a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:52 pm

Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What am I missing here?

Realness is inescapable.


We'll need a context of course.

Or, instead, should we first pin down the definitive, technically correct meaning of "realness" and "inescapable".

Give that your best shot and then pick a context in which to explore Kant's take on moral obligations among rational human beings.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:58 pm

Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

Throughout history, and in all cultures, people have responded to Kant’s fundamental question ‘What is the human being?’ in very diverse ways; even denying that humans have any relation with the material world, as extreme gnostics do. Or Hare Krishna devotees exclaim, ‘You are not your body’. Indeed, there has been a long tradition in Western philosophy that identifies the subject/self with consciousness.


Okay, but where does this actually take us other than back to the point I keep raising: that, in regard to "all things human", what counts is not what you "exclaim" to be true but the extent in which your exclamations are able to be substantiated experientially with respect to a particular context that most in the discussion will be familiar with.

Otherwise, the exchange ends up revolving only around what you believe to be the case about being human. And, down through the ages there have been countless intellectual renditions -- social, political, economic -- of that.

Anthropologists have long emphasized and illustrated the diversity of cultural conceptions of the human subject; but even within the Western intellectual tradition there exists an absolute welter of studies that have attempted to define or conceptualize the human subject in different ways.


And how much more readily that is accomplished when the concepts themselves come to reflect, by and large, how one defines the words in the concepts. That is why, when push comes to shove, anthropologists have been able to depict cultures over time historically and across space culturally that construe "what is the human being" in so many complex and conflicting ways. What does that tell us about the limitations of language itself in capturing these things objectively?

Western responses to Kant’s fundamental question have been extremely diverse and contrasting, and I want to briefly discuss three approaches: the essentialist, the dualist, and the Kantian triadic ontology of the subject.


The "Kantian triadic ontology"?

That ought to be interesting.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:39 pm

Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

The first approach tends to define the human subject or self in terms of a single essential attribute. The following essentialist characterizations of humanity are well known: Homo economicus (‘economic man’), Homo faber (‘the tool-making primate’), Homo sapiens (‘wise man’), and Homo ludens (‘man the player’). Aristotle famously defined humanity as Zoon logon echon – ‘the animal endowed with reason’. (The tendency to group Aristotle together with the likes of Descartes, Kant and Heidegger as an advocate of a dualistic metaphysic is, however, somewhat misplaced, because Aristotle, as Ernst Mayr always insisted, was fundamentally a biological thinker. Aristotle certainly knew a lot more about the diversity of animal life than did the pretentious Jacques Derrida and his cat.) Robert Ardrey, in contrast, defined humanity as the ‘killer ape’; while Julien La Mettrie and Richard Dawkins seem to envisage the human person as simply a biological machine. A more recent controversial account of humans depicts them in rather Hobbesian fashion as a wholly predatory and destructive animal: Homo rapiens (John Gray). Such misanthropy is debatable, and is simply an update of Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion that humans are a ‘pox’ on a beautiful earth. Many twentieth century deep ecologists have expressed the same negative sentiments, that humans are ‘aliens’ or ‘parasites’ on the rest of the biosphere; and thus famines, the AIDS epidemic, and malaria, were extolled as a way of reducing the human population. Such anti-humanism was long ago critiqued by the social ecologist Murray Bookchin.


What does this reveal if not the many, many diverse and conflicting ways in which my "I" and your "I" and their "I" can be "situated" out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? Again, all I attempt is to make the distinction between what we have come to believe about the "human condition" "in our head" and that which we are, to the best of our ability, able to demonstrate to others as something that they would/should want to believe too.

And that would certainly be the case in regard to establishing the "single essential attribute" of someone's identity. The "the real me".

The start of course is simple enough: "I" am a biological entity that must acquire everything necessary to remain among the living. Agreed? Ah, but after that, we bump into all of the men and women down though the ages who have gone on to propose hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of diverse and conflicting social, political, economic, philosophical, moral and spiritual explanations for the rest of it.

