What is Dasein?

[Prismatic567]

Dasein here, there and everywhere but never an understanding what it really meant.

Iambiguous, I noted you used the term 'dasein' everywhere [e.g. below] but without the other party really understanding of what your meaning of 'dasein' is or it is the same as Heidegger.

And isn't the whole point of my argument that, with respect to such things as religion and value judgments, the nature of dasein is "for all practical purposes" embodied in presumption and bias?

Here is one exposition of what is Dasein?

Let's back up in order to bring Heidegger's central concern into better view. (The ‘way in’ to Being and Time that I am about to present follows Gelven 1989 6–7.)
Consider some philosophical problems that will be familiar from introductory metaphysics classes:

Does the table that I think I see before me exist?
Does God exist?
Does mind, conceived as an entity distinct from body, exist?

These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist?
Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

Heidegger linked 'to exist' as 'dasein'

Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) is a German word that means "being there" or "presence" (German: da "there"; sein "being"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence". It is a fundamental concept in the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger, particularly in his magnum opus Being and Time. Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein

Iambiguous, am I on the right track towards understanding what is 'Dasein'?
Is there anything to add to get a more refined understanding of what is Dasein.

Btw, note this,

Some have argued for an origin of Dasein in Chinese philosophy and Japanese philosophy: according to Tomonobu Imamichi, Heidegger's concept of Dasein was inspired—although Heidegger remained silent on this—by Okakura Kakuzo's concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (being-in-the-worldness, worldliness) expressed in The Book of Tea to describe Zhuangzi's Taoist philosophy, which Imamichi's teacher had offered to Heidegger in 1919, after having followed lessons with him the year before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein#Or ... nspiration

IF Heidegger is a confirmed atheist, I believe [based on his writings overall] it would very reasonable to accept 'Dasein' has its origin in philosophy and Japanese philosophy, i.e. from Zen Buddhism.

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

[The Eternal Warrior]

long concept short, it's the concept of meaninglessness of existence, lack of purpose, lack of reason, etcetera. If you were expecting any of them to explain it as short as this, then you wouldn't fully realize what they filled their lives with in explaining Dasein to others.

[iambiguous]

Dasein here, there and everywhere but never an understanding what it really meant.

Iambiguous, I noted you used the term 'dasein' everywhere [e.g. below] but without the other party really understanding of what your meaning of 'dasein' is or it is the same as Heidegger.

First of all dasein [small d] is not a thing. I can't take it out of my pocket like a wallet or a comb, and say, "look eveybody, dasein!"

It is more a complex frame of mind that revolves around the arguments I raised here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

As this revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world.

Or, in particular:

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?

As opposed to the frame of mind embedded/embodied in one or another rendition of that which I construe to be objectivism.

These folks seem to argue that if you read the right scripture or follow the right philosopher or embrace the right political ideology or subscribe to the right understanding of nature, or deduce the right definitions, then and only then are you able to divide the world self-righteously into "one of us" and "one of them".

"We" being those who embrace a set of behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace in turn; "they" being those who do not.

Then I merely note the extent to which I have come to conclude that objectivism of this sort is more a psychological contraption rooted in the arguments that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Thus, I am not really interested in exploring the extent to which my "dasein" is not in sync with Heidegger's "Dasein".

Instead, I wish to explore human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments given the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The existential relationship between them out in a particular context unfolding in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. A world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

In other words, how are your own conflicts with others not entangled in my "dilemma"?

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

A frame of mind that "here and now" I have managed to think/talk myself into believing is a reasonable understanding of that aspect of the human condition most crucial to me: "how ought one to live?"

[iambiguous]

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

My point on that thread is only to suggest that whether any particular folks call themselves theists or atheists or agnostics, they are all in the same boat.

The one floating on an endless ocean that appears to be the profound mystery embedded in an understanding of Existence itself.

How have you actually demonstrated the impossibility of God? Other than in clumping together a bunch of premises/assumptions in order to derive an analysis/argument that is true only to the extent that others share the definition and the meaning that you give to the words in the argument/analysis.

Again, the crucial gap that almost certainly exists between what you think you know about connecting the dots between God and Existence "here and now" and all that would need to be known in order to demonstrate it.

Essentially, universally.

Yet I have already conceded that perhaps you have demonstrated your point. That, instead, the problem may well be that I am simply unable to grasp it.

I merely suggested that if anyone ever does manage to demonstrate the existence or lack thereof of God that is all any of us would be talking about.

And not just here.

[James S Saint]

He is just referring to the conflicts and confusion of present day to day living == "dasein".

[Prismatic567]

long concept short, it's the concept of meaninglessness of existence, lack of purpose, lack of reason, etcetera. If you were expecting any of them to explain it as short as this, then you wouldn't fully realize what they filled their lives with in explaining Dasein to others.

Noted, will keep this in mind on the question of dasein.

[Ecmandu]

If life is cancelled out by the positives and negatives, that's a positive affirmation of conclusion and thus, false.

I say this in respect to "dasein" as iambiguous presents it.

[Prismatic567]

Dasein here, there and everywhere but never an understanding what it really meant.

Iambiguous, I noted you used the term 'dasein' everywhere [e.g. below] but without the other party really understanding of what your meaning of 'dasein' is or it is the same as Heidegger.

First of all dasein [small d] is not a thing. I can't take it out of my pocket like a wallet or a comb, and say, "look eveybody, dasein!"

It is more a complex frame of mind that revolves around the arguments I raised here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

As this revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world.

I will refer to Kant to start with;

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

For here we have to do with a natural and inevitable Illusion, which rests on Subjective Principles, and foists them upon us as Objective; B354

the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism. A642 B670

The above is a central theme of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and he explained such a point many times over in the later section of his book.
Humans in general [DNA wise] are 'infected' with an existential dilemma that invoke a subliminal crisis that lead them a Natural and Inevitable Illusion which is nonetheless irresistible, Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them and,
"after long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

This is what happened to all the German and other Philosophers who came after Kant in trying to expound his philosophy but ending up being seduced by that illusion which unceasingly mocks and torments them.

