What is Dasein?

[Meno_]

The 'optimal' is beyond human ability. Even if you have the 'optimal' you can't know that it is the 'optimal'. It's impossible to identify.

But grounds to aspire toward. The same with god, if he didn't exist, he would have needed to be invented. For humanitie's sake.

And He was!

The question is, by Whom? (Or what?)

[Prismatic567]

I don't think he is saying that at all. I think he is saying that he is disappointed that you were not up front about what you wanted to get out of the dialog.

A common sentiment around here.

Correct.

I have thrown in suggestions [not insistence] after sensing Iambiguous needed help to get out of his self-dug hole.

Yes, here we are clearly stuck.

You insist that only when I grasp -- epistemologically, technically -- the manner in which Heidegger conveyed the meaning of Dasein philosophically in BT, am I then able to join you in a discussion regarding the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially out in a particular context, out in a particular world here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Whereas I am far more interested in the manner in which you make a distinction between Dasein and dasein insofar as you are able to convince me that you understand my point regarding the nature of the hole that "I" am in.

And that only seems possible [to me] when you are able to convey [descriptively] the manner in which you are not down in that hole yourself [here and now] when your own values/behaviors come into conflict with others.

In my view, this is really what you are all about here:

There was no serious philosophical theories to discuss as far as Iambiguous' thread is concerned. Whatever philosophical points Iambiguous introduced are half-baked, i.e. own twisted versions of Dasein, objectivists, etc.
What is pitiful is when one ends up with conclusions [resulting in mental tortures] from misinterpreted and wrong premises.

Huffing and puffing. Making me the issue. Only not as a polemicist. Instead, you appear more [to me here] as genuinely contemptuous of all those who, in the end, don't see things your way.

But that can only be my own subjective/subjunctive reaction in and of itself.

Most crucially of all, in my view, is this need on your part to yank the exchange back up into the stratosphere of "serious philosophical theory".

What is unique with Iambiguous' approach is his self-preservation discussion-killer, i.e. ALL suggestions and views to him are ultimately merely 'intellectual contraption.'

In discussing Dasein there are any number of objective facts that can be demonstrated when the arguments revolve around the Heidegger's workman and his tools.

Or when the arguments revolve around what the Nazis either did or did not do with respect to the Final Solution to the "Jewish problem" back then.

But what is the nature of Dasein when the arguments shift to either choosing or not choosing to beome a Nazi? When the arguments shift to either demonstrating that genicide is necessarily moral or immoral in a No God world?

My quandary is embedded in the assumption that in a No God world, any and all human behaviors can be rationalized as either good or bad depending on which particular set of assumptions you make about the "human condidtion".

I don't have access to the comfort and the consolation embodied in the "real me" in sync with one's moral obligation as a rational human being.

Instead, "I" here -- my "I" -- is fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I have come to think myself into believing that 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.

...is a reasonable frame of mind out in the is/ought world.

Your problem is you keep using the term 'dasein' commonly attributed to Heidegger's BT without understanding its original "meaning" and intention.

What I pose to you is this, if you want to use the term 'dasein' then read up BT again and understand precisely [not necessary agree] its original meaning in BT. If not, DO NOT use the term 'dasein' at all!

I believe the problems you kept repeating is a big mess.
I suggest you redefine represent your own problem without the use of the term 'dasein'.

Example, if you are depress, in a hole, had AIDs, etc. just say that before you ask for suggestions.
If you agree or disagree with abortion, start a thread and just state it clearly.
If you are in two minds about an issue, just start a thread say 'How to resolve dilemmas in life?'
If you are prone to ruminations and worry, just be specific on this problem before giving your own solutions or seek solutions from others.
If you are generally unhappy, just raise a thread 'How to be happy?'

There is no need to bring in very specific terms, jargons & neologisms, especially like Dasein, thrownness, facticity, rival goods [Barrett's] at all which confuse your personal issues.

[iambiguous]

Kant's theory on moral and ethics is very sound and practical.
If Kant had done any significant immoral acts, such acts would stick out and go against his theory on moral and ethics.

In other words [mine] if you construct a theoretical moral framework it is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that you are able to convince yourself and others that the definition and meaning given to the words used in constructing it reflect the optimal in rational thought. And the argument is epistemologically sound to the extent that, tautologically, the logic goes around and around internally in circles. Categorically and imperatively as it were.

And, then, in living your life from day to day, you never really put yourself in a situation in which your theoretical assumptions are put to the test re conflicting goods in your interactions with others.

Or are there in fact specific contexts known to exist in which Kant defended one set of behaviors over another?

Also, to what extent did others probe his personal values to gauge just how in sync they were with the times historically or culturally or experientially? In the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above. Or, instead, did they basically revolve around the intellectual assumptions that he made in defining his ethical framework into existence?

