a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
261

It seems to me that objective morality for you would be like God giving the ten commandments on stone tablets to his faithful servant Moses, a story you can no longer believe in.

But you can evaluate yourself as a hero because you don’t give up. You’re like Sisyphus. You persist following your dream here on ILP even though you believe it’s probably futile. No?

Martin Heidegger makes a nice case in point. In Being and Time, he writes 488 pages of original philosophy using obstruse language. That much material is bound to invite multiple interpretations. I have read that he thought Sartre misunderstood existential ontology. Did anyone get it right in Heidegger’s mind? I know he and his teacher Husserl disagreed on it.

I mean you can read Heidegger’s books for their ethical implications, but I don’t see him claiming an objective morality like you want. Human life doesn’t come with an instruction manual. Like Heidegger said we’re thrown into the world. With help from our culture whatever that is we achieve an understanding of how to act. Our ideals are images of the ultimate good or goods. Objective morality,if there is such a thing, lies behind the image.

If you want to see what Moses saw you’ve got to go up the mountain yourself. You’re not going to believe what Moses or anybody else tells you about it that you don’t experience firsthand. And even then you might doubt it when the shine wears off.

262

Obviously: If an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist then He [an assumption] presides over Judgment Day. There is no question of what is or is not a sin. There is no question of who committed one. There is no question of punishment…and of what the punishment will be.

Right?

Is there anything even remotely close to that in any Humanist narrative?

Yes. What’s the alternative? In the gap between what I think I know here and now about all of this and all that there is to be known about it going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself – God or No God – I can only come here a few hours and day and explore it with others so inclined to. The rest of the day is taken up with fulfilling distractions from it.

Existential ontology? Given what context? How about a discussion between them in which they explore, say, political economy from the perspective of Fascism and from the perspective of Communism/Maoism. What constitutes the least misunderstood existential ontology there?

What I want is a discussion with someone here who thinks that he or she understands what he meant by Dasein in Being and Time and what I think “I” mean by dasein [here and now] in my signature threads. Given a particular context such as Nazis or abortion.

Still, doubt for me here resides mostly in the is/ought world…and not in the either/or world. In the either/or world, doubt enters the discussion [for me] only when we conjure up such “metaphysical” quandaries as determinism and solipsism and sim worlds and dream worlds and matrixes. Where reality itself is in question.

263

Modern humanism needed and found inner sources of benevolence in more than one way. One was through a strong sense of the powers of disengaged instrumental reason whose dispassionate impersonality was taken as sufficient for universal beneficence. This is where modern humanism shows its roots in neo-stoicism except of course that what has been lost is the idea of a providential course of things designed by a beneficent God which the wise person must learn to accept and endorse. The idea was advanced that disengaged reason itself by freeing us from getting stuck in our own narrow perspective and allowing us to view the whole must kindle the desire to serve that whole.

Heidegger spins 488 pages of Being and Time explicating Dasein which is basically being-in-the-world. The aspect of Dasein I see you majoring on is the facticity and contingency of it. That’s definitely an important truth for Heidegger but he develops the concept further in ways I haven’t read you mentioning.

264

Yes, that’s right.

Heidegger was concerned with being and its history throughout his life. Heidegger’s basic idea of his thinking is precisely that being or the revelation of being needs man and that, conversely, man is only man insofar as he stands in the revelation of being. So the access to being can only take place via man (provided he can think :wink: ).

Humans are beings who can know that they are there, that they are in the world. All other living beings are not capable of knowing this, thus they do not know anything about existence, insein or in-sein (being in or being-in), dasein or da-sein (being there or being-there), being in the world. They are dependent on a special environment and know this only in the physical, but not in the metaphysical sense. They have no meta-knowledge.

Dasein in the Heideggerian sense refers exclusively to the human being.

Man (dasein) is related to being. This relation must somehow show itself. Being can appear via the way of Dasein (man) in its unconcealedness (Ancient Greek: alethia). Otherwise it remains unconcealed.

It is not possible to get an answer to the question about being without having an answer to the question about the essence of man.

I have enjoyed the films, especially this one:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcm05b8m6tQ[/youtube]

265

Another general description intellectual contraption. No actual circumstantial context in which to explore Heidegger’s Dasein and my dasein. Or any of dozens and dozens of conflicting Humanist agendas.

And, me being me, in regard to where my own interest lies there: “How ought one to live in a world awash in conflicting goods?”

Even in commenting on what you think I’m after here, it is embedded in yet another general description intellectual contraption:

Choose a context. Nazis, abortion, anything where Heidegger’s Dasein and my dasein can be explored far, far, far more substantively.

Or, sure, stick with those here who actually prefer it up in the didactic clouds.

We are just not having the same discussion. To me, you are in the general vicinity of Meno here. Only not nearly as unintelligible.

