But grounds to aspire toward. The same with god, if he didn’t exist, he would have needed to be invented. For humanitie’s sake.
And He was!
The question is, by Whom? (Or what?)
Your problem is you keep using the term ‘dasein’ commonly attributed to Heidegger’s BT without understanding its original “meaning” and intention.
What I pose to you is this, if you want to use the term ‘dasein’ then read up BT again and understand precisely [not necessary agree] its original meaning in BT. If not, DO NOT use the term ‘dasein’ at all!
I believe the problems you kept repeating is a big mess.
I suggest you redefine represent your own problem without the use of the term ‘dasein’.
Example, if you are depress, in a hole, had AIDs, etc. just say that before you ask for suggestions.
If you agree or disagree with abortion, start a thread and just state it clearly.
If you are in two minds about an issue, just start a thread say ‘How to resolve dilemmas in life?’
If you are prone to ruminations and worry, just be specific on this problem before giving your own solutions or seek solutions from others.
If you are generally unhappy, just raise a thread ‘How to be happy?’
There is no need to bring in very specific terms, jargons & neologisms, especially like Dasein, thrownness, facticity, rival goods [Barrett’s] at all which confuse your personal issues.
In other words [mine] if you construct a theoretical moral framework it is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that you are able to convince yourself and others that the definition and meaning given to the words used in constructing it reflect the optimal in rational thought. And the argument is epistemologically sound to the extent that, tautologically, the logic goes around and around internally in circles. Categorically and imperatively as it were.
And, then, in living your life from day to day, you never really put yourself in a situation in which your theoretical assumptions are put to the test re conflicting goods in your interactions with others.
Or are there in fact specific contexts known to exist in which Kant defended one set of behaviors over another?
Also, to what extent did others probe his personal values to gauge just how in sync they were with the times historically or culturally or experientially? In the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein above. Or, instead, did they basically revolve around the intellectual assumptions that he made in defining his ethical framework into existence?
So, while capturing theoretically, technically the very essence of human being as Dasein, actual individuals can answer the question “how ought one to live?” as a Christian or an atheist or a Communist or a Nazi or a liberal or a conservative or an individualist or a collectivist or, well, anything that happens to pop into their heads given the actual confluence of experiences and relationships and ideas that came to encompass [and predispose] their lived lives.
Which of course takes us to the point that I raise about “I” here being basically an existential contraption in the is/ought world.
Here mere mortals need one or another “transcending font” to resolve one or another moral/political conflagration.
Kant had one, Heidegger did not.
Huh?
My point is that, for particular individuals, things can seem to be one way or another when in fact a truth can be demonstrated such that there is only one reasonable manner in which to think about it.
For example, someone might say, “it seems to me that football is a more violent sport than baseball”. Now, is there in fact a way in which to demonstrate that this is true?
By, say, actually watching the games? Comparing the number of players on the sidelines/bench due to injuries? Following the players after they leave the sport?
But, what if someone says, “it seems to me that basesball is a better sport than football”.
How might that be demonstrated in the same manner in which it can be demonstrated that football is a more violent sport?
Violence can occur in baseball – a hit batter, sliding into homeplate, a confrontation on the field over an umpire’s call – but who would argue that it actually exceeds the violence on a football feild?
Or, given the inherent violence involved in tackle football, suppose someone argues that “it seems to me that it is immoral for parents to allow their kids to play the game?” How might this be resolved with any degree of finality?
But I repeat myself:
[b]Here [of course] you make the assuption that only your own definition and meaning of “objectivist” is relevant.
Whereas I am more inclined to suggest that the meaning I ascribe to it revolves more around the manner in which I note [existentially] its actual use out in the world of conflicting assessments.
An objectivist – my objectivist – seems rather insistent that his or her own assessment [of pratically anything] is that which all reasonal men and women are obligated to share.
So, you are an objectivist in that sense [to me] or you are willing to acknowledge that your own assessments are true only to the extent that others are willing to embrace all of the assumptions upon which they are predicated.
But even here I am willing to accept that your philosophical assessment of Heidegger’s philosophical assessment of Dasein is correct. I merely ask you to bring that assessment down to earth.
Whereas you seem more intent on insisting that only when I am willing to accept your own philosophical [technical] assessment of Heidegger’s philosophical [technical] assessment of Dasein, can actual human interactions in conflict be considered.
Or, again, so it [u]seems[/u] to me.
[/b]Also, I can only note again that I am less interested in the intellectual contraptions around which Heidegger embeds Dasein, and more interested in the manner in which these intellectual contraptions are relevant to actual human interactions in which value judgments come into conflict.