Heidegger's philosophy is very open ended and he did not emphasize on morality and ethics. Therefore Heidegger's philosophy [up to the point he resigned as a Nazi member] is not sound as far as morality and ethics [a major element of philosophy] are concern.

So, while capturing theoretically, technically the very essence of human being as Dasein, actual individuals can answer the question "how ought one to live?" as a Christian or an atheist or a Communist or a Nazi or a liberal or a conservative or an individualist or a collectivist or, well, anything that happens to pop into their heads given the actual confluence of experiences and relationships and ideas that came to encompass [and predispose] their lived lives.

Which of course takes us to the point that I raise about "I" here being basically an existential contraption in the is/ought world.

Here mere mortals need one or another "transcending font" to resolve one or another moral/political conflagration.

Kant had one, Heidegger did not.

[iambiguous]

But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger's philosopbhically assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.

Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger's philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.

Or, again, so it seems to me.

It is seem to you.

Huh?

My point is that, for particular individuals, things can seem to be one way or another when in fact a truth can be demonstrated such that there is only one reasonable manner in which to think about it.

For example, someone might say, "it seems to me that football is a more violent sport than baseball". Now, is there in fact a way in which to demonstrate that this is true?

By, say, actually watching the games? Comparing the number of players on the sidelines/bench due to injuries? Following the players after they leave the sport?

But, what if someone says, "it seems to me that basesball is a better sport than football".

How might that be demonstrated in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that football is a more violent sport?

Violence can occur in baseball -- a hit batter, sliding into homeplate, a confrontation on the field over an umpire's call -- but who would argue that it actually exceeds the violence on a football feild?

Or, given the inherent violence involved in tackle football, suppose someone argues that "it seems to me that it is immoral for parents to allow their kids to play the game?" How might this be resolved with any degree of finality?

Forget about using the term 'objectivist' on me.
If you want to, then explain how my views fit into this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
or this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

But I repeat myself:

Here [of course] you make the assuption that only your own definition and meaning of "objectivist" is relevant.

Whereas I am more inclined to suggest that the meaning I ascribe to it revolves more around the manner in which I note [existentially] its actual use out in the world of conflicting assessments.

An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.

So, you are an objectivist in that sense [to me] or you are willing to acknowledge that your own assessments are true only to the extent that others are willing to embrace all of the assumptions upon which they are predicated.

But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger's philosophical assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.

Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger's philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.

Or, again, so it seems to me.

Also, I can only note again that I am less interested in the intellectual contraptions around which Heidegger embeds Dasein, and more interested in the manner in which these intellectual contraptions are relevant to actual human interactions in which value judgments come into conflict.

Conflicts that can range from jay walking to genocide.

Now, I don't seem to budge here and neither do you. We're stuck.

Probably until one of us dies.

[iambiguous]

An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.

Which makes you an objectivist.

Here we are talking about me inside my head saying what I believe about myself here and now and you inside your head saying what you believe about me instead.

I do not construe the components of my moral philosophy -- dasein, conflicting goods, political economy -- as more than just another "existential contraption" out in the is/ought world. From my frame of mind, I would be a fool to insist that no matter what new experiences, relationships and/or ideas I come across, I will always think what I do now.

If only because of all the times in the past when I thought I was in touch with the real me in touch with one or another moral/political narrative that I embraced as true objectively.

Trust me: it's not hard to tell the difference between one psychological frame of mind here and another.

1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position.

You keep saying this. And I keep noting that this is but one facet of my reactions to others' reactions to me. I clearly acknowledge that the fault here may revolve around my failing to grasp important points that they are raising. But, when I suggest in turn that it may well revolve around them not not fully grasping my points, I become your objectivist.

Instead, all I can do is to seek out from others examples of how, when their values come into conflict with others, they do not construe their "I" then as being in the hole that my "I" is in.

2) It is implicit in your long posting history that objectivists add to the problems already present in reality. This is made clear via mocking and sarcasm - more open in your mundane ironists thread. The winking to the gallery or to yourself is not the behavior of a doubter. You are certain yours is the objective position. You cannot assert this directly, at least not when called out, because that would be problematic. Your stance is objectivist.

And yet explicitly I acknowledge that in all likelihood it is the "show me the money" moral nihilists who own and operate, among other things, the global economy, who almost certainly inflict far, far greater pain and suffering on the human race here and now than the moral objectivists. At least in the post-modern world today.

The might makes right crowd.

All I am pointing out is that moral and political objectivists are very often authoritarian in their approach to others. They view the world as divided between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. And whether their font is God or Reason or Science or Ideology or Deontology or Nature, others either toe the line or there are consequences to pay.

The right makes might crowd.

Whereas I am more inclined toward moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law -- as the foundation for "the best of all possible worlds".

Within the context of political economy of course. After all, when, historically, has that not been the name of the game?