266

What conflicting good do you see with humanist condemnation of Nazi genocide of jews?

267

Heidegger, Metaphysics & Wheelbarrows
Richard Oxenberg gives a poetic introduction to Heidegger’s Being and Time.;;

How seriously can we take this as philosophy? Instead, from my frame of mind, it is merely describing the world commonsensically. The rain, the wheelbarrow, the chickens. Yes these things exist in thousands upon thousands of contexts around the globe. And it is accepted by most as a matter of fact reflection of one particular kind of human context. Though, sure, we can go out into the deep end of the pool “intellectually” and make it al. seem to mean so much, much more.

And that’s fine. As long as these technical assessments eventually come down to earth in order to explore my own existential – becoming “out in a world of contingency, chance and change” and time – take on dasein.

I’m sorry, but this is precisely the sort of analytical “assessment” that we encounter here over and over again. And not just with respect to the either/or world. Some can go on and on in the same vein even in regard to the daily confrontations we encounter with respect to ethics and political conflagrations. The kind of exchange that is being sustained here for example: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 2&t=197144

Where so much depends on dueling definitions and abstract assumptions embedded in deductions that almost never do touch ground.

We’ll need a context of course.

268

Just ask those around today who want to finish the job.

They have their own rationalizations for doing so. Embedded in any number of naturalist, religious, ideological, objectivist etc., political agendas.

What then is the Humanist argument that in a No God world genocide is inherently, necessarily irrational and immoral?

Where is the philosophical argument that finally demonstrates once and for all that Ivan Karamazov was flat out wrong when he said that “if there is no God, anything is permitted”.

But at least most here still manage to convince themselves that their own “real me” in sync with “the right thing to do” knows – just knows – what the objective truth is. They are not “fractured and fragmented” unable to yank any conflicting good up out of 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.

Like you, right?

269

So you can’t decide if the choice of people that want to finish the job of Jewish genocide is better than that of people who think that genocide violates the rights of all humans to survive and flourish simply on the basis of our shared humanity?

Yeah and Dostoevsky thought that Ivan was wrong too. He nested the character of Ivan in Brothers Karamazov to illustrate why. Did you ever read it?

270

No, my point is that “here and now” I am not acquainted with a philosophical argument that demonstrates objectively that, in a No God world, there is in fact the One Right Answer. The answer that all rational and virtuous human beings are – deontologically – obligated to embrace.

Unless of course you are acquainted with it. The link please.

That, instead, my own moral and political prejudices are rooted existentially in the life that I lived. Had I not been drafted and sent to Vietnam, had I not met Mac and others like him in Song Be, I might well be a Nazi myself today. I was “for all practical purposes” one before I got drafted.

Given all of the ghastly aspects of the human race to date, I figure that things like racism and ethnocentrism are embedded deeply in the profoundly problematic interaction of genes and memes. And that any particular individual is beyond grasping how exactly.

And what of those who insist that, today, abortion is genocide? What of that conflicting good among the Humanists?

And all of the dozens and dozens of others that have rent the human species now for thousand of years?

What of our “shared humanity” there?

As with Kierkegaard and others, Dostoevsky took his own “leap of faith” to whatever he himself imagined a God, the God, my God might be.

Just like you I suspect. At least up in the intellectual clouds that are your own spiritual contraptions.

271

The possibility that you might have been a Nazi under some particular set of circumstances is no justification for Nazi genocide. That doesn’t make it right. Neither does the possibility that racism and ethnocentrism are embedded in genes and memes or that atrocities have happened throughout human history. The fact that you call these aspects of humanity ghastly shows that you recognize this. If you didn’t you wouldn’t keep bringing it up. You’re the best case against your own argument. If you didn’t recognize the evil you wouldn’t keep carrying on about how awful it all is.

272

How on earth would you go about demonstrating that philosophically, scientifically etc.? Instead, in your heart of hearts, intuitively, viscerally, you just know that it is true.

Right? Isn’t that basically what you fall back on? You just do it up in the clouds with your own “general description intellectual contraptions”. It’s like Sculptor pointed out of you on Ierrellus’s thread: “Making bland unsupported statements are not arguments.”

The Nazis think themselves into believing certain assumptions about the world around them. Just like the Communists and the capitalists and the religionists and the anarchists and all the other “ists” out there.

As for what does make things Right, let’s go back to this:

Choose a conflicting good, a context and note what does make things Right in a No God world.

Only you still have your own “general description spiritual contraptions” to keep Him in the picture.

Again, my own gut feeling is that it’s all twisted up in a genetic code that hard wires us to be suspicious of all who are perceived by us to be Other. Still, how can that not be just another “wild ass guess” on my part given “the gap” I often speak of.