This seduction is how it happened with Schelling [Self], Hegel [Absolute], Schopenhauer [Will] .... Heidegger [Being -Dassein] Wittgenstein [Earlier objectivity]...
They could not grasp and thus were seduced into the reification of 'that' in some form but they are all 'natural irresistable' illusions of the transcendental kind.

But after a while some do manage to see through the veil and realized there is something fishy with this view. This is why Heidegger had his "The Turn" or "die Kehre," Wittgenstein from Earlier objectivity to Later subjectivity. From what I read of Heidegger, even with his "Turning" he was still caught with the reified [illusion] which Kant was very aware '[/b], which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

In your case you reduce such to;
"As [i]this revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world[/i]."
But what is all this about? and in what perspective will it make sense to the "I."
Now when the "I" is brought up, it is also vulnerable to be seduced into a natural irresistible illusion. So we need an effective philosophy of "I" so as not be caught in that illusion of an reified objectified "I."

Or, in particular:

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.

But as I had read, Heidegger has some realization of the limited idea of 'Dasein' and turned to something else, perhaps [d]asein, but he was still caught with the reified [illusion] which Kant was very aware ', i.e. which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

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?[/b]

So you realize there are shortfalls with the idea of Dasein, but when you refer to inclining towards "individual dasein" your actually letting go of your original anchor of Dasein [eye of hurricane] and throwing yourself to the turbulence of the hurricane. So it seem you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
This is why when you move away from Dasein [eye of hurricane] you need to jump into another more steady 'eye of hurricane' and avoid being caught in its turbulence. But unfortunately it seems you are caught in a turbulence of some sort.

As opposed to the frame of mind embedded/embodied in one or another rendition of that which I construe to be objectivism.

These folks seem to argue that if you read the right scripture or follow the right philosopher or embrace the right political ideology or subscribe to the right understanding of nature, or deduce the right definitions, then and only then are you able to divide the world self-righteously into "one of us" and "one of them".

"We" being those who embrace a set of behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace in turn; "they" being those who do not.

Then I merely note the extent to which I have come to conclude that objectivism of this sort is more a psychological contraption rooted in the arguments that I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

At least you you are aware of the limitations and its fundamental evil [us versus them*] but you are moving off without an "anchor" to ride the stormy ocean of life and that is the problem.
I would not call that 'objectivism' but rather reifism, i.e. making something objective out of messed up subjectivity.

Thus, I am not really interested in exploring the extent to which my "dasein" is not in sync with Heidegger's "Dasein".

Instead, I wish to explore human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments given the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

The existential relationship between them out in a particular context unfolding in a particular world construed from a particular point of view. A world ever bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

Since Heidegger had doubts and thus his own "turn" from Dasein, so it rational not to follow with his 'Dasein.'
But then as I had stated you are jumping into the stormy ocean without a life-jacket or rather in a ship without strong anchor.

In other words, how are your own conflicts with others not entangled in my "dilemma"?

This one:

If I am always of the opinion that
1] my own values are rooted in dasein and
2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach,
then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

A frame of mind that "here and now" I have managed to think/talk myself into believing is a reasonable understanding of that aspect of the human condition most crucial to me: "how ought one to live?"

Rather than what is out there a 'Being" [illusory God, Dasein, etc.] the right focus should be on the 'self' within the turbulence of reality.
However this 'self' must not be seduced to the same irresistable illusion of a 'permanent' self but rather a dynamic self emerging amidst dynamic reality.

You introduced an element of psychology somewhere but it is not deep enough. I dug into the psychological elements and proposed one of the reinforcement of one's anchor can only done by psychological change represented by actual neural rewiring and reinforcement.

[iambiguous]

He is just referring to the conflicts and confusion of present day to day living == "dasein".

As opposed to what, James?

Where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into RM/AO and the Real God?

Sans dasein as it were.

Or, sure, sans "dasein".

[iambiguous]

If life is cancelled out by the positives and negatives, that's a positive affirmation of conclusion and thus, false.

I say this in respect to "dasein" as iambiguous presents it.

Note to others:

Is this an important point?

[James S Saint]

Where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into RM/AO and the Real God?

That would be "social affectance".

[iambiguous]

I will refer to Kant to start with;

Kant in CPR"]
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397

For here we have to do with a natural and inevitable Illusion, which rests on Subjective Principles, and foists them upon us as Objective; B354

the Ideas produce what, though a mere Illusion, is nonetheless irresistible, and the harmful influence of which we can barely succeed in neutralizing even by means of the severest criticism. A642 B670

This is clearly an "intellectual contraption". What I call a "general description" of human interaction. The truth of which revolves entirely around the internal logic embedded in the meaning given to words defining and defending other words.

How "on earth" then does it pertain to the points that I raised on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

That is where I wish to take exchanges of this sort.

The above is a central theme of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and he explained such a point many times over in the later section of his book.
Humans in general [DNA wise] are 'infected' with an existential dilemma that invoke a subliminal crisis that lead them a Natural and Inevitable Illusion which is nonetheless irresistible, Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them and,
"after long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

This is what happened to all the German and other Philosophers who came after Kant in trying to expound his philosophy but ending up being seduced by that illusion which unceasingly mocks and torments them.

This seduction is how it happened with Schelling [Self], Hegel [Absolute], Schopenhauer [Will] .... Heidegger [Being -Dassein] Wittgenstein [Earlier objectivity]...
They could not grasp and thus were seduced into the reification of 'that' in some form but they are all 'natural irresistable' illusions of the transcendental kind.

