Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:31 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 8:36 pm If someone asked you to pour a glass of water and then asked would you prefer wine or whiskey - what would you answer? Indeed what would you answer when the water was changed to your preference? - me thinks you'd prefer to stick with water.

I do not understand what you are getting at. Can you restate it?

If someone asked that I pour a glass of water I'd assume they wanted water. If they asked me "Would you prefer wine or whisky?" I'd merely be puzzled.

Ok. Well played.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:12 am While I agree that *existence* (that things exist) must be evidence of a creative spirit and intelligence, those that argue against you do not and cannot see things as you do. Because that is not enough evidence, nor is it the sort of evidence, they demand.

Then it gets worse, some would say that this "evidence" actively backfires. The existence of the world is unimaginably unlikely, therefore the existence of the world + an intelligence that had the means to create it, should be even far more unlikely than that.

"But that is not quite so given that you have said your economic condition -- your wage-slavery -- is killing you (if I am remembering some of your statements correctly)."

I've been working for myself for nearly two years, but prior to that, I did work for hourly wages, which was killing me.

Correction: sometimes I do work for a wage, but this is an hourly price I set myself if I choose not to bid the job at a flat price. This is a different circumstance than an hourly wage being paid by a capitalist, tho.

Rather what I'm complaining about (one thing, anyway) is everyone else who is working for a wage... those who don't have the opportunity to work for themselves and receive the full value of their labor.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:01 pm I always find this a puzzling claim, whenever anybody advances it.

Of course there's evidence.

Oh it most certainly is the question.

Those things which you determine are *evidence* are in no sense really evidences.

In any other context, the things that I listed are routinely considered evidence...and often very strong evidence, as well. It's just because it pertains to the matter of the existence of God that people arbitrarily declare that there's "no evidence."

They should look, instead -- there's plenty. But one can always choose to say, "Well, I refuse to regard X AS evidence." However, that's not a rational response, is it? The rational response is to weigh the evidence against whatever one can muster as contrary evidence.

That's not really the question: the question is whether or not the evidence available should incline one to the conclusion or not.

What 'inclines one to the conclusion' is an array of motivations.

The motivation should be a thing called "preponderance of the evidence." Nothing else.

There is no evidence as the sort of evidence in, say, a chemist's lab or a court of law requires.

Actually, there is. Again, people don't want to look at it, but there certainly is that.
Here are two writers who explicitly treat Theism as a matter of legal evidence, using the courtroom standards and journalistic procedures to sort and evaluate it.
https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-De ... 1401676707
https://www.amazon.ca/Case-Christ-Journ ... 0310339308
Whatever you decide you think of their evidence, you cannot possibly deny anymore that the muster it in exactly the way one would for any other proper formal investigation. Have a look.

The natural world is evidence for God. So is the intelligibilty of reality. So is the moral realm. So is the historical record, and the literary record of the Bible itself. Further evidence is available from cosmology, from the philosophy of mind, from conceptual arguments, and from the testimony of a myriad of personal witnesses. There's plenty of evidence.

While I agree that *existence* (that things exist) must be evidence of a creative spirit and intelligence,

Wait: did you not say there was no evidence?

those that argue against you do not and cannot see things as you do.

Sure they can; they won't, perhaps, but that's quite a different thing to say.

If they could not, then the phenomenon of changing one's mind by way of persuasion would be impossible. And yet, it's routine.

Because that is not enough evidence, nor is it the sort of evidence, they demand.

Actually, you'll see that it is exactly that. But they don't want it anyway.

To understand the existence of God, in the manner that you describe it, requires a mind prepared to receive and entertain the idea, or one inclined in that direction just by inner prompting or any number of different motives, not all of them the right ones or good ones.

Those are two routes, of course. But they're not the only ones. Another is the objective consideration of the evidence. That's how, for example, Strobel became convinced.

Now, you may claim he was lying: but that's a claim you make contrary to his own account of how his conversion happened, and one you would then have to make on the basis of no evidence of your own, and against clear testimony from him. You can do that: but maybe, if you did, you'd have to ask yourself why you want to.

The literary record of the Bible is not evidence, for those who see differently, of any sort at all.

