What is Dasein?

[iambiguous]

Thus it is my contention that the moral objectivist may well be concerned more with acquiring [subconsciously?] a soothing psychological serenity that comes with believing that this can be accomplished, then in actually demonstrating that his or her own moral narrative does in fact necessarily reflect the optimal point of view.

It's also your contention that :

- the "moral objectivist" out to be concerned with that "his or her own moral narrative does in fact necessarily reflect the optimal point of view."

- the "moral objectivist" ought to spend his time demonstrating it

- the "moral objectivist" ought to demonstrate it for ALL men and women

- the "moral objectivist" ought to demonstrate it to the point that becomes an obligation for them ALL to follow.

Which seem to be a preposterous set of demands that you are putting on the "moral objectivist".

Perhaps you have designed it so that the "moral objectivist" always fails.

On the other hand, it is also my contention that the moral objectivist may well not be concerned with these things.

And that is wrapped up in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

The point then is to make a distinction between what we are in fact able to demonstrate as true for all rational men and women, and that which seems more embedded [to me] in one or another subjective/subjunctive "existential contraption".

Like this one for example:

But what if, instead, the workman picks up the hammer and uses it to kill someone; and is then able to rationalize/justify it "in his head" as "the right thing to do"?

This is the part where [Heidegger's] take on Dasein most intrigues me. The fact of his killing a perceived enemy/threat can be established.

But how is it established that this behavior is either moral or immoral? That all rational men and women are obligated to construe it as either one or the other?

How does that not revolve around a particular context understood in particular [and often conflicting] ways by particular individuals who have come upon their own moral narrative existentially given the sequence of actual experiences they have come to encompass/embody in a particular life?

If, instead of a workman using a hammer to kill an adversary, it is a soldier using a rifle to kill a Jew -- "out in a world" that Heidegger himself inhabited -- how are philosophers able to establish either behavior as either necessarily right or necessarily wrong?

In a No God world?

On the other hand, in a manner I still do not fully understand, your own narrative seems to unfold in a God world.

Using this example or one of your own, lets explore our respective narratives regarding the interaction between value judgments and identity out in a particular context.

[phyllo]

On the other hand, it is also my contention that the moral objectivist may well not be concerned with these things.

Well, if a "moral objectivist" does not insist that ALL men and women are obligated to think as he does, then his only "flaw" would appear to be that he thinks that he can make a right and wrong decision about morals. And unless a person is curled up, paralyzed, in a fetal position, everyone thinks that he can make a right and wrong decision about morals.

For all practical purposes, what's the difference between a moral objectivist,a relativist and a subjectivist?

On the other hand, in a manner I still do not fully understand, your own narrative seems to unfold in a God world.

I can't help that ... God either exists or God does not exist ... either/or.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, it is also my contention that the moral objectivist may well not be concerned with these things.

Well, if a "moral objectivist" does not insist that ALL men and women are obligated to think as he does, then his only "flaw" would appear to be that he thinks that he can make a right and wrong decision about morals.

You call it a "flaw", I don't. After all, there is always the possibility that the moral objectivist's frame of mind is not flawed at all.

Besides, how can a "flaw" be grappled with realistically in an is/ought world construed by me as an exchange of existential contraptions?

Mine being no less one. I am providing folks with my own understanding of objectivism. Here and now. And I am inviting them to explore this out in the world of actual conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting goods derived from conflicting assessments of God and religion.

Dasein is merely a component of that for me.

And unless a person is curled up, paralyzed, in a fetal position, everyone thinks that he can make a right and wrong decision about morals.

I do know this: that for many years I was certainly one of them. Just not anymore.

My point here is that whether there either is or is not an objective morality, if men and women choose to interact socially, politically and/or economically, one or another set of rules must be established.

Intertwined in a profoundly complex amalgamation of genes and memes, and based on customs or traditions or folkways or mores or laws, certain behaviors will be rewarded while others will be punished. But, sans God, how are folks like philosophers able to establish moral obligations here?

For all practical purposes, what's the difference between a moral objectivist,a relativist and a subjectivist?

What...theoretically? conceptually? analytically?

In other words, for all practical puroposes, let's yank these narratives -- embedded in any number of "general descriptions" -- down out of the epistemological clouds and situate them out in the world of actual flesh and blood conflagrations.

Pick one.

On the other hand, in a manner I still do not fully understand, your own narrative seems to unfold in a God world.

I can't help that ... God either exists or God does not exist ... either/or.

Okay, but how are our individual narratives here not also embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?

How does your own "transcend" it?

[phyllo]

You call it a "flaw", I don't. After all, there is always the possibility that the moral objectivist's frame of mind is not flawed at all.

Besides, how can a "flaw" be grappled with realistically in an is/ought world construed by me as an exchange of existential contraptions?

Mine being no less one. I am providing folks with my own understanding of objectivism. Here and now. And I am inviting them to explore this out in the world of actual conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting goods derived from conflicting assessments of God and religion.

I call it a flaw in order to have some sort of discussion here. There has to be some sort or starting point, some sort of point of discussion. I don't think it's a flaw. I also don't make hundreds of posts about objectivists. But you do.

Sure, go in the direction of claiming that you never criticized or found fault with objectivists.

What have your posts been about? Just passing along some non-judgemental information?

Do you really think that's how you come across?

I do know this: that for many years I was certainly one of them. Just not anymore.

So here you are saying what? That when you make decisions you don't decide what is right and wrong? But you still make a decision?

What...theoretically? conceptually? analytically?

Notice what you did there. I asked "For all practical purposes, what's the difference between a moral objectivist,a relativist and a subjectivist?".

You don't answer. You shifted away from "practical purpose". Then you used the exact same phrase "In other words, for all practical puroposes, let's yank these narratives ..."

... a phrase that stumped you in the first place.