But after a while some do manage to see through the veil and realized there is something fishy with this view. This is why Heidegger had his "The Turn" or "die Kehre," Wittgenstein from Earlier objectivity to Later subjectivity. From what I read of Heidegger, even with his "Turning" he was still caught with the reified [illusion] which Kant was very aware '[/b], which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

In your case you reduce such to;
"As [i]this revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world[/i]."
But what is all this about? and in what perspective will it make sense to the "I."
Now when the "I" is brought up, it is also vulnerable to be seduced into a natural irresistible illusion. So we need an effective philosophy of "I" so as not be caught in that illusion of an reified objectified "I."

Same thing. This is also seen by me to be an intellectual contraption.

But, okay, for the sake of argument let's presume that the points raised here are true.

How then would they be pertinent to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I come back to this time and time again because the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein "here and now" has led me to it.

Yes, I recognize that it is no less an "existential contraption". It is something that I have managed to think myself into believing is a reasonable frame of mind. But now I am entangled in it. Sans God, there does not appear [to me] to be way in which to yank myself up out of it.

In other words, in confronting the question, "how ought one to live?" I am rather grimly, glumly stuck in it.

All I can do then is to probe the extent to which others are convinced that they are not stuck in. But that revolves around exploring conflicting value judgments out in the world of actual human interactions. Yet few objectivists really seem willing to go there.

And that would certainly include those convinced they truly do understand the philosophies of Kant and Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Schelling and Hegel and Schopenhauer.

What do they make of my dilemma?

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?[/b]

So you realize there are shortfalls with the idea of Dasein, but when you refer to inclining towards "individual dasein" your actually letting go of your original anchor of Dasein [eye of hurricane] and throwing yourself to the turbulence of the hurricane. So it seem you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

This is why when you move away from Dasein [eye of hurricane] you need to jump into another more steady 'eye of hurricane' and avoid being caught in its turbulence. But unfortunately it seems you are caught in a turbulence of some sort.

You could put it that way. On the other hand, there is a certain advantage to being a moral nihilist. In a word: Options.

If you are not anchored to one or another God or one or another philosophy or one or another political ideology or one or another moral narrative or one or another understanding of nature, your options increase considerably. Just ask the narcissists and the sociopaths.

At least you you are aware of the limitations and its fundamental evil [us versus them*] but you are moving off without an "anchor" to ride the stormy ocean of life and that is the problem.
I would not call that 'objectivism' but rather reifism, i.e. making something objective out of messed up subjectivity.

From my frame of mind though, "evil" is just another existential contraption. It is rooted -- re nature and nurture, genes and memes -- out in particular worlds understood from particular points of view embedded in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts/narratives/agendas.

And whatever you call it technically, I am only interested in how you intertwine the word "out in the world" of human interactions that come into conflict.

Again, that's my thing here:

* How ought one to live?
* How ought one to live?

Thus, I am not really interested in exploring the extent to which my "dasein" is not in sync with Heidegger's "Dasein".

Rather than what is out there a 'Being" [illusory God, Dasein, etc.] the right focus should be on the 'self' within the turbulence of reality.

Yes. But how turbulent? And how fractured and fragmented an existential contraption is the "self" of any particular individual?

Me? Well, when it comes to conflicting goods, mine is more or less in tatters.

[iambiguous]

Where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into RM/AO and the Real God?

That would be "social affectance".

Okay, where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into "social affectance"?

[James S Saint]

Where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into RM/AO and the Real God?

That would be "social affectance".

Okay, where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into "social affectance"?

Affectance is the propagating of affects, largely random although always obeying the rules of afflate engagement. The affects propagating in social conflicts are little different than ocean waves swelling, rolling, and splashing among each other.

[iambiguous]

Where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into RM/AO and the Real God?

That would be "social affectance".

Okay, where do you fit the conflicts and the confusion awash in day to day human interactions -- between, say, liberals and conservatives -- into "social affectance"?

Affectance is the propagating of affects, largely random although always obeying the rules of afflate engagement. The affects propagating in social conflicts are little different than ocean waves swelling, rolling, and splashing among each other.

No, seriously, where do you fit them?

[James S Saint]

If I thought you had any sense, your laughter might actually mean something to me...but ...

[iambiguous]

If I thought you had any sense, your laughter might actually mean something to me...but ...

A retort, James?

All that's left now is huffing and puffing.

Again: where do you fit them in?

You'll either go there or you won't.

Though, sure, I'll let others decide for themselves why you almost never do.

[Prismatic567]

I note you are dismissing most of the ideas I have proposed as intellectual contraptions. Such dismissals are actually lost opportunities. I suggest you be more open minded to dig more deeper on those concepts or at least suspend them temporarily.

Rather than what is out there a 'Being" [illusory God, Dasein, etc.] the right focus should be on the 'self' within the turbulence of reality.

Yes. But how turbulent? And how fractured and fragmented an existential contraption is the "self" of any particular individual?

Me? Well, when it comes to conflicting goods, mine is more or less in tatters.

I believe the whole conversation is reduced to the above, i.e. the turbulence of reality within the self.

What I am proposing is a general view to a self and the above works only when the conditions are met which is not likely at present but rather in the future [>75, >100 >200 years]. Note I am only discussing the problem in general and not offering anyone an immediate solution.

Unless it is possible for you or anyone in your position [in tatters] to instantly acquire those required competence, the general proposals I made will not resolve your problem effectively. It takes time for one to rewire one's brain to change one's beliefs for the better.

It is the turbulence [inherited from our ancestors from millions of years ago] within our brain that enable the 'zombie parasite' to emerge. This is a very powerful force that is embedded deep in the brain and psyche which cannot be rid of but can only be inhibited by the specific rational neurons.

There is a percentile of humans who has sufficient rational neurons to suppress the theistic impulse via inhibition of the relevant neurons. There are other reasons why some are non-theists. But ..