Sure, what is the alternative but to at least make the attempt. One way or another we have to devise the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact. But to imagine that what you have figured out does in fact reflect the best of all possible worlds?

How could that not be a manifestation of human psychology?

On the other hand: whatever that means.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:13 pm

iambiguous wrote:Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

The first approach tends to define the human subject or self in terms of a single essential attribute. The following essentialist characterizations of humanity are well known: Homo economicus (‘economic man’), Homo faber (‘the tool-making primate’), Homo sapiens (‘wise man’), and Homo ludens (‘man the player’). Aristotle famously defined humanity as Zoon logon echon – ‘the animal endowed with reason’. (The tendency to group Aristotle together with the likes of Descartes, Kant and Heidegger as an advocate of a dualistic metaphysic is, however, somewhat misplaced, because Aristotle, as Ernst Mayr always insisted, was fundamentally a biological thinker. Aristotle certainly knew a lot more about the diversity of animal life than did the pretentious Jacques Derrida and his cat.) Robert Ardrey, in contrast, defined humanity as the ‘killer ape’; while Julien La Mettrie and Richard Dawkins seem to envisage the human person as simply a biological machine. A more recent controversial account of humans depicts them in rather Hobbesian fashion as a wholly predatory and destructive animal: Homo rapiens (John Gray). Such misanthropy is debatable, and is simply an update of Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion that humans are a ‘pox’ on a beautiful earth. Many twentieth century deep ecologists have expressed the same negative sentiments, that humans are ‘aliens’ or ‘parasites’ on the rest of the biosphere; and thus famines, the AIDS epidemic, and malaria, were extolled as a way of reducing the human population. Such anti-humanism was long ago critiqued by the social ecologist Murray Bookchin.


What does this reveal if not the many, many diverse and conflicting ways in which my "I" and your "I" and their "I" can be "situated" out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? Again, all I attempt is to make the distinction between what we have come to believe about the "human condition" "in our head" and that which we are, to the best of our ability, able to demonstrate to others as something that they would/should want to believe too.

And that would certainly be the case in regard to establishing the "single essential attribute" of someone's identity. The "the real me".

The start of course is simple enough: "I" am a biological entity that must acquire everything necessary to remain among the living. Agreed? Ah, but after that, we bump into all of the men and women down though the ages who have gone on to propose hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of diverse and conflicting social, political, economic, philosophical, moral and spiritual explanations for the rest of it.

Sure, what is the alternative but to at least make the attempt. One way or another we have to devise the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact. But to imagine that what you have figured out does in fact reflect the best of all possible worlds?

How could that not be a manifestation of human psychology?

On the other hand: whatever that means.




A simulation by artificial means may take up the slack . But is he, will be or she, get the trust necessary to possess worthy of that absolute doubt?


Iambiguous said,

"The start of course is simple enough: "I" am a biological entity that must acquire everything necessary to remain among the living. Agreed? Ah, but after that, we bump into all of the men and women down though the ages who have gone on to propose hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of diverse and conflicting social, political, economic, philosophical, moral and spiritual explanations for the rest of it.

Sure, what is the alternative but to at least make the attempt. One way or another we have to devise the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact. But to imagine that what you have figured out does in fact reflect the best of all possible worlds?

How could that not be a manifestation of human psychology?

On the other hand: whatever that means."

The paradoxical result is simulated distinctively by the forced upon ' mea ing that tries to spin an architectural matrix on a retroactive meaningful development.

Functional interpretations are still meaningful to a satisfactory degree.
Such becomes necessary to avoid collapse into a sense of chaos.
Would You agree?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:00 pm

Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

The list of what is deemed to be the essential characteristic of the human species seems virtually endless. But significantly, such interpretations based on a single essential characteristic tend to gravitate to two extremes. On the one hand, there are those scholars who firmly believe in the existence of a universal human nature or essence. Generally adopting a highly individual-centered approach, the human subject is thus defined either as a purely rational ego (as with rational choice theorists), or as having innate tendencies and dispositions – as having a universal nature that was forged through natural selection processes during the Palaeolithic, when humans were hunter-gatherers. Thus humans have a nature, and it is fundamentally tribal, as Robin Fox puts it.


