Dasein/dasein

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, though it means something to me, that doesn't count because all that does count here is that it doesn't mean anything to you.

Not just me. It means nothing to anyone but you. And speech that only means something to one person is what babies practice. We call it "babble."

That of late I reduce you down to making our exchange about me rather than the points I raise speaks volumes.

I haven't said anything about you. I refer to what you have said. It's babble. You use words that you can't define, and that nobody can possibly guess the intended meaning of, and use them in ways nobody else ever has, apparently.

That's babble.

...determinism [to me] suggests a fated or destined existence.

Yes. That's what it implies, alright.

I assume that we do have some measure of autonomy.

Then you are no determinist. You believe in volition or free will.

There is not a single clear sentence or idea in that welter or jargon you've just offered me in place of an explanation. There's not a single idea that anybody can decode accurately from that pile of empty verbiage. And anybody who can read English can see it.

All I can do here [once again] is leave it to others to make sense of these declamatory "accusations" from you.

They're not "accusations." They're descriptions and characterizations of the language you are using -- and very apt ones, I might add.

But you can change your language. It's simple. Just stop using undefined terms and empty jargon. Say what you mean. Speak plainly. And then the disagreement we're having goes away, or at least proceeds on honest terms.

As to your person, I have made no disparaging claims. And about that, I have no opinion. How could I? I don't know you. But I sure see what you're doing with language, and I point out that it's jargon.

[Atla]

I would VALUE to be able to find Kantian phenomenologists by the way, who can actually defend the dubious axioms of their religion-like phenomenology. They have no reply to such criticism. They fall flat when pitted against "Eastern" phenomenology, or modern science, or modern psychology.

All they can do is direct people to read Kant or Heidegger etc., or make a jab at analytic philosophy, like analytic philosophy mattered. Or criticize the state of science of the 19th century. And of course they avoid speaking in plain English.

[iambiguous]

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

A hasty reading would see Heidegger’s “Dasein” as referring to a person, or consciousness, or self-consciousness (as Scruton, 2010, does, for example). This is financed by certain points of Being & Time: “We are ourselves the entities to be analyzed” and “we are it (Dasein), each of us, we ourselves”. However, not only does this characterization overlook sections of Being & Time where Heidegger specifically militates against this view, but it also forecloses all of the theoretical gains of Heidegger’s project, which largely rest in his discovery of the pre-personal, ontological “layer” preceding the ego, namely: Dasein.

Really, try to wrap your head around what on Earth, given your day to day interactions with others from the cradle to the grave, "the pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego" can ever actually be!!

If this isn't an exercise in constructing "intellectual contraptions" in a "world of words", it'll do until one comes along.

And, as always, what I am more interested in is in exploring "theoretical gains" insofar as they might be relevant to my own understanding of dasein pertaining to the world of actual human interactions. In particular interactions that precipitate conflicts revolving around moral and political value judgments.

But, sure, that's just "me".

What I strive to avoid at all cost in regard to dasein are truly obtuse analytical contraptions like this:

So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analyzed”? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein.

Analyze this yourself and then bring it to out into the world that we live and interact in. I'm curious to ascertain the extent to which others are convinced that thinking of this sort really is pertinent to the "human condition" that we all participate in from day to day.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

[Atla]

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

A hasty reading would see Heidegger’s “Dasein” as referring to a person, or consciousness, or self-consciousness (as Scruton, 2010, does, for example). This is financed by certain points of Being & Time: “We are ourselves the entities to be analyzed” and “we are it (Dasein), each of us, we ourselves”. However, not only does this characterization overlook sections of Being & Time where Heidegger specifically militates against this view, but it also forecloses all of the theoretical gains of Heidegger’s project, which largely rest in his discovery of the pre-personal, ontological “layer” preceding the ego, namely: Dasein.

Really, try to wrap your head around what on Earth, given your day to day interactions with others from the cradle to the grave, "the pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego" can ever actually be!!

If this isn't an exercise in constructing "intellectual contraptions" in a "world of words", it'll do until one comes along.

And, as always, what I am more interested in is in exploring "theoretical gains" insofar as they might be relevant to my own understanding of dasein pertaining to the world of actual human interactions. In particular interactions that precipitate conflicts revolving around moral and political value judgments.

But, sure, that's just "me".

What I strive to avoid at all cost in regard to dasein are truly obtuse analytical contraptions like this:

So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analyzed”? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein.