[iambiguous]

I call it a flaw in order to have some sort of discussion here. There has to be some sort or starting point, some sort of point of discussion. I don't think it's a flaw. I also don't make hundreds of posts about objectivists. But you do.

Okay, neither of us think it's inherently a flaw. Although it may well actually be one. If one or another objectivist is able to clearly establish that their moral narrative and/or political agenda does in fact reflect the optimal point of view, then those who refuse to share it would be flawed.

Right?

What I am still unclear about, however, are the components of your argument here. While I make my own abundantly clear as you point out.

What I then pursue is a discussion with objectivists in which our respective points of view are embedded in a particular context relating to clearly conflicted behaviors revolving around clearly conflicted goods. How here are arguments said to be flawed? How here is that established?

Beyond, for example, insisting that Communism is flawed because your points of view establish that. And yet [it seems] they establish this only because they are your points of view. Based in part on your own particular set of experiences.

Like any defense of Communism is inherently flawed.

Sure, go in the direction of claiming that you never criticized or found fault with objectivists.

But I don't claim that. I note the historical connection between theological and secular dogmas and authoritarian/autocratic political contraptions. But I also note the dire consequences embedded in the "show me the money" political contraptions of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy in turn.

And only in harping on objectivism is there any possibility of encountering arguments [from them] that may well yank me up out of the hole that I am in. My "judgments" here are always recognized by me to be "existential contraptions".

I do know this: that for many years I was certainly one of them. Just not anymore.

So here you are saying what? That when you make decisions you don't decide what is right and wrong? But you still make a decision?

As I point out time and again, once you make the decision to interact with others socially, political and economically, you are going to encounter situations where values come into conflict. Now, you can construe these conflicts as "our side is right and their side is wrong", or as "we're right from our side, they're right from theirs".

But: I recognize that my own subjective/subjunctive decisions here are just political leaps of faith embedded in dasein.

Which is why I champion democracy and the rule of law: moderation, negotiation and compromise. Rather than might makes right or right makes might agendas. I just recognize in turn the role played by political economy out in the real world.

Now, how would you describe yours?

What...theoretically? conceptually? analytically?

Notice what you did there. I asked "For all practical purposes, what's the difference between a moral objectivist,a relativist and a subjectivist?".

You don't answer. You shifted away from "practical purpose". Then you used the exact same phrase "In other words, for all practical purposes, let's yank these narratives ..."

... a phrase that stumped you in the first place.

My point was that even when the discussion revolves around actual flesh and blood human interactions, many objectivists that I have come across refuse to bring the discussion down to earth. Instead they are more comfortable up in the scholastic clouds where the battles revolve more around definitions and the analytic technicalities of Durant's epistemologists.

Now, if you do want to discuss the practical differences between them then chose a context that most here will be familiar with and let's pursue it.

[phyllo]

Okay, neither of us think it's inherently a flaw.

Undoubtedly for different reasons.

If one or another objectivist is able to clearly establish that their moral narrative and/or political agenda does in fact reflect the optimal point of view, then those who refuse to share it would be flawed.

Right?

If a "moral subjectivist" or a "moral relativist", takes a position then he sees those who oppose it as flawed in some way. Right?

How can that not be part and parcel of taking a position?

Therefore, in practice there seems to be no difference between the three in that respect.

Beyond, for example, insisting that Communism is flawed because your points of view establish that. And yet [it seems] they establish this only because they are your points of view. Based in part on your own particular set of experiences.

Like any defense of Communism is inherently flawed.

Which effectively states that no reasons are sufficient to support any opinion or decision.

A completely useless and ineffective approach to life.

But I don't claim that.

You just said that they are not flawed.

And only in harping on objectivism is there any possibility of encountering arguments [from them] that may well yank me up out of the hole that I am in.

A ridiculous expectation. The way you have constructed your hole make it impossible for any argument to be effective.

As I point out time and again, once you make the decision to interact with others socially, political and economically, you are going to encounter situations where values come into conflict. Now, you can construe these conflicts as "our side is right and their side is wrong", or as "we're right from our side, they're right from theirs".

The question was merely about how you make a decision. Your answer is beside the point.

My point was that even when the discussion revolves around actual flesh and blood human interactions, many objectivists that I have come across refuse to bring the discussion down to earth.

The question was an opportunity for you to bring the definitions "down to earth". And you avoided doing so. You shifted to the abstract and said nothing.

Now, if you do want to discuss the practical differences between them then chose a context that most here will be familiar with and let's pursue it.

I now consider these to be empty invitations.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The question was merely about how you make a decision. Your answer is beside the point.

My point was that even when the discussion revolves around actual flesh and blood human interactions, many objectivists that I have come across refuse to bring the discussion down to earth.

The question was an opportunity for you to bring the definitions "down to earth". And you avoided doing so. You shifted to the abstract and said nothing. [/quote]This is my experience also. Further when asking about his own decision making in a specific online situation, he was incapable of addressing his own actions. This is far more concrete than what some woman should or should not do when pregnant, since all parties were actually present and the events were not general, but specific. He is happy to recount how he arrived at his current ironism, including in it some concrete experiences, yes. But refuses to bring his own behavior down to earth. He almost manages to say that he manages to cause suffering, yes, but considers this unavoidable and is not claiming that he knows this is a good thing. Even this would be an advance, though it does not explain why he would not avoid hurting others - which would fall into the is category - since he has no possible way of knowing (his position), if this suffering is for the greater good or good at all - which falls into the ought category. He is clearly proud that his cleverness presses what he calls objectivists into avoidence based on their fear (suffering), but does not seem to realize this fits rather poorly with his purported wish to know the good if it were possible. IOW he thinks other people should be concrete, but he need not be.

He further assumes that if one is not a nihilist or ironist one must be an objectivist. He cannot seem to get that one need not be either, since both positions are based on assumptions about the nature of reality that can and are challenged. Its the same old if they can't prove they are right, then I am right fallacy. Hence his complete lack of understanding that he also is making claims he needs to justify and he has not proved his claims by not being convinced by others.

