turd and biggie discuss dasein

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.

Okay, so let’s ask two:

1] Does mr reasonable trade in stocks?
Is there an objective answer to be found here?

2] Is trading in stocks immoral?
Is there an objective answer to be found here?

Mr. Reasonable AKA Biggie Smalls theme song in this epic debate showdown.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk4ftn4PArg[/youtube]

From outsider’s daseiny thread:

All I am doing is proposing an argument that aims to explore certain aspects of human identity.

Here is the particular thread in which I presented this argument: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Now, I’m not arguing that this is the most “sophisticated” way in which to think about human identity. And I am certainly not insisting that if you don’t share my point of view you are wrong.

Instead, I ask others to imagine folks using the tools of philosophy reacting to the points that I raise. In what manner are they not reasonable? In what manner are they illogical or epistemologically unsound?

And then I will pose to the moral and political objectivists a challenge: How is my argument [u][b]not[/u][/b] applicable to you when your own value judgments come into conflict with another.

But then any number of objectivists akin to uccisore avoid that altogether and make me the argument. Some will even resort to huffing and puffing, name-calling and personal attacks. Anything to avoid actually exploring the points that I raise in a serious discussion.

Again, I’m not arguing that my point of view here is necessarily more sophisticated than others. I am only noting the manner in which given the way that I think about these relationships “out in the world of human interactions in conflict”, I have become ensnared in this:

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.

So, uccisore, how/why is this not applicable to you?

And how/why is it not applicable to moreno and turd and outsider and trixie and all the rest of the folks here who scoff at the mere mention of the word “dasein”.

What on earth is a “nihilistic epistemology”?!

Instead, as with others, my own argument here is based more on certain existential assumptions. Chief among them, the assumption that God – an omniscient and omnipotent font – does not exist.

And if God does not exist how then do mere mortals – actual flesh and blood men and women rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts – come to accumulate a particular set of moral and political values; and then demonstrate that their own assumptions are the ones that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to pursue.

And then I note the chief components of my own frame of mind here: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

So, where are the arguments from others able to demonstrate that my components here are wrong because their components are right. And that the components of their argument reflect a more reasonable assessment when grounded out in the world of actual conflicting behaviors?

duplicate post