Note the once very notable world famous atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to God [deistic] during the later part of his life when the neurons supporting his rational faculties in this respect failed him.

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

If anyone is in a bad state [psychologically] and the rational faculty is not strong enough AT PRESENT [not in the future 100 years], I would suggest they just cling to a God or religion but hopefully understand its limitations.

The other alternative is to use drugs to artificially inhibit that inevitable impulses of the unrestrained 'zombie parasite'. But as we know, there are side effects with very detrimental potentials.

Another alternative is existential psychology, note Camus, Kierkegaard and others.

Another is self-psychoanalysis.
All the dilemmas from the turbulence within the self is from the brain which at least you have access to control in a minimal way. The Eastern religions and spiritualities are using this approach, but to be efficient that also require time and also one must start early as it is difficult to change the older brain.

The quickie way is to direct attention to one's breath when the dilemma arise on one's consciousness to prevent the thoughts from ruminating in a loop.
Another is to direct one's attention to the amydala to calm the anxieties.
All these are seemingly easier said than done, but one has to try anyway.

Btw, I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.

[iambiguous]

I note you are dismissing most of the ideas I have proposed as intellectual contraptions. Such dismissals are actually lost opportunities. I suggest you be more open minded to dig more deeper on those concepts or at least suspend them temporarily.

I'm not argung that they are intellectual constraptions, only that from my frame of mind that is how they are construed by me.

And, based on my experience with those who do tend toward intellectual contraptions in discussions like this, when I am pressed to dig deeper into them, it generally means that only when I have come to share their own point of view have I finally succeeded in digging deep enough.

Whereas, from my own point of view, arguments that revolve around either the is/ought world, or fundamental inquiries into an understanding of Existence/Reality itself, are beyond the reach of mere mortals. At least insofar as that crucial gap between what we think we know about them and all that would need to be known about them still exist.

But even here I am only arguing that you have not convinced me that, with respect to the impossibility of an extant God, you have closed the gap.

Sure, maybe you have. And, sure, maybe others here believe that you have. Or, sure, maybe others insist that you have not because your own ontological/teleological TOE is not sync with their own ontological/teleological TOE.

And, with respect to things like God and Existence, there have been hundreds of intellectual fabrications embraced thoughout the course of human history.

And what of all the other possible intellectual contraptions [relating to God] being batted about throughout the entire multiverse?

Do you really imagine that yours actually does resolve the God/No God debate?!

Rather than what is out there a 'Being" [illusory God, Dasein, etc.] the right focus should be on the 'self' within the turbulence of reality.

Yes. But how turbulent? And how fractured and fragmented an existential contraption is the "self" of any particular individual?

Me? Well, when it comes to conflicting goods, mine is more or less in tatters.

I believe the whole conversation is reduced to the above, i.e. the turbulence of reality within the self.

You believe this, yes. But how have you actually demonstrated that with respect to the existence of God that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe the same? Each individual will react to this from a point of view embedded in a particular turbulence embedded in a particular world embedded in a particular self that, relating to questions of this sort, is embodied in dasein.

Thus when you note that...

What I am proposing is a general view to a self and the above works only when the conditions are met which is not likely at present but rather in the future [>75, >100 >200 years]. Note I am only discussing the problem in general and not offering anyone an immediate solution.

...my reaction is always the same: how on earth can something like this "here and now" be either verified or falsified? Thus, from my frame of mind, it is an especially vague "general description" of human interactions.

Unless it is possible for you or anyone in your position [in tatters] to instantly acquire those required competence, the general proposals I made will not resolve your problem effectively. It takes time for one to rewire one's brain to change one's beliefs for the better.

For the better?

And that's the crux of it. You are convinced that in a No God world, mere mortals are in fact able to "progress" morally: >75, >100 >200 years from now.

And that may well be true. But "here and now" what would such an argument actually sound like pertaining to a conflicted good like abortion? What constitutes "better" here? And how is your own narrative not embedded in something like 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.

This is the manner in which I encompass my own value judgments here: Clearly embedded in an "existential contraption" embedded further in a No God world. And then to the objectivists --- God or No God -- I ask: how are your own values not embedded in the same? How, philosophically, can an ethics be devised that transcends this?

Well, with God it seems obvious. But No God? How does it work then?

As for this...

It is the turbulence [inherited from our ancestors from millions of years ago] within our brain that enable the 'zombie parasite' to emerge. This is a very powerful force that is embedded deep in the brain and psyche which cannot be rid of but can only be inhibited by the specific rational neurons.

There is a percentile of humans who has sufficient rational neurons to suppress the theistic impulse via inhibition of the relevant neurons. There are other reasons why some are non-theists. But ..

Note the once very notable world famous atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to God [deistic] during the later part of his life when the neurons supporting his rational faculties in this respect failed him.

...how on earth is it applicable to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Take these points and note how "for all practical purposes" they can be useful in resolving, say, the considerably turbulent reaction of conservatives to liberals and liberals to conservatives.

I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.

From my frame of mind, this frame of mind speaks volumes: it is objectivism on steroids. A "master blueprint" for "Perpetual Peace"?!

As I see it, it is that you believe this that counts far more than whatever the blueprint actually is. After all, there have been countless such blueprints down through the ages.

So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.

Instead, what I come back to here is the manner in which you embrace a wholistic frame of mind that is really not all that far removed from the ones that you critique among the theists.

It's just that, in their head, when they die there is immortality, salvation and divine justice. But when you die there is none of that. All you've got is the comfort and the consolation of knowing that when the world finally does come around to embracing your master blueprint the world will finally experience Perpetual Peace.

Even if you -- as "I" -- are only on the long grind back to beoming star stuff.

[Prismatic567]

I note you are dismissing most of the ideas I have proposed as intellectual contraptions. Such dismissals are actually lost opportunities. I suggest you be more open minded to dig more deeper on those concepts or at least suspend them temporarily.