Really, how can someone explore in depth human historical and anthropological accounts and come to the conclusion that there is an "essential characteristic" -- an "essential nature" -- able to explain away all of the many, many diverse and ofttimes conflicting moral narratives and political agendas? Especially in regard to the so-called "rational ego"? Instead, once you go beyond biological imperatives that pertain to all of us, the rest becomes a cauldron of perennial confrontation.

As for human nature being essentially tribal, how do you explain the manner in which capitalism has of late basically ripped that demographic font to shreds. It's not a question of if the individual prevails in the modern global economy, but how many millions of individuals are left behind barely able to sustain themselves as wage slaves from week to week to week.

Unless you want to call this assessment itself the essential characteristic of human interactions.

On the other hand, many other scholars, particularly cultural anthropologists, existentialists and postmodernists, deny that humans have an essence or nature. Such scholars often suggest that in becoming human beings, through the development of language, symbolic thought, self-consciousness, and complex sociality, we have moved beyond nature to become free of the chains of our instincts. We have become, in Ernst Cassirer’s term, Homo symbolicum. Such a conception has often been critiqued (by, for instance, Steven Pinker), as it implies that the human mind is simply a ‘blank slate’ which has completely effaced human biological history and the inherited specific faculties of the human brain, and therefore, mind.


Memes for the most part. Social, political, economic. Sexual, artistic, psychological. There are really no aspects of human interactions in which the biological imperatives we all share in common are not confronted, then molded and manipulated, in a ceaseless accumulation of ever evolving human communities. All with their own more or less unique set of circumstances. The part where dasein, conflicting goods and political economy become more and more intertwined in "I".

And the beauty of memes of course is that the moral and political objectivists among us can claim that they and they alone understand what they mean...and why everyone else is obligated to understand them the same way.

You can't do that with genes...with the brute facticity built into human biology in the either/or world. There you either understand or misunderstand what is in fact demonstrable as "natural".

Not that this will ever stop the objectivists. In regard to, among other things, race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation. Even the gap between what we think we understand about the evolution of life on Earth and all that there is yet to be known is closed by them in concocting their "one of us" vs. "one of them" mentality.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:53 pm

Don’t mind iambiguous much,

He’s currently a diagnosable narcissist.

He believes that because he changed his mind once, that truth cannot possibly exist for anyone ever.

If he makes ONE fucking mistake ONCE! Everyone must make mistakes forever! This is the depth of his soul right now.

That’s his current shtick, he’ll grow out of it and join the objectivists.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10417
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:12 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Don’t mind iambiguous much,

He’s currently a diagnosable narcissist.

He believes that because he changed his mind once, that truth cannot possibly exist for anyone ever.

If he makes ONE fucking mistake ONCE! Everyone must make mistakes forever! This is the depth of his soul right now.

That’s his current shtick, he’ll grow out of it and join the objectivists.


I have told you repeatedly that I am of the opinion -- and that is all it is, my own personal opinion -- that you are afflicted with a "condition" that prompts you to post things here at ILP that make absolutely no sense at all. Surreal, bizarre things. You pummel us with all of these assumptions about everything under the sun but you fail to convince me that you are actually able to demonstrate that they are true much beyond you believing that they are.

Something is proven only in the fact of you having posted it.


That and this:

:scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked:

You know, just in case this condition is contagious.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:49 pm

Iambiguous,

I don’t give a fuck about what anyone says:

by definition: nobody wants consent violation

You, like others, who confess to be atheists, cannot go there, because It’s a REAL disproof of a good god! Something falsifiable !!! I’ve met closeted homosexuals before! To meet them (especially in this era) is astounding !

