a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:41 pm

Again, we live on a planet where 15% of the richest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources...a planet where 3,500,000,000 men, women and children barely subsist on less than $2 a day...a planet where every 24 hours tens of thousands of human beings literally starve to death.

It's not as if this is the only bit I find interesting in this thread, I've been reading it with a lot of interest. But to this statement I have a very clear objection.

What is it that would give those three and a half billion humans the right to live off more than two dollars? Why would the fact that they belong to the human species, grant them this right? Why do we not have such concerns for cows and sheep? Why can cows be butchered in great quantities, killed en nmasse when a couple of them are suspected to be sick, but we are not supposed to do such things to humans? Is there a good reason for this, other than that there is a philosophy that says that humans are superior to other animals, and are all born equal?

The reality of the situation seems to me that this is just far too easy. Human Rights have been acquired by a very specific branches of the human race, during thousands of years of struggle, imagining and thinking. But with the same easy as we eat animals, owners oppress workers. There is no difference between the way the general man regards cattle and the way the general despot regards his subjects. It is only because of a series of exceptionally ambitious projects in some towns in the occident that this disregard of worker-humans as cattle is not ubiquitous.

Conclusion is that whoever wants to spread human rights throughout the entire world, divide resources equally, would have to realize that this is not "bringing the world back to normal", but radically changing the world to something completely alien to the normal ways of nature. Nature is predatory, man is predatory (see his eating habits) and humanism has to be predatory in its approach in order to have any sort of chance of success.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:03 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Again, we live on a planet where 15% of the richest folks gobble up over 80% of the world's resources...a planet where 3,500,000,000 men, women and children barely subsist on less than $2 a day...a planet where every 24 hours tens of thousands of human beings literally starve to death.

It's not as if this is the only bit I find interesting in this thread, I've been reading it with a lot of interest. But to this statement I have a very clear objection.

What is it that would give those three and a half billion humans the right to live off more than two dollars? Why would the fact that they belong to the human species, grant them this right? Why do we not have such concerns for cows and sheep? Why can cows be butchered in great quantities, killed en nmasse when a couple of them are suspected to be sick, but we are not supposed to do such things to humans? Is there a good reason for this, other than that there is a philosophy that says that humans are superior to other animals, and are all born equal?

The reality of the situation seems to me that this is just far too easy. Human Rights have been acquired by a very specific branches of the human race, during thousands of years of struggle, imagining and thinking. But with the same easy as we eat animals, owners oppress workers. There is no difference between the way the general man regards cattle and the way the general despot regards his subjects. It is only because of a series of exceptionally ambitious projects in some towns in the occident that this disregard of worker-humans as cattle is not ubiquitous.

Conclusion is that whoever wants to spread human rights throughout the entire world, divide resources equally, would have to realize that this is not "bringing the world back to normal", but radically changing the world to something completely alien to the normal ways of nature. Nature is predatory, man is predatory (see his eating habits) and humanism has to be predatory in its approach in order to have any sort of chance of success.


Well, that is certainly one way for a MAN to view MANKIND. Now, how do you suppose that brings us back to dasein?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:21 am

FYI:

On Wednesday [6/20] the Science Channel will feature a new episode of Through the Wormhole With Morgan Freeman entitled, "What Makes Us Who We are?"

It's described as, "matters concerning identities are explored". The promo focuses in particular on the role of memory.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:38 pm

Gender and identity

Men, no less than women, are indoctrinated as children to apprehend themselves in certain ways---as men. So, very often when individual men are viewed as exploiting or oppressing or stereotyping women it is not like they woke up in the morning and said, "oh boy, another day to exploit and oppress and stereotype women!" Much of how we respond to each other [male or female] is
profoundly rooted in acculturation.

And too often, in my view, the women's liberation moverment has revolved around women being pissed off because men won't let them be more like they [men] are. And, of course, the way men often regard the use of power and aggression and competition can make this a very, very dangerous world. Why then is it almost never a narrative where men complain that women won't let them be more like they [women] are. That would surely makes this a more livable world.

But that still brings us back to gender roles and human biology. Is it more nature or nuture that prevails in orienting women to embrace a cooperative and collaberative approach to getting things done?

And how do we apportion "blame" for human behaviors that are so starkly rooted in variables most of us are barely cognizant of in terms of how we become who we think we are?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:14 pm

Up to a point, all of the existential perspectives that come from dasein are going to be abstruse because they are grounded in complex, convoluted circumstantial variables that ceaselessly evolve and change over time historically and across multifaceted cultural boundaries that are crossed time and again to produce hybred narratives.