I'm not argung that they are intellectual constraptions, only that from my frame of mind that is how they are construed by me.

And, based on my experience with those who do tend toward intellectual contraptions in discussions like this, when I am pressed to dig deeper into them, it generally means that only when I have come to share their own point of view have I finally succeeded in digging deep enough.

Whereas, from my own point of view, arguments that revolve around either the is/ought world, or fundamental inquiries into an understanding of Existence/Reality itself, are beyond the reach of mere mortals. At least insofar as that crucial gap between what we think we know about them and all that would need to be known about them still exist.

But even here I am only arguing that you have not convinced me that, with respect to the impossibility of an extant God, you have closed the gap.

Sure, maybe you have. And, sure, maybe others here believe that you have. Or, sure, maybe others insist that you have not because your own ontological/teleological TOE is not sync with their own ontological/teleological TOE.

And, with respect to things like God and Existence, there have been hundreds of intellectual fabrications embraced thoughout the course of human history.

And what of all the other possible intellectual contraptions [relating to God] being batted about throughout the entire multiverse?

Do you really imagine that yours actually does resolve the God/No God debate?!

Personally I am VERY confident my thesis will resolve the God/No God debate based on real evidences, i.e.

1. As I had stated the original impulse towards God [and it negative baggage] is the inherent existential crisis deep in the psyche of humans.
2. There are already Eastern philosophies and spiritualities resolving this same existential crisis without resorting the a God, i.e. non-theistic approaches with great potentials toward the future.
3. There are tons of research demonstrating the 'idea of God' also emerged out of from within the human minds, e.g. brain damage, mental illness, stress, drugs, hallucinogens, out of the blue, etc. These throw doubts that God pre-existed as an independent supernatural Being.
4. Humanity has progress significantly without reliance on a God, e,g, on morality re the elimination of slavery by all Nations on a legal basis to compel reduction in the practical.
5. The average humans has only used a small % of the the full potential of his mind individually and as a group or one as humanity.
6. Others, etc. etc.

You may deem such views as 'contraption' but my basis is based on rational arguments as supported by the above evidences and potentials.

You believe this, yes. But how have you actually demonstrated that with respect to the existence of God that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe the same? Each individual will react to this from a point of view embedded in a particular turbulence embedded in a particular world embedded in a particular self that, relating to questions of this sort, is embodied in dasein.

As mentioned above, the average human is only using a small % of his/her mental potential, say 10% [very crudely], imagine the power of reasoning if the average is raised to say 30%, 50% or >.
You will notice there is a trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology that is pulling the average person into greater tendency for rationality.
At present there are smart drugs that can heighten one's cognitive power and intelligence while that drug is active. I am confident humanity will be able to expedite the average person's intelligence and rational thinking without side-effects in the future.

I believe the more the average person exercise his mental capacities in critical thinking, they will arrive to agree with what I am proposing at the present.

What is most critical is in the future there must be approaches [fool proof] that will enable to target general intelligence and wisdom with real changes in the neurons within the brain.

Thus when you note that...

What I am proposing is a general view to a self and the above works only when the conditions are met which is not likely at present but rather in the future [>75, >100 >200 years]. Note I am only discussing the problem in general and not offering anyone an immediate solution.

...my reaction is always the same: how on earth can something like this "here and now" be either verified or falsified? Thus, from my frame of mind, it is an especially vague "general description" of human interactions.

The confidence comes from the progressive trend that is going at present since the last 50 years. Note we have already mapped the complete human genome which was once thought to be impossible.
We are now embarking to map the full terrains of the human brain and its various neural patterns in relation to specific behaviors and capabilities.

http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
The Human Connectome Project aims to provide an unparalleled compilation of neural data, an interface to graphically navigate this data and the opportunity to achieve never before realized conclusions about the living human brain.

To be optimistic I always made an attempt to keep up with the latest technological advances in such areas.
The point is, the no-God approach is already been in practice since thousands of years ago with relevant results for some minority. So it is question of relying to the various technological advances in the future to translate this proven practices to the masses [for a critical mass] and wean off theistic practices and their inherent negative baggage.

Unless it is possible for you or anyone in your position [in tatters] to instantly acquire those required competence, the general proposals I made will not resolve your problem effectively. It takes time for one to rewire one's brain to change one's beliefs for the better.

For the better?

And that's the crux of it. You are convinced that in a No God world, mere mortals are in fact able to "progress" morally: >75, >100 >200 years from now.

And that may well be true. But "here and now" what would such an argument actually sound like pertaining to a conflicted good like abortion? What constitutes "better" here? And how is your own narrative not embedded in something like 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.

This is the manner in which I encompass my own value judgments here: Clearly embedded in an "existential contraption" embedded further in a No God world. And then to the objectivists --- God or No God -- I ask: how are your own values not embedded in the same? How, philosophically, can an ethics be devised that transcends this?

Well, with God it seems obvious. But No God? How does it work then?

As for this...

The point is humanity will never achieve the ideals because of randomness and chaos.
What is critical for the average person and humanity to ensure a standard impulse of continuous improvement and its related skills is embedded within one's psyche.

For example, in the case of the question abortion;
At present the question of abortion between parties will always be raised mainly [amidst other reasons] because the Sexual Impulse Control of the average person is VERY weak.
Thus the corrective action to be taken is to improve one's Impulse Control in general and its relation to other impulses, in this case, sexual.

At present there are tons of research going on in relation to 'Impulse Control' e.g.

Impulsivity and Impulse Control Disorder Research Program
http://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/impulsivity/

With the potential of knowledge and technology I mentioned earlier, humanity will be able to improve greatly on the individual's impulse control in the case of sexual, hunger, and other additions.

In this case, we don't need a God to dictate commands on issue to abortion.

