Dasein/dasein

[Alexis Jacobi]

Just like AJ and Satyr.

Nail Gun. Thank heaven for technology!

[iambiguous]

I think the basic dynamic comes down to this...

You have posted nothing so far that would lead me to conclude that the "psychology of objectivism" is not what motivates you by and large.

Just for the record...

Let me note that, yes, some years ago when new experiences, new relationships and new information and knowledge caused me to abandon one objectivist font [Christianity/Unitarianism] for another [Marxist] for another [Trotskyist] for another [democratic socialist] for another [social democrat] for another [existentialist] for another [deconstructionist] for another [moral nihilist], the "psychology of objectivism" tagged along. No doubt about it.

But I don't feel that this...

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.

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".

...is really applicable to me now. For many reasons. I don't proselytize as I once did. I don't feel self-righteous as I once did. And I'm the first to admit that my current frame of mind is but "a subjective/subjunctive contraption rooted existentially in dasein".

But first and foremost because my main aim [to the extent I can ever truly grasp even my own complex motivations and intentions] is the hope that somehow, and in some manner, someone will be able to nudge me in a direction that actually allows me to yank myself up out of the bleak, grim, foreboding hole that I have dug myself down into. Philosophically and otherwise.

Then up into a cloud of intellectual contraptions he goes...

The criterion: 'unless you can convince me, my psychoanalyzing you is correct
The default: 'I'm right about your psychology'
The onus: 'on you.'

The irony is the dynamic is purely objectivist.

Unless you can prove to me you are not X, you are.

Key assumptions:
1) his hypothesis should be the default
2) people unlike him are in denial
3) people make him the issue is the problem; when he makes everyone, and then specific individuals the issue, this is not a problem.
4) his biases are negligible, the criterion is similar to objectivity, nothing invested in his evaulations.

So, it's ok to have a continuous ad hom, aimed at people in general he disagrees with and at any individual who engages in dialogue with him.

He gets to psychoanlyze them and the onus is on them to prove he is wrong.

And if anyone has any problem with this, at root it has to do with their denial.

A cult leader or religious controller is someone who lives out this kind of pattern in a communal face to face setting.

Again, let him note an actual set of circumstances that we can discuss and, as I commit these "rhetorical" flaws, he can, from post to post to post, pounce on them one by one.

[iambiguous]

This could be examined and the many-layered implications thought about ….

That's a great little video. Very familiar experience from a variety of contexts. What were you connecting it to here?

I'm with iwannaplato on this one. Yes, the video was funny and witty and might be used to comment on human interactions in any number of contexts.

But how does it pertain to either Heidegger's Dasein in Being and Time or my own dasein here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

And, again, I'd like to remind you that before you chose to explore this nail gun obsession of yours, you and I were in an actual discussion above.

You're still up here:

This may require a separate thread however I am seriously considering cannibalism as a solution to many many different (but interconnected) woes. The more that I study it — subjectively and objectively — I tend to find it morally defensible.

Even in a no-god world. But also especially.

My point however revolves not around what any particular one of us "here and now" thinks about it, but the fact that reasonable arguments about it can be made both pro and con:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

And neither side seems able to rebut the other side's points until one side or the other establishes [philosohically or otherwise] the argument all men and women said to be rational and virtuous are obligated to embrace.

Unless, of course, you are an objectivist here. Then [God or No God] it's either "my way or the highway". You are either one of us [the smart, serious philosophers] or one of them [the morons].

The classic example being Satyr's clique/claque at KT. Only it's that way because those who disagree with him are kicked out of the discussions. Why? Well, for being morons of course.

Then those like me who are "fractured and fragmented". Those who recognize that given the context both sides can make good points and you just can't seem to decide definitively which side is the One True Path.

Then the part where I argue that how one feels about it subjectively seems clearly to be rooted existentially in the life experiences that one has had.

Finally, the recognition that in world awash in contingency, chance and change -- the Benjamin Button Syndrome -- new experiences, new relationships and new information and knowledge may result in you changing your mind.

