What is Dasein?

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, I just posted this in another thread and thought it would be pertinent to your treatment of concepts:

If everyone in the universe agreed that morality was fake, they would all be wrong; making the statement proves morality. You deemed it good to offer the statement, thus morality is not fake.

What this also implies is that morality is objective.

And how on earth might one go about actually demonstrating this? Such that everyone in the entire universe deemed both rational and virtuous would concur?

Often times your arguments, and I truly mean this, are the equivalent of "someone doesn't like bell peppers and someone does like bell peppers, prove to me what is objectively imperative"

True enough. Some people do like them, some people don't. Then what?

Or suppose someone came along and insisted that all rational men and women are obligated to like them. Then what?

Or suppose someone came along and argued that all men and women were morally obligated to eat them. Then what?

For example, in terms of abortion, some people only want to be hands on parents for the offspring they give birth to, and getting pregnant, realize they can't be the parent they are compelled by their nature to be. Others trust adoption agencies.

Okay, so how would philosophers go about establishing what all rational moms and dads are obligated to want...are obligated to do?

Personally, not to negate adopted lives, i side with the rationale of parents who want to be hands on, it shows accountability. I've personally heard people argue that if you haven't already bought your child a house, you shouldn't have them. Where people get heated in these discussions is about status, babies being status, nasty, nasty people... when confronted with elegant logic, they shrivel in the crap they truly are, babies for status.

Personally. That's my point.

In other words, to what extent do your value judgments today revolve around a particular set of experiences, relationships, sources of information and knowledge etc., accumulated out in a particular world. Yours.

Or, instead, to what extent can philosophers account for all of the unimaginably vast and varied experiences, relationships, sets of ideas etc., that millions upon millions of individuals may have come to embody in order demonstrate the optimal or the only rational assessment available to those who wish to be deemed here as virtuous human beings.

[iambiguous]

All the above is nothing but your intellectual contraption.

Are you still here?

[iambiguous]

Are you nothing more than a large number of bouncing atoms interacting "mechanically" with other bouncing atoms and therefore essentially no different from a rock?

Really, is this a serious philosophical question?

And where is the the most serious philosophical answer to be found?

To be found somewhere in the arguments here perhaps: https://www.google.com/search?ei=y1fvWo ... Ix5dDnqtrM

And how on earth would I even begin to defend the points I raise about dasein as the optimal frame of mind?

[Ecmandu]

My first theorem about objective morality is true by definition. To make the statement "there is no morality" requires moral impetus, namely, that you thought it good to make the statement. Now, I've been raising the point for years, that self contradiction is an ornament males use to attract females in the species. It is not surprising that lots of males have very intricate ornaments of self contradiction; the reason being, if you can contradict YOURSELF and still be ALIVE, it appears to the brain that such a being has supernatural powers, that they are God.

Not only can I account for what is the proof that morality is objective, I can even calculate for people who use ornaments of self refutation (denying the argument).

Part of the reason abortion is such a testy subject for people emotionally is because, when you pick a crowd, you're implying with infallible logic that they shouldn't have been born; even touching upon this subject gets people very emotionally intense.

I'll remove that tension between each other by stating matter of factly, that if this world was a better place, NONE of us would have been born. I'm not discriminating here to that regard for the living. That is an existential burden we all share, the only way to combat it is to solve for realities where everyone gets everything they want without hurting anyone.

You asked: what's my moral that all people can agree upon? Just that: everyone getting everything they want without hurting anyone.

That is as axiomatic as: it takes a moral being to state morality is false, fake.

[phyllo]

Reduced to a retort? Again? I'll chalk it all up to a particularly shitty mood that you are in. Again.

Okay, then I will rephrase it. You said your piece and I said my piece. I'm not interested in going over the same ground. There is nothing more that needs to be posted.

And, no, I don't enjoy being in the hole at all.

If you won't or can't take any action to get out, then you might as well enjoy the hole. It's not entirely without its positive points.

