Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:10 pm God, if there is any, won't pay.

Not yet. But soon. You'll see.

Justice delay is justice denied.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:19 pm
Okay, take your disciplined grasp of Ethics "to the world of actual human interactions like the examples I noted above."

Someone speaking the English language or someone being English is not going to generate much in the way of ethical conflict.

Right?

Instead, among the English speaking population, it is when the discussion revolves around moral and political and spiritual value judgments in conflict, that we are far more likely to encounter the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

You choose the conflict and the context and let's examine this...existentially.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pm
This sentence has no meaning. One does not "encounter" a "manner," and nobody knows what you "construe" as the meaning of whatever-the-heck-you-mean.

Others here can note the points I made above that he simply excised.

Perhaps if he would "choose the conflict and the context" we can both point make our points clearer.

Right. Dasein defined in Being and Time.

Now, what I prefer however are those here who think they grasp Heidegger's "didactic, analytic, scholastic, academic" definition of Dasein and are willing to examine it in regard to the manner in which I speculate on the existential meaning of dasein as it pertains to the accusations leveled against him in regard to fascism, the Nazis and the Jews.

Again, let's take the discussion to a particular set of circumstances in which our own value judgments come into conflict and explore the big D and the little d dasein.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmYou're claiming to use the word the way Heidegger used it? Then it's not "your" dasein.

And yet again, others here can note the entirety of the point I made above. Of course my point is to note the difference between Heidegger's didactic definition of Dasein and the manner in which I situate my own understanding of dasein as it pertains to the existential choices that some allege Heidegger himself made out in the world of actual human interactions back then.

Which approach do you think will be more pertinent to the "human condition" insofar as we examine the moral and political value judgments that we have come to embody? His Dasein or my dasein?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmNobody knows what "your dasein" means. You never said.

This is simply preposterous. In fact, I have explained in some detail what I mean by dasein and how I situate that meaning out in the world of flesh and blood human relationships. Your complaint instead has been that I refuse to Define it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:51 pm No, the problem is the opposite: there are, in fact, as I have shown you, so many [/i]definitions for dasein that nobody can possibly guess which one you're trying to use.

The one I use revolves around this particular [subjective] assumption :

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

Which has resulted in "I" becoming "fractured and fragmented" in regards to conflicting goods.

A problem you don't have because existentially you have been able to take your own subjective "leap of faith" to the Christian God. Objective morality? No problem. It's right there in The Book...Scripted for all Christians.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pm"Revolves around"? Too vague.

Again, in my view, nothing short of unbelievable. Over and over again I suggest that we bring Dasein and dasein out into the world of conflicting moral and political value judgments so that we can be more specific about the points we raise.

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein

Then back to your obsession with definitions...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmOne of the most basic rules of definition is that you cannot use the word you're trying to define IN the definition itself. If you do, your definition is nonsensical and circular, and fails to communicate anything.

Take the discussion up into the technical clouds. Never mind that in regard to the manner in which I explored in depth my use of the word dasein as it pertains specifically to my thinking on the morality of abortion in this thread...
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

None of that is at all remotely relevant to the "reasonable philosopher" who would fiercely demand I define something that I flat-out suggest can only be encompassed in a subjective understanding of human interactions that revolve around conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:32 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:10 pm God, if there is any, won't pay.

Not yet. But soon. You'll see.

Justice delay is justice denied.

Nope. It just means we're getting a temporary break. That's all.

"...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered." (2 Peter 3:8-10)

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmNobody knows what "your dasein" means. You never said.

This is simply preposterous.

Then define it. And no using the word "dasein" in any defintion of "dasein."

Fire away.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 08, 2022 6:51 pm No, the problem is the opposite: there are, in fact, as I have shown you, so many [/i]definitions for dasein that nobody can possibly guess which one you're trying to use.

The one I use revolves around this particular [subjective] assumption :

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein

Foul! 🖐

No using "dasein" in defining "dasein."

Fix that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmOne of the most basic rules of definition is that you cannot use the word you're trying to define IN the definition itself. If you do, your definition is nonsensical and circular, and fails to communicate anything.

Take the discussion up into the technical clouds.

That's a Philosophy 101-level rule. It's nowhere near "clouds." In fact, analytic philosophy is practically nothing BUT definitions, plust the logical links entailed thereby.

So if you can't even manage a simple definition, then there's at least half of the Western Tradition you can't even engage.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:30 pm
To be honest, the story of Christian God does not make any sense to me.

It appears that the Christian God is a Greek/Roman hijack of the Judean God, changed somewhat to accommodate the new age thinking of the time - but perhaps also a spiteful reaction heaped upon the Militant Jews for their rebellion against Roman Occupation.
It is also rumored that the Hebrews got their ideas from other cultures and built an image of a God from those...

Trying to understand the Abrahamic ideas of God is an interesting journey sprinkled with mystery and intrigue, but when one pays attention to the manner in which the adherents - though different in practice - are so similar in attitude, one is hard-pressed not to see a God made in the image of narcissists...and worse...