The question of abortion will still be raised, but it will be reduced drastically if what I proposed in implemented in the future. Where abortion happened, what we need is to be persistent at the problem till the issues are negligible and abortions are only done in extreme cases.

Whatever problem that arise at present, the individual must always keep a distance from the problem, i.e. be indifference emotionally to the problem but nevertheless engage in it to contribute to its resolution where possible. The technique is to raise one's awareness above the turbulence, like letting oneself [mental self] float above the physical and mental turbulence.

As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.

We are creatures of time and circumstances but all human has the inherent potential to improve on their existing state in the best way possible. I believe you have already ride along this flow of progress when you are able to disentangle yourself from that rigid Abrahamic God which is illusory anyway. Naturally there is a cost to it but is still possible to gain equanimity, i.e.

Where one do not have the real mental capacity to act spontaneously on the above maxims of detachment and being indifference to the mental bonds of problems, one can actually force oneself to do it by rational thinking and self-psychoanalysis.

It is the turbulence [inherited from our ancestors from millions of years ago] within our brain that enable the 'zombie parasite' to emerge. This is a very powerful force that is embedded deep in the brain and psyche which cannot be rid of but can only be inhibited by the specific rational neurons.

There is a percentile of humans who has sufficient rational neurons to suppress the theistic impulse via inhibition of the relevant neurons. There are other reasons why some are non-theists. But ..

Note the once very notable world famous atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to God [deistic] during the later part of his life when the neurons supporting his rational faculties in this respect failed him.

...how on earth is it applicable to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

I have explained above.
One need to develop the mental capacity [which take time] to detach in one way while still allowing oneself to interact in the issue/ Bruce Lee's "Fighting Without 'Fighting.'"

If one do not have the natural propensity and ability, then one can psycho-analyze and forced oneself to perform what is justifiable rational.
If one has conflicting thoughts re goods and political economy, etc. one must ensure one is not emotionally blindly attached and let the thought ruminate to no end thus bringing emotional suffering. Thus one must in this case 'Think Without Thinking," i.e. think rationally and not blindly.

I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.

From my frame of mind, this frame of mind speaks volumes: it is objectivism on steroids. A "master blueprint" for "Perpetual Peace"?!

As I see it, it is that you believe this that counts far more than whatever the blueprint actually is. After all, there have been countless such blueprints down through the ages.

So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.

Instead, what I come back to here is the manner in which you embrace a wholistic frame of mind that is really not all that far removed from the ones that you critique among the theists.

It's just that, in their head, when they die there is immortality, salvation and divine justice. But when you die there is none of that. All you've got is the comfort and the consolation of knowing that when the world finally does come around to embracing your master blueprint the world will finally experience Perpetual Peace.

Even if you -- as "I" -- are only on the long grind back to beoming star stuff.[/quote]Note the points I had presented above.[/quote]
My master blueprint will be a draft blue print based on critical and rational thinking.
My master blue print is just a proposal based on current knowledge, but I am optimistic the average humanity will progress along the current trend toward a dynamic blue print that will strive towards Perpectual Peace.
There was no master blue print, but note re morality, the abolishment of slavery by all National on legal grounds did actualize. So I am confident this apparent master blue print will progress along the lines I proposed and hopefully the principles involved will be abstracted on paper so that progress can be expedited.

Why did I get this idea?

The term perpetual peace became acknowledged when German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch"

So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.

I view what I am proposing as being
a voluntary act as a responsible citizen of humanity.
Whilst I am not a Buddhist per se, I adopt one of the Boddhisattva's vow, i.e. be compassionate to all sentient beings and contribute whatever is positive.
I don't believe such impulses are driven by psychological angst or defense mechanism which are driven from the basement of the brain and mind from billions of years inherited from our 'reptilian' ancestors.

Compassion and empathy to humanity is based on 'mirror neurons' which is a very late development of evolution and are located within the higher and later parts of the brain, mostly in the higher primates and human beings.

[surreptitious75]

The average human has only used a small percentage of the the full potential of his mind individually and as a group or one as humanity

There is no major part of the brain which is not used : the prefrontal cortex for abstract thinking / the hippocampus for memory / the amygdala for
fear response / the left hemisphere for logic / the right hemisphere for emotion / the corpus callosum for communication between the hemispheres

[Prismatic567]

The average human has only used a small percentage of the the full potential of his mind individually and as a group or one as humanity

There is no major part of the brain which is not used : the prefrontal cortex for abstract thinking / the hippocampus for memory / the amygdala for
fear response / the left hemisphere for logic / the right hemisphere for emotion / the corpus callosum for communication between the hemispheres

I was not referring to parts of the brain but the individual neurons and its potential connectivity.

The human brain contains appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse]. It is just like there are 100 billion people on Earth with each person carrying up to 10,000 smart phones connecting with each other.

Note the possible combination between two neurons. So just imagine the number of possible and potential combinations in terms of connections for the whole brain.

At present the average human has only very minimal connections in relation to the whole potential [actually is infinite].
Einstein supposedly is among the top who has an IQ of 250, just imagine the realizable knowledge potential when the average human has an IQ of 250 and possibly >250 in future years.

It is not only IQ but it is possible for the average human to increase all other quotients, e.g moral, wisdom, spiritual, emotional, etc. by 100%, 200% in future years by tapping on the trend of expanded and expanding range of knowledge and competences.

[iambiguous]

Personally I am VERY confident my thesis will resolve the God/No God debate based on real evidences, i.e.

1. As I had stated the original impulse towards God [and it negative baggage] is the inherent existential crisis deep in the psyche of humans.
2. There are already Eastern philosophies and spiritualities resolving this same existential crisis without resorting the a God, i.e. non-theistic approaches with great potentials toward the future.
3. There are tons of research demonstrating the 'idea of God' also emerged out of from within the human minds, e.g. brain damage, mental illness, stress, drugs, hallucinogens, out of the blue, etc. These throw doubts that God pre-existed as an independent supernatural Being.
4. Humanity has progress significantly without reliance on a God, e,g, on morality re the elimination of slavery by all Nations on a legal basis to compel reduction in the practical.
5. The average humans has only used a small % of the the full potential of his mind individually and as a group or one as humanity.
6. Others, etc. etc.