Oh, that's not true.

The existence of Hamlet is testament to a literary genius. Nobody can possibly doubt that. One can say it was really Christopher Marlowe or the Earl of Oxford, rather than a literal Shakespeare; but what you can't doubt is that somebody was a magnificent literary genius, right?

But what of the Bible? It's literally the greatest work of literature ever produced, without contest. It's been more read, studied and celebrated by the human race than any work of literature ever created, and Shakespeare himself, and Milton, and many other great literary geniuses did homage to that greater work in their own.

So the very existence of such a great work -- 66 books of coordinated literature, produced by various authors from different times and even different "races," containing history, prophecy, poetry...basically a pocket library of interlinking references and information composed over the course of thousands of years...even that basic fact, the fact of the very existence of the thing, requires a very elaborate sort of explaining.

It's superb evidence for something really special having happened. Even an honest skeptic would have to admit that.

"Myriad of personal witnesses' is 'hearsay' to use a legal term.

No, "hearsay" is when you've "heard" somebody "say" something. It doesn't refer to personal testimony. In fact, personal testimony is a key sort of evidence in most trials.

They suppose that all those who testify were drunk on themselves, or duped, or who self-deceived themselves to what they wanted, painfully, to believe. They see this belief as tied up with self-deception.

People have tried such facile dismissals many times. The problem is that they just don't make sense, for a variety of reasons. These are nicely summarized in the McDowell book, which I recommend. There are too many of them for me to attempt to list them all here. But you'll see he makes a clean sweep of those sorts of objections...assuming you want to know, of course.

Everything that you mention is not evidence.

Actually, look again: it's all exactly the kind of evidence routinely invoked in all other situations...scientific data, logical deductions, personal testimony, literary analysis...and so on.

It might suggest certain conclusions but it is not 'evidence' in the strict, modern sense.

It is. In a very clear, modern sense.

But to consider it, one has to first do what Strobel did, and commit oneself to being objective, rather than to looking for ways to elude the task of actually considering the evidence.

And that, one has to personally be willing to do. No matter how good the evidence, nobody can force a person to take it seriously if he/she doesn't want to, and just keeps saying, "Nothing you ever point me to will ever be evidence."

You've now got two books that have a lot of evidence in them, and all of it treated in the modern way. It's up to you whether or not you wish to consider that evidence. But it's there.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 1:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 9:01 pmPrometheus stole fire from "the gods," it is said. But today's so-called "Prometheans" steal nothingness from what you call "paideia." At least Prometheus is said to have done the human race some benefit...but these Prometheans bring man only to the abyss of his own vacuity. They aren't heroes...not every rebel is a hero. Some are just rebels-without-a-point.

I guess this is my conclusion as well. I tried to look for some value in Smashing Pumpkins and other such bands (like Cobain). I just don't find it. I find the ultimate and nearly absolute tiredness and exhaustion of people who have literally run out of steam. They presage death.

Well, that's right. I think that's where we are, right now.

I remember years ago, sitting in a performance of Cabaret -- not my usual choice of entertainment, but I was there in an official capacity and had to be on hand. I don't know if you've ever seen the play/musical.

It's about the decline of morality and integrity in the cabaret culture of the Weimar Republic in Germany, between the wars. Anyway, as the play proceeds, the main characters go from being "decent folks" gradually, by way of successions of compromises, to being more and more debased and debauched. And in the climactic scene, the dancers in this performance were all rolling around on the stage under a huge bedsheet, extending arms and legs and flailing around so as to provoke audience imaginings of various depraved sexual acts.

As they roll about in this stew of debauchery on the floor, suddenly a light pierces the stage from above: and high on a platform above the rolling mass a young man appears. He is wearing crisp, clean lederhosen, and his eyes are lifted to the sky. He is recognized as one of the dancers, one formerly involved in the debauchery below, but now looking quite clean. And he raises his voice and sings, "The Future Belongs to Me," an anthem to the greatness and purity of the German nation. And the seething mass below becomes still; as one by one, the dancers each extract themselves slowly from the bedsheet, and rise to their feet, and stand awestruck at the sight of something so clear and clarion high above them.