But that is not like the abstrusness emanating from a discussion of dasein that involves only the exchange of complex and convoluted abstractions.

But which is more unintelligible? I know which is more exasperating.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:Up to a point, all of the existential perspectives that come from dasein are going to be abstruse because they are grounded in complex, convoluted circumstantial variables that ceaselessly evolve and change over time historically and across multifaceted cultural boundaries that are crossed time and again to produce hybred narratives.

But that is not like the abstrusness emanating from a discussion of dasein that involves only the exchange of complex and convoluted abstractions.

But which is more unintelligible? I know which is more exasperating.


I assume you mean the former, but the latter came to mind at first for me (lucky me, I guess..). I read the OP and the discussion with aletheia. Our positions seem to match. If you read my post on Kurt you'll recognize a theme I'm having of not knowing where my positions come from. Nihilism for me is deeper than it ever has been, though I've only been one for a year and I've only know of the term itself for 6-7 months. I want to believe in things, or to even hold a position, but it is so obvious to me the ephemeral nature of all my postions. I speak on my 'postions' here in various threads I've made over the last six months, most of them being controversial, but I only take the side I do, that is spew forth those opinions as one may cough up all the dust that they've been breathing in throughout the day.

Honestly, those positions were once I 'beleived in', with some doubt yes, but they really were my positions. I'm speaking about my threads related to bigotry, equality, religion, morality/ethics, my resent one on gay marriage, etc. Now they are in part something that I need to get out of my system before I can take a completely apathetic stance on them and they are in part an exploration of the issues of nihilism (the latter).

I'm not trying to be dishonest on my serious threads (as opposed to my unserious threads), I bend the discussions away from the 'concrete issues' from time to time to the peripheral of nihilism, but I don't wish to stop the discussions short. People don't seem to understand my logic most of the time, but as I said it is trully logic that I developed and believed in. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, afterall all sides are ephemeral. But, I'd like to be understood. Certainly the failure must be on my part. So I don't manage to show where my 'unique' sides to the issues can have as much validity as any, perhaps it would take a complete understanding and 'faith' in the nihilistic perspective to understand them. So of course I'd like you input on some of them, not to say I'd like for you to jump in with an opinion of the issues, but just to say if the logic makes sence to you, you having a similar perspective as mine.

Now back to the thought I had earlier, I don't know where my influences come from, you know I read much of your writing in that one thread, perhaps a third of it altoghether, but it seems I had this perspective before reading that. The only other concrete influence that I can imagine having is Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which I read a thousand times over. But, the book is so positive, I would say! But, then so many say it is so negative, I can't see how, Sartre does express a belief in nothing so much as a belief in anything.

So how do I escape nihilism? Would I want to? Can one trully be a sustainable (nontentative) nihilist without a philosophical background (for me Sartre, for you apperantly dasein (by the way is you understanding of dasein from Heidegger's Being and Time or elsewhere, I've read a little oft hat book and I perhaps have a hint of a grasp of dasein))? It seems to be a mood. Not just a 'depressed' mood, but perhaps a little more complex type of mood, hardly summarized with the word "depressed". So what could I believe in, what would I want to? I spoke to obe and Bobgo, and they suggest God, but I've been there, and I cannot grasp which direction their God (or respective Gods) are in, if not in the same one mine was (backwards).

Speaking of depressing, it has been suggested in a forum (it could have been a discussion you were in) that our lives are just spent chasing the pleasure chemicals in our brain. Would you say enough of such would release my or your nihilism? I had a strange dream a couple nights ago, I was staring at a high tree branch with leaves on it and to put it depressingly, my pleasure chemicals were in a very high abundance. I mean I've been ecstatic on a few occasions; artistically, 'socially', with 'wonderment', but this is the only preview of 'heaven' (cough) that I've ever had. A simple tree branch, and still a belief in nothing. Thank you for your time.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Drusuz » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:11 am

To know one self, one must have sufficient rationallity to see things objectivly, must not be in denial of reality, must have balanced hormones lvls as people with too much testoterone or respectivly osterogene will be blind to many aspects fo life, must not be anal fixated, etc ,etc.