Let me reiterate:

I'm not arguing that this is not true, only that you have failed to demonstrate to me how you have successfully closed the gap between what you claim in this thesis and all that any particular mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself to be able to make such claims.

Also, what is most crucial "here and now" is that you believe this yourself. Why? Because it is what you believe to be true "in your head" that motivates your behaviors. And it is what you do that precipitates consequences for others.

And an argument like this...

As mentioned above, the average human is only using a small % of his/her mental potential, say 10% [very crudely], imagine the power of reasoning if the average is raised to say 30%, 50% or >.
You will notice there is a trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology that is pulling the average person into greater tendency for rationality.
At present there are smart drugs that can heighten one's cognitive power and intelligence while that drug is active. I am confident humanity will be able to expedite the average person's intelligence and rational thinking without side-effects in the future.

I believe the more the average person exercise his mental capacities in critical thinking, they will arrive to agree with what I am proposing at the present.

What is most critical is in the future there must be approaches [fool proof] that will enable to target general intelligence and wisdom with real changes in the neurons within the brain.

...doesn't change that at all. There is the evidence that you present here and there is all the evidence that would be needed in order demonstrate beyond all doubt the extant relationship between God/No God and the ontological/teleological description of Reality itself.

How is this not true?

You claim that your confidence here comes from...

...the progressive trend that is going at present since the last 50 years. Note we have already mapped the complete human genome which was once thought to be impossible.

Sure, of the either/or world, science has made astounding progress over the millennia. But what of the is/ought world? Again, we don't even know for certain yet if there is any human autonomy involved at all here. It could all just be as it only ever could have been. Including this exchange.

Back again to this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

With the potential of knowledge and technology I mentioned earlier, humanity will be able to improve greatly on the individual's impulse control in the case of sexual, hunger, and other additions.

In this case, we don't need a God to dictate commands on issue to abortion.

No matter how much we come to control our sexual impulses there are almost certainly going to be unwanted pregnancies. For example, a woman chooses to become pregnant, becomes pregnant, but then something in her life compels her to change her mind. Or she chooses a contraceptive device that just doesn't work.

Thus the conflicting good revolving around the alleged "natural rights" of the unborn and the "political rights" of the pregnant woman never really go away. Now, with an omniscient and omnipotent God we get Divine Justice here. Not so with mere mortals. Well, aside from the No God folks who insist that "philosophically", "ethically", "objectively", we can reason ourselves to an optimal justice. Or root it in the one and only correct understanding of Nature.

The question of abortion will still be raised, but it will be reduced drastically if what I proposed in implemented in the future. Where abortion happened, what we need is to be persistent at the problem till the issues are negligible and abortions are only done in extreme cases.

In the future. That's always a safe place in which to defend your point of view. That way nothing has to be demonstrated now. Instead, it's what you think the future will be like "in your head". The "turbulence" [or lack thereof] then becomes in sync with that.

As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.

Are these or are these not basically "general descriptions" attached vaguely to an imagined context "in their heads"?

We are creatures of time and circumstances but all human has the inherent potential to improve on their existing state in the best way possible. I believe you have already ride along this flow of progress when you are able to disentangle yourself from that rigid Abrahamic God which is illusory anyway. Naturally there is a cost to it but is still possible to gain equanimity, i.e.

Where one do not have the real mental capacity to act spontaneously on the above maxims of detachment and being indifference to the mental bonds of problems, one can actually force oneself to do it by rational thinking and self-psychoanalysis.

Same here. "Progress" as an intellectual contraption. Only when you take assumptions of this sort out into the world and note the manner in which they become applicable to your own interactions with others, will they become clearer to folks like me.

I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.

From my frame of mind, this frame of mind speaks volumes: it is objectivism on steroids. A "master blueprint" for "Perpetual Peace"?!

As I see it, it is that you believe this that counts far more than whatever the blueprint actually is. After all, there have been countless such blueprints down through the ages.

So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.

Instead, what I come back to here is the manner in which you embrace a wholistic frame of mind that is really not all that far removed from the ones that you critique among the theists.

It's just that, in their head, when they die there is immortality, salvation and divine justice. But when you die there is none of that. All you've got is the comfort and the consolation of knowing that when the world finally does come around to embracing your master blueprint the world will finally experience Perpetual Peace.

Even if you -- as "I" -- are only on the long grind back to beoming star stuff.

My master blueprint will be a draft blue print based on critical and rational thinking.
My master blue print is just a proposal based on current knowledge, but I am optimistic the average humanity will progress along the current trend toward a dynamic blue print that will strive towards Perpectual Peace.

And yet you and I "here and now" of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

On the other hand, for the God folks, what they have come to believe about their fate on the other side -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- may or may not unfold. But "here and now" they believe that it will and it is that comfort and consolation "in the present" that you and I don't have.

Why did I get this idea?

The term perpetual peace became acknowledged when German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch"

So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won't.

I view what I am proposing as being
a voluntary act as a responsible citizen of humanity.

I react to this in much the same manner in which I react to Ierrellus's "ecological morality". Being a responsible citizen is in sync with human interactions that you would embrace as embodying the right thing to do.

Only, from my frame of mind, "I" here is less an essential philosophical truth than an existential contraption rooted out in a particular world rooted in dasein.

The same with "empathy and compassion". In what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors revolving around what particular conflicting goods?

[Prismatic567]

Back again to this:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

We need to analyze the above in more details.

There are known unknowns.
We need to take into account the following'

1. Logically possible and logically impossible.
2. Empirical possible and empirical impossible

.