Conflicts that can range from jay walking to genocide.
Now, I don’t seem to budge here and neither do you. We’re stuck.
Probably until one of us dies. 
Here we are talking about me inside my head saying what I believe about myself here and now and you inside your head saying what you believe about me instead.
I do not construe the components of my moral philosophy – dasein, conflicting goods, political economy – as more than just another “existential contraption” out in the is/ought world. From my frame of mind, I would be a fool to insist that no matter what new experiences, relationships and/or ideas I come across, I will always think what I do now.
If only because of all the times in the past when I thought I was in touch with the real me in touch with one or another moral/political narrative that I embraced as true objectively.
Trust me: it’s not hard to tell the difference between one psychological frame of mind here and another.
You keep saying this. And I keep noting that this is but one facet of my reactions to others’ reactions to me. I clearly acknowledge that the fault here may revolve around my failing to grasp important points that they are raising. But, when I suggest in turn that it may well revolve around them not not fully grasping my points, I become your objectivist.
Instead, all I can do is to seek out from others examples of how, when their values come into conflict with others, they do not construe their “I” then as being in the hole that my “I” is in.
And yet explicitly I acknowledge that in all likelihood it is the “show me the money” moral nihilists who own and operate, among other things, the global economy, who almost certainly inflict far, far greater pain and suffering on the human race here and now than the moral objectivists. At least in the post-modern world today.
The might makes right crowd.
All I am pointing out is that moral and political objectivists are very often authoritarian in their approach to others. They view the world as divided between “one of us” [the good guys] and “one of them” [the bad guys]. And whether their font is God or Reason or Science or Ideology or Deontology or Nature, others either toe the line or there are consequences to pay.
The right makes might crowd.
Whereas I am more inclined toward moderation, negotiation and compromise – democracy and the rule of law – as the foundation for “the best of all possible worlds”.
Within the context of political economy of course. After all, when, historically, has that not been the name of the game?
Though, sure, if you insist that I am just pretending not to be an objectivist while you really know that I am one, well, I can only leave it to others to make up their own mind about that.
And then for them to note [demonstrate] how their own value judgments here reflect the optimal frame of mind for all those who wish to be thought of as rational/reasonable men and women.
Which makes you an objectivist.
[/quote]
I would say instead that here you are putting forward a definition of what an objectivist is and I am saying that you behave like an objectivist. It is how you relate to people, what you convey.
I see you assert this. Here’s the problem. Let’s imagine a racist saying ‘I would be a fool to think nothing could change my mind about niggers. Right now I do function as if they cause more problems than I do and are bad. Which will continue to include my sense of what is motivating niggers, until such time as another existential contraption seems better to me. The truth is I doubt that will ever happen, but given my philosophy I must consider it possible.’ I would call that person a racist.
Your judgments and assessments of objectivists - including both implicit and explicit communication - are not as offensive to me, but the pattern is the same.
I think there is much more room for 1) not understanding how functioning as an objectivist and 2) not understanding what one is doing
than most modern humans realize. Having the ‘state of mind’ you have when you think metaethically or metamorally is not the determining factor. For example many good old tried and true consciously anti-racist liberals and progressives will, when tested, show clear racist evaluation patterns. They do not realize how they actually react and how they function, despite having this conscoius sense of themselves as not racist and anti-racist.
Notice the slipperiness: you do not ‘suggest’, you state. You may on occasion use ‘may’ but in the instances I have seen, you do not use may. The very fact that you present here a tidied up version means to me you realize, on some level, that you function like an objectivist.
Notice also: it has nothing at all to do with whether you ‘fail to grasp the points they are making.’ Whether their points are good or not, does not mean 1) you need to or are able to evaluate their motives nor does it 2) make your evaluation any less an objectivist stance. The mere rejection of your ideas MEANS that they are not being rational, they are scared.
Notice now in terms of the future: There is no good practical or non-hypocritical reason to do this, sometimes or otherwise. You can continue to raise your issues and question the epistemological basis of their objectivism without the kinds of objectivist us/them, good vs. bad patterns of interaction.
I think Prismatic has made good points about why you should drop the whole ‘hole’ discussion or keep it separate from the philosophical issues. It functions like a call for help, which you do not want. It also functions as a basis for your evaluation of yourself vs. objectivists, with you as the brave one. Apart from what I have pointed out - it doesn’t work well as justification for your sense of superiority - it ends up being part of an objectivist us/them dichotomy.
Good, I agree. Though there is no way to judge whether this is good or bad that they do this or some lesser evil, etc.
Another us/them good vs. bad categorization that is not necessary to your project of finding out if anyone can resolve conflicting goods and challenging the epistemology of individual objectivists.