[iambiguous]

If one or another objectivist is able to clearly establish that their moral narrative and/or political agenda does in fact reflect the optimal point of view, then those who refuse to share it would be flawed.

Right?

If a "moral subjectivist" or a "moral relativist", takes a position then he sees those who oppose it as flawed in some way. Right?

Here [again] we always get to the part where a moral narrative is in fact able to be established as the optimal point of view.

I have absolutely no illusion that in fact I can establish moral nihilism as the optimal frame of mind.

I would never argue that moral objectivists are flawed -- inherently, necessarily -- if they don't share my point of view.

Instead, I would ask them to bring their arguments down to earth in discussing a set of conflicting goods we might all be familiar with.

Case in point: Trump's wall.

There are any number of objectivists on both sides of this issue who will insist those who don't share their own political narrative are flawed. Whereas my point is always that 1] both sides, in starting with conflicting sets of assumptions, are able to make reasonable arguments regarding immigration and national borders 2] that these arguments are often embedded existentially in their actual lived lives and that 3] the wall either will or will not be constructed depending on which side has the political power to enforce their own set of subjective/subjunctive assumptions.

How can that not be part and parcel of taking a position?

Positions are taken but the objectivists insist there is ever and always only one optimal position: theirs.

Therefore, in practice there seems to be no difference between the three in that respect.

Let's just say that "for all practical purposes" I see a very important distinction that you don't.

Beyond, for example, insisting that Communism is flawed because your points of view establish that. And yet [it seems] they establish this only because they are your points of view. Based in part on your own particular set of experiences.

Like any defense of Communism is inherently flawed.

Which effectively states that no reasons are sufficient to support any opinion or decision.

A completely useless and ineffective approach to life.

Not so much useless and ineffective as, for the objectivists, disturbing and discomfitting. My argument is they insist the most useful and the most effective approach to life is always the moral narrative and political agenda that is either not flawed at all or the least flawed: theirs.

As a moral nihilist [in a presumed No God world] I'm down in that hole drawn and quartered by conflicting goods, while recognizing just how difficult it is to separate a moral narrative embedded existentially in dasein from a moral narrative able to be demonstrated philosophically as within the far more exacting parameters of a deontological obligation for all folks who wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

In my view, it is this certainty that -- psychologically -- the objectivists crave. This after all is where the comfort and consolation of the "real me" grounded in an objective moral understanding of the world around me comes from. Then it's just a matter of which font appeals more to you: God? New Age contraptions? Scientology? Ideology? Deontology? Nature?

It's just that with respect to an actual existential context in which your own values come into conflict with others, I'm still rather fuzzy regarding the role that God and religion play in the construction of your own particular existential persona. In other words, I would need from you a trajectory similar to the one I note with regard to abortion above.

And only in harping on objectivism is there any possibility of encountering arguments [from them] that may well yank me up out of the hole that I am in.

A ridiculous expectation. The way you have constructed your hole make it impossible for any argument to be effective.

Ridiculous to you because you are not inside my head aware subjectively of all of the many experiences that I had that, no doubt, are far, far removed from the experiences that you had. I more or less expect communication breakdowns here. That is precisely why it is so crucial to be able to bridge the gap between what you think you know/believe "in your head" and what is able to be established as in fact true for all reasonable men and women.

I used to think there were no arguments that could/would ever dent any number of previous religious and political narratives I once staunchly embodied.

Can you cite just one example of a dramatic change that unfolded in your own outlook on life?

I now consider these to be empty invitations.

This may well be established with considerably more substance if you will focus the beam on a particular context that is well known to be flooded with conflicting moral and political agendas.

[iambiguous]

Further when asking about his own decision making in a specific online situation, he was incapable of addressing his own actions.

What on earth do you mean by this? Cite an example of an offline situation in which you are capable of addressing your own actions. Actions involving conflicts with others who did not share your own moral and political values.

Time and again I come back to this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Why? Because it delineates that crucial existential juncture where unique personal experiences get intertwined in unique philosophical and political narratives.

And how exactly is this trajectory not an example of me bringing my behaviors down to earth? How is this not an example of my being "concrete"? Where is the equivalent from you?

It's just that with regard to many other moral issues relevant to my life, the same framework applies.

For example, go here: https://www.procon.org/

There are any number of moral/political conflagrations in which both sides are able to raise reasonable points/arguments that the other side is not able to just make go away.

And common sense tells us that our own value judgments are going to be embedded/intertwined in the actual sequence of experiences that we had and on our own particular access to information, knowledge and ideas.

Meaning, in other words, it highlights in turn all of the experiences, information, knowledge and ideas that we did not have or come across.

You either think through the "for all practical purposes" implications of this as I do or you don't. But I would never argue that all rational men and women are obligated to.

All I can do however is to note that which seems reasonable to me here and now.

I use this example in particular because it articulates that point in my life where I myself started to seriously question my own objectivism.

He almost manages to say that he manages to cause suffering, yes, but considers this unavoidable and is not claiming that he knows this is a good thing. Even this would be an advance, though it does not explain why he would not avoid hurting others - which would fall into the is category - since he has no possible way of knowing (his position), if this suffering is for the greater good or good at all - which falls into the ought category.

Clearly, to the extent that others come to sink down into the hole that I am in, they will suffer in the same way as I do. Just as those religious objectivists who came to sink down into Nietzsche's "God is dead" narrative, came to suffer in turn. Gone was their immortality, gone was their salvation, gone was their scriptured morality.

Should that then have motivated Nietzsche to keep his opinions to himself?

My arguments here are either reasonable or they are not.

He further assumes that if one is not a nihilist or ironist one must be an objectivist. He cannot seem to get that one need not be either, since both positions are based on assumptions about the nature of reality that can and are challenged.

No, my aim is to bring whatever manner in which we define the meaning of these words out into the world of conflicting human behaviors.