Though, sure, if you insist that I am just pretending not to be an objectivist while you really know that I am one, well, I can only leave it to others to make up their own mind about that.

And then for them to note [demonstrate] how their own value judgments here reflect the optimal frame of mind for all those who wish to be thought of as rational/reasonable men and women.

[Karpel Tunnel]

An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.

Which makes you an objectivist. [/quote]

Here we are talking about me inside my head saying what I believe about myself here and now and you inside your head saying what you believe about me instead.

I would say instead that here you are putting forward a definition of what an objectivist is and I am saying that you behave like an objectivist. It is how you relate to people, what you convey.

I do not construe the components of my moral philosophy -- dasein, conflicting goods, political economy -- as more than just another "existential contraption" out in the is/ought world. From my frame of mind, I would be a fool to insist that no matter what new experiences, relationships and/or ideas I come across, I will always think what I do now.

I see you assert this. Here's the problem. Let's imagine a racist saying 'I would be a fool to think nothing could change my mind about niggers. Right now I do function as if they cause more problems than I do and are bad. Which will continue to include my sense of what is motivating niggers, until such time as another existential contraption seems better to me. The truth is I doubt that will ever happen, but given my philosophy I must consider it possible.' I would call that person a racist.

Your judgments and assessments of objectivists - including both implicit and explicit communication - are not as offensive to me, but the pattern is the same.

If only because of all the times in the past when I thought I was in touch with the real me in touch with one or another moral/political narrative that I embraced as true objectively.

Trust me: it's not hard to tell the difference between one psychological frame of mind here and another.

I think there is much more room for 1) not understanding how functioning as an objectivist and 2) not understanding what one is doing
than most modern humans realize. Having the 'state of mind' you have when you think metaethically or metamorally is not the determining factor. For example many good old tried and true consciously anti-racist liberals and progressives will, when tested, show clear racist evaluation patterns. They do not realize how they actually react and how they function, despite having this conscoius sense of themselves as not racist and anti-racist.

1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position.

You keep saying this. And I keep noting that this is but one facet of my reactions to others' reactions to me. I clearly acknowledge that the fault here may revolve around my failing to grasp important points that they are raising. But, when I suggest in turn that it may well revolve around them not not fully grasping my points, I become your objectivist.

Notice the slipperiness: you do not 'suggest', you state. You may on occasion use 'may' but in the instances I have seen, you do not use may. The very fact that you present here a tidied up version means to me you realize, on some level, that you function like an objectivist.

Notice also: it has nothing at all to do with whether you 'fail to grasp the points they are making.' Whether their points are good or not, does not mean 1) you need to or are able to evaluate their motives nor does it 2) make your evaluation any less an objectivist stance. The mere rejection of your ideas MEANS that they are not being rational, they are scared.

Notice now in terms of the future: There is no good practical or non-hypocritical reason to do this, sometimes or otherwise. You can continue to raise your issues and question the epistemological basis of their objectivism without the kinds of objectivist us/them, good vs. bad patterns of interaction.

Instead, all I can do is to seek out from others examples of how, when their values come into conflict with others, they do not construe their "I" then as being in the hole that my "I" is in.

I think Prismatic has made good points about why you should drop the whole 'hole' discussion or keep it separate from the philosophical issues. It functions like a call for help, which you do not want. It also functions as a basis for your evaluation of yourself vs. objectivists, with you as the brave one. Apart from what I have pointed out - it doesn't work well as justification for your sense of superiority - it ends up being part of an objectivist us/them dichotomy.

2) It is implicit in your long posting history that objectivists add to the problems already present in reality. This is made clear via mocking and sarcasm - more open in your mundane ironists thread. The winking to the gallery or to yourself is not the behavior of a doubter. You are certain yours is the objective position. You cannot assert this directly, at least not when called out, because that would be problematic. Your stance is objectivist.

And yet explicitly I acknowledge that in all likelihood it is the "show me the money" moral nihilists who own and operate, among other things, the global economy, who almost certainly inflict far, far greater pain and suffering on the human race here and now than the moral objectivists. At least in the post-modern world today.

Good, I agree. Though there is no way to judge whether this is good or bad that they do this or some lesser evil, etc.

The might makes right crowd.

Another us/them good vs. bad categorization that is not necessary to your project of finding out if anyone can resolve conflicting goods and challenging the epistemology of individual objectivists.

All I am pointing out is that moral and political objectivists are very often authoritarian in their approach to others. They view the world as divided between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]. And whether their font is God or Reason or Science or Ideology or Deontology or Nature, others either toe the line or there are consequences to pay.

The right makes might crowd.

And same response as my previous.

Whereas I am more inclined toward moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law -- as the foundation for "the best of all possible worlds".

Yes, your Good.

If this was truly you goal, you might want to consider that framing the issue in us vs. them terms, I am facing the hole and you are not, moral judgment framework, is a bad practical strategy, let alone the hypocrisy invovled.