We can have known unknowns which are empirical possible, like possible human-liked aliens in a planet billions of light years away - very slim chance but nevertheless still empirically possible.
But there is no way there can be known unknowns which are empirically impossible within an empirical-rational reality. Example 'God exists' which is an empirical impossibility and based on very crude primal reasons and ultimately irrational.

Whatever you want to claim as real [dasein, absolute "I"] it has to be empirically known by empirical proofs or it is empirically possible but yet unknown [no objective knowledge of it yet].

Let me reiterate:

I'm not arguing that this is not true, only that you have failed to demonstrate to me how you have successfully closed the gap between what you claim in this thesis and all that any particular mere mortal would need to know about the very nature of Existence itself to be able to make such claims.

Also, what is most crucial "here and now" is that you believe this yourself. Why? Because it is what you believe to be true "in your head" that motivates your behaviors. And it is what you do that precipitates consequences for others.

...doesn't change that at all. There is the evidence that you present here and there is all the evidence that would be needed in order demonstrate beyond all doubt the extant relationship between God/No God and the ontological/teleological description of Reality itself.

How is this not true?

You claim that your confidence here comes from...


Sure, of the either/or world, science has made astounding progress over the millennia. But what of the is/ought world? Again, we don't even know for certain yet if there is any human autonomy involved at all here. It could all just be as it only ever could have been. Including this exchange.

Back again to this:

The question of abortion will still be raised, but it will be reduced drastically if what I proposed in implemented in the future. Where abortion happened, what we need is to be persistent at the problem till the issues are negligible and abortions are only done in extreme cases.

In the future. That's always a safe place in which to defend your point of view. That way nothing has to be demonstrated now. Instead, it's what you think the future will be like "in your head". The "turbulence" [or lack thereof] then becomes in sync with that.

My master blueprint will be a draft blue print based on critical and rational thinking.
My master blue print is just a proposal based on current knowledge, but I am optimistic the average humanity will progress along the current trend toward a dynamic blue print that will strive towards Perpectual Peace.

And yet you and I "here and now" of the No God frame of mind, will almost certainly not be around to either 1] experience it or 2] confirm that in fact it came to be.

On the other hand, for the God folks, what they have come to believe about their fate on the other side -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- may or may not unfold. But "here and now" they believe that it will and it is that comfort and consolation "in the present" that you and I don't have.

I react to this in much the same manner in which I react to Ierrellus's "ecological morality". Being a responsible citizen is in sync with human interactions that you would embrace as embodying the right thing to do.

Only, from my frame of mind, "I" here is less an essential philosophical truth than an existential contraption rooted out in a particular world rooted in dasein.

I think the whole lot of points above can be reduced to your concern that the "here and now" cannot be 'there and then' in the future.
Note Hume's, one cannot get an "is" [empirical now] from an 'ought' [future from reason].
I believe this is very obvious that whatever is now [even justified knowledge] cannot guarantee it will happen in the future, Hume again, i.e. no certainty the Sun will rise tomorrow morning!

Therefore you cannot use the above is/ought dilemma to counter that what I proposed will not happen in the future.
What is of concern is whether what I proposed is feasible or not based on the arguments and evidence I have provided.

Note Einstein's

Scientists have finally proven Einstein’s century-old theory about gravitational waves.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/11/1096 ... nced-video

It took 100 years for Einstein's prediction in 1916 to be proven in 2016.
Point here is Einstein's hypothesis is extended from the empirical possible.

My proposals [empirically possible] presented here is based on existing proven practices based on evidence, trends, objective principles, and other valid knowledge. I believe it will produce positive results for humanity in the future [when the possible conditions are established].

Note the saying,
"If you failed to plan, you planned to fail"
Planning is a critical skill for all humans and humanity, what I have done is planning for the future now so that we can expect positive results in the future. I believe this the one of the intended purpose of philosophy-proper.

Are you advising I should not propose such plans at all since what I proposed will not change anything now for you [especially] and everyone.

I believe your response would be wiser to critique the principles, processes, system on why my proposals is not feasible and will not work as expected in the future.

As the Gita stated, "Act, but do not be attached to the fruits [positive or negative] of action"
Bruce Lee [adapted from Taoism] stated "Fight without Fighting."
Thus one must sustain equanimity in all actions and fruits [+ve or -ve] of actions.

Are these or are these not basically "general descriptions" attached vaguely to an imagined context "in their heads"?

Nope, the above are extracted from very deep reflection of what is going in reality and they are to guide humans in living optimally in accordance to their circumstances.

Those who are mindful of the above put them into practice [represented by neural competence] in their daily life as spontaneous and as much as possible. To be spontaneous, one has to practice years of meditation and other necessary exercises. One can psycho-analyze it but that is only temporary.

Your concern is the "here and now" and whatever proposals for the future [especially the longer term] is not going to work for you.
The normal advice is "Never Cry Over Spilt Milk" i.e. we are what we have been in the past and there is nothing we can do to change the past that has effected our lives and psychological state.
What we need to do is to do one's best and optimize at the present. For those who has concern for humanity, they could contribute whatever they can to create a better world for future generations.

[surreptitious75]

No matter how much we come to control our sexual impulses there are almost certainly going to be unwanted pregnancies
For example a woman chooses to become pregnant becomes pregnant but then something in her life compels her to change her mind

Thus the conflicting good revolving around the alleged natural rights of the unborn and the political rights of the pregnant woman never really
go away. Now with an omniscient and omnipotent God we get Divine Justice here. Not so with mere mortals. Well aside from the No God folks
who insist that philosophically ethically objectively we can reason ourselves to an optimal justice

There will always be conflict revolving around moral issues where freedom of choice exists

Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible for God can only be one of these not both

We cannot reason ourselves to optimal justice because that concept is entirely meaningless