[Agent Smith]

I'm interested in how Heidegger links up with the rest of the Socratic project, affectionately, passionately, foolishly, named Philo-Sophia by Pythagoras, the Greek Jain!

Wait, I thought Heidegger ‘refuted’ or contradicted Plato …

This is a blurb from a book Heidegger & Plato (Northwestern University Press). (Note I have not read it as I am still working my sticky way through White Slaves of Lesbo Island).

For Martin Heidegger the "fall" of philosophy into metaphysics begins with Plato. Thus, the relationship between the two philosophers is crucial to an understanding of Heidegger--and, perhaps, even to the whole plausibility of postmodern critiques of metaphysics. It is also, as the essays in this volume attest, highly complex, and possibly founded on a questionable understanding of Plato.

As editors Catalin Partenie and Tom Rockmore remark, a simple way to describe Heidegger's reading of Plato might be to say that what began as an attempt to appropriate Plato (and through him a large portion of Western philosophy) finally ended in an estrangement from both Plato and Western philosophy. The authors of this volume consider Heidegger's thought in relation to Plato before and after the "Kehre" or turn. In doing so, they take up various central issues in Heidegger's Being and Time (1927) and thereafter, and the questions of hermeneutics, truth, and language. The result is a subtle and multifaceted reinterpretation of Heidegger's position in the tradition of philosophy, and of Plato's role in determining that position.

Now, what Satyr has to say about any of this is the real mystery confronting each of us here.

Note to the others: Do all of you possess hammers?

I'm just trying ta figure out what exactly Heidegger did to metaphysics.

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ!

I've really got him going now. Only he's on a leash of late at ILP. The Satyr I'm used to making a complete fool of [or simply allowing him to make a complete fool of himself] has been warned not to go too far in huffing and puffing and in hurling ad homs and in reducing his posts down to one long declamatory personal attack.

Excellent! Be sure to keep me apprised as things evolve.

You know, it's always puzzled me why Satyr isn't posting here. After all, KT and ILP combined could not possibly be further removed from putting even the tiniest of dents in the world of philosophy online. You can't even really count ILP as a philosophy forum anymore in my opinion. Just check out the posts there for a day or two.

Whereas the PN forum is derived from the Philosophy Now magazine and, comparatively, has many more actual philosophers submitting posts that are considerably more in the vicinity of actual philosophy itself.

So, I figure it's because 1] he has attempted to post here in the past but went into his "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!" psycho mode and got banned or 2] he is still posting here as, say, you for example.

Then whatever the fuck this means:

It is wonderful when our personal exposées seem to reflect a cosmic unfolding of *what is true* and coincides with the larger revelation of truth in our world(s). Bravo!

Sounds more like a description of a nail gun.

Now, let's get back to how much of this is rooted in dasein...

Oh yeah! Heck yeah!

Okay, yeah, why don't you?

Anyway, here's another excerpt from Satyr on my ILP daesin thread:

To whoever has intellectual integrity.....not you Karen...
Karen uses Dasein not as Heidegger used it but as a corrupted amalgamation of Locke's tabula rasa, and Heidegger's 'throwness'.
In her mind an individual is placed within exitance, within particular conditions as a blank slate, and the environment programs him....writes his thinking and behaving.
Nurture all the way.

Do me a favor okay? Contact him and ask him to explain what the fuck this even means in regard to an actual context.

Yes, we are "thrown" at birth out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And morally, politically, anthropologically, sociologically, etc., a baby's mind is a blank slate and those around him will stuff themselves into it for years and years. And his or her experiences as an adult are profoundly rooted out in the particular world that he or she has been thrown into fortuitously at birth.

But, over the years, there have been any number of objectivists...

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

...God and No who have insisted that yes, Satyr is right in that there is only one optimal moral narrative and political agenda in regard to race and gender and sex and Jews and government and everything else. But it sure as shit isn't his. It's theirs.

