You missed my point again where I explained there is a load of difference between knowing and doing, e.g. a sport coach who knows a lot and teaches his trainees to be world’s best is not necessary good in the sport himself.
It is the same with religious authorities who teach others to be good spiritually but they themselves could be pedophiles, rapist, murders and other evil person.
It is the same with Heidegger who introduced a novel view with good ideas on ‘Being’ which has benefited many.
Why Read Heidegger?
By now, scholars have demonstrated beyond just about any reasonable doubt that, judged from moral and political standpoints, Heidegger was a pretty despicable human being.But here’s the thing: Heidegger also possessed the most powerful philosophical mind of the twentieth century. If he had written nothing besides Being and Time (1927), he would deserve to be recognized as Europe’s greatest philosopher since the death of G.W.F. Hegel in 1831.
newrepublic.com/article/70750/w … -heidegger
As I had said somewhere, do not rely on such immature view to counter Heidegger’s philosophy. So keep insulting your own philosophical intelligence [basically not much anyway].
Note you are also relying on the theories of Heidegger, e.g. Dasein, thrownness, rival goods, etc. but you has cherry picked merely the negative elements [inauthentic] that Heidegger condemned but ignored the solutions [authentic] he proposed on how to deal with those negatives. That is a kind of sick philosophy you are doing to torture yourself. Rather than dealing with the specific problems you are in, I have suggested you get educated [theory-practical] in the philosophical elements that is relevant.
Why is Theory Critical?
Note the current practice of effective knowledge and practical is the concept of Pure and Applied as in the various Sciences, humanities, Music even in the Arts etc. Do you deny this?
Practical solutions in what sense? Suppose others don’t share your solutions? How do you demonstrate to them that their own theoretical foundation is necessarily flawed? And wouldn’t this demonstration revolve largely around insisting that since your own theoretical understanding necessarily leads to progressive behaviors, theirs must be wrong? By definition.
As I had stated my practical solutions are those relating to ‘Teaching one how to fish’ instead of ‘feeding someone fishes all the time’.
The practical solutions I suggested are get into ‘knowing thyself’ ‘get educated’ in the necessary principles on how to deal with problems in life, etc. These are universally accepted principles re practical solutions, only the very useless will ignore such propositions.
As for the specific practical cases you brought up, it is not practical to get involved with antinomies [till the cows come home] in this case.
It would appear that we have to veer into psychological counselling sessions [I got into that a bit with you] to deal with how to get out of the hole you have dug for yourself. It is impossible to do a proper one within a forum like this and in case I do not want to be involved in such matters.
How do you demonstrate to them that their own theoretical foundation is necessarily flawed?
It depend on the topic. This has to be dealt on a case by case basis in various appropriate threads.
Note my example of ‘chattel slavery’ is merely an example, albeit a good one - there are tons of examples I could introduce to support my points re ‘progress’ within humanity re the philosophy of moral and ethics.