Of course, we all know what they young man in the lederhosen really represents -- the call of Hitler. But we cannot mistake the message the writers have given us: that it is the very libertinism of the Weimar cabarets that would cause people to become so "sick with sin" that they would follow anybody who seemed to provide a hope of cleanness, freedom, morality and order....even if he was a murderous psychopath.

Our society is very near to that point now. Since the Sixties at least, and arguably before, we have become so permissive of evil that we are becoming "sick with sin." We're so debauched and confused that we murder our own babies and can't figure out when a man is a woman. No form of sexual or personal deviancy is any longer forbidden, save things like pederasty...which is now becoming the new cause celebre, the next "oppressed" group to be normalized by our society (God help their poor victims; we will have no mercy on them!) But at some point, we well have had enough, grow slack and tired of our own filthiness, and start to long for something that looks "better."

This makes us susceptible to the next voice of clear direction, order, morality, security, social integration, economic salvation and ideological direction...no matter from what source it comes. We're ripe for dictatorship, because we failed to moderate our indulgence of evil. And we are exhibiting, as you say, the "absolute tiredness and exhaustion of people who have literally run out of steam." In Cabaret terms, we are the debauched minions on the floor, beneath the sheet, morally and mentally speaking.

And what we don't even realize is that we are only preparing for our next Hitler.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:14 pm In any other context, the things that I listed are routinely considered evidence...and often very strong evidence, as well. It's just because it pertains to the matter of the existence of God that people arbitrarily declare that there's "no evidence."

They should look, instead -- there's plenty. But one can always choose to say, "Well, I refuse to regard X AS evidence." However, that's not a rational response, is it? The rational response is to weigh the evidence against whatever one can muster as contrary evidence.

The motivation should be a thing called "preponderance of the evidence." Nothing else.

Wait: did you not say there was no evidence?

Respectfully, this is the point where you ask me to join you in sophistry. You have just launched into a total display of sophistic argument. And this arises because you have chosen, for reasons I dimly understand, to hold to a literalist stance in regard to the Genesis story. All that you said that you would say about the *truth* of the Genesis story and whatever you had planned for the *original mating pair* was left unsaid. You seem to demand that people come to your level -- that of credulity -- before you will actually state, in clear terms, precisely what you do think and believe.

No, the things that you refer to are not 'evidence'. They are anecdotes that dress themselves up as evidence. At this point I know where the conversation will go with you: down into sticky goo, which is to say sophistry.

The entire issue of 'the existence of God' is precisely where the problem is. You say "No! The evidence is plain and it is obvious!" but this is because you have declared the evidence to be sufficient, convincing and obvious.

It is entirely possible for those who define and defend 'intelligent design' to make a case, as I make the case, for the necessity of a structural intelligence as an a priori to the entire manifestation. But there is no evidence that links that assertion to the sort of god that is defined by the Christian religion or by other religions as well. You say 1) I believe in intelligent design so 2) therefore Christianity in all its structure and detail must be true. It does not follow.

that people arbitrarily declare that there's "no evidence."

What I say is that the 'evidence' is anecdotal evidence and such evidence is always brought out by persons deeply committed to the religious perspective. They have already been converted and are believers and so they mold the anecdotes as if they support what we understand to be the evidence of 'scientific claims' and 'scientific facts'.

They should look, instead -- there's plenty. But one can always choose to say, "Well, I refuse to regard X AS evidence." However, that's not a rational response, is it? The rational response is to weigh the evidence against whatever one can muster as contrary evidence.

Right, so here we are again back with the Adam & Eve story and your *original mating pair*. Go ahead, present your evidence. And when you do (which you have not done) it will be seen that it is utterly sophistical. It is the evidence that one believer hands to another believer.

For example your incipient argument that Adam & Eve in Genesis is a story about an *original mating pair* that can be reconciled with evolutionary theory and the primeval origins of man is the sort of *evidence* that those you refer to will say "I refuse to regard X AS evidence". It is not a refusal in the traditional sense as if one covers one's eyes to an obvious. glaring truth, but a necessary dismissal of a ridiculous assertion.