Let's say your self-evaluation is correct. Once in a while you let out a very qualified suggestion in us vs. them terms. It is still a very bad idea. I see it as the rule, how you function as an objectivist. You claim it is an exception that is not objectivist.

Either way, in practical terms, it is a terrible habit in relation to any of what you claim are the goals of this discussion.

Objectivists and others will pick up objectivist habit PLUS they are also being judged for simply being objectivists. You are superior to them - or implied to possibly be, in your self-assessment - AND they are objectively wrong for thinking their beliefs are right. IOW they meet the same judgments that lead to conflicts with other objectivists AND there is an added judgment, ironically, that they are also wrong for being objectivists while you are a nihilist.

I assure you this will not lead to moderation and compromise.

Though, sure, if you insist that I am just pretending not to be an objectivist while you really know that I am one, well, I can only leave it to others to make up their own mind about that.

Of course there are other options, but it may seem like this is the only other one. Apart from looking at cognitive science to see if there is, in fact, a much greater chance than you seem to realize that you do not know what you are doing,

you could simply drop all the 'suggesting' us vs. them superiority and moral accusation stuff. Drop the 'hole' shit out of the discussion, given that you use it as part of a contraption to posit yourself as braver and given that it contributes nothing to the epistemological issues and given that it isn't much of a hole with TV and films distracting you adequately enough in your own estimation. You could do this AND continue to challenge people around the issue of conflicting goods and challenge their epistemology around determining what is good and bad, etc.

But for some reason you cannot consider dropping these facets of your interaction with others, facets which function as an objectivist moral position.

And then for [you] to note how [your] own value judgments here reflect the optimal frame of mind for all those who wish to be thought of [i]as rational/reasonable men and women.[/i] A perfect description of how your patterns of interactoin function as an objectivist position. One you need not defend, since you claim not to have one. Or have 'them' in passing, always qualifed, no longer believed in.

If they are mere passing forms, you could drop them out, respond responsibly to feedback, consider it possible you don't realize what you re doing, at least in full, and certainly do not realize how you are coming across. Realize that it does not add anything to the process you claim to be interested in.

So keep on with the project of questioning if there is a possible resolution to conflicting goods, question on epistemological grounds objectivist positions when posited. The skeptical nihilist project functions perfectly without the us vs. them, this is your motivation, my hole moral positioning. In fact it is stronger PLUS it is less likely to antagonize.

A win/win solution. One of compromise and moderation.

[iambiguous]

What I want to get out of these exchanges?

Haven't I been abundantly clear in that regard?

You ask for help but you don't take any.

You ask for answers but you don't accept the answers as given. Instead you insist that the answers must be formulated in one specific way. (As if you already know the answer.)

What you want seems to be diversion - to write and write and write - until the end.

The answers given [so far] don't convince me that a moral and a political narrative is "out there" able to nudge me up out of the hole --- with respect to either conflicting value judgments on this side of the grave or to oblivion on the other side of it.

Instead, with the objectivists, I am dealing with folks able to convince themselves that the "real me" is in sync with "the right way to live".

And since I was once one of them myself I can well appreciate the comfort and the consolation that "I" is able to nestle down into when convinced of it.

Sure, there may be any number of "programs" out there able to lessen my consternation down in the hole. But only until, hopelessly ambivalent, I am confronted yet again with one or another moral conflict; or with the thought of toppling over into the abyss forever and ever and ever.

So, until someone is able to provide me with actual descriptions of their own conflicted interactions...interactions in which they are not down in in any holes...my distractions are still around.

It's just that sooner or later all of us reach the point where every the distraction in the world is still not enough to comfort and console us.

On the other hand, the objectivists are at least able to console themselves that they are on the right side. Or, for some, that, inoperable tumor or not, they will soon meet their Maker on the other side.

In other words, just as I once understood the incalculable psychological benefits of objectivism and then [re my abortion trajectory above] tumbled down into the hole, I go looking for folks who were once down in the hole themselves, but, as a result of their own existential trajectory, were able to yank themselves up out of it. Or encountered others who helped them to.

[iambiguous]

But who is to say what the optimal set of facts are?

I'm sure that I have written at least a dozen posts about the ridiculous, stupid and useless concept of 'optimal'.

And here you are bringing it up again.

Okay, worry about 'optimal' if it makes you unhappy.

Optimal: most desirable or satisfactory: optimum. the optimal use of class time, the optimal dosage of medication for a patient conditions for optimal development

My point of course is that in the either/or world the use of this word is often readily demonstrable. You want to accomplish some task and there are conflicting suggestions as to how to best go about it. And then the optimal one is broached and acted upon.

For example, you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles ASAP.

The optimal solution is:
1] to walk
2] to drive
3] to take a bus
4] to take a train
5] to fly

But, in my view, there are those who insist that, with regard to conflicting goods, there are in turn optimal solutions: theirs.