Like Shakespeare wrote: “thou dost protest too much”

You’re a closeted theist. I can smell this anywhere! You even use the theist argument “the only reason morality exists is if god exists”

I hate those fucks, I hate you actually. My hate is not me projecting, I really hate people that cry out loud that if god doesn’t exist, morality doesn’t or can’t exist! You’re trolling the god concept. Everyone wants god to exist as a benevolent creator. Not very benevolent because obviously every being in existence is having their consent violated !

The trolling by you is simple: if god doesn’t exist, then we can do whatever the fuck we want! Which is your attempt at forcing people to believe in god, actually your attempt at forcing you to believe in god!

Dude! Consent violation occurs. That’s a moral fact! God hasn’t been born yet. Those are objective statements.

You will become an objectivist some day!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10417
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:36 am

Consent violation does occur, Sorrily, but that does not lead to the requirement that a pre supposed zero sum ideal should be abandoned.
But if they should, then what injunctive sets can be pre-established at least to compensate for the gaps hidden within?
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:43 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
I don’t give a fuck about what anyone says:

by definition: nobody wants consent violation


Just for the record, socially, politically and economically, "consent violation" is in fact a real thing. Just Google it: https://www.google.com/search?ei=i5oUX5 ... ent=psy-ab

Lots and lots of different takes [historically] on what it is and what to do about it. Marx and political economy, Freud and the id, ego and super ego, Jung and...the Shadow?

But the point of this thread is, instead, to focus in on the extent to which any particular individual's take on it is embodied in what I construe to be "dasein" in my signature threads. As opposed to those objectivists among us -- with or without a "condition" -- who insist that there is one and only one way in which to understand it.

Their way. Just ask them.

If you dare: :wink:
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:26 pm

Consent violation is not a dasein issue, it’s 100 percent subjective and objective - the only concept that works this way!!! You say to yourself “I don’t like this”. Well fuck, that’s as subjective as it gets!! The objective part? People on the outside say, “I guess other people don’t like things”.

I know people as moral nihilists, post modernists and post structuralists will argue anything to feel good.

Problem is, no matter how much they argue, every fucking being in existence is having their consent violated (including them). — that’s the one fucking concept you don’t fuck with! And I say this to the people who want to fuck with EVERY concept!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10417
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:36 pm

Of course, for some, you don't have to "dare to ask".

In fact, for them, there is almost nothing you can do to stop them from screeching out at you their own rendition of The Way.

Then you react.

Me?

:scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked: :scared-shocked:

my new favorite emoji...thanks Ec. I wouldn't have found it without you
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:59 pm

Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

Homo Duplex

It has also long been recognized that humans are fundamentally both natural and cultural beings, and that language, self-identity, and social existence are interconnected, and have been throughout human history.


Tell that to those hell-bent on reducing human identity down to either genes or memes. Or intent on emphasizing one far more than the other. If only up in the scholastic clouds.

Really. Pick a behavior, put it in context and describe where the biological self ends and all the rest of it begins. Now, sure, in the either/or world, that is more readily apparent. If Mary has sex and becomes pregnant by John or Jim buys a gun and kills Jane, there are any number of objective facts that can be pinned down in describing what they as individuals experienced. She did this and that happened. He did that and this happened. Every rational human being is able to concur in regard to the self on this level.

But how ought language, identity and social existence be interconnected when the discussion turns instead to the self as a moral agent? Where here do genes meld into memes meld into other genes meld into others memes in pinning down "I" rationally? And where is one more clearly in charge?

As Kenan Malik emphasized, human nature is as much a product of our historical development as it is of our biological heritage. Emile Durkheim famously expressed this dualistic conception of human subjectivity as Homo duplex when he wrote:

“Man is double. There are two beings in him; an individual being which has its foundation in the organism, and a social being which represents the highest reality in the intellectual and moral order”

Like his mentor, Auguste Comte, Durkheim allowed little scope for a science of psychology, let alone any existentialist thought.


