Dasein/dasein

[iambiguous]

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

Yes, and I responded to him above:

We'll need a context of course.

But let me ask you...

Do you believe in God?

And, if not, do you believe it is possible using the tools of philosophy to "think up" a deontological moral conviction? Kant and other philosophers who embraced one or another rendition of objective/universal morality always included one or another rendition of God in the picture.

I wonder why?

Or, using the tools of philosophy in a No God world, what would the argument be to those like Hitler who rationalized the Holocaust? Or to sociopaths who rationalize raping and killing children?

In fact, I posed these extreme behaviors to myself here:

This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

How about you?

And I'm still waiting for you to note how given an issue like abortion your own value judgments are not just another existential rendition of my assessment in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

We'll see how he responds to that. If he responds at all.

Anyway, I'm still completely confused regarding how, given a particular context, you connect the dots between God and objective morality and your own sense of identity. Perhaps you might be willing to elaborate on that "here and now"?

Dasein produces a bias. And that bias is used to judge the difference between "one thinker and another" or "one thought and another".

IOW, the means of evaluating is questionable. I think that's one reasonable point that Biggus has with regard to dasein.

Come on, the evaluations of the objectivists among us are never to be questioned. Though in places like KT and here if some do dare to question them they become "one of them"...the loathsome enemy. The morons. The Retards.

Only at KT if you question them, you get banned from further discussions. You are "disappeared". Oh, sure, you are still a "user". You can still log in a follow the discussions as they mock and pillory you. You just can't post a response.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

[Alexis Jacobi]

As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Some Wild Children are raised by wolves. In my case I was raised by a tribe of Foxes and really had no human formation until I got into NYU.

That by the way …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Myself, I begin to think God is a Fraud. But I admit to being afraid to turn in my ticket and demand a refund.

[iambiguous]

I'm also like 80% sure that the way biggy uses the word dasein is also entirely unique to him, and not what Heidegger was talking about.

Again:

I first encountered the word Dasein from Heidegger. I was struck by how he used it to explore the idea that each of us is "thrown" adventitiously -- "beyond our control" -- out into a particular world at birth historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences.

In these discussions, dasein [from my end existentially] is just a particular take on Heidegger's philosophical conjectures. We exist "in time" and "in place". In other words, in particular times and particular places. And that can often have a profound impact on how we come to see ourselves and the world around us.

Now, straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds he goes...

Factually, Iambiguous cannot be said to use the term except as an obfuscating tool. The term Dasein in Iam’s discourse, has perhaps 1% of relatedness to Heidegger’s meaning, and the sense or ‘utility’ if you will of his pioneering existential/philosophical thought.

And, again, in regard to moral and political value judgments, it is the objectivists like him who "clear things up". Simple. You either think as they do about folks of color and women and homosexuals and Jews and liberals or you are flat out wrong. It's just that some like Satyr prefer to describe you in more colorful language.

Then the part where he makes this all abvout me:

But we could hash this out until the cow finally jumped over the moon and we’d get nowhere. So, what is the point? I mean, what am I driving at?

Here, in this context, this forum, we see time and again refusals to actually engage in bona fide exchange. If this is so, what then is the purpose? What benefit, let’s ask, accrues to Iambiguous (since he seems the subject here) to post unendingly the same stuff but to get no result, no agreement, nothing returned on the investment? Ah ha! It is just that. It is, then, to externalize a ossified internal frustration and have it rehearsed and played back eternally.

Again, I'd ask him to note a particular context but even if he did I would be commanded to go up into the "philosophical clouds" with him.

He absolutely loves posting things like this:

It’s like a Sisyphean compounded nightmare. The tragedy of sheer inutility multiplied by postmodern impasse.

If The medium is the message then, I propose, Iambiguous has a veritable, and realized purpose: the opportunity to wallow in the deliciousness of total, frustrating immobility.

The really, really clever pedant!!!

Then the Stooge again:

As I have pointed out: Iambiguous is stuck. He cannot make any decisions. The left hand snatches what the right hand offers in a neurotic loop! This is like a skit out of Waiting for Godot.

I can’t go on | I’ll go on

Its actually robotic. Man turned into a mechanism of futile indecision tarted up to mimic thoughtful profundity.

Though, yes, I do believe that, given free will, human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. That being "drawn and quartered" in the is/ought world is a reasonable frame of mind in a No God world. That death = oblivion.

You don't believe this? Fine, let's discuss it...existentially. Given the lives that we actually live down here on the ground. Given conflicting goods. Given contingency, chance and change. Given the Benjamin Button Syndrome. Given particular sets of circumstances.

As for the Brady assessment, I explored that above: search.php?keywords=John+C.+Brady

[iambiguous]

Dasein is basically

1. Nazism
2. Marxism
3. Pyrrhonism
4. Augstunianism

Note to Neo:

He did take the blue pill, right?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds he goes...

Hoisted, you always forget to say, by a choreographed array of high-level intellectual sky-hooks; passed from one to another, ascending upward, ever higher, and then Icarus-like skimming close to hordes of beckoning angels and the very intellectual orb of blinding wisdom!

… before descending again for my next post.

Why do you leave out the most important details?!?

[Iwannaplato]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

Are you fractured and fragmented in regard to: objective morals, the existence or not of God, determinism vs free will, etc.?

