Next year, the same freaks, the same idiots, will be talking over each other, using words they do not define nor understand…words they use to pretend nd protect themselves.
Words about words - philosophies about philosophies…abstractions representing and referring to other abstractions.
Talking about talking about the world; debating over who understood and represents another’s understanding of another’s understanding of the world.
nou
Heidegger and Dasein
at The-Philosophy.com website
There’s no getting around death here. It and the fact that we are the only animals around capable of exploring it philosophically. Being and time. And then we run out of it. So, how “on earth” are we to understand our very existence itself given that we have to live with the knowledge of death…with what we think we know about it. And it’s not for nothing that so many manage to convince themselves that death is just a passage on to a life after death.
Things that philosophers say? And then those “beings” like you and I who grapple with intertwining the existential reality of social, political and economic interactions…literally from day to day to day…with whatever we can manage to convince ourselves connects all that to the “metaphysical”. Again, God for most. But, here, in a philosophy venue, it can be…other things? Like, for instance, the “intrinsic Self”.
But then straight back up into the clouds…
Here I merely point out the obvious…
That, given all of the vast and varied historical, cultural and interpersonal circumstances that any particular one of us might find ourselves born and then bred into, the caves themselves can be encompassed in countless configurations. So, of course, attempts will be made to insist either that only our own description of the cave counts or that only our own understanding of the “metaphysical” Reality outside the cave counts.
And, by all means, existentially, make of this what you will. The omnipotence of technology still prevails of course but there are also still plenty of “Isms” around to anchor the Self to. The Nazis then, the Nazis now, for example.
the “Pharaoh” then, the pharaoh now
the slaves then, the… what? now
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
The “meaning of being”, the “phenomenon of our everyday human existence”. Okay, but must that be encompassed in a “dense work of ‘linguistic obfuscation’”?
That’s precisely why I ask those convinced that they understand his “technical” jargon to bring his conclusions down out of the intellectual contraption clouds and describe the implications of it given “everyday human existence”.
And, in particular, Dasein embedded in existential interactions in which conflicts occur over the contexts that are ever popping up “in the news”. Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl anyone?
Being there. Where you are? Being here. Where I am? Your there and my here embedded in uniquely personal social, political and economic variables that may well be entirely different. What of Dasein then? How do we go about pinning down a “wise” description of it that takes into account these particular worlds construed in particular [and often very different] ways?
A discussion of Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl among the politically liberal and the politically conservative philosophers?
Nope, let’s stick to the “general description philosophical contraptions”:
How about this…
Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore Heidegger’s Dasein and my own dasein given this distinction:
“The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being…can or does do.”
New thread, anyone?
thx for the ontic/ontological clarification… coulda used it last semester w Husserl
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Being there instead of here culturally. Being either here or there historically. For any particular one of us, what does that matter?
Well, a great deal obviously. Being thrown at birth into this culture rather than that culture, and at one point in time rather than another can make all the difference in the world regarding how you are indoctrinated as a child…and regarding the experiences you are likely to have as an adult. And, of course, regarding all of the experiences you are not likely to have. Such that our moral, political and spiritual values can be vastly different.
Though, sure, shrug that off as though it were just incidental to your own moral, political and religious arguments here. And then those who point out that this is precisely the reason why, historically, philosophers came into existence. If we think really, really hard enough about right and wrong and good and bad behavior, we can invent our own deontological parameters in turn. We can rationally grasp epistemologically sound behaviors deemed to be the wisest.
That is, provided we steer clear of any actual context. Or provided we assume that, given any context, what we think the wisest, most rational, epistemologically sound behaviors are makes them so.
Exactly my own point basically. There are things about us that are in fact objectively true…biologically, demographically. The actual facts embedded in our day to day interactions. Things about us that are true for everyone. Attributes, components, aspects of our lives that are not going to spark any heated discussions and debates.
But when in “constituting ourselves and our world” we choose behaviors deemed rational and virtuous by us, but then deemed anything but by others…what then? That’s the part “I” construe to be the embodiment dasein. The “self” that is far more a subjective, existential construction rooted out in a particular world understood in a particular way.
And, of course, this is the part the objectivists among us make go away by insisting that through God or science or philosophy or ideology or nature…we can grasp the Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do.
Like you, perhaps?
Exactly! My own dasein. The “larger fabric of existence” culturally, historically, personally. Heidegger’s Dasein and the Nazis. My dasein and the Nazis.
Anyone care to go there?
I wonder how deep they thought about how “thrownness” would fly in a multicultural culture.
_
The power of dasein… ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 7#p2896143
I now have two subscribers… I don’t like it.
Basically multiculturalism represents a failure of thrownness. One is unable to be properly “thrown” into one’s existence, and this has lots of detrimental consequences for us and society.
Hence things like depression, isolation, grasseater men (incels etc), women uninterested in having families, reversal of gender roles, suicides, sexual disorders like homosexuality and transgenderism massively increase, huge increase in drug addiction, in-group trust and cooperation massively decline, liberal-left sort of perspectives on the world increase as IQ declines and dependency increases and mental illness increases and also in part because of the social entropic effects of the technology that is already present to a sufficient degree to even allow multiculturalism to be able to be sustained without collapsing into violence, etc. Then you get further, derivative consequences of all this such as the growth of the police state/surveillance state, corporate-oligarchic takeover of politics increases without limit, breakdown in law and order, the people become victimized en mass by brainwashing and propaganda campaigns constantly running psyops and false flags on them, etc. etc. Not a very good situation to be in.
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Obviously, right?
Yet how many of us go to the grave not really giving this all that much thought? Some are intrinsically bound to an existence from the 5th century BC in China. Others from the 2nd century AD in Greece, others from the 14th century England, others from the 20th century America.