We can't never know ourselves 100%, as we can't know how we will respond in different situations, when we panic, are prone to suggestion, how we deal with fighting for a women against a stranger or a friend, how will we share the food if marooned on an island, will we impose strict fair rule or jungle law?
All these things may never come to pass, thus we can never get the true answer, too many will lie to themselves and think of in too idyllic terms.
All statemens must be within logic and reason!
Drusuz
Thinker
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:52 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:18 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:
The more crap you believe, the better off you are.

And even if you're not, you get to believe you are.


Good one. But, I would argue that you must have stable beliefs to be happy, do you have any, I mean I really want to know?


I'm not such a nihilist as you are. I don't aspire to be one either, as one hardly should. But, I wish to understand those who take nihilism farther than I have. Mo considers me a contradictory moron because I speak of ambiguity in unambiguous terms and lack of purpose with a clear purpose. You don't speak of such things unambiguously, and you don't speak as if you have a purpose at all. Even to this a responce is not forthcoming, why because you put your nihilism into practice, that is as much practice as one who doesn't sit and stare at the wall all day. I mean you have such a lack of belief.

How could I differentiate what you seem to have with many others who have become disallusioned? I would think many disallusioned people manage to cling to one or two belief and hold to them the rest of their life in a vice grip, they are the infamous onery people of the world. You got away without any beliefs. That is, instead of rambling online about some orginazation or culture that you don't like, exasperating all who don't share your beliefs, you make posts such as those in this thread.

So I wish to learn, I wish you to tell me about yourself, but if you were a different person with the mindset to do so then you wouldn't have much to say of interest. That's the paradox.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Moreno » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:22 am

Stuartp523 wrote: I mean you have such a lack of belief.
the person who lacks belief will not survive long, every action would be randomly chosen. And then if one's lack of belief is built on a case for what reality is like, then at the very least there is a whole set of beliefs about what reality is like - sort of like other people have. One can have a meta-belief that one cannot be sure of any first order beliefs. But one must take this as an apriori truth or just trust it as a gut feeling, otherwise we are back to basing this metabelief on a whole set of first order beliefs. And then, any action, even posting, indicates beliefs, unless it was something akin to a Tourette's twitch. Even the action of stating one cannot be fully sure any belief is an action in the world and in fact this can have concrete consequences. Absolute ones. By absolute I mean they happen. If stating this is true, that one cannot sure of beliefs, pushes a depressed person over the edge and they kill themselves, well, that was an effect. It is not a quasi effect, it is an effect. Even if one believes that one cannot be sure of any belief even the belief that one cannot be sure of any beliefs
saying this will have concrete non-quasi effects.

Let alone if the person in question votes, defends the oppressed, a kind father and so on. Which all entails millions of actions that will not simply have quasi effects but full ones.

None of which means that this idea is wrong, but what it does mean is that there is no lack of beliefs possible for the living. There can be these complicated self-relating beliefs, included in the sea of other beliefs.

That's an irony.

(and note: I am not making the claim that this belief leads to suicide. I used a strong example to highlight what I meant by absoluteness. I could have used smaller examples, where people believe this and argue for their positions less strongly, or negotiate from a weaker position. Or it could be positive effects like they are received better by people who are different from them because the other person feels there is more slack. Whatever the effects, positive or negative, they are absolute in the sense I mean them. And one is choosing this act to communicate this belief as very likely to be true, but one cannot know for sure...etc.)
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:16 am

You're speaking of effects outside of one's own personal knowledge or experience. From an existential perspective those events are not defined and therefore are simply undifferentiaited being. If one is a nihilist and then one day 'wakes up', then they would very much see the effects of there nihilistic perspective as factual and well defined.

I'm not yet used to the term nihilist. And perhaps when I use it to describe myself I sound overdramatic. Perhaps a more down to earth way of looking at it is that I've seen so many positions from so many angles (or vice-versa!) that I no longer can hold to any opinion or fact. I may speak in terms of opinion more than in terms of fact and I may be more open minded than most, but I could easily be the opposite of all that. What it comes down to is that if one asks me to step outside of the specific subject matter and remind me that I'm a nihilist, then I will mention the ambiguity of anything I may say. And that is true for myself as well, I think about things and form opinions, but I always remind myself of their ambiguity, I really can't help it, the knowledge of such ambiguity is always just under the surface.

So let my actions (which include my words to some extent) show where and on what place meaning or value, but for the most part my I'll always let one caste any opinion of mine into the wind with a few simple words and no objection from me.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:51 am



Then what.