But you will cling to that 'ridiculous assertion' because, I gather, if that assertion were dropped your whole theory would crumble (?) One by one the elements of the story would unravel. There is a way around this of course and that is to see the Story as a story which elucidates other levels of truth -- important ones -- but that do not coincide with a very very different epistemological system. Each episteme has to be beaten with a sledge hammer if they are to conform one to the other. The hammer mangles both.

The motivation should be a thing called "preponderance of the evidence." Nothing else.

No, that does not work either. The 'preponderance of the evidence' indeed points to the relevancy of a whole realm of truths revealed by the Stories. But the Stories are not the truths represented. The story is in fact not required for the truths to be perceived and to have relevancy.

I have already pointed all this out. If the truths of Christianity are universal, and indeed if they existed even before all that is manifest came to be, then those truths function throughout all universes. But the specific earth-story will have no meaning in some other galaxy, universe or dimension. Therefore the truths themselves are metaphysical truths. They pertain to invisible things that come to bear on the manifest world. So the very notion of *incarnation* indicates and also symbolizes how these truths come into our world. They 'descend' into our world as oppositional and contrary structures that are imposed on the world. And the world of that opposition is as I say 'the natural world'. We are the subject that is brought under the yoke of these contrary and imposing ideas. It is a question of whether we choose to ally ourselves with them, or not.

Our conflict is really in that realm.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 2:33 pmOur society is very near to that point now. Since the Sixties at least, and arguably before, we have become so permissive of evil that we are becoming "sick with sin." We're so debauched and confused that we murder our own babies and can't figure out when a man is a woman. No form of sexual or personal deviancy is any longer forbidden, save things like pederasty...which is now becoming the new cause celebre, the next "oppressed" group to be normalized by our society (God help their poor victims; we will have no mercy on them!) But at some point, we well have had enough, grow slack and tired of our own filthiness, and start to long for something that looks "better."

This makes us susceptible to the next voice of clear direction, order, morality, security, social integration, economic salvation and ideological direction...no matter from what source it comes. We're ripe for dictatorship, because we failed to moderate our indulgence of evil. And we are exhibiting, as you say, the "absolute tiredness and exhaustion of people who have literally run out of steam." In Cabaret terms, we are the debauched minions on the floor, beneath the sheet, morally and mentally speaking.

And what we don't even realize is that we are only preparing for our next Hitler.

It has been possible, and it still is possible, to discover and name the points where our perspectives agree. As I said way back at the beginning, my project, such as it is, has to do with seeking ways to build bridges.

I find your position to be, quite plainly, utterly pessimistic. But I think that you would have to reveal the key element that operates in it, within it, and also under it. You have no faith at all in 'the world'. In your view the only route for universal (world) salvation is a mass-conversion to Christianity.

There is no other possible road. For if I suggest a choice by a man to live in a 'godly' way (to use a term that is used in those circles) you will deny that Man can pull this off. One cannot choose, one has to surrender.

I see two things that operate together. I do not deny choice and decisiveness and I certainly do not deny the other aspect or dimension.

So in this sense what must happen -- and I take this to be largely an Evangelical position -- is that everything must go to ruin. Utter ruin. Since nothing can get better, nothing can established properly, thus there is really no hope, and thus a real Christian can do very little but step aside and let the world world on. Dasein-away!
_____________________

Personally, I am certain that *the inner turning* away from the traditional sensual enticements, which can indeed turn into terrible traps, is vital and those traps must and should be resisted. I think that is where *spiritual purification* always does take place. In my investigations of original Christianity that turning inward and turning away from the sensual enticements is fundamental.

And it seems true that when people lose their 'anchor' they spin out into unreal areas. So, defining what that anchor is is highly important. Thus, it all ties back to metaphysical commitments. Etc, etc.

Hitler as symbol is a vital aspect of this conversation and must be brought out. It is a very very difficult one however.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:04 pm ...whatever you had planned for the *original mating pair* was left unsaid.

Well, only because nobody could get past that post. They joked up and died on trying to propose an alternate hypothesis, but remained unwilling to concede the necessity of mine. One can't go ahead if people are simply going to refuse the obvious, can one?

No, the things that you refer to are not 'evidence'.