Some will even go so far as to insist that not only is their moral or political narrative the optimal frame of mind, but, in fact, the only frame of mind that all rational and virtuous people are obligated to embrace.

With the example above flying from New York to Los Angeles is both the optimal and the only solution if getting there as soon as possible is the goal. But it's not the only way to accomplish it. But here there are no moral conflicts involved. Although I'm sure we could think up some.

And, again: what's up with the "contemptuous" tone? The rather scornful manner in which you present your point?

Or are you, in turn, basically just a polemicist at heart?

[phyllo]

My point of course is that in the either/or world the use of this word is often readily demonstrable. You want to accomplish some task and there are conflicting suggestions as to how to best go about it. And then the optimal one is broached and acted upon.

For example, you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles ASAP.

The optimal solution is:
1] to walk
2] to drive
3] to take a bus
4] to take a train
5] to fly

You shot yourself in the foot. There is no way to determine the optimal in that example. If you say "the fastest", then you have picked a particular criteria "out of a hat", if you say "the cheapest" ...

Just as with respect to morality one can select "the least number of dead bodies" and arrive at an optimal morality only in the context of that criteria.

It's only optimal because you focus on one specific thing.

[phyllo]

And, again: what's up with the "contemptuous" tone? The rather scornful manner in which you present your point?

I don't like repeating myself.

[iambiguous]

You shot yourself in the foot. There is no way to determine the optimal in that example. If you say "the fastest", then you have picked a particular criteria "out of a hat", if you say "the cheapest" ...

If the point is just to get from New York to LA, there are many options. If the point is to get there the fastest, one is the best.

If the point is to get there the cheapest [and you don't care how long it takes] you do the calculations and arrive at the cheapest way.

Taking into account however all of the many variables which may or may not be within your control. The plane crashing, the car breaking down, the train going off the rails etc.

Just as with respect to morality one can select "the least number of dead bodies" and arrive at an optimal morality.

The least number of dead bodies in what particular context, viewed from what particular point of view?

Especially in a world where there are those who could not care less how many dead bodies there are as long as theirs isn't one of them.

Consider: There would clearly have been many, many, many less dead bodies had George W. Bush not invaded Iraq.

Does that then make the invasion immoral?

How exactly would one go about calculating if the invasion was "just"?

It's only optimal because you focus on one specific thing

But that's basically my point. When calculating the optimal manner in which to get from New York to Los Angeles the fastest, flying is both the optimal and the only method.

If, on the other hand, there was a set of circumstances in which getting to LA the fastest would result in saving the life of someone, is one morally obligated to fly instead of, say, drive?

Well, that depends on the situation and the people involved of course. You may wish this person to be saved while another wants to see him dead.

Or suppose instead of one life, a thousand could be saved. How does that change things? To what extent is any one particular individual's frame of mind here rooted more in the manner in which I construe dasein or in a rational calculation rooted in the tools of philosophy?

How does one put a "price" on a moral belief then?

[iambiguous]

And, again: what's up with the "contemptuous" tone? The rather scornful manner in which you present your point?

I don't like repeating myself.

Me, I can't get enough of it, right?

[phyllo]

The least number of dead bodies in what particular context, viewed from what particular point of view?

You don't even see that "fastest from NY to LA" is a particular context, a particular point of view selected by a particular person as being the criteria for 'optimal' travel. You can't see the similarity in the two situations.

"Fastest is best, therefore fastest is optimal".
Another person will say "Cheapest is best, therefore cheapest is optimal".

"Fewest dead bodies is best, therefore fewest dead bodies is optimal".
Another person will say "Least unemployment is best, therefore ..."

But that's basically my point.

No, you don't get it at all.

[phyllo]

And, again: what's up with the "contemptuous" tone? The rather scornful manner in which you present your point?

I don't like repeating myself.

Me, I can't get enough of it, right?

That's what you live for. Or so it seems to me.

[iambiguous]

The least number of dead bodies in what particular context, viewed from what particular point of view?

You don't even see that "fastest from NY to LA" is a particular context, a particular point of view selected by a particular person as being the criteria for 'optimal' travel. You can't see the similarity in the two situations.

My point of course is that there actually are flesh and blood human beings intent on traveling from New York to Los Angeles. And each and everyone of them has a reason. And, given that there are not likely to be two situations that exactly overlap, we are not likely to get the same reactions when these folks are questioned about the trips.

And, if a situation ever arrives where there is a moral component involved in making the trip the fastest, who would/could/should determine which individual's agenda is the either the most rational or the most virtuous?

But that's basically my point.

No, you don't get it at all.

And yet over and again I concede that I may well not be understanding your point. And that, if I did, my own thinking would begin to shift.

I can't do better than that.