Summed up in song as : "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."

[phyllo]

Really, is this a serious philosophical question?

Seems to be part of the investigation of life, so it's a philosophical question.

And where is the the most serious philosophical answer to be found?

There are answers in various places.

To be found somewhere in the arguments here perhaps: https://www.google.com/search?ei=y1fvWo ... Ix5dDnqtrM

There are some of them. That wasn't hard.

[iambiguous]

You asked: what's my moral that all people can agree upon? Just that: everyone getting everything they want without hurting anyone.

Agreeing on it is one thing, bringing it about in the world of actual conflicting human interactions...?

Why on earth are men and women, inhabiting the planet now for thousands of years, still unable to achieve this lofty goal? Why, instead, are there still countless moral and political conflgrations revolving around conflicting goods?

Could it be that what some want still today comes into conflict with what others want? Could it be that in getting what some want it necessarily involves hurting others.

Again: Mary wants to abort her "clump of cells". John wants her to give birth to his "baby".

So, here, by definition, axiomatically, what constitutes an objective moral solution?

And how are mere mortals able to realistically transcend the arguments I raise above regarding the existential -- lived -- relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy?

You argue that...

Part of the reason abortion is such a testy subject for people emotionally is because, when you pick a crowd, you're implying with infallible logic that they shouldn't have been born; even touching upon this subject gets people very emotionally intense.

I'll remove that tension between each other by stating matter of factly, that if this world was a better place, NONE of us would have been born. I'm not discriminating here to that regard for the living. That is an existential burden we all share, the only way to combat it is to solve for realities where everyone gets everything they want without hurting anyone.

All I can do yet again is to imagine you outside a Planned Parenthood clinic and, in the midst of a tumultuous clash between fiercely pro-life and fiercely pro-choice advocates, pointing this out to them.

Succeeding in making a clear distinction between their emotional and intellectual reactions. Succeeding such that the manner in which I construe the role of dasein in their reactions is handily subsumed in the manner in which "in your head" you imagine a world where everyone does get what they want without hurting anyone.

Assuming of course I am able to understand your point at all in a world where, "I'm saying what I think I mean and you're hearing what you think I'm saying".

[iambiguous]

Reduced to a retort? Again? I'll chalk it all up to a particularly shitty mood that you are in. Again.

Okay, then I will rephrase it. You said your piece and I said my piece. I'm not interested in going over the same ground. There is nothing more that needs to be posted.

I never tire of going over the same ground here myself. Not regarding that which I construe to be [by far] the most important philosophical question of all: How ought one to live?

As a Christian? As an Objectivist? As a Marxist? As a socialist? As a social democrat? As a liberal? As an existentialist? As a nihilist?

That's been my own particular path. And, with so much at stake [both before and after the grave], I don't imagine I will ever stop asking it. Or asking others for their own answers.

And, no, I don't enjoy being in the hole at all.

If you won't or can't take any action to get out, then you might as well enjoy the hole. It's not entirely without its positive points.

Here, of course, you have no idea what particular options are available to me. There's that ever widening gap between what I'd like to do and what I am actually able to. Besides, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of folks out there all clamoring to insist that you do what they do.

Then the part where "out in the world" they intertwine the components of their own success stories in the components of mine. And note how with respect to the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy, they are not in the hole I'm in.

I'm just grappling to understand how that might be done --- given the manner in which I have managed to convince myself that [philosophically or otherwise] it doesn't seem really possible at all.

Summed up in song as : "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."

As a "general description" that can be a comforting option indeed. Until you start in on who there actually is to love under what set of circumstances given the options that are realistically available to you. And [of course] the reactions of others less inclined to see the circumstances as you do.

Let alone imagining "serious philosophers" grappling with it such that "technically" a frame of mind can be attained said to be the obligation of all rational people to embrace. If only theoretically.

And, from my point of view, in a No God world.

[iambiguous]

Really, is this a serious philosophical question?

