agree there is need to bring in new concepts and reframe philosophical problems but I think Heidegger's fundamental theme is too fanciful.

Dasein = "being there" or "presence" (German: da "there"; sein "being"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence".
Human existence is leverage upon two main forces, i.e. Nature or Nurture.

Nature re humans is driven by its collective history [from 4 billion years to the present] embedded in the DNA.
Nurture is also influenced by nature collectively and the environmental conditions.

The centrifugal pull you refer to above is actually the centrifugal pull of the 'nature' elements of embedded instincts, emotions and other deeper neural impulses.
The centripetal pull is influenced by parts of the later brain faculties, i.e. reason, intellect, social, and others.

One example of the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is the sexual drive which can extend to lust and manifest as evil but this lust can modulated by the centripetal moral and rational drive.

One objective view of the above is the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is driven by neurons evolved from billions of years and thus comprised with many [millions] strands and very strong neuron.
The centripetal pull of humans evolved in a later phase i.e. appx. 6 million years and thus less powerful than the centrifugal pull. However the centripetal pull has the benefit of intelligence, rationality, critical thinking and morality to inhibit the strong impulses of the centrifugal primal forces.

The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the 'higher' faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.

[phyllo]

The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the 'higher' faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.

Existentialism is another disease that needs to be "cured"?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Then we are stuck. I prefer Ms. Beauvoir's approach to the "agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". Though I clearly understand the psychological comfort and consolation embedded in the intellectual contraption that propels you seamlessly into the future. After all, a facsimile once propelled me seamlessly into the future too.

So, in that respect, as with the folks able to believe in God, you win. I have access to none of those soothing, seamless narratives now.

But you have an unsoothing narrative, at least on the surface it is unsoothing. For a nihilist there should be no 'agony of choice in the face of uncertainty'. In fact there isn't uncertainty, there is 'no way of knowing'. Nothing to wrestle with. If I am uncertain whether it is good to have an abortion, then there can be agony. I think it is ethical, but I am uncertain. But if I think there is no handhold at all, no way to judge, or in fact no ultimate right choice, I can do what I want. A nihilist is actually rather certain that one cannot know AND/OR there is no right choice. Hence no agony. Now there might be some agony over determining consquences, practical issues, but no ethical uncertainty. It is a category error to a nihilist since it implies probabilities.

De Beauvoir, despite her theoretical nihilism, did resist the Nazis and Sartre judge Camus rather harshly. She argues that she resisted since the Nazis were claiming to have some objective justification. But that's just BS, because she did not resist other groups that also claimed that, because she did not consider them evil.

[Meno_]

If I may interject , that leaving Nihilism or staying with it is like the conflicting values theory. The centrifugal pull into the Dasein is stronger then the centripetal , socially dubious, politically unfounded , psychologically suspect one . This pull inside into the transcendental certainty of some model self is safer then the relative objectionable parts and pieces from which every one has to reassemble some kind of unity. Its a matter of which pull draws stronger , in, or out. If the choice is sustained too long by indecision , the consequences are not hard to imagine or, predict, except the few who can sustain such duality in some form and/or fashion.

Man is not free as has been suggested in mid 20 th. century, he is bound, not unlike Prometheus, in an eternal repetitive cycle , and he is beginning to know and feel, where in the great turning of the wheel of life, he should position himself. If he does not, his supposed freedom will be an illusion.

In contrast to the earlier philosophers [Greeks and other] the problem with the later philosophers is, to differentiate and get recognition they come up with new labels and in a way complicate matters.
I agree there is need to bring in new concepts and reframe philosophical problems but I think Heidegger's fundamental theme is too fanciful.

Dasein = "being there" or "presence" (German: da "there"; sein "being"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence".
Human existence is leverage upon two main forces, i.e. Nature or Nurture.

Nature re humans is driven by its collective history [from 4 billion years to the present] embedded in the DNA.
Nurture is also influenced by nature collectively and the environmental conditions.

The centrifugal pull you refer to above is actually the centrifugal pull of the 'nature' elements of embedded instincts, emotions and other deeper neural impulses.
The centripetal pull is influenced by parts of the later brain faculties, i.e. reason, intellect, social, and others.

One example of the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is the sexual drive which can extend to lust and manifest as evil but this lust can modulated by the centripetal moral and rational drive.

One objective view of the above is the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is driven by neurons evolved from billions of years and thus comprised with many [millions] strands and very strong neuron.
The centripetal pull of humans evolved in a later phase i.e. appx. 6 million years and thus less powerful than the centrifugal pull. However the centripetal pull has the benefit of intelligence, rationality, critical thinking and morality to inhibit the strong impulses of the centrifugal primal forces.

The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the 'higher' faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.

But wouldn't it be fallacious to think that one can modulate such impulses or even that one should, naturally? If the case could even be made?

There need not be misunderstanding on this issue , for there are levels and levels of universalization of the complex issues dealing with this, ranging all the way from simple , archaic to involved and esoteric, and the comingling is probably the basis for differentiating the adherence of the Dasein forming structural division with lingual-positivist analysis, some psychologists talking it to the extreme level of cutting off all nexus by virtue of what they call: 'rationalization'

[Meno_]

If I may interject , that leaving Nihilism or staying with it is like the conflicting values theory. The centrifugal pull into the Dasein is stronger then the centripetal , socially dubious, politically unfounded , psychologically suspect one . This pull inside into the transcendental certainty of some model self is safer then the relative objectionable parts and pieces from which every one has to reassemble some kind of unity. Its a matter of which pull draws stronger , in, or out. If the choice is sustained too long by indecision , the consequences are not hard to imagine or, predict, except the few who can sustain such duality in some form and/or fashion.