[phyllo]

And, given that there are not likely to be two situations that exactly overlap, we are not likely to get the same reactions when these folks are questioned about the trips.

Then it's exactly the same as people having different ideas about morality.

So it's not really about the dichotomy that you have proposed - is/ought.

And if people can agree that "fastest" is in fact the best in a particular context, then they can also agree that a specific moral criteria is the best in a particular context.

And in both cases, there will be people who disagree. But that disagreement does not negate the objectivity of the evaluation. IOW, some form of travel is objectively "fastest" and therefore best in the context and some form of morality is objectively best in the context.

[iambiguous]

Me, I can't get enough of it, right?

That's what you live for. Or so it seems to me.

Well, that's you speculating that being down in this hole, is, for me, only and always about polemics and playing games in venues like this.

That it really and truly does disturb me -- the part before and after the grave -- is just incidental to me in these exchanges.

Nope, not even close.

Just try to imagine how comforted and consoled you would feel if you thought like me.

[phyllo]

Me, I can't get enough of it, right?

That's what you live for. Or so it seems to me.

Well, that's you speculating that being down in this hole, is, for me, only and always about polemics and playing games in venues like this.

That it really and truly does disturb me -- the part before and after the grave -- is just incidental to me in these exchanges.

Nope, not even close.

Just try to imagine how comforted and consoled you would feel if you thought like me.

If there is oblivion after the grave, then there is nothing you can do about it.

If there is something after the grave, then there is nothing you can do about it.

If you think that you ought to do something before the grave, then do it.

If you can't think of anything to do, then don't do anything.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Just try to imagine how comforted and consoled you would feel if you thought like me.

This hole seems to differ in intensity depending on the context.

[iambiguous]

The 'optimal' is beyond human ability. Even if you have the 'optimal' you can't know that it is the 'optimal'. It's impossible to identify.

Again, I can only assume that I am misunderstanding what you are getting at here.

If an optimal achievement is the best that can be done, and one scores a 1600 on a SAT test, hasn't one achieved the optimal score?

But:

Suppose a college practices affirmative action and admits students of color with lower test scores than white applicants?

Is there a "best argument" here that either justifies this practice or justifies reversing it?

And what is the difference between a particular argument here being thought of as the best of all the arguments made, and one that is declared to be the only truly rational argument that can be made?

[iambiguous]

Your problem is you keep using the term 'dasein' commonly attributed to Heidegger's BT without understanding its original "meaning" and intention.

That's your rendition of the "problem" here. My rendition revolves around the refusual of moral and political objectivists claiming to understand Heidegger's meaning of Dasein in BT to, in turn, bring that meaning out into the world of actual conflicting goods.

What I pose to you is this, if you want to use the term 'dasein' then read up BT again and understand precisely [not necessary agree] its original meaning in BT. If not, DO NOT use the term 'dasein' at all!

From Wiki:

In German, Dasein is the vernacular term for "existence", as in "I am pleased with my existence" (Ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden). The term has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of human "existence" or "presence" *. It is derived from da-sein, which literally means being-there/there being—though Heidegger was adamant that this was an inappropriate translation of Dasein.

* my emphasis

I demand that Heidegger scholars demonstrate objectively that only his rendition of Dasein in BT reflects the one true epistemologically sound description of it.

I believe the problems you kept repeating is a big mess.
I suggest you redefine represent your own problem without the use of the term 'dasein'.

And that is precisely what the objectivists wish to avoid here with respect to their own particular "I" out in the is/ought world: a "big mess".

Everything must be reduced down to the one and the only technically correct philosophical "jargon" here.

Your own, for example.

Or, sure, their own.

[phyllo]

If an optimal achievement is the best that can be done, and one scores a 1600 on a SAT test, hasn't one achieved the optimal score?

So here you are using 'optimal' in the sense of maximum. Like "what's the optimal amount of water that fits in a jug?".

I'm pretty sure that most of the time you don't use it in that sense.

If you ask ... "what's the optimal way to achieve a maximum SAT score", then you're going to have some problems figuring it out. Same with a question like "what's the optimal way to design and build a car?".
Or "what's the optimal amount of water in a jug so that I can carry it to the table?"

[iambiguous]

An objectivist -- my objectivist -- seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.

Which makes you an objectivist.

I've addressed this above [or, eventually, below]. Others can decide for themselves which of us makes the better existential argument.

I do not construe the components of my moral philosophy -- dasein, conflicting goods, political economy -- as more than just another "existential contraption" out in the is/ought world. From my frame of mind, I would be a fool to insist that no matter what new experiences, relationships and/or ideas I come across, I will always think what I do now.

I see you assert this. Here's the problem. Let's imagine a racist saying 'I would be a fool to think nothing could change my mind about niggers. Right now I do function as if they cause more problems than I do and are bad. Which will continue to include my sense of what is motivating niggers, until such time as another existential contraption seems better to me. The truth is I doubt that will ever happen, but given my philosophy I must consider it possible.' I would call that person a racist.