Get the books. You'll see there's plenty of evidence in them. And if you want something more challenging, may I highly recommend "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology." I promise you, you won't be left in doubt.

The entire issue of 'the existence of God' is precisely where the problem is. You say "No! The evidence is plain and it is obvious!" but this is because you have declared the evidence to be sufficient, convincing and obvious.

I'm offering you the evidence. I've now listed three books full of it. But I can't make you look at them, can I?

But I think you should.

...there is no evidence that links that assertion to the sort of god that is defined by the Christian religion or by other religions as well. You say 1) I believe in intelligent design so 2) therefore Christianity in all its structure and detail must be true. It does not follow.

Alexis...if only you would look, you would see how wrong you are.

that people arbitrarily declare that there's "no evidence."

What I say is that the 'evidence' is anecdotal evidence...

It's not. If you look, you'll see it's not.

Interesting that you are so resistant, when I'm offering you evidence. You really must rest a great deal of your personal well-being on the supposition that there isn't anything there for you to see...you seem very perturbed at the very thought there might be...so perturbed you will not even look...

They should look, instead -- there's plenty. But one can always choose to say, "Well, I refuse to regard X AS evidence." However, that's not a rational response, is it? The rational response is to weigh the evidence against whatever one can muster as contrary evidence.

Right, so here we are again back with the Adam & Eve...

Did I mention it here? No.

Red herring. Let's let the particulars lie, until we've established what kind of "evidence" you would even acknowledge. I don't want to go forward on any terms you find unreasonable.

The motivation should be a thing called "preponderance of the evidence." Nothing else.

No, that does not work either. The 'preponderance of the evidence' indeed points to the relevancy of a whole realm of truths revealed by the Stories.

No, it doesn't. But you won't look, so you can't know. There is good evidence, and I am confident you'll find it favours a factual conclusion.

..all universes....

There is but one universe, for everything that exists is included in the term "universe."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:18 am...everything that exists is included in the term "universe."

So now you're a pantheist, eh Mr Can?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 4:27 pm I find your position to be, quite plainly, utterly pessimistic.

On this point, the Cabaret point, it HAS to be.

It was failure to see the danger that unchecked social debauchery creates -- the danger of rubber-banding into totalitarianism, that must be guarded against.

But I think that you would have to reveal the key element that operates in it, within it, and also under it. You have no faith at all in 'the world'. In your view the only route for universal (world) salvation is a mass-conversion to Christianity.

There's no such thing as "mass-conversion," by definition. "Masses" never convert. They are, in fact, abstractions from the individual, in which the indvidual's normal conscience is subsumed to the will of the mass. But "conversion" requires personal faith, in defiance of what the "masses" choose. So there will be no such thing.

There is no other possible road. For if I suggest a choice by a man to live in a 'godly' way (to use a term that is used in those circles) you will deny that Man can pull this off. One cannot choose, one has to surrender.

Now, here you are right. There is no man-made road out of this situation, because man is part of the cause of the problem. What we need is to become a new kind of person. But that, only the Creator Himself could achieve for us.

I take this to be largely an Evangelical position -- is that everything must go to ruin. Utter ruin. Since nothing can get better, nothing can established properly, thus there is really no hope, and thus a real Christian can do very little but step aside and let the world world on.

Far from it. If you know evangelicals, you know that many, many of them are very charitable, very active for the social good, and often work tirelessly in roles that others would not even think of taking up. They have been responsible for such various social improvement initatives as slavery abolition, poor relief, welfare programs, addiction programs, homeless programs, outreach in penal institutions, medical missions, and the invention of public education itself. All this and more they have done. Why would they do that if they were as glum as you think?

By the way, in all the dealings I've had with such programs, I never bump into Atheists doing the same kind of work with the same kinds of people. If they do it at all, they're remarkably good at hiding it.

In point of fact, evangelicals have a calling to improve the world as much as they possibly can, after all, "God loved the world," as John tells us. But the world did not love God. And evangelicals know that their efforts, as strenuous as they may be, can only resist the tide of man's rejection of God so long. If the greater mass of man is determined to reject God, there will come a time when that choice will have to be fulfilled. And a world without God is not going to last long, left to its own devices.