What does it mean to be a nihilist or an objectivist or an ironist when describing a particular moral context? How might a nihilist or an ironist or an objectivist react to, say, Trump's position regarding gun control?

Is there a narrative/agenda here that would in fact reflect the optimal set of behaviors. A nihilist and an ironist would suggest that there is not. But think how ironic it would be if he argued in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to think the same!

[phyllo]

Here [again] we always get to the part where a moral narrative is in fact able to be established as the optimal point of view.

I have absolutely no illusion that in fact I can establish moral nihilism as the optimal frame of mind.

Maybe you should not think about the concept of "optimal" because it's really preventing you from getting anywhere. Resolve the sub-optimal issues before proceeding to the optimal.

Whereas my point is always that 1] both sides, in starting with conflicting sets of assumptions, are able to make reasonable arguments regarding immigration and national borders

Repeatedly you cannot distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable arguments and reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. IOW, if we go by your philosophy, any dumbass assumptions and arguments are just fine.

Positions are taken but the objectivists insist there is ever and always only one optimal position: theirs.

That's your biased interpretation of what "they all do".

Let's just say that "for all practical purposes" I see a very important distinction that you don't.

I thought that you could not figure out what "for all practical purposes" means.

Not so much useless and ineffective as, for the objectivists, disturbing and discomfitting. My argument is they insist the most useful and the most effective approach to life is always the moral narrative and political agenda that is either not flawed at all or the least flawed: theirs.

It's useless and ineffective for you. Leave "the objectivists" out of it and concentrate on yourself.

It's just that with respect to an actual existential context in which your own values come into conflict with others, I'm still rather fuzzy regarding the role that God and religion play in the construction of your own particular existential persona. In other words, I would need from you a trajectory similar to the one I note with regard to abortion above.

You don't need that at all.

Ridiculous to you because you are not inside my head aware subjectively of all of the many experiences that I had that, no doubt, are far, far removed from the experiences that you had.

It's a ridiculous expectation because since you see all arguments as contractions, then even if you accept an argument, you are simply substituting one contraption for another. It doesn't get you out of your hole.
If you had some criteria which establishes when an argument is not a contraption, then that type of argument may be your ticket out. But you don't have such criteria, do you?
You are also unable to use your intellectual contractions as tools ... dropping a useless one and picking up a useful one at will. I have suggested it to you and you responded that you could not control yourself in that way.

[Prismatic567]

...
...
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.[/b]

Why? Because it delineates that crucial existential juncture where unique personal experiences get intertwined in unique philosophical and political narratives.

And how exactly is this trajectory not an example of me bringing my behaviors down to earth? How is this not an example of my being "concrete"? Where is the equivalent from you?

Btw, you are still banging on William Barrett's "rival goods" which is evident in your posts. William Barrett in his Irrational Man did discuss 'good' & 'evil' and that the 'good' should always prevails, i.e. the taking into account and development of the WHOLE human being rather than emphasizing and focusing on his reason.
The problem with your very narrow and shallow view is you cherry picked only the evil* bits from Barrett's discussion and embedded those evil elements in your psyche. This is why you are trying to spread evil in dragging others into your deep evil hole.

*I define 'evil' as related to any acts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, therefrom to society and humanity.

[phyllo]

The problem with your very narrow and shallow view is you cherry picked only the evil* bits from Barrett's discussion and embedded those evil elements in your psyche. This is why you are trying to spread evil in dragging others into your deep evil hole.

*I define 'evil' as related to any acts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, therefrom to society and humanity.

That seems to be a poor definition of "evil" because people produce net-negatives due to ignorance, weakness, errors and accidents. It's not useful to label those acts as evil.

I would not label what Iambig is doing as evil.

[iambiguous]

Here [again] we always get to the part where a moral narrative is in fact able to be established as the optimal point of view.

I have absolutely no illusion that in fact I can establish moral nihilism as the optimal frame of mind.

Maybe you should not think about the concept of "optimal" because it's really preventing you from getting anywhere. Resolve the sub-optimal issues before proceeding to the optimal.

Getting somewhere? In what context? When human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments there are generally three options available to "get somewhere".

1] might makes right: the "optimal" behaviors here revolving around whoever has the power to enforce his or her own perceived self-interest
2] right makes might: the "optimal" behaviors here revolving around whatever it is decided are the most rational and virtuous behaviors
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise: the "optimal" behaviors here revolving around a political give and take rooted in democracy and the rule of law.

Really, you pick the conflicting goods and we can explore these options more substantively.

Or, as with Communism, are the "sub-optimal" issues "resolved" only when others come to accept your own take on them?

Whereas my point is always that 1] both sides, in starting with conflicting sets of assumptions, are able to make reasonable arguments regarding immigration and national borders

Repeatedly you cannot distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable arguments and reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. IOW, if we go by your philosophy, any dumbass assumptions and arguments are just fine.

Sure, when you set the default at your own reasonable arguments and assumptions [about Communism, abortion or anything else], then those who don't share them are "dumbasses".

Really, I truly do get that part.

Thus the pros of Communism here -- https://greengarageblog.org/10-chief-pr ... -communism -- are the opinions of dumbasses while the cons arguments reflect the opinions of the smart ones.

Yet each side makes arguments that the other side cannot just make go away. It merely revolves around commensing with a different set of assumptions about human interactions. For example, should social interaction revolve more around "I" or "we".

And, of course, here too there are dumbass and smart answers.

And, it would seem, rational men and women can "think this through" such that whatever particular experiences they had with either Communism or capitalism is subsumed in their deduced moral obligations as rational men and women. Thus it is assumed that [as with Ayn Rand] to be rational is to be virtuous.

Let's just say that "for all practical purposes" I see a very important distinction that you don't.

I thought that you could not figure out what "for all practical purposes" means.

No, I speculated that renditions of this are rooted existentially in daseins confronting conflicting goods out in one or another actual political economy.