And same response as my previous.
Yes, your Good.
If this was truly you goal, you might want to consider that framing the issue in us vs. them terms, I am facing the hole and you are not, moral judgment framework, is a bad practical strategy, let alone the hypocrisy invovled.
Let’s say your self-evaluation is correct. Once in a while you let out a very qualified suggestion in us vs. them terms. It is still a very bad idea. I see it as the rule, how you function as an objectivist. You claim it is an exception that is not objectivist.
Either way, in practical terms, it is a terrible habit in relation to any of what you claim are the goals of this discussion.
Objectivists and others will pick up objectivist habit PLUS they are also being judged for simply being objectivists. You are superior to them - or implied to possibly be, in your self-assessment - AND they are objectively wrong for thinking their beliefs are right. IOW they meet the same judgments that lead to conflicts with other objectivists AND there is an added judgment, ironically, that they are also wrong for being objectivists while you are a nihilist.
I assure you this will not lead to moderation and compromise.
Of course there are other options, but it may seem like this is the only other one. Apart from looking at cognitive science to see if there is, in fact, a much greater chance than you seem to realize that you do not know what you are doing,
you could simply drop all the ‘suggesting’ us vs. them superiority and moral accusation stuff. Drop the ‘hole’ shit out of the discussion, given that you use it as part of a contraption to posit yourself as braver and given that it contributes nothing to the epistemological issues and given that it isn’t much of a hole with TV and films distracting you adequately enough in your own estimation. You could do this AND continue to challenge people around the issue of conflicting goods and challenge their epistemology around determining what is good and bad, etc.
But for some reason you cannot consider dropping these facets of your interaction with others, facets which function as an objectivist moral position.
And then for [you] to note how [your] own value judgments here reflect the optimal frame of mind for all those who wish to be thought of as rational/reasonable men and women. A perfect description of how your patterns of interactoin function as an objectivist position. One you need not defend, since you claim not to have one. Or have ‘them’ in passing, always qualifed, no longer believed in.
If they are mere passing forms, you could drop them out, respond responsibly to feedback, consider it possible you don’t realize what you re doing, at least in full, and certainly do not realize how you are coming across. Realize that it does not add anything to the process you claim to be interested in.
So keep on with the project of questioning if there is a possible resolution to conflicting goods, question on epistemological grounds objectivist positions when posited. The skeptical nihilist project functions perfectly without the us vs. them, this is your motivation, my hole moral positioning. In fact it is stronger PLUS it is less likely to antagonize.
A win/win solution. One of compromise and moderation.
The answers given [so far] don’t convince me that a moral and a political narrative is “out there” able to nudge me up out of the hole — with respect to either conflicting value judgments on this side of the grave or to oblivion on the other side of it.
Instead, with the objectivists, I am dealing with folks able to convince themselves that the “real me” is in sync with “the right way to live”.
And since I was once one of them myself I can well appreciate the comfort and the consolation that “I” is able to nestle down into when convinced of it.
Sure, there may be any number of “programs” out there able to lessen my consternation down in the hole. But only until, hopelessly ambivalent, I am confronted yet again with one or another moral conflict; or with the thought of toppling over into the abyss forever and ever and ever.
So, until someone is able to provide me with actual descriptions of their own conflicted interactions…interactions in which they are not down in in any holes…my distractions are still around.
It’s just that sooner or later all of us reach the point where every the distraction in the world is still not enough to comfort and console us.
On the other hand, the objectivists are at least able to console themselves that they are on the right side. Or, for some, that, inoperable tumor or not, they will soon meet their Maker on the other side.
In other words, just as I once understood the incalculable psychological benefits of objectivism and then [re my abortion trajectory above] tumbled down into the hole, I go looking for folks who were once down in the hole themselves, but, as a result of their own existential trajectory, were able to yank themselves up out of it. Or encountered others who helped them to.
Optimal: most desirable or satisfactory: optimum. the optimal use of class time, the optimal dosage of medication for a patient conditions for optimal development
My point of course is that in the either/or world the use of this word is often readily demonstrable. You want to accomplish some task and there are conflicting suggestions as to how to best go about it. And then the optimal one is broached and acted upon.
For example, you want to travel from New York to Los Angeles ASAP.
The optimal solution is:
1] to walk
2] to drive
3] to take a bus
4] to take a train
5] to fly
But, in my view, there are those who insist that, with regard to conflicting goods, there are in turn optimal solutions: theirs.
Some will even go so far as to insist that not only is their moral or political narrative the optimal frame of mind, but, in fact, the only frame of mind that all rational and virtuous people are obligated to embrace.