I need answers. Specific ones that you seem to have. I'll find them elsewhere. Needless to say, the best way to stop bothering someone is to do so, but I simply want to make it easier on myself by burning my bridges.

Stuart
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:56 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:


Then what.

I need answers. Specific ones that you seem to have.


As near as I come to an "answer"? There is no way [objectively, essentially, definitively etc.] to determine how one ought to live his or her life. Sans God, that is rooted in dasein. At best we can pursue democracy -- the rule of law -- rooted in moderation, negotiation and compromise.

But even in this [supposed] "best of all possible worlds" political economy prevails. The stuff of Marx and Engels. In the end, insisting we ought to behave in one manner rather than another means little if you don't have the capacity to enforce it out in the world of actual human interaction.

But I propose this as an ironist. And here I invoke Richard Rorty:

1.She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
2.She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
3.Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.


In other words, I seem to be proposing something that quickly implodes given the very manner in which I understand the meaning of the words encompassing it. I'm "stuck". And I'm stuck because there are limitations to what we can propose [and then demonstrate as being true] using the tool of language.

To wit: There are words applicable objectively to all daseins and there are words that express only an inter-subjective/subjunctive point of view. At best philosophers can make these distinctions. But I am basically interested only in distinctions revolving around value judgments and identity "out in the world".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:30 pm

You're not quite stuck, you keep pushing that boulder up the hill, would you like me to contrive a Goddamn crane?
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Orbie » Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Stuart: if a man be stuck or not, doesen't it presuppose gravity? Isn't that we are fighting all our lives against? To overcome is to overcome this primal force. It is this we fear. The imposition of not being able to overcome, and we develop the will to.

But what is it we are trying to overcome against this force? That which is primal It is not the unknown we fear, it is the fear itself. That we may be not up to the job. We are angry because we need to harness the force, but we are not the force itself.


At the end of the day, we have to let it go, and let it fall back, because we instinctivly know, and really find out, that there is no top of the hill, we can never reach it. If we did, we would become the force, we are pusing with, and against.

We fear the eternity, that's why we were kicked out.
We fear the one-ness, while coveting it.




The final thing is, even this is just a drop in an ocean whose depth meets your gaze. Both the depth, and You, instinctively know this. It's the same. You are the ocean. You are who came out of the primal depth, by the force of your will to overcome.




And your pragmatic approach to overcome even this nihilism, has been the task all these futurist philosophers have been grappling with. So we are in the same boat, I think you are right, if I read You correctly, there is not just one approach.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:33 pm

I guess some people push a boulder up a hill who's top never comes, others just let it roll back everytime they push it a couple hundred feet. I guess 'contrived' is the key word here, 'subjunctive' too.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:51 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:You're not quite stuck, you keep pushing that boulder up the hill, would you like me to contrive a Goddamn crane?


Sure, go ahead. But how exactly does the crane [sky hook?] function here:

There are words applicable objectively to all daseins and there are words that express only an inter-subjective/subjunctive point of view. At best philosophers can make these distinctions. But I am basically interested only in distinctions revolving around value judgments and identity "out in the world".

Instead, I use distractions on the boulder: music, art, film, poetry etc.
Whatever works.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Wed May 08, 2013 5:00 pm

I've been trying to come up with a good responce for that, I guess I could say that it can be a crane connected to a truck, but what does that even mean?

Analogies aside, meaning is of no use for me, meaninglessness isn't either, so I don't know where use may be. You have similar ideas as me, I spoke as you do before I knew you, do you disagree that we have so much in common, and if not then do you have still no interest in having conversations, and if yes, then is their anymore details that you can go into as why. Now for an anology it's like I'm freezing in the cold but no one with a heated house will open their door.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:11 pm

"I" as a narrative. "I" as a wave out in the ocean.

I particularly liked this observation:

I gave up years ago believing that this could be captured in words. It’s like trying to capture water in a fishing net. The best we can do is point and know that we are only pointing.

