Dasein/dasein

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, for example, you told me I'm an objectivist and you're worried I'm going to ban you from ILP, and yet I don't identify in any way with any standard definition of objectivism and I have no desire to ban you from ILP.

You've called phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists as well, and neither of them identify as objectivists, nor with any of the features you seem to think objectivists have.

Seems like you miss pretty often with this label. That's how I "distinguish" that you're incorrect.

No, I would only call you or phyllo or iwannaplato an objectivist if you one of you believe that...

...you are someone "who is in sync with their own Real Me, their own core Self -- their own Soul as some call it -- in sync further with the Right Thing To Do given any particular set of 'conflicting goods'."

Are you?

But ... you did say we were objectivists, despite the fact that none of us said we thought anything like that. So you must be calling us that for some other reason.

[iambiguous]

Well, for example, you told me I'm an objectivist and you're worried I'm going to ban you from ILP, and yet I don't identify in any way with any standard definition of objectivism and I have no desire to ban you from ILP.

You've called phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists as well, and neither of them identify as objectivists, nor with any of the features you seem to think objectivists have.

Seems like you miss pretty often with this label. That's how I "distinguish" that you're incorrect.

No, I would only call you or phyllo or iwannaplato an objectivist if you one of you believe that...

...you are someone "who is in sync with their own Real Me, their own core Self -- their own Soul as some call it -- in sync further with the Right Thing To Do given any particular set of 'conflicting goods'."

Are you?

But ... you did say we were objectivists, despite the fact that none of us said we thought anything like that. So you must be calling us that for some other reason.

Please note the posts where I called you objectivists. What was the context?

Then this part:

Okay, in regard to an issue like abortion or gun control or the role of government or transgender rights, etc., what are the parameters of your moral philosophy?

Do you believe that your own values here and now are derived deontologically from the most rational philosophical assessment?

Do you recognize how one's sense of self in the is/ought world is rooted existentially in the particular life that one has lived out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. Or, again, do you believe that using the tools of philosophy the "wisest" behaviors can be grasped and acted out.

How were your own values shaped existentially more or less than philosophically?

And note specifically what I posted in regard to banning you at ILP. I do believe that some who are particularly infuriated/perturbed by my "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy would, if they could, ban me there or here. As Satyr did at Know Thyself and Postmodern Beatnik did at the Philosophy Forum.

[Flannel Jesus]

Ah, the playing stupid game. Don't know why I thought you were better than that.

You know you called me and phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists in the compatibilist thread. I'm not interested in reading through dozens of pages to prove it to you when I know you already know. If your memory is that bad, take a nap gramps.

[iambiguous]

ME:

everything you think is rooted existentially in dasein. You don't have to say it every time. "My own take on AI" means exactly the same thing.

The sheer futility embedded in setting you straight.

There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of factors embedded in our interactions with others that are materially, empirically, essentially, objectively, etc., applicable to all of us. Aspects of our social, political and economic interactions that no one gets into heated squabbles regarding. Neither flesh and blood human beings nor, I suspect, any future AI "replicants".

The parts I focus on pertaining to dasein here -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 -- revolve around conflicting moral and political value judgments. And in my view, that too is applicable to both flesh and blood human beings and AI chatbots.

At least until an AI chatbot someone here has interacted with can provide arguments able to convince me that it is not reasonable to be "fractured and fragmented" morally and politically in a No God world.

YOU:

Until you can show me a view that someone holds that ISN'T rooted in dasein, it's going to remain a pointless thing to say. Do you have any examples of that? Who has views on AI that aren't rooted in dasein, and what are they?

Okay, someone believes that Tucker Carlson was fired/dismissed from Fox News.

That is in fact true for all of us. And it is embedded in dasein in the sense that all of us who follow the news are cognizant of this fact. If we had been born in a place where that was not widely known or we were two months old or did not follow the news, that aspect of our life would result in our not knowing this. Or if we did find out about it, not care about it. What's crucial for all of us as individuals here is that there are demonstrable facts applicable to everyone.

Now, the discussion shifts to whether Tucker Carlson's political opinions are more rational than Rachel Maddow's. What are the demonstrable facts applicable to all of us here? And is it possible for philosophers or ethicists or political scientists to demonstrate which one it is? Or is it more likely that, given the life that we lived and the experiences that we had and the people that we knew and the information and knowledge that we accumulated over the years existentially, we are likely to be predisposed to embrace one rather than another set of political prejudices?

How about your own?

[iambiguous]

Ah, the playing stupid game. Don't know why I thought you were better than that.

You know you called me and phyllo and iwannaplato objectivists in the compatibilist thread. I'm not interested in reading through dozens of pages to prove it to you when I know you already know. If your memory is that bad, take a nap gramps.

Note to others:

Make up your own minds about this pinhead.

And, again, just because he isn't embarrassed to post junk like this doesn't mean I have to be embarrassed to point out that he sure as hell ought to be.

Or she as the case may by.

[Flannel Jesus]

That is in fact true for all of us. And it is embedded in dasein

Wait, so your example of something that isn't rooted in dasein is also rooted in dasein? Hmmm..

[Flannel Jesus]

I also really despise how cowardly your approach is to the whole "objectivist" crap. You call people an objectivist, and then deny it later. It's really low. I can see why satyr thinks what he does of you. If you don't want to stand by your words, then admit you made a mistake. Either you think I'm an objectivist or you don't. Be a man.