Ghastly in the sense that for those who experience the brutal pain and suffering as a result of these objectivist policies, what word would you choose? Of course if you are a victim of these political ideologies ghastly is what they are. But that doesn’t make the points I raise just go away. And I am no less myself the embodiment of value judgments rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

It’s just that, unlike the moral objectivists of your ilk, those of my ilk experience that, yes, ghastly sense of being “fractured and fragmented” in regard their own value judgments.

That, in my view, is what brings out the Stooge in many of the objectivists I have come upon over the years: the fear that some day, they might come to think like “I” do too.

273

We already have a context which is Nazi genocide. What-- you want to bait and switch now? You can’t decide if racist genocide a bad thing or not because, hey you might have been a Nazi if circumstances were different. Jordan Peterson makes the same argument saying that if you had lived in Germany in that time you would have probably been a Nazi. But I think only 10% of the people in Germany were Nazis. Most chose not to be. So it’s not true.

There is a basic value that all life has which is to survive and flourish. That’s not in the clouds that’s from the ground up. I’m sure you have it to some degree or you’d be dead. Hell even Donald Trump has that value. That’s the fundamental morality of nature.

Now from there there are two courses of action, transactions really that a person can have with others. One is zero sum. Which is-- I win you lose. The other is nonzero, where both parties gain something. Those two kinds of transactions are the basis for reciprocal humanistic morality on which societies are based. They are present to some extent in non-human species and evolved into a highly complex social system in humans. No “God” is required. The development is expounded at length in the book The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. But you can observe it everyday.

274

Again, what does this have to do with you providing us [or linking us to] a definitive philosophical or scientific argument that establishes beyond all doubt that all rational and virtuous human beings are [deontologically] obligated to oppose the Nazis? In a No God world.

Bait and switch? Come on, I am merely noting that there are any number of men and women who argue that abortion is an even more despicable genocide because far, far more human beings were/are/will be slaughtered as a result of this practice. All colors, all creeds, all ethnicities. And it is still going on today. And others feel just as passionate in regard to other conflicting goods like the right to own guns or consuming animal flesh or gender issues or the role of government or homosexuality.

Only with these conflicting goods there is a much greater likelihood of millions upon millions taking up the cause from both sides.

So, again:

Choose a conflicting good, a context and note what does make things Right in a No God world.

Note what you mean by our “shared humanity” here.

This part:

Instead, you are completely entangled in those “general description intellectual/spiritual contraptions” that you dump on us over and over and over again:

I dare/challenge you to bring this “world of words” down to Earth given a discussion with me relating to a particular conflicting good of note.

Or an example from Wright’s book.

275

I entered this thread because of your question about Heidegger and the Nazi genocide now you want to change the subject. I find nothing in his book being and time which would necessarily conflict with his German nationalism or his anti-semitism which evidently persisted when Hitler took power. I’ve already commented on the overlap I have observed in your concept and his Dasein. That’s the limit of my interest in your project at the moment. If you’re interested in Robert Wright’s book you can read it for yourself.

276

Shameless!!

I created this thread in order to discuss the lives that we live given the points raised in the OP:

So, again:

Instead, in my view, straight back up into the clouds you go:

I have my own speculations as to why.

Note to Larry:

Stay out of this please.

277

You contradict yourself at every turn. According to what arbitrary standard of morality should I be ashamed? Your moral nihilism negates them all, including your own which is a product of your unique dasein. Since every moral choice including Nazi genocide is undecidable to you, your opinion about whatever I do is already self-refuted by you.

278

The sheer irony of it all!!

Again, the whole point of this thread is to explore the manner in which I suggest that my reaction to you as “shameless!” can only be subjectively rooted in dasein.

I’m not arguing that objectively – philosophically, scientifically – you are shameless.

And it’s not a contradiction that “I” derive from 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.

…it’s ambiguity, ambivalence, uncertainty, vacillation, disquietude, self-doubt.

Precisely the sort of things that God or No God objectivists have spent years keeping at bay through one or another dogmatic moral or political or spiritual font.

Which, in my view, is why over and over and over and over again, you bend over backwards to avoid an exchange with me that focuses in on your own experiences in confronting conflicting goods given your interactions with others.

And the part where, given a set of circumstances of your own choosing, we delve deeper into why your own “sense of identity” is nothing at all like mine here:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

279

LOL!!!

Iambiguous, do some real philosophy for once.

Write a proof to exonerate yourself for posting on ILP given what you post here.

A.) you don’t exist
B.) there is no truth but the no truth
C.) people who disagree with you are scared of the truth (a and b have no truth value!!!)

I’ll be very impressed if you can dig yourself out of this chasm of a hole you dug for yourself.

280

Heads up!!!

Satyr has you in his sights here: knowthyself.forumotion.net/t290 … egenerates

Why don’t you take your “condition” there and have a go at him. :sunglasses: