Satyr is not involved in the thread but his name keeps coming up over and over. (And not just in this thread.) 
Obsession. 
As Fixed Cross has repeatedly pointed out to you, all nouns (with a couple of possible exceptions, like “nothing”) are capitalized in German. And Dasein had long been a very basic word (meaning simply “existence”) before Heidegger, and has remained so in most contexts since Heidegger. It would make no sense to use it the way you do, with or without a capital, if it wasn’t for Heidegger.
Don’t italicize it if you’re not capitalizing it–unless you mean to emphasize it (which I don’t think you do here–no more than “individual”, at least).
But your problem–or the problem with your problem; your meta-problem–is precisely the problem of universals. If we’re talking strictly about particulars, then it makes no sense to speak of “a man or woman”. There is then nothing to connect particular beings–for example your precious people gathered outside abortion clinics. They share “facts” no more than “values”:
“The spirit of national socialism was not so much concerned with the national and the social but much more with that radically private resoluteness which rejects any discussion or mutual understanding because it relies wholly and only on itself … At bottom all its concepts and words are the expression of the bitter and hard resoluteness of a will asserting itself in the face of its own nothingness, a will proud of its loathing for happiness, reason and compassion.” (Found in Harry Neumann, Liberalism, “Politics or Nothing! Nazism’s Origin in Scientific Contempt for Politics”, where it is sourced as: K. Löwith, “Der Okkasionelle Dezisionismus von C. Schmitt,” Gesammalte Abhandlungen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) pp. 122- 123. [sic])
Again, if you choose not to go there – and it certainly appears to me that this is the case – all I can note is the extent to which the distinction you make is something that, to me, is encompassed only in an argument.
From my perspective, there are…
1] facts that either can or cannot be established in the video above and…
2] our reactions [emotional and otherwise] to abortion expressed as individual value judgments
Objective truth or subjective opinion? That’s the most crucial distinction to be made once we leave the domain of either/or and enter the domain of is/ought.
Yes, that is more or less my own set of assumptions here.
But: How then is Fixed Cross’s “self-valuing logic” then made applicable outside that abortion clinic, or that execution chamber, or those political rallies attended by supporters of Clinton or Trump?
How in other words does his “self-valuing logic” enable him to extricate himself from my dilemma above?
How, finally, is it made applicable to the manner in which I consture conflicting human interactions here re the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
To moral and political objectivists, I issue the same challenge: Let’s situate this “out in the world” existentially and explore it.
If by “purely rational” you mean that which we believe to be true “in our head” is able to be demonstrated as in fact in sync with the objective world around us – re physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology etc – then I would agree it transcends dasein.
But what can be spoken of as “purely rational” pertaining to conflicting value judgments?
It would be one thing if we were able to establish rationally that one side in the abortion wars was right and the other side was wrong.
But both sides are able to make entirely reasonable argument given a particular set of assumptions that the other side’s arguments don’t make go away.
And that’s before we get to the argument of the narcissist who asserts that morality for him or her revolves solely around self-gratification.
Which is precisely why I argue that to the extent you [u]do[/u] situate the values of any particular individual out in a particular world is the extent to which you bump into the limitations of philosophy in its pursuit of the truly rational.
But over and again I point out that just because I argue for these limitations doesn’t mean that they exist. It simply means that of late no one has managed to convince me that there are no limitations here. If, in fact, believing that your own values are the “natural” one enables you psychologically to ground “I” in a wholistic point of view, then that “works” for you.
After all, for all practice purposes, the behaviors you choose will be predicated on what you believe to be true. And that may or may not be in sync with what is in fact true.
I’m just arguing that to me it does not appear reasonable to suggest that, in using the tools of philosophy, one or another deontological morality can be established.
Exactly. How on earth would philosophers ever be able to actually establish that incest is necessarily immoral? How would one’s own attitude about it not be embedded existentially in dasein, in conflicting goods – debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index … ult_incest – and [ultimately] in politics?
Yes, but here common sense is able to be examined, explored and tested by science. It can be shown that in fact the earth does revolve around the sun. But: what of those who insist that it is common sense that God created both? Or of those who insist that it is common sense that billions and billions of dollars ought to be allocated for space exploration, while others insist it is common sense that these dollars be spent solving more pressing problems right here on earth?
Indeed what though?
How does this assumption manage to align itself with FC’s Grand Scheme when we are among those embracing conflicting value judgments in a world where behavior must either be prescribed or proscribed legally/politically?
“On earth” one could bring up birth-defects, pressure that would be brought onto the young and the weak to engage in relationships that they don’t want and the Westermarck effect.
Note to others:
So, who does this remind you of?
I’ll give you a couple of hints:
1] huffing and puffing
2] making me the argument
Note to Fixed Cross:
Or, again, is this all just an exercise in irony?
In other words, are you actually mocking “serious philosophy” here by caricaturing it? It has even occurred to me that you are trying only to trick us into taking VO seriously.
Or, sure, maybe it’s all just meant to be comic relief. 
Why not just put me on ignore like the Turds here?
Note to others:
I suspect that a reaction like this is a clear indication that I have begun to unravel his own carefully calibrated Intellectual Contraption. Indeed, I have been doing this with objectivists now for years.
And not just for entertainment. 
Unless, of course, he is actually succeeding in unraveling mine. 
Sure, I’ll level with you.
I have been engaging objectivists for many years now. But few folks that I have come across virtually embody objectivism quite as flagrantly as he does.
He is practically a caricature of the genre.
On the other hand, he is also clearly 1] intelligent 2] articulate and 3] passionate about philosophy.
And the contempt that he levels at ILP for allowing discourse here to sink down to the level of fucking Kids hurling spitballs is right on the mark.
Well, when he is not himself in huff and puff mode.
Point taken. But the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein is reflected considerbly more in, well, lower case. Here for example: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Sure, I will admit that you may well be pointing out something important here that I keep missing.
But I really don’t know what it is.
If Mary did have an abortion at that clinic then this is an objective fact that is true [and able to be shared] by everyone — inside or outside the clinic.
And there are actual facts that may or may not be demonstrable regarding the pregnancy itself.
And there are the biological facts embedded in performing an abortion as a medical procedure.
None of this comes down to subjective opinions. Not the facts themselves.
Sure, particular individuals [as “subjects”] may hold opinions that are not in sync with the facts. But the facts are either able to be demonstrated to all rational men and women or they are not. But once they have been demonstrated to in fact be true it would seem to be the obligation of all rational men and women to accept them.
Until we do come to the part where we react [reasonably, emotionally] to abortion as a value judgment.
In other words, but one more historical/psychological manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
But to claim that Nazis embody “a will proud of its loathing for happiness, reason and compassion” is just another political prejudice. In other words, the author imagines certain beliefs and behaviors as being in sync with happiness, reason and compassion. His own for example. And then he concludes that Nazis in choosing other beliefs and behaviors knows nothing of them.
No. Science ultimately rests on common sense. Therefore, examining, exploring and testing common sense by science is ultimately circular.
Science ultimately rests on empirical verification.
One only needs to read Aristotle to find many common sense explanations for physical phenomena - most of which were subsequently shown by experiments, to be wrong.
For example :
“Hot water freezes faster than cold water.”
Is this true or false? How does common sense evaluate the statement?
Only experiments can show if it is true or false.
No, not ultimately, as empiricism itself in turn rests on common sense–albeit on more basic common-sensical (mis)understandings than the (mis)understanding that the sun turn around the earth.
Phyllo (happy Thanksgiving) - what did you make of this thread
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175698&hilit=ontological+tyranny
It influenced me gigantically, I acquired a great focus on Nietzsche’s notion of science as prejudice.
Indeed science is qua method at bottom empirical, but that method is the result still of something; we select the line of empirical inquiry based on non-universal criteria; e.g. convenience, proximity, use, etc. What Sauwelios describes as common sense perhaps, what I might cynically call opportunism - basically it is the human, all too human that is the standard to the knowledge that science is designed to acquire.
Sure, those in opposition to incest can bring that up. But how does bringing it up make the arguments of those not opposed to incest go away?
And while it is biologically factual that incestuous sex can result in birth defects, it is also biologically factual that sex between sisters, sex between brothers, sex between family members that preclude the possibilty of pregnancy, obviate that factor.
So, where is the argument – the philosophical argument – able to establish that incest is necessarily irrational and lacking in virtue?
And how might this speculation [and the “Westermarck effect”] be made applicable to the Grand Scheme: To ‘problematize’ “value”.
And, in particular, how that might relate to the point I raised above:
Okay, how is to ‘problematize’ “value” different from to problematize value? And how is that different from to not problematize value?
Let’s focus in on behaviors that do come to clash over conflicting value judgments relating to issues like incest, homosexuality and abortion.
Once again I will acknowledge this: that, as a serious philosopher, you may well be making an extremely important point here that I am simply not able to – or subconsciously willing to – understand and accept.
To argue that science ultimately rests on common sense is merely to note the obvious: that common sense here is in sync with the laws of matter, the laws of nature.
In fact, I have always been curious as to why so many folks back then thought the earth was flat. After all, if you looked up into the sky, the moon and the sun were clearly round. Why should the earth be any different?
Instead, I recall that, as a child, “common sense” then revolved more around wondering how the folks “down under” didn’t fall off the earth. It seemed we were on the “top” part, and they weren’t.
“Common sense” here clashing with the laws of gravity.
And I await patiently your reaction to all of the other points I raised above.
In particular, the part where the Grand Scheme becomes applicable to is/ought conflagrations.
And that’s before we get to Hume driving a stake between correlation and cause and effect; or Descartes pondering if in fact ontological reality might be attributed to some demon that has but “dreamed” us into existence!
Or dreamed up God to dream up us.
As for who or what dreamed up the demon…
I’m sorry but here we are back again to this:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
And that we are still grappling with this pertaining to the world of “either/or” speaks volumes regarding the extent to which the moral objectivists claim to have, in turn, grappled with the world of “is/ought”.
Naturally, for example.
That is one of your strangest expectations … that an argument should make another argument go away. At least a half dozen posters have told you that arguments don’t work that way , including posters that you supposedly respect like OH and Faust. And still you repeat it.