Ask him to come down out of the "serious philosopher" intellectual contraption clouds and actually demonstrate empirically/phenomenologically how and why only his set of assumptions and conclusions regarding the human condition is the right one.

Given a context of his own choosing. Though, sure, help him out here so that together you can really trip me up.

Here Karen also displays her understanding of Ayn Rand - which I've never bothered to read. Her Objectivism replaces objectivity, and is thrown about like an accusation, an insult...like 'Nazi'.

Come on, as with you AJ, all I did back in the dungeon was to probe the extent to which in regard to Jews and blacks and women and homosexuals and liberals and others, his political policies if he were in power would be the same or different from the Nazis.

Objectivity is therefore evil, and all must remain divinely subjective - subjectivity is moral, objectivity immoral; all ought to - so as to develop inter-subjectivity by abandoning their programming - she does her best to undermine all trust in their personal beliefs, trust in their judgements, because judgement is her nemesis.

First of all, I'm not arguing that objective moral and political convictions don't exist, only that "here and now" I don't believe that they do. And, besides, there are hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths espoused around the globe. And that there is always the danger that some objectivists will go beyond "this is what I think" to "this is what you better think too".

Or else.

Or else?

Well...

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

Nature is dismissed...but only for humans. Karen's arbitrariness require no justifications. Her declarations suffice.
For her culture absolutely determines an individuals beliefs and these beliefs can never be changed because there is no objectivity...no objective way to evaluate subjective beliefs.

Do him a favor here, AJ. Note all of the many times I have been this way with you here. Or ask him to note a particular context at ILP and we can explore this at a distance...here and there.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm just trying ta figure out what exactly Heidegger did to metaphysics.

Me too, brother.

[Agent Smith]

I'm just trying ta figure out what exactly Heidegger did to metaphysics.

Me too, brother.

Statin' the obvious, that's what keeps me one step ahead of the comp!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm just trying ta figure out what exactly Heidegger did to metaphysics.

Me too, brother.

Statin' the obvious, that's what keeps me one step ahead of the comp!

Yes, YES!

Satyr just texted me this.

Talk about being one step ahead!

[iambiguous]

Me too, brother.

Statin' the obvious, that's what keeps me one step ahead of the comp!

Yes, YES!

Satyr just texted me this.

Talk about being one step ahead!

The Corner!!!

Yo, Pedro! We're on our way here too!!!

[Iwannaplato]

Genetics and political ideology
This obviously doesn't contradict the influence of experience on ideology, but these scientists generally found that the literature did not emphasize enough the effects of genetics on political beliefs. For those with lots of time on their hands...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

[iambiguous]

Genetics and political ideology
This obviously doesn't contradict the influence of experience on ideology, but these scientists generally found that the literature did not emphasize enough the effects of genetics on political beliefs. For those with lots of time on their hands...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

"In summary, the findings suggest that while genes undoubtedly matter in the aggregate for the development of political attitudes, individual common variants will have small effects on ideology. Hunting for a single “political gene” is a fruitless endeavor."

See, I told you. Well, in my own way of course.

Then, for all practical purposes, given a particular context, whatever this means...

"Rather, we suggest that until large enough samples and improved techniques allow for the identification of specific genetic variants of small effects related to ideology, measures of latent influence provide important and meaningful estimates to understand variance in ideology. Future studies, which focus on detecting and understanding the full range of rare and common variants influencing ideology, including examinations of copy number variation, genetic expression and epigenetic pathways, will only serve to further elucidate the genetic influence on ideology and explicate the pathways that account for a substantial portion of how ideologies are formed and maintained in a world where both genes and environment interact and remain in continuous dialogue to guide human behavior."

Anyone here want to intertwine it in regard to their own political value judgments pertaining to a set of circumstances most of us here will be familiar with?

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ.