Man is not free as has been suggested in mid 20 th. century, he is bound, not unlike Prometheus, in an eternal repetitive cycle , and he is beginning to know and feel, where in the great turning of the wheel of life, he should position himself. If he does not, his supposed freedom will be an illusion.

In contrast to the earlier philosophers [Greeks and other] the problem with the later philosophers is, to differentiate and get recognition they come up with new labels and in a way complicate matters.
I agree there is need to bring in new concepts and reframe philosophical problems but I think Heidegger's fundamental theme is too fanciful.

Dasein = "being there" or "presence" (German: da "there"; sein "being"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence".
Human existence is leverage upon two main forces, i.e. Nature or Nurture.

Nature re humans is driven by its collective history [from 4 billion years to the present] embedded in the DNA.
Nurture is also influenced by nature collectively and the environmental conditions.

The centrifugal pull you refer to above is actually the centrifugal pull of the 'nature' elements of embedded instincts, emotions and other deeper neural impulses.
The centripetal pull is influenced by parts of the later brain faculties, i.e. reason, intellect, social, and others.

One example of the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is the sexual drive which can extend to lust and manifest as evil but this lust can modulated by the centripetal moral and rational drive.

One objective view of the above is the instinctive and natural centrifugal pull is driven by neurons evolved from billions of years and thus comprised with many [millions] strands and very strong neuron.
The centripetal pull of humans evolved in a later phase i.e. appx. 6 million years and thus less powerful than the centrifugal pull. However the centripetal pull has the benefit of intelligence, rationality, critical thinking and morality to inhibit the strong impulses of the centrifugal primal forces.

The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the 'higher' faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.

In language of philosophy, Husserl and Sartre disagreed over a structural problem that Nietzche foresaw.
Transendentalism was the view that issues remain regardless of whether a third or middle way can be found according to Husserl. The contexts within which one finds ones self inbregards to the conflict of values is reducible , into more elemental logical systems , it need not reduce into the familiar good/bad universal. This is what the positivists are saying with their propositional tie ins.

Are propositions resembling so that they cohere into structural unity, in spite of having to assume certain missing points which may or may not at one point closed the the argument?

Sartre disagrees with this transandence. Into meaning. He sets men free to justify their values upon which their own understanding will be sufficient, they are all self thought and responsibility to themself is justification enough to overcome their sense of doubt over the choices between values they make.

The glue is for Sartre is the extension of responsibility into the social sphere. They are responsible for each other.

Its not a question of the lingual structural problem with philosophy , but the historical movement that raises the bar from the self toward the other. Positivism also does points. to this thinking and also passes on the central concept of the Thing-In-Itself toward the Other.

That Nietzsche set the stage , in my mind, at this time, is of no doubt, but he left open the structural details . He did little else than to open the floodgates to those who come after him, to overcome the gap, the abyss , that Hegel and Kant left.

Existential nihilization is the position where Nietzsche left it, both the so called eidectic and phenomenal reductions have been proved inadequate to move Existence forward , but that does not mean that the implementation of those tools will be left abandoned.

Some accusation toward the language of philosophy losing figurative basis may have some relevance , but meaning,language meta language. have traditionally been the mother load of ideas , and applications and tie ins come up, contextually, wirhout which philosophical movements can be said to be meaningless.

[Prismatic567]

The problem with existentialism is; it is all talk [descriptions, concepts, fanciful terms] but do not understand the actual mechanics and processes underlying human nature and thus unable to propose solutions to how to use the 'higher' faculties of the brain to modulate the lower primal impulses.

Existentialism is another disease that needs to be "cured"?

Not 'cure' as in 'eliminating' such an philosophy.

Existentialism does serves its purposes in finding [diagnose] where the disease is about and talk about it, but not in great depth into the proximate causes, plus it does not prescribe effective solutions to deal with the existential problems it expose.

Therefore existentialism must understand and express its limitations.

The problem with continental existentialists is, while exposing the flaws of their so-called 'objectivists,' they do not provide effective solutions plus many think too highly of their version of existentialism and stick to it dogmatically to their own detriment, e.g. Iambiguous.

[Prismatic567]

But wouldn't it be fallacious to think that one can modulate such impulses or even that one should, naturally? If the case could even be made?

Animals are basically instinctual and act instantaneously and spontaneously without thinking. If they are on heat, a male animal will just rush to f..k any female within sight or smell.
On the other hand, humans [majority, there are exceptions] on "heat" do not rush to f..k any female on sight because they are modulating their sexual drives.
DNA wise all humans do have a 'modulating' function but of different strengths depending on conditions.

There need not be misunderstanding on this issue , for there are levels and levels of universalization of the complex issues dealing with this, ranging all the way from simple , archaic to involved and esoteric, and the comingling is probably the basis for differentiating the adherence of the Dasein forming structural division with lingual-positivist analysis, some psychologists talking it to the extreme level of cutting off all nexus by virtue of what they call: 'rationalization'

Yes, there is a hierarchy [levels and levels] of impulses within the human brain. Most of these impulses [sex, hunger, anger, various emotions] can be modulated by the majority.
But there is one fundamental drive, i.e. the existential drive that is not easy to be modulated by all to an effective standard because it pulsate very subliminally beyond the conscious mind.

So my point is, humans should understand the mechanics of the existential problems [as exposed by existentialism and others] and establish effective techniques to modulate these existential impulses effectively.
Continental existentialism only exposes and describe the existential problems but do not provide effective solutions for the individual[s] to deal with the exposed problems.