With the example above flying from New York to Los Angeles is both the optimal and the only solution if getting there as soon as possible is the goal. But it’s not the only way to accomplish it. But here there are no moral conflicts involved. Although I’m sure we could think up some.
And, again: what’s up with the “contemptuous” tone? The rather scornful manner in which you present your point?
Or are you, in turn, basically just a polemicist at heart?
You shot yourself in the foot. There is no way to determine the optimal in that example. If you say “the fastest”, then you have picked a particular criteria “out of a hat”, if you say “the cheapest” …
Just as with respect to morality one can select “the least number of dead bodies” and arrive at an optimal morality only in the context of that criteria.
It’s only optimal because you focus on one specific thing.
I don’t like repeating myself.
If the point is just to get from New York to LA, there are many options. If the point is to get there the fastest, one is the best.
If the point is to get there the cheapest [and you don’t care how long it takes] you do the calculations and arrive at the cheapest way.
Taking into account however all of the many variables which may or may not be within your control. The plane crashing, the car breaking down, the train going off the rails etc.
The least number of dead bodies in what particular context, viewed from what particular point of view?
Especially in a world where there are those who could not care less how many dead bodies there are as long as theirs isn’t one of them.
Consider: There would clearly have been many, many, many less dead bodies had George W. Bush not invaded Iraq.
Does that then make the invasion immoral?
How exactly would one go about calculating if the invasion was “just”?
But that’s basically my point. When calculating the optimal manner in which to get from New York to Los Angeles the fastest, flying is both the optimal and the only method.
If, on the other hand, there was a set of circumstances in which getting to LA the fastest would result in saving the life of someone, is one morally obligated to fly instead of, say, drive?
Well, that depends on the situation and the people involved of course. You may wish this person to be saved while another wants to see him dead.
Or suppose instead of one life, a thousand could be saved. How does that change things? To what extent is any one particular individual’s frame of mind here rooted more in the manner in which I construe dasein or in a rational calculation rooted in the tools of philosophy?
How does one put a “price” on a moral belief then?
Me, I can’t get enough of it, right?
You don’t even see that “fastest from NY to LA” is a particular context, a particular point of view selected by a particular person as being the criteria for ‘optimal’ travel. You can’t see the similarity in the two situations. 
“Fastest is best, therefore fastest is optimal”.
Another person will say “Cheapest is best, therefore cheapest is optimal”.
“Fewest dead bodies is best, therefore fewest dead bodies is optimal”.
Another person will say “Least unemployment is best, therefore …”
No, you don’t get it at all.
That’s what you live for. Or so it seems to me. :-"
My point of course is that there actually are flesh and blood human beings intent on traveling from New York to Los Angeles. And each and everyone of them has a reason. And, given that there are not likely to be two situations that exactly overlap, we are not likely to get the same reactions when these folks are questioned about the trips.
And, if a situation ever arrives where there is a moral component involved in making the trip the fastest, who would/could/should determine which individual’s agenda is the either the most rational or the most virtuous?
And yet over and again I concede that I may well not be understanding your point. And that, if I did, my own thinking would begin to shift.
I can’t do better than that.
Then it’s exactly the same as people having different ideas about morality.
So it’s not really about the dichotomy that you have proposed - is/ought.
And if people can agree that “fastest” is in fact the best in a particular context, then they can also agree that a specific moral criteria is the best in a particular context.
And in both cases, there will be people who disagree. But that disagreement does not negate the objectivity of the evaluation. IOW, some form of travel is objectively “fastest” and therefore best in the context and some form of morality is objectively best in the context.
Well, that’s you speculating that being down in this hole, is, for me, only and always about polemics and playing games in venues like this.
That it really and truly does disturb me – the part before and after the grave – is just incidental to me in these exchanges.
Nope, not even close.
Just try to imagine how comforted and consoled you would feel if you thought like me.
If there is oblivion after the grave, then there is nothing you can do about it.
If there is something after the grave, then there is nothing you can do about it.
If you think that you ought to do something before the grave, then do it.
If you can’t think of anything to do, then don’t do anything.
This hole seems to differ in intensity depending on the context.
Again, I can only assume that I am misunderstanding what you are getting at here.
If an optimal achievement is the best that can be done, and one scores a 1600 on a SAT test, hasn’t one achieved the optimal score?
But:
Suppose a college practices affirmative action and admits students of color with lower test scores than white applicants?
Is there a “best argument” here that either justifies this practice or justifies reversing it?
And what is the difference between a particular argument here being thought of as the best of all the arguments made, and one that is declared to be the only truly rational argument that can be made?