Analyze this yourself and then bring it to out into the world that we live and interact in. I'm curious to ascertain the extent to which others are convinced that thinking of this sort really is pertinent to the "human condition" that we all participate in from day to day.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Raw self-awareness is behind the ego, humans are one of the few species on the planet that seem to have this. It seems to "turn on" at an early age in humans, and then shortly after it gives birth to the ego (in humans). But this can't be the dasein because raw self-awareness is empty by itself. It's just empty, raw "being". Empty, raw identification itself.

Behind that, there's just the organism mind that probably all organisms with brains possess.

[iambiguous]

What is Dasein?
by John C. Brady
Epoché Philosophy Monthly

A hasty reading would see Heidegger’s “Dasein” as referring to a person, or consciousness, or self-consciousness (as Scruton, 2010, does, for example). This is financed by certain points of Being & Time: “We are ourselves the entities to be analyzed” and “we are it (Dasein), each of us, we ourselves”. However, not only does this characterization overlook sections of Being & Time where Heidegger specifically militates against this view, but it also forecloses all of the theoretical gains of Heidegger’s project, which largely rest in his discovery of the pre-personal, ontological “layer” preceding the ego, namely: Dasein.

Really, try to wrap your head around what on Earth, given your day to day interactions with others from the cradle to the grave, "the pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego" can ever actually be!!

If this isn't an exercise in constructing "intellectual contraptions" in a "world of words", it'll do until one comes along.

And, as always, what I am more interested in is in exploring "theoretical gains" insofar as they might be relevant to my own understanding of dasein pertaining to the world of actual human interactions. In particular interactions that precipitate conflicts revolving around moral and political value judgments.

But, sure, that's just "me".

What I strive to avoid at all cost in regard to dasein are truly obtuse analytical contraptions like this:

So what does Heidegger mean when he says we “we are ourselves the entities to be analyzed”? Well, the being that lies ontologically prior to individual persons, or theoretical objects, or even the Cartesian ego. In fact, it even lies syntactically prior in existential statements: There is an ego, there is a person, there are lumps of granite. In short, “There-is”, literally Da-Sein.

Analyze this yourself and then bring it to out into the world that we live and interact in. I'm curious to ascertain the extent to which others are convinced that thinking of this sort really is pertinent to the "human condition" that we all participate in from day to day.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Raw self-awareness is behind the ego, humans are one of the few species on the planet that seem to have this. It seems to "turn on" at an early age in humans, and then shortly after it gives birth to the ego (in humans). But this can't be the dasein because raw self-awareness is empty by itself. It's just empty, raw "being". Empty, raw identification itself.

Behind that, there's just the organism mind that probably all organisms with brains possess.

Again, however, how is this not just another "intellectual contraption" that tells us -- me -- very little of substance regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others.

What no other species on planet Earth engage in are social, political and economic relationships that often come into conflict because the manner in which we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

But we need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances to explore this...existentially.

[Immanuel Can]

...regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others....we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

In other words, iam is saying, "I dont' believe in Heidegger's "dasein." I have, instead, some idea inside my own head whenever I use Heidegger's word, an idea I cannot define so you can understand what I mean, but to which I want you to genuflect every time I drop it into a sentence."

Hilarious.

Das ist in-sein.

[Atla]

Again, however, how is this not just another "intellectual contraption" that tells us -- me -- very little of substance regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others.

What no other species on planet Earth engage in are social, political and economic relationships that often come into conflict because the manner in which we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

But we need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances to explore this...existentially.

So first you say "pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego".

And then you seem to complain that we should be talking about the personal, egoic manifestation of said 'layer'. How self-awareness intertwines with the human personality and changes it. How the self-aware human being acts in the world.

So which one is it / which one is it more?

[Atla]

...regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others....we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

In other words, iam is saying, "I dont' believe in Heidegger's "dasein." I have, instead, some idea inside my own head whenever I use Heidegger's word, an idea I cannot define so you can understand what I mean, but to which I want you to genuflect every time I drop it into a sentence."

Hilarious.

Das ist in-sein.

From now on, we don't have to rely on any sociology or psychology or religion or hard sciences or politics or history or anything really, if we want to explain a human behavior. We can skip all this nonsense and save a lot of time.

Because that behavior was obviously rooted in dasein, duh!

I'm starting to like this dasein.

[Immanuel Can]

From now on, we don't have to rely on any sociology or psychology or religion or hard sciences or politics or history or anything really, if we want to explain a human behavior. We can skip all this nonsense and save a lot of time.

Because that behavior was obviously rooted in dasein, duh!

I'm starting to like this dasein.

Heck, yeah...we can excuse anything.