No more than seven years, in fact.

Personally, I am certain that *the inner turning* away from the traditional sensual enticements, which can indeed turn into terrible traps, is vital and those traps must and should be resisted. I think that is where *spiritual purification* always does take place. In my investigations of original Christianity that turning inward and turning away from the sensual enticements is fundamental.

But let's back that question up one stage: if the world is composed of things one should positively strive for, on the one hand, and things one should "turn away from," or as you call them, "sensual enticements," how did that situation come to exist? That's a really important question.

What does the fact that the world is composed of both good and evil things suggest to us?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:46 pm Now, given your own intellectual assessment of human identity derived from your own intellectual assessment of the Christian God,

I have to say here that I am very deeply amused by your continual attempts to get us to discuss any other topic but the main, which is "dasein." And to wave in front of me a topic that relates importantly to myself, but has nothing to do with "dasein," well, that's a marvelous attempt at red herring, I really have to say.

Fine. Let's leave it to others then to decide "which of us is determined to avoid a substantive assessment of human identity given conflicting moral and political value judgments out in the world that we actually live and interact in."

That you are not in the least embarrassed to discuss the complexities of human identity other than up in the "philosophical" clouds is something that I may or may not come to fathom. That too is rooted existentially in dasein. Though, sure, continue to insist that we must first define it into existence if we are ever going to deduce it into existence.

The "analytical" dasein. After all, it fits right in with your "analytical" Christian God.

Fortunately for you there are any number of others here who seem intent as well on discussing it up on the abstract, academic skyhooks.

Human identity in a world of words!!

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 6:46 pm Now, given your own intellectual assessment of human identity derived from your own intellectual assessment of the Christian God,

I have to say here that I am very deeply amused by your continual attempts to get us to discuss any other topic but the main, which is "dasein." And to wave in front of me a topic that relates importantly to myself, but has nothing to do with "dasein," well, that's a marvelous attempt at red herring, I really have to say.

Fine. Let's leave it to others then to decide "which of us is determined to avoid a substantive assessment...

Yes, that's fine. All they'll have to do is look at the title above. And they'll know.

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

Perhaps not experience of the human being, but simply experience itself. I imply experience alone , not experience plus "the human being " experiencer, is all that exists. In other words there is neither subject nor object of experience; experience is all there is.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

Here and there:there can't one without the other .Here and there are imaginary poles. Dasein is the dynamic relationship between what we ordinarily think of as static subject and object.

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

Panspsychists attribute Dasein to all living beings not just humans. Dasein may be thought of as the criterion for being-for -itself. Sartre was influenced by Heidegger .Why not me too?

What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

God and existentialism are not mutually incompatible. An idealist who believes it's we beings-for-ourselves who create order out of chaos can also believe there is Absolute eternal order .

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened? Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

“We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
[/quote]
NB above quotes are from the original post.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:48 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 1:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 7:02 pm
I have to say here that I am very deeply amused by your continual attempts to get us to discuss any other topic but the main, which is "dasein." And to wave in front of me a topic that relates importantly to myself, but has nothing to do with "dasein," well, that's a marvelous attempt at red herring, I really have to say.

Fine. Let's leave it to others then to decide "which of us is determined to avoid a substantive assessment...

Yes, that's fine. All they'll have to do is look at the title above. And they'll know.

Again, I can only note how surprised I am to come to a philosophy forum that revolves around Philosophy Now magazine and find myself confronting the same sort of "thinking" that ILP has devolved into of late.

Yes, note the title of this thread. And note the substantive arguments I've made in regard to my own understanding of human identity out in the is/ought world of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

Then, by all means, note in turn the substantive points that IC has contributed to the discussion.

How is he not embarrassed by just how far he will go to keep the discussion up in the intellectual clouds?

And, again, a discussion that revolves around human identity itself!!!

How you think about the behaviors you choose in your interactions with others given how you have come existentially to acquire one point of view rather than another.

And you don't connect the dots to the Christian God.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:36 pm ...note the substantive arguments I've made in regard to my own understanding of human identity out in the is/ought world of conflicting moral and political value judgments.

I note them. And like the above, they make no sense.