the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

What is it?

Is truth more true when it is vital? Yes I would day so so this is the way to make truth more true. And we need truth to be as true as it possibly can to survive it.

Yes this is true, we find people that agree with us more agreeable… and they us also. Life is a circle but it takes time.

Like God or a pet animal who is beloved by all. Who will feed the cat the most favorite dish is the priest.

Yes! We must do this also with the truth about truth. Vigorous vital truth.

Oh no. But no now you have killed truth.

Now i am depressed. I wanted to fight for truth but you have killed my hope.

Let’s not kill

Let’s watch the pain

And hope for truth!

Well, here is own subjective narrative:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

wrong thread

I can give “one particular rendition” of just about anything.

But unlike you, I do not make the leaping and lustful generalized conclusion that because I can imagine a bad scenario, all scenarios are necessarily bad and anyone saying different is a “dangerous trickster”.

In short, you are still merely preaching your dasein dilemma and ranting against anyone else.
And calling your ranting “psychology of”, doesn’t change what it is.

The only way this relates to psychology is in the question;
“Why do some people have a deep lingering lust to preach their dasein dilemma?”

Of course it is a sociology question as well because it has only arisen due to political warring, not rational thought.

Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger’s solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.

His view is that John wants the child to be born and Mary wants to abort it (the Dasein Dilemma). Then he asks, “Which is the moral solution?” Then answers it with;
“THERE SHALL BE NO MORAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM AND ANYONE SAYING OTHERWISE IS A DAMN, MALICIOUS, TRICKSTER, DICTATOR, OBJECTIVIST, LIAR!!!”

Thanks for, uh, clearing that up. Though I suspect our understanding of “dasein” may somewhat different.

Here is where I start:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

What’s your take on it?

And how do you relate it to morality? Morality and the “objective truth”. Abortion for example. Or choose your own moral conflagration.

James, please!!!

The last thing ILP needs is yet ANOTHER seemingly futile exchange between us about objective morality. Take this over to “our” thread okay? :wink:

The question is, “Why did you bring it over here?

Your OP is merely you inventing a single case of bad reasoning, having almost nothing to do with objective morality or psychology. And let me remind you, you are an objectivist yourself. Soon, you might realize that along with the others who have.

And on top of that, even you couldn’t deny the reality that your own definitions led to concerning the existence of “objective morality”. In a way, you are seriously hating yourself, hating what is You.

My understanding of Dasein is that shared by scholars of Heidegger.
How does it relate to specific morality - it does not.
If you think it does then you’ve missed the whole point.

What kind of thing is “objective truth”, you are pulling my leg aren’t you?

Subject/object is not relevant. One of the key points, i think.

Be careful, Bigus only allows the definitions that HE dictates.

But to Bigus, it means, “conflicting beliefs in good”.

And to me, it appears to mean, “Being in the state of having no fucking idea of what I am thinking or doing”.

No, I am not interested in exploring dasein as it relates to a scholastic pursuit of philosophy.

I am interested only in exploring how you and I have come to understand what it means “here and now”…and in how we would situate that understanding out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict over moral and political value judgments.

Moral objectivists have insisted there is but one truly rational manner in which to understand these things. The way they do. By and large. Then there are those objectivists who insist that the way they understand it is applicable universally. Others, like James, insist that it is applicable only to each particular context.

This thread was an attempt on my part to link either “frame of mind” to human psychology.

In particular, the discussion revolved around abortion. But I am more than willing to explore these relationships regarding any other moral conflict we might all be familiar with.

You mean moral objectivists like yourself who believe that your understanding that there is no objective morality is the only rational way to understand morality?

Can’t even you see the parallel between the atheist who firmly believes in the lack of God attacking people for having a firm belief concerning God and your firm objective belief in the lack of objective morality attacking people for having an objective belief concerning morality? You are a moral-atheist.

In effect, you are saying that there is this objective truth, “…”

Your objective truth is that there is no objective morality.
Other people say there is an objective morality.
Both make claims of objective truth.

So you disagree with their stance on morality. But both are espousing objective truths concerning it. Both have an opinion of objective/universal truth/reality. Theirs is “yea”. Yours is “nay”. But both are declarations of objective truth.

Your real argument seems to be merely one of fixed/blind morality, not “objective”.

And the psychological question (which I could easily guess) is “Why do you hate moralists so much as to not even listen to what they might have to say before preemptively attacking them?

Seriously, perhaps Lev will take up my offer to discuss dasein [as it relates to conflicting value judgments as it relates to the psychology of objectivism] “down here”. Re abortion or some other issue.

Perhaps someday you will too.

In the interim, I am not interested in exploring [on yet another thread!] the circular nature of your own “definitional logic”.

Please bring it over to “our” thread, okay?

That’s pretty objective.

[quote=“Lev Muishkin”]
Dasein dilemma is a contradiction in terms, anyway.

The whole point about Dasein is that it was Heidegger’s solution to the Sartrean angst. Dasein is a Germanic solution to a Gallic problem.
There is no Dasein Dilemma, and if it is presented as such the presenter is still stuck in an existential Nausea.[/quote

Heidegger could not possibly have attempted this, in good faith, since he knew the boundary issues between Germany and France. He may have tried to show a politically expedient good faith. His signature was much more grounded in people like Husserl and Holderline.

Translation: Iambiguous does not know what he is talking about.

Dasein IS a concept as developed by philosophy, reaching its apogee with Heidegger.
If you don’t know what he was talking about then I suggest you read Being and Time.

If al you got is your own uninformed idea, then you are actually talking about something else, so I suggest you stop using a term that does not apply.

It’s not about what he intended to “attempt” ; its about what he achieved with Dasein.

There are no boundary issues to ideas; so what do you think you are talking about?

Don’t you mean objectionable?