[iambiguous]

YOU:

Until you can show me a view that someone holds that ISN'T rooted in dasein, it's going to remain a pointless thing to say. Do you have any examples of that? Who has views on AI that aren't rooted in dasein, and what are they?

ME:

Okay, someone believes that Tucker Carlson was fired/dismissed from Fox News.

That is in fact true for all of us. And it is embedded in dasein in the sense that all of us who follow the news are cognizant of this fact. If we had been born in a place where that was not widely known or we were two months old or did not follow the news, that aspect of our life would result in our not knowing this. Or if we did find out about it, not care about it. What's crucial for all of us as individuals here is that there are demonstrable facts applicable to everyone.

Now, the discussion shifts to whether Tucker Carlson's political opinions are more rational than Rachel Maddow's. What are the demonstrable facts applicable to all of us here? And is it possible for philosophers or ethicists or political scientists to demonstrate which one it is? Or is it more likely that, given the life that we lived and the experiences that we had and the people that we knew and the information and knowledge that we accumulated over the years existentially, we are likely to be predisposed to embrace one rather than another set of political prejudices?

How about your own?

YOU:

Wait, so your example of something that isn't rooted in dasein is also rooted in dasein? Hmmm..

Once again, in my view, a truly pathetic post. Absolutely no attempt whatsoever to actually respond substantively to the points I make.

And what is Dasein? Well, Google it and it is translated from German to "to be there" in English.

That would be you and I. I am here, you are there. Human beings were born and raised in one historical era or another. We were born and raised in one community or another. We had one set of personal experiences and relationships or another.

Dasein thus includes both the objective either/or world facts of our lives and the subjective/intersubjective is/ought world of personal opinions.

Then, given a particular context like the Tucker Carlson incident at Fox, what can we pin down as objectively true for all of us...but only subjectively believed is true by some of us.


Now, what's it going to be...an intelligent, substantive exchange between us about these points or yet another utterly embarrassing Stooge retort from you?

[iambiguous]

A Stooge retort it is then:

I also really despise how cowardly your approach is to the whole "objectivist" crap. You call people an objectivist, and then deny it later. It's really low. I can see why satyr thinks what he does of you. If you don't want to stand by your words, then admit you made a mistake. Either you think I'm an objectivist or you don't. Be a man.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'll go with stooge:

You don't have to say your philosophical opinions are rooted in dasein. Of course they are ya dingus. The philosophical opinions people form are informed by their life experiences.

[iambiguous]

I'll go with stooge:

You don't have to say your philosophical opinions are rooted in dasein. Of course they are ya dingus. The philosophical opinions people form are informed by their life experiences.

No, seriously.


Note to others:

Flannel Stooge asked me about that over at ILP:

Okay, fair enough.

First, of course, it reflects only my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reaction to a particular post.

Then the part where I react to it given the gap that I perceive between the point I am making and their point. If the gap is deemed laughable by me then this:

But since I am hoping instead for posts that I perceive to be intelligent [even challenging], I feel the need to include this: No Seriously.

As though to say to others, "no really, don't you find it laughable too?"

So, how about you? Do you find his/her retorts here...laughable?

[Iwannaplato]

I'll go with stooge:

You don't have to say your philosophical opinions are rooted in dasein. Of course they are ya dingus. The philosophical opinions people form are informed by their life experiences.

It would be odd if experience did not affect one's opinions. Then one would need to preface one's opinions with something like 'My opinions are not supported by the evidence of my senses.' How such a person keeps themselves from repeatedly getting burned by their stoves and run over by cars would be interesting. Now Rationalism is a belief system that says we can directly know things, but even Rationalists would not ignore their experiences.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Cool. A new word! Never have I heard that one. I thought it was related to dinging, like a bell sound.

::: profound bows :::

din·gus (dĭng′əs)
n. Informal
1. Something whose name is unknown or forgotten.
2. A person regarded as stupid.
3. Vulgar Slang The penis.
[Dutch dinges, whatchamacallit, from German Dings, from Middle High German dinges, genitive of dinc, thing, from Old High German ding, thing, assembly, case, thing.]

[iambiguous]

I'll go with stooge:

You don't have to say your philosophical opinions are rooted in dasein. Of course they are ya dingus. The philosophical opinions people form are informed by their life experiences.

It would be odd if experience did not affect one's opinions. Then one would need to preface one's opinions with something like 'My opinions are not supported by the evidence of my senses.' How such a person keeps themselves from repeatedly getting burned by their stoves and run over by cars would be interesting. Now Rationalism is a belief system that says we can directly know things, but even Rationalists would not ignore their experiences.

Then what are we to make of the moral and political objectivists among us who, while acknowledging that their own value judgments are rooted existentially in historical, cultural and experiential contexts, are still able to embrace one or another of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...frames of mind. God or No God.

That's always my own focus in regard to dasein. "I" in the is/ought world. And those among us who embody one or another rendition of what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life, a moral narrative.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity...on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

[Flannel Jesus]

So because all of that there's no difference between one thinker and another? Between one thought and another? You can't use your thinking facilities to discern between a thinker mired in bias and a thinker at least attempting to overcome his bias?

Because all of that, everyone is either "fractured and fragmented" or a Taliban Nazi, nothing in between