turd and biggie discuss dasein

Showdown! Let the epic battle of wits commence!

I don’t know why. Not exactly. That is all so profoundly [problematically] entangled in the manner in which I have come to construe the evolution [the “meaning”] of any particular human identity, it would be utterly futile to imagine that I [or you or anyone] ever actually could know this. There are simply far, far too many complex variables intertwined in far, far too many complex ways to fully or wholly comprehend something like that. Variables intertwined historically, culturally and experientially in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.

And, come on, admit it, how many of these variables do we ever really have a complete understanding or control over?

But…

I still live in this world. And I see so much human misery that revolves around folks trying to impose their own religious, philosophical, political and/or moral values/ideals on others.

All I can then do [in my own way] is to deconstruct it. In the manner in which, say, Sisyphus goes about his own daily routine.

Ah, but then alongside that is the human misery imposed on the world by the moral nihilists embedded in the global economy.

And, as a former Marxist [you were, right?], you’d know a thing or two about that.

So, faced with just how ineffectual either one of us are in making an actual dent in the “real world”, we each choose our own way to “do the time”.

Besides, all of this “philosophical stuff” then becomes intertwined in the actual set of circumstances that we both live in. And, really, what could you possibly know about mine? What could I possibly know about yours?

It’s all right there in my signature:

[i][b]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 [/b][/i]

From my perspective, folks like Satyr and Jacob and James and Turd and all the rest that embody the “objectivist mind” react to me as they do in part because what if I am on to something important about human behaviors that come into conflict over values and ideals. What if that which they construe to be the “real me” is no less the existential contraption/fabrication embodied in the manner in which I have come to encompass “I”.

Let’s face it, most of them have spent years and years constructing a world of words that they can anchor their “self” to. They are all basically entangled in one or another rendition of this:

[i][b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b][/i]

In other words, they have a lot to lose. And few know the psychological consequences of this better than I. After all, I lost it myself.

And, who knows, perhaps one of them might actually succeed in bringing it all back to me.

Or, sure, maybe not.

Iambig, you’ve the only person in the world who doesn’t understand the criticism of your view. People aren’t going to keep repeating themselves ad nauseum. Your self aggrandizing repetition on your little thing you do is a sign of mental illness. Now, go ahead and say it all again because I know that’s all you can do.

Let’s confirm that.

Starting here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Now, how is this assessment of dasein [human identity] not applicable to you?

In particular, as it relates to that which is of most importance to me here: in answering the question “how ought one to live?”

For example, in making the distinction between you playing the stock market [the fact of it] and defending this behavior as either good or bad [the morality of it].

When have you ever explored this with me in depth?

I think you just confirmed it with that post.

Oh, right.

Come on, smears, lots of folks bitch about you here. For example, they make the claim that you don’t pursue many discussions that are at least in the vicinity of philosophy. That, instead, you are far more comfortably ensconced in those, uh, other threads.

Let’s prove them wrong, my friend, let’s prove them wrong.

Think about it: You and Turd finally pinning me [and dasein] to the fucking mat. Humiliating me.

[size=50]Unless of course it’s the other way around.[/size]

Part of the problem here is that you think this discussion that you’re having is somewhere near philosophy. It’s not. I really, honestly believe that you’ve worked yourself into some kind of mental illness with all this stuff. You’re saying that you think people react to you the way they do out of some kind of fear or out of having so much to lose, and it’s like it’s never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe no one gives a fuck about what you’re saying. In a philosophy department, there are people who do philosophy and then there are the ones who are stuck teaching all the intro classes because they’re hung up on moral philosophy or ethics. I can’t express to you the importance of understanding that there are lots of people out there in the world who really just don’t give a fuck about whether there’s an end all be all answer to moral questions. You’re a religious nut. What you’re doing is claiming to be sure of something and that something is that you can’t be sure of anything. For whatever reason you fail to see the problem with that. When another poster converses with you and takes your same position, you get upset and do exactly what they do when you do that shit to them. This should teach you something, but it hasn’t seemed to. I can’t believe I’m even typing this many words to you. It doesn’t make sense. I honestly, and truly, from the bottom of my heart believe that you are a moron of the highest grade. On top of that, you are unprecedentedly boring.

Let me guess…your response to this entire post will be the same thing that you say to every other post, because you are so hung up on this thing you think you’ve discovered…this thing that you so desperately want to prove, this thing that is in fact the big, meaningful thing that you have so much invested in that it constitutes you in fact, “having a lot to lose” that you can’t even break from it for a moment and look at yourself and understand the issue. Not the issue with whether or not your sentences line up with what they teach in a freshman logic class, but the issue of why it is that you are so passionate about this thing that you’re selling, and why it’s so difficult for you to be anything to anyone other than the guy who keeps doing what you’re doing with this whole copy and paste bit about your little theory.

I want you to know that any satisfaction that you’re getting from the notion that you might be getting under anyone’s skin, you’re getting erroneously. You’re not making anyone question their moral understanding of the world, and you’re not really making anyone feel like they’ve lost anything to you. We mostly feel sorry for you and think that you actually have a real mental problem.