An ironism surely.

http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/essay ... o-i-exist/
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:36 pm

You finally came back to this thread. I could say that I found your philosophy to be worthwhile and then now find your philosophy to be tiresome, but what would that really mean. To say I've surpassed such a form of nihilism would be to show I never understood it at all, but then what irony to suggest that anyone could understand it to begin with. I could say that your philosophy is not one to live by and mean that in a more literal sense, but then I would be mistaking you for one who automatically places value in what one can or can't live by, and myself. How though, do you live by it. Seriously, maybe I can understand how you can for a while, the last few years, but could you have always sustained it. Or are even those questions missing something; rhetorically speaking, of course.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:57 pm

Stuartp523 wrote:You finally came back to this thread. I could say that I found your philosophy to be worthwhile and then now find your philosophy to be tiresome, but what would that really mean. To say I've surpassed such a form of nihilism would be to show I never understood it at all, but then what irony to suggest that anyone could understand it to begin with. I could say that your philosophy is not one to live by and mean that in a more literal sense, but then I would be mistaking you for one who automatically places value in what one can or can't live by, and myself. How though, do you live by it. Seriously, maybe I can understand how you can for a while, the last few years, but could you have always sustained it. Or are even those questions missing something; rhetorically speaking, of course.


I would say the odds that you understand nihilism, identity and value judgments -- and the existential relationship between them -- as I do [here and now] are rather remote. But then isn't this the point behind the conjecture that capturing these things in language is almost futile. They are no less embodied in dasein.

It's true however that I am more or less preoccupied only with this: How ought I to live in a world sans God and immortality? And the extent to which philosophy either is or is not of limited value [use] in answering it.

So, sure, I can certainly understand why some would grow weary of the same points being repeated over and over again. On the other hand, new folks pop into ILP everyday. So I figure what the hell: there is always the slim possibility that one of them may actually come much closer to my own frame of mind than you have. And a few have.

And one "lives by it" in part by recognizing that human interaction revolves far more around other things: actually living your life from day to day to day. Eating, drinking, securing [and then sistaining] shelter. Securing and then sustaining employment -- a source of income, the capacity to pay your bills. Forming relationships. Interacting with others socially, politically and economically. And then there are countless distractions: art, music, sex, sports, games, hobbies etc.. Even philosophy.

I only probe the implications of doing this in the world as dasein. A world in other words of conflicting goods in which "I" is merely the embodiment of a particular existential narrative fabricated and then refabricated over and over and over again amidst the mindboggling complexity of contingency, chance and change.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27703
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Moreno » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:01 pm

I missed this response:
Stuartp523 wrote:You're speaking of effects outside of one's own personal knowledge or experience.
I don't Think so. Some of these one would experience. Even responses from other posters are directly experienced. Effects on those one is in Contact with. Anyone one communicates with. And, of course, if one has the beliefs, and these beliefs affect how one feels, this will also affect other people. My Point was mainly that having a philosophical position that there is a large set of things one cannot know does not, due to its content, have only quasi effects. It has full on effects just like beliefs one can know things in that set. There is no quasi, semi-being in the World. One is here, one has effects.

From an existential perspective those events are not defined and therefore are simply undifferentiaited being. If one is a nihilist and then one day 'wakes up', then they would very much see the effects of there nihilistic perspective as factual and well defined.
Good chance we are talking past each other because I can't connect this to what I meant.

I'm not yet used to the term nihilist. And perhaps when I use it to describe myself I sound overdramatic. Perhaps a more down to earth way of looking at it is that I've seen so many positions from so many angles (or vice-versa!) that I no longer can hold to any opinion or fact. I may speak in terms of opinion more than in terms of fact and I may be more open minded than most, but I could easily be the opposite of all that. What it comes down to is that if one asks me to step outside of the specific subject matter and remind me that I'm a nihilist, then I will mention the ambiguity of anything I may say. And that is true for myself as well, I think about things and form opinions, but I always remind myself of their ambiguity, I really can't help it, the knowledge of such ambiguity is always just under the surface.
I like this form of nihilism - my apologies for labelling it, but in this instance I want to emphasize that I react to it differently than other nihilisms, even Iambs. It undermines itself.

I don't Think it avoids the kind of causation I am talking about in the post above, but nothing can. You are stuart, stuarting and your beliefs and metabeliefs and lack of these and shifting and tentativenss of these, will have effects and complete ones. That is part of being alive.

But I don't feel like I am being told to either Believe or not Believe anything (by your version of N, or whatever it is and isn't. I also do not feel judged as if you had extricated yourself from some ugly thing but some of those you address have not. You may feel that way at times, I can only react to what I read as far as you.