Seems to be part of the investigation of life, so it's a philosophical question.

I agree. My point was more to suggest there are folks who never seem inclined to take it out that far. Let alone grappling with the implications of their own behaviors if there really is nothing at all in the universe other than matter toppling over onto other matter only as it ever could have.

Though, let's face it, for some this might be comforting indeed.

To be found somewhere in the arguments here perhaps: https://www.google.com/search?ei=y1fvWo ... Ix5dDnqtrM

There are some of them. That wasn't hard.

No, the hard part revolves around reading the arguments and then deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided.

[phyllo]

No, the hard part revolves around reading the arguments and then deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided.

That part seems pretty easy as well.

[phyllo]

I never tire of going over the same ground here myself.

Yeah, we noticed.

Here, of course, you have no idea what particular options are available to me.

I don't need to know. There are positive points to it no matter what your current status or options.

As a "general description" that can be a comforting option indeed. Until you start in on who there actually is to love under what set of circumstances given the options that are realistically available to you.

Unless you're a hermit, there is someone to love.

[Karpel Tunnel]

As a "general description" that can be a comforting option indeed. Until you start in on who there actually is to love under what set of circumstances given the options that are realistically available to you.

Unless you're a hermit, there is someone to love.

Just want to emphasize the context.

The most important thing for him to know, according to him, is: how ought he live?

This is the core question related to morals, morals generally being rules for how one relates to other people.

When you suggest and others have suggested certain practical moves out of the hole, he makes it seem like there are no options for love. Then one wonders what important answers he needs around how to live - something you may be getting at when you mention the hermit.

He does not like being in his hole but is not willing to take practical research validated steps to move out from the hole. He is also cut off it seems from any person to potentially love - even though people do develop great affection over the internet and Skype is probably an option even if he is bedridden. Certainly contact over the internet is possible, given the number of posts we are looking at.

He could takes steps to minimize the harsh emotional aspects of the hole AND maintain his interest in solving the issue of conflicting goods. These two processes are not mutually exclusive.

Unless he has the intuition that they are, for him.

That he might lose interest in presenting this issue if he had a social life. At least it seems like he is claiming he does not have one.

And suddenly it seems like an issue of self-care conflated with, yes, a real philosophical conundrum. And that actually hits me as sad this time.

Enjoy the hole. I understood when you said that to him.

But maybe enjoy is not quite the right word.

I would guess most of us could come up with things that hurt us that we cling to for a variety of reasons, where even feeling better seems like some betrayal of an ideal or a giving in. I really don't know.

It comes off as a rejection of life.

I don't really believe in objective morals. I do find that I am a kind of social mammal. Some social mammals will rescue injured or trapped animals of other species. I don't think they are objectivists.

But what do you do when the trapped animal want to remain stuck in the mudhole? And not only that, accuses all comers as being too abstract. Might be time to pull back your trunk and stop trying to help.

[phyllo]

The most important thing for him to know, according to him, is: how ought he live?

I'm always surprised/amused when he says that. He never really discusses the question. He doesn't analyze it. Maybe that's because the answer is obvious.

You ought to live in a way that makes you feel good.

That's the only answer that fits in with his nihilist/dasein philosophy.

If someone suggests an answer, then Iambig would have to try it in order to determine if it is right for Iambig. What more could there be to it?

When you suggest and others have suggested certain practical moves out of the hole, he makes it seem like there are no options for love. Then one wonders what important answers he needs around how to live - something you may be getting at when you mention the hermit.

He does not like being in his hole but is not willing to take practical research validated steps to move out from the hole. He is also cut off it seems from any person to potentially love - even though people do develop great affection over the internet and Skype is probably an option even if he is bedridden. Certainly contact over the internet is possible, given the number of posts we are looking at.

He could takes steps to minimize the harsh emotional aspects of the hole AND maintain his interest in solving the issue of conflicting goods. These two processes are not mutually exclusive.

Unless he has the intuition that they are, for him.