And remember, if you aren't fractured and fragmented, you don't need to explain why. Anyone who thinks you should be - morally, intellectually, whateverly - can try to demonstrate that you should be or you are in denial. That's their burden.

[iambiguous]

Note to Satyr: please feel free to quote and post my Writing (with attribution if not too much trouble) wheresoever you deem it needed.

Your servant in The Struggle,

— Alexis Jacobi

Sure, turn it all into a joke.

But that still doesn't explain why you are not there posting. Given all that you share in common politically and the fact that like you Satyr loves to project as a truly "serious philosopher". An autodidactic pedant as it were.

His problem though is that he simply cannot abide others refusing to think as he does about, for example, everything.

I lost count of the number of times he went berserk reading my own posts there. First, he threw me in the dungeon. Then he "disappeared" me altogether.

Now, however, even if he did invite me back, I wouldn't waste my time with him. Whereas with you I am still inclined to waste my time.

Go figure.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

Are you fractured and fragmented in regard to: objective morals, the existence or not of God, determinism vs free will, etc.?

And remember, if you aren't fractured and fragmented, you don't need to explain why. Anyone who thinks you should be - morally, intellectually, whateverly - can try to demonstrate that you should be or you are in denial. That's their burden.

If "fractured and fragmented" means uncertain about my positions, then yes, absolutely. I am uncertain about almost every belief I have. Is that what "fractured and fragmented" means in plain English?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure, turn it all into a joke.

Not a joke but always fun ….

Note the difference ….

[Iwannaplato]

If "fractured and fragmented" means uncertain about my positions, then yes, absolutely. I am uncertain about almost every belief I have. Is that what "fractured and fragmented" means in plain English?

I can't imagine it would to most people. Your wording is clear and simple. One could say I think but don't know. I am fairly convinced. I am not 100% sure. I believe it but I don't know. And if it's more like 50% vs 50%, then one could say I am not sure which position to believe. I believe X but I also have doubts if it is the case. And dozens of other formulations.

It is true that some people will assert that they have no doubt at all or never question belief X. But there are also people who understand that they are fallible or that things may not be as they seem, even if that seeming is extremely convincing.

There are issues where I feel torn - and I think that might be similar to fractured and fragmented - but those tend not to be these up in the clouds things.

How I behaved in relation to someone. How honest to be with someone. How to handle a situation involving people I love or bosses. It can involve practical ignorance. It's because I really don't know how to decide, often it seems like the decision to act is lose this way and lose that way. And the loss could be consequentialist in nature or deontological nature. I don't want this to happen, or that to happen. I don't want be that kind of person or that kind of person.

Specific situations where I don't know what I want to do or wish I'd done.

And it's not because of something Christians say X and Democrats say Y.

It's because I really don't know how to decide, often it seems like the decision to act is lose this way and lose that way.

[iambiguous]

I don't know who the 'we' is in the above.

"We" being those of us who have an interest in philosophy. Who explore and assess things like identity given what philosophers in the past have delved into regarding it themselves. As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Dang, for someone who loves to bill themselves as 'fractured and fragmented', you sure sound pretty sure that these so-called "objectivists" are the ones who are indoctrinated to accept the reality imposed on them, never questioning it. If anything, your words here sound... dare I say... very objectivist of you.

How about you be just a little bit more fractured and fragmented, it makes more sense here.

Sigh...

Unlike with iwannaplato and AJ, who, in my view, often post things that I can sink my teeth into [philosophically or otherwise] reading your own declamatory Stooge posts -- much like phyllo's "retorts" -- is becoming less and less worth my time.

True, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective assessment, you're not a "pinhead" or suffering from a "condition" as some are here.

But, come on, where's the beef?!

[Flannel Jesus]

"We" being those of us who have an interest in philosophy. Who explore and assess things like identity given what philosophers in the past have delved into regarding it themselves. As opposed to those who are indoctrinated as children to accept the reality imposed on them by others and then more or less live out their lives never really questioning it at all.

Dang, for someone who loves to bill themselves as 'fractured and fragmented', you sure sound pretty sure that these so-called "objectivists" are the ones who are indoctrinated to accept the reality imposed on them, never questioning it. If anything, your words here sound... dare I say... very objectivist of you.

How about you be just a little bit more fractured and fragmented, it makes more sense here.

Sigh...

Unlike with iwannaplato and AJ, who, in my view, often post things that I can sink my teeth into [philosophically or otherwise] reading your own declamatory Stooge posts -- much like phyllo's "retorts" -- is becoming less and less worth my time.

True, in my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective assessment, you're not a "pinhead" or suffering from a "condition" as some are here.

But, come on, where's the beef?!

None of those words are a response. You are exhibiting probably multiple of the rhetorical tricks from iwannaplatos thread at once here

[iambiguous]

If you want to talk to me, talk to me in plain English without walls of text. Ask me a question in plain English. We'll start there.

Do I believe in God? No. That's a nice plain English question. We can progress from there

I did above...

And, if not, do you believe it is possible using the tools of philosophy to "think up" a deontological moral conviction? Kant and other philosophers who embraced one or another rendition of objective/universal morality always included one or another rendition of God in the picture.

I wonder why?

Or, using the tools of philosophy in a No God world, what would the argument be to those like Hitler who rationalized the Holocaust? Or to sociopaths who rationalize raping and killing children?