Not so much useless and ineffective as, for the objectivists, disturbing and discomfitting. My argument is they insist the most useful and the most effective approach to life is always the moral narrative and political agenda that is either not flawed at all or the least flawed: theirs.

It's useless and ineffective for you. Leave "the objectivists" out of it and concentrate on yourself.

Just as they can speculate on what all of this is for me, I can speculate on what all of this is for them. It's just that I clearly recognize that my own speculations here are no less existential contraptions than theirs.

It's just that with respect to an actual existential context in which your own values come into conflict with others, I'm still rather fuzzy regarding the role that God and religion play in the construction of your own particular existential persona. In other words, I would need from you a trajectory similar to the one I note with regard to abortion above.

You don't need that at all.

If you say so. Only why on earth wouldn't I?

Ridiculous to you because you are not inside my head aware subjectively of all of the many experiences that I had that, no doubt, are far, far removed from the experiences that you had.

It's a ridiculous expectation because since you see all arguments as contractions, then even if you accept an argument, you are simply substituting one contraption for another. It doesn't get you out of your hole.

I can only get out of my hole when I come upon a new experience that succeeds in yanking me up out of it. Or when another relates an experience they had in which they convince me there is in fact a reasonable manner in which to make a demonstrable distinction between right and wrong, good and evil behavior.

What other option is there?

Well, God could manifest Himself and yank me up out of it. Sure, that's not necessarily impossible.

If you had some criteria which establishes when an argument is not a contraption, then that type of argument may be your ticket out. But you don't have such criteria, do you?

What criteria do you have other than "think like I do and you're out of the hole"?

You are also unable to use your intellectual contractions as tools ... dropping a useless one and picking up a useful one at will. I have suggested it to you and you responded that you could not control yourself in that way.

What on earth does this mean?! To you for example. Note a single context in which this has worked for you.

[iambiguous]

...
...
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.[/b]

Why? Because it delineates that crucial existential juncture where unique personal experiences get intertwined in unique philosophical and political narratives.

And how exactly is this trajectory not an example of me bringing my behaviors down to earth? How is this not an example of my being "concrete"? Where is the equivalent from you?

Btw, you are still banging on William Barrett's "rival goods" which is evident in your posts. William Barrett in his Irrational Man did discuss 'good' & 'evil' and that the 'good' should always prevails, i.e. the taking into account and development of the WHOLE human being rather than emphasizing and focusing on his reason.

Indeed, just as when Will Durant critiques his "epistemologists", he in turn seems to suggest that good and bad are within reach of the philosophers.

Well, if either of them were still around, I would confront them no less with the components of my own frame of mind here: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But only out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors. And they too could choose the actual context.

As for the subjunctive elements involved, how are they in turn not embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Can you cite examples from your own life?

The problem with your very narrow and shallow view is you cherry picked only the evil* bits from Barrett's discussion and embedded those evil elements in your psyche. This is why you are trying to spread evil in dragging others into your deep evil hole.

Speaking of cherries being picked, you ignored all of the points and questions that I raised with you above and focused only on this one.

Or are we to just accept your own assumptions regarding the "evil" hole that I am dragging others down into?

I define 'evil' as related to any acts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, therefrom to society and humanity.

Note to others:

Can you believe this?!!

Is it even possible to be more abstract in encompassing evil in human interactions?

I would challenge him to yank these words down into an actual existential context but, perhaps, one of you might suggest it instead.

[Prismatic567]

...
...
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.[/b]

Why? Because it delineates that crucial existential juncture where unique personal experiences get intertwined in unique philosophical and political narratives.

And how exactly is this trajectory not an example of me bringing my behaviors down to earth? How is this not an example of my being "concrete"? Where is the equivalent from you?

Btw, you are still banging on William Barrett's "rival goods" which is evident in your posts. William Barrett in his Irrational Man did discuss 'good' & 'evil' and that the 'good' should always prevails, i.e. the taking into account and development of the WHOLE human being rather than emphasizing and focusing on his reason.

Indeed, just as when Will Durant critiques his "epistemologists", he in turn seems to suggest that good and bad are within reach of the philosophers.

Well, if either of them were still around, I would confront them no less with the components of my own frame of mind here: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But only out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors. And they too could choose the actual context.

As for the subjunctive elements involved, how are they in turn not embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Can you cite examples from your own life?

The problem with your very narrow and shallow view is you cherry picked only the evil* bits from Barrett's discussion and embedded those evil elements in your psyche. This is why you are trying to spread evil in dragging others into your deep evil hole.

Speaking of cherries being picked, you ignored all of the points and questions that I raised with you above and focused only on this one.

Or are we to just accept your own assumptions regarding the "evil" hole that I am dragging others down into?

I define 'evil' as related to any acts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, therefrom to society and humanity.

Note to others:

Can you believe this?!!

Is it even possible to be more abstract in encompassing evil in human interactions?

I would challenge him to yank these words down into an actual existential context but, perhaps, one of you might suggest it instead.

Note in Barrett's Irrational Man, he did point out and highlight the evil hole that humans are facing or in. He ultimately warned readers to get out of that evil hole or ensure one do not fall into it. Barrett did suggest solutions [only generally] but 'you' choose to be stuck in that evil hole and continue to dig deeper to trap others to fall into it and live a life of psychological sufferings - that's an evil intent and act.

I am well versed with Buddha's [& others'] solutions to the problem and management of sufferings thus can easily deflect your attempts. Initially I thought you were asking for suggestions to help you to get out of that evil hole but subsequently you had revealed your hidden evil intention of trapping people into your "venus fly trap."

Btw, I have told you earlier, you are borrowing the term 'dasein'* without reasonably understanding what it is supposed to represent in its full range. Even if you want to use it for your own purpose you should have understood it reasonably [not necessary agree] before you deviate from it for your own use.
*By now I have spent lots of time and still reading B&T so I am reasonable [not fully yet] familiar with the concept of Dasein.