I was myself born and bred into the belly of the white working class beast. I used that word over and over and over again. Then circumstances reconfigured my thinking. Can I then say with all certainty that no new circumstances will come along to reconfigure my thinking back again?

How on earth could "I" or anyone possibly know objectively which new sets of variables might come along in our actual lived lives to change our thinking about anything other than that which is demonstrably true for all of us in the either/or world.

Can it be shown [re both genes and memes] that racism is inherently irrational and immoral?

Well, if it can be so demonstrated, then it would appear that any and all racists could be shown to be acting irrationally and immorally.

You can go here -- https://www.google.com/search?q=scholar ... ce&ie=&oe= -- and peruse all the arguments. Decide for yourself "here and now" which frame of mind seems more reasonable.

I have certainly made my own existential leap here. A political prejudice. But how on earth could I possibly demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated [deontologically] to share my point of view?

And then there are the far more problematic moral conflagrations -- abortion, animal rights, sexual proclivites, gun ownership, capital punishmnet -- in which the conflicting goods are all that more wrenching.

With racism of course the psychological layers can become profoundly entangled:

I think there is much more room for 1) not understanding how functioning as an objectivist and 2) not understanding what one is doing than most modern humans realize. Having the 'state of mind' you have when you think metaethically or metamorally is not the determining factor. For example many good old tried and true consciously anti-racist liberals and progressives will, when tested, show clear racist evaluation patterns. They do not realize how they actually react and how they function, despite having this conscoius sense of themselves as not racist and anti-racist.

I generally agree. The sheer number of historical, cultural and experiential variables embedded in the interactions/experiences of any one particular "I" here [precipitating profoundly complex subjunctive reactions] may well be beyond calculating. Philosophically or otherwise.

And then the part where racism is said by some to be but one more hard-wired component of a wholly determined universe.

1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position.

You keep saying this. And I keep noting that this is but one facet of my reactions to others' reactions to me. I clearly acknowledge that the fault here may revolve around my failing to grasp important points that they are raising. But, when I suggest in turn that it may well revolve around them not not fully grasping my points, I become your objectivist.

Notice the slipperiness: you do not 'suggest', you state. You may on occasion use 'may' but in the instances I have seen, you do not use may. The very fact that you present here a tidied up version means to me you realize, on some level, that you function like an objectivist.

Again, that's just your "I" interpreting, reacting to and then judging my "I" in this exchange pertaining to these relationships.

And, sure, who am "I" here to argue that your rendition is less reasonable than mine? It's just that "here and now" "I" don't share your frame of mind.

Notice also: it has nothing at all to do with whether you 'fail to grasp the points they are making.' Whether their points are good or not, does not mean 1) you need to or are able to evaluate their motives nor does it 2) make your evaluation any less an objectivist stance. The mere rejection of your ideas MEANS that they are not being rational, they are scared.

Notice now in terms of the future: There is no good practical or non-hypocritical reason to do this, sometimes or otherwise. You can continue to raise your issues and question the epistemological basis of their objectivism without the kinds of objectivist us/them, good vs. bad patterns of interaction.

This is all hopelessly abstract.

Choose a set of conflicted behaviors out in a particular context that we are all likely to be familiar with. Which particular points will be made regarding which particular behaviors? What [in those points] can or cannot be demonstrated to be "good"?

In other words, points in sync with that which philosophers are able to determine that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share.

Instead, all I can do is to seek out from others examples of how, when their values come into conflict with others, they do not construe their "I" then as being in the hole that my "I" is in.

I think Prismatic has made good points about why you should drop the whole 'hole' discussion or keep it separate from the philosophical issues. It functions like a call for help, which you do not want. It also functions as a basis for your evaluation of yourself vs. objectivists, with you as the brave one. Apart from what I have pointed out - it doesn't work well as justification for your sense of superiority - it ends up being part of an objectivist us/them dichotomy.

Fine, this is your opinion. I do not share it. And for all of the reasons above [and no doubt below] that I addressed to Prismatic.

Since, out in the is/ought world of conflicting value judgments, I root my own sense of self -- "I" -- in an existential contraption embedded in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change, I will certainly acknowledge that some day I may not think as I do "here and now" at all.

But that's basically the beauty of my own frame of mind here: I don't exclude myself from my own point of view.

The question then becomes this: will I someday? Can I at all?

The objectivists on the other hand don't really wrestle much with that. Or, rather, they don't "here and now".

And that is precisely why they are are still able to suckle on the comfort and the consolation embedded psychologically in an objectivist moral and political narrative/agenda.

2) It is implicit in your long posting history that objectivists add to the problems already present in reality. This is made clear via mocking and sarcasm - more open in your mundane ironists thread. The winking to the gallery or to yourself is not the behavior of a doubter. You are certain yours is the objective position. You cannot assert this directly, at least not when called out, because that would be problematic. Your stance is objectivist.