That he might lose interest in presenting this issue if he had a social life. At least it seems like he is claiming he does not have one.

In a recent post, he indicated that his current life is fine. (I don't remember the exact phrase that he used and I can't find the post.)
I doubt that he is completely cut off but who knows. He probably would not discuss it, if asked.

Enjoy the hole. I understood when you said that to him.

But maybe enjoy is not quite the right word.

I would guess most of us could come up with things that hurt us that we cling to for a variety of reasons, where even feeling better seems like some betrayal of an ideal or a giving in. I really don't know.

It comes off as a rejection of life.

"Accept" the hole.

He seems like a man always dissatisfied with "what is".

But what do you do when the trapped animal want to remain stuck in the mudhole? And not only that, accuses all comers as being too abstract. Might be time to pull back your trunk and stop trying to help.

He likes to talk and he wants to have someone to talk to. Talking about the mudhole is more important that trying to escape.

[iambiguous]

No, the hard part revolves around reading the arguments and then deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided.

That part seems pretty easy as well.

Well then, sure, that settles it.

Either that or it is settled for you only because there was never any possibility of it not being settled for you. Just as there was never any possibility of my not choosing to point this out to you.

Now we only have to demonstrate why this is not really true at all.

You first.

[iambiguous]

I never tire of going over the same ground here myself.

Yeah, we noticed.

Good catch.

Here, of course, you have no idea what particular options are available to me.

I don't need to know. There are positive points to it no matter what your current status or options.

I'm not arguing there are not positive points to it. I am pointing out that from my frame of mind it does little or nothing to yank me up out of the hole I'm in. Given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above...given the manner in which I construe human behaviors that come into conflict in the is/ought world.

Someone could utilize it while ensconced in that dreaded nightmare perceived by some to be either Communism or capitalism. But that doesn't appear to resolve the conflicting goods here. Other than as a manifestion of daseins interacting out in a particular world while experiencing it in a particular way. In other words, being predisposed existentially to go down particular political paths.

Of course we all know the manner in which you resolve it, don't we?

As a "general description" that can be a comforting option indeed. Until you start in on who there actually is to love under what set of circumstances given the options that are realistically available to you.

Unless you're a hermit, there is someone to love.

How then are our own individual renditions of love not also embedded in dasein? We all come into this world hard-wired biologically to both receive and to give love. But look at the countless historical, cultural and experiential embodiments of it. Not unlike hate for that matter.

If not everyone loves to hate Communists as you do, sure, they can find others to love to hate. But how is that in turn not embedded in dasein? Is there a philosophical assessment that captures who or what we ought to love [or hate] essentially, objectively, universally?

Indeed, ought we to love or to hate Donald Trump?

How on earth would that not be the embodiment of dasein?

Shall we cue the liberals and the conservatives? In order to settle it once and for all?

[phyllo]

No, the hard part revolves around reading the arguments and then deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided.

That part seems pretty easy as well.

Well then, sure, that settles it.

Either that or it is settled for you only because there was never any possibility of it not being settled for you. Just as there was never any possibility of my not choosing to point this out to you.

Now we only have to demonstrate why this is not really true at all.

You first.

As far as I'm concerned, " deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided" is the action of one person and the decision is easy.

The way that you interpret it seem to be that "all reasonable men and women" must decide "what you decided is only as you could ever have decided".

I see that as irrelevant and pointless. Not surprising that it appears to be a big problem.

[phyllo]

I am pointing out that from my frame of mind it does little or nothing to yank me up out of the hole I'm in.

As I pointed out, reading an argument is not going to yank you out of the hole. Unfortunately, that's all there is in an internet forum and therefore I have tried to show you various ways to look at the issue in the hopes that one would jostle you into action.

Since you won't or can't take action, then there is little to do but continue to babble or simply stop.

How then are our own individual renditions of love not also embedded in dasein?

What do "individual renditions" really have to do with it?

The quote says that you ought to accept what there is and make the best of it.