Then one could present the argument that making homosexual incest acceptable and heterosexual incest unacceptable would be discrimination based on sexual orientation. Thus the preferred solution is to make all incest immoral.
(And in homosexual situations, the young and weak may be pressured into relationships that they don’t want.)
I just said that by bringing up specific consequences, philosophers can bring it down to earth.
Are you saying that referring to aspects such as birth defects and biological aversion as shown by the Westermarck effect are not part of a philosophical argument?
Then what is a legitimate philosophical argument?
It has nothing to do with the Grand Scheme or value. You asked how philosophers would establish something “on earth” and I responded directly to that.
I quoted you and replied to the content of the quote.
I just attempted to focus on incest and the consequences and natural aversions. Immediately your tried to shift to the abstractions of value and the Grand Scheme. 
I don’t doubt that scientists pursue particular inquiries because of subjective, personal and biased reasons. However, the results of the research have to be objective and unbiased in order to be valid. Biased results will not be repeatable or useful except to people of the same bias.
Science attempts to remove subjective factors by emphasizing quantitative results, predictability and repeatability.
Which affected science , how?
Which scientists were concerned about “a demon that dreamed us into existence”?
People who do science and engineering don’t think in these ways. If you went into a university science or engineering classroom, and presented these ideas, they would laugh at the ridiculousness of it.
True - there is a deeper point to it though, which is exactly what you formulate, and this is what I took from it and developed, for it to ‘influence me gigantically’ - namely that the very criteria of " quantitative results, predictability and repeatability" are prejudices, specifically concerning the type of results one accepts as “result”, and thus about the phenomena that are eligible to produce scientific knowledge about them - and thus ultimately, about which phenomena “really exist”.
Under these criteria:
" quantitative results, predictability and repeatability"
the overriding quality of a valid object of observation becomes that it is capable of being isolated from its context without losing its qualia…
which would exclude life. Thus, reasoning one step further, what science is capable of disclosing and developing then, is something fundamentally other than life…
Hence, the Grandness of the Scheme - the sheer consequences of the mere thought, that puts science in perspective, stretch out beyond all horizons of precedent and cognition.
Huh?
John says incest can lead to birth defects. This is a biological fact. Nothing those who argue in favor of incest say can make that go away.
But:
Jane argues that, while this may be true, she is having a sexual relationship with her sister. They love each other dearly and have freely chosen to expand that love to include a physical intimacy. A sexual relationship that precludes the possibility of pregnancy.
That is also a fact.
So both sides express facts about incest that are true, pertaining to their own particular context. Facts the other side cannot make go away.
In other words, each particular sexual context involves any number of facts that can be twisted into either a pro-incest or an anti-incest moral narrative.
So how do philosophers, taking all of this into account, come up with an argument that establishes the optimal [most reasonable/rational] frame of mind? An argument that encompasses the moral obligation of all reasonable/rational men and women in regard to incest.
Where are the arguments from OH or Faust or others that make this go away?
In fact, regarding any moral conflict that we are familiar with there are similar sets of facts that can be configured into a pro or con political agenda.
Sure they can. Homosexuality is but one more example of facts on the ground that can be twisted into a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein and conflicting goods.
But: How does any so-called “preferred solution” not come down to subjective political prejudices rather than to one or another deontological “philosophical” argument in which one is obligated to interpret the facts as consistent with one or another rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
Are not Jacob and Sauwelios and James Saint and all the other objectivists cut from the same cloth here? They might argue for different Kingdoms of Ends, but they all seem convinced that as “serious philosophers” these can in fact be derived in using the tools at their disposal.
In other words, they all hold particular personal opinions about particular behaviors and they try to stuff them into one or another scholastic analysis. Some with God, some without. But it always comes down to one or another set of so-called “natural” or “ideal” behaviors.
You may claim to have demonstrated “how philosophers would establish something ‘on earth’” here, but you and I are talking about two very different kinds of demonstrations.
Natural aversions? Says who? Both John and Jane above argue that it is “natural” to think about incest the way they do.
And “consequences” construed from what point of view regarding what particular context?
Again and again and again:
What I am looking for from moral objectivists [either sacred or secular] is something analogous to this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Thus when someone asks me to encompass my point of view regarding abortion as a moral issue, as a value judgment, I can situate my actual changing perspective over time: existentially, for all practical purposes.
And I can note how this particular trajectory culminates in my dilemma above.
But: What if someone asks you? You are either willing [and able] to do the same or you are not.
Either ironic or stupid based on what I posted:
" That is one of your strangest expectations … that an argument should make another argument go away. At least a half dozen posters have told you that arguments don’t work that way , including posters that you supposedly respect like OH and Faust. And still you repeat it."
As I said, your concept of demonstration is purely subjective and therefore nobody can demonstrate anything to you unless they completely agree with what you are saying.
Westermarck. But since you choose to completely ignore his research, then you can say that there is no natural aversion to incest. Except for the fact that it is a common aversion.
Got it. There is no way to define consequences. No wonder “the kids” have a field day with you.
Sure, post the same stuff over and over.
No, I refuse to post the same crap as you.