Here is one clue from B&T

Again, this expression [care] is to be understood as an ontological structure concept (compare chapter 6 of this division).
The expression [care] has nothing to do with "distress," "melancholy," or "the cares of life" which can be found ontically in every Da-sein. These -like their opposites, "carefreeness" and "gaiety"- are ontically possible only because Da-sein, ontologically understood, is care.
B&T pg 57 - Joan Stambaugh translation

This being fills in the significance of the term care, which is used in a purely ontological and existential way.
Any ontically intended tendency of being, such as worry or carefreeness, is ruled out.
B&T pg 192

Those 'rival goods' that you mentioned are problems of the ontic average everydayness - i.e. ruled out for serious considerations. But what is most critical for the Dasein in B&T [including existentialism in general] is not the ontic-existentiell but rather the ontological existential structures and processes of Dasein. It is from these ontological roots that humans can find solutions to problems and realize human-based possibilities optimally.

I anticipate you will send the above to the 'Recycle Bin' as 'intellectual contraptions' I don't give a damm on your intention.

[phyllo]

Getting somewhere? In what context? When human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments there are generally three options available to "get somewhere".

It seems that you have not even figured out the nature of general solutions and you are already talking about "optimal solutions".
If you examine the process of producing general solutions, then you can come to some conclusions about reasonable and unreasonable solutions.

Sure, when you set the default at your own reasonable arguments and assumptions [about Communism, abortion or anything else], then those who don't share them are "dumbasses".

Really, I truly do get that part.

I don't think that you do get it. If someone says that my assumptions and arguments are not reasonable, I take that seriously. Why? Because I see "reasonableness" as being outside of my opinions. Something is not reasonable just because I think that it is - because I label it that way.

Somehow, you have managed to turn that ass-backward, suggesting that I'm setting the standard of "reasonableness".

If you say so. Only why on earth wouldn't I?

Because watching me eat will not satiate your hunger.

I can only get out of my hole when I come upon a new experience that succeeds in yanking me up out of it.

But you're not having new experiences ... you are just watching/reading the experiences of other people.

What criteria do you have other than "think like I do and you're out of the hole"?

All thoughts are merely thoughts, but some are better than others.

What on earth does this mean?! To you for example. Note a single context in which this has worked for you.

Consider gratitude journaling or gratitude meditation. It really works.

One of the early research studies on gratitude journals by Emmons & McCullough found that "counting one's blessings" in a journal led to improved psychological and physical functioning. Participants who recorded weekly journals, each consisting of five things they were grateful for, were more optimistic towards the upcoming week and life as a whole, spent more time exercising, and had fewer symptoms of physical illness. Participants who kept daily gratitude journals reported increased overall gratitude, positive affect, enthusiasm, determination, and alertness. They were also more likely to help others and make progress towards their personal goals, compared to those who did not keep gratitude journals. For a sample of adults with neuromuscular disease, writing daily gratitude journals for 3 weeks lead to increased optimism about one’s life, longer and more refreshing sleep, greater positive emotions, and feeling more connected to others. Overall, participants who kept weekly or daily gratitude journals had greater psychological and physical benefits when compared to participants who did not keep gratitude journals.[5][6]

Furthermore, the positive effects of gratitude can begin as early as childhood. A study conducted by Froh, Sefick and Emmons in 2008[7] examined the effects of a grateful outlook on the subjective well being of 221 early adolescents in sixth and seventh grade. The children were asked to “count their blessings” and set aside time daily to list what they were thankful for. Results found that counting one’s blessings was associated with enhanced self-reported feelings of gratitude, optimism, life satisfaction, and decreased negative affect. Furthermore, exhibiting gratitude correlated to long-term satisfaction with school experience.

Another benefit may be that gratitude journals are a relatively easy and enjoyable way to boost happiness: Parks et al.[8] found that when presented with eight different happiness interventions, gratitude journals were the third most popular (preceded by “Goal evaluation and tracking” and “Savoring the moment.” Similarly, Seligman et al.[9] found that participants were more likely to continue their “three good things” exercise on their own after the one-week intervention than the other exercises, and this lack of attrition mediated the link between the exercise and its benefits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude_journal

[WendyDarling]

Utter pessimists won't end up with much in their gratitude journals.

[phyllo]

Start small. Think of one thing that you are grateful for at the end of the day.

Soon you will be able to think of three things and then more...

[WendyDarling]

Aw, I'm an annoying optimist...always hopeful and thankful.

[iambiguous]

Note in Barrett's Irrational Man, he did point out and highlight the evil hole that humans are facing or in. He ultimately warned readers to get out of that evil hole or ensure one do not fall into it. Barrett did suggest solutions [only generally] but 'you' choose to be stuck in that evil hole and continue to dig deeper to trap others to fall into it and live a life of psychological sufferings - that's an evil intent and act.

Why on earth would I imagine that Barrett would construe the practical implications of "rival goods" in the same manner that I do?

And my intent [re dasein] is to grapple with the is/ought world given the assumption [mine] that we live in a No God world. How on earth do mere mortals arrive at the most or the only rational moral and political narrative/agenda when confronted with these rival goods?

How do you do it? Provide for us an existential trajectory that intertwines the experiences you had in your life and the knowledge/information/ideas you had access to such that you are not in the hole I'm in. In regard to a value judgment all your own.

How would Buddha -- "the one who is awake" -- have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.

What does being "awake" mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provide here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics -- to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.

In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others...where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the "wrong" way.

Btw, I have told you earlier, you are borrowing the term 'dasein'* without reasonably understanding what it is supposed to represent in its full range. Even if you want to use it for your own purpose you should have understood it reasonably [not necessary agree] before you deviate from it for your own use.
*By now I have spent lots of time and still reading B&T so I am reasonable [not fully yet] familiar with the concept of Dasein.