If not everyone loves to hate Communists as you do, sure, they can find others to love to hate.

I don't hate Communists at all. That's your interpretation.
Communism has consistently failed. It typically descends into totalitarianism. Most Communists are idealists who close their eyes to the misery and failure. They are promoting it as "the next time it will be real communism" ... perfect and without any problems. That's naive and dangerous.

[iambiguous]

When you suggest and others have suggested certain practical moves out of the hole, he makes it seem like there are no options for love.

Again, Mary loved John. John loved Marry. They both loved me and I loved them in turn.

Then Mary got pregnant. Within a few months that loves was basically in tatters.

How then would one go about yanking the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above up out of this.

More to the point: When you are intertwined in a particular conflict revolving around conflicting goods, how, for all practical purposes, do you yank yourself up out of the hole?

Describe examples of this.

It would seem to me there are three options.

1] one of you is stronger then the other and can impose his own agenda
2] you both come to agree that there is an optimal moral solution
3] you both agree to moderate your own point of view, and begin negotiations in order to compromise your behaviors

And that's not even counting the rather pervasive agendas [in the world today] of the narcissists and sociopaths who only see a hole when they can't get what they deem to be in their own self-interest.

In the interim though, I'm still waiting for the manner in which you subsume dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in a description of your interactions with others that come to clash as a result of opposing value judgments.

Again, Phyllo merely subsumes the right thing to do in regards to things like Communism in a reflection of his own political prejudices.

How about you? What "for all practical purposes" works for you?

He does not like being in his hole but is not willing to take practical research validated steps to move out from the hole. He is also cut off it seems from any person to potentially love - even though people do develop great affection over the internet and Skype is probably an option even if he is bedridden. Certainly contact over the internet is possible, given the number of posts we are looking at.

All I can do here is to note that which I pointed out to Phyllo above:

Here, of course, you have no idea what particular options are available to me. There's that ever widening gap between what I'd like to do and what I am actually able to. Besides, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of folks out there all clamoring to insist that you should do what they do.

He could takes steps to minimize the harsh emotional aspects of the hole AND maintain his interest in solving the issue of conflicting goods. These two processes are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, I have accumulated any number of distractions that serve me quite well: music, film, PBS, the Science Channel, my "signature" threads here at ILP, my virtual exchanges with folks online. I sure as shit don't wallow in that hole! It's just always there when I bump into conflicting goods.

I don't really believe in objective morals. I do find that I am a kind of social mammal. Some social mammals will rescue injured or trapped animals of other species. I don't think they are objectivists.

Okay, if you don't believe in objective morals [and presumably God] how then do you make that crucial distinction between your value judgments as the embodiment of dasein and the extent to which the tools of philosophy enable you to be more rather than less convinced that one rather than another behavior is the right thing to do? As a "social mammal". Walk us through a particular reaction "in your head" when you bump into another with conflicting value judgments. And note how that is then translated into a working solution given a particular context.

But what do you do when the trapped animal want to remain stuck in the mudhole? And not only that, accuses all comers as being too abstract. Might be time to pull back your trunk and stop trying to help.

This is so far removed from my actual frame of mind, I can only attribute it to the complex variables embedded in dasein when two individuals try to communicate how they think and feel about these things.

[iambiguous]

The most important thing for him to know, according to him, is: how ought he live?

I'm always surprised/amused when he says that. He never really discusses the question. He doesn't analyze it. Maybe that's because the answer is obvious.

Okay, just out of curiosity, with respect to the question as it relates to one of your own answers, how do you go about discussing and analzying it.

When "I" am confronted with the question, "How ought one to live?" I am confronted in turn with the components of my own moral philosophy: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And all I can do, to the best of my ability, is to explain what they have come to mean to me "here and now"; and to note how they have come [existentially] to impact the evolution of my own value judgments over the years.

And then to ask others to note how my own subjective narrative here is out of sync with theirs.