Having said as much, there are pearls to be found in all religious holy books...so best not to conflate man-made imagery with a loving wisdom of a Cosmic Mind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:02 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 2:50 am I am satisfied with your last answer. At another time I'll comment on it.

Thank you!

Good to know.

You're welcome.

I'll look forward to it.

Let's begin here.

We have agreed that the, "price," or, "just desserts," or "Divine Judgment" or "ultimate justice," or "what the unredeemed deserve," consists of some kind of torment, suffering or agony?

That, to me, must mean that an individual's suffering, pain, or torment has some kind of value that can be exchanged for, pay for, or in some other way satisfy some requirement for whatever is deemed appropriate in exchange for or to cancel guilt or evil.

That same principle shows up in the present world all the time and usually called, "punishment," or "punitive justice," and consists of some kind of unpleasantness from simple discomfiture (fines and incarceration) to real torment (stoning, torture, and death).

Please see my comment to the recent thread, "Infanticide"

Perhaps you can answer the question I asked there:

Will someone who believes it, please explain how punishment fixes, cancels, makes better, or in any way mitigates what is obviously regarded as wrong. How can causing someone else to suffer be a remedy for anything beyond satisfying some vindictive individual's lust for revenge or perverse sadistic pleasure in seeing others suffer.

The real question is how can anyone, (except a sadist), find anything of value, or any pleasure or satisfaction, in anyone else's loss, suffering, anguish, torment, or pain?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 7:47 pmNobody knows what "your dasein" means. You never said.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:52 amThis is simply preposterous.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:27 amThen define it. And no using the word "dasein" in any defintion of "dasein."

Fire away.

I've explained above and elsewhere my own thinking about reducing words like "dasein" [as I use it] down to a definition. That, instead, for those here who are intent on defining it, let them bring their "technical" definitions out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors. Nihilism or a philosophical antidote to it "for all practical purposes".

From my frame of mind, you seem ever intent on avoiding the existential parameters of human identity in the is/ought world. After all, you've got your own "leap of faith" belief in the Christian God to "settle" things for you here. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least that, by and large, you define and deduce God Himself into existence. I certainly haven't encountered any hard evidence from you that He does in fact exist.

Alas, with you [thus far], I may as well be back at ILP. Lots of members there are also ever intent on discussing God and religion up in the "spiritual contraption" "world of words" clouds.

You world fit right in there.

In my own opinion, of course.

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered." (2 Peter 3:8-10)"

But why is he coming? I thought nothing was fated and men had freewill to choose the good. Sounds to me like the dude knew in advance that the erf would end up a shit show.... in which case, not everyone had freewill to choose the good. That, or god was wrong about assuming the erf would end up a shit show. But the dude can't be wrong, can he?

Gosh this is so confusing.

What's so cute about the Bible is that the writers had little to no capacity for logic when they invented the mechanics of Christianity. Cuter even than this is when the apologists come along and try to force it to make sense.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:43 pmThe real question is how can anyone, (except a sadist), find anything of value, or any pleasure or satisfaction, in anyone else's loss, suffering, anguish, torment, or pain?

A damn good question.

Let's examine it, take it down from Biggy's skyhooks and root in it in his dasein.
(in other words: let's talk about it practically, not as theory)

A couple of months back, a 14 year old was shot and killed locally. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and now he's dead. I'd don't have to work that hard to imagine how his parents felt, still feel. My 15 year could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get himself off'd.

As I grieved I can see clearly I'd want the shooter dead.

Would my offin' the shooter bring my kid back? No.

Would my killin' him please me? In the moment, of course it would.

Would a universal or cosmic scale be balanced, would justice be served? I don't know.

What I do know: it would intolerable, to me, that the shooter should go living while my kid doesn't.

I understand this is not rational, or even reasonable.

I'm not so civilized as to put aside revenge, to put aside consequence.

I could say only fools permit rabid dogs to roam free; I could say moral reality demands the shooter pay, and those are true, best I can tell, but they'd have little to do with my wantin' my kid's killer dead and cold.

I'd want revenge.

Does this make me a sadist?

I don't think so, but I don't much care if it does.

Here, among the philosophers, what I'm supposed to advocate for is rehabilitive process: if I couldn't forgive the shooter I should at least be able to rein in my anger and find a way to help him correct himself. I should find it within myself to at least give a to reclamation of the killer.

I should, but I won't.

I'm a peaceable man, but, as I say, I'm not so civilized.

And, that's it...that's all...I have no grand philo-conclusion to offer, no principle to tout, no right or wrong to appeal to.

All I could, would, say: My kid is dead, I want revenge.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 3:16 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:32 pm
Not yet. But soon. You'll see.

Justice delay is justice denied.

Nope. It just means we're getting a temporary break. That's all.

"...with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered." (2 Peter 3:8-10)

So, you, for example, leave a serial killer free to kill more until he dies naturally? What type of logic is this?