BTW, I have responed to this point any number of times above. I keep waiting for you to bring your own understanding of Heidegger's understanding of Dasein out into the world of actual conflicted behaviors derived from actual conflicted goods.

How about the points I raised above regarding the workman using a hammer on a nail and a Nazi soldier using a bullet on a Jew?

That aspect of Dasein. Differentiate the ontic from the ontological here.

Instead it's just more of the same intellectual contraptions:

Here is one clue from B&T

Again, this expression [care] is to be understood as an ontological structure concept (compare chapter 6 of this division).
The expression [care] has nothing to do with "distress," "melancholy," or "the cares of life" which can be found ontically in every Da-sein. These -like their opposites, "carefreeness" and "gaiety"- are ontically possible only because Da-sein, ontologically understood, is care.
B&T pg 57 - Joan Stambaugh translation

This being fills in the significance of the term care, which is used in a purely ontological and existential way. Any ontically intended tendency of being, such as worry or carefreeness, is ruled out.
B&T pg 192

Those 'rival goods' that you mentioned are problems of the ontic average everydayness - i.e. ruled out for serious considerations. But what is most critical for the Dasein in B&T [including existentialism in general] is not the ontic-existentiell but rather the ontological existential structures and processes of Dasein. It is from these ontological roots that humans can find solutions to problems and realize human-based possibilities optimally.

I anticipate you will send the above to the 'Recycle Bin' as 'intellectual contraptions' I don't give a damm on your intention.

I challenge you [or anyone else] to bring this particular "world of words" out into the actual flesh and blood world of human interactions in conflict over conflicting goods.

Note to others:

Wouldn't you deem this to be basically an "intellectual contraption" as it relates to your own conflicted behaviors with others?

If not, please explain why.

[iambiguous]

Getting somewhere? In what context? When human behaviors come into conflict over value judgments there are generally three options available to "get somewhere".

It seems that you have not even figured out the nature of general solutions and you are already talking about "optimal solutions".
If you examine the process of producing general solutions, then you can come to some conclusions about reasonable and unreasonable solutions.

But what if, after having done that, the conclusions reached by those who defend Communism as a reasonable [optimal] solution to the problems that plague the human species persist in arguing that those who defend capitalism are the ones being unreasonable?

A philosopher can either provide us with an argument here that resolves this in one or another deontological assessment or she can't.

And all I ask of the "real me" moral objectivists is that we bring general descriptions such as this down to earth.

If someone says that my assumptions and arguments are not reasonable, I take that seriously. Why? Because I see "reasonableness" as being outside of my opinions. Something is not reasonable just because I think that it is - because I label it that way.

But sooner or later these assumptions and arguments are going to be intertwined in one or another political agenda where actual flesh and blood human interactions precipitate consequences that revolve around rewards or punishments.

How then do we get around either subscribing to might makes right, right makes might or moderation negotiation and compromise?

Again, choose a set of conflicting goods and lets examine more substantively our respective moral narratives.

What on earth does this mean?! To you for example. Note a single context in which this has worked for you.

And, instead of providing a context pertaining to your own interactions with others, we get this:

Consider gratitude journaling or gratitude meditation. It really works.

One of the early research studies on gratitude journals by Emmons & McCullough found that "counting one's blessings" in a journal led to improved psychological and physical functioning. Participants who recorded weekly journals, each consisting of five things they were grateful for, were more optimistic towards the upcoming week and life as a whole, spent more time exercising, and had fewer symptoms of physical illness. Participants who kept daily gratitude journals reported increased overall gratitude, positive affect, enthusiasm, determination, and alertness. They were also more likely to help others and make progress towards their personal goals, compared to those who did not keep gratitude journals. For a sample of adults with neuromuscular disease, writing daily gratitude journals for 3 weeks lead to increased optimism about one’s life, longer and more refreshing sleep, greater positive emotions, and feeling more connected to others. Overall, participants who kept weekly or daily gratitude journals had greater psychological and physical benefits when compared to participants who did not keep gratitude journals.[5][6]

Furthermore, the positive effects of gratitude can begin as early as childhood. A study conducted by Froh, Sefick and Emmons in 2008[7] examined the effects of a grateful outlook on the subjective well being of 221 early adolescents in sixth and seventh grade. The children were asked to “count their blessings” and set aside time daily to list what they were thankful for. Results found that counting one’s blessings was associated with enhanced self-reported feelings of gratitude, optimism, life satisfaction, and decreased negative affect. Furthermore, exhibiting gratitude correlated to long-term satisfaction with school experience.

Another benefit may be that gratitude journals are a relatively easy and enjoyable way to boost happiness: Parks et al.[8] found that when presented with eight different happiness interventions, gratitude journals were the third most popular (preceded by “Goal evaluation and tracking” and “Savoring the moment.” Similarly, Seligman et al.[9] found that participants were more likely to continue their “three good things” exercise on their own after the one-week intervention than the other exercises, and this lack of attrition mediated the link between the exercise and its benefits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratitude_journal[/quote

Okay, that seems reasonable to me. But what does it really have to do with the relationship between the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, as that relates to the hole I am in when confronting conflicting goods?

Would counting their blessings and having a grateful outlook have worked when John and Mary confronted her unwanted pregnancy?

Will the liberals and conservatives pummeling each other over one or another moral and political conflagration here at ILP, cease and desist after counting their blessings and embracing a more grateful outlook?

I know: Let's ask Wendy.

[phyllo]

Phyllo wrote:
You are also unable to use your intellectual contractions as tools ... dropping a useless one and picking up a useful one at will. I have suggested it to you and you responded that you could not control yourself in that way.

What on earth does this mean?! To you for example. Note a single context in which this has worked for you.

Phyllo wrote :
Consider gratitude journaling or gratitude meditation. It really works.