This is basically my point. That, in any number of complex contexts, objectivists anchor "I" to either genes or memes. "I" understood either solely or far more by way of nature or nurture. Thus the dog eat dog survival of the fittest advocates of biological imperatives versus those who embrace "humanism" and put all the emphasis instead on learning and unlearning behaviors due to historical and cultural "environments" that shape and mold each new generation to be moral or immoral.

For me, it is more the profoundly problematic intertwining of both. Science works in some instances but the existentialists are closer in others.

I merely suggest a far more "profoundly problematic" self, that, for some of us, result in a fractured and fragmented personality in the is/ought world of value judgments and conflicting goods.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:44 pm

Kant & The Human Subject
Brian Morris compares the ways Kant’s question “What is the human being?” has been answered by philosophers and anthropologists.

It has long been recognized, by thinkers as diverse as Edmund Husserl, Erich Fromm, and Lewis Mumford, that there is an essential ‘paradox’ or ‘contradiction’ at the heart of human life. For humans as organisms are an intrinsic part of nature, while at the same time, through our conscious experience, symbolic life, and above all, our culture, we are also in a sense separate from nature.


The mystery of mind. The far more highly evolved self-conscious minds of the human species. In fact, who really knows what the minds of "lesser creatures" perceive and/or conceive about the world around them. We know that we share more "primitive" brains functions with many other animal species. And we often make that distinction between creatures able to grasp on at least some level the existence of "I" -- orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bottlenose dolphins, elephants, orcas, bonobos, rhesus macaques, European magpies -- and those creatures that seem to be propelled/compelled entirely by biological imperatives embedded in instincts and drives.

We have instincts and drives as well. But, unlike most other animals, we are, given some measure of human autonomy, actually able to react to and to judge the behaviors of those who, in embodying their own more primitive brain functions, don't choose the same values and behaviors as we do.

I merely focus the beam here on the extent to which these interactions are rooted more in dasein -- "I" -- than in what philosophers can tell us about, among other things, the moral obligations of so-called "rational" minds.

In this light humans have been described by Raymond Tallis as an ‘explicit animal’. We have what Cicero described as a ‘second nature’. This duality or dialectic is well expressed in the famous painting in the Vatican by Raphael, The School of Athens, which depicts Plato pointing up to the heavens while Aristotle points down to the earth.


Still, once again, take this particular "intellectual contraption" down off the skyhooks, and integrate the words out in particular worlds understood in conflicting ways by the only species, capable of communicating memes as well. Historical, cultural and interpersonal in any number of particular human communities.

Instead, the discussion continues on -- in articles such as this -- only up in the clouds of scholastic abstraction:

Human duality is also reflected in the fact that the human brain is composed of two distinct hemispheres, with distinct functions, and two very different ways of being in the world. The left hemisphere is associated with language, symbolic thought, analysis, facts or things in isolation, focussed attention, and the non-living aspects of the world; while the right hemisphere is associated with visual imagery, pre-linguistic thought, synthesis, patterns and relations, things in context, and organic life. Reason, science, creativity and selfhood all involve both sides of the brain, and there is no simple relationship between the hemispherical differences and ethnic, class or gender affiliations. It is significant however that if the right side of the brain is severely damaged, the left side becomes overactive, and an ultra-rationalist sensibility may develop. This sensibility is manifested in a predilection for abstraction and geometric patterns, a flight from the body, a feeling of fragmentation, a lack of empathy for others (egoism), and alienation from the natural world – the postmodern condition, or the schizophrenic personality lauded by Gilles Deleuze?


Whereas the "duality" that I am most intrigued by revolves around the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

These biological elements/imperatives are important to grapple with and to grasp but once one is convinced they have the clearest possible understanding of them, how is this knowledge applicable to identity as an existential contraption confronting conflicting goods out in a particular political economy?

Always assuming of course that the is/ought world reflects the actual existence of free will in our own species. In other words being able to explain scientifically how the evolution of biological life on Earth actually resulted in the autonomous mind.
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

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36411
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users