Dasein/dasein

[Iwannaplato]

Now you're talking!

But oddly, not once did you address the main point of that post: that the focus on this thread is beliefs. Objectivists are people who think their political, philosophical or spiritual beliefs are correct and are not fractured and fragmented about them. Beliefs.

The main point of my post was that actions are an even better sense of objectivism and the effects of dasein.

For example, if someone repeatedly from a diverse set of people over long periods of time in different contexts was criticized for the same things, that person might consider him or herself an objectivist about they way they behave. Upon realizing how impervious to another perspective on their behavior they are.

When they notice that their behavior cannot be accurately questioned in their own mind.

That instead the produce some mindreading countertheory and no serious self-questioning takes place.

An objectivist about their own behavior can't be fractured and fragmented about their own behavior, for example, online.

And the really odd thing is behavior based on dasein influenced objectivism is not seen as problematic as long as beliefs are presented as possibly wrong.

But, you'd know some of this if you...well, you did read my post. Or you responded to it anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

No, "dasein" is not plain English. Not when you say it, not when iwannaplato says it.

Oh, dang. I'll go back to using 'experience'. It's not a term a serious philosopher would use, but I think it's fairly clear. And it doesn't muddle me up with Heidegger who meant something else.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, "dasein" is not plain English. Not when you say it, not when iwannaplato says it.

Oh, dang. I'll go back to using 'experience'. It's not a term a serious philosopher would use, but I think it's fairly clear. And it doesn't muddle me up with Heidegger who meant something else.

You weren't directing your post at me, so don't adjust your language for my sake. If you and biggy understand the word the same way, you and biggy should use it that way with each other.

[iambiguous]

No, "dasein" is not plain English. Not when you say it, not when iwannaplato says it.

Pick one:

1]

No, seriously.

2] That's all he can come up with!!!!




But, okay, in plain English, tell us how you would encompass Dasein/dasein.

Oh, and I dare you to include an actual context. You know, like the example I used above regarding the White House Correspondence dinner.

Or, perhaps, in how you imagine Heidegger might encompass Dasein in regard to the Nazis and the Jews.

[Flannel Jesus]

But, okay, in plain English, tell us how you would encompass Dasein/dasein.

Oh, and I dare you to include an actual context. You know, like the example I used above regarding the White House Correspondence dinner.

Or, perhaps, in how you imagine Heidegger might encompass Dasein in regard to the Nazis and the Jews.

I...wouldn't. I wouldn't "encompass dasein". I don't even know what "encompass dasein" means. I wouldn't choose to use the word "dasein" of my own accord ever, and I'm only writing it now to express that fact.

Dasein is one of those words that seems to have as many interpretations as it has people who've interpreted it. Some people like words like that. I value clarity, though, and so I don't value words like that. I value replacing them with words that are much more likely to be interpreted in the way the writer intends.

I owe you an apology though biggy, "plain English" isn't an accurate description necessarily of what I want. It's a nice starting point, it's good short hand, but what I'm getting at really is that any good philosophical discussion rests on a shared vocabulary. If two people don't understand the same words to mean roughly the same things, they don't stand a chance at communicating well with each other. "Plain English" is generally a good starting ground, but it of course doesn't have to be the exact limits of what language I'm willing to use in this type of conversation.

Dasein is not in our shared vocabulary. Deontology isn't in our shared vocabulary. Both words are too abstract and too open to interpretation for me to want to use.

So instead of asking me to "encompass dasein", maybe try to phrase it without using either of those words, in language you think we're likely to have a shared understanding of.

Edit- unless you're asking me to explain why I think you're using dasein in a completely unique way that Heidegger didn't use. Is that what you're asking? Is that what you mean when you ask how I would encompass dasein? If that's what you mean, of course I can explain that.

[iambiguous]

Indeed. But now we need a particular context in which to explore the actually existential parameters of these things. Especially one where we can all agree that some things are true but not agree about other things.

We can all agree, for example, that yesterday the White House Correspondents' dinner unfolded in Washington. But can we all agree with the argument that this is a classic example of the media industrial complex, of crony capitalism in which the press shamelessly participates year after year in clowning around with those in power instead keeping their proper distance. Is this not a manifestation of the ruling class in a nutshell?

In regard to the fact of the event, dasein revolves around those who are personally aware of the dinner. Some in other countries or those here who simply do not follow politics or the news at all may be completely oblivious to it. So, one either is aware of it or not.

But what about our individual political reactions to it? What of dasein then? How is my own understanding of dasein here not reasonable?

Sure, if by that you are talking about genes and biological imperatives, we all come into the world hardwired the same regarding some things and differently regarding other things.

Yes, but, in my view, dasein grappled with up in the intellectual clouds. But what about particular individuals interacting with other particular individuals in particular sets of circumstances. How is the manner in which I construe dasein in my signature threads not relevant at all in regard to your own value judgments? Why are other atheists not fractured and fragmented as I am?

Yes, we can choose to live a certain way recognizing the "self" as I do above -- rooted existentially in dasein -- or recognizing the Self as the moral and political objectivists here do.

"Your right from your side and I'm right from mine" or "my way or the highway".

Only in being fractured and fragmented "I" don't have access to the right way morally or politically or spiritually.

And, in my opinion, some react to me as they do because at least a part of them is coming to recognize that this might someday be applicable to them too. Yes, they can get into heated debates with those who don't share their own values, but at least these folks agree with them that, morally and politically, there is the right way.