The fact that you want to be humiliated is a bit weird as well. Or, if you’re being sarcastic, then the fact that you think you’ve humiliated anyone else is both weird and laughable.

Nah, he just over-does it. His actual position, his philosophical approach (and it is) is legitimate and he does well at articulating it… though with very rigid and defined, repetitious formula. If you are familiar with rorty’s attitude you’d see better the nuance and idiosyncrasy.

Instead of disagreeing with iambiguous I rather find myself thinking some of the points could be better made, in fact. The repetitious formulaic style of his posting makes one thing certain; he certainly isn’t misundertood. Rather nobody seems able to offer a satisfactory answer to his fundamental question [ cue dasein corollaries ]. I’m not even sure what he wants anymore. Like I’ve tried to provide an alternative perspective on the subject of values and goods and how these can be justified even on a relativistic basis. He just doesn’t take, man. He just repeats the same formula, as it were. I don’t know what to do other than seriously commit to discussion with him… and I can’t do that. Oh he’ll no.

Again, here is the argument that I make with regard to probing a particular human identity – a particular “self” – out in a particular world. And how it might be implicated in conflicting human behaviors that revolve around conflicting value judgments or political ideals.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

So: How is this not applicable to you? And how would a “serious philosopher” then frame it in a more, say, epistemologically sound manner?

And if someone doesn’t “give a fuck” about what I am saying here then it behooves them to stop reading what I post. No one is required to, right?

And common sense tells us [or tells me] that if someone believes that they are in touch with their “true self” and that their “true self” is in touch deontologically with the moral truth then an argument like mine will be reacted to accordingly. All I ask though is that they note the manner in which their own conflicts with others over moral values and/or political ideals is able to transcend the dilemma that I have posed here rather frequently.

Time and time and time again I make it clear here that my own interest in philosophy revolves around the question, “how ought one to live?” And then the extent to which dasein, conflicting goods and political economy are relevant in answering this question.

So, sure, if you simply don’t give a fuck that some will argue that the buying and the selling of stocks reflects/embodies the immorality embedded in the capitalist political economy, you can go about the business of simply ignoring them.

Just as folks who believe that aborting babies is moral can go about the business of ignoring those who decry the practice as murder. That is until the legislature and the courts pass/uphold laws that make abortion murder.

Then the “philosophical arguments” meet the “real world”.

Huffing and puffing? The sort of “argument” that folks like Satyr make about you? And yet your ostensible insouciance here is then betrayed by this sort of vituperative reaction.

Actually, that sort of thing is something I pursue only with the “meat-mind” objectivists of the KT ilk. The cat and mouse contraption that revolves around entertaining myself while “waiting for godot”.

Now, I don’t consider you to be a “meat-mind” at all. In fact, in some respects I don’t even consider you to be an objectivist. No, you seem [to me] to be considerably more inclined toward moral nihilism. You do what you like because you like what you do and it has afforded you a lifestyle [of consumption] that brings you lots and lots of pleasure. Thus the way that you live your life from day to day is largely “beyond good and evil”.

Right?

In other words, fuck Tyler Durden! :wink:

I can’t really disagree with this. For example, I still follow “the news” and over and over and over and over again it seems to revolve around folks embracing conflicting sets of behaviors construed from conflicting points of view.

I just intertwine this in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of a particular “self” ever clamoring for a world in which particular political values [his or her own] become the “law of the land”.

And I use the same arguments because they succinctly encompass the point that I am trying to make. Why on earth then would I attempt to reconfigure them?

As for Rorty, I focus the beam here:

1] He has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary he currently uses, because he has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books he has encountered;
2] He realizes that argument phrased in his present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
3] Insofar as he philosophizes about his situation, he does not think that his vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not himself.
— Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.73

And then I ask myself: What is this applicable to in a world teeming with conflicting goods?

So this debate really got underway!

Tell that to the Turd. :wink:

So you really do the exact same shit with everybody you talk to. Huh.

It’s like he was raped repeatedly as a child by a bunch of people calling themselves objectivists and beating him silly with copies of Ayn Rand novels. He’s so mad.

I know: Let’s start a new thread: Uccisore and Biggie discuss dasein.

Or, sure, we can do it here.

I’ll start…

How is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasien in the OP not applicable to you? And, in particular, pertaining to conflicting value judgments.

Perhaps then we might even be able to move this thread to the philosophy forum.

I know: Let’s start a new thread: mr reasonable and Biggie discuss dasein.

Or, sure, we can do it here.

I’ll start…

How is the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasien in the OP not applicable to you? And, in particular, pertaining to conflicting value judgments.

Perhaps then we might even be able to move this thread to the philosophy forum.

Objectivists: like shooting turds in a barrel.

He said in jest. :wink:

Yeah but I’m not an objectivist, and I don’t think that someone thinking that there can be answers to questions makes them an objectivist either.