[iambiguous]

...regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others....we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

In other words, iam is saying, "I dont' believe in Heidegger's "dasein." I have, instead, some idea inside my own head whenever I use Heidegger's word, an idea I cannot define so you can understand what I mean, but to which I want you to genuflect every time I drop it into a sentence."

Hilarious.

Das ist in-sein.

Back to Mary grappling with whether to abort her fetus and the assumption that we live in a world where "somehow" human beings acquired free will.

I challenge someone here to explain what they think Heidegger would say to her such that she might be able to connect the dots between Dasein as Heidegger encompasses it in Being and Time and the choice that she faces.

Now, what I would note is that in No God world there does not appear to be a "philosophically correct" answer to her question "is abortion moral or immoral?"

Instead, I would suggest that whatever decision she comes to will be embodied by and large in an existential leap faith to a particular subjective rationalization based on a set of moral prejudices that she has come to accept given all the variables in her life that makes one behavior more likely than another.

Now, what would IC tell her, that everything she needs to know about abortion she'll find in his Bible?

Just out of curiosity, if someone were to ask Heidegger to connect the dots between Dasein in Being and Time and the Nazis setting into motion the Holocaust, what do you suppose he might say?

[iambiguous]

Again, however, how is this not just another "intellectual contraption" that tells us -- me -- very little of substance regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others.

What no other species on planet Earth engage in are social, political and economic relationships that often come into conflict because the manner in which we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

But we need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances to explore this...existentially.

So first you say "pre-personal, ontological 'layer' preceding the ego".

And then you seem to complain that we should be talking about the personal, egoic manifestation of said 'layer'. How self-awareness intertwines with the human personality and changes it. How the self-aware human being acts in the world.

So which one is it / which one is it more?

Really, I suggest that you take this up with IC. This is precisely the sort of "analytic philosophy" he craves. Words defending other words in order to concoct deductions that defend other deductions.

What part of, "we need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances to explore this existentially" didn't you understand?

Or as Will Durant once opined...

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist."

[Immanuel Can]

...regarding "I" out in the world when interacting with others....we come to understand our "self" in the is/ought world is rooted more in the manner in which "I" have come to understand dasein on this thread than in anything Heidegger imparts to us in Being and Time.

In other words, iam is saying, "I dont' believe in Heidegger's "dasein." I have, instead, some idea inside my own head whenever I use Heidegger's word, an idea I cannot define so you can understand what I mean, but to which I want you to genuflect every time I drop it into a sentence."

Hilarious.

Das ist in-sein.

Just out of curiosity, if someone were to ask Heidegger to connect the dots between Dasein in Being and Time and the Nazis setting into motion the Holocaust, what do you suppose he might say?

You don't accept Heidegger's "dasein." You make your own up.

[Atla]

What part of, "we need to focus in on a particular set of circumstances to explore this existentially" didn't you understand?

The "this" part. We don't know what the hell you even mean by dasein, and you refuse to narrow it down using a third-person analysis either, you don't reply to any inquiry. The few things you did say were rather vague and contradictory.

I'm quite capable of switching to first-person existential talk AFTER I know what we are even talking about. To me philosophy is about being adept at both. Dishonesty and ivory tower my ass. So now I have this little suspicion that dasein is whatever you want it to be, from your unchecked first-person pov.

(Being an Eastern nondualist and having gone through their deconstruction/realization process, I have a deeper first-person understanding of the "I" than Heideggerian phenomenology does, by the way.)

[attofishpi]

Back to Mary grappling with whether to abort her fetus and the assumption that we live in a world where "somehow" human beings acquired free will.

I challenge someone here to explain what they think Heidegger would say to her such that she might be able to connect the dots between Dasein as Heidegger encompasses it in Being and Time and the choice that she faces.

Dunno. She'd probably tell him to fuck off and mind his own business so who actually cares what Heidi thinks?

Now, what I would note is that in No God world there does not appear to be a "philosophically correct" answer to her question "is abortion moral or immoral?"

Your statement is rather ambiguous, i think I comprehend - the clear answer for any intelligent Christian is simple - abort!

Do you want the rational reasoning of a rational Christian? (ya, it's not a contradiction in terms as many atheists would insist.)

[Atla]

I challenge someone here to explain what they think Heidegger would say to her such that she might be able to connect the dots between Dasein as Heidegger encompasses it in Being and Time and the choice that she faces.

I would like to see Heidegger try. The female sense of being is wildly different from the male one, which phenomenologists consistently forget, so she may not understand a word he says. Oh yeah female morality is also wildly different.