What do you make of this "exchange":

ME:


Anyway, here's another excerpt from Satyr on my ILP dasein thread:

To whoever has intellectual integrity.....not you Karen...
Karen uses Dasein not as Heidegger used it but as a corrupted amalgamation of Locke's tabula rasa, and Heidegger's 'throwness'.
In her mind an individual is placed within exitance, within particular conditions as a blank slate, and the environment programs him....writes his thinking and behaving.
Nurture all the way.

Do me a favor okay? Contact him and ask him to explain what the fuck this even means in regard to an actual context.

Yes, we are "thrown" at birth out into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially. And morally, politically, anthropologically, sociologically, etc., a baby's mind is a blank slate and those around him will stuff themselves into it for years and years. And his or her experiences as an adult are profoundly rooted out in the particular world that he or she has been thrown into fortuitously at birth.

But, over the years, there have been any number of objectivists...

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

...God and No God who have insisted that yes, Satyr is right in that there is only one optimal moral narrative and political agenda in regard to race and gender and sex and Jews and government and everything else. But it sure as shit isn't his. It's theirs.

Ask him to come down out of the "serious philosopher" intellectual contraption clouds and actually demonstrate empirically/phenomenologically how and why only his set of assumptions and conclusions regarding the human condition is the right one.

Given a context of his own choosing. Though, sure, help him out here so that together you can really trip me up.

Here Karen also displays her understanding of Ayn Rand - which I've never bothered to read. Her Objectivism replaces objectivity, and is thrown about like an accusation, an insult...like 'Nazi'.

Come on, as with you AJ, all I did back in the dungeon was to probe the extent to which in regard to Jews and blacks and women and homosexuals and liberals and others, his political policies if he were in power would be the same or different from the Nazis.

Objectivity is therefore evil, and all must remain divinely subjective - subjectivity is moral, objectivity immoral; all ought to - so as to develop inter-subjectivity by abandoning their programming - she does her best to undermine all trust in their personal beliefs, trust in their judgements, because judgement is her nemesis.

First of all, I'm not arguing that objective moral and political convictions don't exist, only that "here and now" I don't believe that they do. And, besides, there are hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths espoused around the globe. And that there is always the danger that some objectivists will go beyond "this is what I think" to "this is what you better think too".

Or else.

Or else?

Well...

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

Nature is dismissed...but only for humans. Karen's arbitrariness require no justifications. Her declarations suffice.
For her culture absolutely determines an individuals beliefs and these beliefs can never be changed because there is no objectivity...no objective way to evaluate subjective beliefs.

Do him a favor here, AJ. Note all of the many times I have been this way with you here. Or ask him to note a particular context at ILP and we can explore this at a distance...here and there.[/quote]

HIM:

Karen thinks this works...
Nobody pays her any mind...but she cannot see it.

Oh well...

He doesn't have a clue as to how to respond substantively to the points I raise. Even you put him to shame here. Or, rather, you used to.

But, come on, admit it: how pathetic is this?!!!

Oh, well...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yo, AJ.

What do you make of this "exchange":

That you’ve gone round the bend?

[iambiguous]

The Heideggerian Dasein: The Human Being as a Context for Meaning
Alejandro Betancourt

So, Aletheia refers to the moment when we reveal ourselves to others and achieve a state of authenticity. Only through Aletheia can we understand each other and forge meaningful relationships. In Aletheia, we are no longer concerned with how we

re perceived, and we choose to live per our thoughts, feelings, and desires.

No, Aletheia/Truth, much like Freedom or Justice, is a word that, on the one hand, you can go to the dictionary and look up, and, on the other hand, get into fierce conflicts regarding when it is used to describe reactions to particular sets of circumstances. Is it the Truth that Jean Carroll was sexually abused and defamed by Donald Trump? Well, a jury has just decided that he did. But run it by the MAGA minions and see how many concur here regarding Aletheia.

So, how might Dasein as construed by Heidegger be applicable to reactions here? As opposed to how I encompass it on this thread.