And then, together, ponder the extent to which philosophers might grapple with this "out in the world" of actual human interactions that do come into conflict over moral and political value judgments.

You ought to live in a way that makes you feel good.

My own narrative however grapples with the manner in which "you" [as an existential contraption] become who you think you are out in a particular world living a particular life. And then in noting any number of contexts whereby that which makes one person feel good results in making another person feel bad.

Then what? You know, philosophically.

[iambiguous]

As far as I'm concerned, "deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided" is the action of one person and the decision is easy.

Well, some folks argue easily that it is only as they ever could have decided, while others argue easily that it isn't.

There, that's easily resolved.

The way that you interpret it seem[s] to be that "all reasonable men and women" must decide "what you decided is only as you could ever have decided".

No, the way I interpret it [rather ambivalently] is that I'm not really sure if all reasonable men and women are free to decide how to decide anything at all.

I merely note that, with respect to dasein, even if we do embody some measure of autonomy here, it is circumscribed by the manner in which I construe human interactions in the is/ought world.

As, in other words, an existential contraption. Some of which are either down or not down in the hole with me.

[phyllo]

Okay, just out of curiosity, with respect to the question as it relates to one of your own answers, how do you go about discussing and analzying it.

Why me?

You have books that you can freely consult ... Aristotle, Socrates, Epicurus, Epictetus, etc. They discuss the question.

My feeble posts are little in comparison.

My own narrative however grapples with the manner in which "you" [as an existential contraption] become who you think you are out in a particular world living a particular life. And then in noting any number of contexts whereby that which makes one person feel good results in making another person feel bad.

Yeah, that's life. You can choose how much you want to do to prevent that person from feeling bad.

Ooops, I forgot that you're a falling domino with not control over yourself. What is there to grapple with, in that case? You're not "doing" anything in that case.

[phyllo]

As far as I'm concerned, "deciding if what you decided is only ever as you could have decided" is the action of one person and the decision is easy.

Well, some folks argue easily that it is only as they ever could have decided, while others argue easily that it isn't.

There, that's easily resolved.

The way that you interpret it seem[s] to be that "all reasonable men and women" must decide "what you decided is only as you could ever have decided".

No, the way I interpret it [rather ambivalently] is that I'm not really sure if all reasonable men and women are free to decide how to decide anything at all.

I merely note that, with respect to dasein, even if we do embody some measure of autonomy here, it is circumscribed by the manner in which I construe human interactions in the is/ought world.

As, in other words, an existential contraption. Some of which are either down or not down in the hole with me.

I'm not sure about lots of stuff and it really doesn't matter that I'm not sure.

For example, If I'm playing a game of chess I'm not sure if I'm choosing the "optimum" move or not. Sometimes one can calculate the sequence of moves to a win or material or a win of the game, but that's the minority of moves. I pick what I think is a good move, based on personal experience and principles of play that I learned from "the masters". Looking back after the game( or during the game), I may realize that some moves were clearly dumb. I use that "analysis" in future games.

I don't think that life, morality and ethics is much different.

[iambiguous]

Okay, just out of curiosity, with respect to the question as it relates to one of your own answers, how do you go about discussing and analzying it.

Why me?

You have books that you can freely consult ... Aristotle, Socrates, Epicurus, Epictetus, etc. They discuss the question.

My feeble posts are little in comparison.

I don't have access to a "here and now" exchange with these gentlemen. But I sure as shit would be curious to know how folks here who embrace their philosophies today might imagine their answers to the question "how ought one to live?" By imagining in turn their reactions to the components of my own argument.

Given the answers that they would provide as it relates to an actual "self" embodying a set of value judgments that come into conflict with another out in a particular world where conflicting behaviors must eventally come to terms with who has the power to enforce one particular moral narrative and political agenda.

My own narrative however grapples with the manner in which "you" [as an existential contraption] become who you think you are out in a particular world living a particular life. And then in noting any number of contexts whereby that which makes one person feel good results in making another person feel bad.