And here's something else you don't seem fractured and fragmented about. It's a kind of mindreading. Sometimes like here you keep it vague. Sometimes you name names. You never seem split or tortured about this kind of thing. You may qualify it 'in my opinion' but it never seems like other parts of you have an opinion on your mindreading.

Call it that if it works for you but from my point of view it simply revolves around extrapolating from all of the many, many, many experiences I have had with objectivists over the years. And a few of them who have PMd or emailed me in noting how my own rooted existentially in dasein arguments had begun to disturb them. This and recalling my own past. My own crumbling objectivist Self.

If my speculations here don't apply to you, fine. And then, perhaps, given a particular context, you will kindly explain to me how, if you are an atheist yourself, you have managed to avoid being fractured and fragmented in the is/ought world. Any particular secular Ism do it for you?

And in regard to conflicting goods, how close to or far away from someone Like Plato or Kant are you?

Which is great. What's going on in other minds, one of the classic philosophy issues, you are not fractured around. You'll occasionally make a psychic claim, as if no other reasonable interpretations of how people behave or react to you is possible.

Not fractured, not fragmented. Cool.

All I can do is to note again the distinction I make between not being fractured and fragmented regarding the existence of the White House Correspondence Dinner and being so in regard to my political reaction to it. How about you? Are you not fractured and fragmented regarding either one?

[Consul]

No, "dasein" is not plain English. Not when you say it, not when iwannaplato says it.

Oh, dang. I'll go back to using 'experience'. It's not a term a serious philosopher would use, but I think it's fairly clear. And it doesn't muddle me up with Heidegger who meant something else.

Apart from Heidegger's idiosyncratic usage, the German noun "Dasein" simply means "Existenz" ("existence").

"In early lectures Heidegger often uses Leben, 'life', in speaking of human beings and their being, but Dasein occurs in the BT [Being and Time] sense in 1923 (LXIII, 7; XVII, 3, but here he still speaks of the Dasein of the world, 42). In BT he uses (das) Dasein for 1. the being of humans, and 2. the entity or person who has this being. In lectures he often speaks of das menschliche Dasein, 'human Dasein', and this too can mean either the being of humans or the human being (e.g. XXIV, 21). As a nominalized infinitive, Dasein has no plural. It refers to any and every human being, in much the way that das Seiende, lit. 'that which is', refers to any and every BEING. When more than one person is in play Heidegger speaks of (the) other(s) or Dasein-with (Mitdasein)."

(Inwood, Michael. A Heidegger Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. p. 42)

"BEING-THERE (Dasein). In Being and Time, being-there is the formal indication of the entity that is ontologically distinguished from all other entities by the fact that, in its very existence, the challenge and meaning of existing is an issue for it. Being-there is a way of being of human beings, which harbors the possibility of raising the question of being. Being-there is determined in its existence as care and as the structure of being-in-the-world. From Contributions to Philosophy onward, Heidegger understands being-there as the 'there' (Da) or place for the unconcealment of being."

(Schalow, Frank, and Alfred Denker. Historical Dictionary of Heidegger's Philosophy. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2010. p. 71)

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

Orwell's advice: speak plainly. Speak truth. Say what you mean.

That's pretty much who Biggy is. He talks like a charlatan, and at the same, he constantly complains about other people doing precisely that ( even when it's pretty clear to everyone else that they don't. )

[iambiguous]

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.

Orwell's advice: speak plainly. Speak truth. Say what you mean.

That's pretty much who Biggy is. He talks like a charlatan, and at the same, he constantly complains about other people doing precisely that ( even when it's pretty clear to everyone else that they don't. )

No, seriously.



right peacegirl?

[Magnus Anderson]

You might be physically old, but mentally, you're a child. Seriously, what kind of response is that? Are you a teletubby? Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Lala, Biggy.

[iambiguous]

Plain English:

LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL



Note to Prom75:

How I long for the days when at ephilosopher, the ponderer's guild, existlist and cafephilo I was actually challenged by others. And only occasionally would I bump into a Stooge.

Well, if I do say so myself.

Hell, these guys can't even admit to themselves what most perturbs them about me. Bit by bit I chip away at their own precious moral anchors. Like MagsJ"s intrinsic Self. Or Maia's spiritual Self. Or gib's emotional Self.

He said in jest.

[Magnus Anderson]

Bit by bit I chip away at their own precious moral anchors.

You wish.

[iambiguous]

You might be physically old, but mentally, you're a child. Seriously, what kind of response is that? Are you a teletubby? Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Lala, Biggy.

Note to others:

I challenge him to note an issue relating to his own sense of identity pertaining to a conflicting good that most here will be familiar with.

Then in either a straight up civil and intelligent discussion or huffing and puffing [or, as with gib, both] we can explore our respective moral philosophies.

In fact, I challenge FJ, AJ and iwanna to the same thing.

All the things I'm accused of here. One by one as I make my points these things can be noted.




LET THE WIGGLING BEGIN!!

[Magnus Anderson]

You've got no reputation, friend. Noone takes you seriously. It's like Ecmandu asking people to debate him.

Who wants to have a conversation with someone who does not know how to converse?

Noone.

So let it go.

[iambiguous]

Bit by bit I chip away at their own precious moral anchors.

You wish.

Maybe. But, come on, how else to explain the at times declamatory nature of the taunts thrown my way. And the fact that in regard to exploring dasein as I encompass it above, I can't seem to get those like you to focus in on an issue and a set of circumstances in order to compare and contrast our moral philosophies.