Heidegger believes that Aletheia is the only way to appropriately understand ourselves and each other. When we rely on Mitsein to guide us through life, we cannot see past our preconceived notions of what it means to be human. Aletheia allows us to distinguish between our abstract idea of authenticity and the unique ways in which each experiences it.

Yes, up in the intellectual clouds, where Aletheia can be broached, examined and assessed philosophically even such things as the Nazi agenda can be "appropriately" understood and rationalized. And how were the majority of Germans back than not embracing the conceived notions of Adolph Hitler? Only he was not content to leave it at his abstract idea of authenticity, was he?

So, in regard to Alethia, what are your own views with respect to race and gender and ethnicity and sexual preferences and Jews and abortion and guns and all of the many, many other "conflicting goods"? How specifically, given a particular context, are they closer to Heidegger's Dasein in Being and Time rather than to my own assessment in my signature threads above?

Let's explore that here.

I'm still hobbled in regard to all of these things by "fractured and fragmented" moral parameters. I suspect that in a No God world there are those all up and down the value judgment spectrum able to embrace one or another ideological/deontological political agenda. I'm not. At least "here and now".

Are you perhaps?

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ.

What do you make of this "exchange":

That you’ve gone round the bend?

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Again, I make all of my points above and this is all he can muster in the way of "serious philosophy":

She repeats...because she has nothing to say....this linguistic undermining is all she knows...all she understands.
She's convinced....this is working.
She's having an effect...
She looks for responses to validate this delusion.

I give them to her.
I'm generous.

This validation reinvigorates her - like winding up a toy.

she must have multiple venues to get her fix....
She needs to believe this is working....before she dies.
Then, her life would not have been a waste.

Go ahead, react to my points yourself.




Edit:

Let's explore another of his posts over at ILP. A post from my Nihilism thread:

Listen to the description of postmodernism...
Who does it remind you of?

She parrots it.....

Go ahead, AJ listen to it.

To say that I parrot "postmodernism" as encompassed in the video is preposterous. Instead, in regard to science or art or social interactions or human biology etc., I make a crucial distinction between the language we use to describe objective facts in the either/or world and the language we use to express personal moral and political opinions [re dasein encompassed in my signature threads] in the is/ought world.

Given a No God world. Another assumption on my part because I have no capacity to demonstrate that a God/the God does not exist. And neither does he.

Then I ask him or you or others to note a particular set of circumstances in which to explore this distinction. As I make it. And as he or you or others make it.

From Abrahamism, to Marxism, and now she is encamped in Postmodernism.
An ideologue....a mindless minion...

Yes, I was once a moral objectivist myself...a Christian and a Marxist. And many other things. But I abandoned them when I abandoned moral objectivism itself. But I would never claim what I believe now is in fact what all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. How on Earth could I possibly go about demonstrating that? Given both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule"...as they pertain to how one would go about encompassing the "human condition" objectively going all the way back to an objective understanding of existence itself. We are all the equivalent of Flatlanders then.

Then utterly lacking in any context, back up into the intellectual [didactic/pedantic] clouds he goes...

The core ideas are what connects them all.
Subversion; Messianism; Linguistic; Ideological; Subjectivity; Rejection of Objectivity unless it can prove itself to be absolute; words used to disconnect a judgement form the relationships in the world; justified as skepticism; denial of identity; denial of morality; rejection of reason and rationality....

She didn't progress she upgraded her delusions.

From divine sparks trapped in pots, spirits encased in bodies...to a raceless, sexless proletariat being exploited by an internationalist cabal that has no ethnicity, no nationality, no racial nor gender identity, of capitalists, to sexless identities forced - edumacated, cultured - to be gendered, trapped in the "wrong body."

We get these preposterous psycho-babble "assessments" from him all the time over at KT. Or so was the case when I used to read them. And they are all derived entirely from his "my way or the highway" assessment of genes and memes.

Satyr's Words

Okay, take any of these words and, in regard to a "situation" that precipitates conflicting goods precipitating conflicting moral narratives and political agendas, let's compare and contrast our respective philosophies.

Him there. You and I here.