Yeah, that's life. You can choose how much you want to do to prevent that person from feeling bad.

But how do we account for the manner in which "you" choose one thing rather than another? And the manner in which different people choose conflicting things? Is "I" here largely embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above, or is there in fact a font [God, Reason, Nature etc.] able to resolve these conflicts such that all rational men and women are obligated to share it.

Ooops, I forgot that you're a falling domino with not control over yourself. What is there to grapple with, in that case? You're not "doing" anything in that case.

I don't know if "in fact" I do or do not have access to some level of autonomy. Again, the arguments from both sides here can be both profoundly persuasive and profoundly problematic.

But one thing for sure: The objectivists among us are absolutely certain.

Go ahead, ask them.

[iambiguous]

I'm not sure about lots of stuff and it really doesn't matter that I'm not sure.

Maybe, but there is still the distinction between those things we are uncertain about that can in fact be described/encompassed by others with a fair degree of certainty [mathematically, scientifically, logically, etc], and those things that appear instead rooted in the manner in which, among other things, I construe the meaning of dasein above.

For example, If I'm playing a game of chess I'm not sure if I'm choosing the "optimum" move or not. Sometimes one can calculate the sequence of moves to a win or material or a win of the game, but that's the minority of moves. I pick what I think is a good move, based on personal experience and principles of play that I learned from "the masters". Looking back after the game( or during the game), I may realize that some moves were clearly dumb. I use that "analysis" in future games.

Chess? A game in which there are fixed rules, with moves that any particular human brain either will or will not have the capacity to calculate better than another human brain. A game in which computers have been programmed to out "think" even the most sophisticated flesh and blood "masters"?

A game in which the is/ought world relates only to such things as "ought a parent push their children into spending all of their time learning the game?" or "ought we to pursue some form of affirmative action in order to encourage more women to pursue the game?"

I don't think that life, morality and ethics is much different.

Note to others:

What do you think? Are calculating the moves when conflicts erupt over such things as abortion and gun ownership the same thing as calculating moves in a chess match?

Or am I still missing a crucial component of his argument?

[phyllo]

Maybe, but there is still the distinction between those things we are uncertain about that can in fact be described/encompassed by others with a fair degree of certainty [mathematically, scientifically, logically, etc], and those things that appear instead rooted in the manner in which, among other things, I construe the meaning of dasein above.

A distinction which is not helpful as I live my life, basically because I don't have access to that knowledge. I'm always limited by my experiences and abilities.

For example, if I need to tie off a boat and I don't know much about knots them I'm faced with uncertainty on how to do it. The fact that there are people who know how to do it, that there are effective knots and ineffective knots which have been scientifically verified does not help me in the least.

Sure, later I could research knots, practice and use them in the future. But I can do the same research with respect to ethics. If I was in situation that did not work out as I hoped, then I any number of "experts" who can give advice on how to improve the results. The quality of life of the expert and his/her ability to deal with particular situations, is evidence that the advice and techniques work.
I can certainly try it out in my life.

Not that uncertainly will go away. And if it does, then it may be replaced by hubris.

Chess? A game in which there are fixed rules, with moves that any particular human brain either will or will not have the capacity to calculate better than another human brain. A game in which computers have been programmed to out "think" even the most sophisticated flesh and blood "masters"?

Yes, a game. I'm playing a game in a particular context ... a personal state (tired, irritated, focused, distracted), an opponent that I probably did not select and who I may know nothing about. I have a certain knowledge and skill and so does my opponent. The existence of masters and computers able to precisely calculate the variations does enter into the game beyond what I and my opponent have learned from them prior to the start of the game.

Or am I still missing a crucial component of his argument?

What you seem to miss is that what you post is a looking back.
You're not interested in "how ought one to live?", you're interested in "how ought one have lived?" ... yesterday, last month, last year.
A lot of the things that you bring up are irrelevant while playing the game.

It is perfectly true, as the philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.

Kierkegaard