Now, how does the reality of that shape and mold the answers that might be given to the question that most draws me to philosophy:
“How ought one to live morally in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?”
Of course before the birth of philosophy, most lived in relatively small communities…villages, hamlets. And right and wrong, good and bad then generally revolved around the assumptions that there was a proper place or role for everyone and everyone was expected to live out their life [given communal folkways, mores, traditions etc.] in their proper place or role. Often derived from one or another rendition of the Gods…often linked to natural phenomenon not yet understood “scientifically”.
Then came surplus labor. Some of whom became philosophers. And, in the increasingly more modern world, ethics was born. It was thought that given all of the diverse circumstances into which historically and culturally one could be “thrown” at birth, it was necessary to establish the most rational manner in which one was to comport oneself around others.
And, of course, along with that came all of the many, many different flavors of moral objectivism.
And that’s the part that “I” focus on in introducing the idea of dasein at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy.
And then the reaction here of those who are themselves moral objectivists. The threat I pose to them is not in suggesting that they are wrong and others are right in regard to moral obligations linked to philosophy and ethics, but that philosophy and ethics are themselves but manifestations of dasein existentially.
Given a particular context.
Unless of course I’m wrong. So, let’s discuss that, I suggest…circumstantially.
And, sure, up in the clouds of abstractions this is “generally” the case for all of us. It’s just that some of us “think this through” and arrive at the conclusion that human existence in a No God world is essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically.
So, in focusing in on “I” ontically, what are we to make of situations in which different people [some philosophers, some not] come to very different conclusions regarding right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.
In other words, Heidegger’s Dasein out in the is/ought world today. The past and the present and the future “here and now”.
My point is that many…most…fall into a frame of mind in the present that revolves around the assumption that one can live, as the existentialists say, more or less “authentically”. The “temporality” then given both dasein as I understand it…and death.
Oblivion.
I’ve figured out how I got 3k views… I can sleep well at night, now. 
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Right.
As though in recognizing that one day we will topple over into the abyss that is oblivion isn’t likely to prompt exactly the opposite frame of mind. Philosophically or otherwise. A genuine and meaningful life sustained all the way to the grave with integrity? And in the end…dust? Dust on our way back to star stuff? Why not react instead by thinking, “fuck it, since I’m going to die anyway, why not live my life entirely on my own terms. Take what I can, get what I can because one day it’s all going to be gone forever.”
Though, sure, I get the point from the other end as well. If this is all there is then live it in a way that those around you can pat you on the back precisely for being genuine and in living a meaningful life filled with integrity.
On the other hand, out in a particular world, what exactly ought that to revolve around? Which particular Humanism reflects the most genuine and meaningful and integrous life? After all, pick the wrong one and others might think of your life as anything but those things. What you think of as a noble existence they may see as the life of a scoundrel. Did Hitler live what he construed to be a genuine and meaningful life with integrity?
Okay, but, again, each of of us here might live a life that is far removed from the lives that others live. Thus, even this can be understood in very, very different ways. Some might literally die alone, others surrounded by family and loved ones. Some might welcome death, others might be terrified of it. Some might experience it entirely on a personal, existential level, others given a philosophical or a spiritual background.
Though, sure, there’s no getting around the fact that it is you who are dying, and not those about to mourn you. That will be encountered one by one for each of us. And who can say “in the end” how that might be experienced until it is the end.
And that’s the part where my own dasein comes into play, right?
Only, of course, with death, none of us can say with certainty that “I” comes to an end. That’s the profound mystery embedded in the existential relationship between “my birth”, “my death”, the “human condition” and “the existence of existence itself”. We. Just. Don’t. Know.
On the other hand, the distinction between those who really don’t know when, how or where they will die…and those that do. For example, once all your appeals run out on death row and a day and a time is set for your extinction. How many of us haven’t pondered ourselves in that situation?
God takes away meaning. Nature and the world are seen sometimes, as limited to God’s one purpose,
instead of having virtually any purpose one wants.
The world without god is a free world. A world beyond good and evil.
The “with God” world is also free, explains our hunger for meaning, and actually satisfies it with meaning that doesn’t hover over an abyss, but sticks to the ribs.
Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
But that is not the only way in which to focus in on our uniqueness. Yes, only human beings become self-conscious of the existential reality that will be own inevitable death. But there is also the fact that each of us comes to embody our own understanding of that as individuals. After all, there are countless narratives here. Some including God, some not. Some involving much to lose, some involving little. Some in experiencing a great fear, others in actually taking one’s own life. Heidegger’s Dasein seems aimed at bringing us all together under the same philosophical umbrella; my dasein , on the other hand, notes just how far removed our reactions to death might be given what can be entirely different indoctrinations as children and given entirely different sets of experiences as adults…out in diverse worlds historically and culturally and personally.
Either that or [for some] results in a frame of mind concluding that whatever we “figure out”, this is reflective only of the manner in which our thinking here is profoundly problematic. Given a very different indoctrination and set of experiences out in a very different world historically and culturally, who is to say just how different our figuring out might have been.
And isn’t that precisely why some come to philosophy? Okay, the existential parameters of our lives are crucial in regard to the goals we set for ourselves. But, as philosophers, we can think that part through and come up instead with the “wisest” means needed in order to pursue the “wisest” ends. Then we can start with the pre-Socratics and explore all of the many different conclusions that philosophers over the centuries have come up with to facilitate our own trajectory.
So, how is that working out for you? And, indeed, some here have no doubt settled on a philosopher or a “school of philosophy” as encompassing the optimal frame of mind. Or, for the most arrogant and autocratic, the only frame of mind allowed.
Bruh no one here understands Heidegger. Cmon now.
Mr. R.
You mean R for Retard?
Yeahhh… for reals.
Still doesnt know shit about H :-" :-" :-"