Now slow down for a minute. That's not how it ordinarily works. Usually Christians will kill the serial killer twice. First, by breaking the fifth commandment and seeking the death penalty... which is pretty clever because they rig the execution so that the actual executioner isn't known... not even to himself. This way they won't technically be held guilty by god for breaking the commandment and killin a nigga (and you thought god couldn't be duped). Next, they send the serial killer to god, who then sends em to hell for eternity so he can sit and think about why he thought he could kill, which will lead absolutely nowhere because try as he might, he can no sooner convince himself now that he shouldn't have killed than he could convince himself then that he shouldn't have killed. It's tragically comical. You won't find a bigger sadist than god; the ultimate serial killer.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:43 pmThe real question is how can anyone, (except a sadist), find anything of value, or any pleasure or satisfaction, in anyone else's loss, suffering, anguish, torment, or pain?

A damn good question.

Let's examine it, take it down from Biggy's skyhooks and root in it in his dasein.
(in other words: let's talk about it practically, not as theory)

A couple of months back, a 14 year old was shot and killed locally. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and now he's dead. I'd don't have to work that hard to imagine how his parents felt, still feel. My 15 year could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get himself off'd.

As I grieved I can see clearly I'd want the shooter dead.

Would my offin' the shooter bring my kid back? No.

Would my killin' him please me? In the moment, of course it would.

Would a universal or cosmic scale be balanced, would justice be served? I don't know.

What I do know: it would intolerable, to me, that the shooter should go living while my kid doesn't.

I understand this is not rational, or even reasonable.

I'm not so civilized as to put aside revenge, to put aside consequence.

So up to now you are admitting the only justification for retribtive justice are someone's vindictive feelings of vengeance. The act of causing someone else pain, suffering, or death does not really change anything for the better or cancel any evil, it only satifies some desire on the part of the one seeking retribution.

Now here comes the switch:

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm I could say only fools permit rabid dogs to roam free;

Putting down a rabid dog is not getting revenge on or, "punishing," a dog. Executing or incarcerating someone to prevent them from commiting more crimes is not retribution, not revenge, not even punishment, it a measure of protection against realistically potential threats. The question is not about those.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm I could say moral reality demands the shooter pay, and those are true, best I can tell, but they'd have little to do with my wantin' my kid's killer dead and cold.

I'd want revenge.

Does this make me a sadist?

I'm not here to judge one way or the other. I'm just asking the question. Can one have that attitude who isn't? If not, how does someone else's pain mitigate one's own. They must be getting some kind of pleasure from seeing another's suffering, but only you can answer the question.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm I don't think so, but I don't much care if it does.

Here, among the philosophers, what I'm supposed to advocate for is rehabilitive process: if I couldn't forgive the shooter I should at least be able to rein in my anger and find a way to help him correct himself. I should find it within myself to at least give a to reclamation of the killer.

Good grief, that's worse than retributive justice to me. It just creates more victims who have to support and finance the criminal's so-called rehabilitation. Executing him would be cheaper and more effective.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm I should, but I won't.

I'm a peaceable man, but, as I say, I'm not so civilized.

And, that's it...that's all...I have no grand philo-conclusion to offer, no principle to tout, no right or wrong to appeal to.

All I could, would, say: My kid is dead, I want revenge.

Thanks for the honest answer. I think you have described the way most people feel.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:43 pmThe real question is how can anyone, (except a sadist), find anything of value,

I could say only fools permit rabid dogs to roam free; I could say moral reality demands the shooter pay, and those are true, best I can tell, but they'd have little to do with my wantin' my kid's killer dead and cold.

I'd want revenge.

I could say that wanting my revenge is the same thing as to permit rabid dogs to roam free...there are other ways in which to keep those dogs at bay...[LINK]

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:15 pm Now slow down for a minute. That's not how it ordinarily works. Usually Christians will kill the serial killer twice. First, by breaking the fifth commandment and seeking the death penalty... which is pretty clever because they rig the execution so that the actual executioner isn't known... not even to himself. This way they won't technically be held guilty by god for breaking the commandment and killin a nigga (and you thought god couldn't be duped). Next, they send the serial killer to god, who then sends em to hell for eternity so he can sit and think about why he thought he could kill, which will lead absolutely nowhere because try as he might, he can no sooner convince himself now that he shouldn't have killed than he could convince himself then that he shouldn't have killed. It's tragically comical. You won't find a bigger sadist than god; the ultimate serial killer.

While there is truth to in your assessment here - something I also came to the conclusion of - if one doesn't factor in that the Christian idea of God is a false image of a Real Entity [I call 'It" the Cosmic Mind, but I have other names for it too.] then one loses the opportunity to do connect and converse...

What this allows me to achieve, is to connect with that Mind despite the false image Christianity [and religion in general] have superimposed upon it. This also insures that religion in general has no say in my communing with said Mind. Well they might try and have a say, but that is irrelevant and so does not work in their preventative measures re that.

Win/win re The Mind and Me.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 8:28 pmI'm not here to judge one way or the other. I'm just asking the question. Can one have that attitude who isn't? If not, how does someone else's pain mitigate one's own. They must be getting some kind of pleasure from seeing another's suffering, but only you can answer the question.

As I say...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 5:30 pmI'd want revenge.

Does this make me a sadist?

I don't think so, but I don't much care if it does.