And yet explicitly I acknowledge that in all likelihood it is the "show me the money" moral nihilists who own and operate, among other things, the global economy, who almost certainly inflict far, far greater pain and suffering on the human race here and now than the moral objectivists. At least in the post-modern world today.

Good, I agree. Though there is no way to judge whether this is good or bad that they do this or some lesser evil, etc.

On the other hand, perhaps there is a way. My frame of mind includes the possiblity that an objective accounting of all this is out there. Waiting to be discovered/invented by the ethicist equivalent of the physicist Einstein's assessment of spacetime.

The crucial factor here is the existence of God. That fundamental "transcending" font that mere mortals can turn to when goods do come into conflict.

The might makes right crowd.

Another us/them good vs. bad categorization that is not necessary to your project of finding out if anyone can resolve conflicting goods and challenging the epistemology of individual objectivists.

Out in any particular human community, there are going to be moral and political conflicts. And, in the end, one faction will have the power to enforce a particular set of behaviors in terms of rewards and punishments.

The might makes right crowd are simply those who resolve these things based on the fact that they have the brute force able to protect their own interests. Inherently, however, this is neither a good thing nor a bad thing.

At least until someone is able to demonstrate otherwise.

I am more inclined toward moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law -- as the foundation for "the best of all possible worlds".

Yes, your Good.

That's your capital G, not mine. But "goods" are recognized by me [here and now] to be existential contraptions, political prejudices.

Hypocrisy would only come into play if, as Moreno often pointed out to me, I embraced moral nihilism in the philosophy forum but then in the SGE forum I came down thumping on those who refused to share my own liberal/progressive moral and political values.

And he was right. Back then I probably was pretty much the hypocrite. I often didn't walk my talk in that forum.

The irony here being that he managed to remind me all the more of just how debilitating it can be down in that hole.

Objectivists and others will pick up objectivist habit PLUS they are also being judged for simply being objectivists. You are superior to them - or implied to possibly be, in your self-assessment - AND they are objectively wrong for thinking their beliefs are right.

Over and again I acknowledge that I am unable to wholly refute this speculation on your part. It's an extremely complex frame of mind. Here and now I think that my arguments are reasonable. But I don't have access to an argument that would allow me to demonstrate this to others.

Or, just as importantly, even to myself.

"I" here for me is all that more convoluted.

All I can really do here is to recall the comfort and the consolation that I was able to embody when I thought of my "self" as the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".

And how all of that is gone now.

And I still have oblivion to look forward to, don't I?

I assure you this will not lead to moderation and compromise.

You miss my point here. Even to the extent that moderation, negotiation and compromise become the components in any particular democracy, those who embrace them may well still be convinced that they are right and their opponents are wrong. I'm not able to think and to feel like this. The compromises are still no less embedded in the hole.

If, on the other hand, you wish to construe my own existential narrative here as but one more objectivist project, so be it.

[Ecmandu]

I'll summarize the post above:

Iambiguous believes that it is neither objective that subjects exist, nor is it subjective that subjects exist.

This is the root contradiction used in the population to attract women, a person speaking, who says "I don't exist", it's 1984 big time.

He attempts to seem innocuous and kind and sympathetic enough, but this is a blatant brainwashing power move.

[Karpel Tunnel]

1) once you attribute the motivations of people who disagree with you to being fear based, you are assuming/concluding that it cannot be a rational difference with your ideas, it must be emotion based. IOW yours is the objective position.

You keep saying this. And I keep noting that this is but one facet of my reactions to others' reactions to me. I clearly acknowledge that the fault here may revolve around my failing to grasp important points that they are raising. But, when I suggest in turn that it may well revolve around them not not fully grasping my points, I become your objectivist.

Notice the slipperiness: you do not 'suggest', you state. You may on occasion use 'may' but in the instances I have seen, you do not use may. The very fact that you present here a tidied up version means to me you realize, on some level, that you function like an objectivist.

Again, that's just your "I" interpreting, reacting to and then judging my "I" in this exchange pertaining to these relationships.

No, that was me noting that you attributed motivations using one kind of not qualified type of language and that when you defend this behavior you describe in a new way. You call it suggesting, when it was stating. You say you suggested it might be, when you said it was. You rewrite history. To defend your 'I'. To fool me. To fool 'yourself'. I don't know.

You are a functioning objectivist and I was pointing this out.

Perhaps the people you label objectivists 'really' or really deep down are not. Who knows? What we have to work with is words and actions. You decided to misrepresent what you said/did. I can't be sure of the motive, but it was slippery.

The racist analogy still holds.

And then given your own dasein based philosophy, how would 'you' know what 'you' really meant when you acted like an objectivist?