And, instead of providing a context pertaining to your own interactions with others, we get this:

Okay, that seems reasonable to me. But what does it really have to do with the relationship between the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, as that relates to the hole I am in when confronting conflicting goods?

Would counting their blessings and having a grateful outlook have worked when John and Mary confronted her unwanted pregnancy?

Will the liberals and conservatives pummeling each other over one or another moral and political conflagration here at ILP, cease and desist after counting their blessings and embracing a more grateful outlook?

You asked me what it means to use intellectual contraptions as tools. I gave you an example - gratitude journaling. A person changes his/her attitude and thinking by focusing on some particular aspects in life for which he/she is grateful. It has a measurable impact on the quality of life.

It works in any/every context. I personally use it.

If Mary and John were unhappy/depressed/frustrated/stressed about the abortion, then gratitude journaling would make them feel better about it and about themselves.

Same goes for the liberals and conservatives. And they could end up being more civil in their interactions.

Are you going to try it?

[iambiguous]

Utter pessimists won't end up with much in their gratitude journals.

Probably not.

But, in a philosophy forum, the focus would seem to be less on how optimistic or pessimistic an idea makes you feel, and more on how reasonable or unreasonable it is to think it.

As I noted on this thread [or another] when Nietzsche focused his own philosophical narrative on the "human all too human" consequences of living in a No God world, any number of rather optimistic religious folks might have succumbed to a more pessimistic frame of mind. After all, that's what having to abandon immortality, salvation and divine justice will do to some.

Yes, my own take on the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy can at times be brutally pessimistic.

But is it unreasonable to think like this?

Sure, maybe.

But all I can do here is to engage the more optimistic folks in an exchange that permits us to examine why "for all practical purposes" we feel either one way or the other.

It's just that folks like prismatic actually seem able to convince themselves that in doing so this makes me "evil"!!

Or is he just being optimistic?

Anyway, on the bright side of pessimism there's this: moral nihilists are not anchored to one or another objectivist dogma. Therefore, the actual existential options available to them would seem to increase rather dramatically.

[phyllo]

Anyway, on the bright side of pessimism there's this: moral nihilists are not anchored to one or another objectivist dogma. Therefore, the actual existential options available to them would seem to increase rather dramatically.

Sure, you say that now.

In the next post, you will be saying that nobody has any options because everything is determined from the beginning of time.

[Prismatic567]

Note in Barrett's Irrational Man, he did point out and highlight the evil hole that humans are facing or in. He ultimately warned readers to get out of that evil hole or ensure one do not fall into it. Barrett did suggest solutions [only generally] but 'you' choose to be stuck in that evil hole and continue to dig deeper to trap others to fall into it and live a life of psychological sufferings - that's an evil intent and act.

Why on earth would I imagine that Barrett would construe the practical implications of "rival goods" in the same manner that I do?

And my intent [re dasein] is to grapple with the is/ought world given the assumption [mine] that we live in a No God world. How on earth do mere mortals arrive at the most or the only rational moral and political narrative/agenda when confronted with these rival goods?

How do you do it? Provide for us an existential trajectory that intertwines the experiences you had in your life and the knowledge/information/ideas you had access to such that you are not in the hole I'm in. In regard to a value judgment all your own.

How would Buddha -- "the one who is awake" -- have reacted to a context in his days in which different people embraced conflicting value judgments that precipitated conflicting behaviors.

What does being "awake" mean when confronted with any one of hundreds of moral and political conflagrations that have cleaved the human species over the centuries? Bring the knowledge/information/ideas provide here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_ethics -- to bear regarding a particular set of conflicting goods.

In other words, out in the world where behaviors are actually judged by others...where very really consequences can be meted out to those who behave in the "wrong" way.

Btw, I have told you earlier, you are borrowing the term 'dasein'* without reasonably understanding what it is supposed to represent in its full range. Even if you want to use it for your own purpose you should have understood it reasonably [not necessary agree] before you deviate from it for your own use.
*By now I have spent lots of time and still reading B&T so I am reasonable [not fully yet] familiar with the concept of Dasein.

BTW, I have responed to this point any number of times above. I keep waiting for you to bring your own understanding of Heidegger's understanding of Dasein out into the world of actual conflicted behaviors derived from actual conflicted goods.

How about the points I raised above regarding the workman using a hammer on a nail and a Nazi soldier using a bullet on a Jew?

That aspect of Dasein. Differentiate the ontic from the ontological here.

Instead it's just more of the same intellectual contraptions:

Here is one clue from B&T

Again, this expression [care] is to be understood as an ontological structure concept (compare chapter 6 of this division).
The expression [care] has nothing to do with "distress," "melancholy," or "the cares of life" which can be found ontically in every Da-sein. These -like their opposites, "carefreeness" and "gaiety"- are ontically possible only because Da-sein, ontologically understood, is care.
B&T pg 57 - Joan Stambaugh translation

This being fills in the significance of the term care, which is used in a purely ontological and existential way. Any ontically intended tendency of being, such as worry or carefreeness, is ruled out.
B&T pg 192

Those 'rival goods' that you mentioned are problems of the ontic average everydayness - i.e. ruled out for serious considerations. But what is most critical for the Dasein in B&T [including existentialism in general] is not the ontic-existentiell but rather the ontological existential structures and processes of Dasein. It is from these ontological roots that humans can find solutions to problems and realize human-based possibilities optimally.

I anticipate you will send the above to the 'Recycle Bin' as 'intellectual contraptions' I don't give a damm on your intention.

I challenge you [or anyone else] to bring this particular "world of words" out into the actual flesh and blood world of human interactions in conflict over conflicting goods.

Note to others:

Wouldn't you deem this to be basically an "intellectual contraption" as it relates to your own conflicted behaviors with others?

If not, please explain why.

As usual you are clueless in the above.
The above contain the basis for positive actions to be taken.

The quote from Heidegger above is telling you why you are wrong in going the direction [too involved in the ontic rather than the ontological] you are doing at present.