So let my actions (which include my words to some extent) show where and on what place meaning or value, but for the most part my I'll always let one caste any opinion of mine into the wind with a few simple words and no objection from me.
Yes, there is a kind of Buddhist about you. I don't know if that is ironic or not. And I am not attributing Buddhist beliefs to you. But anyway, there is a tremendous internal focus.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Moreno » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:28 am

iambiguous wrote:Instead, I use distractions on the boulder: music, art, film, poetry etc.
Whatever works.

I dunno but it seems to me you keep a pretty tight focus....
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179454
But maybe this works also, some sort of see-sawing from distraction to utter focus.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Orbie » Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:35 am

iambiguous wrote:
Stuartp523 wrote:You finally came back to this thread. I could say that I found your philosophy to be worthwhile and then now find your philosophy to be tiresome, but what would that really mean. To say I've surpassed such a form of nihilism would be to show I never understood it at all, but then what irony to suggest that anyone could understand it to begin with. I could say that your philosophy is not one to live by and mean that in a more literal sense, but then I would be mistaking you for one who automatically places value in what one can or can't live by, and myself. How though, do you live by it. Seriously, maybe I can understand how you can for a while, the last few years, but could you have always sustained it. Or are even those questions missing something; rhetorically speaking, of course.


I would say the odds that you understand nihilism, identity and value judgments -- and the existential relationship between them -- as I do [here and now] are rather remote. But then isn't this the point behind the conjecture that capturing these things in language is almost futile. They are no less embodied in dasein.

It's true however that I am more or less preoccupied only with this: How ought I to live in a world sans God and immortality? And the extent to which philosophy either is or is not of limited value [use] in answering it.

So, sure, I can certainly understand why some would grow weary of the same points being repeated over and over again. On the other hand, new folks pop into ILP everyday. So I figure what the hell: there is always the slim possibility that one of them may actually come much closer to my own frame of mind than you have. And a few have.

And one "lives by it" in part by recognizing that human interaction revolves far more around other things: actually living your life from day to day to day. Eating, drinking, securing [and then sistaining] shelter. Securing and then sustaining employment -- a source of income, the capacity to pay your bills. Forming relationships. Interacting with others socially, politically and economically. And then there are countless distractions: art, music, sex, sports, games, hobbies etc.. Even philosophy.

I only probe the implications of doing this in the world as dasein. A world in other words of conflicting goods in which "I" is merely the embodiment of a particular existential narrative fabricated and then refabricated over and over and over again amidst the mindboggling complexity of contingency, chance and change.






That's sometimes a comforting thing, as much as you can bundle all those, you can dispense with them for the time being: while sustaining the undercurrent of thought, that it's always there if you need to bring it up, in it's essential Dasain, as needed.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:33 pm

Moreno wrote:Good chance we are talking past each other because I can't connect this to what I meant.


I was just trying to be technical, I don't think we really disagree on the issue; or at least we don't anymore.

I like this form of nihilism - my apologies for labelling it, but in this instance I want to emphasize that I react to it differently than other nihilisms, even Iambs. It undermines itself.


Thank you, I had put a lot of time and energy into it.

I don't Think it avoids the kind of causation I am talking about in the post above, but nothing can. You are stuart, stuarting and your beliefs and metabeliefs and lack of these and shifting and tentativenss of these, will have effects and complete ones. That is part of being alive.

But I don't feel like I am being told to either Believe or not Believe anything (by your version of N, or whatever it is and isn't. I also do not feel judged as if you had extricated yourself from some ugly thing but some of those you address have not. You may feel that way at times, I can only react to what I read as far as you.


It seems I'm always extricating myself from something. First it was those unfortunate beliefs, then it was nihilism itself, which was what I considered to be the original source of that extrication.

Yes, there is a kind of Buddhist about you. I don't know if that is ironic or not. And I am not attributing Buddhist beliefs to you. But anyway, there is a tremendous internal focus.


I'm surprised that you still find me to be that way; recently Phyllo mentioned a negative change in my demeanor. Choosing between the nihilistic philosophy I had months ago and my new "naturalistic" philosophy was a matter of choosing the lesser evil. Obviously six relatively uneventful months can only change a person so much, but I wonder how much different I seem to you.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Stuart » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:37 pm

obe wrote:That's sometimes a comforting thing, as much as you can bundle all those, you can dispense with them for the time being: while sustaining the undercurrent of thought, that it's always there if you need to bring it up, in it's essential Dasain, as needed.


It sounds comforting. I may disagree that I failed to understand his logic, but I definitely failed to learn to utilize his method.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]